PROCEEDINGS
Volume 4
Chicago, Illinois
Jan. 31, Feb.1-2, Feb. 5-7,196
Executive Session
March 7, 8 and 12,1968
ILLINOIS
CONFERENCE
Pollution of
Lake Michigan and its tributary basin
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
-------
f
-------
1538
1 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1968
2 MORNING SESSION
3 (9:30 a.m.)
4 MR. STEIH: We will call on Illinois
5 this morning.
6
7 ILLINOIS PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
8
9 MR. MORTON: Mr. Klassen is temporarily
10 on the telephone, but we would like to proceed with
11 the Illinois Presentations.
12 At this time we would like to introduce
13 Mr. James Vaughn, who is Engineer of Water Puri-
14 fication for the City of Chicago.
15 Mr. Vaughn.
16
17 STATEMENT OF JAMES C. VAUGHN
18 ENGINEER OF WATER PURIFICATION
19 CITY OF CHICAGO
20
21 MR. VAUGHN: Mr. Chairman, Conferees, j
22 ladies and gentlemen.
23 Since this report today is essentially
24 I a supplement of the 1965 Chicago report, I would
25 like to submit for inclusion in the record a copy
-------
1539
! ""JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 of the Department magazine, Pure Water, Volume
3 XVII, Number 1, 19^5, which includes statements
4 "by Mayor Daley, Commissioner Jardine, and a
. slight condensation of the report rendered by
. | Mr. Gerstein at the March 19&5 Conference. I
o
have five extra copies of this, if anyone
g desires them.
9 MR. STEIN: May I see one of those,
10 sir?
n MR. VAUGHN: That is the '65 report.
12 MR. STEIN: This, without objection,
13 will be included as an exhibit.
14 (Which said document, entitled "Pure
15 Water, Volume XVII, Number 1, 1965" is marked
16 as Conference Exhibit No. 7, 2/5/68, and is on
17 file at the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
lg ministration offices in Washington, D. C., with
IQ a copy on file at the Regional Office of the
20 FWPCA in Chicago, Illinois.)
2i MR. VAUGHN: This is a statement on
\v
22 the effect of water quality deterioration at
23 the southern end of Lake Michigan on the
24 operation of Chicago's south water filtration
//
25 plant. The title on the bound copies that have
-------
JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 been distributed is a little more concise.
3 At the Conference held by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration in
Chicago on March 2-9, 1965, Mr. H. H. Gerstein,
then Chief Water Engineer, presented a statement
7 in behalf of the Department of Water and Sewers.
g This report reviewed 20 years of surveys of the
Bureau of Water at the southern end of Lake
Michigan and its tributaries showing how there
had been a steady and marked increase in the
degree of pollution of these waters. Several
13 of the tables and charts used in this report
14 have been updated and will be a part of our
15 report today. '
16 Also, at the recent Conference held by
17 the FWPCA on September 11, 1967, the Engineer of
18 Water Purification made a report on the continued
19 deterioration of water quality at the southern
20 end of Lake Michigan.
2i It is the intent of this report to
22 combine the stories of both of these former
23 reports and bring the information and data up
24 through the end of 1967. In addition to describing
25 the increase in levels of certain water quality
-------
! JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 parameters, this report will delineate the
3 effect of pollution on the costs of water
4 treatment.
5 Since the criteria proposed in the 1965
6 report were expanded and established as official
7 criteria by the PWPCA Conference of January 4-6,
8 1966, when the Chicago South Water Filtration Plant
9 was established as one of the two control points
10 (the other being the Gary-West intake of the Gary-
H Kobart Water Corporation) for the open waters of
12 Lake Michigan, the considerations of this report
13 will be limited to the situation at the South
U Plant. To refresh your memories as to the layout
15 of the South Plant, it is located on "made" land
16 at the foot of 79th Street in Lake Michigan. The
17 expansion of this plant to 480 mg/day rated capac-
18 ity and 850 mg/day peak capacity has been completed.
19 There are two sources of water supply. One is from
20 the Dunne Crib two miles off 68th Street. This
21 crib is connected to the filtration plant through
22 a 14- and 16-foot tunnel. The plant also has a
23 shore intake at the east end which is located in
24 about 2^ feet of water and is used as an alternate^
25 or joint intake. Since both intakes are frequently
-------
1 JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 used at the same time, the official samples as
3 established in the FWPCA criteria are those taken
from the raw water header which represents a
- variable mixture of both crib and shore water.
9
„ All data in this report are taken from tests on
_ raw water header samples.
g Figure C-l is a map showing the location
9 of Chicago's two filter plants and the crib In-
10 takes, and also shows distances that the various
intakes along the lake are from the pollution
sources at the mouth of the Indiana Harbor Ship
13 Canal IHSC and the mouth of the Calumet River.
14 For example, the Dunne intake is approximately
15 3-3/4- miles from the mouth of the Calumet River
16 and 9-l/^ miles from the mouth of the IHSC; the
Dever intake is 18-1/2 miles and the Wilson
intake, which is now closed down, not in use,
19 is 22 roiles north of the mouth of tht ship
20 canal.
2i At this point it would seem desirable
22 to define open waters. The open waters are all
23 of Lake Michigan outside of a line drawn from
24 ! the Calumet Kerbor breakwater past the Inland
25 Steel breakwater into the intake of the U. S.
-------
-3-
FIGURE C-l
WJBconsin
Illinois"
MAP OP WEST SHORE OP SOUTHERN PORTION OP LAKE
MICHIGAN SHOWING DISTANCES BETWEEN MOUTHS OP
INDIANA HARBOR SHIP CANAL AND CALUMET RIVER
AND VARIOUS WATERWORKS INTAKES.
Waukegaa
N- Chicago
Great LalcesV-o
Lake Poreat
Pt. Sheridan
Highland Park
Lake County
Cook County
Glencoe
ROW
Indiana
Harbor
Chicago
N
DEFT. OF WATER AMD SEWERS
BUREAU OF WATER
CITY OF CHICAGO
January 31, 1968
-------
JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 Steel at Gary. Everything outside of that is
3 open water by definition of the FWPCA criteria.
There are no known discharges of
municipal sewage along the more than 30 miles
of lakefront extending from the Cook County limits
on the north to the mouth of the Calumet River
on the south. The principal sources of pollution
_ at the South Plant intakes have been from the
y
10 IHSC, several industries along the lake shore,
and fluctuating discharges from the Calumet River.
12 In addition, the intakes are exposed to Illegal
discharges from lake vessels and small craft. Of
recent interest, are the heavy fuel oil slicks
15 which developed in the late summer of 1967 and
16 are believed to have originated in the vicinity
of the IHSC. On rare occasions, after periods
lg of heavy rainfall, the Chicago River locks are
19 opened (once in the last 10 years--1961) and when
20 the wind direction and velocity are of appropriate
21 direction and magnitude, this could create a
22 serious problem at the water intakes.
23
Bacterial Pollution
24
25 The results of bacteriological
-------
1545
! JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 examination of samples of raw water collected
3 daily from the SWFP intakes over the last 17
4 years, are summarized in Table D-l and plotted
g on Chart D-l which are shown together in the
6 figure. It is interesting to note that there
7 was a significant drop in 1965 and 1966 in the
8 overall average confirmed coliform organisms
9 per 100 ml. However, in 1967, there was a
lO serious rise and the average was higher than it
11 has been at any one time in the last 17 years,
12 the annual average value being 260 coliform
13 organisms per 100 ml. It is also interesting
14 to note that the highest maximum day in the 17-
15 year period occurred in 1967 with a maximum value
16 of 13j000 coliform organisms per 100 ml.
17
Abnormal Pollution at the SWFP Intakes
18
19 The greatest pollution problems occur
20 when slugs of industrial waste drifting around
21 the lake have abnormal hydrocarbon odors which
22 are similar to those which are obtained by
23 diluting oil refinery wastes with lake water.
24 Usually, the water during these periods has an
25 unusually high ammonia nitrogen and phenol content
-------
1546
-5-
FIGURE D-l
LU
*
<
oc.
u
CL
(T h-
O <
u. a:
DC
UJ
h-
D
O
CO
I
O
1O
8
0>
n
* i
-2 3
•8
o:
<
UJ
O
o
ro
O
K)
O
O
O
10
O
O
O
in
1^001 d3d SKISINVOdO WdOdHOO
E
O
o
cr
Q_
o:
o
u_
~
o
0
^
— >-
^
x <-)
^
^UJ
3
Z "~
z >
**<
01
^J
UJ
>-
o
en
in
to
O
^f.
—
in
en
in
en
^
^
-
^
in
en
0
0
^"
to
to
u>
00
in
en
o
0
CM
to
<0
in
00
en
in
en
o
o
en
CM
CM
in
u>
o
en
o
o
^~
•~
to
<0
5J-
in
u>
en
o
o
CM
—
00
in
ro
CO
(0
en
*
0
0
o
ro
~~
O
o
(0
CM
^
(0
en
«s§
UJ < O
111
o
-------
JAMES C. VAUGHN
1
and has abnormal chlorine absorption properties.
2
All of which increase the difficulty and the cost
3
of producing satisfactory finished water. The
4
data on abnormal oil refinery wastes odor periods
6
for the past 18 years is tabulated in Table D-2
6
and plotted on Figure D-2. Shown in both the table
7
and on the chart are the number of odor periods
8
each year and the total odor days each year.
9
Shown in the table are the maximum threshold
10
odor ranges during the odor periods and the
maximum activated carbon dosage applied in
12
Ibs/mg. It is noted that the number of odor
13
days in 1965 were 46: in 1966, 95; and in 1967,
14
89. The maximum carbon dosages in Ibs/mg were
15
| 320 Ibs/mg in 1965; 385 in 1966; and 557 in 1967.
16
This indicates that during these years tne problem
is certainly becoming more serious.
18
At this time, it is proper to remind
u
_0 ourselves that a water treatment plant must be
01 I prepared to treat the maximum demands that will
£1
22 placed upon it as to quantity and quality;
23 otherwise, an unsatisfactory water supply will
24 I frequently be delivered to the consumer.
25 In 1965, we reported the maximum ammonia
-------
- 6 -
1548
oo
CM
1
Q
W
hJ
pQ
•^J
H
PERIODS
o
Q
O
t-4
«CNi-3'rr)u~>i—
oo o O tf"i O 10 r*»
cx> r^ oo 4-1 CO
cO O O
S i-l
O g
^ jj
3 CU -r4
PQ Q CJ
-------
-7-
FIGURE D-2
ABNORMAL "OIL REFINERY11
TYPE ODOR PERIODS
SOUTH WATER FILTRATION PLANT INTAKE
I960 - 1967
CO
o
o
a:
LU
o_
o
o
o
o:
UJ
CD
125
100
75
50
25
TOTAL DAYS ODORS
OCCURRED EACH YEAR
ODOR PERIODS EACH YEAR
1950'
DEPARTMENT OF WATER a SEWERS
BUREAU OF WATER
CITY OF CHICAGO
M9551
M960
I T I I
YEAR
I9651 '(9671
JANUARY 31,1968
-------
It
1550
JAMES C. VAUGHN
nitrogen (ppm), the maximum activated carbon
dosage (Ibs/mg), and the maximum chlorine dosage
3
(lbs/mg) through 196^ on Table D-3. We have
now included 1965, 1966, and 1967. These data
9
were taken during abnormal "oil refinery type"
6
odor periods. The maximum ammonia nitrogen values
7
are plotted on Figure D-3. The maximum activated
8
carbon dosage is plotted on Figure D-4. It is
V
pointed out that the ammonia nitrogen values
10
have shown a steady increase over the years 19&5*
1966, and 1967. This is also true of the activated
12
carbon dosage. The maximum chlorine dosage was
13
constant in 1965 and 1966 but showed a very sharp
14
increase from 53.9 Ibs/mg in 1966 to 70 lbs/mg
15
in 1967. The maximum dosage of 70 lbs/mg is 50
16
lbs/mg more than what may be considered to be
lg the basic normal requirements. This dosage of
19 70 lbs/mg is equivalent to 9.3 PP» which can
20 certainly be considered an extremely abnormal
21 requirement for making a satisfactory drinking
22 water.
23 In Table D-4, we have summarized the
24 total activated carbon applied in Ibs . per year.
25 The average carbon dosage in lbs/mg and the
-------
- 9 -
1551
CO
1
P
W
5!
H
Q
J2?
5J
A
S
P-)
s
co
Pi
M
H
3
W
P
P
W
H
rH
PH
<
W
§
Pi
O
g
P
^
j3
0
1
P
1
^
hH
H
U
vO
OS
r i
1
O
m
rH
M
H
cfl
•r-( CO
4J O
o p
a
§ °
B ^
•H cfl
X CJ
cfl
S
cfl
•H
c
0
1—1
ed
W
,~_l
•H
a
o
f— i
N^
/^
B
p
v-
C
o
^1
4-1
•iH
(H
Cfl
0)
^H
omrH^ooco^a-oo-^-inococNoor-H
-d-inmino-*~3"voosva-v£>or^cN\o
00
OJ
C/l
01
4J
Cfl
13 O
60
4-1 <4H Cfl
co o a
4J J2
•4H C O
O 0)
S UH
3 4J O
CO r(
a) CO ^
IH O. W
3 Q) vH
PQ Q O
01
-------
-10-
555
FIGURE D-3
MAXIMUM AMMONIA NITROGEN
DURING ABNORMAL "OIL REFINERY11
TYPE ODOR PERIODS
SOUTH WATER FILTRATION PLANT INTAKE
I960 - 1967
0.7 r
E
QL
O.
I
Z
LU
O
O
o:
X
<
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0' r
1950
DEPARTMENT OF WATER 8 SEWERS
BUREAU OF WATER
CITY OF CHICAGO
—i 1 r
YEAR
1 r
1J96?
JANUARY 31, 1968
-------
- 11 -
1553
Q
> 00
•-" C
M -i-l
3 M
O 3
P3 T3
3 60
0 to O
•H w
l«! O l-i
tO Q Q)
c
o
01
00
CO 0)
n ex
0) to
> to
<:
Q
n) "O
> 0)
tO (3
4-1 O
O
H
tO
CJ
O^
CT*
tO
00
to
XI
tN
to
to
r-
vo
ON
to
jd
4-1
C
§
to
M
t-i
o
4-1
o.
0)
CO
§
0)
0)
1-1
00
vO
ON
0)
i
to
1-1
0)
CO
tfl
l-i
4-l C O
O 0)
3 4-1
94-10
to n
a) co >,
f-l & 4J
3 0) •!-•
M Q U
-------
-12-
FIGURE D-4
o
o»
MAXIMUM ACTIVATED CARBON
DOSAGE DURING ABNORMAL
"OIL REFINERY" TYPE ODOR PERIODS
SOUTH WATER FILTRATION PLANT INTAKE
I960 - 1967
(A
.0
UJ
e>
<
CO
o
o
o
CD
O
O
UJ
I
O
or
ID
o
X
<
I200r
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
1950'
DEPARTMENT OF WATER a SEWERS
BUREAU OF WATER
CITY OF CHICAGO
'1955 ' ' I9601
YEAR
'I965'
1967
JANUARY 31.1968
-------
l JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 maximum hourly carbon dosage during odor periods.
3 It is noted that the total carbon applied in 1966
4 and 196? exceeded that applied in previous years
. of the 18-year period. The average Ibs/mg
. activated carbon applied was 23 Ibs/mg in 1965j
to
33 Ibs/mg for 1966; and for the overall annual
g average for 1967 dropped to 32 Ibs/mg. At this
_ time, it must be pointed out fchat the first 6
y
10 months of 1967 was a very bad taste and odor
n period and that, as reported on September 11,
12 the average for the first 6 months of 1967 was
13 42 Ibs/mg, which is much higher than the 33 Ibs/mg
14 value for 1966.
15
Pollution of Rivers Discharging
16
into the Lake, 1930-1967
17
18 In the 1965 Chicago Report, as pointed
19 out, that beginning in 19^8 samples were taken from
20 a number of points on the Calumet River, the Grand
21 Calumet River, the Little Calumet River and the
22 Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. The locations of these
23 sampling points are shown in Figure E-l. After
i
24 i the 1965 Conference, and more particularly the
25 January 1966 Conference in which the criteria were
-------
-13-
1556
-------
1357
1 IJAMES C. VAUGHN
2 made official, a certain number of these points
3 were abandoned in the weekly sampling schedule.
. It was decided at that time that we were more
4
, concerned with what went into the lake than in
a
what happened in the interior of the Calumet
Region. These points are indicated by the heavy
rings around the sampling point number. The
9 remainder of the points indicated by the light
10 ring have continued to be sampled and the data
n from these analyses have been accumulated.
12 It has been assumed that we are more
13 concerned with the contribution of pollutants
14 to the water in the southern end of Lake Michigan
15 by the IHSC and the Calumet River. For this
16 reason we have maintained a more rigorous sampling
17 schedule at the discharge points of these two
18 tributaries. It is recognized that the flow from
19 the Ship Canal amounts to 700-900 cubic feet per
20 second while the discharge from the Calumet River
2i is variable depending on the relative levels of
22 I the Calumet River and Lake Michigan at the point
23 of the river discharge. This discharge is also
24 affected by the amount of precipitation, and the
25 wind direction and velocity. V
-------
1358
JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 The level of some principal pollutants
3 added to Lake Michigan by the above-described two
tributaries are plotted on Figures E-4, E-5* and
E-6. In Figure E-4, the annual average coliform
organisms per 100 ml are plotted for the IHSC at
Dickey Road Bridge and the Calumet River at the
92nd Street Bridge. The level at the 92nd Street
Bridge on the Calumet River has not been signifi-
10 cant at any time in the 18 years and has not
increased in the last several years. This is
12 no doubt due to the fact that there is generally
13 very little flow out of the Calumet River and also
14 due to the fact that the Sanitary District now
15 chlorinates the stormwater when it is necessary
16 to pump to the river at 95th Street. The level
17 of coliform organisms in the water of the Ship
18 Canal at the Dickey Road Bridge increased in
and 1966 but showed a marked drop in 1967. The
20 Ship Canal is known to receive the effluents from
2i the Gary, Hammond and East Chicago sewage plants,
22 and during 1967 chlorination of the effluents
23 was practiced for a good deal of the year at the
24 Hammond and East Chicago plants
25 In Figure E-5, the annual average ammonia
-------
-15-
1559
FIGURE E-4
o
o
a:
uj
a.
a:
e
_j
o
o
UJ
51
a:
UJ
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
ANNUAL AVERAGE COLIFORM
ORGANISMS PER 100 ml.
WEEKLY SANITARY SURVEYS
1950-1967
MOUTH OF INDIANA HARBOR
SHIP CANAL-DICKEY RD. BRIDGE
MOUTH OF CALUMET
RIVER-92nd ST BRIDGE
' '
DEPARTMENT OF WATER ft SEWERS
BUREAU OF WATER
CITY OF CHICAGO
1 I I "i9601
YEAR
' '
"I9651
' >
JANUARY 31,1968
-------
-17-
FIGURE E-5
ANNUAL AVERAGE AMMONIA NITROGEN
WEEKLY SANITARY SURVEYS
1950-1967
5.0 r
E
a.
a.
i
LJ
8
is
LJ
s
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
MOUTH OF INDIANA HARBOR
SHIP CANAL-DICKEY RD. BRIDGE
MOUTH OF CALUMET
RIVER-92nd ST BRIDGE
i r
DEPARTMENT OF WATER a SEWERS
BUREAU OF WATER
CITY OF CHICAGO
I (9551 I I T (|960»
YEAR
M969I
JANUARY 31,1968
-------
-18-
FIGURE E-6
ANNUAL AVERAGE PHENOL
WEEKLY SANITARY SURVEYS
1950-1967
© INDIANA HARBOR SHIP CANAL SAMPLING AT CANAL ST.
BRIDGE (1950-1959) AND DICKEY RD. BRIDGE (1960-1967)
©CALUMET RIVER SAMPLING AT 92nd ST BRIDGE
(1950-1967)
0.25
£
O.
Q.
I
O
UJ
Q_
LJ
QL
UJ
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
MOUTH OF INDIANA HARBOR
SHIP CANAL ®
V
MOUTH OF CALUMET RIVER
,950
DEPARTMENT OF WATER a SEWERS
BUREAU OF WATER
CITY OF CHICAGO
' '
YEAR
JANUARY 31,1968
-------
1362
l IJAMES C. VAUGHN!
nitrogen values in ppm are plotted for the
£t
two points under discussion. In 1964, 19^5*
o
and 1966, the values at the 92nd Street Bridge
of the Calumet River showed some increase but
o
remained constant for 19&7. This also was no
6
doubt due to the oxidizing effect of the chlori-
nation of the storffiwater by the Sanitary District.
The ammonia nitrogen values for the Ship Canal
at the Dickey Road Bridge have shown a sharp in-
crease in 1966 and 1967. Of particular significance
is the actual level of these values for 1967.
12
This value is slightly above 3.5 ppm. This is
13
roughly ten times the value indicated by Sawyer
in his Madison Lakes studies as being necessary
15
for continual algal nuisances (his value is .3
ppm). If this water from the Ship Canal is
,_ diluted 10 to 1 by the time it reaches the intakes
lo
19 of the SWFP, it would still be above the level
20 required for continuing algae nuisances.
21 In Figure E-6, the annual average phenol
22 values in ppm for the same two tributary points
23 are shown. The water at the 92nd Street Bridge
24 of the Calumet River shows a slight drop from mid-
25 1966 to 1967. This is again no doubt due to the
-------
1363
1 JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 oxidizing effect of the chlorination of storm-
3 water overflow by the Sanitary District. The
4 water from the Ship Canal at Dickey Road Bridge
g shows a slight increase for the year 1967. This
6 indicates a higher level of pollution that tends
7 to create problems at the SWFP.
8
Migration of Pollution Slugs
9
10 In the 1965 Chicago Report, considerable
H discussion was given to the migration of pollution
12 slugs about the lake and to the SWFP intakes.
13 Several case histories were cited giving the
14 degree and severity of these pollution periods.
15 It is recalled that one slug of pollution passed
16 the SWFP crib intake four times, and on another
17 and very unhappy occasion a slug passed the
18 intakes several times, and on the last pass,
19 the wind died down and this slug of pollution
20 remained around the crib intake for several days.
21 In the September 11, 1967 report, we again re-
22 ported on the migration of slugs of hydrocarbon
23 pollution from the SWFP intake area as far up the
24 lake as the Central Water Filtration Plant (CWFP)
25 shore intake. On another occasion an organic waste
-------
1564
I JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 discharged into the lake from a point 20 miles
3 north of Chicago migrated as far south as the
4 CWFP intake. These incidents prove that the
5 migration of slugs of pollution are an ever-
6 present problem and that they can create periods
7 of extreme difficulty in treating the water at
8 the southern end of Lake Michigan. To paraphrase
9 an old proverb, "Dilution is not the solution to
10 pollution." I find that our wind vector analyses
jj of these pollution slugs conforms very clearly
12 to the current directions as reported by Dr.
13 Baumgartner on Thursday.
14
Plankton Problems
15
16 Plankton, which is the general term for
17 those micro-organisms in the lake water consisting
!3 principally of diatoms and algae, are a continuing
19 problem. Sawyer, in his Madison Lakes work, in-
20 dicated that if the ammonia nitrogen level is .3
21 ppm or higher, and the total phosphates level is
22 .015 ppm or higher, that you can have continuing
23 plankton nuisances. It used to be that at the
24 SWFP, we had the spring and fall plankton peaks
25 which gave some taste and odor problems, and
-------
1565
I JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 interfered with the filter runs. However, in
recent years we have acquired two additional
general plankton problems. One is the occurrence
of filamentous algae growth on the "bottom of
the lake, principally, the organisms cladophora.
7 This organism reaches its maximum growth in late
8 summer and wind—and we should add waves--action
9 tares the material loose from the lake bottom and
it collects on the screens of the intake basin,
11 creating a major labor problem in cleaning the
12 fixed screens at the South Plant for several
13 months each summer, and for the past 12 years,
14 we have had the incidents of two wintertime
15 diatoms, Stephanodiscus hantzschii and Stepha-
nodiseus binderanus. These organisms reach a
17 peak growth when the water temperature is between
18 32 and 39° F. They are photosynthetic organisms
19 and secrete carbon dioxide with the emission of
20 oxygen. In the absence of free carbon dioxide
21 of which there are only trace amounts in Lake
22 Michigan water, they assimilate carbon dioxide
23 from the calcium bicarbonate which results in
24 the precipitation of colloidal calcium carbonate.
25 This raises the pH of the water and creates
-------
1566
t |JAMES C. VAUGHN
colloidal turbidity which could require, and
0 ! n?~ve, as much as a 100 percent Increase in the
o
normal coagulant dosage required. Three major
incidents of these organisms occurred in December
o
6 1959, January 1961, and again in the beginning
of 1967. Other plankton problems include the
plugging of the screens by another filamentous
O
algae known as dichotomosiphon. The filaments
y
0 are about as long as the name. This has occurred
In significant quantities at least three or four
times in the last 30 years. Another plankton
t- problem is the occurrence of an organisms known
13
as dinobryon, known facetiously to our staff as
,. the little Irishman Dinny O'Brien. This organism
la
16 when present in significant numbers (30 or more
17 per ml) gives the water a taste and odor character-
-0 I istic of cod liver oil. This odor can be removed
lo
19 by super-chlorination or adsorbed by activated
20 carbon. However, the dosages of each of these
21 chemicals for this purpose have reached some very
22 high quantities.
23 The number of plankton micro-organisms
24 per ml as the annual average and the maximum days
25 are plotted on Chart H-l. These values do not
-------
-21-
156?
FIGURE H-l
PLANKTON
MICROORGANISMS PER ml
SOU'
16,000
15,000
14,000
13,000
£
o:
LJ
a.
CO
5
CO
ICROORGAN
2
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
TH WATER FILTRATION PLANT INTAKE
1950 - 1967
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IM
1
.
•i
i
^MAXIMUM DAYv^
^
1
•i
1
in
1
o' ™ • • B 1
1950
DEPARTMENT OF WATER a SEWERS
BUREAU OF WATER
CITY OF CHICAGO
L
^
1
•«
1
r—
1
L*JJ
1955
I
—
1
1
*_
r-i
1
ANNU/
^kd A
M
1
U.
k_
™
^
ll
. DAY
«. MM
i
—
i
"1
1
1
Ih • j • •••f »f
I960 1965 1967
YEAR
JANUARY 31,1968
-------
1568
! JAMES C, VAUGHN
2 Include the incidents of cladophora which
3 interfered with plant operation, or the daily
4 counts of the wintertime diatoms which create
g the colloidal turbidity problem. The values
6 on this figure simply indicate the overall total
7 count of plankton organisms. You can see that
g 196? was slightly worse than 1966, but both of
9 them considerably less than 1965.
10 In early 1953 the late Mr. John R.
u Baylis, then Engineer of Water Purification,
12 and the author, prepared a Joint paper under
13 the title of "Pollution Loads and Their Effect
14 on Plant Operation." This paper, incidentally,
15 was published in the March 1953 issue of the
16 Department magazine "Pure Water." In this
17 article, we made the statement, "any condition
18 requiring the use of more than 20 pounds of
1$ activated carbon per million gallons of water
20 or more than 13 pounds of chlorine per million
2i gallons, will be regarded as a pollution load
22 on the plant. When the carbon feeds are increased
23 to abowe 40 Ibs mg, more coagulation is required
24 to aid in the settling out of the carbon. After
25 a study of plant operating data, it was concluded
-------
1569
! JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 , that except in periods of high turbidity, any
3 coagulation dosage of over 90 Ibs/mg may be
4 charged to the carbon requirement, therefore,
5 to the pollution load." After 14 years of
6 continued experience in the operation of S¥FP,
7 this premise still appears to be sound.
8 In evaluating our operating experiences,
9 we have developed a term "some maximum days of
10 usage." By this is meant any day at the SWFP in
u which the total pounds of activated carbon feed
12 amounted to 30,000 pounds or more was considered
13 "a maximum day of usage." The number of days
14 in which this occurred for each of the ten years
15 1958 through 1967, are listed in Table 1-1 and
16 plotted on Chart 1-1. The total pounds of carbon
17 feed each day, the average pounds per million
18 gallons, and the maximum pounds per million
19 gallons, are listed under the activated carbon
20 heading. The maximum threshold odor hour of
21 each of these days are listed under that heading
22 and maximum ammonia nitrogen hours, is likewise
23 listed under its heading. It is noted that the
24 number of days of maximum usage was at a minimum
25 in 1961, increased through 1964, and decreased
-------
- 23 -
1570
TABLE 1-1
SOME MAXIMUM DAYS OF USAGE
1958 - 1967
Activated Carbon
Yr., Mo.,
and Dav
1958
April 3
Nov. 18
Nov. 19
Dec. 27
Dec. 28
Dec. 29
1959
Jan. 9
Jan. 10
Jan. 11
Jan. 13
May 12
May 26
Oct. 23
Oct. 24
Dec. 28
Dec. 29
1960
Jan. 12
Feb. 16
April 3
Oct. 30
Nov. 16
Dec. 5
Dec. 6
1961
Mar. 27
Nov. 13
Dec. 4
Dec. 23
1962
Jan. 13
Jan. 14
Jan. 15
Feb. 13
April 1
May 14
Total #
40,250
47,893
43,029
69,500
34,624
87,550
94,353
87,351
111,747
46,315
30,043
33,378
36,044
35,785
31,655
30,006
31,739
38,525
30,500
34,013
32,871
35,458
35,760
34,842
40,971
65,375
41,611
46,953
34,935
62,310
52,548
48,038
43,190
Avg.
#/MG
119
140
125
223
115
258
276
275
367
137
76
91
101
112
156
91
97
118
101
103
98
100
103
107
124
190
137
146
116
192
163
161
118
Max.
#/MG
320
204
213
485
262
503
466
548
712
252
116
138
162
137
256
214
144
324
203
310
277
155
135
398
168
451
360
360
242
390
250
363
279
Threshold
Odors Maxi-
mum Hour
16 Ch
7 Ch
7 Ch
14 Ch
8 Ch
30 Ch
16 Ch
30 Ch
50 Ch
25 Ch
4 DMC
5 DMC
12 Ch
10 Ch
14 Ch
9 Ch
5 Ch
35 Ch
10 Ch
15 Ch
9 Ch
9 Ch
6 DMC
35 Ch
5 Ch
20 Ch
14 Ch
16 Ch
15 Ch
16 Ch
12 Ch
20 Ch
5 Ch
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Max. Hr. (ppm)
.680
.168
.130
.080
.014
.026
.086
.106
.120
.113
.058
.050
.038
.046
.140
.108
.074
.198
.150
.272
.168
.130
.232
.152
.160
.350
.220
.174
.318
.242
.138
.590
.084
-------
1571
TABLE 1-1 (cont.)
SOME MAXIMUM DAYS OF USAGE
1958 - 1967
Activated Carbon
Yr. , Mo. ,
and Day
1963
Jan. 25
Jan. 26
Jan. 27
Jan. 29
Jan. 30
Feb. 1
Feb. 2
Feb. 3
Mar. 4
April 3
April 4
April 29
1964
Jan. 19
Jan. 20
Jan. 21
Jan. 22
Jan. 24
Jan. 25
Mar. 4
April 13
May 5
July 19
July 20
July 21
July 22
Aug. 2
Sept. 19
Nov. 3
Dec. 11
Dec. 12
Dec. 14
1965
Jan. 16
Jan. 18
Feb. 6
Feb. 7
Feb. 8
Feb. 10
Dec. 31
Total #
53,091
54,171
30,399
57,322
76,307
91,658
53,037
75,824
40,950
51 ,.001
38,257
38,259
53,756
47,759
48,767
59,114
31,085
40,205
32,302
38,552
40,096
37,163
35,471
37,668
32,432
30,486
34,696
33,137
51,819
120,910
39,606
32,956
44,840
32,679
76,704
41,746
41,029
30,338
Avg.
#/MG
156
154
95
162
211
252
153
231
117
143
108
98
103
137
139
168
88
120
92
113
103
95
76
82
66
59
91
89
149
361
114
96
129
92
230
119
119
91
Max.
#/MG
316
313
157
470
665
680
283
333
266
208
230
115
204
250
175
258
111
204
104
143
146
115
110
145
114
97
153
180
366
745
262
230
191
223
320
326
195
113
Threshold
Odors Maxi-
mum Hour
14 Ch
14 Ch
12 Ch
9 Ch
8 Ch
30 Ch
10 Ch
14 Ch
12 Ch
14 Ch
9 Ch
5 Ch
6 Ch
8 Ch
8 Ch
12 Ch
4 Ch
10 Ch
5 DMCh
6 Ch
6 DMCh
4 DMS
4 DME
4 DM
4 DM
4 DMCh
4 C
10 Ch
18 Ch
55 Ch
12 Ch
12 Ch
25 Ch
10 MCh
16 Ch
8 Ch
8 Ch
5 DMCh
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Max. Hr. (ppm)
.148
.154
.082
.230
.220
.174
.170
.210
.053
.140
.110
.118
.100
.158
.164
.146
.112
.130
.032
.250
.082
.016
.016
.016
.014
.072
.106
.128
.156
.150
.082
.198
.144
.128
.138
.110
.117
.096
-------
- 25 -
1572
TABLE 1-1 (Cont.)
SOME MAXIMUM DAYS OF USAGE
1958 - 1967
Activated Carbon
Yr., Mo.,
and Day
1966
Jan. 1
Jan. 2
Jan. 3
Jan. 4
Jan. 5
Jan. 31
Feb. 1
Feb. 2
Feb. 3
Feb. 7
Feb. 8
Feb. 9
Feb. 11
Feb. 17
Feb. 18
Feb. 19
Mar. 17
Mar. 18
Mar. 23
Mar. 24
April 19
April 20
Aug. 15
Oct. 15
Nov. 17
Nov. 18
Nov. 21
Nov. 22
Nov. 23
Dec. 6
1967
Jan. 7
Jan. 8
Jan.. 9
Jan. 10
Jan. 11
Jan. 12
Jan . 15
Jan. 16
Jan. 20
Jan. 21
Jan. 22
Jan. 23
Total tf
33,131
50,033
57,299
69,166
48,006
53,630
62,698
41,643
39,292
43,452
39,196
116,649
35,916
59,904
90,815
45,517
47,925
50,231
89,065
30,269
49,358
41,451
33,187
45,998
52,704
30,784
65,987
40,484
52,490
45,209
76,942
72,332
96,314
34,075
87,016
43,356
30,494
33,774
32,052
97.936
69,337
30,031
Avg.
#/MG
104
166
169
185
140
150
176
115
109
122
111
328
105
171
258
140
134
145
253
87
137
116
72
127
148
86
184
113
149
123
222
225
267
94
240
127
90
94
88
279
216
69
Max.
#/MG
181
319
310
258
196
260
257
154
135
162
290
385
89
370
36"6
272
254
220
278
149
320
220
119
200
202
146
368
296
192
283
472
393
474
183
534
339
203
194
142
340
413
192
Threshold
Odors Maxi-
mum Hour
6 DMCh
14 Ch
8 Ch
9 Ch
8 Ch
7 DMCh
12 DMCh
6 DMCh
6 DMCh
6 DMCh
15 DMCh
18 DMCh
10 DMCh
12 DMCh
12 DMCh
13 DMCh
8 DMCh
12 DMCh
12 DMCh
5 DsMCh
10 DMCh
8 DMCh
10 Ch
9 DMCh
8 DMCh
4 DMCh
16 DMCh
10 DMCh
10 DMCh
6 DMCh
27 Ch
23 Ch
16 Ch
9 DMC
18 DMCh
8 DMCh
9 Oh
10 Ch
5 DMs
20 DCh
10 DsCh
9 DsMCh
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Max. Hr. (ppm)
.098
.164
.120
.110
.134
.122
.104
.080
.060
.106
.155
.204
.120
.160
.140
.146
.120
.168
.154
.120
.098
.096
.086
.094
.180
.134
.140
.158
.260
.062
.224
.152
.150
.196
.187
.164
.166
.180
.124
.376
.196
.125
-------
- 26 -
TABLE 1-1 (Cont.)
SOME MAXIMUM DAYS OF USAGE
1573
1958 - 1967
Activated Carbon
Yr.,Mo. ,
and Day
1967 (contd.)
Mar. 11
Mar. 25
Mar. 26
Mar. 27
Mar. 28
Mar. 30
Mar. 31
April 5
April 7
April 8
April 9
April 10
Oct. 15
Oct. 24
Oct. 30
Dec. 2
Dec. 6
Dec. 7
Dec. 11
Dec. 20
Dec. 21
Dec. 22
Total #
35,536
41,501
55,384
61,960
54,704
38,095
60,111
53,841
36,438
36,994
51,965
31,218
32,691
54,185
33,866
40,944
41,164
44,174
33,997
62,532
55,174
44,896
Avg.
106
120
176
169
153
105
169
148
104
106
158
90
95
144
92
114
114
117
92
166
152
125
Max.
#/MG
385
350
352
330
364
307
280
557
285
240
414
193
158
231
294
292
268
190
189
193
178
255
Threshold
Odors Maxi-
mum Hour
7 DCh
9 DMCh
14 Ch
15 Ch
5 DMCh
15 Ch
8 DCh
14 Ch
12 Ch
7 M
15 Ch
6 C
7 Ch
8 Ch
15 Ch
8 Ch
8 Ch
6 Ch
9 Ch
10 Ch
12 Ch
12 Ch
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Max. Hr. (ppm)
.065
.118
.124
.124
.110
.306
.170
.380
.192
.196
.300
.280
.074
.080
.124
.096
.120
.100
.092
.140
.160
.100
Bureau of Water
Department of Water and Sewers
City of Chicago
January 31, 1968
-------
-27-
FIGURE 1-1
UJ
O
o
o
o"
ro
OL
UJ
§
V)
I
o
O
MAXIMUM ACTIVATED CARBON USAGE
SOUTH WATER FILTRATION PLANT
1958- 1967
40- 800
35- "o
o>
700
.E
.Q
30- UJ 600
$
Q
,-^500
25
O
Q
j_UJ 400
15-2 300
10- 200
5-
100
NO. OF DAYS OVER 30,000 Ibs USAGE.
MAXIMUM CARBON DOSAGE.
•••• MAXIMUM THRESHOLD ODOR.
1958 '
DEPARTMENT OF WATER & SEWERS
BUREAU OF WATER
CITY OF CHICAGO
'I960
1965
M967
60
50
40
30
00
QUJ
-IX
IK
ujo
iS
20
50
10
YEAR
JANUARY 31,1968
-------
1575
l JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 again in 1965. However, in 1966 and 1967, the
3 number of days of maximum usage increased sharply.
. The first four months of 1967 were very bad with
_ the next five months being months of moderate
carbon usage. In October 1967* there were three
days of maximum usage of carbon and in December
Q I there were seven days of maximum usage. It is
o
_ noted that the maximum carbon dosage of 557 Ibs/mg-
that would be the dashed line—occurred on April 5,
1967. This indicates that the quality of water
12 tfas much worse and required a much more severe
13 treatment. It is pointed out also that the
14 maximum threshold odor requiring this high treat-
15 ment was somewhat lower numerically than the
maximum threshold odor value in previous years.
17 This confirms the conclusion that the quality
18 of water was much worse requiring a much higher
quantity of carbon for threshold odor reduction.
20 In s-n overall examination of this chart, the lack
21 of correlation between the peaks of maximum
22 threshold odors and maximum carbon dosages in
23 recent years, is still another indication that
24 "the quality of water is much worse and requires
25 more extreme treatment. The total usage of
-------
1 JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 activated carbon for the month of December 196?
3 was over 500,000 pounds. This, of itself, indi-
4 cates that the degree of pollution remains extreme.
5 If it were not for the development of the slurry-
6 ing technique for feeding powdered activated
7 carbon, the feeding of the amounts of carbon
g listed in the above-mentioned table would be
9 impossible. As has been reported, powdered
10 carbon is received in bulk and slurried into
H water at a concentration of one pound of carbon
12 per gallon of slurry. This material is then fed
13 from storage tanks through an appropriate
14 metering device. However, the amount of slurry
15 storage at the SWFP is still limited so that a
1$ reserve of 350,000 pounds of activated carbon
17 in bag form is carried in reserve storage.
18 During periods of extreme tastes and odors in
19 the raw water, this bag carbon is dumped into
20 slurrying tanks for use along with the regular
21 slurried carbon. Usually from 30,000 to 60,000
22 pounds of this bag material is dumped each day
23 during such periods. The disposal of the bags
24 from this operation becomes a major task. Each
25 100 pounds of carbon represents three bags;
-------
1577
j JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 each 1,000 pounds, 30 bags; and 30,000 pounds
3 means 900 bags. The disposal of this many bags
. is a sizable Job.
. Hopefully--that is for your attention,
_ Conferees--if the hydrocarbon pollution at the
b
southern end of the lake were materially reduced
in the near future, our present -slurry storage
. (500,000 pounds) might prove to be adequate. In
10 Table 1-2, we have listed the total consumption
n in Ibs/mg of activated carbon, coagulants, and
12 chlorine for each of the 10 years 1958 through
13 1967. This information is plotted on Chart I-2a,
14 I-2b, and I-2c. This adds up to the rather
15 amazing total of 33,206,564 pounds of activated
16 carbon for the 10-year period. It is noted that
17 the average for the entire year of 1967 (32
18 Ibs/mg) is less than the average for 1966
19 (33 Ibs/mg). However, it is recalled that pre-
20 viously we pointed out that the average carbon
2i dosage for the first six months of 1967 was 43
22 Ibs/mg. It is further noted that the coagulants
23 | dosages for the 10-year period have every year
24 been well above the maximum level of 90 Ibs/mg
25 to which we previously referred. It is further
-------
- 29 -
TABLE 1-2
Annual Consumption of Activated Carbon,
Coagulants (Alum, Ferrous Sulfate), and Chlorine
1958-1967
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
Total
Activated
Total Ib.
2,762,540
3,035,509
2,727,005
2,632,923
2,865,541
3,194,443
3,766,446
3,094,606
4,678,661
4,448,890
33,206,564
Carbon
Ib/milRal
22
23
21
21
21
23
27
23
33
32
25*
Coagulants
Total Ib.
13,705,336
14,259,529
14,104,178
16,088,039
15,520,647
16,509,311
14,627,505
14,279,870
16,445,820
15,778,872
151,319,107
Ib/milgal
108
108
106
126
117
118
104
104
116
112
112*
Chlorine
Total Ib.
2,172,687
1,982,719
2,545,043
2,461,640
2,573,491
2,898,487
3,046,756
2,797,986
3,518,720
3,437,485
27,435,014
Ib/mileal
16.9
14.9
18.9
19.3
19.3
20.7
21.6
20.4
24.8
24.4
20.3*
Total Water
Treated
(milgal)
127,478.9
131,988.6
133,198.4
127,603.5
132,993.5
139,993.5
141,096.0
136,894.8
142,083.8
141,106.9
1,354,437.9
* 10-year average
Bureau of Water
Department of Water and Sewers
City of Chicago
January 31, 1968
-------
-30-
1579
FIGURE I-2A
o
GO
cr
o
o
UJ
o
o
Q.
S
CO
o
o
SNOTIVO Nomiifl d3d saNnod
o
«o
£«>
§!
q
to
o
JO
o
to
q
cvi
saNnod
(O
O)
IO
(O
o:
<
UJ
o
(O
00
If)
0>
O)
K
UJ
*
(C Si
I" X
cc
UJ
Q
-------
-31-
1580
FIGURE I-2B
h-
2
<
-J
ID
O
O
Q.
CO
O
O
SNOTIV9
U3d SONOOd
o
in
o
fO
o
(VI
O
O
tr.
(D
o>
h —
=; i
O
CO
m
o:
<
UJ
o
(O
00
m
o
CD
q
in
q
evi
saNnod
a:
UJ
*
ui £
* o
= o
u. ^
°u>-
y ^"
I- 3 5
Z CO
UJ
Z
Ul
-------
-32-
1581
FIGURE 1-2C
SNOTIV9
o
10
UJ
o
O
h-
Q_
CO
z
o
o
g
£fc
*$
O
CO
q
10
M3d SQNnOd
o
CVJ
o>
o:
<
UJ
o
(0
O)
OT
er
UJ
ui
10
0 a:
z ui o
00
IO
o>
q
c\j
saNnod
I- u o
Z CD
UJ
Q.
UJ
O
-------
1582
1 JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 noted that the average chlorine dosage in Ibs/rag
3 has consistently been well above the level of 13
4 Ibs/mg previously reported as normal, in Table
5 I-3> we have given the costs of the three classes
6 of chemicals for each of the 10 years of the
7 1958-1967 period. This information has been
g plotted on Charts I-3a, I-3b, and I-3c. For
9 activated carbon, this adds up to $2,627,991.32.
10 It is further noted that 1966 and 1967 show a
U very large increase over 1965. The same is true
12 of the coagulants and the chlorine. It may be
13 concluded that pollution is requiring more and
14 more extreme treatment of the water with pro-
is portionately greater Increases in the cost of
16 treatment with these chemicals. In Table 1-4,
17 we have given the contract prices per ton
18 (delivered) for alum, carbon, and chlorine, for
19 the 10-year period of 1958-1967, inclusive. The
20 prices of the three chemicals varied very little
21 from 1958 through 1964. Alum and chlorine reached
22 their minimum level in 1965 and have increased
23 somewhat in the last two years. Carbon remained
24 j very constant fr.om 1956 through 1966 but went up
25 $9'90 a ton for 1967. While these increases in
-------
1583
- 34 -
TABLE 1-3
Summary of Costs: Activated Carbon,
Coagulants (Alum, Ferrous Sulfate) and Chlorine
1958-1967
Total Water
Activated Carbon Coagulants Chlorine Treated
Year Total $/milgal Total $/milgal Total $/milgal (milgal)
1958 $ 215,723.57 $ 1.69 $ 231,346.94 $ 1.81 $ 105,098.08 $ 0.82 127,478.9
1959 237,432.07 1.80 253,823.36 1.92 96,308.97 0.73 131,988.6
1960 213,435.65 1.60 329,818.94 1.80 121,546.69 0.91 133,198.4
1961 206,742.88 1.62 281,796.83 2.21 117,688.60 0.92 127,603.5
1962 230,698.90 1.74 274,973.31 2.07 120,121.66 0.90 132,993.5
1963 253,981.84 1.82 304,475.38 2.17 129,379.43 0.93 139,993.5
1964 296,684.97 2.10 272,187.75 1.93 140,934.75 1.00 141,096.0
1965 243,055.45 1.78 268,806.52 1.96 122,776.01 0.90 136,894.8
1966 361,222.18 2.54 303,788.28 2.14 162,470.73 1.14 142,083.8
1967 368,913.81 2.61 293,547.31 2.08 167,047.76 1.18 141,106.9
Total $2,627,991.32 $ 1.94* $2,724,564.62 $ 2.01* $1,283,372.68 $ 0.95* 1,354,437.9
* 10-year average
Bureau of Water
Department of Water and Sewers
City of Chicago January 31, 1968
-------
-35-
15M
FIGURE 1-3A
sNcmvo Nomiw d3d sdvnoa
o
Q
o
CD
a:
o
o
UJ
i
h-
O
CO
o
o
Q_
O
Q.
IO
o
O)
o
o
o
CNJ
o
o
(0
a>
in
(O
a>
o:
<
LU
o
u>
cr>
K>
IT
Z
-a
00
ID
V)
CC
UJ
a: *y
ui i
10
sdvnoa
UJ
Z
(T
-------
-36-
FIGURE I-3B
CO
C3
O
O
h-
co
o
o
sNcmvo Nomiifl y3d sdvnoa
o
o
o
o
ro
i
(T.
ir>
o
z
<
O)
(D
cc
<
UJ
CO
IO
0>
savnnoa NOITIIW
a:
u
*
< I- o
< <
o: S «
UJ X
K „. O
°uj £
it t
zS°
UJ
z
I-
K
-------
-37-
1586
FIGURE I-3C
sNcmvo Nomiw
savnoa
8
OJ
o
to
UJ
E
o
X
o
u_
o
CO
o
o
a:
in
UJ ill
I
o
CO
o
CJ
in
O
in
CO
<0
ai
o
i_ O
< <
3 o
~
in
o
sav~noa
UJ
2
a.
UJ
o
a: t
S
CO
-------
- 38 -
1587
TABLE 1-4
CONTRACT PRICES PER TON
CENTRAL AND SOUTH FILTRATION PLANTS
1958-1967, Incl.
Chemical
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
Alum (Liquid)
$39.07
40.84
40.86
40.96
41.35
40.79
41.30
39.95
40.55
41.85
Carbon
$156.18
156.44
156.53
157.04
161.01
159.01
157.24
156.70
156.70
166.60
Chlorine
$96.74
97.15
95.54
95.62
92.94
89.27
92.24
83.20
95.20
97.20
Bureau of Water
Department of Water and Sewers
City of Chicago
Tanuary 31, 1968
-------
1588
! JAMES C. VAUGHNj
2 prices are significant, they are only a part of
3 the reason for the increases in the total costs
4 of chemical treatment as outlined above.
5
Federal Water Pollution Control
6
Administration Parameters Exceeded at SWFP
7
8 In Table 1-5, we have listed in column
g 1, the values for 17 of the 24 parameters adopted
10 by the FWPCA Conference for the southern end of
.. Lake Michigan and the Calumet Area in January 1966.
12 In column 2, we listed the quality criteria values
13 against which comparisons were made. In column 3,
14 we have shown the number of days in which the singli
15 daily average exceeded the quality criteria shown.
16 In column 4, we have shown the number of days on
17 which the single dally value exceeded the quality
18 criteria. The coliform bacteria exceeded the daily
19 average criteria of 2,500 per 100 ml on two days
20 out of 365 in 19655 zero days out of 36U in 1966;
21 and six days out of 365 in 1967. The fecal strep-
22 tococci exceeded (number per 100 ml) the single
23 daily value of 25, 14 days out of 127 in 1965?
24 I four days out of 294 in 1966; and 8 days out of
25 339 in 1967. The threshold odor exceeded the
-------
1589
- 39 -
9
<1)
ai n
M a 4J
J
D
B5
25
-D
3^
cd vo
rH
41
60
a vo
i-l vO
C/3 CT>
rH
60
B
T3 in
4) vO
0) Ov
U rH
X
60
cd
4) vO
**J ~V
,__!
-H vO
cd vO
r-H
60
0
•rt in
41 vC
4) cr>
O r-4
X
M
<
M
g
H
B
IH
1
°
Pd
C_(
a
3
*3
PM
^
vO
CO
vO
CO
O
in
cr
CM
O o
O O
CM IT
_A v"N
.4
60 41
Aver a
Averag
rH
g ^
fi 1-
32
cd
•d
Ol •
cd
pa o
0
H *"*
O £25
•H j3
O
o
o
f
"•*
oc
-a
o
CN
"V
-a
CM
rH
If
i
~ft
4
"ci
la
1
4
6
C
V.
•H x-
o .
U rH
8 a
s§
(XrH
41 ~v
M M
4-1 01
CO 43
cd 55
O s-
41
P4
CT
£
C
OO
r-l
O
rH
O
m if
r r-
"fc'/V
r\ r\
8
H
ct
41 >
60
cd >
M r-
11
f-l 41
3 6
JC
•H
CO
M
0
rH CO
0 U
U i-l
4) ED
r4
H
in
cR
CO
CM
in
vo
CO
r~-
m
vO
CO
"*
in
X
m
co
m
vO
CO
CM
m
m
vO
CO
r-
oo -a
•&-/V
r\/\
Ol
Value
Aver ay
4)
Mr?
B T.
•rl <<
CO Q
cd
o
1
M
O
Id
M 9
O
T) (3
0 0
•0 "S
rH Cd
O 0
43 0
CO H
43 33
H s_-
if
v£
C*1
O
^
^
CO
^^
o
l/"t
vC
CO
•*»»,
0
in
oo
ft
a
r~
cd
>
t>
rH
i-
P
"ti
C
•r1
CO
X**
m
vO
CO
o
^
vO
CO
o
m
vO
co
o
-» o
CO CT
1 1
rH rs
oo r-
41
60 4
(3 6
^d c
M ci
1 Pi
cd t
•H CI
T) i-
$1
3 rH
B 1-
^ °
s~
CO
4J
33 -H
^
"^
O
rH
O
-*
CM
S§
\fV
'
41
60
cd o
i-i :
•< >
g-s
1-
•3 CO
jff,
g
•H
4J
cd
C M
S 3
60 4J
r! CO
Q
4-1
"o a
O
t*H M
O 41
CO P-i
CO N-
Q
m
vO
CO
r^
vO
m
vO
CO
CO
-a-
m
vO
CO
vO
CM
CM in
0 C
d c
i i
•A -ft-
f> i\
4)
60 4
cd 6
4) V.
•§ §
<
cd >
3 i-
C i-
< O
B
01
60
o
4J
-^ -I
23
cd C3
1-1 ~~
4
QC
o
CO
oo
o
co
CM
o
in o
O cs
1 •"
A o
TT 3
1 r-
ct
01 >
60
cd ?
VI r-
>•«
^2
3 "c«
B C
4)
U
CO
CO
I
4J
O
01
3
rH
pq
o>
S2
rH »~.
1"!
s
c
f
•-
,_,
OC
CM
O
O
rH
O
OO If
jj^
JT (j
••
f
n
(U ^
2r?
4) i-
•§ C
Cd r-
3 6
Jc
0)
a> --:
^o »j
ft >-.
U g
o 8
rH ^^
cS
OC
0
1— 1
1— 1
0
do
CM
O
If
Cs
C
d
k
v
TT
• i
4
r-
Ja
6
C
CO ^-\
41 J
""^ §
6*
CT
c<
O
^
f^
CM
O
p*.
CM
CM
O
0 f
rH r-
•ft- a
ft '
CI
41 >
60
01 i-
< C
Cd r-
3 6
Jc
CO
01 >->
TS rj
11
5!
c
c'
0
rH
^.
CM
0
Ov
f-
O
m c
rH f
°l
JL «
•n ;
' v r-
C(
41 >
cd >
H r-
Ol 1-
Jed
'cdri
3 6
Jc
B
o
l^
M
T)
41 x^
rH -v.
0 61
CO B
CO V-
1-1
oc
CT
r-
o
CM
r-
CM
^.
CM
CM
^
f~
oo
rH CT
0 C
o c
d c
* -
/\ 1
7T "M
Ol
60
cd 4
i-i ;
01 r-
«-
3 6
B C
CO
U
s
4-1
CO
^\
3
en
01
IM*
1-1
""" S
rH ^
|l
0-<
m
^
o-
a
CM
r^»
CM
O
ON
«^>
rH
O
CO C
CM IT
^
4
1 r^
CI
4) >
60
41 v
cr
f/
~>
CN
vO
vO
CN
CO
*^
vO
vO
rH
^
CO
CO <
0 C
°£
A"n
^1
CI
41 ^
2r?
4) ^
,
4-1
•H
O
and Sewers
VM
O
M
cd
fx
M
4)
i
pa
-------
1590
JAMES C. VAUOHN
single value of 8 on 4 days out of 365 in 1965$ 37
3 days out of 365 in 1966i and 23 days out of 365 in
4 1967. The daily average threshold odor value of 4
5 was exceeded on 7 days out of 365 in 1965; 52 days
6 out of 365 in 1966; and 35 days out of 365 in 1967.
7 The ammonia nitrogen daily average value of 0.05
8 mg/L was exceeded on 26 days out of 365 in 1965j 43
9 days out of 365 in 1966; and 67 days out of 365 in
10 1967. The phenol-like substances exceeded the single
11 value criteria 0.003 mg/L on 48 days out of 74 days
12 tested in 1965; 224 days out of 272 in 1966; and 9
13 out of 198 days in 1967. The total phosphates ex-
14 ceeded the single daily value criteria of 0.04 mg/L
la 34 days out of 166 days tested in 1965? 43 days out
16 of 266 in 1966; and 222 days out of 337 days teste|d
17 in 1967.
18 This exceeding of the criteria established
19 for the open waters of Lake Michigan is an indication
20 that the pollution of the southern end of the lake
21 certainly getting no better. The higher ammonia
22 nitrogen and total phosphate values indicate that
23 there is ample explanation for the continuing plankton
24 nuisances that we have experienced at the SWFP Intakes
25 particularly over the last three years. It had "been
hoped that the 1965 FWPCA Conference and the adoption
is
-------
1591
1 JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 of the official criteria in the January 1966 Conference
3 would result in an improvement in the quality of
4 the water in the southern end of Lake Michigan.
5 The evidence submitted here would indicate that
6 such is not the case. It is becoming increasingly
7 difficult to treat the water in such a manner as
g to produce a satisfactory drinking water. As we
9 have pointed out, it has also become very costly.
10 If the entire FWPCA program of pollution abatement
11 around Lake Michigan is to be successful, it must
12 be implemented as quickly as possible, otherwise
13 the pollution hazard in the Lake Michigan waters
14 will continue to grow. I repeat what I have said
15 before: the quality of water in the southern end
16 of Lake Michigan is steadily deteriorating; the
17 rate of degradation is rapidly increasing; and the
18 costs and difficulties of treatment are increasing.
10 If pollution is not abated to an appreciable
20 degree in this area in the near future, we may
21 find ourselves in extreme difficulty in trying
22 to produce a satisfactory quality of drinking
23 water.
24 j Thank you.
25 MR
.. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Vaughn.
-------
1592
! JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 (Applause.)
3 MR. STEIN; Are there any comments
4 or questions?
K Dr. Boruff.
o
6 DR. BORUFF: Mr, Vaughn, I am quite
_ sure I know the answer to this question, but I
g think it is pertinent to the record.
9 We have had considerable testimony
10 as to nitrogen and phosphorus loading of Lake
u Michigan from domestic, industrial and agri-
12 cultural sources. My question is, do you
13 add any chemicals in the treatment of Lake
14 Michigan water for potable uses containing
15 nitrogen and phosphorus compounds which are
16 returned to the lake by way of your wash water
17 or other streams back into Lake Michigan?
18 MR. VAUGHN: We add no material con-
19 taining phosphates. At the South waterplant
20 we use post ammoniation, which involves a
2i dosage of two-tenths parts per million of ammonia,
22 anhydrous ammonia, to perform chloramines in
23 the finished water.
24 Now, our wash water averages less than
25 two percent, so you see the total amount of ammonia
-------
K
0
JAMES C. VAUGHN
nitrogen going into the lake is a very minimum.
However, as Mr. Jardine reported on
Friday, we have understood the situation in
which we will cease to return the wash water
c and the basin flushing sediments to the lake.
D
DR. B0RUFF: Thank you, sir.
g MR. STEIN: Are there any further
9 comments or questions?
10 Mr. Poole.
n MR. POOLE: I thought I detected,
12 Jim, throughout your report, and I read it
13 yesterday and then I listened carefully today,
14 until you got up to the last page, that the
15 last half of 1967 had certainly been better
16 than 1966. Did I misunderstand you in that?
17 MR. VAUGHN: Well, to the degree that
18 there was a good period in the middle of the
19 year. October was not too good a month and
20 December was certainly a bad month, using
21 500,000 pounds. That knocked down the annual
22 average somewhat. There was five months in
23 between that.
24 But I would say that the overall
25 effect has not improved.
-------
t JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 MR. POOLE: I am merely raising that
3 because I don't quite share your view right at
the end of it. You say the rate of degradation
is rapidly increasing.
Now, if you look at your table, the
long table that you had on the screen there,
it is on page 39 (this volume page 1572), the
o
ammonia nitrogen did Increase in 1967 and the
1Q phosphates increased in 1967, but the threshold
odor was better in '67 than in '66 and th*
phenolic substances were certainly a good deal
better in '67 than in '66.
13
14 In view of that, I am not saying that
15 you have added good water, certainly, but I
16 would like to hope that the trend that apparently
.. started to develop in the latter part of '67,
18 but which went off schedule in December, I hope
19 that trend will Increase.
20 I have only one other comment. We
21 have considerable coliform data on the Dickey
22 Road Station on the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal,
23 and while we have some high ones, we don't show
24 conforms in the range that you showed on your
25 chart for an annual average. In fact, I don't
-------
1395,
I JAMES C. VAUGHF
2 think that we have any where there is a single one)
3 that is as high as your annual average. Maybe we
4 are going to have to get the laboratories together]
5 on coliforms.
6 MR. VAUGHN: You are aware that we have
7 this laboratory directors' group as a subcommittee
8 of the technical advisory committee which meets onjce
9 a month in attempting to coordinate all of the teat
10 methods. They have, I believe, 480 samples being
11 analyzed for phenols, phosphates and ammonia nitre)-
12 gen so far, and when they will get into the coli-
13 form end of it I do not know.
14 We have now officially the first of this)
15 year gone over to the membrane and filter tech-
16 nique, which we are using, as compared to the
17 multiple tube method.
18 I wish I could say that I thought that
19 there was a trend of improvement. Of course,
20 hopefully, you look at the good six months, I
21 look at the overall average, and I look particu-
22 larly at the bad December. In other words, it is
23 a case of what are you doing to us recently, and
24 I don't think it is good.
25 And for your information, we drvn't have
-------
1596
! JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 the data, but we have had a very bad January so
3 far in '68.
4 MR. STEIN: Bad in what respect? What
5 is your item? What did you find it high in,
„ coliforias, phenols, ammonia nitrogen, or what,
7 in '68?
g MR. VAUGHN: We are finding the values
9 exceed the parameters.
10 MR. STEIN: With what items, coliforias
U or the others?
12 MR. VAUGHN: The threshold odor has been
13 the bad thing in January, accompanied by high
14 ammonia nitrogens and phosphates and phenols.
15 MR. POOLE: I have Just one other
16 question, and this basically for ray enlightenment.
17 Do you think the dead alewives had
IS anything to do with the coliform content of the
19 lake? I am asking that because some of our
20 beach samples in the eastern portion of Indiana
21 took some dips after the large die-off that
22 caused me to wonder if they may have been something
23 of a factor.
24 MR. VAUGHN: I have no direct knowledge
25 of that fact. The alewives were not a problem
-------
1397
! JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 to us In '66 and '67. They were a nuisance.
3 But in '65 we put this net around the intakes
4 of the central plant, which has been very
g effective in diverting the fish. We had some
- troubles at the intakes. But I believe the
D
_ highest day in '67 was 3,100 pounds removed
8 from the streams, the intake basin of the south
9 plant.
10 We have added to the coliform bacteria
u parameter, we did this in the technical committee,
12 the total coliform and the fecal streps in order
13 to get the total picture, and I have not yet seen
14 the fecal strep-results of this past month.
15 So I don't know how they have gone.
16 But I couldn't say positively that
17 they did increase the coliform content.
18 MR. STEIN: Are there any further
19 comments or questions?
20 Mr. Oeming.
21 MR. OEMING: Mr. Vaughn, on page 4
22 of your report (this volume page 15^5) you
23 indicated that you had a maximum value of 13,000
24 coliform organisms per 100 ml in 1967. Could
25 you tell me when that maximum occurred?
-------
1598
l JAMES C. VAUGHN
MR. VAUGHN: January 25 Is the best
date I remember. It was In January,towards the
3
last week of January anyway.
MR. OEMING: I see. 0. K.
9
One other point, Mr. Vaughn. I
6
wonder, I think I heard you say that you at-
7
tributed the reduction in phenols, and I am
O
not sure, of the Calumet River to the chlori-
9 '
nation of stormwater overflows. Am I right,
did you say that?
MR. VAUGHN: I would say that the
12
reduction could be attributed to that because,
13
of course, we know chlorine has a certain
14
oxidizing effect and phenols are rather readily
15
oxidized.
16
MR. OEMING: Would you have any informa-
tion that you could present to the Conferees that
18
would indicate that anything else was responsible
A*l
20 for the reduction in phenols?
2| The reason I ask this question, Mr.
22 Vaughn, is that I have some reservations about
23 whether the chlorination of stormwater overflows
24 is foing to take very much phenol out of the
25 water by itself.
-------
1599
JAMES C. VAUGHN
„ MR. VAUGHN: Well, It could be said
£t
that there had been an abatement of pollutants
o
. in the Calumet River.
4
MR. OEMING: But you don't know that?
5
ML. VAUGHN: I don't know that.
6
MR. OEMING: 0. K., that is all I
have.
O
MR. STEIN: Mr. Vogt.
9
10 MR. VOGT: Jimmy, knowing of how you
and your associates strive to produce a high
quality of finished water, and John Bayliss*
.. before you, would you say that any of these
«. increased costs might be attributed to your
attempting to produce a higher quality of finished
pro.Suet through the years?
17 MR. VAUGHN: Well, certainly we try
18 to produce water that will satisfy the customers,
and on those very rare occasions on which we
have had taste and odors get through the plant
2i the telephone never stops ringing. We have
22 none of us put a cash value on each telephone
23 call. Mentally I have said that each telephone
24 j call costs us $1,000 in public relations effort,
25 but that is a pure guess.
* deceased
-------
1600
1 JAMES C. VAUGH1C
2 But believe me, Chicagoans have
3 become accustomed to a good water and they
4 demand It* If we don't supply It, we catch
6 the devil.
6 MR. VOGTs I realize this.
7 One other comment for clarification
8 or question for clarification. As I recall,
9 as an aside, and I don't believe it was mentioned
10 specifically In your text, you stated that the
u wind conditions and currents as described by
12 Dr. Baumgartner were a factor in these slugs.
13 Is this correctf
14 MB, VAUGHN: Yes, on a number of
15 occasions**
16 MR, VOGT? Is this a very significant
17 factor ln-~
18 MR, VAUGHSfj On a number of occasions
19 we have made wind vector analyses of the travel
20 of the slugs and they are included in special
21 reports that we have sent to the Bureau office,
22 and we find that they essentially follow the
23 pattern described by Dr. Baumgartner.
24 MR. VQCD: I see. Thank you very much.
25 I have one other comment, Mr. Stein.
-------
1601
JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 MR. STEIN: Go ahead.
3 MR. VOGT: I think this is more in the
4 nature of a comment for the record.
We were interested in determining the
experience of our water -treatment -plant operators
7 in Michigan which use Lake Michigan as a source
8 of supply to determine whether they have found
9 it increasingly difficult to produce a high
10 quality water. And we queried the superintendents,
starting with our southernmost plant at St. Joe,
Benton Harbor, South Haven, Grand Haven, and so
13 on, going up to Muskegon. And it was the con-
14 census of opinion of these people who have been
15 treating Lake Michigan water for a good many
years that they have not found—let me put it
17 in a positive way--that it is the concensus of
X8 their opinion that they have not found it
19 increasingly difficult to treat Lake Michigan
20 water and produce a high quality product
21 MR. VAUGHN: Well, I disagree--
22 MR. VOGT: And I don't mean to be
23 taking anything from Jimmy Vaughn, from Mr. Vaughn *|
24 statement here. It is Just that I think this
25 ties in with what you earlier said and also how
s
-------
1602
l JAMES C, VAUGHN
2 Wind conditions--
3 MR. VAUGHN: I think, if you recall
that chart on showing the number of days of
maximum usage, page 27 (this volume page 1574)
the fact that the maximum carbon dosage did
not follow the maximum threshold odor. In
g other words, with the maximum threshold odor,
there was still a higher maximum carbon dosage.
Our experience indicates that it has, overall
picture, "been more difficult to produce a
satisfactory water.
The change in type of odors through a
pollution period is interesting. Let's assume
15 that there are hydrocarbon odors. They are
first volatile and gassy and then they become
17 more like kerosene, and then about the fourth
18 or fifth day they smell somewhat like the lee
side of a burning garbage heap on a rainy day,
20 and that stuff is almost impossible to get out.
2i MR. VOGT: Mr. Chairman, I think the
22 only point I am making here is that the quality
23 of water at the Michigan waterworks intakes
24 hasn't shown the rate of change that Jimmy
25 has experienced here in Chicago.
-------
l6p3
! JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 MR. KLASSEN: Mr, Chairman, may I
3 ask a question of the questioner?
4 Since you mentioned Grand Haven,
5 John, would you consider that Grand Haven has
6 a Lake Michigan intake? I think they have
7 wells, infiltration galleries right on the
8 beach.
9 MR. VOGT: I didn't specifically
lO mention Grand Haven, Clarence. As you indi-
n cated, Grand Haven does "have the Raney-type
12 collector where the intake is located below
13 the bed of the lake and I wasn't considering
14 Grand Haven.
15 MR. KLASSEN: 0. K.
16 MR. STEIN: Mr. Vogt.
17 MR. VOGT: My mention was to South
18 Haven.
19 MR. KLASSEN: Oh, I am sorry.
20 MR. VOGT: Larry just reminded me
21 that I made reference to South Haven.
22 MR. STEIN: Mr. Boston.
23 MR. BOSTON: I would like to commend
24 Mr. Vaughn for a very informative report with
25 a lot of information on quality characteristics.
-------
l JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 And since the Chicago Water Department
3 has for a long period of time looked into the
4 quality of water not only at their intakes but
g have also been active in going to other parts
. of the south end of Lake Michigan and investi-
0
gating quality from various sources, I wondered
g if he had any suggestions that he might give
0 to the Conferees for surveillance in the future.
V
10 Surveillance, I think, is one of the matters or
.. subjects that the Conferees must consider very
12 seriously if we are to come through not only
.. with solutions but see that solutions are followed
14 through with and are effective in getting the
15 quality of water that we want,
lg I wondered if you had any suggestions
17 on surveillance that you would care to give to
18 the —
19 MR. VAUGHN: While our surveys of the
20 Calumet River Ship Canal area is weekly, I think
21 an increase in the number of continuous monitors
22 is certainly indicated. I don't think that the
23 continuous monitors at present that indicate
24 total dissolved solids and pH and temperature
25 are particularly significant. I would like to
-------
l6p5
! JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 see such things as ammonia nitrogen phosphates,
3 and you can't have a continuous quantitative
4 measure of threshold odor.
. We have considered the thought of
o
. equipping a boat with a threshold odor monitor,
o
which was developed originally by Mr. Gerstein
8 and revised by us, in which the water is passed
g through a heating element at 140 degrees Pahren-
10 heit and sprayed in an open top bell jar
jj and that is the way we instruct our supervising
12 engineers to Judge the water. It takes 20
13 minutes to run a threshold odor test, and with
14 no reserve storage, if we let 20 minutes of
15 bad water get by us we are in deep trouble.
16 So we have these continuously running
17 threshold odor monitors, and the supervising
18 engineer during an odor period constantly
!<> sniffs them and he is instructed to go up with
20 dispatch and down with discretion as regards
2i carbon dosage.
22 And so continuous monitoring of
23 threshold odor, phosphates and ammonia nitrogen
24 I think are certainly indicated,particularly
25 from Indiana Harbor Ship Canal area and certainly
-------
I6o6
l JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 critical points along the lakeshore, Including
3 the mouth of the Calumet River.
4 MR. POSTON: Thank you.
5 MR. STEIN: Mr. Wisniewski.
6 MR. WISNIEWSKI: I would like to ask
7 Mr. Vaughn to detail for us how the filtration
rate has changed over the years at his plant.
Are you filtering through at higher rates than
you did formerly?
u MR. VAUGHN: Well, the averages of
the waterplant have increased by about three
13 percent per year. The maximum days have in-
creased at a somewhat greater rate. That is
why we expanded the south plant 50 percent.
However, we now have a total of 2,600 million
17 gallons per day filtration capacity and we have
18 not approached that on any day yet.
On a certain day in 1965» for reasons
20 not mentionable here, we reached a maximum hour
21 of some 1,700 million gallons. But that was not
22 normal consumption of water.
23 MR. STEIN: Are there any further
24 comments or questions?
25 Mr. Vaughn, I think you have given a
-------
1607
1 JAMES C. VAUGHK
2 very interesting statement. As I understand
3 this from the data,Mr. Poole's comments and
4 possibly Michigan's, we still do not have
5 any glorious unanimity in the determination
6 of whether we are having accelerated degra-
7 dation as dependent on water-treatment
g plants. Another fact that has come out
9 which we should check—since we have had
10 that technical committee working on the tough
11 items like ammonia—is that we have sort of
12 let the coliforms take care of themselves
13 because that is an old type of test. My
14 experience through the country is that when
15 we use the multiple tube test and not a
16 membrane filter test we are likely to get
17 disparity of results on the coliforms between
18 two groups such as Mr. Poole and you people
19 indicated. I am hopeful that we can come up with
20 uniform techniques and at least have the same figures
21 Then I have one question. I know
22 that the oil companies in Indiana have put in
23 a considerable amount of treatment facilities
24 since we started this Conference. What always
25 puzzled me is why this wasn't reflected more in
-------
1608
1 JAMES C. VAUGHN
2 the quality of the water intake that you indicate.
3 MR. VAUGHN: May I add one final state-
4 ment?
5 It is hoped that in the words of the
Q song from the Man from La Mancha that we have
7 not dreamed the impossible dream; that we are
8 not attempting to right an unrightable wrong.
9 Thank you, gentlemen.
10 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
11 (Laughter and applause.)
12 MR. STEIN: For the present, we have
13 two Congressional statements, which are going
14 to be relatively brief, from Congressman Rosten-
15 kowski and Congressman Pucinski. A close
16 associate of theirs and ours will read their
17 statements, Mr. Peter Kuh.
18 Mr. Kuh .
19
FEDERAL PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
20
21 MR. KUH: Thank you, Mr. Stein.
22 I know that both Congressman Rosten-
23 kowski and Congressman Pucinski were extremely
24 [ anxious to be here. They had planned to present
25 these statements in person on Friday afternoon,
-------
1609
1 CONGRESSMAN ROSTENKOWSKI
2 and the extended Congressional debate on the
3 Truth in Lending legislation made it impossible
4 to get to Chicago in time.
5 I would also like to say that I am
6 on the staff of Secretary Edwards' office, but
7 my reading Congressman Rostenkowski's statement
8 does not indicate either Administration approval
9 or disapproval of certain legislative proposals
10 which he includes in his statement.
11
12 STATEMENT OF
13 THE HONORABLE DAN ROSTENKOWSKI
14 U. S. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
15 STATE OF ILLINOIS
16
17 Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate
18 you and the distinguished Governors for calling
19 this timely conference on the problems of Lake
20 Michigan. It is mutual cooperation and an
21 understanding of the problem that faces us that
22 is required to rectify a bad situation that is
23 growing worse from day to day.
24 I have studied with growing concern
25 the reports of how Lake Michigan is being daily
-------
i6io
1 CONGRESSMAN ROSTENKOWSKI
2 flooded with domestic and Industrial wastes,
3 with acids and oil, with detergents and debris
4 and with the discharge from large ocean-going
5 vessels and the myriad of pleasure craft.
6 Today practically every important
7 water resource in this country is already
g polluted to some extent. Some of our rivers
9 are little better than open sewers. Lake Erie
10 is itself threatened with extinction from
n pollution. This has not just happened over-
12 night, it has taken many years of neglect for
13 the problems of the Great Lakes to attain their
14 present state of crisis.
15 A great Justice of the Supreme Court,
16 Oliver Wendell Holmes, more than three decades
17 ago made the observation,
18 "A river is more than an amenity, it is
!9 a treasure."
20 One wonders what superlatives he would
21 have supplied had his remarks been directed to an
22 evaluation of Lake Michigan.
23 With all due respect to Justice Holmes,
24 the full value of Lake Michigan to the four States
25 which border on its shores cannot be calculated.
-------
1611
1 CONGRESSMAN ROSTENKOWSKI
2 Its many uses can be counted, but its many
3 treasures are irreplaceable.
4 It is the source of our drinking
6 water, our electric power, and our fishing
6 industry. It is the key to our commercial
7 growth and the arena of our recreational
8 activity. It also, in addition to these
9 wonderful attributes, is becoming the garbage
10 disposal unit of the Midwest.
H My constituents have written me
12 numerous letters asking me to do something
13 to save our lake. I have tried to do Just
14 that by introducing two bills during the first
15 session of the 90th Congress. The problems
16 of pollution are many and I'm sure that no one
17 understands all the ramifications. But in the
18 case of a lake, where there is no current which
19 will flush away the results of our pollution,
20 our only alternative is to stop the causes of
21 pollution as soon as possible.
22 The bills I introduced call for (1)
23 a halt in the dumping of untreated sewage into
24 the lakes from the lake port cities; (2) a halt
25 in discharge of untreated sewage and dredging
-------
1612
1 CONGRESSMAN ROSTENKOWSKI
2 from Federal installations; (3) a halt in the
3 discharge from boats and vessels; (4) a halt
4 in the use of detergents; and (5) an extension
5 of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, to cover all
Q types of oil discharge into our waters.
7 To encourage industry, I introduced
8 a tax incentive, allowing a tax credit for the
9 cost of erecting and installing a water pollution
!0 control facility. I am hopeful that, even though
n it is believed that once a lake becomes polluted
12 it can never be reclaimed, this tax credit may
13 inspire the development of a device to restore
14 the proper oxygen content to the water.
15 I stand ready to cooperate with you,
16 Mr. Chairman, and with the Governors of each
17 State here represented to effect whatever is
lg found to be necessary to secure success in our
19 common endeavor.
20 - - -
21 STATEMENT OF
22 THE HONORABLE ROMAN C. PUCINSKI
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
23 STATE OF ILLINOIS
24 I am happy to have this opportunity
25 to present my views on the pollution problems
-------
1613
CONGRESSMAN PUCINSKI
of Lake Michigan and on the urgent need for
action.
_ake Michigan is a valuable natural
resource which we are slowly loosing to misuse
and to pollution of many types: for instance,
to municipal, industrial and shipping wastes;
plant nutrients, phosphates and nitrates;
9 pesticides, insecticides and herbicides;
10 detergents; salts, acids and sludges; petro-
chemical and chemical residues; and heat.
12 If Lake Michigan suffers the same
13 fate as Lake Erie, the whole region will suffer
14 and, in fact, it is beginning now to feel the
15 effects of our misuse and our mistakes in water
16 and waste management.
17 I regard this Conference as a critical
18 landmark in our continuing uphill fight to pro-
19 tect, preserve and improve the quality of Lake
20 Michigan's waters.
21 To date, we have based much of our
22 economic growth on this great resource, on its
23 fisheries and recreational and transportation
24 potential, and on the fact that it has been a
25 convenient sink for our untreated wastes.
-------
1614
1 CONGRESSMAN PUCINSKI
2 But these untreated wastes are now
3 endangering many other uses of the lake.
4 Eventually these wastes will endanger our
5 economic growth itself if we do not act now
6 to prevent pollution, to limit the damage it
7 creates, and to restore the environment that it
g has damaged.
9 The future projected trends in popu-
10 lation, in industrial and economic growth, in
11 demands for water for municipal use, outdoor
12 recreation and fish and wildlife use, and the
13 trends in the creation of waste products--
14 all point to a deepening pollution crisis for
15 Lake Michigan if we do not act soon to prevent
16 pollution and to clean it up where it occurs.
17 I am happy to see, at this Conference,
18 such great interest on the part of the press,
19 the public, private individuals and organi-
20 zations as well as by Federal, State and local
21 governments.
22 For if we are to prevent further damage
23 to Lake Michigan, the active cooperation and
24 effort of all groups--public and private, govern-
25 ment and non-goverment--will be necessary, now
-------
1615
1 CONGRESSMAN PUCINSKI
2 and in the future.
3 The massive die-offs of alewives
4 in Lake Michigan are causing great losses to
5 our cities, industries, and recreational and
6 tourist businesses. Before next summer,
7 when we may again experience massive pollution
8 of our beaches by alewives, we need to act to
9 prepare for these pollution problems which
10 arose this past summer, but for which we were
11 not ready.
12 I realize that we do not know enough
13 about alewives and that there is need for more
14 study and knowledge. But I think we know enough
15 now and have had enough experience in removal
16 and disposal of dead alewives to be ready for
17 the cleanup and removal operations which will
18 probably be necessary next summer.
19 But even while we use our existing
20 knowledge to prepare to clean up the alewife
21 pollution which will probably continue to
22 plague Lake Michigan's shores, we should also
23 be acting to bring the whole alewife population
24 in the Great Lakes into better balance through,
25 for instance, introduction of predators.
-------
1616
1 CONGRESSMAN PUCINSKI
2 Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Conference
3 must recommend actions which will prevent Lake
Michigan's becoming another Lake Erie.
As I see it, we do not have much time.
Lake Michigan, perhaps, is in the same condition
and under the same threat as was Lake Erie some
decades ago. And if we do not act promptly and
effectively today, decades from now, Lake Michi-
gan--with its slow circulation patterns—may
well become another dying lake.
12 You have my full support, and I wish
13 you much success. The Congress and the public
will be watching and waiting for progress
15
16 MR. KUH: Thank you.
17 MR. STEIN: Thanic you.
18 ¥e have one short telegram here
addressed to the Chairman:
20 "in behalf of the people of Hyde Park
2i and Woodlawn, who live at the very edge of Lake
22 Michigan, who have watched its water become more
23 polluted, the noxious algae more luxuriant, and
24 the beaches more offensive than ever, and who
25 have seen these conditions deteriorate not only
-------
1617
1 ILLINOIS PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
2 during the last ten years but especially in the
last two years since the previous Federal Con-
ference to end pollution in Lake Michigan, I
urge you to set high standards and enforce them
without further delay.
Signed "Leon M. Despres, Alderman,
Fifth Ward, City of Chicago."
O
9 If we may continue with the Illinois
Presentation.
11
12 ILLINOIS PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
13
14 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am
15 keeping track of the Federal time, and we will
16 ask equal time for Illinois.
17 We had rescheduled from Friday the
18 presentation from the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago by President Egan.
20 * have Just been informed that Mr. Egan has not
21 been released from the hospital and so we are
22 rescheduling this hopefully for tomorrow.
23 At a specific request, because of a
24 tight schedule, we want to work in a very short
25 statement here from the Illinois State Medical
-------
1618
CLARKE W. MANGUN, JR.
2 Society that has been working very closely with
3 us, and this will be given by Dr. Clarke Mangun
on behalf of the Illinois State Medical Society.
I think he is Chairman of their Environmental
Committee, and formerly Regional Director for
7 HEW, Public Health Service.
8
9 STATEMENT OP CLARKE W. MANGUN, JR.,M.D.
10 CHAIRMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE
n ILLINOIS STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY
12
13 DR. MANGUN: Mr. Chairman, ladies and
14 gentlemen
15 This statement is a summary of an
16 article to be published in the Illinois Medical
17 Journal, which has been approved by the Council
18 on Scientific Advancement and the Board of
19 Trustees of the Illinois State Medical Society
20 The article and this summary, therefore, repre-
21 sent an official statement of policy of the
22 Illinois State Medical Society.
23 Physicians have an interest in clean
24 water. We are concerned and alarmed by informatior.
25 in the news media and scientific publications
-------
1619
I CLARKE W. MANGUN, JR.
2 that tell of increasing pollution of Lake
3 Michigan. We estimate that the population
4 of Illinois that uses Lake Michigan water
5 constitutes only 1.5 percent of the world
6 population, yet the water in Lake Michigan
7 constitutes about 7 percent of all the fresh
g surface liquid water in the world. This
9 natural resource must not be lost.
lO As physicians we can understand how
11 the demands of population growth, urbanization,
12 industrialization and economics have exceeded
13 the technology and resources of water pollution
14 control agencies in their efforts to preserve
15 the high quality of Lake Michigan water. The
16 effects on health of some substances that may
17 be present in some public water supplies is
18 fairly well known, whether they are present in
19 insufficient, optimal or excessive amounts.
20 However, the effect on health of many other
21 substances is not known, whether they are old
22 or new, present now or likely to be present in
23 the future, in any amount or for any period of
24 time. Water pollution from new industrial
25 processes, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides
-------
1620
1 CLARKE W. MAN3UN, JR.
2 and fertilizers are examples of these unknowns.
3 The Illinois State Medical Society
4 believes that its members can be of service to
5 the public in three ways in water pollution
Q control:
7 1. As individual citizens we can
g give carefully considered support
9 to water pollution control as a
10 public policy and take individual
11 responsibility not to pollute public
12 waters as we may use them.
13 2. As professional persons with a
14 scientific education, we can help
15 inform the citizenry that as consumers
16 and taxpayers clean water has a cost
17 that must be paid. Joining in the
18 clamor for clean water is easy, but
19 paying higher costs for consumer
20 products or voting higher rates for
21 water and sewage treatment requires
22 a courageous and Informed citizenry.
23 The Illinois State Medical Society is
24 on record as supporting the one billion
25 dollar bond issue for pure water, clean
-------
„
1621
CLARKE W. MAN GUN, JR.
air and recreational purposes which
0 will be voted upon on November 5,
O
1968 in Illinois.
4
_ 3. As practicing physicians with a
5
crucial responsibility for the diag-
6
nosis, treatment and prevention of
disease, we may be the first to sus-
o
pect or confirm an effect on health
9
from water pollution. We will remain
alert to this possibility in our con-
tinuing cooperation and support of the
12
13 public health. It is conceivable that
14 the ultimate and overriding effects of
.. continued water pollution will be on
16 the health of the people rather than
17 being economic or esthetic.
18 We thank you for this opportunity to
19 appear at this hearing and offer our support.
20 Thank you .
2i MR. STEIN: Thank you, Dr. Mangun. It
22 is good to see you again.
23 Are there any comments or questions?
24 (No response.)
25 MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much,
-------
_ 1622
DR. ALLAN FILER
2 sir-
3 MR. KLASSEN: Continuing up the north
shore beyond Chicago, and as a corollary tc
g the Chicago Water Department presentation, we
. have three short presentations here regarding
health and water supply.
g The first will be given by the Director
_ of the Evanston City Health Department, who I
10 think will also make the presentation, a brief
one, on behalf of the Evanston Superintendent
12 of Water and Sewers. It will be given by Dr.
13 Allan Fllek.
14
15 STATEMENT OF DR. ALLAN FILEK
16 PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR
17 EVANSTON NORTH SHORE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
18
DR. FILEK: Thank you, Mr. Klassen.
20 Mr. Stein, Conferees, ladies and
21 gentlemen.
22 I will read the statement by Mr. Frye
23 first, if you don't mind.
24
25
-------
1623
1 DR. ALLAN PILEK
2 STATEMENT ON THE EVANSTON WATER SUPPLY
3 For Presentation at
4 Lake Michigan Four State Conference
5 by
5 H. R. Frye, Superintendent
Water and Sewer Department
7 Evanston, Illinois
8 The entire water supply for the City
9 of Evanston and the Village of Skokie is obtained
10 from Lake Michigan and treated in a modern fil-
11 tration plant at the foot of Lincoln Street in
12 Evanaton. The combined area served is 18.3
13 square miles and the population is approximately
14 160,000.
15 Lake pollution and a high typhoid rate
16 caused Evanston to construct and place in opera-
17 tion in 191^ the first municipal water treatment
18 plant in this area. Diversion of untreated
19 sewage from the lake and the construction of
20 sewage treatment plants by the Metropolitan
21 Sanitary District greatly improved the quality
22 of water taken in at the Evanston intakes and for
23 many years Evanston enjoyed a water supply which
24 was comparatively inexpensive to treat.
25 While the raw water quality has not
-------
1624
1 DR. ALLAN PILEK
2 reached the high intensity of pollution experi-
3 enced by plants located adjacent to industrial
4 or municipal waste sources, the rate at which
5 the various indicators of pollution are increasing
6 is alarming. As an example, the amount of alumi-
7 num sulphate required in the treatment plant to
8 produce an acceptable water has increased from
9 86 pounds per million gallons in 1957 to 125
lO pounds per million gallons in 1967. This repre-
H sents a dosage increase of 45 percent and a
12 treatment cost increase of $.8l per million
13 gallons.
14 Similar increases have been experienced
15 in two other treatment chemicals, chlorine and
16 activated carbon, both of which .are required in
17 greater amounts as water quality decreases.
18 Chlorine requirements have increased
19 from an average of 10 pounds to 15 pounds per
20 million gallons, or 50 percent between 1959 and
21 1967.
22 Activated carbon, which must be applied
23 in greater amounts as tastes and odors increase,
24 averaged only 20 pounds per million gallons in
25 1957 and now averages 35 pounds per million gallons
-------
1625
1 DR. ALLAN FILEK
2 This 75 percent increase in dosage represents
3 $1.59 per million gallon greater treatment coat.
4 While the increases in coliform counts,
5 plankton, chlorine demand, ammcnia nitrogen,
g chlorides, taste and odor, etc., are all warning
7 signs of the degradation of our water supply,
g another sign is more apparent to the public. For
9 the last five years the growth of a filamentous
10 algae known as Cladophora along the shores has
11 become an annual nuisance on our beaches and
12 shoreline. As far as the water works is concerned,
13 it is more than a nuisance, it is expensive to
14 control and may endanger the water supply.
15 The water intakes empty into two intake
16 wells equipped with stationary screens through
17 which the water must flow to reach the pumps.
18 Clogging of the screens with the algae keeps a
19 crew of laborers busy for several weeks in the
20 summer, raising the screens manually and washing
21 them off with water Jets. Sudden clogging during
22 the night hours could create an emergency. To
23 assure a constant supply during these periods, the
24 Evanston City Council has authorized an expendi-
25 ture of $55,000 for the installation of traveling
-------
1626
1 DR. ALLAN FILER
2 screens in the intake wells.
3 The screens will also remove fish or
4 other debris from the incoming water and protect
5 the plant against a sudden deluge of alewives.
6 While Evans ton1s water problems to date
7 have been less than those closer to the sources
8 of pollution, our experience and observations
9 indicate that the effects of pollution have not
10 leveled off but are still increasing, and further
11 intensified efforts toward the elimination of the
12 sources of contamination is strongly urged.
13 DR. PILEK: Now, that is the end of
14 Mr. Horace Frye's presentation, except that the
15 report does contain three charts on the increase
16 in aluminum sulphate, carbon and chlorine.
17 MR. STEIN: Those charts will be
18 included with his statement in the record.
19 (Which said charts are as follows:)
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1627
RISE IN CHEMICAL APPLICATION
AT
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ALUMINIUM SULPHATE
12$ 1
O
57 '58 '55 '60 'Gl '62 '63 '64 '65 'G&
'YEAR
'&7
-------
1628
RISE IN CHEMICAL APPLICATION
AT
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
.CARBON
40 i
10
'57 '58 '58 '60
'61 '62 'S3
YEAR
'G4- 'G5 '6& '67
-------
1629
RISE IN CHEMICAL APPLICATION
AT
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CHLORINE
IT:.
o
or
cO
O
Z
O
OL
'17 '58
'60
'6J '62 '63
YEAR
'64 '65 '66 '67
-------
1630
1 DR. ALLAN FILEK
2 MR, STEIN: At this point, I would
3 like to make an observation.
4 Evidently the statement of Mr. Prye
5 confirms Mr. Vaughn's statement on the increase
6 in cost. I don't know, maybe the cities of
7 Illinois are not on the lucky side of the lake,
8 and the Michigan cities may be luckier.
9 Except you raise another question,
10 *nd this is the Cladophora or the algal growth.
11 Abner Mikva came up, and he said he had a summer
12 place in Michigan and for the first time he saw
13 the algal growth on the Michigan side. And I
14 think from Dr. Baumgartner's testimony, if I
15 understood it and read it correctly, any effect
16 on one side of the lake is going to affect the
17 other.
18 So this is a point that the Conferees
19 might consider. I don't see that boundary line
20 we have there being anything other than an
21 imaginary line drawn by man.
22 Are there any other comments?
23 (No response.)
24 MR. STEIN: If not, would you continue,
25 Doctor.
-------
1631
l IDR. ALLAN FILEK
2 DR. FILEK: Thank you. I will preface
„ my remarks by saying that the next portion of our
o
4 report is obtained from our staff as well as that
. from the Department of Parks and Recreation of the
5
_ City of Evanston through its Director, Tom Carlson,
D
and his assistant, Don Heaps.
a LAKE MICHIGAN FOUR STATE CONFERENCE
O
FROM EVANSTON-NORTH SHORE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
10 January 25, 1968
u The beach area that is the Evanston-
12 North Shore Jurisdiction, which includes Evanston,
13 Kenilworth, Glencoe and Winnetka, covers approxl-
14 mately nine miles of shoreline and is used almost
15 exclusively for bathing, sunning, swimming and
16 boating.
17 Beach water samples from 11 public
18 beaches were analyzed weekly, using the membrane
19 filter technique by the Health Department Labora-
20 tory. Analysis was for total coliform, fecal
21 coliform and fecal streptococcus. The results
22 varied widely at times and although there were
23 no reported cases or other evidence of significant!
24 disease arising from bathing in the water at the
25 public beaches, the bacterial counts wer« sometimes
-------
1632
1 DR. ALLAN FILER
2 higher than established standards.
3 A total of eight natural ravines that
4 are fed by storm sewers runoff empty into Lake
5 Michigan.. There are six storm sewer outlets
Q emptying into the lake. In addition, Northwestern
7 University has a stornrwater sewer system con-
g sisting of seven storm sewers located at various
9 intervals along the campus.
10 The summer of 196? was an unusual one
11 with a heavy infestation of dead alewives floating
12 to the shore with a resulting health problem of
13 maggots, flies and odors. In some areas this
14 was followed by an influx or, at least, an in-
15 crease in complaints about rats. Over the last
16 three years, there has been a notable increase
17 in algae in all of the eleven beach areas, with one
18 beach showing an extremely heavy increase.
19 One result of this contamination of
20 public beaches by decaying dead fish was the loss
21 of summer recreation opportunities for the Evanston
22 North Shore communities. In addition to the five
23 beach custodians and one sand cleaning machine
24 operator, 50 to 75 percent of the Evanston life-
25 guard staff of 33 guards received alternate
-------
1633
1 DR. ALLAH FILER
2 assignments of wielding rakes, shovels, fishing
3 seines and other equipment In an attempt to clean
4 the beaches of dead fish. Only a skeleton staff
5 was kept on lifeguard duty.
5 It became apparent that the efforts of
7 the normal beach staff was not adequate, as
g decayed fish, maggots and black flies, along
9 with an unpleasant odor,made the lakefront, in-
10 eluding beaches and riprap areas, practically
11 a "no man's land." In Evanston, the personnel
12 of the Forestry Division were assigned to spray
13 heavily every square foot of Evans ton's five
14 beach areas with Malathion. Equipment normally
15 used to spray elm trees was employed. Six to
16 ten men worked four to six days to complete this
17 assignment. Six to eight Park Division men were
18 assigned to the lakefront to aid in the raking,
19 collecting in piles, and removing the dead fish
20 from the lakefront. Special wide floatation tires
21 were purchased for a department Jeep to enable
22 operation on the soft sand in this fish removal
23 program. These men worked approximately ten days
24 on this assignment. One crew of four men continued
25 working half days by assignment as needed until
-------
1634
DR. ALLAN FILEK
Labor Day.
A commercial helicopter spray company
was employed to spray all of the Evanston lake-
front area, including the beach near the water
line and the stone riprap areas twice each week for
a three-week emergency period, and then once each
week for the balance of the beach season ending
9 on Labor Day.
10 In the rest of the North Shore areas
served by us, we had complaints from private
12 citizens. A helicopter was employed once a week
13 for two weeks to spray all of the beach area and
part of the shoreline including not only the
15 public beaches, but private property.
It is impossible to state an overall
17 cost caused by the dead alewives on the beaches
during the 1967 season. These costs were both
19 financial and in loss of opportunity for wonderful
20 summer recreation normally afforded at North Shore
21 beaches. In addition to funds expended for summer
22 beach maintenance, the Parks and Recreation Depart-
23 ment of Evans ton lost heavily from reduced beach
24 revenue, as the public stopped buying season beach
25 tokens. Only a part of the emergency services of
-------
1635.
! DR. ALLAN FILEK
2 Park and Forestry personnel were charged to beach
3 maintenance.
4 The 1967 budget for beach maintenance
5 was $2,500. Expenditures for 196? were estimated
6 at $6,000. The 1967 anticipated beach revenue was
7 $67,866, and actual beach revenue was $56,333*
8 Evanston, the 1966 beach attendance was 346,583>
9 while 1967 beach attendance was 204,029.
10 Dead alewives washed onto the Evanston
H boat ramp areas also resulted in added maintenance
12 costs and in greatly reduced use of the ramps.
13 The 1966 boat ramp registrations totaled 301, and
14 the 1967 registrations totaled 258.
15 The total beach attendance in the Evan-
16 ston-North Shore area served by this health juris-
17 diction was reduced from 680,546 in 1966, to
18 368,244 in 1967, a 46 percent reduction. Boat
19 launching dropped in the Evans ton-North Shore area
20 from 7,046 in 1966 to 5,407 in 1967, a 23 percent
21 reduction.
22 Attached are the results of sampling of
23 beaches served by the Evanston-North Shore Health
24 j Department for 1967 on a weekly basis, and the
25 annual average bacterial results from 1962 through
-------
1636
1 DR. ALLAN FILER
2 1967. The high conform count average for 196?
3 was that of the Lee Street Beach. This beach also
4 showed the highest average for the six-year
5 analysis, although other beaches exceeded counts
6 at this beach in other years, e.g., Greenwood
7 and Clark Street beaches.
8
LAKE POLLUTION
9
10 Our Evanston Board of Health and our
11 North Shore Municipalities Advisory Health Council,
12 not to mention other local citizens, are quite
13 concerned about lake pollution, especially beach
14 pollution. They have asked for a stepped-up
15 program of surveillance which Involves our sani-
16 tatlon and laboratory divisions. We hear that the
17 State is adding or has added men to its staff,
18 indicating their concern also. We believe there
19 is a need for cooperation and coordination in order
20 to avoid duplication. This is a two-way street.
21 We would like to suggest that the Involved parties
22 get together to work out a plan, so man-hours can
23 be saved and yet get the Job done that needs doing
24 in this connection,
25 These communities also seem to think we
-------
: 163?
1 DR. ALLAN PILIK
2 are the experts In the field and should be In a
3 position to tell them when our beaches are too
4 polluted for safe bathing. We'd appreciate help
5 in making this determination. Perhaps this is
6 not the group that can give us the answers, but
7 we'd like to apply uniform standards so we don't
8 close our beaches under one set of rules, perhaps
9 our own, when other beaches with counts as high
10 or higher, remain open. So far, we have not been
n able to correlate bacterial counts with any in-
12 crease in illnesses such as eye, nose, throat, or
13 ear infections, lung diseases or intestinal tract
14 upsets. We are, however, in the business of pre-
15 ventlon, so we do not desire to wait until in-
16 creases do occur before taking action, but we
17 would like more help in the determinations that
18 need to be made. As I read and interpret present
19 standards, it is impossible to tell when pollution
20 is of such a magnitude that lake water is actually
21 detrimental to health. Possibly we need more re-
22 search in this area, but until then we would
23 appreciate any help we can get in this area.
24 I Thank you, gentlemen, for this oppor-
25 tunity of making this statement and appearing
before you.
-------
EVANSTON-NORTH SHORE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Division of Environmental Health
Annual Average Bacterial Results of
Bathing Beach Samples
1638
1962
L_ '- ^vd.
-,C. 1900
-,C.
1\^ 280
•- - -. c-
:\c , 1300
?.c.
?.S. 1^20
•- ~r."ccd
-.0. 960
- ' i *™
-'.£. 3U8
--,.r:, St<
T.C. 800
/-i 1
;.£. - 302
." • ".."ouse
. „ : , 960
•* !
22li
1
j 1963
810
-
Tio
530
-
39
690
-
37
830
-
16
870
-
«
1961i
630
-
115
880
-
Ul
690
-•
33
770
-
25
530
-
30
1965
lii,000
-
Ii6
18,000
-
8
39,000
-
22
32,000
-
32
2,800
-
28
1966
1,700
32
2h
6,000
63
12
700
16
11
!
800
86
60
800
16
Hi
1967
81t,000
7U
51*
156,000
35
7U
30,000 "
31
13
31,000
87
33
UU,ooo
U5
25
1968
p
1969
l
1970
1
i
j
-------
EyANSTON-NORTH SHORE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Division of Environmental Health
Annual Average Bacterial Results of
Bathing Beach Samples
1639
196h
Ks--^V arth T.C.
F.C.
F.S.
T" -v mm
-
-
Xi-oie
-
-
11 CYC —
-
-
•- T ••* —
-
-
~^ - .' —
-
I
1965
5,000
«•
h8
16,000
-
100
6,700
-
5o
6,100
-
U2
U,IiOO
-
iou
12,000
-
uu
1966
700
30
31
2,200
212
100
900
88
29
1,200
290
17
3,300
60
27
800
97
23
1967
2U,000
31
18
61,000
136
1,072
iil,000
90
51
53,ooo
nu
Ul
UU,ooo
83
137
U3,ooo
95
28
1966
1969
?„.. - Total Coliform F.C. - Fecal Coliform F.S. - Fecal Strep
-------
1640
CO
I
CO
H a
4 .9>
4? «
5
O
6 W
3
w
" •§
CO
(M
CM
*
CM
CM
a
CO
a
8
CO*
ft
1
a
CM
CM
CM
CM
&
§
CM
CM
OO
£
a
s
H
V
$
w
\f\
\1\
OO
CM
s
XA
XA
XA
XA
a
§
£
8
8
8
O
r-l
V
OO
VO
XA
VO
OO
S
XA
CM
CM
XA
XA
S
OO
OJ
VO
ON
OO
a
ON
H
XA
\O
XA
CO
CM
O
ON
\O
CO
XA
XA
r-l
XA
O
CM
XA
CM
o
C\l
O
CM
O
CM
CM
CJ
fe?
E-
XA
XA
O
a
1 *
j
a
H
V
o
•
E-i
i
•
CO
o co
4)
-P
CO
o
-P
•&
-------
1641
CO
CM
H
CM
CM
s
8
8
vo
*
X)
vo
CO
CM
8
CM
<•
CM
5?
s
CO,
VO
8
ON
CM
8
CM
3
XA
fi
CM
O
0
CM
s
CO
CM
&
S
NO
CM
CM
CO
CM
I
§
CO*
0
o
ON
CVJ
s
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
O
CO
XA
CM
CM
o\
CO
CM
0
c?\
o
g
3
VO
CM
*
CO
VO
CM
8
VO
VO
CM
CM
l-l
VO
a
w.
VO
OO
OJ
8
r^
CO
ON
v\
o
CO
1A
CM
CO
VN
O
:M
CM
H
S
1A
CM
1A
o\
en
vO
S
V !
c\
O
O
o
CM
vO
iH|
1
I
S
si*
I
vO
CM
Vf\
CM
a
o
CM
CM
CM
CM-
CM
1
o
s
CM
O
CM
S
s
O
8.
v\
CM
O
I
i*
5
1
OT
a)
o
o
CO
H
P*
•s
Ǥ
0)
1
1
1
Pu
O
f3
-------
1 DR. ALLAN FILER
2 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Doctor.
3 Are there any comments or questions?
4 I think that we got two points, one
5 when you had to put all the lifeguards working
Q on clearing that up, and you Just had a skeleton
7 staff on lifeguard duty. I guess they didn't
3 have much to do; there weren't many people coming
9 down.
10 The other point is something I think
ll we really have to look at. Sometimes I think
12 we meet ourselves coming and going, because I
13 recognize that you had to take heroic measures
14 when you had these alewives on the beach. Surely
15 we have to think of something better. And your
16 description of maggots and dead flies is well
17 taken.
18 But the control measure of putting a
19 pesticide such as Malathion on a beach area where
20 the runoff is to the lake is suspect, and we are
21 all g6ing to have to come up with something a
22 little better than that, because that certainly isn
23 the way to clean up pollution.
24 DR. FILER: I don't like to take up too
25 much time, Mr. Stein, but I could detail
-------
1643
1 DR. ALLAN FILEK
2 this maggot problem a little bit more if you
3 don't mind.
4 We had one citizen on the North Shore,
5 I think from Glencoe, call and explain that she
6 couldn't see the trees In her back yard, they
7 were so black with flies. Well, I subtracted
8 a little bit from the statement, but I am sorry
9 I didn't go out with our sanitarian, because
10 when he came back he said that was no exaggeration,
H you couldn't see the trees for the flies.
12 MR« STEIN: Thank you.
13 Mr. Klassen.
14 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, this is a
15 two-page statement that will not be read, merely
16 by title. It is from the Superintendent of the
17 Waukegan Water Utility, and is merely being
18 submitted for the record.
19 MR. STEIN: This will be inserted in
20 the record at this point'without objection as if
21 read.
22 (Which said statement is as follows:}
23
24 WAUKEGAN
25 COMBINED WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT
-------
! WAUKEGAN WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT
2 WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
3 January 26, 1968
4 Mr. C. W. Klassen, Technical Secretary
Illinois State Sanitary Water Board
6 State Office Building
400 South Spring Street
6 Springfield, Illinois 62706
7 Dear Mr. Klassen:
8 The Waukegan Water Utility welcomes
9 the opportunity to present a few of our observa-
10 tions on Lake Michigan pollution to the Four
u State Conference. We believe that this Conference
12 will be effective in the creation of additional
13 protective measures against pollution of the lake.
14 It is regretful that proper steps to abate lake
15 pollution were not instituted thirty years ago
16 when the problems were not as complicated or as
17 widespread as today.
18 At the present time, Waukegan depends
19 entirely upon Lake Michigan for its source of
20 water supply. It is certain that in the future,
21 even greater volumes of water will be required
22 for our growing industrial area. For this reason
23 it is imperative that this source of water supply
24 remain relatively free from all types of contaml-
25 nation, so as to protect the health and safety of
-------
1645
1 WAUKEGAN WATEB AND SEWER DEPARTMENT
2 our future citizens.
3 From water analysis made at our labora-
4 tory during the past 38 years it appears that there
5 is an Increase in the rate of decay of Lake Michi-
6 gan, in our area. There has been a noticeable
7 increase in chlorides, soluble organic materials
g and chlorine demand of the raw lake water. In
9 addition, new chemicals such as phosphates, cer-
10 tain heavy metals and others have become evident
11 at times in late years. Our old problems from
12 phenol-like substances and other odor-producing
13 organic compounds still cause complaints from our
14 consumers at times.
15 Bacteriological contamination, which
16 has caused much concern In past years, has greatly
17 decreased in the last two years. This is due to
18 a more effective and efficient treatment of
19 domestic sewage in our area and the relocation
20 of our intake cribs. In the future, the proposed
21 plans of the North Shore Sanitary District will
22 remove all bacteriological pollution from the lake
23 in our area, except surface runoff water.
24 At the present time we are preturbed
25 about the future possibility of thermal and
-------
1646
l WAUKEGAN WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT
2 radionuclides pollution of Lake Michigan. To our
knowledge, this type of contamination is relatively
new to the water works profession and there is no
_ way to combat it at our level. We hope that
5
serious consideration will be given to the effects
6
that this type of pollution will have upon the
future operation of water treatment plants.
O
We would suggest that all water treat-
V
ment personnel in plants using Lake Michigan as a
source of supply be given the opportunity to work
12 with and to be a part of the program of cleaning
up Lake Michigan.
14 Yours very truly,
(Signed) L.C. Dorake
15 L. C. Dorake, Supt.
Waukegan Water Utility
16
17 MR. KLASSEtfJ I believe it is public
18 information as reported in the press the past sever
weeks of the interest of the Chamber of Commerce
20 and Industry in all of the four Lake Michigan
States. They had a meeting here in Chicago, as was
22 reported in the press, and we are privileged now
23 to have a brief statement by the Chicago Associa-
24 tion of Commerce and Industry, hopefully giving
25 the views of the Chambers of Commerce. This will
-------
164?
1 THOMAS Of. AYERS
2 be presented by Thomas 0. Ayers, President of
3 the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry.
4 Mr. Ayers.
5
6 STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. AYERS
7 PRESIDENT, CHICAGO ASSOCIATION
8 OP COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
9 and PRESIDENT
10 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
11 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
12
13 MR. AYERS: Thank you, Mr. Klassen.
14 I am Thomas G, Ayers, President of
15 Commonwealth Edison Company. On January 12, 1968,
16 Chambers of Commerce representatives from the
17 major cities bordering Lake Michigan, together
18 with manufacturers' associations and other eon-
19 cerned civic and business leaders of the four-
20 State area met with a State water official of
21 one of the four States and a representative from
22 the Department of Interior to consider how they
23 I might help in controlling pollution and upgrading
24 the water quality of Lake Michigan.
25 Toward this end, the meeting considered
-------
. 1648,
1 THOMAS G. AYERS
2 (1) nature of the Lake Michigan pollution problem,
3 (2) resources available for municipal and Indus-
4 trial control of pollution, (3) role of the
5 Federal Government in the Lake Michigan pollution
6 problem, (4) role of the States in the solution
7 and control problem, and (5) what each of the
8 four States is now doing to solve the pollution
9 problem.
10 It was agreed that the group would take
11 a leadership role in effectively developing a
12 water quality program for Lake Michigan that will
13 provide for adequate municipal, industrial, and
14 recreational opportunities,
15 Also, the following recommendation was
16 agreed upon for presentation at this Four-State
17 Lake Michigan Water Pollution Conference:
18 SINCE, (1) Federal law requires the
19 States to submit water quality stan-
20 dards to the U.S. Department of the
21 Interior for approval on or before
22 June 30, 1967, (2) upon arrival the
23 respective States become the enforce-
24 ment authority for such standards,
25 (3) all of the States bordering Lake
-------
1 THOMAS G. AYERS
2 Michigan have submitted a water
3 quality standard program, (4)
4 the programs as submitted by the
5 States have not all yet been ap-
Q proved by the U.S. Department of
7 the Interior and, (5) the four
g States now have programs and are
9 moving forcefully ahead with com-
10 pliance schedules*
11 IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT (1) the
12 Secretary of Interior approve the
13 water quality standards programs
14 that were submitted by the four
15 States bordering Lake Michigan on
16 or before March 1» 1968 and, (2)
17 full opportunity be given between
18 now and December 31, 1972 for the
19 fulfillment of the obligation of
20 each of the States bordering on
21 Lake Michigan to independently
22 and cooperatively implement their
23 programs before any independent
24 action by the Federal Government
25 in this field.
-------
1650
IT —
1 THOMAS G. AYERS
2 Since the adoption of the foregoing
3 policy recommendation, we now know that the Secre-
4 tary of Interior has approved the four States'
5 water quality programs as they relate to Lake
6 Michigan.
7 The following Associations unanimously
g approved the recommendation:
9 CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
Chicago, Illinois
10
EAST CHICAGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC.
ll East Chicago, Indiana
12 GARY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Gary, Indiana
13
HIGHLAND PARK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
14 Highland Park, Illinois
15 ILLINOIS STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Chicago, Illinois
16
INDIANA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
17 Indianapolis, Indiana
18 INDIANA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Indianapolis, Indiana
19 I
KENOSHA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
20 Kenosha, Wisconsin
21 MANITOWOC AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Manitowoc, Wisconsin
22
METROPOLITAN MILWAUKEE ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE
23 Milwaukee, Wisconsin
24 MICHIGAN CITY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Michigan City, Indiana
25
-------
165.1
1 THOMAS G. AYERS
2 MICHIGAN STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Lansing, Michigan
MUSKEGON AREA DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
4 Muskegon, Michigan
6 RACINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Racine, Wisconsin
6
7 This completes my statement.
8 MR. KLASSEN: Thank you.
9 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Ayers. Are
10 there any comments or questions?
n Yes.
12 MR. HOLMER: I would like to hear the
13 second recommendation read again, if I might.
14 MR. AYERS: Yes. Hand it back to me,
15 please.
16 MR. STEIN: Yes, that is the key point.
17 MR. AYERS: The second recommendation,
18 that "full opportunity be given between now and
19 December 31, 1972, for the fulfillment of the
20 obligation of each of the States bordering on
21 Lake Michigan to independently and cooperatively
22 implement their programs before any independent
23 action by the Federal Government in this field."
24 MR. STEIN: Let me clarify the issue,
25 and I think this is a clear one.
-------
1652
1 THOMAS G. AYERS
2 As you know, we had a 2-State Conference
3 on the lower end of Lake Michigan. Three of the
4 four Conferees were in favor of an industrial dead-
_ line of December 1968; in Illinois they were
o
. talking about June, at the end of June
-------
1633
1 THOMAS G. AYERS
2 Federal program on sop of it.
3 MR. STEIN: I think we can all agree
4 with that. But I would like to find out the
5 factual situation in your recommendation. I know
6 Indiana has worked out a careful timetable with
7 the cities and industries, I know Illinois has.
8 MR. AYERS: That is correct.
9 MR. STEIN: I know the Sanitary District
10 has. And I think these timetables have been worked
11 out under negotiation with the industries. I know
12 of none of these, at least in these two States—we
13 are not talking about Michigan or Wisconsin now--
14 but I don't know that any of these timetables ex-
15 tend beyond July 1972--or 1970; I am sorry. Now,
16 you want to extend that--
17 MR. AYERS: No.
18 MR. STEIN: —a considerably longer time,
19 to the end of '72?
20 MR. AYERS: No, we were not talking about
21 industry per se in this. We were talking about
22 giving the States an opportunity through '72 or
23 | a reasonable period of time in which to get their
24 programs launched. There is nothing magic about
25 I the end of 1972. But we are not talking about
-------
I THOMAS G. AYERS
2 giving industry any different timetable than that
3 that is already in the State plans.
4 MR. STEIN: I think I understand
5 what you are saying. Certainly, if we are
6 really talking about giving them a considerable
7 time--
8 MR. AYERS: That is correct.
9 MR. STEIN: —the question here in terms
10 of a reasonable time, it would seem to me, does
11 not mean we have to give them until 1972 because
12 someone says so. I am thinking in terms of those
13 industries, states and, by and large, cases in
14 which we have been working intensively in the
15 Federal-State program for the past several years
16 which did not have a date beyond July 1970.
17 MR. AYERS: That is correct.
18 MR. STEIN: --or those municipalities
19 for which dates already have been set and agreed
20 to with the States?
21 MR. AYERS: That is correct. That is
oo
* correct.
23 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
24 Are there any further comments or
25 questions?
-------
1633
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 (No response.)
3 MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, Mr.
4 Ayers.
5 Mr. Klassen.
6 MR. KLASSEN; One of the agencies in
7 Illinois that we depend on for our basic water
8 information, especially water resources, an
9 agency we are quite proud of, is the Illinois
10 State Water Survey. They have been doing some
n work experimentally, and at this time the Chief
12 of that State Water Survey in Illinois, Mr.
13 William Ackermann, will present a statement.
14 Bill.
15
16 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
17 COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, TECHNOLOGY
18 AND PUBLIC POLICY OF THE
19 COMMITTEE ON INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION
20 GREAT LAKES REGION
21
22 MR. ACKERMANN: Thank you, Mr. Klassen,
23 Mr. Chairman, Conferees, ladies and gentlemen.
24 My name is William Ackermann, and I am
25 here today reporting briefly for a group of
-------
1656
I WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 research investigators who have considered
3 research requirements in the Great Lakes
4 Region and in Lake Michigan, including the
6 application of systems analysis and modeling
6 to water quality and. pollution.
7 This activity has been carried out
8 under the Council of Economic Growth, Technology
9 and Public Policy of the Committee on Institu-
10 tional Cooperation, commonly referred to as CIC,
n which is composed of the Big Ten universities
12 and the University of Chicago. The investiga-
13 tions have been supported by a grant from the
14 Office of Water Resources Research in the Depart-
15 ment of the Interior. This activity has been
16 fully coordinated with the Water Resources
17 Council, the Great Lakes Basin Commission, and
18 relevant Federal and State agencies.
19 Until now, research related to water
20 resources in Lake Michigan and in the Great
21 Lakes Region has been approached, at least so
22 far as the universities are concerned, primarily
23 by the several disciplines, independently, and
24 with little collaboration and cooperation among
25 the universities in the region. Effective
-------
1657
! WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 procedures for interuniversity cooperation have
3 now been developed.
4 Considerations by the CIC group of
5 the water quality systems are briefly summarized
6 here as being of principal Interest to the Con-
7 ference. However, parallel and highly related
8 consideration was also given to water quantity
9 models and to water-related information systems
10 and to a regional economic growth model and to
11 studies of institutions.
12 The modeling of water quality aspects
13 of Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes will
14 necessarily take more than one form, because
15 of the complex nature of the numerous elements
16 Involved within the system. It will be useful
17 to approach the water quality from several points
18 of view.
19 It was determined initially to try two
20 approaches, a lake model and a sub-lake model.
21 Because of the urgency and magnitude of the
22 problems involved, the relative isolation of Lake
23 Michigan from the other lakes, and the interest
24 of available personnel, it was decided that
25 Initially the major effort of research on the
-------
16-58
! WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 water quality system would be directed toward
3 Lake Michigan. It is anticipated that other
4 individuals and universities will develop an
g interest and become involved in the study of
_ the other lakes.
o
This opportunity to record briefly
and to summarize my somewhat longer statement
g to this Conference, to register the interest
10 and concern and activities and plans of the
n major universities in this region is greatly
12 appreciated.
13 I think, Mr. Chairman, that the
14 Conferees can look forward to an increasing
15 research role and participation by the Big
16 Ten universities in getting at some of the
17 long-range problems related to pollution and
18 to the integration of these pollution problems
19 to other problem aspects of the Great Lakes.
20 Thank you very much for this oppor-
21 tunity.
22 MR. STEIN: Thank you for a very
23 comprehensive statement. Without objection,
24 we will put your whole statement in the record
25 as if read.
-------
1659
! WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 MR. ACKERMANN: I would like, if it
3 is permissible, for the entire statement to
4 appear in the record.
6 MR. STEIN: Right.
6 (Which said statement is as follows:)
7 STATEMENT FOR
8 LAKE MICHIGAN POLLUTION CONFERENCE
9 BY UNIVERSITIES OF
10 THE COMMITTEE ON INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION
H CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, JANUARY 31, 1968
12 My name is William C. Ackermann, and I
13 am reporting for a group of investigators who have
14 considered research requirements in the Great
15 Lakes region including application of systems
16 analysis and modeling to water quality and pol-
17 lution.
18 This activity has been carried out under
19 the Council on Economic Growth, Technology and
20 Public Policy of the Committee on Institutional
21 Cooperation (CIC), which is composed of the Big
22 Ten Universities and the University of Chicago.
23 The investigations have been supported by a grant
24 from the Office of Water Resources Research in
25 the Department of the Interior. This activity has
-------
l66o
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 been fully coordinated with the Water Resources
3 Council, the Great Lakes Basin Commission, and
4 relevant Federal and State agencies.
5 It is believed that a brief summary
5 of the above activities and proposed plans for
7 research by the universities of CIC are of
g interest in the record of this Conference.
9 Until now research related to water
10 resources in Lake Michigan and in the Great Lakes
11 region has been approached primarily by several
12 disciplines independently and with little collab-
13 oration among universities in the region.
14 Effective procedures for interuniversity co-
15 operation have now been developed.
16 The regional analysis will provide
17 guidance for planners and enable researchers to
18 visualize and relate their individual contri-
10 butions in the development and management of the
20 entire Great Lakes region. It will also provide
21 a valuable aeans of communication among the
22 relevant private, local, State, National and
23 international bodies.
24
A. Guidance for
25
Planners and Program Managers
-------
1661
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 A comprehensive, systems analysis
3 model treats and interrelates a wide variety
4 of diverse variables. There is no one goal
5 criterion that can be optimized with regard
6 to the Great Lakes region. Instead, there
7 is a mixture of goals and objectives which
g must be considered. Some of these goals and
9 objectives are complementary and some are in-
10 compatible.
11 A simulation model which considered
12 the many feedbacks and time-related factors
13 would allow the planner to investigate the
14 effects of alternative kinds of policies in
15 order to make a comparison. This is especially
16 important in Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes
17 region where interactions exist between many
18 different policies. This simulation model would
19 allow the planner and administrator to observe
20 over time the behavior of the system subject to
21 his policies and water-use projections. If the
22 water-use projections are developed endogenously,
23 then the planner can test the sensitivity of the
24 assumed relationship between water use and other
25 variables.
-------
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 A gaming-simulation or role-playing
3 model would allow the planner to be an intimate
4 part of the model and would allow him to make
5 dynamic decisions and to react to the impacts
g which his decisions have upon the system. It
7 further allows the planner to see the alternatives
8 that are available to him in terms of decision
9 making.
10
B. Enables Researches to Visualize
and Relate Work in the
12
Development and Advancement of the System
13
14 A comprehensive, systems analysis model
15 enables researchers in the various disciplines to
16 see where their work fits into the model and also
17 to see the kinds of results they need to make their
18 work compatible with the information needed by the
19 model.
20 The system-wide analysis would also
2i indicate the weakest areas of the model and then
22 allow researchers to give highest priority in
23 these areas. As results are obtained the model
24 could be reformulated and refined to determine the
25 Increasing strength in the areas which are further
-------
1663
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 defined and thus keep the areas of greatest effort
3 always before the researchers and before those who
4 fund research.
5
C« Provide a Valuable
6
Means of Communication
7
8 Communications will be opened between
9 researchers in various disciplines since there
10 must be a multi-discipline approach used in
11 developing a comprehensive, systems model of
12 the Great Lakes region which will require
13 information exchanges uncommon to a region this
14 size. It will also serve to open channels of
15 communication between individuals and groups
16 concerned, because it requires the cooperation
17 of data collectors, resee.rchers, and planners
18 involved to develop the model.
19 One requirement of a comprehensive
20 systems analysis model is consistent and uniform
21 data for a variable throughout the system. This
22 will require communications among all who are
23 concerned with working on the Great Lakes in
24 order to obtain and report data consistently
25 and uniformly for each research project throughout
-------
1661
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 the system.
3 There is need to Intensively examine
4 the present status of, and future requirements
5 for programs of collection, storage, and re-
5 trieval of water and water-related data. This
7 must lead to a rationalization of water informa-
8 tion programs which will fulfill the requirements
9 of research, planning, and management programs
10 in the region.
11 This examination and rationalization
12 of data availability and requirements has two
13 particularly important aspects within the systems
14 analysis and modeling framework of the proposed
15 program of research in the Great Lakes region.
16 First, there is a need to identify present data
17 collection sources, the types of data, when
18 collected, and the form In which it is available.
19 This supply of data, when identified, needs to be
20 evaluated as to its adequacy for future research
21 and Information program requirements. Second,
22 present and future data needs should be clarified
23 and proposals for implementing procedures to make
24 this data available and accessible should be out-
25 lined. This includes the review of emerging
-------
1665 ,
! WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 research and management programs and procedures
3 and the determination of their data requirements.
4 This should lead to the establishment of strate-
5 gies for effective dissemination of information
6 to users in private and public planning and
7 policy making activities as well as research
g activities.
9 Teams working on subsystem models will
10 have to be in communication so that the subsystem
ll models can be tied together in order to provide
12 results that can be used to determine system-wide
13 effects.
14
The Water Quality System
15
16 Considerations by the GIG group of the
17 water quality systems are briefly summarized here
18 as being of principal interest to the Conference.
19 However, parallel and highly related consideration
20 was also given to water quantity models, to water-
21 related information systems, to a regional economic
22 growth model, and to studies of institutions.
23 The modeling of the water quality aspects
24 I of Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes will neces-
25 sarily take more than one form. Because of the
-------
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 complex nature of the numerous elements involved
3 within the system, it will be useful to approach
4 the water quality system from several points of
5 view. It was determined to initially try two
6 approaches, a lake model and a sub-lake model.
7 The lake-modeling approach is designed to quantify
g the interrelationship between local areas from a
9 lake-by-lake viewpoint. The sub-lake approach
10 seeks to describe the nature and alternative
H courses of action that may take place within a
12 localized region or local sector taking into
13 account the effect of neighboring sectors. The
14 two approaches are not separate and the results
15 from the sub-lake model will allow refinement
16 of the lake model and thus the two models will
17 be complementary and must be developed simul-
18 taneously.
19 The objective of the lake model of the
20 water quality system is to describe the water
21 quality by subregions within each of the lakes
22 of the Great Lakes system as a function of water
23 use requirements and the quality of water put into
24 the lake whether it be natural runoff or return
25 from some use. Each subregion is to be chosen so
-------
1667
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 as to be relatively homogeneous in its properties,
3 receive local inputs and provide local withdrawal.
4 Information on the physical nature of
5 lake currents in each lake and the physical,
6 chemical and biological transformations that
7 accompany the currents in each subregion of the
8 lake must be collected. Also, the transfer
9 functions which apply to the exchange of water
10 and material between subreglons must be determined.
11 The subregion model will complement the
12 lake modeling effort in the water quality system,
13 as well as the economic growth model.
14 The sub-lake model will complement the
15 lake modeling effort in the water quality system,
16 as well as the economic growth model. The sub-
17 lake model indicates the spacial relationships
18 between the local lake sectors and associated water
19 uses. The uses may be those such as municipal or
20 industrial water supply, cooling water, or recrea-
21 tion. The location, amount and quality of water
22 put into and withdrawn from each of the subregions
23 must be determined. For some uses it will be
24 possible to employ management or treatment controls
25 on the water quality before or after the water is
-------
1668
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 used; other uses will permit only one and still
3 other uses will permit no control measures.
4 There must be cooperation and exchange
5 of information between the two modeling efforts.
6 The sub-lake model must use the transfer functions
7 between lake subregions and within each subregion
g that is determined in the lake model. The lake
9 model in turn will require the use of the location,
10 amount and quality of influent and effluent water
11 for each subregion as determined in the sub-lake
12 model
13 It will be necessary to identify the
14 water uses in each sector along with the limiting
15 levels of water quality associated with each use.
16 After the limits have been established for each
17 quality parameter, studies must be conducted to
18 determine the types of water and waste treatment
19 methods, management control measures, enforcement
20 policies, etc., that may be employed to control
21 the level of water quality within the limited
22 range for the local sector. The lake model will
23 then integrate these sub-lake models to determine
24 their interdependence and effect on the entire
25 lake.
-------
1669
WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
A series of studies of the costs and
benefits associated with controlling the level
of water quality in selected local sectors should
be undertaken to evaluate the direct costs and
5
benefits which are normally identified as well
6
as to make professional estimates of those social
7
values which usually escape quantification. Then
o
with the comprehensive assessment of the resources
available, the use of demands, ideal and practical
institutional and legal constraints, and the
interactions of the components of the system,
alternative control procedures can be suggested
13
to control and manage the water quality to meet
selected social goals.
15
...
lo
Because of the urgency and magnitude
17 of the problems involved, the relative isolation
lg of the lake from the other lakes, and the interest
19 of available personnel it was decided that initially
20 the major effort on the water quality system would
be directed toward Lake Michigan. It is antici-
22 pated that other individuals and universities
23 will develop an interest and become involved in
24 the study of the other lakes.
25 It was further determined that both
-------
1670,
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 subsystem models, whether done system-wide or
3 subreglonally would have political, social and
4 institutional characteristics that need to be
5 considered for research activities.
6 This opportunity to record briefly
7 the interest, concern, activities, and plans
g of major universities in the region is greatly
9 appreciated.
10
ll MR. STEIN: Are there any comments
12 or questions?
13 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman.
14 MR. STEIN: Yes.
15 MR. MITCHELL: Bill, in your planning
16 of what research you do, how are you coordinating
17 this with respective States, governments and the
18 Federal Government as to what is needed in re-
19 search as you set up these models?
20 MR. ACKERMANN: Well, for one thing,
21 of course, these university people, many of
22 them, but varying at the different universities,
23 have been Involved In this research for a long
24 time. I think the leading universities in the
25 Middle West that have been concerned have been
-------
I WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 the University of Michigan and the University of
3 Wisconsin, including its branch at Milwaukee,
4 with lesser activities at the other schools.
5 One of our activities is to coordinate the on-
6 going affairs of these universities and others.
7 Of course we read the newspapers, we
8 are watching this Conference with great interest.
9 People like ourselves, some of us wear more than
10 one hat. I have been participating as the
n Chairman of this Big Ten universities research
12 group, but I am also a University of Illinois
13 professor and I am also Administrator of the
14 Illinois Department of Water Resources, so that
15 we have many lines of communication. We are
16 trying to bring these together to focus on the
17 most urgent problems.
18 I hope this has been somewhat of a
19 response to your question, Mr. Mitchell.
20 MR. STEIN: Are there any further
21 comments or questions?
22 I take it you are talking in terms not
23 of a real physical model of the lake, but one of
24 these computerized mathematical conceptual
25 operations?
-------
1672
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANlf
2 MR. ACKERMANNs Yes, that is right,
3 Mr. Stein.. While I may not have made this
4 clear, there are many kinds of models. The
5 kind of a model that we are proposing to
6 develop is an analytical model in which the
7 various elements, water quality and quantity,
8 are represented by numbers and the relation-
9 ships between these various factors of water
IQ quality, and so forth, are represented by
n mathematical equations or functions. And so
12 -that we expect to have a very complicated
13 mathematical analytical model of all of the
14 water and water-land-related factors, so that
15 we can simulate mathematically the actual
16 performance of the Great Lakes and its drainage
17 area and its inputs.
18 MR. STEINt I know the Conferees will
19 take that to heart. I have seen some of them
20 after hours concentrating on those models in
21 the College Inn.
22 (Laughter.)
23 Are there any further questions or
24 comments?
25 (No response.)
-------
1673
1 WILLIAM C. ACKERMANN
2 MR. STEIN: If not, Mr. Klassen.
3 MR. KLASSEN: No, I have no question.
4 I just want to thank Bill.
5 MR. ACKERMANN: Thank you, Clarence.
6 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, we have heard
7 many, many people in these several days, people
8 with political offices, scientists, pseudo-fisher-
9 men like myself--not Mr. Poole, because he is a
10 real fisherman--we have heard a lot of expressions
11 about what is happening to the fish and all this
12 type of interesting talk.
13 ¥e have tried to find a commercial
14 fisherman who makes his living and has made his
15 living and with somewhat of a reputation to bring
16 to us some real information from the commercial
17 fisherman's standpoint. We have such a man in
18 Illinois, Mr. Mathon Kyritsls, from Waukegan, and
19 he is going to make a short presentation and show
20 a short film.
21 Mathon, as we call him, has many
22 interests other than fishing, although they all
23 pertain to looking for things in the water. I
24 understand his latest project, and I am serious,
25 when he went to Greece to find the arras of the
-------
1674
I MATRON KYRITSIS
2 Venus de MIlo, which has been lost for hundreds
3 of years, but I don't believe he is going to
4 discuss that. I think he Is going to bring to
5 us some first-hand statements as a commercial
6 fisherman.
7 Mr. Kyrltsis.
8
9 STATEMENT OF MATRON KYRITSIS
10 OWNER OF MATRON KYRITSIS FISHING COMPANY
11 WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
12
13 MR. KYRITSIS: Mr. Chairman, members of
14 the panel.
15 Thank you very much, Mr. Klassen, for
16 that statement you made over the multitude of my
17 sins.
18 Would they like to see that now so they can
10 see what I am talking about or after my brief state
20 ment?
21 MR. KLASSEN: After your brief statement.
22 MR. KYRITSIS: Also I would like to
23 mention, Mr. Chairman, that I have briefed the
24 original statement, but the content is still the
25 same.
-------
1615
l MATHON KYRITSIS
2 Commercial fishing in the Great Lakes
3 today practically does not exist. There are two
major reasons, the sea lamprey and pollution.
- In Lake Michigan the yearly catch
. amounted to six million pounds up until
o
but in three years time this dropped to less
than one million pounds.
In the late 19^0's commercial fishing had
10 just about come to an end. There were at that time
over 1,000 commercial fishermen, with fishing boats
12 employing about ^0,000 persons. In Waukegan alone
i, there were 17 boats employing about 200 people.
13
14 Today there are only two and four people are
15 working today.
But this did not happen overnight. It
came about over a long period of time and many
18 things contributed to the demise of the commercial
19 fishing.
20 Seventy-five years ago the lake was full
2i of grayling. They spawned in the Muskegon River
22 at the time the lumbermen were using the rivers
23 to float their logs to the mill so they could save
24 a little time.
25 The logs in the river prevented the
-------
1-6 7 6
! MATHON KYRITSIS
2 fish from reaching their spawning grounds. They
3 died by the thousands. Farmers in the area carted
4 them away by the truckload to use them for ferti-
5 llzer. Today there is not one left in the lake.
6 Next to go were the sturgeon. Fishermen
_ did not know the value of the fish. All they knew,
8 that it was big and they were ripping their nets.
g Ana in 1880 four million pounds were buried on the
10 lakeshore or left there to rot.
n Commercial fishermen then discovered that
12 they were tasty when smoked and caviar was made
13 from their eggs, but it was too late. Today it
14 would take another Diogenes with his lantern to
15 find one.
16 Then came the end of the lake trout.
17 For instance, in Waukegon, which used to be one
18 of the largest fishing ports on Lake Michigan,
19 they reported catches of almost 1,200,000 pounds
20 in 19^3» In a very short time it dropped to
2i 275,000 pounds.
22 And in 1950, when the members of the
23 Lake Michigan Fish Protection Commission came to
24 Waukegan and were taken fishing, six trout were
25 caught, five of them scarred by the sea lamprey.
-------
1677
1 MATRON KYRITSIS
2 The main cause of this drop was, of
3 course, the sea lamprey, but over 100 years ago
4 we had a warning about this fish killer from Dr.
5 G. Klrkland, one of Ohio's foremost naturalists,
6 who predicted that the opening of the Welland
7 Canal would bring the sea lamprey into the area.
8 Before that time it was locked in by Jfiagara
9 Falls, but the canal provided the entry into the
10 other Great Lakes.
11 So you see, progress is one of the
12 reasons for the decline of the fishing industry.
13 We took one step ahead and it turned out to be
14 two steps backwards.
15 But the sea laaprey wasn't the only
16 killer of the fishing industry. Pollution began
17 many years ago when the old steam boats dropped
18 their coal cinders into the lake over the spawning
19 grounds of the lake trout.
20 The trout prefers a honeycomb surface
21 to lay its eggs. It couldn't distinguish the
22 cinders were not the spawning grounds. If the
23 current was favorable, the eggs had a good chance
24 to hatch, but if not, the cinders were churned
25 up by the current and the eggs were destroyed.
-------
16?8
1 MATRON KYRITSIS
2 Oil from pleasure boats and other
3 carriers also contributed to the end of the
4 trout and the whitefish. The oil formed a film
5 over the eggs and not only added to the pollution
§ of the water but also choked off the oxygen supply
7 to the eggs and killed the spawning grounds.
3 With the passing of the trout came
9 the population explosion of the alewlfe, which
10 came to the Great Lakes by the same path that the
H sea lamprey came. While the trout were plentiful
12 the alewives were kept under control because they
13 became food for the trout.
14 Last year millions of pounds of alewives
15 were washed up on shore. This year the same thing
16 is expected. One way to overcome this would be
17 for the government to put trawlers into the lake
18 to remove them before they die. Then they could
19 be used for fertilizer to serve some useful purpose
20 Up to now the government hasn't really
21 helped the Great Lakes fishirg industry too much.
22 Our government, which has contributed so much
23 to other countries, such as $15 million to Japan,
24 $26 million to Germany and to many other countries
25 to restore their fisheries, should not hesitate
-------
1679
1 MATHON KYRITSIS
2 to spend any amount necessary to control pollution,
3 the sea lamprey and the alewives.
4 No other natural resource measures up
5 to the Great Lakes. If we destroy them, we will
6 never be able to replace these majestic bodies of
7 water. The elimination of pollution is necessary
3 to restore the lake to its previous healthy state.
9 I have fished the lake for 4? years and
10 have seen it gradually go down hill because no
H action was taken by groups that would have been
12 interested in its preservation.
13 A great number of persons have used the
14 lake as a personal dumping ground. They did not
15 realize that they were helping to kill off an
16 industry, that it was the home of the fish that
17 we eat, we use for food, and the water that we
18 drink.
19 I know there are no easy answers to the
20 problem of pollution, but I believe a Nation that
21 was able to split an atom will be able to find a
22 solution to the pollution, to the sea lamprey and
23 the population of the alewife if they care to.
24 Thank you.
25 MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, sir.
-------
1680
1 MATRON KYRITSIS
2 Are there any comments or questions?
3 Did you want to show your film now?
4 MR. KYRITSIS: Yes. And I will explain
5 first that this is the sea lamprey film that I took
6 with me out to Washington when I appeared before
7 the Merchant Marine and Fisheries way back in 19^9,
8 and that was instrumental in getting the first
9 appropriation of $^50,000 and also the creation
10 of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, for which
11 I am an adviser.
12 MR. KLASSEN: I think, Mr. Chairman,
13 one of the justifications for the time on this
14 sea lamprey film is the fact that in many peoples'
15 minds all of the fishing in Lake Michigan has been
16 ruined due to pollution. This, of course, is not
17 the case, and I think that this speaker wanted to
18 show--and it is a very short film—that there are
19 other factors that have affected the fish in Lake
20 Michigan besides pollution.
21 MR. STEIN: About how long will the f 5 1m
22 run?
23 MR. KYRITSIS: About three minutes, sir.
24 MR. STEIN: Right.
(Which said film is marked Exhibit 8,
25 2/5/68, and is on file at the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration office in Washington,
-------
1681
1 MATHOH KYRITSIS
D.C., with a copy on file at the Regional Office
2 of the FWPCA'in Chicago, Illinois.)*
3 MR. KYRITSIS: This is a. picture that
4 was taken of the aquarium which I have in my
5 place and shows the lamprey. Now, this is one
6 of the largest lampreys I have ever seen. It
7 is about three feet long. As you can see, their
g mouth has hundreds of little things that hold on-
9 to the fish and with the pointed tongue it pierces
10 through the skin of the trout—they prefer the
11 trout because it doesn't have so many scales—and
12 absorbs the life out of this fish.
13 Now, the lamprey, the original, we don't
14 really know where the lamprey carae from, but it
15 appears it came from the Atlantic Ocean, and be-
16 cause of its spawning habits it came through the
17 St. Lawrence and up to Lake Ontario and became
18 land locked. As I stated before, the Niagara Falls
19 prevented the sea lamprey from coming farther west
20 until way back in 1928, they began to build the
21 Welland Canal and then, of course, enlarging it
22 in other years made it possible for this lamprey
23 to come in, because they not only attach to fish
24 but they also attach themselves to the passing
25 steamers, including human beings, which in many
-------
1682
1 MATHON KYRITSIS
2 cases you have heard that a lamprey has attacked
3 a human being.
4 There is a fish that you will see in
5 there in a few minutes that actually has been
$ killed by the lamprey, because too many people
7 don't really believe that a lamprey will be such
g a killer.
9 Mr. Operator, you can go a little faster,
10 if you want to.
ll What you see in there now are the lake
12 smelts, which also have been introduced to the
13 Great Lakes. They were introduced way back in
14 1906 when the Conservation Department of Michigan
15 tried to introduce the salmon. They never suc-
16 ceeded, but the smelt increased to the great
17 numbers which they are today.
18 You see this here were the lamprey and
19 the lake trout. The next morning I went to the
20 restaurant there was nothing left.
21 Now, there is the lamprey attached to a
22 sun fish, or I don't know exactly what the fish is,
23 i can't see from here, but you will see in juet a
24 very short time that the lamprey will kill this
25 fish. And I thought I will bring this film because
-------
. 1683
1 MATHOH KYRITSIS
2 many members of this Board or the audience and
3 the press have never seen anything like that
4 before.
5 In the beginning, the government tried
6 to prevent the lamprey going up the stream, be-
7 cause they have to go up in the stream as far as
8 8 and 10 miles to spawn. They look for a ground,
9 and after they spawn, they lay about 65,000 eggs,
10 the young ones after they hatch bury themselves
ll in the mud and they stay there for 5 or 6 years.
12 At the end of that period metamorphosis takes
13 place and the lamprey go down in the lake and
14 begin to do what they are doing right there,
15 killing the lake trout.
16 That is the end. Thank you, sir. You
17 can turn it off it you wish now.
18 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Kyritsis.
19 Are there any comments or questions?
20 Those films were very interesting and
21 I enjoyed them. By the way, where do all the
22 Great Lakes whitefish come from that we get in
23 the restaurants?
24 MR. KYKITSIS: Mostly they come from up
25 in Lake Superior, but recently we have started
-------
1684
1 MATHOH XYRITSIS
2 getting them on Washington Island and also on the
3 other side of Lake Michigan.
4 On this side, on the east side of our
5 Lake Michigan, it seems to rae that pollution is
6 too much. You see, whitefish will spawn in 20
7 foot water and then the young ones will move to
g about 3 f«et of water, you sec, but now because
9 of the pollution they are not able to corae so
10 close. That is why the only place you get them
11 is up at Washington Island.
12 MR. STEIH: In case you think we are
13 alone, you know, I read an item in the paper
14 the other day that the pollution was also affecting
15 the Russian sturgeon and a serious threat to their
16 caviar industry.
17 MR. KYRITSIS: In Russia?
18 MR. STEIN: Yes.
19 MR. KYRITSIS: It isn't true.
20 MR. STEIN: What?
21 MR. KYRITSIS: I could say this--that
22 in i860, and I have the records of the Congreasion-
23 al Record of this, the Romanoff importing indu*try,
24 they shipped about 30 barrels of eggs from here,
25 from the Great Lakes, to Russia and after they were
-------
1685
1 MATHON KYRITSIS
2 processed, some of them were sold in Europe and
3 the other came right here. And I think, you know,
4 there was a very good thing that the Russians
5 did when they sold the caviar thinking that it
6 came from the Caspian Sea.
7 MR. STEIN: Let's get this off the
g record.
9 (Off the record.)
10 MR. STEIN: Let's get back on the
11 record.
12 Thank you very much.
13 (Applause.)
14 MR. KLASSEH: Mr. Chairman, we have a
15 number of short presentations here.
16 I want to recognize Representative
17 Daniel Pierce, of Highland Park. He stated he
18 Jttst wanted to put his statement into the record
19 and will not speak.
20 Representative Pierce.
21 MR. STEIN: That statement will appear
22 in the record as if read without objection.
23 (Which said statement is as follows:)
24
25
-------
1686
1 REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL M. PIERCE
2
3 STATEMENT BY
4 THE HONORABLE DANIEL M. PIERCE (D-32nd>
5 STATE.REPRESENTATIVE
6 TO FOUR-STATE LAKE iMICHIGAN POLLUTION CONFERENCE
7 CALLED BY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
g Sherman House, Chicago, Illinois
9 January 31, 1968
10
11 The citizens of Lake County, Illinois
12 are very pleased that the United States Department
13 of Interior has recognized the pollution danger to
14 our dying Lake Michigan to be America's most
15 serious pollution problem. The calling of this
16 Four-State Conference by Secretary of the Interior
17 Stewart Udall, at the request of Governor Otto
18 Kerner, is the first step in bringing Michigan,
19 Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin together to save
20 Lake Michigan before it is too late. It evidences
21 the determination of the Federal and State Govern-
22 ments to solve the problem.
23 In my town of Highland Park, we have long
24 been aware of the dangerous pollution produced by
25 the three primary sewage treatment plants operated
-------
3,687
j IREPRESENTATIVE DANIEL M. PIERCE
0 on our City's lakefront, adjacent to beaches and
£t
„ water intakes, by the North Shore Sanitary District
0
The North Shore Sanitary District also maintains
primary sewage treatment plants on Lake Michigan
in the City of Lake Forest and Village of Lake
6
Bluff, which lie within my legislative district.
The effluent from all five of these domestic sewage
O
plants flow directly into the lake after receiving
9
only outmoded primary treatment. We are also aware
that the secondary sewage treatment plants main-
tained by the North Shore Sanitary District at
13 Waukegan and North Chicago, as well as those
14 operated by the Defense Department at Great Lakes
15 Naval Training Center and Port Sheridan, are to a
.- somewhat lesser extent polluting Lake Michigan by
17 depositing nutrient and encouraging the growth
18 of algae,
19 The North Shore Sanitary District has
20 recently decided, on the recommendation of the
2i Illinois State Sanitary Water Board to close all
22 seven of its lakefront sewage treatment plants
23 and to divert sewage away from Lake Michigan
24 westward to the Des Plaines River. This could
25 not be done in the past because of uncertainly
-------
1688
1 REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL M. PIERCE
2 over the diversion suit brought by our sister
3 Great Lakes States against the State of Illinois
4 in the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme
5 Court had limited diversion from Lake Michigan
Q in the State of Illinois to 3,200 cubic feet per
7 second as measured at Lockport, the full amount
8 used by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
9 Greater Chicago.
10 In order to remedy this situation, the
11 North Shore Sanitary District has proposed a bond
12 issue of some $37 million to be paid from real
13 estate taxes within its boundaries. The total
14 cost of closing all the lakefront plants is
15 estimated to be approximately $60 million. It
16 can thus be seen that substantial Federal and
17 State financial help will be required if the
18 project is to be completed, in addition, the
19 real estate taxpayers within the North Shore
20 Sanitary District, mostly home owners, are faced
21 with many rate increases and bond referenda pro-
22 posed by local elementary and high school districts;,
23 as well as by the new Lake County Junior College
24 District.
25 In view of the fact that our number one
-------
1689
! REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL M. PIERCE
2 National water pollution problem is the accel-
3 erating deterioration of Lake Michigan as a living
4 body of water, it would seem appropriate that
- substantial Federal and State financial assistance
8
be provided to aid the North Shore Sanitary Dis-
trict in ending Lake Michigan pollution from
8 domestic sewage in Lake County, Illinois.
9 Lake Michigan is an invaluable National
10 asset. It is the source of public water supply for
.. millions of people. It provides recreation for
12 boating and swimming. It is our transportation
.. artery tying the Midwest with the world. It is
14 much more vital than the Tennessee River on which
15 the United States Government has spent many
16 hundreds of millions of dollars over the past three
17 decades.
13 I therefore request that the Federal
19 Government and the four States bordering the lake
20 declare the pollution threat to Lake Michigan to
2i be a National emergency. Federal and State funds
22 in an araount necessary to do the .job should be
23 appropriated on an emergency basis to save our
24 lake. The Job is too big to be financed by local
25 real estate taxpayers whose homes are already
-------
1690
1 REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL M. PIERCE
2 bearing the burden of education and local govern-
3 merit.
4 - - -
5 MR. KLASSEN: Some of these people I
6 am not sure that they--I have tried to check
7 whether they are back today.
8 The Village Manager of Winnetka, Lee
9 Ellis, is he here?
10 (No response.)
H MR. KLASSEN: Apparently not.
12 (The Ellis statement is as follows:)
13
14 STATEMENT DELIVERED TO
15 LAKE MICHIGAN FOUR-STATE POLLUTION CONFERENCE
16 January 31 - February 6> 1968 by
17 L. A. Ellis, Village Manager
18 Village of Winnetka,Illinois
19
20 As a public official of a municipality
21 which abuts Lake Michigan, I share all of the
22 concerns about pollution expressed by other of-
23 ficials in attendance at this Conference. I come
24 not to document the obvious pollution problems,
25 but rather to make a plea for scientific research
-------
1691
1 VILLAGE OP WIHNETKA, ILLINOIS
2 In the field of water sampling and testing.
3 Responsible and responsive public
4 officials at the local level who have the task
5 of operating public beaches need to know the
6 quality of the lake water at their respective
7 beaches. Today's tests for bacteria counts require
8 the passage of 24 hours' time before the results
9 of the test can be known. Some tests require even
10 more time. The consequences attendant to such
H delays are quite apparent. ¥e are able to tell
12 our residents that the lake was (or was not) pol-
13 luted to a dangerous level yesterday or the day
14 before. But what abouc today? You well know that
15 shifts can occur rather rapidly in the water ad-
16 Jacent to a beach. What was acceptable quality
17 water this morning, may be dangerously polluted
18 this afternoon. Our residents and users of the
19 beaches should be alerted to dangers in the quality
20 of water at public beaches. If you are not yet
21 ready to abandon the use of Lake Michigan for
22 public swimming, then you must be concerned about
23 development of better testing procedures.
24 Upon reflection one can understand that
25 a sampling and testing technique capable of
-------
1692
1 VILLAGE OF WINNETKA, ILLINOIS
2 producing quickly a broad-band indication of
3 water quality has almost unlimited applications.
4 We tend to believe there is a very large potential
5 market for such a product—not only around the
6 Great Lakes, nor even limited to this country.
7 Why then has not such a product been developed?
g From our lay position we can only guess at an
9 answer, but we suspect that considerable expensive
10 research would necessarily be involved. If this
11 is true, then we need someone to give impetus to
12 this research and that is why I am here today.
13 I would recommend that from this Con-
14 ference some direction could flow which would
15 officially recognize the value of a quick-acting
16 broad-band indicator and, further, that this Con-
17 ference could set in motion appeals for grants to
18 research organizations for the development of such
19 a product. If sufficient stimulus is provided
20 I have enough confidence in the technical resources
21 of this country to believe that this new product
22 can be produced. The stimulus--in the form of a
23 research grant--could come from numerous sources.
24 Because of the scope of the problem we tend to
25 believe that it would be appropriate for one or
-------
1693
I VILLAGE OP WINNETKA, ILLINOIS
2 more of the States, the U. S. Public Health Service),
3 or some other Federal establishment to address it-
4 self to this facet of the problem. Although we
5 must certainly attack the sources of pollution and
6 bend every effort toward improving the quality of
7 lake water, we should not ignore the fact that we
8 must live with pollution from now until that day
9 when we will have abated it once and for all. I
10 suggest that the time span from now until Utopia
11 is sufficiently long to warrant a substantial
12 investment in the production of a broad-band,
13 quick acting indicator of pollution for the use
14 of public officials charged with the responsibility
15 of operating public beaches on Lake Michigan.
16 - - -
17 MR. KLASSEN: The statement by the
18 Illinois Boating Association I understand will
19 be given by Gerhard Schemel.
20 Ye s, s i r,
21 tfe have two statements from the Boating
22 Association. This is one and there will be an-
23 other one. I think it will be of particular
24 interest, the boaters' viewpoints, especially
25 in connection with the Chicago ordinance for
-------
1 GERHARD K. SCHEMEL
2 watercraft pollution.
3 Are you going to present the statement
4 or do you just want it for the record?
5 MR. SCHEMEL: I want to read it, please.
6 MR. KLASSEN: All right.
7
8 STATEMENT BY GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
9 COMMODORE OF THE LAKE MICHIGAN
10 YACHTING ASSOCIATION FOR THE
U ILLINOIS BOATING ASSOCIATION
12
13 MR. SCHEMEL: Mr. Chairman, distin-
14 guished Conferees, ladies and gentlemen.
15 My name is Gerhard Scheme1 and I am
16 Commodore of the Lake Michigan Yachting Asso-
17 ciation.
18 The Lake Michigan Yachting Association is
19 composed of all the boat clubs of any consequence
20 on the shores and tributaries of Lake Michigan.
21 There are 82 clubs enrolled with a total member-
22 ship in the four-State area, upwards of 15,000
23 members. I also speak for the Illinois Boating
24 Association which represents about 10,000 boaters
25 in the State of Illinois.
-------
1695
GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 As a professional airline pilot, I have,
3 during the past 23 years, flown across Lake Michi-
4 gan more times than I can remember. The crossing
altitudes ranged from 2,500 feet in the old DC3's
to 41,000 feet in the modern Jet, Being an
inveterate boater, these crossings have given
me an excellent opportunity to -observe our lake
Gentlemen, it is appalling to watch
10 huge rivers of pollutants coming out of streams,
rivers, municipal and Industrial complexes and see
them stretch for miles into the lake and along
13 the shoreline and the beaches. Like myself,
14 boaters have had physical contact wi.th these pol-
15 luted areas. We have wondered for some time now
if anything was ever going to be done about this
pollution.
18 Being more cognizant than the average
19 citizen, it should be obvious that the boating
20 public shares your anxiety about the deteriorating
21 condition of Lake Michigan. I should point out
22 at this time that we as boaters are mindful that
23 our hands are not exactly clean. We are aware that
24 we contribute to pollution but we feel considering
25 the overall pollution picture at present and in
-------
1696
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 the foreseeable future, that the boaters' hands
3 are indeed very small and not very dirty.
4 As for the littering problem, we feel
5 calling attention to the undeslrability of lit-
6 tering and so forth by various legislative bodies,
7 accompanied by good promotional programs by our
8 boating organizations against this repulsive
9 practice should go a long way to minimize litter-
10 ing, and so forth.
11 In view of the fact that the boater
12 would rather float his boat in drinking water,
13 we wish to commend Mayor Daley, the Chicago City
14 Council, the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
15 ministration and the Chicago newspapers for spot-
16 lighting this problem in the public eye. tfe have
17 a special commendation for Governor Kerner and
18 Secretary Udall for calling this Conference.
19 Inasmuch as a good thing is sometimes
20 carried too far, we feel the City of Chicago, with
21 its hastily adopted ordinance for boats and its
22 impossible compliance date, has been overzealous.
23 We do not agree with Chicago that holding tanks
24 are the only way to arrest pollution. This feeling
25 is also shared by those States that permit suitable
-------
169?
1 GERHARD M. SCHEME!
2 treatment devices. We are aware that the ordl-
3 nance states in part:
4 "A treatment system utilizing a
5 method of waste treatment approved
6 by the port director and complying
7 with the rules and regulations es-
g tablishing water quality criteria for
9 Lake Michigan as set by the Illinois
10 Sanitary Water Board may be permissible
11 on vessels, crafts, floats or motor
12 boats operating in harbor water in
13 lieu of retention tanks."
14 This loosely written ordinance puts the
15 boater in a quandary, because manufacturers are
16 unwilling to go into a field, perhaps only local
17 in nature, to come up with a product for which
18 standards have not been set, and if set and met,
19 there is no assurance of acceptance.
20 Now that we have accomplished at least
21 a part of our objective, that is, to recognize the
22 problem and start doing something about it, we
23 should at this time, and hopefully through the
24 efforts of this body, re-evaluate the seriousness
25 of the problem, eliminate the atmosphere of
-------
1698
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 pollution hysteria and make sure that we are on
3 the right track.
4 I would at this time point out that the
5 boaters of Lake Michigan stand ready and willing
6 to solve the pollution problem that may be caused
7 by boats. As boaters and good law-abiding citizens
8 we would like to be put in the position of being
9 able to obey both the spirit and letter of the law.
10 With the Chicago ordinance heaped on top of all
11 the other nonuniform laws in the Lake Michigan
12 Basin regulating sewage discharge from recrea-
13 tional boats, we find ourselves in a position
14 similar to a sparrow caught in a. badminton game.
15 Every time we make a move we get some tail feathers
16 knocked off.
17 Picture for example, if you will, the
18 racing sailor who wants to compete in the Chicago
19 Mackinac Race. He has a medium-size sailboat
20 carrying a racing crew of 8 to 10 men and he wants
21 to comply with the Chicago ordinance. His quarters
22 below are very cramped indeed, with every available
23 space used for minimum accommodations, and this
24 includes undersized bat adequate sanitary facilities
25 He must plan for the following:
-------
1699
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 Ten men will use the head for various
3 functions on an average of five times in 24 hours.
4 With a half gallon of water per flushing, we find
5 that we pump 25 gallons per day into the holding
6 tank. (5x10x1/2=25). A 10-day trip will need a
7 250-gallon tank.
g Where is he going to put it? And how is
9 he going to carry it? Two hundred fifty gallons
10 of water weigh one ton. No racing sailor, even if
11 he could, is going to want to load down his boat
12 with that kind of weight. The alternative is to
13 plan a smaller tank, which means he won't be able
14 to compete because of the need of putting into
15 port to have his tank pumped out. If he's fortu-
16 nate enough to find a facility, he may find that
17 his external fitting, because of a lack of speci-
18 flcations, won't fit the pump-out mechanism, or he
19 may find his tank being pumped into a sewer system
20 which discharges its untreated sewage back into
21 the lake.
22 There is another alternative, the chamber
i
23 pot or the portable toilet with disposable plastic |
i
24 bags. We certainly don't want to encourage or
25 force the boater to use these last two methods,
-------
1700
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 because they both contribute to pollution, and
3 the latter also contributes to littering. These
4 plastic bags have a habit of floating around for
5 quite sometime.
6 The power boater is faced with the same
7 dilemma. He, if he can find room, may install
8 expensive equipment for waste disposal, only to
9 find, like the Coast Guard Tug Arundel, that this
10 is not acceptable and has to be removed or at
11 least modified to meet some nebulous standard.
12 You might say It's easy to criticize;
13 what do you suggest? It Is hoped that when you
14 consider pollution from boats that consideration
15 be given to the new type Chlorinator Macerator
16 device for boat toilets, which includes a require-
11 ment for a nfa51 safe" attachment to prevent dis-
18 charge when the chlorine supply is exhausted or
19 retention time is shortened. Right now I can see
20 the word "nutrients" in your mind. I have attached
2i to ray written statement statistics that will show
22 that the quantity of nutrients from boat toilet
23 waste is negligible, less than one ounce per week
24 per boat by quantitative analysis.
25 To further highlight that boating
-------
1701
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 contributes little pollution and/or nutrients,
3 it should also be noted at this time that the
4 Bay View Beach (City of Green Bay) was closed
5 to swimmers many years ago on account of pol-
6 luted water. I believe you will find that it
7 was also many years before boating became as popu-
8 lar as it is today. Perhaps the swimmers had
9 something to do with this. Swimming is the
10 largest form of water recreation around the lake.
ll Every summer untold thousands use the beaches of
12 Lake Michigan.
13 Has consideration been given to the
14 possibility of making the bathing water safer
15 and cleaner by forcing bathers to wear leakproof
16 suits and also perhaps rubber pants?
17 I would also like to depart from the
18 record for just one second and state that ad-
19 ditionally Mr. James Vaughn stated this morning
20 that October, December '67 and January '68 were
21 extreme months for his department. We all know
22 that swimmers and boaters are completely absent
23 during those months.
24 As it stands now, the new type of
25 Chlorinator Macerator device effectively destroys
-------
1702
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 all bacteria and discharges a liquid that is
3 cleaner bacteriologically than the water taken
4 in for flushing.
5 Inasmuch as chemical treatment devices
6 are already advanced to the point where they can
7 remove most of the chemical nutrients, I have
8 confidence in American ingenuity and industrial
9 know-how, that being given the go-ahead in the
10 form of standards to be met for water quality, an
11 effective chemical treatment device for boat
12 toilets is just around the corner. A satisfactory
13 device could then be installed by the boat owner
14 at no cost to the taxpayer, and it would eliminate
15 the need for expensive shore installations.
16 It is hoped that this body will give
17 serious consideration and recommend to the various
18 States the Model Act to Prohibit Littering and
19 the Disposal of Untreated Sewage, from Boats as
20 promulgated by the National Association of State
21 Boating Law Administrators. We also recommend for
22 your consideration the Uniform Performance Standards
23 and Testing Procedures for Watercraft Waste Treat-
24 ment Devices, developed by the National Sanitation
25 Foundation.
-------
, 1703
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 When it comes to compliance dates, we
3 question the reasoning and -Justice which allows
4 governmental agencies to have approved schedules
5 for completion as far away as July 1977* a total
6 of nine years, industry is given in some instances
7 until December 31* 1968, one year, and boaters
g until May 15, 19^8, a mere three and a half months.
9 Eight large vessels in Lake Michigan are operated
10 by government services with crew complements as
11 high as 185 men, all without any waste treatment
12 devices. They are merely planning to develop
13 adequate treatment devices as soon as possible or
14 as soon as funds permit.
15 What is the compliance date for as soon
16 as possible? The FWPCA recommends that: "Waste
17 treatment for the following industries, 115 to be
18 exact, to be determined within six months of the
19 issuance of the Conference summary and construction)
20 of necessary facilities to be completed within 36
21 months."
22 The U. S. Government has established
23 project priorities on the basis of the severity
24 of the pollution problem. We feel this is com-
25 mendable. When it comes to the boater, the one
-------
1704
GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
with the little problem, this procedure is re-
versed. Why does the Chicago ordinance require
that the boater be the first to comply? Is it
because it is easier to hit the little sparrow
instead of the lofty and powerful eagles?
In conclusion, we would like to reit-
erate that we are ready to stop discharging raw
sewage and littering. In order that we may
10 accomplish this we ask for a workable pollution
abatement program, uniform State laws, hopefully
12 patterned after the National Association of State
J3 Boating Law Administrators model legislation,
14 and reasonable time to comply with these laws and
15 simultaneous deadlines for compliance.
Until such time as these suggested
programs and laws can be promulgated, we ask for
18 a delay in the enforcement of Federal, State and
local laws that deal specifically with boat pol-
20 lution.
2i On behalf of all the Lake Michigan
22 Yachting Association and Illinois Boating Asso-
23 elation members, I wish to express our appreciation
24 for being given this opportunity to express our
25 views and opinions.
-------
1-TQ5
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 I thank you.
3 (The following material was submitted
4 by Mr. Schemel:)
5
QUANTITY OF NUTRIENTS FROM BOAT TOILET
6
WASTES IS NEGLIGIBLE
7
STATISTICS
8
9 1,500 boats with toilets in all Chicago harbors
10 10 percent occupied on week days - 1 BM, 4 UR
per boat
11
25 percent occupied on holidays - 2 BMS, 7 URS
12 per boat
13 Weekday BM = 1500/10 x 5 - 750 BMS
14 Saturday and Sunday = 1500/4 x 2 x 2 - 1500 BMS
15 Total BMS per week = 2250 (80 percent water)
16
*Nitrate NOo in 24 hours, on basis of 1 gm
17 nitrogen =4.4 gms
18 *Phosphate PO^ in 24 hours, on basis of .242
gms. phosphorus = .726 gas.
19
Total nitruent per 24 hours BMS =5.12 gms.
20
Average 2 BMS per 24 hours =2.56 gms per boat
21
Total nutrient per week * 2.56 x 2250 » 5760 gins.
22
At 454 gms. to a pound , 5760 gms. « 12.6 pounds.
23
24 Weekday URS 1500/10 x 4 x 5 = 3000 URS
25 Saturday and Sunday URS = 1500/4 x 7 x 2
5250 URS
-------
1706
GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 Total URS per week = 8250 (95 percent water)
3
4
**Ammonia nitrogen NH In 24 URS = 25 gms.
Average 8 URS per 24- hours, each UR = 3 giaa.
5
Total ammonia nitrogen per week = 3 x 8250 »
6 24750 gms.
_ At 454 grns. to a pound , 24750 gms. » 54.51 pounds.
g Total nutrients per week * 12.6 plus 5-'1.51 =
67.11 pounds.
9
10 Acreage covered by harbor water about 2000 acres.
tl Water content of all harbors about 5 billion
gallons.
12
Average contribution per boat per week =
13 67.11/1500 - .045 pound or 3/4 ounce.
14
*Backus, Gastro Enterology, Vol. II. pp. 717-719
15
**Geigy, Synopsis of Urine: Geigy, Pharmaceutical
16 Scientific Tables, p. 528
17 **Horwitz, Biochemistry, p. 175
18 **White, Howeler & Smith, Biochemistry
19 - - -
20 MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or
2i questions?
22 Mr. Mitchell.
23 MR. MITCHELL: What does the NASBLA
24 model legislation say?
25 MR. SCHEMEL: Sir, I believe that Mr.
-------
1707
! GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 Ron Stone, from the Outboard Boating Club of
3 America, a manufacturers' organization, perhaps--
4 Is he going to follow me onto the
- rostrum?
6 MR. KLASSEN: He will. We are going
to have about a three-minute presentation from
Q the Illinois Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
o
9 next and then Ron Stone is going to follow him
10 this morning.
n MR. SCHEMEL: Ron Stone in his presen-
12 tation will provide you gentlemen one copy of
13 the National Association of Boating Law Adrainis-
14 trators Model Legislation and also the report by
15 the National Sanitation Foundation of Ann Arbor,
16 Michigan, on their treatment devices, and so
11 forth and so on. This is one reason I don't have
lg it included in mine.
19 MR. STEIN: Sir, I have probably
20 been in the forefront of some of this because
21 out of enforcement funds we investigated the
22 advantages of the macerator chlorinator device
23 on the Great Lakes. ¥e found two things, though.
24 One, that when there was a peak load--
25 and we use them on Coast Guard ships and all the
-------
^___^_____________ 1708
1 GERHARD M. SCHIMEL
2 boys hit the head at the same time as In a hotel
3 or anywhere else—they weren't able to handle
4 the peak load, and where do you put the water
5 with the so-called failsafe devices?
6 The other problem that we found with
7 these devices was they do not remove the nutrients,
8 and we are dealing with a nutrient problem in the
9 Great Lakes.
10 Now, I don't think there are any
H scientific indications that in the future we
12 are going to be able to remove nutrients without
13 providing a sludge residue that has to be dis-
14 charged. The question whether this can be made
15 applicable to a shipboard Installation is prob-
16 lematical.
17 MR. SCHEMEL: It is my understanding,
18 starting with your last question first, that there
19 was a report here several days ago by a Dr.
20 Weinert, or something like that—
21 MR. STEIN: Weinberger.
22 MR. SCHEMEL: —who indicated that the
23 state of the art is so advanced now that they can
24 take 85 to 95 percent of the phosphates, and so
25 forth, out at the present time, and I think that—
-------
1709
! GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 MR. STEIN: Yes. But again I think--
3 Just approach this with an open mind—they take
4 this out with some kind of settling or flocculatlonj
5 process. If you think you are going to have a
6 problem with that yacht with 250 gallons of water,
7 think of the problem you are going to have with
8 the sludge on your boat.
9 MR. SCHEMEL: Well, yes, sir, I am
10 perfectly well aware of it.
H And answering your question as to the
12 failsafe device, according to the facilities,
13 the failsafe device shuts the unit down if the
14 chlorine runs out or if the peak loads are in
15 excess of the retention time so that the unit
16 is not usable.
17 Now, the question you say, what do
18 you do with the water? What does the gentleman
19 with the holding tank do when it is full?
20 MR. STEIN: Presumably the holding tank
21 is going to be designed large enough for his run
22 before it is full.
23 MR. SCHEMEL: Well, sir —
24 MR. STEIN: And the question here we
25 always have with the question of the head and the
-------
1710
1 GERHARD M. SCHKMEL
2 macerator chlorinator ia to get a device that
3 is small enough to fit on a small boat and yet
4 within the capability of the man to pay.
5 Now, I know this is a complicated
6 arrangement. In looking at this and the
7 Chicago operation, and as some of the big
8 corporations or Mg cities can attest,
9 I would say as far as our record shows
10 we deal with big polluters and small pol-
11 luters equally—not sparrows or eagles.
12 The point is we deal with the small ones
13 with an even hand Just as we deal with the
14 big ones.
15 The problem that I have, sir, is
16 really this, and I am a little surprised at
17 boaters. No matter who the polluter is or what
18 Riftd of a polluter we have--an industrial pol-
19 luter, another kind of polluter, a municipal
20 polluter or very often a Federal agency polluting,
21 and now the boating polluter—it comes out to the
22 same thing: "We have an alternate device."
23 "You are asking us to do something too
24 fast."
25 "Why don't you give us as long as the
-------
1711
! GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 next man?"
3 "And until such time as these suggested
4 programs and laws can be promulgated, we ask for
5 a delay in the enforcement of Federal, State and
6 local laws that deal specifically with boat
7 pollution."
8 I recognize the validity of this
9 comment or what you are saying, but we Just
lO heard the manufacturers' representative here.
U He asked for the end of '72 before we do that.
12 In other words, it all boils down to
13 the same thing. Anyone who is throwing something
14 in the lake feels we are moving too fast too soon
15 and we are requiring too much when we are asking
16 them to do something.
17 MR. SCHEMEL: Well, sir, I don't feel
18 that the boaters feel the same way--that we feel
19 that you people are moving too fast or that we
20 are requesting an extension of time. The main
21 reference that I would like to make is the
22 Chicago ordinance has put the Chicago boater
23 in a very untenable position where it is physlcal-
24 ly impossible for him to comply with the ordinance
25 for the simple reason that a lot of boats cannot
-------
1712
I GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 Install holding tanks in their boats and even
3 the--which is the approved, the reclrculatory
4 system has a five-gallon capacity for the large
5 one, which is a definite hazard for sailboats
6 when they lean over. It should be readily
7 apparent that holding tanks are a real problem
8 as far as installation is concerned in the small
9 boat.
10 I might like to point out, you used
11 a reference of yacht; I have used boaters. The
12 very, very large majority of our people are
13 bricklayers, carpenters, shopkeepers and middle
14 income people who do not have yachts. We don*t
15 call our boats yachts anymore, we call them
16 boats, this is what they are.
17 And I would like to point out at this
18 time, and this is where I would like to deviate
19 from the recommendation, is that I think there
20 is a definite class and need for a separation
21 of the small 25-j 30- or 40-footer from the
22 oceanliner who has unlimited capacity for com-
23 plying. Hospital ships, for example, and Great
24 Lakes steamers, six and seven hundred footers,
25 we are put in the same category and we don't
-------
1713
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 have the facility or room.
3 All we are asking for, if I may repeat,
4 is a reasonable time so that we can comply with
5 the ordinance. We would like •uniform regulations
6 so that we can go from Chicago to Michigan and
7 have our facilities accepted and have the Michigan
g boater come to Chicago and have his facilities
9 accepted. This Is all we are asking for.
10 We realize that we pollute; we want
11 to stop itj and we would like your help in
12 helping us to do it.
13 MR. STEIN: Yes.
14 I donft want to prolong this because
15 I think we need a lot of discussion. But, again,
16 don't adopt this notion that you are in a special
17 category or a big boat or a big industry has any
18 more space to comply. Right through the Public
19 Health Service for many years I have worked with
20 boats, particularly passenger boats or war ships,
21 and if you begin to look for an Inch of space on
22 one of these ships and try to gather those pipes
23 together, you will find a problem that Is as cora-
24 plex as any you will find on a small boat.
25 How, again, and I don't have any brief
-------
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 for a big industry, but if you think that the
3 U. S. Steel South Works plant, that big U. S.
4 Steel plant in Chicago, can more readily find
5 the space for its waste disposal facilities
6 and collection facilities in its plant than
7 you can find on a small boat and they have
8 easier problems, I think we are kidding our-
9 selves. If we are going to clean up pollution
1° we all have to make this effort and we have
11 to make this sacrifice. I don't think that
12 boat owners are being picked on if you go
13 out and see some of these other people's
1* problems in taking on waste problems that
15 you think have an easy ready solution.
16 It is tough; I realize it is tough,
17 and it is going to cost money. But it seems to
I8 me we ere faced with a critical threat to a
19 national resource and we all have to set up a
20 fairly stringent deadline and make efforts to
21 do it or else the .job isn't going to be done.
22 MR. SCHEMEL: Do you think a three I
23 and a half month deadline is fair when other peopJLe-
24 J/HR. STEIN; I am not commenting on
25 the Chicago ordinance. I am just speaking
-------
1715
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 generally.
3 MR« SCHEMEL: Well, we have to bring
4 out the Chicago ordinance in order to show you
5 that there is a definite need for uniformity
6 all around the lake. We are an interstate sport.
7 We don't Just necessarily sit in the Chicago
3 harbors.
9 We are saddled with an ordinance here
10 in Chicago that it is almost impossible to comply
ll with. What do we do? This is why we come to you
12 and this is why I am here. We do have a problem.
13 We would certainly appreciate your consideration
14 and any help that we can get from this body and
15 help us.
16 We want to stop pollution perhaps more
17 than anyone else in this room because we are
18 daily, during the summertime, in contact with
19 it. We swim in it, we float in it, and we use
20 it for washing water purposes, and so forth and
21 so on, and we want a clean lake and we want to
22 do what we can. But we do have a problem and we
23 ask you for help, mainly in the form of uniform
24 State regulations.
25 We would like to recommend once more
-------
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 the model legislation by the National Association
3 of State Boating Law Administrators. These arc
4 people who are very, very informed when it comes
5 to boat safety, and so forth and so on. The
6 National Sanitation Foundation is the leading
7 organization for sanitary standards; it is a non-
8 profit organization; you will get complete in-
9 formation on it later on. We would like your
10 consideration.
11 In the meantime, we will do what we can
12 to help, but we are saddled with a situation in
13 Chicago which we can't hardly tolerate and we
14 can't do anything about it. What do we do? Can
15 you tell me? I don't know.
16 I have nothing to tell the small boater.
17 He has no place to put any holding tank of any
18 kind. If he leaves the Chicago area what does
19 he do? He can't go to Michigan and have his
20 tank pumped out$ he can't go to Indiana to have
21 the tank pumped out. To have a tank big enough
22 on a small boat to last for two or three or four
23 days with a family of two or three children is
24 almost a physical impossibility.
25 This is about what it amounts to.
-------
1717
l GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 MR. STEIN: We understand your point
3 of view. The Conferees will be giving cor.sldera-
4 tion to boat pollution as well as any other kind
5 of pollution. But I think Chicago has made an
6 attempt to grapple with the law and we very
7 rarely come in and tell a State or a City that
8 is moving ahead with the pollution law that the
9 law isn't to be obeyed, because you get--
10 MR. SCHEMEL: I recognize the fact that
11 you are not going to tell Chicago to withdraw
12 its ordinance. But we do want to highlight
13 the point that there is a definite need for
14 uniformity all around the lake in as far as
15 boat pollution is concerned. Holding tanks are
16 a problemj chlorinator macerators are a problem;
17 and the entire picture of sanitary disposal for
18 boats is a real package. And we would like your
19 consideration.
20 I didn't recommend this chlorinator
21 macerator. I merely said we wished you would
22 consider it and perhaps look at it. This is all
23 I have asked.
24 MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments
25 or questions?
-------
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman.
3 MR. STEIN: Yes.
4 MR. HOLMER: I am curious as to the
5 procedure by which this ordinance was adopted
6 by the Chicago City Council. Was it extensive?
7 Did it consider chlorinator macerators? Was
8 there opportunity for full discussion of this
9 issue before the City Council?
10 MR. SCHEMEL: The boating industry was
11 told sometime ago that there was a possibility of
12 &n ordinance. The representatives requested to
13 be heard at hearings. We were never notified
14 about it. We found out through other channels
15 that the ordinance was in process of being dis-
16 cussed and we had 15 minutes to get there and
17 when we got there the ordinance was passed.
18 MR. STEIN: Oh, come now, I know these
10 people in Chicago. I know the people who
20 developed this ordinance. You may or may not
21 agree with their decision, but I am sure they
22 thoroughly considered the alternative of
23 chlorinator macerators before they decided to go
24 this course. I don't think we are going to be
25 productive or get to this unless you feel you are
-------
1719
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 dealing with professionals in Chicago who
3 developed the ordinance and they believed
4 they were making the best judgment under the
5 circumstances.
6 I think we all have a right to point
7 out what we think may be flaws or anything like
8 that, but I know Chicago has been kicking this
9 around for years. This wasn't something that
lO was railroaded through. They have been dis-
n cussing the various alternatives with special
12 groups and making studies on this for a long
13 time before they came up with that decision.
14 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman.
15 MR. STEIN: Yes.
16 MR, KLASSER"; Unless the speaker
17 leave the impression--and I am not speaking for
18 the City of Chicago because I am no official of
19 the City of Chicago, but I know what went on—
20 unless this speaker leave the impression that this
21 was something that was pushed through without any
22 consideration, this is leaving a false impression.
23 This was thoroughly discussed with people that
24 were interested in cleaning up the lake, not
25 interested in making a lot of excuses why the boat
-------
.1720
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 owners couldn't comply. I was tip in that party
3 and I will take my responsibility for this.
4 Now, you said what can the boat owners
5 do if they can't comply by the April deadline?
6 I have got a real good suggestion what you can
7 do. If it is an alternative,whether you go
8 out and pollute the lake or stay home off the
9 boat, stay off the boat.
10 MR. SCHEMEL: We don't want to pollute
11 the lake.
12 MR. KLASSEN: Well, then, you come
13 through with a solution or don't go out and
14 pollute the lake. This is my own personal
15 feeling.
16 We have heard for years from the boat
17 people, and I mean for years, why they can't do
18 this, why they can't do that. Now 1+ -is your
19 turn to come up with something that you can do.
20 MR. SCHEMEL: Mr. Klassen, all I have
21 asked is consideration for uniform standards
22 around the lake and the possibility so we can comply
23 with these standards once they are properly set up
24 MR. KLASSEN: Somebody has got to take
25 the lead. Chicago did it and the State of Illinois
-------
1721
1 GERHARD M. SCHEMEL
2 Is going to "back them.
3 MR. STEIN: Are there any further
4 comments or questions?
5 MR. SCHEMEL: Thank you.
6 MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very
7 much, sir.
8 Mr. Klassen.
9 MR. KLASSEN: Sandwiched in between
10 here and the next speaker, who is going to talk
11 on the same subject, we want to bring in a very
12 brief statement by the Illinois Federation of
13 Sportsmen's Clubs. These are the people that
14 are out using the boats and using the water.
15 Harvey Tenner.
16
17 STATEMENT OF HARVEY TENNER
18 POLLUTION COORDINATOR
19 ILLINOIS FEDERATION OF SPORTSMEN'S CLUBS
20
21 MR. TENNERs The Illinois Federation
22 of Sportsmen's Clubs is dedicated to the abate-
23 ment of pollution in all forms. It, therefore,
24 has considerable interest in this four-State
25 Conference on pollution of Lake Michigan and
-------
1722
1 HARVEY TENNER
2 wishes to express its thoughts for consideration
3 by your group.
4 We believe this Conference is long
5 overdue. Accordingly, positive action is expected
6 from this meeting. We feel that enough evidence
7 and information is available to all you responsible
g people to provide such action.
9 We are opposed to further studies, re-
10 search meetings, etc., that would prolong and
ll push the day of agreement further in the future.
12 Innumerable times we read and hear of appropria-
13 tions for further studies and no action. Each of
14 the four States' representatives is fully aware
15 of its State's contribution to the pollution of
16 Lake Michigan, the type of pollution, the pol-
17 luters, the locations and the remedies. There
18 are enough means available to eliminate such
19 pollution.
20 Ever since the initial Lake Michigan
21 Conference in 1965, industry, governments, other
22 contributors and interested parties have known
23 that pollution would have to be stopped and by a
24 prescribed date. That date for the most part is
25 December 31st, 196&.
-------
: 1723
1 HARVEY TENNER
2 We believe that no quarter or extensions
3 of time should be given polluters. They have had
4 the time and opportunity to take corrective action.
5 Many have intentionally dragged their feet to pro-
6 long the day that they must comply. They have no
7 conscience in the harm they do to the community
g and take the attitude they have no obligation to
9 the people and let the people pay the cost.
10 We believe that polluters should pay
11 for the pollution they cause. Contrary to their
12 statements that in complying they would be put
13 at a competitive disadvantage, it can be demon-
14 strated that they profit by such correction.
15 One of the more basic reasons for
16 reluctance to abate pollution is that it is a
17 non-productive expense that brings no profit
18 and therefore should be avoided.
19 Illinois contributes its share to the
20 lake's pollution. Its steel mills, the Lake
21 Shore Sanitary Districts .are examples. The
22 filtration plant near Rainbow Beach each year
23 shows in its tests an increase in bacteria count.
24 Indiana's steel mills and other pro-
25 cessing industries likewise pollute and we are
-------
1724
1 HARVEY TENNER
2 constantly told of raw sewage finding its way into
3 the.lake. One can't forget the water birds found
4 there about two or three years ago having been
6 killed by botulism E.
6 Milwaukee beaches are closed because
7 they are unsafe. Along Wisconsin's borders there
8 are many polluted streams that flow unchecked
9 into Lake Michigan.
10 Michigan, among similar contributions,
11 has DDT entering its side of the lake. The Coho
12 salmon which it planted have been found to contain
13 this and other deadly fertilizing chemicals.
14 Paper-making liquors are found in the lake from
15 uncontrolled dumping on the Michigan side.
16 Between now and 1970, six »teel com-
17 panies are planning on building new or additional
18 facilities at the lower end of the lake.
19 The aforementioned are only a few
20 examples to show that all the bordering States
2i are making a substantial pollution contribution
22 to the lake and all have equal responsibility
23 in seeing that the problem is resolved expe-
24 ditiously,
25 Penalties must be stiff enough to make
-------
1725
1 HARVEY TENNER
2 it unprofitable for contributors to continue.
3 Meager penalties in many cases make it cheaper
4 to pay than to install the facilities to stop
5 "•
- It is not our intent to say that
7 industry is the sole contributor. Municlpali-
8 ties, government facilities, institutions and
9 others by direct contribution or by inaction
10 to stop pollution when they can are Just as
n guilty.
12 While we haven't begun to overcome
13 pollution, here is what's ahead of us:
14 By the year 2000 a 50 percent
15 increase in population.
16 New homes will double in the same
17 period.
lg Refuse and energy requirements
19 doubling every decade.
20 While this is going on the total water
21 and land available remains the same.
22 The task is monumental and we had better
23 get with it now!
24 You people today have the greatest
25 opportunity for service to the people. Make
-------
1726
1 HARVEY TENNER
2 the fullest use of it.
3 Thank you.
4 MR. STEIN: Thank you, sir.
5 Are there any comments or questions?
6 (No response.)
7 MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very
8 much for your statement.
9 (The following statement was submitted
10 for inclusion in the record as if read:)
11
12 ILLINOIS BOATING ASSOCIATION
13 CHAIRMAN PRANK HEYES, PRESIDENT
14 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
15
16 January 26, 1968
17 State Sanitary Water Board
Springfield, Illinois 62706
18
19 Gentlemen:
20 The Illinois Boating Association, an
21 organization which speaks for some 1QOOO boaters
22 in the State of Illinois is vitally concerned
23 with the pollution of our Nation's waterways and
24 especially the rapid deterioration of Lake Michi-
25 gan.
-------
1727
1 ILLINOIS BOATING ASSOCIATION
2 No one is more concerned about the
3 pollution of Lake Michigan than the boat owner
4 who uses these waters for recreation. He is
6 fully in accord with establishing pollution
6 controls for wastes from pleasure craft pro-
7 viding such controls are uniform between States
8 and between States and the Federal Government,
9 and not a hodge podge of laws and ordinances
10 from port to port and State to State such as
11 found between Wisconsin and Minnesota along
12 the upper Mississippi River.
13 Although recreational boats contribute
14 an infinitesimal amount to the water pollution
15 problem, every boat owner is ready and willing
16 to do his share to keep our waters clean. How-
17 ever, he does ask that any anti-pollution regu-
18 lations be practical, effective and uniform
19 throughout the country; and that any target
20 date for installing approved waste disposal
21 devices be consistent with that granted to
22 industry and municipalities.
23 Any such controls should not limit the
24 type of devices to be installed as long as they
25 meet water criteria standards. In many small
-------
1728
ILLINOIS BOATING ASSOCIATION
2 boats and especially the smaller sailing craft
3 retention tank systems are impractical and in
many cases cannot be installed.
To effectively and firmly control
6 pollution from recreational craft, therefore,
7 the Illinois Boating Association offers the
8 following recommendations:
9 WE RECOMMEND
10 1. That the Federal Government
adopt the National Association of
State Boating Law Administrators
13 Model Act on Sewage Disposal and
14 Littering from Vessels implemented
15 by the National Sanitation Founda-
16 tion's Uniform Performance Standards
17 for ¥atercraft Sewage Treatment De-
vices as a guide to be followed by
the States in the same manner as the
20 Federal Boat Numbering Act.
2i 2. That Federal water quality
22 criteria standards be established
23 and as far as practical and consis-
24 tent be adopted by all States, and
25 be in harmony with NASBLA's MODEL ACT
-------
1729
1 ILLINOIS BOATING ASSOCIATION
2 on Sewage Disposal and Littering
3 from Vessels, and standards of
4 National Sanitation Foundation.
5 3. That Federal legislation should
6 be drafted to insure maximum uni-
7 formity and reciprocity between the
8 States and between the States and
9 Federal Government.
10 4. That the Federal Government
U establish uniform deadline for com-
12 pllance consistent with that given
13 industry and municipalities.
14 5. That the States attending this
15 Conference, Illinois, Wisconsin,
16 Indiana and Michigan adopt and follow
17 the above guidelines for Lake Michigan.
18 On behalf of all ISA members, I wish to
19 express our appreciation for being given this
20 opportunity to express our views.
21 Very truly yours,
22 (Signed) Frank Heyes
President
23 FH/ bhm
24
25
-------
1730
1 ILLINOIS BOATING ASSOCIATION
2
NASBLA POLLUTION STUDY COMMITTEE
3
AMENDMENTS TO MODEL BOAT POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
4
ADOPTED NOVEMBER 17, 1967
5
"A Model Act to Prohibit Littering and
6
the Disposal of Untreated Sewage from Boats," as
7
it appears in Appendix C to the Report of the Pol-
8
lution Study-Committee of the National Associatior
9
of State Boating Law Administrators, dated Novem-
10
ber 8, 19^5, is hereby amended as follows:
11
(1) by striking the words "82^1 and
12
2^3" immediately following the words
13
"Title 42 United States Code" at the
14
end of the fifth line of Section l(a^
15
and substituting the words "§252 and
16
§262 to 272 and Title 8 United States
17
Code, gll82(a) and (f), §1201(d), and
18
§1224"
19
(2) by adding the following new
20
section: "§17, RECIPROCITY Any
21
toilet aboard a watercraft registered,
22
documented or otherwise licensed in
23
another State or country may be used
24
on the waters of this State for a
25
period not to exceed 30 consecutive
-------
1731
1 ILLINOIS BOATING ASSOCIATION
2 daysi provided such toilet is
3 equipped with a pollution control
4 device meeting the requirements
5 of the watercraft's home Jurisdic
6 tion."
7
8 MR. STEIN: We will recess for lunch
9 and reconvene today at 1:45. We will start
10 very promptly,because there is a push for us to
11 get out of the room early and we have to get
12 through with the rest of Illinois and Indiana
13 today. So I ask you to report back promptly.
14 (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., a recess
15 was taken until 1:45 p.m. of the same day.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1732
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 (1:45 p.m.)
3 MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
4 Mr. Morton.
5
6 ILLINOIS PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
7
8 DR. BORUPP: Boruff speaking for Mr. Klass^n
9 Illinois would now like to call as a
10 witness Mr.Ron Stone, Outboard Club of America.
11 Mr. Stone.
12
13 STATEMENT OP RON STONE
14 DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DEPARTMENT
15 OUTBOARD BOATING CLUB OF AMERICA
16
17 MR. STONE: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Morton,
18 Conferees, ladies and gentlemen.
19 My name is Ron Stone. I am Director
20 of the Government Relations Department of the
21 Outboard Boating Club of America,
22 After this morning's debate I feel my
23 name rather should be Daniel, because I feel like
24 I am in the lions' den.
25 I speak for 46 organized boating clubs
-------
1733
1 RON STONE
2 In a four-State area near Lake Michigan who
3 genuinely want to save their lake. I also
speak for the Boat Owners Council of America
serving 2,000 individual small boat owners
g in the same area who share that sentiment
7 strongly.
8 Both organizations are consumer
9 arms of the Boating Industry Association, a
National non-profit trade association head-
11 quartered at 333 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago,
12 Illinois
13 The Boating Industry Association
14 Nationally represents 350 manufacturers of
15 recreational boating equipment. Nearly one-
third of its members are located in the four-
11 State area surrounding Lake Michigan. These
18 local manufacturers make everything that goes
19 with boating--boats, outboard motors, boat
20 trailers, marine accessories and supplies;
21 everything, with the vital exception of water.
22 Without attractive water, recreational
23 boating would be out of the question and the
24 boating industry would be out of business.
25 Boating is big business in the four-State
-------
I RON STONE
2 area surrounding Lake Michigan. In 196? we
3 estimate recreational boaters in this area
4 spent $550,000,000 at retail for new and used
5 boats, motors, accessories, safety equipment,
6 fuel, insurance, docking,maintenance, launching,
7 storage, repairs and club memberships. Approxi-
8 mately 18.2 percent of the Nation's outboard
9 motor market is found in Illinois, Indiana,
10 Wisconsin and Michigan.
U Any attempt on our part to estimate the
12 number of people who do not go boating on Lake
13 Michigan because of pollution would be guesswork,
14 but we have reason to believe that many find the
15 prospect repugnant because of the foul condition
16 of some of the shoreline areas, particularly
17 around harbors, Industrial complexes, and tribu-
lg tary streams.
19 It is no wonder that we share your
20 anxiety about the deteriorating condition of
2i Lake Michigan. If manmade pollution is not
22 arrested, our consumers are likely to be among
23 the earliest casualties. Water pollution
24 attacks boaters in many ways. It smears hard-
25 to-reraove scum and corrosive acids on their hulls.
-------
173'
RON STONE
2 It Is a health hazard to them in direct contact
3 water sports such as water skiing, scuba diving
4 and swimming. It ruins their fishing. It robs
them of fresh air and blue water--the basic
attractions of recreational boating.
7 The facts already developed in this
8 hearing and elsewhere on the threat of polluted
water to human health, fish and wildlife., the
diminution of recreational values, and eutrophl-
cation, make it crystal clear that this is
12 everyone's problem.
13 Perhaps the fact that we are all in
14 some measure responsible for the problem is one
15 of the reasons why we are moving so slowly in
bringing about a solution. If a single group
17 could be pointed out as the offender, I am certain
18 we would not tolerate it. But unfortunately the
19 guilt is so widespread that we can and do point
20 the finger at one another to take the pressure off
21 doing our share to clean up the water. It would
22 be ideal if Industry, municipal sewage plants,
23 agriculture and recreation could coordinate their
24 pollution abatement efforts so that all at once
25 Lake Michigan was reasonably clean again.
-------
1736
1 RON STONE
2 Realistically, some problems will take longer to
3 solve than others. But there is no reason why we
4 cannot establish a practical timetable for action
5 by various groups so that Lake Michigan is grad-
6 ually but positively redeemed.
7 In the past we maintained that pollution
8 from recreational boats is a most insignificant
9 factor when compared Kith the contaminating wastes
10 which reach the water from other sources. We still
11 feel that way. However, we are mindful that, if
12 the growth of recreational boating continues at
13 its present rate, eventually pollution from boats
14 may become a real factor in the overall pollution
15 picture. For that reason we are eager to do every-
16 thing reasonably possible now to eliminate recrea-
17 tional boaters from the list of offenders.
18 Let's be objective. What is the nature
19 of recreational boating's contribution to Lake
20 Michigan pollution?
21 The main concern is that human feces
22 discharged from boat toilets is adding bacteria
23 and nutrients to the water.
24 No one knows exactly how many toilet-
25 equipped pleasure craft there are on Lake Michigan.
-------
1737
! RON STONE
2 We estimate that on all the waters or Illinois,
3 Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan combined there
4 are fewer than 60,000 recreational boats with
6 toilets. This estimate is based upon a 1965
g study by the National Association of State Boating
7 Law Administrators which concluded that only
8 5 to 3D percent of all recreational boats regis-
9 tered in this country today have toilets. Of
10 the fewer than 60,000 boats in this four-State
11 area which have toilets, it is reasonable to
12 assume that only those kept within 50 to 100
13 miles from the lakeshore are used on Lake
14 Michigan. Actually, then, the number is much
15 smaller.
15 Littering, or throwing bottles, cans
17 and garbage overboard is also of concern, but
lg borrowing from experience in other parts of the
19 country, we find the problem evaporates where
20 government cracks down with stiff fines for
2i littering,and boating organizations cooperate
22 by promoting the use of litter bags to stow
23 refuse for on-shore disposal.
24 The problem of sewage disposal from
25 boats has not been as easy to attack. It is
-------
1738
1 RON STONE
2 not a case of Industry inaction or consumer
3 indifference, because we have been promoting
4 the use of sewage treatment and retention
5 equipment for the past 10 years. As a result,
6 you will find virtually all boat manufacturers
7 today provide adequate space for pollution
8 control devices on all boats that can reasonably
9 be expected to use such equipment.
10 The stumbling block has been lack of
11 direction from government, lack of uniform
12 standards and guidelines for the manufacture
13 of boat pollution control devices. Manufacturers
14 have told us that they would gladly produce if
15 government could agree on what they wanted in
IQ a boat pollution control device, but manufacturers
17 are reluctant to get into the field as long as
18 they face the prospect of fifty States and the
19 Federal Government setting so many different
20 standards that manufacturers, cannot economically
21 produce a boat pollution control device that
22 will please everyone.
23 The boating industry long ago started
24 taking steps to remedy this.
25 They cooperated with the National
-------
1739
I RON STONE
2 Association of State Boating Law Administrators,
3 the foremost group of government officials con-
4 nected with recreational boating safety laws,
5 in drawing up a practical model act to prohibit
6 littering and the discharge of untreated sewage
7 from boats. Its purpose is to foster uniformity
8 and reciprocity between the States. It has
9 produced results.
lO Thousands of copies of this model law
H have been distributed to people in and out of
12 government all over the country during the last
13 few years. Already eight States, Including the
14 Great Lakes State of New York, have adopted boat
15 pollution control laws, based upon the model law.
16 So has the Tennessee Valley Authority.
17 Basically, the model act prohibits
18 the discharge of inadequately-treated sewage from
19 boats or the abandonment of containers of such
20 sewage anywhere on or near the water. Use of
21 boat toilets is conditioned upon having the
22 toilet equipped with an approved sewage treatment
23 device.
24 The Act recognizes three principal
25 types of devices now on the market, chemical
-------
1740
! RON STONE
2 treatment devices that macerate and bacterio-
3 logically disinfect sewage before discharge,
4 holding tanks and incinerators, provided
g appropriate instructions on their installation
c and use are followed. More exacting standards
o
are provided in the model act for chemical treat-
g ment devices than holding tanks or incinerators,
9 Inasmuch as the chemical treatment device does
10 permit discharge directly into the water.
n The problem of litter is attacked
12 through two methods: one by penalties and the
13 other through authorization of vigorous educa-
14 tional public relations programs.
,. We believe the standards in the model
15)
j3 act will stand up under close scrutiny. Several
17 States, including New York, Minnesota and North
18 Carolina, have conducted or sponsored laboratory
19 or actual on-the-use tests of sewage treatment
20 devices for watercraft. Several of the units
2i tested have been found to be effective in treating
22 human sewage in line with the standards of the
23 model act and consistent with local water quality
24 criteria.
25 A year and. a half ago a National
-------
1 RON STONE
2 Conference of government officials in public
3 health and water pollution control decided that
4 the National Sanitation Foundation of Ann Arbor,
5 Michigan, was the most qualified from a public
6 health standpoint to develop uniform performance
7 standards and testing procedures for watercraft
8 waste disposal devices. Industry has worked
9 closely with the Foundation, which is a National
10 not-for-profit testing laboratory connected with
11 the School of Public Health at the University of
12 Michigan; so have interested government repre-
13 sentatives from the Michigan Water Resources
14 Commission, the Wisconsin and Indiana State Boards
15 of Health, and in an unofficial capacity a member
16 of the Illinois State Sanitary Board. The result
17 is that this year we can start testing and
18 approving boat pollution control devices according
19 to uniform biochemical, mechanical and marine
20 safety standards. Several states have indicated
21 they will weigh these standards heavily in ap-
22 proving boat pollution control devices for use
23 on their waters.
24 We know many Lake Michigan boaters
25 would gladly equip their boat with pollution
-------
17^2
I RON STONE
2 control devices, if they could be assured that
3 the equipment satisfied the requirements in
4 more than one small area of cruising; and that
6 they would not be put to additional expense by
6 a change in requirements somewhere at a later
7 date. Boaters are not procrastinating. Theirs
8 is a very legitimate concern.
9 Boating around here is not confined
10 inside the breakwaters of a harbor area. It is
n an interstate recreation. Hugging the shoreline
12 of the southern end of the lake, small craft can
13 easily navigate the boundaries of four States
14 within 125 miles. It is quite common to find
15 Chicago boaters off the shores of Michigan,
16 Indiana and Wisconsin on holidays and weekend
17 excursions.
18 All of the States surrounding Lake
19 Michigan already have laws regulating sewage
20 discharge from recreational boats. But the
21 requirements vary. There is confusion of
22 interpretation, and law enforcement is spotty
23 and uncertain. Consequently, boaters are in a
24 quandary. They do not know what to do. It is
25 all very confusing.
-------
1 RON STONE
2 As you know,the City of Chicago
3 recently passed an ordinance requiring all
4 boats with toilets operating in Chicago waters
5 to have retention tanks installed by the 1968
6 boating season. In our opinion, the restrictions
7 are tighter than necessary, but it is hard to
8 fight City Hall, especially when they are under
9 pressure themselves to clean up pollution from
10 all sources. But it is this kind of piecemeal
H action without regard for the consequences
12 outside city waters, that is complicating pol-
13 lution control efforts in recreational boating.
14 The Chicagoan who installs a retention tank for
15 1968 is going to be in a dilemma when he cruises
16 outside of the Chicago harbor area, because
17 frankly, gentlemen, we know of no shoreside
18 facilities around Lake Michigan where he can go
19 to have his holding tank pumped out. Neither
20 Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana nor Michigan law
21 provide for onshore sewage disposal facilities
22 for watercraft. The hapless boater is going to
23 have no recourse but to empty his tank into the
24 | water.
25 It seems to us that this proliferation
-------
I RON STONE
2 of non-uniform regulations is aggravating the
3 problem. What we need is a National uniform
4 pollution control law for recreational watercraft
5 with standards that boaters are capable of meeting.
6 What you need is a law that can be respected and
7 adequately enforced.
8 To accomplish this, we submit the
9 following plan:
10 First; Because the States cannot fully
n agree on pollution controls for recreational
12 vessels, we recommend that the Federal Government
13 adopt a uniform vessel pollution control act with
14 standards for vessel waste disposal devices. We
u do not mean the Federal Government should preempt
16 the regulation of pollution from pleasure craft.
17 Bather, we hope for a mechanism whereby the States,
jg by agreeing to basic Federal standards, can obtain
19 primary Jurisdiction over vessel pollution control
20 on all waters within their boundaries and give
2i boaters the State-to-State uniformity they need.
22 We believe that the control of water pollution and
23 pleasure craft waste disposal should remain a
24 State function.
25 Second; We recommend that the Federal
-------
1745
1 RON STONE
2 Government pattern Its Act after the Model Act
3 to Prohibit Littering and the Disposal of Un-
4 treated Sewage from Boats drafted and endorsed
5 by the National Association of State Boating Law
Q Administrators. We also commend the uniform
7 performance standards and testing procedures for
8 watercraft waste treatment devices developed by
9 the National Sanitation Foundation of Ann Arbor,
10 Michigan. We feel there Is no need for the
11 Federal Government to start from scratch in
12 evolving uniform standards and guidelines for
13 watercraft waste treatment devices when eminent
14 authorities in the field in the area of boating
15 lav administration and public health have already
16 done so much. Copies of the recommended NASBLA
17 model act and NSF's proposed standards are ap-
18 pended to my written statement for your careful
13 study and I respectfully request that they be
20 entered into the hearing record.
21 Finally, we ask for a delay In the
22 enforcement of Federal, State or local laws and
23 regulations In this area until after National
24 standards for watercraft waste disposal devices
25 have been established and meaningful tests of the
-------
1 RON STOKE
2 various kinds of such devices have been completed.
3 This in our opinion should take no longer than a
4 year or two. Interim action by any level of
5 government would, we feel, unreasonably foreclose
6 the possibility of acceptance of some units that
7 deserve to be proved effective in eliminating
g pollution from vessels.
9 The plan I -have outlined seems to be
lO the only rational way out of the maze of pollution
U control laws in which recreational boaters have
12 been lost for the past several years.
13 But let me reiterate to make one point
14 perfectly clear: We are not suggesting that the
15 Federal Government take over the control of pol-
16 lution attributable to recreational boating, only
17 that the Federal Government establish basic
18 standards for waste disposal from recreational
19 craft that will show the States the way to uni-
20 formity and reciprocity.
21 It would be a mistake, in our opinion,
22 to give any Federal agency absolute discretion
23 to set standards or to approve devices to control
24 waste disposal from watercraft. There has to be
25 close cooperation between the Federal Government
-------
17*17
1 RON STONE
2 and State and local agencies responsible for
3 water pollution control, public health, and
4 boating law enforcement. Any rules or regulations
5 established by Washington without carefully con-
6 suiting the States could result in Federal-State
7 conflicts of law that would make matters worse
8 for boaters, not only from State to State but when
9 proceeding from State to Federal waters within
10 the boundaries of the same State. This is a real
11 danger.
12 If the Federal Water Pollution Control
13 Administration had consulted and collaborated with
14 State boating law administrators when they were
15 investigating pollution from recreational water-
16 craft, we believe they would have reached more
17 realistic conclusions in the report "Wastes from
18 Watercraft," Document 82, dated June 30, 1967,
19 which they sent to the 90th Congress.
20 For example, the FWPCA report states
21 that 1.3 million pleasure boats, or one out of
22 every six boats in the country, have toilet
23 facilities. Actually the number of toilet-
24 equipped pleasure craft is scarcely half of that.
25 A recent National survey of marine toilet
-------
1 ROH STONE
2 manufacturers found they have produced an
3 aggregate of only 500,000 to 700,000 units
4 since they have been in business. The number
5 in use today is even less because over the
6 years many toilet-equipped boats have been
7 retired from service, destroyed or abandoned.
g The FWPCA report leans toward holding
9 tanks for boat toilets, because, they say, a
10 dozen States now prohibit the discharge of sewage
11 from recreational watercraft. That is specious
12 reasoning, because a greater number of States,
13 key boating States, expressly authorize sewage
14 discharge from boats provided it is adequately
15 treated according to local water quality criteria.
16 We feel the FWPCA report begs the ques-
17 tion of providing adequate shoreside facilities
18 for pumping out holding tanks. They say provision
19 of such facilities can best be required and regu-
20 lated under State law. But as I pointed .out
21 earlier in my statement, the States themselves
22 are reticent to do anything about onshore pump-out
23 facilities for vessel holding tanks. They seem to
24 prefer to leave that to the pressures of business
25 competition.
-------
! RON STONE
2 The PWPCA report overlooks all the
3 documented facts and scientific information
4 which the National Association of State Boating
5 Law Administrators and the National Sanitation
„ Foundation have produced. It makes little sense
7 to us to undertake a whole new Federal program
g of establishing standards to evaluate the
9 effectiveness of a variety of boat pollution
10 control devices when the work has already been
jl done by perhaps the most knowledgeable and
12 experienced people in the field. We know these
13 people would gladly be of assistance to the
14 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
15 if only they were asked.
16 In summation, the recreational boating
17 sport and industry have a big stake in cleaning
18 up Lake Michigan. You can count on us to help
19 by stopping the discharge of raw sewage and
20 littering, but we ask you to help us to do so.
21 Give us a program of pollution abatement that is
22 workable for the small boat owner and yachtsman
23 alike. Give us laws that are uniform and recip-
24 rocal wherever recreational boats venture, not
25 only on Lake Michigan but all other waters of our
-------
1730
RON STONE
2 country. Give us reasonable time to comply with
3 these laws, so that we don't have to plead for
4 postponements of enforcement. Above all, let us
g hope that we are participating in a coordinated
effort against lake pollution from all sources
so that the water does not remain polluted after
recreational boating has done its utmost to
eliminate its very minor contribution to Lake
Michigan pollution.
At this point, gentlemen, let me
digress from the script and anticipate one of
your questions: Do we go along with the Federal
14 Water Pollution Control Administration, recom-
15 mendation for Statewide pollution control laws
16 modeled after the Chicago ordinance? In all
17 good conscience, we do not, at least not entirely.
We have no quarrel with holding tanks, per se.
However, we do feel that there are other devices
20 on the market that are equally satisfactory as
2i ways for arresting pollution. Many other local
22 and State governments are equally satisfied that
23 chemical treatment devices that macerate and
24 disinfect toilet wastes will do the Job. They
25 destroy all bacteria in the effluent, which is
-------
1751
1 RON STONE
2 the main concern from a public health standpoint.
3 In fact, the effluent is purer bacteriologically
4 after treatment than the water into which it is
6 being discharged.
6 Thousands of boat owners throughout
7 the country in good faith have bought and in-
8 stalled chemical treatment devices and are using
9 them in compliance with the laws of their home
j0 state. If the Chicago ordinance were followed
H universally, they would have to rip out perfectly
12 good equipment.
13 The only basis we have heard for Chicago's
14 disaffection with chemical treatment devices is
15 that they don't remove the nutrients from the
16 effluent.
17 But how much nutrient are you really
18 talking about when it comes to toilet waste from
19 pleasure craft? At a recent hearing of the Chicagc
20 Park District testimony was received that the
21 actual weight of nutrients in toilet wastes dis-
22 charged from pleasure craft into Chicago harbor
23 waters in a week, amounts to only 3/^ of an ounce
24 per boat, and that is assuming that all toilet
25 equipped boats are used every week during the
-------
1732
1 RON STONE
2 3-1/2 month boating season in Chicago. Three*
3 quarters of an ounce into four and one-half
4 billion gallons of water in Chicago boat harbors
5 seems pathetically little. It would take a mess
6 of bowel movements to create a nutrient problem,
7 and we defy anyone to say pleasure boaters have
g it in them.
9 (Laughter.)
10 It's shortsighted to say that we're going
H to cure the nutrient problem in boat toilet wastes
12 l>y requiring holding tanks, because even if the
13 wastes are kept on board and pumped out to shore-
14 /side facilities, there is no guarantee that after
15 the wastes have gone into the sewer system and
16 through the local sewage treatment plant that they
17 will be purged of nutrients. Last Thursday we
18 heard Dr.Bartsch say that even after ordinary
19 secondary treatment substantial amounts of nutrient
20 remain in municipal sewage that is discharged into
21 Lake Michigan.
22 We submit that more study and work is
23 needed on ultimate nutrient removal methods and
24 criteria for nutrient levels in receiving waters.
25 You say it's the eleventh hour for
-------
1753
1 ROH STONE
2 stopping accelerated eutrophication of Lake
3 Michigan. We are the first to agree, but
4 heaven help us. We say it's too early in
5 the day to enforce boat pollution control
6 laws like the Chicago ordinance.
1 The small boat owner can't comply with
g a holding tank law. The units now available on
9 the market are too bulky to fit into his toilet
10 compartment.
H Even on larger boats there are problems.
12 Expensive electrical, carpentry and plumbing
13 work is involved in installing holding tanks and
14 there is not enough time now to meet the May 15,
15 1968 deadline which the City has set.
16 There are not enough shoreside pump-out
17 facilities around at this time to service the
18 cruising pleasure craft on Lake Michigan.
19 The Chicago ordinance says that pollution
20 control devices approved by the Port Director as
21 satisfying the water quality standards of the
22 Illinois State Sanitary Board for Lake Michigan
23 may be used in lieu of a holding tank. Yet to
24 our knowledge, the State has not established
25 standards for effluent from vessels--for sewage
-------
1 RON STONE
2 treatment plants, yes, but not for vessels.
3 So we ask, isn't it premature for Chicago to
4 enforce an ordinance that still lacks standards?
5 The recreational boating community
6 appreciates what Chicago is trying to accomplish
7 to clean up Lake Michigan. We want to help.
8 We ask only that the City appreciate some of the
9 problems boaters are up against in trying to
10 comply with a holding tank only law.
U (The material submitted by Mr. Stone is
12 as follows:)
13
A MODEL ACT TO PROHIBIT LITTERING
14
AND THE DOSPOSAL OP UNTREATED SEWAGE FROM BOATS
15
16 TITLE
17 An Act to regulate the disposal of
lg sewage from watercraft and to prohibit littering
19 of waterways.
20 I 1. DEFINITIONS
2i For purposes of this Act, unless the
22 context clearly requires a different meaning:
23 (a) The term "watercraft" means any
24 contrivance used or capable of being used for
25 navigation upon water whether or not capable of
-------
1755
I BON STONE
2 self-propulsion, except passenger or cargo-
3 carrying vessels subject to the Interstate
4 Quarantine Regulations of the United States
5 Public Health Service adopted pursuant to
6 Title k2 United States Code I 2^1 and 243.
7 (b) The term "sewage" means all
g human body wastes.
9 (c) The term "litter" means any
10 bottles, glass, crockery, cans, scrap metal,
11 Junk, paper, garbage, rubbish, or similar
12 refuse discarded as no longer useful or usable.
13 (d) The term "marine toilet" means
14 any toilet on or within any watercraft to dis-
15 charge waste.
16 (e) The term "waters of this State"
17 means all of the waterways on which watercraft
18 shall be used or operated.
19 Hote: In some States it may
20 be desired to limit the application
21 of this Act to certain waters only
22 and thereby exempt large bodies of
23 water or water areas that are remote
24 from population centers and on which
25 there is no congestion and no
-------
1756
1 RON STONE
2 conceivable boat pollution problem.
3 The waters subject to pollution
4 control under this Act could be
5 enumerated or the State agency
6 which is designated to administer
7 the Act could be authorized to make
8 a finding that a particular waterway
9 should or should not be affected.
10 (f) The term "person" Means an individuaji.
H partnership, firm, corporation, association, or
12 other entity.
13 (g) The tern "Department" means the
14 (name of the State agency which shall administer
15 this Act.
16 The choice of agency lies wlth-
17 in the.discretion of each State. It
18 is recommended, however, that considera-
19 tion be given to the State agency deal-
20 ing with boating matters in general,
21 I 2. LITTERING OR POLLUTING WATER - RESTRICTIONS
22 (a) No person shall place, throw, de-
23 posit, or discharge, or cause to be placed, thrown,
24 deposited, or discharged into the waters of this
25 State, any litter, sewage, or other liquid or
-------
1737
1 RON STONE
2 solid materials which render the water unsightly,
3 noxious or otherwise unwholesome so as to "be
4 detrimental to the public health or welfare or
5 to the enjoyment of the water for recreational
5 purposes.
7 (b) It shall be unlawful to discharge,
g dump, deposit or throw garbage into the waters of
9 this State from a watercraft engaged in commerce.
10 This section is deemed suf-
11 ficiently broad and flexible to
12 prohibit any act committed onshore,
13 in the water, or from aboard any
14 description of watercraft, which
15 litters or tends to pollute the water.
16 §3. MARINE TOILETS - RESTRICTIONS
17 (a) No marine toilet on any watercraft
18 used or operated upon waters of this State shall
19 be operated so as to discharge any untreated
20 sewage into said waters directly or indirectly.
21 (b) No person owning or operating a
22 watercraft with a marine toilet shall use, or
23 permit the use of, such toilet on the waters of
24 this State, unless the toilet is equipped with
25 facilities that will adequately treat, hold,
-------
1738
! RON STONE
2 incinerate or otherwise handle sewage in a manner
3 that is capable of preventing water pollution.
4 (c) No container of sewage shall be
5 placed, left, discharged or caused to be placed,
6 left or discharged in or near any waters of this
7 State by any person at any time.
g This section prohibits the
9 discharge of any untreated sewage
10 from marine toilets.
n § 4. MARINE TOILETS - POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES
12 (a) After the effective date of this
13 Act every marine toilet on watercraft used or
14 operated upon the waters of this State shall be
15 equipped with a suitable pollution control device
16 in operating condition.
17 (b) Pollution control devices that are
18 acceptable for purposes of this Act are:
19 1. Facilities that macerate or grind
20 sewage solids and which, by chlori-
2i nation or other means, disinfect the
22 remnants before discharge into the water.
23 2. Holding tanks which retain toilet
24 wastes for disposal at dockside or onshore
25 pumping facilities or in deep waters
-------
1759
I RON STONE
2 away from shore.
*•
3 3« Incinerating type devices which
4 reduce toilet wastes to ash.
5 4. Any other device that is tested
6 by a recognized testing laboratory
7 and determined to be effective in
8 arresting the possibility of pollu-
9 tion from sewage passing into or
10 through marine toilets.
11 This section recognizes that
12 there are a variety of devices on the
13 market designed to eliminate the possi-
14 bility of water pollution from sewage
15 passing into or through toilets aboard
16 watercraft. Many of these devices
17 have been tested by various State
18 public health and water 'pollution
19 control agencies and independent lab-
20 oratories and found to be efficient
21 for their purpose. However, with
22 further improvements and innovations
23 likely in this product area in the
24 future, it is unwize to "freeze"
25 specifications for such devices in
-------
1760
RON STONE
2 statutory language. All tech-
3 nological changes can be readily
4 incorporated into rules and regu-
lations.
The desirability of Nationwide
uniformity in requirements for
marine toilet pollution control
devices cannot be emphasized too
strongly. Boatmen will have to
incur additional expense to install
12 and maintain such devices. It would
13 be a hardship and an inconvenience
for boatmen traveling from State to
15 State to be subjected to different
Jurisdictional standards of accept-
17 ability of these devices.
18 § 5. MARINE TOILETS - CHEMICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
STANDARDS
19
(a) Every chlorinator or chemical treat-
20
ment facility shall be securely affixed to the in-
21
terior discharge opening of a marine toilet, and
22
all sewage passing into or through such toilet
23
shall pass solely thinagh such treatment facility.
24
(b) Sewage passing through a marine
25
-------
j RON STONE
2 toilet equipped with a chlorinator or chemical
3 treatment facility shall be deemed untreated
4 unless the effluent meets the following minimum
. standards:
5
. 1. Sufficiently divided into
o
_ fine particles so as to be free
a of unsightly solids.
w
_ 2. Containing 1,000 or less
10 coliform per 100 ml.
.. This standards meets the re-
12 quirements of the U.S. Public
13 Health Service and is acceptable
l(l by most State public health agencies
15 for swimming and bathing purposes.
16 (c) The chlorinator or chemical treat-
17 raent facility shall be of a type which functions
j_8 automatically with the operation of the marine
19 toilet, does not depend on septic action as part
20 of its treatment, is easy to clean and maintain,
21 and does not permit the escape of dangerous gases
22 or obnoxious odors.
23 (d) The disinfecting agent used in the
24 facility shall be of a kind that does not necessi-
25 tate too frequent replenishment, is easily
-------
1762
1 RON STONE
2 obtainable, and when discharged as a part of the
3 effluent is not toxic to humans, fish or wildlife.
4 The foregoing standards are
5 generally acceptable under exist-
6 ing State marine chlorinator laws.
7 In the interest of uniformity they
g are recommended to other States pro-
9 posing the adoption of such laws.
1° a
1 6. MARINE TOILETS - STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURERS
11 OF POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES
12 Every manufacturer of a marine toilet
13 pollution control device described in this Act
14 shall certify to the Department in writing that
15 his product meets the standards set forth in this
16 Act or in any implementing regulations adopted by
17 the Department. Every such certified statement
18 shall be accompanied by a test report showing that
19 the product meets the prescribed standards. It
20 shall be unlawful to sell or to offer for sale in
21 this State any marine toilet pollution control de-
22 vice that has not been so certified and approved
23 by the Department.
24 | 7. CERTIFICATE OF NUMBER
25 The Department may require persons making
-------
1763
I RON STONE
2 application for a certificate of number for a
3 watercraft pursuant to (statutory citation of
4 State Boat Numbering Act to be entered here) to
5 disclose whether such watercraft has within or
6 on it a marine toilet, and if so, to certify that
7 such toilet is equipped with a suitable pollution
8 control device as required by this Act. The De-
9 partment is further empowered to direct that the
10 issuance of a certificate of number or a renewal
H thereof be withheld if such device has not been
12 installed as required by this Act.
13 § 8. ONSHORE TRASH RECEPTACLES
14 The owner or whoever is lawfully vested
15 with the possession, management and control of a
16 marina or other waterside facility used by water-
17 craft for launching, docking, mooring and related
18 purposes shall be required to have trash receptacles
19 or similar devices designed for the depositing of
20 trash and refuse at locations where they can be
21 conveniently used by watercraft occupants.
22 § 9. EDUCATION
23 The Department is hereby authorized to
24 undertake and to enlist the support and cooperation
25 of all agencies, political subdivisions, and
-------
1764;
1 RON STONE
2 organizations in the conduct of a public educa-
3 tional program designed to inform the public of
4 the undesirability of depositing trash, litter,
5 and other materials in the waters of this State
6 and of the penalties provided by this Act for
7 such action, and use funds provided by the legis-
g lature for this purpose. The Department is
9 further authorized to utilize all means of com-
10 munication in the conduct of this program.
U § 10. ENFORCEMENT
12 All watercraft located upon waters of
13 this State shall be subject to inspection by the
14 Department or any lawfully designated agent or
15 inspector thereof for the purpose of determining
16 whether such watercraft is equipped in compliance
17 herewith. The Department is further authorized
18 to inspect marinas or other waterside public
19 facilities used by watercraft for launching,
20 docking or mooring purposes to determine whether
21 they are equipped with trash receptacles and/or
22 sewage disposal equipment.
23 8 11. LOCAL REGULATIONS PROHIBITED
24 Through the passage of this Act, the
25 State fully reserves to itself the exclusive
-------
^___ . 1763
I RON STONE
2 right to establish requirements with reference
3 to the disposal of sewage from watercraft. In
4 order to ensure Statewide uniformity, the regu-
5 lation by any political subdivision of the State
6 of sewage disposal from watercraft is prohibited.
7 § 12. RULES AND REGULATIONS
g The Director of the Department is hereby
9 authorized and empowered to make, adopt, promulgate
lo amend and repeal all rules and regulations neces-
u sary, or convenient for the carrying out of duties
12 and obligations and powers conferred on the Depart-
13 ment by this Act.
14 8 13- PILING OP REGULATIONS
15 A copy of the regulations adopted pur-
16 suant to this Act and any of the amendments there-
17 to, shall be filed in the office of the Department
18 and in the office of the (official State record-
19 keeping agency). Rules and regulations shall be
20 published by the Department in a convenient form.
21 § 14. PENALTIES
22 (a) Every 'manufacturer of a marine
23 toilet pollution control device who violates
24 Section 6 of this Act or any regulations adopted
25 by the Department pursuant thereto shall be deemed
-------
1766
1 RON STONE
2 guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall
3 be punished with a fine of not more than $ .
4 (b) Any person who violates any other
5 provisions of this Act or regulations of the
5 Department adopted pursuant thereto shall be
7 deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
3 shall be punished with a fine of not more than $ ,
9 or by imprisonment of not more than days, or
10 by both such fine and imprisonment at the discretiojn
H of the court.
12 §15. SAVINGS CLAUSE
13 If any court shall find any section or
14 sections of this Act to be unconstitutional or
15 otherwise invalid, such findings shall not affect
1$ the validity of any sections of this Act which can
17 be given effect.
18 § 16. EFFECTIVE DATE
19 The provisions of this Act with reference
20 to requiring watercraft with toilet facilities to
21 be equipped with pollution control devices shall
22 take effect three years from the date of the adop-
23 tion of this Act. The provisions of this Act pro*
24 hibiting littering the waterways shall take effect
25 immediately.
-------
1767
1 RON STONE
2 It Is suggested that the ef-
3 fectlve date of this Act be delayed
4 so that all persons affected by Its
5 provisions will have a reasonable
6 amount of time to become acquainted
7 with it and secure the required
g treatment devices.
9 - - -
10
NASBLA POLLUTION STUDY COMMITTEE
11
AMENDMENTS TO MODEL BOAT POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
12
ADOPTED NOVEMBER 17, 1967
13
14 WA Model Act to Prohibit Littering and
15 the Disposal of Untreated Sewage from Boats," as
16 it appears in Appendix C to the Report of the Pol-
17 lution Study Committee of the National Association
18 of State Boating Law Administrators, dated Novem-
19 ber 8, 1965, is hereby amended as follows:
20 (1) by striking the words
21 "§24l and 243" immediately follow-
22 ing the words "Title 42 United States
23 Code" at the end of the fifth line
24 of Section l(a) and substituting
25 the words "§252 and §§262 to 272
-------
1768'
l RON STOKE
2 and Title 8 United States Code
3 §ll82(a^ and (f), Il201(d), and
4 81224"
5 (2) by adding the following
6 new section: "§17, RECIPROCITY
7 Any toilet aboard a watercraft
8 registered, documented or other-
9 wise licensed in another State or
10 country may be used on the waters
n of this State for a period not to
12 exceed 30 consecutive days; pro-
13 vided such toilet is equipped with
!4 a pollution control device meeting
!5 the requirements of the watercraft's
16 home Jurisdiction."
17 ~ ~ -
18
THE NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION
19
PROPOSED STANDARD FOR
20
WATERCRAFT SEWAGE DISPOSAL DEVICES
21
(December 1967)
22
23 SECTION 1 - GENERAL
24 1.00 COVERAGE: This Standard covers
25 devices intended for the control of sewage aboard
-------
1769
1 RON STONE
2 watercraft. Said devices may be designed for
3 treatment and discharge, treatment and storage,
4 holding or destruction of sewage, or any combi-
5 nation thereof, intended for use aboard watercraft.
6 It shall include those appurtenances and/or
7 attachments thereto that are necessary for the
8 proper function of said devices or which modify
9 their operation or function.
10 1.01 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: These Stan-
11 dards are established for the evaluation of equip-
12 ment covered herein and are considered to be basic
13 and minimum requirements.
14 1.02 ALTERNATE MATERIALS: Variations
15 are permissible when they tend to make the equip-
16 ment more resistant to corrosion, wear and physical
17 damage, or if they improve the general operation
18 and performance of the device. Variations shall
19 be approved prior to their use. Where specific
20 materials are mentioned, it is understood that the
21 use of other materials proved to be equally satis-
22 factory in every respect will be acceptable.
23 1.03 REVIEWS AND REVISIONS: Following
24 adoption of the Standard and prior to its printed
25 publication, a general review shall be carried
-------
1770
RON STONE
2 out by the National Sanitation Foundation Cominit-
3 tee on Watercraft Sewage Disposal Devices to
determine the adequacy and appropriateness of
the requirements and to ascertain if additional
requirements are indicated. Subsequent to the
printed publication of this Standard, complete
review of the Standard shall be conducted at
intervals of not more than three years to deter-
10 mine what changes, deletions, or additions, If
11 any, are necessary to maintain current and effec-
12 tive requirements consistent with new technology
13 and progress. These reviews shall be conducted
14 by appropriate representatives from the public
15 health, industry, safety agencies and user groups.
Final adoption of revisions shall be in accordance
17 with the procedures established by the NSF Commit-
lg tee on Watercraft Sewage Disposal Devices.
19
SECTIONS 2 - DEFINITIONS
20
21 2.00 BY-PASS: The term "by-pass" shall
22 mean any provisions, mechanical or functional, by
23 which an operator can selectively discharge un-
24 treated sewage into the waterway.
25 2.01 FAILSAFE: "The word "failsafe"
-------
1771
1 RON STONE
2 shall mean failure In a manner that will automati-
3 cally preclude discharge of untreated sewage to
4 the degree established In this Standard, when
g installed and operated in accordance with the
6 manufacturer's instructions.
7 2.02 FRESH WATER: Those waters having
8 a specific conductivity less than a solution
9 containing 6000 ppm of Sodium Chloride. (9,400
10 micro ohms resistance)
u 2.03 SALT WATER: Those waters having
12 a specific conductivity in excess of a solution
13 containing 6000 ppm of Sodium Chloride. (9,400
14 micro ohms resistance)
15 2.04 WATERCRAFT: A floating vessel,
16 Intended to accommodate not more than 40 persons.
17 2.05 SEWAGE: The term "sewage" means
18 all human body wastes.
19 2.06 SEALING: The word "sealing" shall
20 mean attachment of a fastener which cannot be re-
21 moved without evidence thereof.
22 2.07 TECHNICAL WORDS AND TERMS: Techni-
23 cal words and terms used in the context of this
24 Standard shall be understood to be as defined and
25 used in Nationally recognized test methods and
procedures as herein referenced.
-------
1772
1 RON STONE
2
SECTION 3 - MATERIAL
3
3.00 GENERAL: Materials used in the
4
construction of watercraft sewage disposal devices
5
shall be capable of withstanding exposure to the
6
intended use environment, with special attention
7
to the operation of watercraft, the corrosive
8
actions of chemical intended for use in connection
9
therewith and the corrosive actions of fresh and/or
10
salt water.
11
3.01 DURABILITY: All materials shall be
12
durable and capable of withstanding the normal
13
stresses incident to shipping, installation and
14
operation. They must be structurally sound, under
15
operation conditions.
16
3.02 DISSIMILAR MATERIALS: Dissimilar
17
materials may be used but shall have galvanic
18
compatibility.
19
3.03 WELDING: When weldments are used,
20
the weld area and deposited weld material shall
21
meet the applicable corrosion resistant require-
22
ments. (See Items 3.00 and 3.02)
23
24 SECTION 4 - DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
25 4-.00 GENERAL: A watercraft sewage
-------
1773
! RON STONE
2 treatment or storage device shall be designed and
3 constructed such that the intended purpose of the
4 device, when installed and operated in accordance
5 with the manufacturer's instructions, shall not be
6 adversely affected by operation of the watercraft
7 nor by the normal environment to which it is sub-
8 Jected. Normal conditions shall include vibration,
9 pitch, roll, heel, shock, temperature and chemi-
10 cals used. The device shall be free of non-
11 functional rough or sharp edges, or other hazards
12 which could cause injury to persons operating or
13 servicing the unit.
14 £.01 FAILSAFE: All devices shall be
15 "failsafe".
16 4.011 There shall be a positive
17 and recognizable indication to the
18 user that the system has failed
19 (non-operative or malfunctioning.)
20 4.02 BY-PASS: Devices shall be classi-
21 fied as to whether they are "with" or "without"
22 by-pass provision. All literature and the data
23 plate (see Item 4.09) shall state the appropriate
24 classification. If a "by-pass" is provided in or
25 on a sewage disposal device it shall provide
-------
1ZZ4
! RON STONE
2 positive closure and provisions shall be made
3 for sealing same.
4 4.03 HOLDING (STORAGE) TANK: When a
5 device or appurtenance is designed, or intended,
6 to prevent the discharge to the waterway of
7 treated or untreated sewage, it shall toe capable
8 of positive closure and means provided for sealing
9 same. Storage tanks shall have the tank outlet
10 located in the bottom of the tank or otherwise
1]L designed so that complete draining of the tank
12 raay be assured.
13 4.04 FITTINGS - HOLDING TANKS: Fittings
14 intended for use in emptying holding and retention
15 tank devices shall be designed to receive an insert
16 tube capable of friction fit in the Inside Diameter
17 of a 1-1/2" N.P.S. Schedule 40 pipe. Said fitting
13 shall, in addition, be -designed, constructed and/or
19 equipped to assure a liquid tight closure during
20 normal operation of the watercraftj afford no
21 obstruction to the flow of sewace; shall be clean-
22 ablej and shall when necessary, be designed to
23 prevent the discharge of static electricity.
24 4.041 Fittings intended for use
25 in emptying holding and retention
-------
1775
l RON STONE
2 tanks shall be permanently and
3 legibly marked with the word
. "WASTE". If the cover is de-
4
. tachable, then both the cover
and fitting shall be so marked.
o
4.05 OPERATION UNDER LOAD CONDITIONS:
Treatment and discharge devices shall, when in-
O
_ stalled and operated in accordance with manufac-
10 turer's instructions, be capable of producing an
n effluent meeting the microbiological and chemical/
-„ physical requirements of this Standard throughout
13 the testing period of two hours operations at
14 normal load conditions after initial discharge,
15 followed by 20 minutes of operation at peak con-
16 ditions, and then an additional two hours at
17 normal load conditions.
18 4.0|51* NORMAL LOAD CONDITIONS*:
19 The device shall be placed in service
20 and used (flushed) at a frequency of
21 1/2 hour. When discharge of effluent
22 is evident, the normal loading shall
23 continue for a period of two hours,
24 at which time the Peak Load conditions
25 (Item 4.052), shall be applied.
-------
1776
RON STONE
4.052* PEAK LOAD CONDITIONS*:
Single Head Units: The minim-urn
time between uses (flushes^ under
_ Dealt load conditions shall be con-
9
6 sidered to be five (5) minutes over
a 20-minute period.
g Multiple Head Unitsr Peak load
conditions for multiple head units
shall be considered simultaneous
uses (flushes) of all units possible
12 at five (5) minute intervals over a
.. 20-minute period.
14 4.06 SERVICEABILITY: Units shall be so
15 designed and constructed that when installed in
accordance with a manufacturers recommendations,
17 they shall be capable of being easily maintained,
18 drained and cleaned.
4.07 ENERGY AND CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS:
20 The manufacturer's engineering data and literature
21 shall specify the power requirements to properly
22 operate the device and/or its necessary auxiliary
23 systems.
24 *Artificial media may be established
25 for normal and peak load evaluations.
-------
1777
I RON STONE
2 4.071 Both the manufacturers
3 literature and data plate shall
4 state the type of chemicals to
5 be used, if any. If of a proprie-
6 tary nature, the trade designation
7 shall "be given; or, if of a non-
8 proprietary nature, the chemical
9 name and its strength shall be stated.
10 4.072 When there is an effluent
11 discharge there shall be a field
12 test method available for deter-
13 mining the strength of the chemical
14 specified.
15 4.073 Chemicals used in a reclrcu-
16 lating non-discharge type device
17 shall at least be capable of main-
is taining the reclrculated media in a
19 bacteriostatic condition throughout
20 the maximum recommended use cycle.
21 4.08 PARTS LIST; There shall be a com-
22 prehensive parts list provided by the manufacturer
23 with each unit. The individual parts shall be
24 identified by means of illustration, photographs
25 or the like, and be designated by number, letter,
-------
1778
RON STONE
2 symbol, etc.
3 4.09 INSTRUCTIONS: The manufacturer
shall provide clear, concise, Instructions with
each unit which, when followed, will assure proper
6 installation, safe and satisfactory operation and
adequate procedures for long-term storage and/or
securing the unit. Said instructions shall also
provide recommendations for the safe storage and
handling of chemicals and/or energy.
n 4.10 DATA PLATE: A permanent type data
plate shall be provided, so inscribed as to be
easily read and understood, and securely attached
14 to the device at a location which is normally
15 visible following recommended installation, or
visible under normal servicing. Said data plate
17 shall Include the following:
18 4.101 Name of manufacturer.
4.102 Model and/or serial number
20 designation.
2i 4.103 Use capacity of unit.
22 a. Capacity of treatment and
23 disposal devices shall be noted
24 in one or more of the following
25 means:
-------
1779
I RON STOKE
2 (1) the chemical dosage
3 required per use
4 (2) number of uses per the
5 chemical storage provided
6 (3) comparable type of rating
7 b. Storage tank capacity shall
8 be stated in terms of gallons
9 and/or number of uses of a given
10 volume.
11 4.104 The type of chemical to be used:
12 a. If Proprietary - the trade
13 name shall be stated.
14 b. If non-proprietary - the
15 chemical and strength thereof
16 shall be stated.
17 4.105 Energy requirements. (Electric,
18 gas, etc.)
19 4.106 Classification as to by-pass
20 (With" or "without").
21
SECTION 5 ~ EFFLUENT REQUIREMENT
22
23 5.00 GENERAL: The effluent discharged
24 1 into the waterway shall not produce a color, odor,
25 oily film, or foam in excess of the limits specifie|d
-------
1780
! RON STONE
2 in Item 5.003 when the effluent is thoroughly
3 mixed with distilled water at a 1 to 1000 dilution.
4 5.001 The effluent discharged into
5 the waterway shall contain no
6 corrosive or toxic materials
7 which are persistent and/or
g which produce a nuisance.
9 5.002 Evaluation procedure shall,
10 insofar as possible, be those
n established in the latest edl-
12 tion of "Standard Methods for
13 the Examination of Water and
14 Waste Water" published by the
15 American Public Health Associa-
16 tion.
17 5.003 Acceptable Limits:
18 Color - 15 units
19 Threshold Odor - 3
20 Oily Film - no visible evi-
21 dence other than air bubbles.
22 Foam - None
23 5.01 ACCEPTABLE LIMITS - BACTERIOLOGICAL:
24 Devices designed to treat and discharge sewage
25 from watercraft shall produce an effluent
-------
1781
1 RON STORE
2 containing not more than 1,000 fecal conform
3 per 100 mo.. Such devices shall be classified
4 based on their ability to reduce the fecal coll-
5 form count of sewage under the load operating
6 conditions set forth in this Standard. The
7 following fecal coliform counts shall serve to
g establish these classifications:
9
CLASS FECAL COL1PORM IN EFFLUENT
10
I 0/100 ml
II 2^0/100ml or less
12
III 1,000/lOOral or less
13
14 5.011 The procedures used shall
15 be those established in the
16 latest edition of "Standard
17 Methods for the Examination
18 of Water and Waste Water"
19 published by the American
20 Public Health Association.
21 5.02 SUSPENDED SOLIDS: An effluent dis-
22 cnarged to the waterway shall contain no visible
23 definable suspended solids.
24 5.03 NUTRIENTS: The treatment process,
25 or chemicals used, shall not contribute to the
-------
1782,
1 RON STONE
2 nutrient content of the effluent discharged to
3 the waterway,
4 5.04 TOXICITY: The effluent discharged
5 into the waterway shall be free of substances in
6 concentrations or combinations which are toxic or
7 harmful to human, plant, animal or aquatic life.
8 Any disinfecting agent shall be non-persistent.
9 5.05 ATMOSPHERIC DISCHARGE: Where
10 gaseous effluents result from the treatment or
11 holding systems, the effluent shall:
12 a. Be free of substances in concen-
13 trations, or combinations, which are
14 toxic or harmful to human, plant,
15 animal or aquatic life.
16 b. Contain no viable microorganisms.
17 c. If combustible, the manufacturer's
18 installation instructions shall describe
19 a means for safe discharge of said ef-
20 fluent.
21 d. If emanating from an Incinerator,
22 contain no carbon monoxide, smoke,
23 fly ash or objectionable odors or
24 fumes when tested and as defined in
25 U.S.A. Standard No. Z 21.6-1966
-------
1783
1 RON STONE
2 (Paragraph 2.^ and 2.11).
3 e. If corrosive, the manufacturer's
4 installation instructions shall de-
5 scribe a means for safe discharge of
6 said effluent.
7 f. Provision shall be made in the
g design and construction of devices
9 to prevent the emission of odor or
10 noxious fumes into the interior of
11 the watercraft when installed and
12 operated in accordance with the
13 manufacturer's recommendations.
14
SECTION 6 - SAFETY
15
16 6.00 GENERAL: Watercraft sewage dis-
17 posal devices shall "be designed and constructed
18 so as to present no condition which may adversely
19 affect the craft in which they are installed or
20 the occupants thereof.
21 6.01 VENTING: Provision shall be made
22 for venting when necessary to the exterior of the
23 vessel of gases and vapors and liquid emanating
24 from the device. Overboard vents shall be located
25 to minimize the inboard return of odors through
-------
. 1784
1 RON STONE
2 parts or other openings, and shall be provided
3 with means to prevent the intake of water (spray)
4 into the device. Vents shall be connected to
5 the device in such a manner, and shall toe of such
6 a diameter as will prevent pressure buildup in the
7 device by being free of clogging by the accumu-
g lation of solids or liquids therein.
9 6.02 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS AND SYSTEM:
10 The National Fire Protection Association Standards
11 for Motor Craft (NAFB No. 302) as well as the
12 applicable Standards of the American Boat & Yacht
13 Council shall serve as a guide for the evaluation
14 of electrical components and systems.
15 6.03 WATERTIGHT INTEGRITY: The aanu-
16 facturer's installation instructions shall clearly
17 indicate that each thru-hull connection below the
18 waterline which serves as water intake or overboard
19 discharge, be equipped with a means to prevent the
20 entrance of water into the device or craft. The
21 instructions shall also clearly state that where
22 by-pass or other plumbing are connected to the de-
23 vice, this plumbing shall enter the overboard dis-
24 charge line inboard of the closure means.
25 Further, the manufacturer's installation
-------
1785
1 RON STONE
2 instructions and details shall specify that
3 plumbing connections made between the device
4 and the hull shall be of such strength and
5 durability as to resist all operating pressures
6 and stresses imposed thereon.
7 6.04 COMBUSTION-TYPE DEVICES: When
g the device is of a combustion type, the manu-
9 facturerfs installation instructions shall pro-
10 vide sufficient guidance to assure that flues
11 and fuse connections are constructed and installed
12 as set forth in current editions of the National
13 Fire Protection Association Publications No. 5^
14 and 302.
15 MR. STONE: Thank you.
16 MR. STEIN: Thank, you. Are there any
17 comments or questions?
18 Yes, Mr. Morton.
19 MR. MORTON: This is Morton speaking
20 for Illinois.
21 There were references in Mr.Stone's
22 talk to the National Sanitation Foundation and
23 the fact that the Illinois Sanitary Water Board
24 is represented on the committee work at the
25 National Sanitation Foundation.
-------
1786
RON STONE
2 We would Just like to make it clear
3 that the purpose of the National Sanitation
4 Foundation is to come up with a testing procedure
5 to determine whether boat devices as well as
other devices which the Foundation studies are
suitable. It is not our understanding that the
National Sanitation Foundation is designing
standards for the construction and operation of
boat facilities.
I would also like to point out that the
12 NSF document which has been passed out by Mr.
Stone is still an internal document of the
National Sanitation Foundation, It has not been
15 officially approved, and it is still subject to
16 change. But this is a document dealing with pro-
17 cedures for testing the operation of these devices
18 and not for the design of them.
MR. STONE: If I may elaborate, the
20 standards of the National Sanitation Foundation
2i are now complete insofar as the work of the Joint
22 Committee on Watercraft Waste Disposal, which is
23 the task force of the Foundation, is concerned.
24 The only step remaining now is to submit them
25 under procedures of the National Sanitation
-------
17_87
I RON STONE
2 Foundation to their own Board of Directors for
3 approval.
4 So to all intents and purposes, the
6 technical work on the standards is finished at
6 this time and we expect approval within the month,
7 MR. STEIN: Are there any other ques-
8 tions?
9 MR. MITCHELL: I really can't find
lO some agreement here with the statements that
II Mr. Stone has made. For example, he says on
12 one page that they recommend the Federal Govern-
13 ment adopt a uniform vessel pollution control
14 act with standards for vessel waste disposal
15 devices, then on another page he says we are
16 not suggesting that the Federal Government take
17 over control of pollution attributable to
18 recreational boating.
19 I don't see how those two sentences
20 are compatible at all. Either they do it or
21 they don't do it.
22 The other point being that it seems
23 to me that he is saying here that he does not
24 want the State Government to give up their
25 rights to regulate pollution control, but on
-------
1788
1 RON STONE
2 the other hand it seems he is trying to say
3 he wants the Federal Government to tell us
4 how to do it.
6 It seemed to me the State Government
has either got to stand up and be counted here
or get out of the business and turn it over to
ycm» and I am not in favor of that right now.
9 Another point here is that he is sug-
10 gesting that we delay enforcement if we do pass
a law, and I have been involved in our Department
12 of Natural Resources in Indiana and we have got
13 a lot of laws and once they are passed by our
14 legislature they are going to be enforced, be-
cause I don't think administratively we ought
to decide when to start enforcing laws that
17 some legislative body has decided ought to be
18 passed.
19 MR. STEIN: Do you want to comment
20 on this?
21 MR. STONE: Yes, I do.
22 First of all, I am not suggesting that
23 the Federal Government do something at logger-
24 heads with the States. There is precedent for
25 what I have suggested in the establishment of
-------
1789
1 RON STONE
2 water quality criteria on interstate waters whereby
3 the States take over the establishment of water
4 quality criteria with the guidance of the Federal
5 Government. This establishes basic standards.
6 There is also precedent in the area of
7 recreational boating for Federal guidance of the
g States in the boat numbering program whereby
9 under the Federal Boating Act of 1958 the Federal
10 Government established uniform standards for
11 boat numbering and the States had the option
12 of taking over boat numbering on all waters in
13 their jurisdiction provided that they at least
14 met minimum Federal standards.
15 MR. STEIN: Well, I think his point
16 is well taken. And Just not to get into—because
17 I think Mr. Mitchell has raised the key point,
18 which you haven't addressed yourself to.
19 You say, "Finallyr:—and this Mr.
20 Mitchell alluded to--"we ask for a delay in
21 the enforcement of Federal, State or local
22 laws and regulations in this area until after
23 national standards for watercraft waste disposal
24 devices have been established and meaningful
25 tests of the various kinds of such devices
-------
1790
1 ROH STOUE
2 have been completed.8
3 I don't know how long, If we
4 get that, it would take.
5 But I would like to point this out
6 to you, Mr. Stone. Once the State or the
7 Federal Government passes a law, no one, if
g we are dealing with the government --the laws
9 are not men—can decide when you begin enforcing
10 them.
11 (Applause.)
12 MR. STEIN: Secondly, I would like to
13 point out if we contrast this with the notion
14 of the so-called large polluters are major
15 industries and cities, to my knowledge, and I
16 have been doing this for 25 years and have been
17 dealing with them all, none of them, to my
18 knowledge, has ever said that we had to have a
19 delay in enforcement until we got complete
20 national standards. If we ever wailed for that,
21 we wouldn't have a Lake Michigan or any clean
22 waters in the country. What kind of a bizarre
23 position Is this?
24 MR. STOKE: It is not bizarre. It is
25 a plea for reasonableness, and that certainly is
-------
^_____ 1791
1 RON STOHE
2 not bizarre.
3 The boaters are in a position today
4 where they are put to the expense of installing
5 and using equipment with no assurance that it
6 is going to be acceptable from State to State.
7 MR. STEIN: You are getting off the
g question, sir. Do we have national standards
9 for water pollution control in the country today?
lO Where would we be if the big oil companies, the
H big steel companies and the States we are dealing
12 with here told us they weren't going to enforce
13 a law until we had these national standards?
14 Where would the country be today?
15 MR. STONE: Because a given State can
16 enact a law requiring a boater to do something,
17 and it is not an irreversible decision. They can
18 come back later and say, ah, we think these sub-
19 sequent standards, national standards, are better,
20 cease and desist from what you were doing before,
21 take out the equipment, start on a new tack.
22 This has happened, it has happened in boating.
23 MR. STEIN: Are there any further
24 comments or questions?
25 MR. OEMING: I have a question.
-------
1792
1 RON STONE
2 MR. STEIN: Yes.
3 MR. OEMING: This is Oeming from
4 Michigan.
5 Mr. Stone, would you please reconcile
6 for me the statement in your first recommendation
7 with respect to uniform vessel pollution control
g acts by the Federal Government with your recom-
9 mendation on the model act which excludes certain
10 passenger and cargo-carrying vessels subject to
11 interstate quarantine regulations.
12 How is this uniform? Where is the
13 uniformity here?
14 MR. STONE: We are concerned with
15 recreational craft. These are vessels that carry
16 a complement of bQ passengers or more, do not
17 fall in the category of small pleasure craft,
18 which is our concern, and we were given to
19 understand—well, it is an established fact
20 that at the time the model act was being drafted
21 the U. S. Public Health Service was in stages
22 of adopting regulations for the larger passenger-
23 carrying vessels. Therefore, we felt this was
24 beyond our purview, since we were mainly con-
25 cerned with recreational craft. This was the
-------
1793
1 RON STONE
2 act of a government organization that is con-
3 eerned with administration and enforcement of
4 recreational boating laws, so we didn't want to
5 trespass in other areas.
6 MR. OEMING: Well, the point of the
7 matter is that your statement began to use terms
g here that could apply to recreational as well
9 as the other kinds of watercraft.
10 MR. STONE: No, we only want to do
11 what concerns us in recreational boating.
12 MR. OEMING: You used the term "vessel"
13 in here, Mr. Stone.
14 MR. STONE: Well, it is a question of
15 semantics, I grant you, sir.
16 MR. STEIN: Are there any further
17 questions or comments?
18 Let me ask you, turning to page 8, (17*1-7 )
19 when you talk about conflicts of law which would
20 result by boaters proceeding from State to Federal
21 waters within the boundaries of the same State.
22 MR. STONE: Yes.
23 MR. STEIN: When does anyone go. from
24 a State to a Federal water within the boundaries of
25 the State? When is that point reached?
-------
179**
1 RON STONE
2 MR. STONE: Well, not all waters within
3 the boundaries of a State are purely State waters.
4 Not all waters are Federal waters where you have
5 primary jurisdiction.
6 MR. STEIN: Well, when do you go from a
7 State to a Federal water?
8 MR. STONE: Because boaters are very
9 mobile, they are not confined to one body of
10 water.
11 MR. STEIN: I know that, but it is my
12 understanding of the case--
13 MR. STONE: I will give you an example.
14 MR. STEIN: --the Federal Government
15 may have Jurisdiction over navigable waters. It
16 is my understanding of the case we have concurrent
17 jurisdiction with the States of most waters. If
18 we are hard put for a definition or a boundary
10 between a State or a Federal water, I think we
20 are turning back the clock in this government.
21 MR. STONE: I will give you an example.
22 MR. STEIN: We don't have that kind of &
23 concept.
24 MR. STONE: May I give an example?
2* MR. STEINr Yes.
-------
1795
1 RON STONE
2 MR. STONE: All right. Let's assume we hjave
3 a State such as Minnesota, where since 1961 they
4 have had a law regulating sewage discard from
6 vessels which takes cognizance of your chemical
6 treatment device as well as holding tanks or
7 incinerators. You have an optionj any one of the
g three devices will satisfy the Minnesota Water
9 Pollution Control Board.
10 Take a man who has this chemical treat-
11 ment device installed according to the Minnesota
12 law who goes onto a Federal body of water, such
13 as the Mississippi River, and assume—this is
14 Just hypothetical—assume at some later date the
15 Federal Government had a holding-tank-only law
16 such as that of Chicago.
17 MR. STEIN: You made the big Jump in
18 the question. Why do you assume that the
19 Mississippi River is a Federal body of water and
20 not at the same time a State body?
21 MR. STONE: Because if there were—of
22 course the State has concurrent Jurisdiction, but
23 where there is a conflict of law between State
24 and Federal Government on a water that is primarily
25 Federal Jurisdiction, then the Federal law takes
-------
1796
1 RON STONE
2 precedence over the State law and the .State law
3 must follow.
4 MR. STEIN: As far as I know, if we are
5 talking about the supremacy of the Federal law,
Q we are not talking about a conflict, and this
7 is why I don't understand the problem.
g MR. STONE: There is a very clear
9 conflict as far as the boater is concerned
10 because his equipment is not usable uniformly
11 throughout the boundaries of that State.
12 MR. STEIN: Equipment may not, but
13 this is precisely the point. I don't think
14 we are talking about Federal or State waters,
15 but I think we have concurrent Jurisdiction
16 over both waters and this is what runs through
17 the whole operation here--
18 MR. STONE: The Federal Government
19 would not have concurrent Jurisdiction with
20 the State on purely State waters.
21 MR. STEIN: The whole burden of your
22 operation is that you haven't moved because
23 the government--the stumbling block has been
24 a lack of direction from government. I assume
25 you mean State or Federal Government.
-------
1797
1 RON STONE
2 MR. STONE: Both, yes.
3 MR. STEIN: But the manufacturers can
4 produce devices if we only tell them what to do.
5 MR. STONE: Yes.
6 MR. STEIN: I don't know that the people
7 we have been working with have seen the manufac-
8 turers come through with these devices. But this
9 strikes me as passing strange in our kind of free
10 economy where you have a development of the auto-
11 mobile induotry, the steel industry, the petroleuii
12 industry where these industries develop devices tc
13 go across State lines into interstate commerce who
14 say they can't move and it is the fault cf govern-
15 ment without uniform devices. The question, it
16 seems to me, is that when you have to come up to
17 do it, then you ask for government direction.
18 But your next point is, you say that
19 the National Conference of government officials
20 decided that the National Sanitation Foundation
21 was the most qualified. Then you are asking
22 government direction and indicate that we have a
23 Federal report which overlooks all documented
24 facts and scientific information. The Federal
25
-------
1798
1 RON STOKE
2 report, you say it makes little sense; the work
3 has been already done by the most knowledgeable
4 and experienced people in the field.
5 Now, what—
6 MR. STONE: I am talking about recrea*
7 tional boating.
g MR. STEIN: Now, what is the point
9 in asking for Federal uniformity and Federal
10 direction if when this Federal report comes
11 out this is what you say about the Federal report?
12 'When Chicago passes an ordinance you don't want
13 to follow it.
14 MR. STONE: That report, sir, was
15 published without the cooperation of the boating
16 industry and the boating public. ¥e were not
17 consulted.
18 MR. STEIN: But on the one hand don't
19 you see your point? You are asking, one, for
20 Federal standards and Federal cooperation. When
21 Chicago does something or the Federal Government
22 does something you don't want to do, then you
23 say it is no good. Now, it seems to me—
2!4 MR. STONE: I am saying that whatever
25 we do in the area of regulation, it has to be
-------
^_ 17QQ
1 RON STONE
2
a cooperative approach.
3
MR. STEIN: We recognize it has to
4
be a cooperative approach.
5
MR. STONE: Yes, sir.
6
MR. STEIN: But let me make this
7
clear, and I think this is the main point.
8
I think the Congress has been
9
very, very careful in exercising the full
10
constitutional authority it can to regulate
11
pollution control over navigable waters.
12
We all agree that the primary rights and
13
responsibility should be left with the
14
States.
15
Now, I would suggest that this
16
business of talking about Federal controls
17
or Federal standards, unless we know
18
really carefully what we are doing, may
19
open the Pandora's Box and may have reper-
20
cussions that go beyond what you ask
21
for. I say this to the State people,
22
we believe that the States and places like
23
Chicago should be given the full opportunity
24
to enforce regulations from pleasure boats.
25
-------
1800
1 RON STONE
I would hope that boat owners or boat
3 associations should not excuse their lack
4 of compliance with the State or local
5 ordinance or law with the notion that the
6 Federal Government hasn't moved, because
7 I think you are going around in a circle
8 while in the next breath every document
9 that the Federal Government puts out is
10 unrealistic and is done without consul-
11 tation.
12 I don't think you can be on every side
13 of the situation.
14 MR. STONE: I would hope, in the light
15 of my remarks, that we could use this as a start-
ing ground and get down to work.
17 MR. STEIN: Are there any other ques-
18 tions?
19
Mr. Ceming.
20 MR. OEMING: Mr. Stone, do I take it
21 that you still, despite what you have said here,
oo
recommend the Association of Boating Law Adminis
no
I trators Model Act in totality? You are not
24 departing from this?
25
MR. STONE: These are the only uniform
-------
1801
l RON STONE
guidelines we have now, so it is better than
&
3 nothing.
. MR. OEMING: Well, you didn't answer
4
_ my question.
5
MR. STONE: Yes. Yes.
MR. OEMING: How can you come up with
this idea of State and. Federal law or waters
O
when you say in your Boating Law Administrators
9
proposal, "the term 'waters of this State' means
all of the waterways on which watercraft shall
be used or operated"?
l£
MR. STONE: Sir, this contemplates all
13
,. waters. As Mr. Stein pointed out. the State would
14
._ have concurrent jurisdiction on Federal waters,
16 so I don't see any inconsistency there.
17 MR. OEMING: Well, I can't make your--
lg MR. STONE: The point where I saw the
19 inconsistency was that conversely the Federal
20 Government would not have concurrent Jurisdiction
21 on all State waters.
22 MR. OEMING: I Just don't make--I can't
23 make your statements consistent here with what
24 you have stated and what the Boating Law Adrainis-
25 trators propose. This is ray point.
-------
1802
RON STONE
2 MR. STONE: I don't see why that act
3 cannot be a model for Federal action, and why
we are praying for Federal action is because
that way we are going to get the broadest uni-
„ formity possible. I hope I made the point that
_ we are not asking for a complete takeover by the
g Federal Government. We Just want the Federal
9 Government to cooperate to show the States the
10 wav
I don't see why this should be beyond
comprehension, because it has already been done
13 in the Water Quality Control Act and the Federal
14 Boating Act of 1958.
MR. STEIN: I don't know that we should
16 pursue It, but I think sitting up at this table
I see people here who on the average have at
least 25 years experience in dealing with
Federal-State cooperative programs. Most of
20 us have been wrestling with this Federal-State
21 relationship for all our professional lives. We
22 have argued many, many times over proposed law
23 and proposed statutes.
24 This kind of loose language or loose
25 concept does not solve these problems for us
-------
^___ 1803
I RON STOKE
2 that we have been working with for years. Either
3 the State has Jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction,
4 or we have concurrent Jurisdiction.
6 The point is we have concurrent Juris-
6 diction over the waters. ¥e don't recognize
7 anyone going from a State to a Federal water.
8 As far as we are concerned, they are State waters.
9 You may go into those waters and violate a Federal
10 law, but as far as I am concerned they are State
H waters.
12 The next question we had was when we
13 had to grapple with this business on these stan-
14 dardfe. And you are talking about uniform standards
15 The States put them out, but they become Federal
16 standards and they are enforceable by the Federal
17 Government.
18 And I don't know wh^re you are going
19 to slice this kind of operation, because the
20 point is if we Just put out, as we have, a model
21 law or a model regulation as a suggestion, then
22 It is up to the States to adopt it. By your
23 own testimony you have said that you put one out
24 for them already. Why do you want us to duplicate
25 that work? I can't see what you are getting at.
-------
1804
1 RON STONE
2 MR. STONE: What we recommend, of
3 course, is not necessarily going to be taken
4 up by State Government. But if the Federal
5 Government puts something out, this is an
6 inducement for State action. What emanates
7 from industry and the' boating public will not
8 necessarily be followed by State Government,
9 but what happens at the level of Federal Govern-
lO ment carries much greater weight.
U MR. STEIN: I wish I could be as sure
12 of that.
13 But you see, any time we come up with
14 a recommendation, as you pointed out, that isn't
15 consummate with the conclusions you have already
16 made, you are ready to throw it out.
17 The point is, I think we people who
18 have been doing that are, I would say, rather
19 confused by the concepts.
20 I think you are striving for the same
21 end we are, but I would suggest, and I really
22 mean this, that we need a lot more talk, and
23 you talk to the State officials and the Federal
24 people, to get some of the notions you have put
25 up, the concepts you have put up really sharpened
-------
1805
1 RON STONE
2 with discussion, because--and I am not deprecating
3 any of your notions or ideas, but what I am saying
4 to you is that you probably have 500 years worth
5 of experience dealing with these concepts of
6 problems at this table, and I wish you would talk
7 to some of us before we go too far with this.
8 MR. STONE: I would hope to go one
9 step further than that, Mr. Stein, and that is
10 to recommend a Conference with participation
H by representatives of the distinguished panelists
12 and also the State Boating Law Administrators
13 through their National Association and the
14 National Sanitation Foundation. I feel if we
15 all sat down around a table and talked these
16 things out that we would have a basis for really
17 getting somewhere here with a cooperative approach.
18 MR. STEIN: Are there any further
19 comments or questions?
20 (No response.)
21 MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much,
22 Mr. Stone.
23 Mr. Klassen.
24 j MR. KLASSEN: The next presentation,
25 from the Cook County Clean Streams Committee by
-------
1806
1 JOSEPH "CHANTIGNEY
2 Joseph Chantigney.
3 I might say for the "benefit of our
4 out-of-State visitors, many years ago we—and
5 I say this--we on the State level, promoted
6 clean streams associations. Many of them have
7 lived to heckle us and prod us, but that is all
3 beside the point. The Cook County one was the
9 first one and they are doing a whale of a job.
10 Joe, I understand only by title you
H are also going to read the Isaak Walton League
12 presentation.
13 This is a very short statement, Mr.
14 Chairman, by the Cook County Clean Streams
15 Commission.
16
17 STATEMENT OP JOSEPH CHANTIGNEY
18 CHAIRMAN OF THE GREAT LAKES
19 FOR THE ISAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA
20
21 MR, CHANTIGNEY: Yes, sir, Mr. Klassen.
22 Thank you very much.
23 Mr. Chairman and distinguished guests.
24 My name is Joseph Chantigney. I am
25 Chairman of the Great Lakes for the Izaak Walton
-------
180?
1 JOSEPH CHANTIGNEY
2 League of America. I am also Chairman of the
3 Clean Streams Committee for the Calumet Region
4 Chapter of the Izaak Walton League. My Co-
5 Chairman, Mr, Dean Campbell, and I are submitting
6 the following statement. I would like to add
7 that the Cook County Clean Streams Committee,
8 of which I am General Vice-Chairman, also shares
9 the views expressed in this statement.
10 I would like to start out by saying
11 we wholeheartedly agree with Secretary Udall's
12 statement, which I quote:
13 "No resource problem in the country is
14 more important than the saving of Lake Michigan.'.1
15 And also Mr. H. W. Boston's remark in
16 which he said, and I quote:
17 "I look on this as the biggest enforce-
18 ment action ever taken. It is the first time we
19 ever covered an entire lake."
20 If we are to save Lake Michigan, it is
21 an absolute necessity that all four States in-
22 volved exert their full cooperation to accomplish
23 this tremendous task. It is our opinion that
24 I Lake Michigan is following in the footsteps of
25 Lake Erie. ¥e feel that our lake is being used
-------
1808
1 JOSEPH.CHANTIQNEY
2 for the wrong purpose. The purpose it Is being
3 used for today is mainly the disposal of our
4 municipal and industrial wastes, and what makes
5 this a moral problem is that Lake Michigan is
6 our "drinking cup". Does one State or one group
7 of people have the moral right to contaminate
g the natural resources of another State or group
9 of people?
10 Illinois was fortunate in early recog-
ll nizing that industrial wastes and sewage were a
12 threat to her beaches and drinking water. Thanks
13 to the bold imagination and engineering feats of
14 the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
15 Chicago, our beaches are usable today. We do
16 not suggest that other States concerned can use
17 the same corrective measures, but we do assume
18 that the other States concerned can and will
19 employ whatever measures are necessary to accom-
20 plish a clean Lake Michigan. The widespread
21 pollution of Lake Michigan is depriving hundreds
22 of thousands, and potentially millions, of people
23 from enjoying this vast body of water for recrea-
24 tional purposes. These people are entitled to
25 enjoy this water, but on beach after beach signs
-------
1809
1 JOSEPH CHANTIGNEY
2 are posted saying, "Positively no swimming
3 allowed - water polluted."
4 This shared body of water was once
5 looked upon by primitive people as a communal
6 property. Can we view it with less intelligence
7 than those ancient people? How long can we
8 maintain our present beaches without having
9 to eventually post pollution signs? Despite
lO major engineering feats, the beaches of Illinois
H cannot long remain unpolluted without the help
12 of our neighboring States. How long will it
13 be before Illinois will have to post contami-
14 nation signs saying, "Positively No Swimming -
15 Water Polluted" if the present rate of pollution
16 continues?
17 It seems ironic that the good citizens
18 of Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana should have
19 to come to Illinois beaches to swim, while the
20 citizenry of Illinois must visit these States
21 to fish. We feel that the Federal Water Pollution
22 Control Administrations water quality criteria
23 standards will make it possible for Illinoisans
24 to fish here and our three neighboring States to
25 provide their people with fine beach facilities.
-------
i8io
1 JOSEPH CHANTIGNEY
2 The restoration of Lake Michigan will also re-
3 store commercial fisheries.
4 This tremendous cleanup Job must begin
g today; tomorrow may be too late. If we may
6 borrow from a popular TV commercial, which goes
7 as follows, "The trouble with start is to stop,"
g we can reverse this saying to, "The way to stop
9 pollution is to START!"
10 We want to thank you for the privilege
il and opportunity to express our views here today
12 Thank you.
13 (Following statement read by Joseph Chantigney:^
14 JOINT STATEMENT TO POUR-STATE
15 CONFERENCE ON LAKE MICHIGAN POLLUTION
16 BY THE
17 COOK COUNTY CLEAN STREAMS COMMITTEE
18 AND THE ILLINOIS DIVISION
19 IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OP AMERICA
20 January 31, February 1 and 2, 1968
21 My name is Donald Matschke. I am
22 General Chairman of the Cook County Clean Streams
23 Committee and Water Chairman for the Illinois
24 Division of the Izaak Walton League of America.
25 These organizations have entrusted to me the
-------
1 DONALD MATSCHKE
2 articulation of their shared thinking concerning
3 our most valuable Lake Michigan.
4 At the same time, I am gainfully
5 employed as the Director of Environmental Re-
6 search for a company that markets pollution
7 solution equipment, processes and turnkey in-
g stallations. My professional life is totally
9 occupied with the elucidation and economic
10 reclamation of the environment problems of today
11 and tomorrow.
12 What I say here today, however, is my
13 best effort to speak to you about our Lake Michi-
14 gan consistent with the philosophy of the two
15 lay conservation organizations I represent,
16 namely the Cook County Clean Streams Committee
17 and the Illinois Division of the Izaak Walton
18 League of America. In no sense am I acting as
19 a spokesman for my company.
20 Before proceeding further, we strongly
21 commend the initiatives of both the State and
22 Federal persons who brought this Conference into
23 being. For the first time the people of Cook
24 County and of Illinois have a forum in which to
25 observe and comment on their lake in context with
-------
1812
1 DONALD MATSCHKE
2 the other areas in States. It Is our understand-
3 ing that the purpose of this Conference is to
4 generate a plan for the reclamation and mainte-
5 nance of desirable water quality in Lake Michigan
6 for the mutual benefit of the States here repre-
7 sented. The organizations I represent totally
8 support this purpose.
9 We have had an opportunity to examine
10 the Conference background information prepared
11 by the Department of the Interior. The variety
12 of sources that contribute to Lake Michigan's
13 problems are indeed many and they are well docu-
14 mented in the background materials. It would be
15 impractical for me to discuss them all here with
16 you today. We are shortly going to comment in
17 some detail on two main thoughts. First, however,
18 we would like to touch briefly on two of the prob-
19 lems referred to in the background survey material.
20 Generally speaking, I believe that we all want to
21 work towards water quality standards for Lake
22 Michigan which are comparable in content and
23 philosophy to those arrived at in the Calumet
24 Area, Indiana-Illinois Conference. In order to
25 achieve these standards, we believe that
-------
1813
1 DONALD MA2SCHKE
2 imaginative solutions to combined sewer problems
3 must be forthcoming together with financial back-
4 ing and that agricultural agencies might soon
5 have to consider recommending legislation to
6 control soil and nutrient runoff from agricul-
7 tural land bordering our watercourses. And now
g to return to our two main thoughts.
9 A first consideration regarding Lake
10 Michigan water quality that we wish to emphasize
11 is the matter of logical consistency. Logical
12 consistency in enforcement. It has been frus-
13 trating to some of us in the Chicago area to
14 attempt to reconcile Federal Enforcement Con-
15 ferences in the Calumet area with at the same
16 time, an absence of parallel action for other
17 Lake Michigan shore areas. Further, the Chicago
18 Tribune and other news media were primarily
19 responsible for publicizing the public concern
20 over dredging dumping in Lake Michigan which
21 eventually resulted in its.termination. It was
22 Judicial concern for Lake Michigan that manifested
23 itself in the recent opinion that affirms the
24 appropriateness for the Metropolitan Sanitary
25 District of Greater Chicago to continue to direct
-------
1 DONALD MATSCHKE
2 their treated secondary effluent away from Lake
3 Michigan. Gentlemen, we suggest that there is a
4 need for an integrated concern for Lake Michigan
5 water quality that demands attention. Perhaps
6 a systems analysis is required, much as was
7 carried forth on the Delaware River and such as
g is presently contemplated for the Hudson River.
9 By whatever means these problems are placed in
10 their proper perspective, by no thoughtful con-
11 sideration can there be Justification for simple
12 translation of discharges from Lake Michigan to
13 our alternative Illinois River watershed. Any
14 systems approach to Lake Michigan water quality
15 must include the related study of adjoining
16 watersheds when there exists the possibility of
17 water quality impairment in these neighboring
18 watersheds. We thus, campaign as we believe
19 you do, for logical, consistent enforcement.
20 The second thought we would emphasize
21 perhaps arises from a misunderstanding Of terms
22 as presented in the background literature for
23 this Conference. By our interpretation, the
24 word "nutrients", as used on page 67 under the
25 subtitle, "Specific Recommendations" in numbered
-------
1815
1 DONALDOMATffCHKE
2 recommendations 1 and 2, does not include the
3 oxygen demanding residues present in municipal
4 or industrial waters subsequent to secondary
5 treatment or its industrial equivalent. Thus,
6 based on this line of reasoning, no tertiary
7 control of both these solid and dissolved organic
g residues is provided for, now or in the future,
9 in the Specific Recommendations. Neglecting
10 industrial contributions and considering 1960
11 census figures of 5-5 million municipal population
12 for the Lake Michigan watershed, these seemingly
13 omitted organic residues conservatively contribute
14 in excess of 100 tons per day of sludge solids
15 to and consume in excess of 100 tons per day of
16 oxygen from the waters of Lake Michigan, every
17 day of the year and year after year. We believe
18 the following facts support our argument for re-
19 duction of residual organics beyond secondary or
20 equivalent treatment levels.
21 1. The organic, oxygen demanding
22 residues are, we believe, among
23 the prime reasons why the Metropolitan
24 Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
25 is not recycling secondary effluents
-------
1816
1 DOlTAIiD MATSQHKE
2 to Lake Michigan and why the
3 Sanitary District of Lake County,
4 Illinois is planning to remove
5 their effluent discharges from
c Lake Michigan and why metropolitan
o
areas in general that recycle
0 secondary effluents to Lake Michi-
o
o gan have less than desirable
10 recreation and ecological water
n environment.
12 2. The oxygen removed by these
ia secondary residues from Lake Michi-
13
14 gan is an order of magnitude greater
15 in amount than was the oxygen re-
lg moved, also from Lake Michigan, by
17 the organic constituents in the
lg sludge dredged from Indiana Harbor
19 by the Corps of Engineers during
2Q their routine year-to-year maintenance
2i programs. Gentlemen, this practice
22 has been stopped by administrative
23 order. How wise then are our secon-
24 dary or organic residue practices?
25 3. The State of Illinois has called
-------
1817
1 DONALD MATffCHKE
2 for tertiary treatment including
3 resid.ual organic removal to vary-
4 ing degrees, depending on dilution
5 volumes available in her inter and
6 intrastate watercourses. Considering
7 that the bulk of the current in most
g of Lake Michigan is wind or convective
9 induced and results in essentially
10 total recirculative flow, it would
11 seem that we have a minimum of steady
12 state dilution water available for
13 exploitation. Under these circum-
14 stances, the State of Illinois by
15 way of their regulation SWB-15 calls
16 for reduction in the aforesaid re-
17 sidual organic loading by 80 percent
18 through tertiary procedures.
19 4. Dr. David G. Stephan of the PWPCA
20 has presented incremental costs for
21 advanced waste treatment that include
22 chlorination, order of magnitude
23 organic residual removal and sub-
24 stantial phosphate removal. Total
25 treatment cost is estimated at 18 to
-------
1818.
1 DONALD
2 24 cents per thousand gallons as
3 compared with cost of conventional
4 secondary treatment at 8.3 to 11
5 cents per thousand gallons, for
6 100 MGD and 15 MGD plants respec-
7 tively.
8 5« While, in our interpretation,
9 the Specific Recommendations do
10 not call for residual organic re-
11 moval, we nevertheless find in the
12 accompanying background text on page
13 24 in the last two paragraphs reading
14 that promises something more to be
15 required for Lake Michigan to con-
16 trol eutrophication .
17 In summary, we congratulate you in your
18 purpose for this Conference and on the comprehen-
19 sive survey of Lake Michigan problems which we
20 especially commend for its excellence. We request
21 you implement the sought objectives with contin-
22 uous attention to logical and consistent enforce-
23 ment and recommend a systems study of the Lake
24 Michigan watershed areas if no simpler basis for
25 satisfactory judgments can be found. We strongly
-------
1819
1 DONALD MATSCHKE
2 recommend higher regard for the water quality of
3 Lake Michigan in view of the lake's ineffectual
4 safe cleaning capabilities as compared with
5 flowing watercourses and, for that reason, we
6 request that you consider now order of magnitude
7 reductions in the pollutant residues present in
8 secondary effluents prior to discharge to Lake
9 Michigan.
10 Thank you gentlemen, on behalf of the
11 conservation organizations I represent for this
12 opportunity to present our thoughts. We believe
13 and we trust that, as a result of this Conference,
14 the people of the Lake Michigan basin can now
15 look forward to a more valuable water resource
16 for all the many water uses. Such is the goal of
17 the Cook County Clean Streams Committee and of the
18 Izaak Walton League of America.
19 - - -
20 MR. CHANTIGNEY: Thank you.
21 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
22 Are there any comments or questions?
23 (No response.)
24 MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much.
25 Mr. Klassen or Mr. Morton.
-------
1820
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 MR. KLASSEN: We have a statement
3 from the Committee on Lake Michigan Pollution,
4 the Chairman of the Investigative Committee.
5 It is a group, I understand, of North Shore
6 citizens. The statement will "be made by
7 Donald J. Bergman, who is the Chairman of the
8 Investigative Committee.
9 Mr. Bergman, can you condense your
10 statement? We are running out of time and we
11 want to make sure we get everybody on.
12
13 STATEMENT OF DONALD J. BERGMAN
14 CHAIRMAN, INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE
15 COMMITTEE ON LAKE MICHIGAN POLLUTION
16
17 MR. BERGMAN: Mr. Chairman, Conferees
18 from Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.
19 Ladies and gentlemen. I would like to
20 put my full presentation into the record, but I
21 will condense it to a summary.
22 The Committee on Lake Michigan Pollution
23 is a group of citizens from the suburban villages
24 north of Chicago, ranging up to Lake Forest, who
25 are interested in preventing the death of the lake.
-------
1821
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 Activities of the group include encouragement
3 of legislation, discouragement of industrial
4 offenders, and search for local sources of
5 pollution in the various villages.
6 In making this presentation for the
7 Committee on Lake Michigan Pollution, the
8 writer has drawn upon observations of lake
9 conditions during some kO years of active
10 boating experience, published reports, Winnetka
11 Water Department data, and articles from the
12 press.
13 In 1927, at Sherwin Avenue near
14 Evans ton, the water was clear and clean.
15 There was no algae growing on the piles
16 supporting the small pier extending out from
17 the Sherwin Hotel. In 193^ racing boats
18 using Wilmette Harbor needed a cleaning at
19 most three or four times a season. To be
20 | competitive now, a racing boat moored in the
21 water must be cleaned weekly. Occasionally
22 in the late summer, clumps of dark green foul-
23 smelling algae, a foot or more in diameter,
24 float into the harbor on the current caused
25 by pumping into the sanitary canal running
-------
1822
I DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 to the south. Water at the beach at Lloyd Park,
3 Winnetka, has a green turbid cast, and stones
4 feel slimy to bare feet.
5 It seems quite possible that some of
6 those present today may be still alive in the
7 year 2000 and that some of our children or grand-
8 children now living may see the year 2050. So
9 in self interest, we should give serious con-
10 sideration, not Just to the things which should
U be done immediately, but also to things which
12 should be planned now for completion in 10 or
13 20 years to keep Lake Michigan in the condition
14 to which we would like to become accustomed, for
15 ourselves, our children, and for future genera-
16 tions. If this planning is to be really success-
17 ful, it must be as advanced and on a scale
18 even larger than that which took place before
19 the turn of the century resulting in the formation
20 of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago,
2i rated as one of the seven modern wonders of
22 engineering.
23 By the year 2050 the midwest megapolis
24 stretching from Milwaukee to Detroit may be well
25 entrenched, but it is the area from Michigan City
-------
1823
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 to Milwaukee with which we are primarily
3 concerned now. There will be problems enough
4 in both Lake Michigan and Lake Huron due to
5 the heavily populated area reaching from Michigan
6 City to Detroit which must drain to one or the
7 other of the lakes or to Lake Erie because no
8 other drainage basin is available.
9 Long-range estimates of population
10 and the services they require are subject to
11 much question, but it seems reasonable to think
12 of this area requiring sanitary facilities
13 approximately three times that of the present
14 metropolitan district, which handles domestic
15 sewage of about five and one-half million people
16 and industrial sewage equal to three million
17 more people. To prevent the lower basin of
18 Lake Michigan becoming a nearly stagnant pool
19 of pollution, no sewage effluent from this
20 section of the megapolls should discharge into
21 the lake. This is pointed out by the report
22 of Judge Maris dated December 8, 1966.
23 The following summary is a suggested
24 list for action. It is divided into two groups,
25 A for immediate action and B for Backlog to be
-------
1824
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 picked up when possible.
3 A. Proposals for Immediate study
4 and action.
5 1. Investigate the fouling
6 of the lower Lake Michigan basin.
7 It appears that in this area evapo-
g ration from the lake surface may be
9 greater than precipitation on the
10 surface plus runoff from tributary
11 watersheds, especially during summer,
12 fall and winter. Hence it becomes
13 a stagnant pool with no cleansing
14 flow through. A coordinated study
15 of records of the various municipal
16 and industrial water plants on both
17 sides of the lake might furnish
18 valuable information. In addition,
19 traverse surveys across the lake and
20 in depth should be made to determine
21 the extent of mixing.
22 2. All sewage systems in the
23 Lake Michigan runoff area should be
24 improved Immediately at least to
25 secondary treatment and target dates
-------
1825
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 set for tertiary treatment. This
3 applies particularly to the larger
communities which now discharge
sewage effluent directly into the
lake or to streams draining into
7 it.
8 3. Recover and dispose else-
where the solids filtered out of
raw water by water treatment plants.
These are now returned to the lake
12 with additional chemicals and carbon
13 in the filter backwash water.
14 4. Eliminate as far as possi-
15 ble sources of flood-caused overflow
of raw sewage into the lake.
17 5- Set up control works in
18 the outlet of Lake Huron to maintain
19 the level of Lakes Huron and Michigan
20 as Lake Superior is now controlled.
2i This will prevent excessive lowering
22 of lake level during periods of lower
23 rainfall.
24 6. To provide an incentive for
25 industry to clean up its own sewage and
-------
1826
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 air pollution wastes at the source,
3 a law should be passed providing
4 that a portion of the cost of cor-
5 rective measures for air and/or
6 water pollution be deductible from
7 income taxes.
g 7. Set regulations or laws
9 stopping or limiting the usage of
10 hard to break down pesticides,
11 herbicides, and so forth, such as
12 DDT. These should be replaced
13 wherever possible by degradable
14 material.
15 8. Set up control over usage
16 of soluble fertilizers where the
17 excess now drains into the lake.
18 9. Set up uniform local laws or
19 Federal laws regarding disposal
20 of sewage and pollution from ships
21 and pleasure boats using the Great
22 Lakes Waterway and Lake Michigan.
23 10. Final responsibility for
24 enforcing compliance with laws and
25 regulations covering pollution and
-------
182?
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 its disposal must be vested in
3 one agency, either existing now
4 or to be created, so that uniform
5 enforcement is maintained. A
6 multiplicity of small agencies
7 is likely to result in confusion
g and lack of uniformity.
9
B. These are proposals for immediate
10
study and later action.
11
12 1. Work toward complete re-
13 moval of all sewage effluent, however
14 treated, in those areas where an
15 alternate drainage basin is reasonably
16 at hand to stop nitrogen and phosphorus
17 enrichment of the lake. This seems
18 possible from Milwaukee to Michigan
19 City.
20 2. Set up or revise priorities
21 on water usage from Lake Michigan to
22 the following order:
23 a. Domestic and industrial
24 usage in recreation.
25 b. Transportation or navigation.
-------
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 c. Riparian rights. This
3 is the maintenance of the
4 uniform level.
5 d. Power.
6 3. Arrange for National and
7 international agreement by which
8 an increased amount of water would
9 be diverted from the Hudson Bay
10 watershed, of which a substantial
11 quantity would be available for
12 use in the southern basin of Lake
13 Michigan.
14 4. Consider the possibility
15 of utilizing cloud seeding to obtain
16 a greater rainfall on the lower
17 basin of Lake Michigan, especially
18 during the late summer and fall when
19 lake levels normally drop.
20 5. Obtain international and
21 National agreement on increased water
22 diversion from Lake Michigan to the
23 Mississippi watershed by a substantial
24 amount of the water collected by 3
25 and 4 above in order to set up a
-------
1829
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 flow-through condition and prevent
3 the lower basin becoming a dead sea.
4 I thank you for the opportunity to make
5 this presentation.
6 MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, sir.
7 Are there any comments or questions?
g (No response.)
9 MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much
10 for your presentation.
11 (The full statement of Mr. Bergman is
12 as follows:)
13
REPORT OF THE
14
COMMITTEE ON LAKE MICHIGAN POLLUTION
15
16 The Committee on Lake Michigan Pollution
17 is a group of citizens from the suburban villages
18 north of Chicago, ranging up to Lake Forest, who
13 are interested in preventing the death of the lake.
20 Activities of the group include encouragement of
21 legislation, discouragement of industrial offenders
22 and search for local sources of pollution in the
23 various villages.
24 In making this presentation for the
25 Committee on Lake Michigan Pollution, the writer
-------
1830
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 has drawn upon observation of lake conditions
3 during some 40 years of active boating experience,
4 published reports, Winnetka Water Department data,
5 and articles from the press.
6 In 1927, canoeing was still a competi-
7 tive sport in the Chicago area with three canoe
8 clubs on the Des Plaines River and three very
9 active racing clubs located along the lakeshore
10 at Sherwin Avenue, Lincoln Park, and 79th Street.
H Now there is one club at Lincoln Park.
12 At Sherwin Avenue near Evans ton the
13 water was clear and clean. There was no algae
14 growing on the piles supporting the small pier
15 extending out from the Sherwin Hotel. In 193^
16 racing boats using Wilmette Harbor needed a
17 cleaning at most three or four times during a
18 season. To be competitive now, a racing boat
19 moored in the water must be cleaned weekly.
20 Occasionally in the late summer, clumps of dark
21 green, foul-smelling algae, one foot or more in
22 diameter,"float into the harbor on the current
23 caused by pumping into the sanitary canal running
24 to the south. Water at the beach at Lloyd Park,
25 Winnetka, has a green turbid cast, and stones
-------
1831
I DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 feel slimy to "bare feet.
3 During the past three years especially,
4 there has been an increasing plague of dead ale-
5 wives along the shores of the lake in the early
6 summer. These fish found their way into the Great
7 Lakes by way of the canals and locks from the
8 ocean. Apparently they were originally kept
9 under control by lake trout, but when the lampreys
10 destroyed the trout, the alewives went into a
11 population explosion. Last year it was estimated
12 that over 100 million pounds of alewives drifted
13 to shore, fouling beaches, and creating a major
14 stench. Coho salmon were introduced in northern
15 Lake Michigan to provide a sport fish and to feed
16 on the alewives. It has been estimated that a 20-
17 pound salmon will have eaten 100 pounds of these
18 or other small fish. One source of pollution may
19 be the salmon. After four years in the lake they
20 run upstream to spawn and then die. Are we trading
21 dead alewives for dead salmon?
22 It seems quite possible that some of
23 those present today may still be alive in the year
24 2000, and that some of our children or grandchildrqn
25 now living may see the year 2050. So, in self
-------
1832
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 interest,we should give serious consideration not
3 Just to the things which should be done immediate-
4 ly, but also to things which should be planned
5 now for completion in 10 to 20 years to keep
6 Lake Michigan in the condition to which we would
7 like to become accustomed, for ourselves, our
g children, and for future generations. If this
9 planning is to be really successful it must be
10 as advanced and on a scale even larger than that
11 which took place before the turn of the century
12 resulting in the formation of the Metropolitan
13 Sanitary District of Chicago, rated as one of the
14 seven modern wonders of engineering.
15 By the year 2050 the Midwest Megapolis
16 stretching from Milwaukee to Detroit may be well
17 entrenched, but it is of the area from Michigan
18 City to Milwaukee with which we are primarily
19 concerned now. There will be problems enough
20 in both Lake Michigan and Lake Huron due to the
21 heavily populated area reaching from Michigan City
22 to Detroit which must drain to one or the other of
23 the lakes or Lake Erie because no other drainage
24 .basin is available. Long-range estimates of popu-
25 lation and the services they require are subject
-------
1833
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 to much question, "but it seems reasonable to think
3 of this area requiring sanitary facilities approxi-
4 mately three times that of the present Metropolitan
5 District, which handles the domestic sewage of
6 about 5.5 million people and industrial sewage
7 equal to 3 million more people. To prevent the
8 lower basin of Lake Michigan becoming a nearly
9 stagnant pool of pollution no sewage effluent
10 from this section of the Megapolis should discharge
11 into the lake. This is pointed out by the report
12 of Judge Maris dated December 8, 1966.
13 The following summary is a suggested
14 list for action. It is divided into two groups,
15 A for immediate action, and B for backlog to be
16 picked up when possible.
17
A Proposals for immediate study and action.
18
19 1. Investigate the rate of fouling
20 of the lower Lake Michigan basin.
21 It appears that in this area evapo-
22 ration from the lake surface may be
23 greater than percipitation on the
24 ! surface plus runoff from tributary
25 watersheds, especially during the
-------
1834
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 summer, fall and winter. Hence
3 it becomes a stagnant pool with
4 no cleansing flow-through. A
5 coordinated study of records of
6 the various municipal and indus-
7 trial water plants on both sides
g of the lake might furnish valuable
9 information. .In addition traverse
10 surveys across the lake and in
11 depth should be made to determine
12 the extent of mixing.
13 2. All sewage systems in the Lake
14 Michigan runoff area should be im-
15 proved immediately at least to see-
16 ondary treatment, and target dates
17 set for tertiary treatment. This
18 applies particularly to the larger
19 communities which now discharge sewage
20 effluent directly into the lake or to
21 streams draining into it.
22 3» Recover and dispose elsewhere
23 the solids filtered out of raw water
24 by water treatment plants. These are
25 now returned to the lake with additional
-------
1835
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 chemicals and carbon in the filter
3 backwash water.
4 4. Eliminate as far as possible
5 sources of flood-caused overflow
6 of raw sewage into the lake.
7 5- Set up control works in the
g outlet of Lake Huron to maintain
9 the level of Lakes Huron and Michi-
10 gan as Lake Superior is now con-
11 trolled. This will prevent excessive
12 lowering of lake level during periods
13 of low rainfall.
14 6. To provide an incentive for
15 industry to clean up its own sewage
16 and air pollution wastes at the source,
17 a law should be passed providing that
18 a portion of .the cost of corrective
19 measures for air and/or water pol-
20 lution be deductible from income
21 taxes.
22 7. Set regulations or laws stopping
23 or limiting the usage of hard to
24 break down pesticides, herbicides,
25 etc., such as DDT. These should be
-------
1836
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 replaced wherever possible by
3 degradable material.
4 8. Set up control over -usage of
5 soluble fertilizers where the ex-
Q cess now drains into the lake.
7 9- Set up uniform local laws or
g Federal laws regarding disposal
9 of sewage and pollution from ships
10 and pleasure boats using the Great
11 Lakes Waterway and Lake Michigan.
12 10. Final responsibility for en-
13 forcing compliance with laws and
14 regulations covering pollution and
15 its disposal must be vested in one
16 agency, either existing now or to be
17 created, so that uniform enforcement
18 is maintained. A multiplicity of
19 small agencies is likely to result
20 in confusion and lack of uniformity.
21
B Proposals for immediate study and later action
22
23 1. Work toward complete removal of
24 all sewage effluent, however treated,
25 in those areas where an alternate
-------
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 drainage basin is reasonably at
3 hand, to stop nitrogen and phosphorus
4 enrichment of the lake. This seems
5 possible from Milwaukee to Michigan
6 City.
7 2. Set up or revise present prior-
g ities on water usage from Lake Michi-
9 gan to the following order:
10 a. Domestic and industrial
11 usage and recreation,
12 b. Transportation(Navigation),
13 c. Riparian rights (Maintain
14 uniform level),
15 d. Power.
16 3. Arrange for Naoxonal and inter-
17 national agreement by which an in-
18 creased amount of water would be
19 diverted from the Hudson Bay watershed,
20 of which a substantial quantity would
21 be available for use in the southern
22 basin of Lake Michigan.
23 4» Consider the possibility of util-
24 izing cloud seeding to obtain a greater
25 rainfall on the lower basin of Lake
-------
18.38
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 Michigan, especially during the
3 late summer and fall, when lake
4 levels normally drop.
5 5. Obtain international and
6 National agreement on increased
7 water diversion from Lake Michigan
g to the Mississippi watershed by a
9 substantial amount of the water
10 collected by 3 and 4 above in order
11 to set up a flow-through condition
12 and prevent the lower basin becoming
13 a Dead Sea.
14 Lake Michigan is and must continue to be
15 the source of drinking water for millions of people
16 and the water source for the industries that sup-
17 port them. It is not a self-renewing stream. Its
18 ratio of surface to volume, and its ability to re-
19 place used up oxygen are low in comparison to a
20 streaflu Hence it appears vitally important to
21 establish how much pollution has already occurred,
22 and what is the condition of the deep pool of the
23 lake.
24 An article by Horace P. Ramey, in the
25 February and March 1952 issues of the Midwest
-------
1839
! DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 Engineer points out that the average precipita-
3 tion in the Lake Michigan-Lake Huron area is
4 about 31 inches per year, while the average
5 evaporation from the lake surface is 28 inches
6 per year, based on the period from i860 to 1924
7 inclusive. The average annual yield of the two
8 lakes considering direct rainfall, runoff from
9 tributary land area, evaporation, and storage
10 was estimated at 105,400 cfs. The mean monthly
tl local supply to Michigan-Huron ranged between
12 27,800 cfs in May, and 8,200 cfs in October.
13 For the same period the water yield of Lake
14 Superior ranged between a maximum 175,700 cfs
15 and a negative 10,700 cfs in the month of Decem-
16 ber when precipitation and runoff from the tribu-
17 tary watershed were less than evaporation.
18 There is a submerged ridge across Lake
19 Michigan running slightly south of east from
20 Milwaukee. Water depth along this ridge is never
2i more than 300 feet, while the basin to the south
22 goes to a depth of about 575 feet and the north
23 basin runs to almost 900 feet. According to "The
24 Glacial Lakes Around Michigan" a recent publica-
25 tion of the Michigan Conservation Department, this
-------
^ 1840
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 ridge is the continuation of a series of glacial
3 terminal moraines, which are evident in both
4 Wisconsin and Michigan.
5 Considering the negligible watershed
6 area on the west side of this lower basin, and
7 the small streams running into it from the east
8 shore, it seems evident that the water input is
9 little greater than the direct precipitation.
10 Further, evaporation from the lower basin might
11 well be considerably greater than the average
12 for the whole Michigan-Huron watershed. Conse-
13 quently, it seems evident that the water yield of
14 the lower basin is negative, especially during
15 the hot, dry summer and fall. During this time
16 the lake level falls quite consistently, and water
17 from the north basin flows down to make up for
18 the excess evaporation. This may be part of the
19 reason for the normally south running current
20 on both sides of the lake.
21 Surface currents in the lake normally
22 follow the wind, although occasionally in light
23 wind conditions current may be across the wind
24 or even against it for a short time. A strong
25 west or southwest wind tends to blow the surface
-------
1841
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 water across the lake and also may build up a
3 level on the eastern shore with a corresponding
4 drop on the west shore. This is accompanied by
5 subsurface current running in the opposite direc-
g tion, bring up colder clear water to the swimming
7 beaches, and an abundance of plankton, diatoms,
8 and other small aquatic life to cause filtering
9 problems at water treatment plants.
10 As evidence of the generally prevailing
H current to the south there is the build up of sand
12 on the north side of piers or other obstructions
13 along the shoreline. On the east side the water
14 from the St. Joseph River makes a clearly defined
15 turn to the south after leaving the harbor.
16 The lower basin then merits consideration
17 apart from Lake Michigan as a whole, let alone the
18 overall Michigan-Huron water surface, to prevent
19 stagnation and fouling making it unfit for a
20 drinking water source. More study of the rate of
21 fouling and of the currents seem amply Justified.
22 An important project would be the development of
23 an improved and faster test for pollution in water.
24 The presently accepted coliform test takes a matter
25 of three days to run. By the time the results are
-------
1842.
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 obtained the water represented by the sample
3 has been run completely through a water treat-
4 ment plant and has been used by its customers.
5 There also seems to be an exaggerated sense
6 of accuracy and some question as to its repro-
7 ducibility. Water plants generally use as a
8 control the residual chlorine in the filtered
9 water to make sure it is safe for drinking.
10 A chart, Figure 1, is attached showing
11 the summer and winter averaged coliform readings
12 of the raw water at the Winnetka, Illinois Water
13 Plant intake. Contrary to expectation, readings
14 for the summer months run considerably lower than
15 for winter. An article in the Chicago Tribune
16 may explain this as resulting from chlorination
17 of sewage effluent by the North Shore Sanitary
18 District during summer months to protect beaches
19 for swimming. The effluent was still there, it
20 .just didn't show up in the test.
21 A2. Improvement of sewage systems in
22 the Lake Michigan runoff area to secondary treat-
23 ment, with target dates set for tertiary treatment.
24 There seems to be no argument against
25 this with the exception of cost and time involved.
-------
1843
-------
1844
! DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 It will cost more later. The North Shore Sanitary
3 District is to be complimented for making a deter-
4 mined start in this direction with proposals for
5 a bond issue coming up in an election.
6 A3. Stop return of backwash water from
7 water treatment filters to the lake.
8 The various communities along the lake-
g shore have installed water treatment plants to
10 furnish their inhabitants, and sometimes other
jj more inland communities, with potable water. Raw
12 water is given a chemical treatment, consisting
13 of additions of chlorine, alum, carbon, and some-
14 times clay and other chemicals. It then goes to
15 mixing tanks and on to settling tanks where some
16 of the heaviest solid material settles out.
17 Thence it flows to a sand filter and percolates
lg through, leaving the carbon, alum floe, protozoa,
19 algae, and microcrustacea in or on top of the
20 filter bed. After some hours of operation the
2i accumulation results in an increase of friction
22 drop and the filter must be cleaned. Valves are
23 switched, and for a period of five to ten minutes
24 filtered water is pumped at a high rate to the
25 bottom of the filter and overflows at the top
-------
1845
I DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 carrying the accumulated gunk with it. The filter
3 is then ready to resume normal operation. Disposal
4 of the backwash water and the sludge in settling
5 tanks is simple. It just flows back into the lake.
6 This seems to be a universal solution, partly be-
7 cause the high rate of flow while backwashing pre-
8 eludes running to any ordinary sewer system.
9 Rationalization points out that most of the solids
10 came from the lake to begin with.
11 The Winnetka water plant during the
12 summer months, will pump approximately 10 million
13 gallons daily and return about 200,000 gallons
14 of backwash water to the lake. It is estimated
15 that this contains about one ton of silt, carbon,
16 alum, and organic matter. Then consider Chicago's
17 central water treatment plant. This has a maxi-
18 mem capacity over a million gallons per minute
19 or about 1-1/2 billion gallons per day. For a
20 summer pumpage rate of 1 billion gallons daily,
21 the backwash water contains approximately 100 tons
22 of sludge, now returned to the lake on the opposite
23 side of the building from which the water is drawn
24 in. True, this sludge has been chlorinated and
25 should be inert, but a sample taken during
-------
1846
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 backwashing at Winnetka showed live Daphnia and
3 other life.
4 Some plants are now searching for means
5 to separate the sludge and dispose it somewhere
6 else. Filtering or longer settling would serve
7 to concentrate the sludge, and the clear water
8 could be returned to the lake in all cases.
9 4. Flood-caused sewage overflow into
10 lake.
11 Practically all older comm&nities have
12 combined sewer systems, which quickly become over-
13 loaded during heavy rains. To prevent flooding
14 basements there is usually some bypass or high
15 level overflow which relieves the excess—including
16 raw sewage--into the lake. New and larger inter-
17 ceptor lines should be planned to prevent as much
18 of this as possible. To illustrate the effect, the
19 Tribune reprint "Save Our Lake" points out a coli-
20 form count at Juneway Beach (north of Reward) as
21 being 17,000 for July 14 through July 17, 1967,
22 and then dropping to 322 on the 18th. The Sanitary
23 District plant at Howard and McCormack registered
24 0.9 inch rain on July 9, with much smaller amounts
25 at stations farther north. Could this rain have
-------
1847
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 caused an overflow from Evans ton's sewer system?
3 A5. Control level of Lakes Michigan-
4 Huron by works in Lake Huron outlet.
5 The level of Lake Superior is now con-
6 trolled within a two-foot range to prevent flooding
7 shore installations during times of high runoff,
8 and maintain navigation with existing channels
9 during fall and winter low runoff. A similar
10 program is necessary for Lake Michigan-Huron to
11 provide full draft navigation channels during low
12 rainfall periods and cut down on alternate storm
13 damage and wide beach exposure during periods of
14 high and low water cycles.
15 A6. Incentive for industry to correct
16 its own air and water pollution.
17 Many industries have found that recovery
18 of valuable byproducts from plant wastes can be a
19 profitable end in itself. In other cases some
20 outside incentive or pressure would speed up re-
21 search as the removal of these wastes at the source
22 is easier and cheaper than combining them all to-
23 gether and turning a complex mess over to a muni-
24 cipal sewage plant.
25 It therefore seems highly desirable to
-------
18^8
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 push for the enactment of Federal laws similar
3 to those proposed by Congressman Rumsfeld and
4 Senator Percy which would allow a credit against
5 income taxes of a portion of the cost of land,
6 buildings, improvements, machinery, and equipment
7 used to control air pollution and/or water pol-
g lution. Where such an incentive would promote
9 action the cost to the taxpayer would be minimal.
10 Where it was not effective, the force of laws
11 prohibiting dumping of wastes is still available
12 and must be made effective. Loss of income to
13 the Internal Revenue Department because of such
14 laws would be more than offset by the generation
15 of new projects and the labor and materials in-
16 volved would pay taxes at different points.
17 A?. Regulate or stop use of certain
18 pesticides, herbicides, etc.
10 There have been numerous fish kills due
20 to accidental or intentional dumping of chemical
21 wastes in streams. A more subtle and insidious
22 source of poisoning comes about from the drainage
23 of residues of pesticides, especially such as DDT,
24 where these have been used in attempts to control
25 insect pests. Dutch Elm disease, spread by beetles
-------
184Q
1 DONALD J.. BERGMAN
2 and the destruction caused by Japanese beetles
3 are two good examples. For Dutch Elm disease,
4 dosage of DDT may be as high as 3 to 5 pounds
5 per tree, compared to 1/2 pound per acre for
6 I normal spraying. DDT seems to be particularly
7 hard to break down, so the excess winds up
g draining into streams and lakes. Here it enters
9 at the front end of a food chain, concentrating
10 at each higher level, until an end result has
11 been the death of gulls at Green Bay, and grebes
12 and loons at Clear Lake, California, from eating
13 fish in which the chemical had been concentrated.
14 The sports section of the.Chicago Tribune carried
15 a report of heavy kill of Michigan raised coho
16 salmon eggs attributed to DDT in the Sunday edition
17 of January 28, 1968. The use of DDT has been quite
18 widespread since its introduction in the 19^-0's,
19 and investigations have shown measurable quantities
20 in the fatty tissue of penguins, seals, and fish,
21 and shellfish as far distant as the Antarctic.
22 Legislation prohibiting the use of DDT
23 in the United States has been proposed by Senator
24 Gaylord Nelson. Other longlastlng pesticides can
25 have as serious an effect on wildlife chains, and
-------
1850,
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 eventually on man. Research leading to control
3 of usage or banning use of such materials is
4 badly needed. Other chemicals having a shorter
5 life should be used for orchard spraying, mosquito
6 abatement, Japanese beetle, elm beetles, and
7 general farm spraying.
8 A8. Control of fertilizer use.
9 While the majority of the nitrogen and
10 phosphorus which causes excessive growth of algae
H in Lake Michigan comes from sewage effluent and
12 some untreated sewage, some areas receive much of
13 this material as a result of runoff of soluble
14 fertilizer applied to increase crop yields. Use
15 of slow acting fertilizers would reduce this
16 source of lake pollution.
17 A9. Necessity of uniform State laws
18 or Federal laws Covering pollution.
19 Last year much publicity was given to a
20 slick of heavy fuel oil found in spots from Lake
21 Calumet to Glencoe. Although much of this pub-
22 licity was pointed toward oil refinery pollution
23 in the Lake Calumet area, it seems quite improb-
24 able that this could be the source. The prevail-
25 ing currents run toward the south, and the slick
-------
1831
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 was discovered as a widespread thing, not a
3 slowly advancing wind moved layer of oil. Hence
4 it seems much more probable that it was the
5 result of a ship pumping out bilges or fuel
6 tanks before arriving in port to take on a new
7 load of fuel.
8 The incident does point up the neces-
9 sity of greater surveillance and enforcement
10 of existing laws against dumping such material
11 in the lakes. One result of the outcry over
12 this incident has been the Chicago ordinance
13 prohibiting the use on boats of toilets which
14 can be flushed into the lake. It seems unlikely
15 that this can be enforced against ocean-going
16 ships which make Chicago an occasional port of
17 call, so the action will' affect primarily small
18 boats used for recreation a few hours a week,
19 contributing in an extremely small way to the
20 problem of lake pollution.
21 It seems desirable to have greater
22 uniformity in legislation such as this, than
23 can be obtained by each city passing its own
24 laws, each with different requirements. To
25 obtain this just on Lake Michigan requires the
-------
1852
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 cooperation of the four States represented at
3 this Conference. To cover the entire Great
4 Lakes Waterway, as is needed, requires cooperation
5 of additional States and Canadian Provinces in
6 the acceptance of a uniform law. Where the need
7 has been great and was recognized, such a thing
8 has been done as for instance the uniform Boiler
9 Codes of the various States and Provinces of
10 Canada.
H A10. One ultimate enforcement agency.
12 Enforcement as well as the laws dealing
13 with pollution must be uniform. Where numerous
14 agencies on City, State and National levels
15 interpret the law differently or may be lax due
16 to pressure of other duties the result will be
17 failure to defect and enforce. It seems necessary
18 for some Federal agency to have the duty and the
19 power to intervene when failure of a local agency
20 to act results in pollution of the lake. This may
21 be an existing agency or one created for the spe-
22 cific purpose.
23
Proposals for Immediate
24
Study and Later Action
25
-------
1853
I DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 Bl. For several years, Milwaukee
3 beaches have been closed to swimming. With
4 adequate treatment, a canal connecting to the
5 headwaters of the Des Plaines River and some
6 low lift pumping, Milwaukee sewage effluent
7 could be sent down the Mississippi waterway
g via the Des Plaines River, making the beaches
9 safe for swimming and at the same time removing
10 a heavy load of the nitrogen and phosphorus
11 enrichment which plays a major part in the buildup
12 -of algae growth and turbidity in the lower lake
13 basin. The other urban areas between Chicago and
14 Milwaukee should do the same. The increase of
15 population and industry expected for this area
16 by the 21st Century dictates that decisive
17 measures be taken to protect the health of the
18 communities involved, and the recreational aspect
19 of the lake. A similar case can be made for the
20 area extending to Michigan City connecting up
21 with the Little Calumet River.
22 B2. Priorities on usage of Lake Michigan
23 water.
24 The first and most important call on
25 the water available in the Lake Michigan basin
-------
1834
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 must be for domestic and industrial usage and
3 recreation of the population adjoining the
4 lake. This requires further that all commun-
5 ities on the lake or on waterways draining
6 into it construct advanced sewage treatment
7 plants to avoid pollution of the lake.
g Second place in priority should go
9 to water transportation. With the increase in
10 population and industry expected, this becomes
11 increasingly more important than at present.
12 Larger and greater draft vessels will have to
13 be accommodated and a vastly greater flow of
14 traffic from the lake to the Mississippi River
15 must be provided for. This will require enlarge-
16 ment of present canal and locking facilities and
17 especially requires maintenance of level on the
18 Lake Michigan-Huron basin.
19 Third place in priority should be
20 assigned to riparian rights. This again requires
21 control of the level of Lakes Michigan and Huron.
22 Fourth place should be assigned to
23 production of power. With the technical advances
24 available in the coming years, more exotic power
25 generating methods than hydraulic turbines will
-------
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 be available. At the present time two nuclear
3 plants are planned for the near future at Zion,
4 Illinois. Furthermore, control of water level
5 at the outlet of Lake Huron will result in re-
6 ducing the flow to the lower lakes and Niagara
7 River in the fall and winter and increasing the
8 flow in the spring. One answer to this would
9 be provision of pumped storage to care for peak
10 loads.
11 B3. Arrange for increased diversion
12 from Hudson Bay watershed to Lake Superior.
13 Since 1939 there has been some diversion
14 of water from the Hudson Bay watershed to Lake
15 Superior. This is under control and can be dis-
16 continued at times of high water. It amounted
17 to over 5»000 cfs on the average between 19^-5
18 and 1950. In view of the steadily incr-r.ising
19 need for clean fresh water around the southern
20 end of Lake Michigan, arrangements should be made
21 to obtain a much larger quantity. In any such
22 arrangement, regardless of who pays the bill,
23 some will be reserved for Canadian interests.
24 However, a substantial part should be available
25 for use in the southern basin of Lake Michigan,
-------
1836
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 without necessarily finally flowing through
3 the Niagara River. This whole problem is
4 similar to that which has resulted in the
5 building of the wide-flung Los Angeles water
6 system.
7 B4. Stimulation of greater rainfall.
8 Cloud seeding as a means of increasing
9 rainfall during times of drought has not been
10 uniformly successful, but there has been evidence
11 that under favorable conditions a considerable
12 increase in rainfall can be achieved. Legal
13 problems might arise through claims of loss due
14 to induced rain and perhaps also on the part of
15 areas which might have received more rain were
16 clouds not seeded. However, it appears that
17 seeding of clouds during passage across Lake
18 Michigan from the southwest might raise the
19 annual rainfall on its basin by 20 percent or
20 about 6 inches. Assuming that the "made" rain
21 fell on only a 5*000 square mile area, this
22 still amounts to more than 4,000 cfs. average
23 over the year. This would appear to be within
24 the spirit of the ruling by Judge Maris by whicn
25 the State of Illinois is under the duty of employing
-------
1837
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 all those means which are practical and reasonably
3 available to it for conserving its own water re-
4 sources before seeking to take additional water
5 from Lake Michigan. That ruling apparently did
6 not envision or eliminate the use of additional
7 water obtained from sources not naturally avail-
8 able at the time of the ruling.
9 B5. Possibility of increased water
10 diversion from Lake Michigan to the extent of
11 water added from other sources.
12 The Parsons-Jurden Company of Los
13 Angeles has drafted preliminary plans for an
14 ambitious redistribution of water resources from
15 areas where they are in excess to areas where
16 they are in short supply. The basic plan is
17 to use present waterways as far as possible,
18 with tunnels, dams, canals, pumps and power
19 recovery all employed. Much of the water would
20 come from Canadian sources, and international
21 agreement on such arrangements would be necessary.
22 in the same spirit it is proposed that National
23 and international agreement be reached by which
24 a substantial part of water added to the Great
25 Lakes, either by diversion from other watersheds
-------
1838
1 DONALD J. BERGMAN
2 or from such activities as cloud seeding, be
3 made available for diversion from the Chicago
4 area to break the stagnation of the lower basin
5 of Lake Michigan and to improve navigation.
6 January 29, 1968
7 Committee on Lake Michigan
Pollution
8
Donald J. Bergman, PhD.,P.E.
9
10
MR. KLASSEN: There has been a dearth,
11
Mr. Chairman, of comments by the ladies and the
12
water users. We have a very brief statement here
13
that will be given by Mrs. Eileen Johnston. I
14
admit I am a little prejudiced, but she is speaking
15
for the alumni of one of the great universities
16
in the world, the University of Michigan. You
17
might guess, my alma mater.
18
Mrs. Johnston.
19
20
STATEMENT OF MRS. EILEEN L. JOHNSTON
21
PRESIDENT, NORTH SHORE
22
UNIVERSITY OP MICHIGAN ALUMNI CLUB
23
24 MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Klassen has Just
25 talked himself into a membership in our North
-------
1859
I EILEEN L. JOHNSTON
2 Shore Club, which has now been extended to include
3 Springfield.
4 Mr. Stein and Conferees, my name is
^ Eileen Johnston of Wilmette, Illinois. This
statement is being made on behalf of the North
7 Shore University of Michigan Alumni Club. We
g welcome you to Chicago. We have spent so many
9 days in conference with you gentlemen that we
10 feel like we are old friends.
jj We wish to thank Governor Kerner for
12 requesting this important Conference, and to
13 thank Secretary Udall for making it possible
14 for the States of Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin
15 and Illinois to meet together and work on this
16 serious problem of pollution in Lake Michigan
17 that has been neglected all these years.
18 Our Alumni Club Board has been aware
19 of the gross pollution in Lake Michigan and we
20 have held meetings to educate our membership
2i and interested parties about the unbelievable
22 condition of the lake today and about research
23 that is being done to help combat the many prob-
24 lems that different kinds of pollution confront
25 us with.
-------
i860
1 EILEEN L. JOHNSTON
2 We are very much interested in the
3 reserach being done at various universities,
4 for surely we need much more knowledge of
5 eutrophication, sludge disposal, currents,
6 the effect of thermal pollution, cheaper methods
7 of removal of nutrients from wastewater, work
g on the vast amounts of algae growth and more
9 study of the alewife, etc.
10 We need more trained people in the
11 field of water pollution control. A number of
12 universities, aided by Federal funds, have grad-
13 uate students helping to carry on valuable research
14 on such problems as listed above. At the same
15 time, they are preparing themselves to work in a
16 field that is crying for trained personnel. I
17 was deeply concerned when Lt. Governor Olds of
18 Michigan announced that funds were being cut back
19 for the Great Lakes Research Division at Ann
20 Arbor, Michigan. We learned at chis Conference
21 that outstanding research has been done at this
22 division, and it would be a step backwards in the
23 fight on pollution if this work was halted.
i
24 We must restore all of Lake Michigan
25 to pure water, including its tributaries. This
-------
1861
1 EILEEN L. JOHNSTON
2 wonderful lake is actually one big well for
3 the use of the people of four States and it
4 should be treated as such. Who would throw
5 sewerage, chemicals, oil, heat, pesticides
6 down the well and expect to survive?
7 No individual, Federal installation,
8 State installation, municipality or industry
9 has the right to put anything into our source
10 of water—the lake. Lake Michigan is not the
11 four State dump for municipal and industrial
12 wastes, pesticides, thermal pollution, boat
13 wastes, and so forth.
14 Let's clean up this big well, then
15 keep it that way. We are making progress with
16 legislation. With proper enforcement and con-
17 tinued research we should be able to do the Job.
18 The public needs education. We need
19 a new value put on our most valuable resource
20 throughout the Nation. It is going to cost us
21 money for pure water. Let's face it and go to
22 work. We need a slogan perhaps to keep us all
23 aware of our responsibility.
24 We hope that every effort will be made
25 to maintain and even expand present levels of
-------
1862
! EILEEN L. JOHNSTON
2 research ana training in sanitary and water
3 resources engineering and related departments
4 at all schools, and especially where going
5 programs have developed such as exist at the
6 University of Michigan.
_ I thank you for the opportunity to
8 speak as a citizen of Illinois.
g MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mrs. Johnston.
10 Are there any comments or questions?
u (No response.)
12 MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much
13 for your statement.
14 (The following material was submitted
15 by Mrs. Johnston:)
16 Secretary Udall and Conferees, my name
17 is Bruce E. Johnston, of Wilmette, Illinois. I
18 am a student at the University of Kansas.
19 In 1959 as Boy Scouts, my patrol
20 members and I took a 12-mile hike along the
2i shore of Lake Michigan from Highland Park to
22 Wilmette Harbor. The purpose of the hike was
23 to seek out illegal sewer pipes with effluent
24 that was polluting the lake. Roughly 20 such
25 pipes were found and located on a geological
-------
1863
1 EILEEN L. JOHNSTON
2 map of the area. This project was done at
3 the suggestion of Mr. Gordon Wallace, Park
4 Superintendent of Wilmette, and Mr. Lawrence
5 Langdon, President of the Wilmette Park Board
6 at the time. A copy of the map and a report
7 was sent to Mr. Frank Chesrow, President of
g the Metropolitan Sanitary District at the time,
9 and to Mr. Kehr, of the United States Public
10 Health Service in Chicago. We checked our work
11 with another hike to "be sure we had not missed
12 any pipes.
13 While walking along the beach last
14 summer much to my disappointment I learned that
15 the sewer pipes we had located nine years
16 earlier still existed. I feel that a good deal
17 of pollution could have been stopped if someone
18 had taken our work and interest in the condition
19 of the lake seriously and had done something
20 about it all those years ago. This spring when
21 my friends get home from college we plan to redo
22 the hike and again plot the violators.
23
Respectfully submitted
24
25 (Signed) Bruce E. Johnston
-------
1864
1 EILEEN L. JOHNSTON
2 Bruce E. Johnston
505 Maple Avenue
3 Wilmette, Illinois 60091
1/31/68
4
5
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, in
6
conformance with the agreed-upon procedure that
7
the State of Indiana take over at 3 o'clock, I
8
Just want to make a couple minutes summary for
9
the State of Illinois.
10
I first of all want to say that we have
11
a statement here that will go into the record
12
from Congressman Robert McClory. And to a few
13
of you here who so far have not been able to get
14
on because of time limitations, we are passing
15
your statements out to the Conferees and they
16
will go into the record. I will say that if there
17
is time at the end of this session I assume you
18
will be given an opportunity to present your
19
statements if you so desire. I can only apologize
20
for the very few who so far haven't been able to
21
get on, but your statements will be in the record
22
23 STATEMENT OP THE HONORABLE ROBERT MC GLORY
24 U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
25 12th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
-------
1865
1 CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2
FEDERAL-STATE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
3
TO SPEED THE CLEANUP OF LAKE MICHIGAN
4
Statement of
5
The Honorable Robert McClory, Representative
6
12th Congressional District of Illinois
7
February 2, 1968
8
9 Mr. Secretary, Lake Michigan is one of
10 our Nation's most precious assets. For years it
11 has been a valuable part of the geography of the
12 midwest. It has been a vital element in this area1
13 economic growth. Lake Michigan affords opportuni-
14 ties for recreation to millions of our citizens
15 principally from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan
16 and Wisconsin.
17 But today the advantages of the lake
18 are threatened by pollution. Lake Michigan is
19 sick. Quick and effective action must be taken
20 to save this great and beautiful body of water.
21 The convening of this Conference is consistent
22 with the need for action. I congratulate you,
23 Mr. Secretary. In addition, I offer my full
24 cooperation in seeking ways and means to eliminate
25 pollution from Lake Michigan. In taking this
s
-------
1866
I CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2 position, I am confident that I reflect the
3 sentiments of the citizens of the 12th Congres-
4 slonal District of Illinois.
5 The residents of the 12th District
6 enjoy over 20 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline.
Seven communities in this area border the lake
including Winthrop Harbor (At the Wisconsin border)
Zion, Waukegan, North Chicago, Lake Bluff, Lake
Forest and Highland Park (At the Cook County line).
In addition to the residents of these
12 seven communities, many other citizens use and
13 enjoy the lake. Also, two important installations
14 of the Federal Government are located on this
15 shoreline: Fort Sheridan (which includes the
16 5th U. S. Army Headquarters) and Great Lakes
Naval Training Station, largest naval training
center in the world.
To all, the plight of Lake Michigan
20 is a matter of the deepest concern. Fortunately,
21 public interest is high. This is due,to a con-
22 siderable extent, to the attention focused on the
23 perils of water pollution by a series of pene-
24 trating and factual newspaper articles which
25 appeared in the Waukegan News-Sun, the Chicago
-------
1867
1 CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2 Tribune, and in some other Chicago newspapers.
3 In addition, leaders of local, State and
4 national government are responding to the public
5 clamor for action. Initiative is being demon-
6 strated by industry and private citizens as well.
7 My purpose in presenting this statement
g is twofold:
9 First, I wish to encourage a full and
10 forthright analysis of the entire problem.
11 Second, I wish to present for the
12 consideration of the Conference several recom-
13 mendations upon which the Conferees may wish
14 to express themselves in their report.
15 Before making these recommendations,
16 I wish to comment on the complexity of Lake
17 Michigan problems.
18 Multiple uses are made of the waters
19 of Lake Michigan. The lake's vital waters sustain
20 the municipal, industrial, commercial and recrea-
21 tional life of millions of our citizens. Lake
22 Michigan attracts bathers, boat owners and
23 fishermen. Communities draw fresh water from
24 the lake. Industries and municipalities use
25 the lake for water and as a reservoir into which
-------
. 1868
1 CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2 treated waste effluent and industrial wastes are
3 introduced. Commercial shiplines ply her deep
4 waters.
5 Yet none of these varied uses, and none
6 of the users should in fairness be allowed to
7 jeopardize the enjoyment by others of this great,
g water resource. Balanced, responsible and non-
9 detrimental use should be practiced by all.
lO Certainly, offenders must be brought into line.
11 And may I add that it is not man alone
12 who has damaged Lake Michigan. There are natural
13 causes of pollution which also contribute to the
14 condition of this" lake.
15 Last summer the dieoff of the alewife
16 fish attracted our attention. In August I partici-
17 pated in Congressional hearings held in Washington
18 and at East Chicago, Indiana, to consider the
19 alewife "crisis. Expectations are that another
20 gigantic alewife dieoff will occur in the summer
2i of 1968 despite efforts to solve the problem. The
22 massive death of this silvery fish and the ensuing
23 contamination of the Lake Michigan shoreline pre-
24 sent a new challenge to our efforts at control.
25 The resulting pollution of the beaches and
-------
3.869
CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2 shorelines, and the clogging of municipal water
3 intakes by dead fish is obnoxious, offensive and
dangerous to public health.
I am confident that the public is pre-
pared to guard Lake Michigan against this new
source of pollution. The need for natural eco-
logical balance in Lake Michigan must be recog-
nized. Earnest consideration should be given
to ecological balance by the introduction of
predator fish who will prey on the alewife and
reduce its numbers.
13 Municipal and industrial pollution of
14 the lake must end promptly.
15 Strict laws and regulations to prevent
dumping of wastes by commercial and private boats
17 and ships must be enacted and enforced. We can
no longer tolerate large or small oil slicks in
our lake.
20 With respect to sources of pollution
2i relating primarily to the area embraced in Illinois
22 12th Congressional District (Lake and McHenry
23 Counties and Harrington and Hanover Townships in
24 Cook County) I will make several observations:
25 1. I am pleased to report that the Lake
-------
1870
1 CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2 County communities along the Illinois shore of
3 Lake Michigan are taking action to reduce the
4 introduction of their treated sewage plant ef-
5 fluents into the lake. The North Shore Sanitary
6 District, which serves the communities which
7 adjoin the Lake County, Illinois, shoreline,
g has an important project estimated to cost about
9 $58 million. When completed, this development
10 will result in a transfer of these effluents
H from Lake Michigan to the Des Plaines River
12 (which empties ultimately into the Mississippi
13 River) . A referendum on a proposed "bond issue
14 has been set tentatively for May 4, at which
15 time the residents will be asked to assume an
16 obligation of about $35 million.*
17 An additional or possibly alternative
18 proposal contemplates a $75 million bond issue
19 *The North Shore Sanitary District
20 serves a zone about 4-5 miles wide extending
21 from the Wisconsin line down to the Cook County
22 line and including the communities of Winthrop
23 Harbor, Zion, Waukegan, North Chicago, Park City,
24 j Lake Bluff, Lake Forest, Highwood, and Highland
25 Park^ as well as a part of Gurnee.
-------
n — 1871
1 CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2 secured by the full faith and credit of Lake
3 County and in which the Lake County Public Works
4 Department would participate. This would seem
5 to offer an opportunity to eliminate municipal
6 sewage effluents from Lake Michigan and also to
7 provide sewage treatment facilities for additional
8 portions of Lake County.
9 I am confident that the residents of
10 Lake County will face up to their responsibilities
H buoyed by the knowledge that others who enjoy the
12 use of Lake Michigan also will be cooperating in
13 the efforts to save our lake. I hope that a
14 recommendation in support of the North Shore
15 Sanitary District or alternative Lake County,
10 Illinois, proposal will be included in the report
U of the Conferees.
18 2. With respect to the industries which
19 may be contributing to the pollution of Lake
20 Michigan, I would agree that corrective action
2i must be taken promptly by such industries. How-
22 ever, in order to encourage and assist such
23 action, I recommend that the Conference consider
24 the subject of tax incentives.
25 It seems to me that legislation should
-------
1872
1 CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2 be enacted by the Congress to provide for an
3 increased investment credit or rapid depre-
4 ciation or other favorable treatment under
6 the Federal Income Tax Laws for those industries
6 that make outlays for pollution control plants
7 and equipment. I have introduced a bill
8 (H.R. 4883) to permit industries to take a tax
9 credit on their Federal Income Tax return to
10 encourage the construction of waste treatment
11 facilities. I urge the Conference to consider
12 this device and to endorse the tax incentive
13 concept.
14 On the subject of incentives, I am
15 sure that someone will suggest the further use
IQ of outright grants by Federal Government to
17 local and State Governments and possibly to
lg private industries as a way of stimulating
19 action. Well-intentioned as the Federal grant
20 method may be, the effect of a grant program
2i often is to discourage, rather than encourage,
22 local or individual initiative.
23 With respect to the existing municipal
24 grant program, I have observed that local action
25 sometimes is deferred while application is made
-------
1873
1 CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2 for the Federal grant. Further delay occurs
3 during the long and complicated processing
4 period in one or more regional and Washington
5 offices of the Federal Government.
6 Far better it seems to me would be
7 the tax credit or rapid depreciation method
g or other f/avorable treatment under the Federal
9 Income tax laws. To allow such a tax incentive
10 would involve no delay, no long wait for Federal
11 approval and the availability of Federal funds,
12 but would encourage immediate action. I am
13 hopeful that this Conference will take a long
14 step forward with a strong recommendation for
15 the use of tax incentives for industry to battle
16 pollution now.
17 3- There is a great need for the
18 development of new techniques to treat and dispose
19 of waste material. Little technical progress at
20 all has been made in the last 50 years in this
21 vital field.
22 ij.. Serious attention should be given
23 to the prevalence of individual septic systems
24 in the four States bordering Lake Michigan.
25 Private septic systems are common and often
-------
1 CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2 contribute to the water pollution problem. While
3 it may be that pollution from most septic systems
4 enters streams, rivers and small lakes, these
5 conditions adversely affect the condition of Lake
6 Michigan. I recommend that the Conference con-
7 sider the dangers posed by private septic systems.
g 5- The Conference should study the
9 effect of waste practices by Federal Government
10 instrumentalities such as Great Lakes and Fort
11 Sheridan on the health of Lake Michigan. Specific
12 recommendations should be made concerning the
13 waste treatment systems in operation at these
14 and other Federal facilities. The recent Executive
15 Order of President Johnson should not become an
16 empty promise. It must be implemented by a
17 meaningful program to end pollution of Lake
18 Michigan by Federal installations consistent
19 with State and Federal water quality standards.
20 Mr. Secretary, it is my hope that the
21 five recommendations contained in this statement
22 will contribute to the success of this Federal-
23 State Enforcement Conference to speed up the
24 cleanup of Lake Michigan. All of us have much
25 at stake in the saving of wonderful Lake Michigan.
-------
: 1875,
I CONGRESSMAN ROBERT MC GLORY
2 Future generations will be grateful for the
3 action we take now.
4 - - -
5 SUMMARY STATEMENT OP C. W. KLASSEN
6 TECHNICAL SECRETARY
7 THE ILLINOIS SANITARY WATER BOARD
8
9 MR. KLASSEN: Just as a quick windup
10 and summary for the State of Illinois, we will
11 file for the record some recommendations that
12 I am sure will be considered along with the
13 other States recommendations by the Conferees
14 in their final report. I merely want to very
15 briefly touch on what these recommendations
16 include.
17 It will recommend that the four States
18 adopt uniform criteria for Lake Michigan for
19 open waters, shore waters and harbor basins.
20 Two, and this to us is extremely
21 important, that there be adopted a definition
22 of pollution. There is none in the Federal Act.
23 This is something I feel that we should adopt,
24 because depending upon with whom you talk depends
25 on their interpretation of what they think
-------
l8?6
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 pollution really is.
3 Then there should be some agreement
4 on base terminology to define treatment, if it
5 is secondary treatment a certain percentage,
6 primary treatment, tertiary treatment,and so
7 forth.
8 Recommendation No. ^ will include
9 some discharge characteristics. For example,
10 when we talk about dissolved solids, phosphates,
H chlorides, temperatures, the various heavy metals,
12 exactly what do we mean?
13 Then industrial waste treatment in
14 Recommendation No. 5> some comparable language
15 so that industries will know and will be assured
16 that what they will have to do will be comparable
17 to what is being required by municipalities.
18 Then No. 6 is admittedly a controversial
19 one, but one that we think should go in, a definite
20 time schedule. I want to read this at this time.
2i This is what we are suggesting:
22 Municipal effluent disinfection
23 during the recreational months to
24 go into effect the spring of 1969.
25 Municipalities with sewers but no
-------
1877
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 treatment facilities, if there
3 are any, there are not in Illinois,
4 December 19&9*
5 Municipalities with primary
6 facilities only by December 1969.
7 Municipalities with storm flow
8 bypassing at treatment works
9 July 1972. This is completion
10 dates.
11 Municipalities with automatic
12 storm overflow of combined sewers,
13 solution by July 1977.
14 Municipalities nutrient control
15 facilities by the latest 1977,
16 and earlier if facilities and
17 methods are available.
18 Industrial waste treatment and
*9 control--! want to repeat that;
20 this is Illinois recommendation--
21 industrial waste treatment and
22 control December 1968. That is
23 | a State law in Illinois.
24 The deadline for meeting the marine or
25 watercraft problem. This is something that we
-------
l8?8
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 want to negotiate, I am sure, "between the Con-
3 ferees.
4 We have a whole recommendation on this
5 question of marine vessel sanitation, one on shore
g and harbor maintenance operation so far as debris,
7 another one on lake dumping, and one on the
8 tributary streams going into Lake Michigan that
9 they should meet the water quality criteria so
lO that the incoming flow will not contribute to the
11 degradation of Lake Michigan.
12 I think, Mr. Chairman, that this con-
13 eludes our formal presentation. I want to add
14 about one moment1s worth of personal comment.
15 At a later time when the Federal Govern-
lg ment finally reaches a point that they give their
17 conclusions and recommendations on their report,
18 I want to make comment on that. But there has
19 been much talk, much public image gathering by
20 legislators of State and Congressional, by
2i associations, by people. This was the subject
22 of a very excellent editorial in one of the
23 Chicago papers in the last few days, I think
24 it was "Don't Go Away." The legislators
25 particularly I want to comment on for Just a
-------
1879
C. W. KLASSEN
2 couple of seconds.
3 It is one thing to appear here and
give a fine public image that you are for clean
water. Yet so far as the Illinois Legislature
is concerned, the last three sessions of our
Legislature, including the one that has Just
concluded, turned down our request for additional
funds for water pollution control. I hope that
there will be a little reverse of this in the
next session.
The same thing can be said of the
13 Congress on not funding. I just came from a
session where Senator Muskie said he had every
reason to believe that Congress was going to
16 fully fund the Federal authorization. We have to
17 see this.
18 Now to the associations that have been
here. It is fine to get up and talk about what
20 you are for, and I can only speak for our own
21 Legislature. I have yet to see in my 40-some
22 years of experience in Illinois any of these
23 clean water conservation groups appear before a
24 committee on appropriations to speak for the
25 local water pollution control agencies in their
-------
i860
C. W. KLAS3EN
2 State, I think the four men sitting up here
3 particularly from the State are all faced with
Identical problems. We need money; we need a
realistic personnel code so that we can not
only hire people but retain the people. And
we need a positive enforcement program.
A final word to the people that have
been here individually. On a national television
program several months ago I made this statement,
that I have yet to know of anyone, with all of
this talking about clean water, that has ever
13 contacted an industry in which they are a stock-
holder and advocated that they spend money for
15 water pollution control, even though it reduces
16 their dividend. I got one letter from a man
up in Maine who sent me a copy of the letter he
sent to his corporation. People say, what can
we do? I think this is one of the things you
20 can do.
And I want to end up, I don't want to
22 steal any of Jim Vaughn's good sayings, but this
23 is paraphrasing a Negro spiritual, which goes
24 something like this, that everyone that talks
25 about heaven ain't going there. I say this,
-------
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 everybody that talks about water pollution control
3 just ain't doing their part.
4 Thank you.
5 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr, Klassen.
6 (Applause.)
7 (Mr. Klassen1s entire summary is as
g follows:)
9 ILLINOIS SANITARY WATER BOARD
10 RECOMMENDATIONS
11 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND IMPLEMENTATION
12 LAKE MICHIGAN POUR-STATE CONFERENCE
13 JANUARY 31, 1968
14 C. W. KLASSEN, TECHNICAL SECRETARY
15
16 The Illinois Sanitary Water Board offers
17 the following recommendations in regards to water
18 quality criteria, waste treatment and effluent
19 criteria, schedule for treatment works construc-
20 tion, marine vessel sanitation, and shore or harbor
21 maintenance operations as applied to Lake Michigan,
22 for consideration by this Conference.
23
Background
24
25 tfater quality criteria for Lower Lake
-------
1882
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 Michigan (Cook County, Illinois and Lake & Porter
3 Counties, Indiana) were prepared by a Technical
4 Advisory Committee, chairmaned by Federal Water
5 Pollution Control Administration. The Committee
6 was appointed by the Conferees at the Illinois-
7 Indiana Conference on pollution of interstate
g waters of Lake Michigan and Calumet areas under
9 provisions of Section 8, Federal Water Pollution
10 Control Act (33 USC 466 et. seq.) March 2-9» 1965-
H The report and recommended water quality
12 criteria were accepted by the Conferees February 1,
13 1966 and approved by the Acting Secretary of
14 Health, Education and Welfare April 15, 1966.
15 Subsequently the Indiana Stream Pollution Control
16 Board adopted these criteria as part of the Indiana
17 water quality standards for Lake Michigan waters.
18 These standards were approved by the Secretary of
19 Interior. Illinois Sanitary Water Board also
20 adopted these criteria as part of the Illinois
21 water quality standards for Lake Michigan.
22
uases for Development of Criteria
23
24 Quoted from the Technical Committee
25 Report as follows:
-------
1883
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 "After considering various bases for
3 development of water quality criteria the committee
4 agreed that criteria should be based on:
5 1. Present and potential water
6 uses.
7 2. Preservation of present good
8 quality.
9 3« Improvement of degraded quality
10 where technically and economically
H feasible.
12 ^. Reconsideration and revision
13 of regular intervals as future
14 developments may dictate.
15 "it was concluded that adoption of uni-
16 form criteria for specific uses, regardless of
17 location of uses, would not provide a practical
18 basis for a pollution abatement program for lake
19 waters. For example, the sheltered areas between
20 the Calumet Harbor Breakwater and the Indiana
21 Harbor Bulkhead receives the major discharges
22 from waste sources. Obviously, it is impractical
23 to expect water of the same high quality in this
24 area, regardless of the degree of waste treatment
25 achieved, as that which will be found several
-------
1884
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 miles out in the open lake. If the sources of
3 municipal supply in the sheltered area are given
4 adequate protection, the water in the open lake
5 inevitably will be of still better quality.
6 "Based on this reasoning, the water
7 area of the lower lake was divided into three
g zones Most of the water area is defined
9 as Open Water, which is that area more than 200
10 yards offshore and outside of a line from the
11 outer end of the Calumet Harbor Breakwater to and
12 along the outer edge of the Inland Steel Bulkhead
13 Line and thence through the U. S. Steel Water
14 Supply intake to the outer end of the Gary Harbor
15 Breakwater. The Inner Harbor Basins is the area
16 shoreward of the above line, but not including
17 Shore Water. Shore Water is all water within 200
18 yards of existing onshore recreational areas.
19 "General water use categories were
20 adopted for the development of criteria. These
21 water uses are:
22 i. Municipal Water
23 2. Industrial Water
24 3« Recreation
25 a. Whole Body Contact
-------
1885
C. W. KLASSEN
2 b. Limited Body Contact
3 4. Pish and Wildlife
5". Commercial Shipping
. 6. Esthetics
o
7. Wastewater Assimilation."
D
A copy of the printed "Report of Water
Quality Criteria Calumet Area-Lower Lake Michigan,
January 1966" is enclosed for the record, but not
necessarily for inclusion in the transcript of
.. this Conference.
12 (Which said document, entitled, "Report
13 of Water Quality Criteria Calumet Area-Lower Lake
Michigan, January 1966," is marked as Conference
15 Exhibit No. 9, 2/5/68, and is on file at the
lg Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
17 Office in Washington, D. C., with a copy «n file
lg at the Regional Office of the PWPCA in Chicago,
Illinois .)
20
Recommendation 1 - Water Quality Criteria
21
22 The Illinois Sanitary Water Board recom-
23 mends and requests that the delegated representa-
24 tives to this Four State Conference on Pollution
25 of Lake Michigan adopt these water quality criteria
-------
: 1886
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 for all of Lake Michigan. The three sets of
3 criteria to be considered are for Open Water,
4 Shore Water and Harbor Basins. These criteria,
5 when adopted, shall supplement individual State
6 Water Quality Standards for respective State
7 Areas or in event any individual criteria is
g more stringent than State Standards, the more
9 stringent criterion shall govern.
10
Recommendation 2 - Definition of Pollution
11
12 There are understandably differences
13 between lay and official usage and interpretation
14 of the word pollution. It is recommended that the
15 definition of pollution proposed by the U. S.
16 Department of Health, Education and Welfare be
17 adopted by this Conference. This definition was
18 contained in Section 2 (a) of Suggested State
19 Water Pollution Control Act Revised, GPO 890-028,
20 May 1965 and is as follows:
21 "Pollution means such contamination, or
22 other alteration of the physical, chemical or bio-
23 logical properties, of any waters of the State,
24 including change in temperature, taste, color,
25 turbidity, or odor of the waters, or such
-------
1887
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radio-
3 active, or other substance into any waters of
4 the State as will or is lifcely to create a
5 nuisance or render such waters harmful, detri-
6 mental or injurious to public health, safety
7 or welfare or to domestic, commercial, industrial,
8 agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate
9 beneficial uses, or to livestock, wild animals,
10 birds, fish or other aquatic life."
11 A supplemental definition might include
12 the following: Water pollution is the specific
13 impairment of water quality to a degree that has
14 an adverse effect upon any beneficial use of
15 water yet does not necessarily create an actual
16 hazard to the public health. If there is no
17 impairment of desired use by the presence or
18 addition of any factor, there is no pollution.
19
Recommendation 3 - Degree of Waste Treatment
20
21 This Conference should agree on base
22 terminology and define treatment in terms of
23 concentration. Thus if secondary treatment by
24 at least 80 percent is based on average strength
25 raw waste at 200 mg/1, the allowable effluent
-------
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 will be 40 mg/1. Suspended solids based on
3 average raw waste at 240 mg/1 would yield
4 48 rag/1 in the effluent. Treatment should
5 include ye'ar round disinfection of effluents.
6 A minimum of secondary treatment of
7 municipal wastes has been requested by Federal
8 Water Pollution Control Administration and
9 included by States in water quality standards.
10 Some standards have defined secondary treatment
11 as removal of organic material in terms of BOD
12 by at least 80 percent in a trickling filter
13 plant or by at least 90 percent in an activated
14 sludge plant. This percent is usually interpreted
15 in terras of normal domestic sewage which may have
16 a range of 200 to 300 milligrams per liter five-
17 day biochemical oxygen demand. Thus a filter
18 plant effluent could range from 40 to 60 mg/1
19 and the activated sludge plant effluent could
20 range from 20 to 30 mg/1.
21
Recommendation 4 - Discharge Characteristics
22
23 Similarly definite values for chemical
24 and other constituents of effluents should be
25 established, for example:
-------
•_- i88Q
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 1. Dissolved solids: Discharge
3 rate and concentration not to
4 elevate the water quality, after
5 reasonable admixture, above the
5 water quality criterion for such
7 waters.
g 2. Chlorides, fluorides, and sul-
9 fates: Discharge rate and concen-
10 tration not to elevate the water
11 quality, after reasonable admixture,
12 above the water quality criteria
13 for such waters.
14 3« Phosphates: Immediately provide
15 control or treatment sufficient to
16 produce an effluent of not more than
17 4.0 milligrams per liter and within
18 10 years treatment to produce an ef-
10 fluent of not more than 0.4 mg/1.
20 Assuming a minimum of 10 to 1 dilution
21 such effluent mixture would be reduced
22 to the 0.04 mg/1 single daily value
23 of the proposed water quality criteria.
24 4. Temperature: Temperature and
25 rate of discharge not to elevate the
-------
1890
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 water temperature, after reason-
3 able admixture, above water quality
4 temperature criterion for such
5 waters. The maximum natural water
6 temperature shall not be increased
7 more than 20° F and the rate of
g change in temperature shall not
9 exceed 2° P per hour.
10 5« Chemical Constituents: Effluents
11 as discharged to waters of Lake
12 Michigan are not to exceed the fol-
13 lowing concentration at any time.
14 No concentration in the effluent
15 shall exceed that amount now xneas-
16 urable in Lake Michigan waters and
17 shall not exceed the following con-
18 centration at.any time.
19 Constituent Milligrams per liter
20 Ammonia Nitrogen (as N) 2.5
21 Arsenic 1.0
22 Barium 5 • 0
23 Cadmium 0.05
24 Chromium-Hexavalent 0.05
25 Chromium-Trivalent 1.0
-------
1891
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C. W. KLASSEN
Constituent Milligrams per liter
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Nitrate (as NO-)
Phenols
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Oil - Effluent subs
of visible floating oil
ceed 15.0 mg/1.
pH - No value below
10.0.
Recommendation 5 - Industrial
0.0.4
0.025
10.0
0.1
2.0
45.0
0.02
0.01
0.05
1.0
tantially free
and not to ex-
6.0 nor above
Waste Treatment
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration and some State
standards, in
general terms call for industrial waste treatment
equivalent to or to a degree
required of municipalities.
terminology and relationship
equivalent to that
Clarification of
to concentrations
-------
1892
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 is necessary. For instance an industry with a
3 high strength raw waste of 1200 mg/1 providing
4 secondary treatment with a trickling filter at
6 90 percent removal would discharge an effluent
6 of 240 mg/1. To be truly equivalent to the
7 minimum municipal waste treatment cited above
8 the effluent could not exceed 40 mg/1 thus re-
9 quiring 96-2/3 percent removal of five-day BOD.
10 Industry effluents should, by definition,
jl equal municipal effluents in all concentrations
12 listed above.
Recommendation 6 - Schedule for Treatment Works
14
Construction
15
16 There are some differences in timetable
17 for providing treatment necessary to meet the
!g various State water quality standards. In order
19 to present a reasonably uniform schedule for all
20 of Lake Michigan the following timetable is sug-
2i gested. This schedule shall not be construed as
22 negating State statutes or pollution control
23 agency orders and standards establishing earlier
24 dates.
25
-------
1893
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C. W. KLASSEN
Category
Municipal effluent disinfection -
Recreation Months
Municipalities with sewers but
no treatment facilities
Municipalities with primary
facilities only
Municipalities with storm flow
bypassing at treatment works
Municipalities with automatic
storm overflow of combined sewers
Maximum
Completion
Date
Spring 1969
Dec. 1969
Dec. 1969
July 1972
July 1977
Municipalities nutrient control Dec. 1977
facilities
Industry waste control and
treatment
Dec. 1968
Recommendation 7 - Marine Vessel Sanitation
Marine vessel sanitation is a vexing
problem at marinas, harbors and inshore waters.
Coordinated control activities are recommended
along the following lines:
1. Fuel, bilge and ballast tank
control should be exercised im-
mediately with no discharge to
waters of Lake Michigan.
2. Trash, debris, dunnage, etc.,
shall not be thrown overboard to
-------
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 Lake Michigan effective immediately.
3 3« Recreation vessel and commercial
4 vessel sewage treatment works or
6 holding tanks shall not be discharged
6 into any harbor waters, but to shore
7 facilities only.
8 4. Rules and regulations for marine
9 vessel sewage facilities should be
lO adopted by this Conference for shore
11 harbor areas and for open water
12 transit pending uniform Great Lakes
13 regulation adoption by Federal Water
14 Pollution Control Administration.
15 a. It is recommended that the
16 Vessel Sanitation Ordinance of
11 the City of Chicago be adopted
13 by this Conference for appli-
19 cation to all of Lake Michigan.
20 b. A copy of the Chicago
21 ordinance is attached.
22 c. It is recommended and re-
23 quested that the Region V
24 Office, Federal Water Pollution
25 Control Administration be
-------
1895
! C. W. KLASSEN
2 designated to issue approval
3 of methods of waste treatment
4 for vessels in interstate
5 transit, with direct discharge
6 to waters of Lake Michigan.
7
Recommendation 8 - Shore and Harbor Maintenance
8
Operations
9
10 Debris from shore installations and
jj from tributary streams create or aggravate pol-
12 lution problems and effect the aesthetic and
13 recreational use of lake harbors and shore waters.
14 Dead fish and algae growths or accumulations
15 create nuisance problems and affect the aesthetics
16 and recreational use of the lake.
17 The following recommendations are
18 offered:
19 1. State and local ordinances and
20 laws be reinforced and applied to
2i control or prevent use of tributary
22 streams or Lake Michigan for disposal
23 of trash, floating debris or refuse.
24 2. State and local agencies plan and
25 fund programs to maintain waterways
-------
1896
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 and the lake free from natural
3 and accidental occurrence of de-
4 bris, etc. This would be a func-
5 tion similar to city street
cleaning and highway cleanup
work, and include equipment
utilization.
3. Local, State and Federal funds
should be provided and earmarked
for this function on a watching
basis.
13 4. Shore maintenance or improvements
confined within revetments or levees
shall be constructed of inert mater-
ials which will not degrade water
quality below established criteria.
It is not intended to interfere with
construction of filled land to extend
20 or improve shore areas or the pumping
2i and hauling of lake or shore sand to
22 reclaim or improve beach areas. It
23 is not intended to interfere with the
24 use of stone or inert building materials
25 used for repair or in the construction
-------
2
1897
C. ¥. KLASSEN
of breakwaters, jetties or shore-
3 side facilities.
4 Recommendation 9 - Lake Dumping
5
Dumping of debris, refuse, building
6
material, stream and harbor dredging in offshore
Q waters of Lake Michigan should be prohibited.
o
The July 13, 1967 Memorandum of Under-
1Q standing between the Secretary of War and Secretary
of Interior tends to prohibit dumping of pollu-
12 tional and contaminated material. It is undesirabl
13 that any harbor or stream dredged material be
14 deposited in the lake as previously practiced
15 Such deposits interfere with the natural aquatic
and biotic life on the lake bottom and contribute
17 to the artificial aging of the lake
18
Recommendation 10 - Tributary Streams
19
20 Each State should require the degree of
treatment and effluent criteria necessary to meet
22 water quality criteria for all tributary streams
23 so that the incoming flow will not contribute to
24 the degradation of Lake Michigan. No concentration
25 m the stream discharge shall exceed that amount
-------
1898
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 now measurable in Lake Michigan nor the amount
3 specified by water quality criteria adopted by
4 this Conference.
5 The representative from Illinois re-
6 quests consideration of the above recommendations
7 for inclusion in the final findings of this Con-
g ference.
9 (signed) C. W. Klassen
10 C.W. Klassen, Technical
Secretary, Illinois
11 Sanitary Water Board
12 DBM:cj
13 - - ~
14
ORDINANCE
15
16 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
17 THE CITY OF CHICAGO:
18 SECTION 1. The Municipal Code of
19 Chicago is amended by striking the existing
20 Section 38-9 and inserting in lieu thereof a
21 new Section 38-9 to read as follows:
22 "38-9. No person shall throw,
23 dump, place, deposit or cause or
24 permit to be thrown, dumped, placed
25 or deposited any pollutant as defined
-------
1899
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 in Section 31-2.1 (k) of this
3 Code, or any garbage, refuse,
filth, putrid or unwholesome
g substance, or the contents of
. any toilet or head, catch basin,
or grease trap upon the margin
or banks, or within the limits
or into the waters of the harbor.
10 Discharge of any of the afore-
mentioned pollutants within the
radius of four miles of any domes-
13 tic raw water intake is further
14 expressly prohibited."
15 SECTION 2. The Municipal Code of
16 Chicago is amended by adding the following new
17 Section 38-9.1 to read as follows:
18 "38-9.1 In addition to the pol-
19 lutants enumerated in Section 38-9
20 aforesaid, no operator of any vessel,
2i craft, floats or motor boat shall
22 discharge, dump or deposit into
23 the harbor any fuel, solid or liquid,
24 or the contents of any ballast tank,
25 bilge tank or other receptacle
-------
1900
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 capable of causing pollution of
3 waters."
4 SECTION 3- The Municipal Code of
5 Chicago is amended by adding the following new
5 Section 38-9«2 to read as follows:
7 "38-9.2 All vessels, craft, floats
g and motor boats equipped with toilets,
9 heads, urinals, or capable of dis-
10 charging galley wastes which have
11 not been discharged through a grease
12 trap or grease interceptor, or solid
13 or liquid waste from shipboard hos-
14 pital facilities, shall be equipped
15 with a waste retention tank of approved
16 type and capacity to store such waste
17 material for subsequent disposal at
18 a shoreside facility."
19 SECTION b. The Municipal Code of
20 Chicago is amended by adding the following new
21 Section 38-9.3 to read as follows:
22 "38-9.3 A treatment system
23 utilizing a method of waste treat-
24 ment approved by the Port Director
25 and complying with the Rules and
-------
1901
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 Regulations Establishing Water
3 Quality Criteria for Lake Michi-
4 gan as set by the Illinois Sani-
5 tary Water Board may be permissible
6 on vessels, craft, floats or motor
7 boats operating in harbor waters in
g lieu of a retention tank. The ef-
9 fluent of any waste treatment sys-
10 tern not meeting the approved standards
11 of the Illinois Sanitary Water Board
12 shall be discharged and collected
13 in a retention tank while such
14 vessel, craft, floats of motor boat
15 is located or operating within the
16 harbor of Chicago. All such waste
17 retention tanks must be properly
18 equipped with pumps and piping so
19 that waste can be discharged from a
20 connection located above the water
21 line to approved shore-based or
22 floating installations."
23 SECTION 5« The Municipal Code of
24 Chicago is amended by striking Section 38-10 in
25 its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the
-------
1902
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2 following new Section 38-10:
3 "38-10. The Port Director shall
4 have the authority to promulgate
5 rules and regulations necessary
6 to the effective control of harbor
7 pollution.
g Any person who violates any of
9 the provisions of Sections 38-8,
10 38-9, 38-9.1, 38-9.2 and 38-9-3
11 shall be fined not less than $50
12 nor more than $200 for each offense
13 and each day's continuance of such
14 violation shall constitute a sepa-
15 rate offenseV
16 SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be in
17 force and effect from and after its passage and
18 due publication.
19
20
21 MR. STEIN: These additional statements
22 from Illinois will appear in the record, without
23 objection, as if read.
24 (Which said statements are as
25 follows:)
-------
1903
1 THE HONORABLE DONALD RUMSFELD
2
STATEMENT OP
3
4 U. S. REPRESENTATIVE DONALD RUMSFELD
5
13TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
6
7 OF ILLINOIS
8
PRESENTED TO
9
10 LAKE MICHIGAN FOUR STATE POLLUTION CONFERENCE
11
JANUARY 3,1 - FEBRUARY 6, 1968
12
13 SHERMAN HOTEN, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
14
15 Mr. Secretary, we are all agreed that
16 the well-being of our society depends on an ade-
17 quate supply of pure water. The attention of the
18 public and of various government agencies has
19 recently been focused on the pollution of our
20 waterways. Indeed, the participants in this
21 conference today are keenly aware of the problem
22 of the pollution of Lake Michigan, a body of
23 water of major importance to the economic and
24 recreational life of more than 12 million citizens
25 in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin.
-------
1904
1 CONGRESSMAN DONALD RUMSFELD
2 Today Lake Michigan is sick. It is
3 sick because for too many years we failed to
4 recognize the symptoms of pollution. It is
5 fortunate that the extent of the pollution has
g finally been recognized. But recognition alone
7 will not solve the problem. Bold and determined
g steps are required if we are to save our lake
9 from dying. I believe that I reflect the senti-
10 ments of the residents of the 13th Congressional
11 District when I say that the cessation of pol-
12 lution of Lake Michigan is a matter of the highest
13 priority, and that immediate action is essential
14 if we are to reverse the current trend.
15 There are no overnight solutions for
16 water pollution. Since 1956, when the Federal
17 Water Pollution Control Act was signed into law
18 by President Eisenhower, governments at all
19 levels have taken steps to advance the cause
20 of clean water. National legislation enacted
21 in 1961, 1965 and 1966 has increased Federal
22 enforcement authority and augmented funding
23 authorization for water pollution control grants
24 and activities. State and local governments
25 have sought to increase their commitment to
-------
1905
1 CONGRESSMAN DONALD RUMSFELD
2 control pollution within and adjacent to their
3 boundaries. But the poisoning of the Nation's
4 waterways continues. It is ironic that, while
5 we have sufficient determination and technical
6 expertise to send men into outer space, we thus
7 far seem to lack the skills or determination
8 needed to purify our waterways.
9 The demand for Lake Michigan water
10 comes principally from muncipalities and indus-
11 tries, whose use of the lake water is expected
12 to increase threefold by the year 2020. Yet,
13 their reliance on Lake Michigan as a source of
14 water supply notwithstanding, some municipalities
15 and industries continue as major contributors to
16 water pollution. A report, "Water Pollution
17 Problems of Lake Michigan and Tributaries,"
18 issued in January 1968 by the Federal Water Pol-
19 lution Control Administration, U. S. Department
20 of Interior, cites specific municipalities and
21 industries which are discharging wastes into
22 public waterways and which could substantially
23 reduce pollution by providing secondary and ad-
2* vanced treatment of sewage effluents.
25 A number of municipalities along the
-------
19.06
1 CONGRESSMAN DONALD RUMSFELD
2 Illinois shore of Lake Michigan are taking
3 action to reduce the introduction of sewage into
4 the lake. Tor example, the North Shore Sanitary
5 District, serving the communities adjoining the
g Lake County, Illinois, shoreline, has proposed a
7 $35 million bond referendum for construction of
8 alternative waste disposal facilities. Such
9 action is commendable. It should be emulated
lO by other units of government which may be con-
H tributing to the pollution problem. I am confi-
12 dent that the citizens of Illinois will accept
13 their responsibilities for ending the pollution
14 of Lake Michigan by local municipalities.
15 With respect to industrial pollution,
16 I have introduced a bill (H.R. 13511) in both
17 the 89th and 90th Congress to authorize an
18 incentive tax credit for industries which install
19 facilities for controlling water pollution. The
20 Pollution Control Incentive Act of 196? seeks to
21 combine governmental .efforts with the efforts of
22 industries in eliminating water pollution. Sub-
23 stantial private funds must be utilized if the
24 fight against pollution is to be successful. This
25 bill will encourage industries to utilize their
-------
, 1Q07
1 CONGRESSMAN DONALD RUMSFELD
2 own funds by providing a tax credit applicable
3 to costs of water pollution control facilities--
4 machinery, equipment, buildings, and the like.
5 I have urged the Chairman of the U. S.
Q House Committee on Ways and Means to schedule
7 prompt hearings on the tax incentive bill, but
8 to date no hearings have been held. The Republl-
9 can Coordinating Committee has also recommended
lO hearings be held on this legislation. In a report
11 of December 11, 19&7, entitled "Water Pollution
12 Control: Promise and Performance," the Coordi-
13 nating Committee stated: "We endorse legislation
14 to permit an increased Investment credit or to
15 allow rapid depreciation on Federal tax returns,
16 for outlays for pollution control equipment in
17 those cases where it is not feasible to accom-
18 modate industrial waste at municipal waste treat-
19 ment systems." It is my hope that hearings on
20 this proposal will be scheduled soon so that
21 affirmative action may be taken by the 90th
22 Congress.
23 Another problem is the U. S. Corps of
24 Engineers dumping of dredged materials into
25 Lake Michigan. During a hearing held in
-------
19Q8
I CONGRESSMAN DONALD RUMSFELD
2 Washington, D.C., in October 1967> I questioned
3 the inability of the Corps of Engineers to find
4 alternative means for disposing of dredged
materials. The Corps of Engineers initiated
a pilot program aimed at finding alternative
dumping sites, and, I understand, the Corps has
pledged to halt the dumping of polluted materials
into the lake for the balance of 1968. I join
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
in recommending that the Corps of Engineers cease
12 permanently its program of dumping polluted
13 dredgings into Lake Michigan.
14 Certainly it is appropriate to take
15 this opportunity to commend the Chicago news
media and the suburban newspapers for their
campaign to stimulate public awareness of the
18 seriousness of the pollution problem. In recent
months, hard-hitting news coverage has aroused
20 public sentiment against water pollution and
21 in favor of corrective measures. I trust this
22 attention by the news media will continue, for
23 I believe it to be a necess.ary stimulus to concerte^l
24 public action.
25 Mr. Secretary, those involved in
-------
1909
1 CONGRESSMAN DONALD RUMSFELD
2 organizing and conducting this Conference are
3 to be applauded for their efforts in attempting
4 to arrive at a solution to a most complex problem.
5 - - -
6 THE WILMETTE PARK DISTRICT
7 GILLSON PARK, WASHINGTON AT MICHIGAN AVENUE
8 WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091
9 Telephones 251-2105 or 251-2164
10
Park Commissioners Officers
11
Paul Levin Robert B. Gerrie,
12 C. E. Rauhauser, Jr. President
Robert B. Gerrie
13 William J. Lambrecht Paul Levin,
Vice President
14
Thomas L. Gooding,
15 Treasurer
16 Gordon B. Wallace,
Secretary-Superintendent
17
John A. Nordberg,
18 Attorney
19 January 26, 1968
20
STATEMENT OF THE WILMETTE PARK DISTRICT
21
TO THE FOUR STATE CONFERENCE
22
ON LAKE MICHIGAN POLLUTION
23
24 Gentlemen:
25 The Wilmette Park District encompasses
-------
1 THE WILMETTE PARK DISTRICT
2 the Village of Wilmette, a community of about
3 32,000 people situated on the north shore of Lake
4 Michigan above the City of Chicago. For better
5 than 50 years, the Park District has owned and
6 operated a beautiful bathing beach at Gillson
7 Park on the shores of Lake Michigan for public
8 use and enjoyment. The teach operations include
9 a large beach house with showers and dressing
10 rooms, a paved parking area with a capacity of
H 400 automobiles, a picnic area and lights for
12 evening use. The sand area extends about 400
13 yards along the shore and is as much as 175 yards
14 deep. During the season the sand is cleaned every
15 day by a maintenance crew and the beach is manned
16 by 13 lifeguards, 10 beach policemen and 5 office
17 workers. The attendance was 10^,792 last season
18 but there has been a decline in attendance since
19 a peak of 279,903 in 1960. Just to the north of
20 the bathing beach, the Park District provides a
21 boating beach in Langdon Park for use by small
22 sunfish and sailfish sailors.
23 The bathing beach is available to resi-
24 dents and non-residents of Wilmette at a nominal
25 charge on a family season membership or daily fee
-------
1911
1 THE WILMETTE PARK DISTRICT
2 basis. The fees are designed to cover the costs
3 of operation which were approximately $60,000
4 last season. Residents of many of the communi-
6 ties surrounding Wilmette- patronize the beach
regularly in substantial numbers. We believe
7 that the Wilmette beach is one of the finer com-
8 munity beaches in the country.
9 However, the Board of Commissioners
10 of The Wilmette Park District, as well as
u neighboring riparian property owners, has a
12 deepentag concern over the continually declining
13 condition of Lake Michigan due to pollution
14 and dying wildlife. Last season, for example,
15 the Park District spent substantial amounts of
16 money to remove dead alewives and plant life
17 from the Wilmette beach. Despite such action,
18 there were many days when the smell of such
19 debris or the condition of the water discouraged
20 use of the beach. In addition, there is grave
2i concern that the bacteria count may rise to the
22 point where the beach would have to be closed
23 to swimming.
24 In short, Lake Michigan is not only
25 an important source of water for home and industry
-------
1912
1 THE WILMETTE PARK DISTRICT
2 and a valuable artery of transportation but it
3 is a beautiful recreational facility. The pol-
4 lution of this vital natural resource, whether
5 by governmental entities or private parties,
6 is an act of desecration which must be stopped
1 by whatever means are necessary. If those who
8 have the power to stop such pollution fail to
9 act promptly and vigorously, they must bear
10 equal guilt for the destruction of this ir-
H replaceable wonder of nature with those who
12 actually administer the poisons. Lake Michigan
13 must be saved and, in order to save it, all
14 pollution must be stopped immediately. There
15 is very little time left.
ie Respectfully submitted,
17
(Signed) Robert B. Gerrie
18
19 Robert B. Gerrie, President
Board of Commissioners
20 Wilmette Park District
21 RBG/bs
22 - - -
23 LAKE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
24 1515 Washington Street
25 Waukegan, Illinois 60085
-------
1913
I LAKE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
2
BOARD OF HEALTH
3
Walter J. Reedy, M.D., President
4 Waukegan
5 W. C. Petty, Secretary
Antioch
5
William G. Dracos, D.D.S.
7 Waukegan
8 R. J. Flaskamp
Long Lake
9
August J. Cepon
10 Waukegan
n Edwin Ellis
Harrington
12
John J. Ring, M.D.
13 Mundeleln
14 Allan I. Wolfe, Jr.
Highland Park
15
16 January 31, 1968
17
Clarence W. Klassen, Technical Secretary
18 State Sanitary Water Board
Springfield, Illinois
19
20 Dear Mr. Klassen:
21 The following statement has been prepared
22 for consideration at the Lake Michigan Four-State
23 Water Pollution Conference convened on January 31,
24 1968:
25 "Of the many parameters which are used
-------
1914
1 LAKE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
2 to define water quality, none is so directly
3 (at least in theory) related to man's well-being
4 as bacteriological standards for recreational
5 use. It is incongruous, therefore, that it is
the one constituent of surface water that we,
as technicians, seem to know the least about. We
lack satisfactory techniques to do precise ana-
lytical work regarding the type and numbers of
organisms. We are unable to effectively evaluate
what data we do accumulate, and we have little
12 understanding of the interrelationships between
13 what is discharged, and what we can expect to find
in the receiving watercourse.
15 Unfortunately, the brunt of the problem
16 of coping with the public's concern over recrea-
tional water quality falls directly on the
shoulders of the local health agency where such
an agency exists. It is not a light burden. The
20 increased clammering of an "alerted" public for
2i a definite yes or no answer concerning their
22 personal safety cannot be ignored. It is equally
23 difficult to develop an "official" arbitrary
24 attitude which either completely denies the public
25 a generally accepted recreational outlet, or
-------
^__ 1915'
1 LAKE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
2 sanctions a theoretical direct exposure to an
3 environmental hazard at a level that would not
4 be knowingly tolerated In any other situation.
5 The Lake County Health Department
6 has been attempting to cope with the problem
7 of recreational water surveillance since its
g inception in 1958. Recreational use of water
9 is a major factor in the life of the county,
10 both at the numerous inland lakes and along the
11 county's 24- miles of Lake Michigan shoreline.
12 Extensive sampling activities have been carried
13 out in both of these areas. Such sampling has
14 only served to fortify the obvious fact that
15 good public health practice leaves but two
16 alternatives to recreational use of waters where
17 whole body contact is involved; such use of water
18 should be denied, or provisions must be made to
19 exclude all domestic waste discharges into them.
20 Any intermediate solution is foolhardy
21 in the light of current limited understanding
22 concerning the removal and possible effects of
23 the multitude of human pathogens found in such
24 waste discharges.
25 It has been on this premise that the
-------
1916
1 LAKE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
2 Department has actively supported, and in fact
3 initiated, planning for removal of all public
4 sewerage discharges from the county's inland
5 lakes. It has also carried out a sustained
6 enforcement program to eliminate individual
7 waste discharges into the lakes from shoreline
g installations and watercraft.
9 It is on the basis of this same premise
10 that the Lake County Health Department heartily
11 endorses, and pledges its active support for, the
12 current proposal of the North Shore Sanitary
13 District to eliminate all domestic waste dis-
14 charges into Lake Michigan. The Department also
15 endorses current considerations regarding the
16 control of waste discharges from commercial and
17 private vessels operating in the lake. It would
18 appear inconceivable that any official health
19 agency with Jurisdiction in the lake area could
20 endorse any other alternatives, where such a
21 choice can be made."
22 Respectfully submitted,
23 (Signed) Howard P. Saiger
24 Howard F. Saiger, Director
Division of Environmental
25 HFS:cms Health
-------
1917
1 ILLINOIS AUDUBON SOCIETY
2
3 ILLINOIS AUDUBON SOCIETY
4 FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
6 Established 1897
6 Roosevelt Road and Lake Shore Drive
7 Chicago, Illinois 60605
8
9 Lake Michigan, if it could speak, might
10 have welcomed the participants in this Conference
H with the words: "l who am about to die, salute
12 you." This death, if it is permitted to happen,
13 will not be heroic—it will be drawn-out, tortured
14 and unbeautiful.
15 The lake is far gone--heroic measures
16 are required in a crisis situation to save this
17 priceless natural asset; long-range research and
18 planning are required for its convalescence.
19 Implements for emergency action are available:
20 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, criteria
21 and deadlines established by the Illinois State
22 Water Board, the ten-year plan of the Metropolitan
23 Sanitary District for both operational changes
24 and enforcement of standards, the anti-pollution
25 bill of the State of Illinois and a concerned
-------
1918
ILLINOIS AUDUBON SOCIETY
2 public. No doubt there are others particularly
3 in States other than Illinois that I am not aware
of. We are appreciative of those public officials
who have recognized with action the concern of
- the people and of the news media of Chicago who
o
_ have developed and maintained this concern.
There remain disturbing signs. Industry
has opposed target dates and has given little
indication of an awareness of the need for con-
.. structive and immediate action. The decisions
.. of the recent industrial conference whether to
13 collectively help or hinder are not known at
this time. States bordering on Lake Michigan
._ have been less than enthusiastic about a co-
15
16 ordinated effort. We do, however, have this
Conference which Governor Kerner has advocated.
Decisions as to who will bear the cost of re-
storing the lake have not been made. The State
20 of Illinois has authorized a referendum with the
object of raising one billion dollars largely
22 to combat water pollution. Little activity
23 toward the enforcement of stipulated standards
24 has been noted ,with the exception of litigation
25 initiated by the Metropolitan Sanitary District.
-------
1919
l ILLINOIS AUDUBON SOCIETY
2 A long-range plan has not been developed toward
3 a system of natural balance nor have objectives
A other than "save the lake" been stated. There
4
_ is little evidence of recognition that pollution
_ of the lake is part of a much larger pattern of
D
pollution of our total environment and wanton
destruction of our natural endowment.
o
g Many objections to any plan will be
10 raised by shortsighted people particularly from
41 the standpoint of cost. They will refuse to
12 recognize that with the death of the lake we
,„ will lose something priceless or that delay will
la
14 result in progressively increased costs of re-
lg habilitation.
16 The Illinois Audubon Society is hopeful
17 that the men of vision at this Conference will
18 be able to initiate a coordinated plan of action
19 with provisions for enforcement, and that this
20 plan will envision the conservation, control and
21 use of all of the water resources of this area.
22
HARRY V. BIERMA
23 Chairman
Clean Streams Committee
24
25 - - -
-------
1920
1 DR. W. J. BEECHER
2
3 STATEMENT OF DR. W. J. BEECHER
4 DIRECTOR OF THE CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
5 BEFORE THE
6 LAKE MICHIGAN FOUR STATE POLLUTION CONFERENCE
7 FEBRUARY 2, 1968
8
9 Estimates indicate that approximately
10 5 billion tons of dead alewives were removed from
11 beaches around Lake Michigan last summer and
12 buried. An educated guess of scientists indicates
13 that an equal tonnage of alewives did not die and
14 that this ten billion tons makes up most of the
15 fish population of the lake. Lake Michigan thus
16 resembles a gigantic fish pond in imbalance with
17 numerous stunted fish of one species devouring
18 the entire plankton and eliminating all other
19 species of fish.
20 This situation did not come about sud-
21 denly. Mr. Loren P. Woods, Curator of Fishes in
22 Field Museum, has reported the extensive biological
23 changes that have taken place in Lake Michigan in
24 the past 35 to 40 years. The introduction of smelt
25 and sea lamprey have wiped out the lake trout and
-------
1921
1 DR. W. J. BEECHER
2 most of the burbot, wiping out the fishing
3 industry at the south end of the lake. Then the
4 alewife displaced the lake herring, and the bloat-
5 er increased. Thus rough fish with little market
6 value supplanted the fish which supported the
7 fishing industry. The present trend toward an
8 "all alewife" lake is the final step. Even if the
9 introduction of the coho salmon to feed on alewife
lO is successful beyond expectations, the destruction
n of the ecology of Lake Michigan is a national dis-
12 grace. Taxpayers had a right to expect that this
13 prized resource, the Great Lakes, was being pro-
14 tected by governmental agencies.
15 Similarly, the deaths of approximately
16 15,000 gulls and 6,500 loons in 1963 and 1964 were
17 symptomatic of the deteriorating lake. I alerted
18 the U. S. Public Health Service Great Lakes-Illinoi(s
19 River Basin Project and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
20 Service. To this day it is not certain what killed
2i these birds.
22 Mr. Poston's report in 1965 (U. S.
23 Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply
24 and Pollution Control) on pollution in the Calumet
25 Area came as a shock. Quite unknown to the public,
-------
1 DR. W. J. BEECHER
2 several steel and oil companies in that area have
3 "been dumping a carload of oil into the lake dally>
4 plus large quantities of cyanide, sulfuric acid
5 and phenols] Fatal nitrate-phosphate enrichment
6 is betrayed by algae, which increases annually.
7 How these companies could, along with the
8 U. S. Army Engineers, dumping their river dredgings
9 in the lake, ever imagine that these operations
10 would not in time destroy the lake, is difficult
11 to comprehend. Protestations of ignorance of the
12 natural world in which they live strike a sour
13 note when they come from the brilliant leaders
14 of our largest corporations. I do not believe
15 them. These are ruthless corporations that have
16 regarded free enterprise as a hunting license.
17 They have invited Federal control of the most
18 stringent kind and the public will not rest until
19 the water standards set are complied with.
20 I have not been in favor of giving
21 industry more time to clean up its operations and
22 I am not in favor of letting the taxpayer pay the
23 bill. What industry has done to a priceless
24 natural resource that belongs to millions of
25 people is criminal. The officials of these
-------
1923
1 DR. W. J. BEECHER
2 corporations are fortunate that they are merely
3 being required to correct the situation instead
4 of being prosecuted.
5 Nor is it enough to cease polluting
6 Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes. It solves
7 nothing if Chicago sends the equivalent of the
8 raw sewage of several hundred thousand people down
9 the Illinois waterway or if the north shore com-
10 munities stop dumping sewage into the lake, only
11 to run it out of the Des Plaines River.
12 Our ignorance of or disregard for the
13 needs of the natural world we all depend on is
14 unforgiveable. It marks the greatest failure
15 of an educational system that is already Justi-
16 fiably under scrutiny. Natural wastes in a state
17 of nature are broken down by insects, bacteria
18 and fungi to be recycled as usable chemical
19 nutrients into the ecosystem. Technology must
20 solve the problem of breaking down human and
21 industrial wastes for recycling into the ecosystem !
22 or else it will not be possible to live in large |
23 cities.
24 Man depends on green plants to mobilize
25 the sun's energy. A disaster like the sinking of
-------
1924
1 DR. W. J. BEECKER
2 the oil tanker Tcrrey Canyon destroyed the
3 wildlife of much of the British and French
4 coasts. If in had been a tanker of DDT most
5 of "Che oxygen-producing capacity of our planet
6 (represented by the diatoms of the sea) might
7 have been wiped out. Shipping on Lake Michigan
8 must be carefully policed against dumping any
9 waste.
10 It is an enormous job we have made
11 for ourselves but it is the most important one
12 in the world. It is a matter o.f survival.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1925
INDIANA PRESENTATION
2 MR. STEINi We will go on to Indiana
„ without a recess.
I would like to call one procedural
_ point to your attention, because I know the
o
. Conferees are going to look at Mr. Klassen's
o
recommendations and particularly time schedule
very carefully. That item on municipal nutrient
O
control facilities December 1977. I suggest that
10 that be looked at in the light of Dr. Weinberger's
testimony here.
12 MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
13
No comment.
MR. STEIN: I am Just flagging that.
W<-» f* r\mmem ^
14
15 MR. KLASSEN: This is real good. We
16 did not have the privilege of hearing Dr. Wein-
17 berger's paper and I might say, as you know,
18 he is a person that we have the greatest respect
19 for'
20 MR. STEIN: Right. Thank you very much
21 May we move right along and see if we
22 can have the Indiana statement.
23
INDIANA PRESENTATION
24
25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1926
INDIANA PRESENTATION
MR. POOLE: Mr. Chairman, since you
said move right along, I am going to introduce
Perry Miller, who is Assistant Director of our
Engineering Division, who will present the
statement for the Indiana Stream Pollution
Control Board.
Perry Miller.
STATEMENT OP PERRY MILLER
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING DIVISION
INDIANA STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, Conferees,
ladies and gentlemen.
In accordance with the requirements of
the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965, Indiana
undertook the adoption of updated water quality
standards in 1966. Pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 120, Acts of 1945, public hearings were
held on proposed standards in river basins through-
out the State. The proposed standards and plans
for implementation, which included proposed time-
tables, were mailed to municipalities, industries,
adjacent States, the Federal Water Pollution Control
-------
1927
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Administration, and others prior to the hearings.
3 At the public hearing for the Lake Michigan basin,
4 the Illinois Sanitary Water Board endorsed the
5 proposed criteria as consistent with those adopted
6 by Illinois. The proposed timetables were not
7 questioned by Illinois or the Federal Water Pol-
8 lution Control Administration. At the public
9 hearing for the St. Joseph River Basin, the State
10 of Michigan agreed with proposed criteria but
11 offered the comment that the MPN/100 ml coliform
12 index would be unrealistic during periods of storm-
13 water runoff. Following the hearings, Regulations
14 SPG 1R, SPG 4, SPG 5, SPG 6, SPG 7, SPG 8, SPG 9,
15 and SPG 10 and implementation plans for the re-
16 spective basins were adopted by the Stream Pol-
17 lution Control Board as Indiana's new water quality
18 standards and submitted to the Department of the
*9 Interior for consideration of approval. Secretary
20 Udall notified Governor Branigin on July 18, 19^7,
21 that he had approved the Indiana Water Quality
22 Standards.
23 The implementation plans for the respec-
24 tive basins provide background information, cite
25 specific pollution sources, enumerate water uses
-------
1928
! PERRY MILLER
2 and provide a timetable for municipalities and
. industries to complete construction of necessary
4 facilities.
_ The following report includes the status
_ of municipal and industrial waste pollution abate-
o
ment and control measures in the Lake Michigan
drainage area of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Coun-
_ ties and in the St. Joseph River Basin. Much of
y
10 the material is excerpted from the Indiana plan
-, submitted to the Department of the Interior.
to Where necessary it has been updated.
12
13
Lake Michigan Basin - Indiana
14
Status of Pollution Abatement
15
lg All sewered municipalities on the Lake
17 Michigan watershed in Lake, Porter, and LaPorte
18 Counties now provide secondary treatment and ef-
19 fluent chlorination, except the Town of Porter
20 (population 2,l89). Porter is under a Stream
2i Pollution Control Board order and a suit for en-
22 forcement has been filed in the Porter County
23 Circuit Court by the Attorney General. A tenta-
24 tive agreement has been reached by the Towns of
25 Porter and Chesterton for treatment of sewage
-------
1929
1 PERRY MILLER
2 from Porter at the Chesterton treatment plant.
3 The Indiana plan approved by Secretary Udall
4 calls for advanced waste treatment at East Chicago,
5 Gary, Hammond, and Michigan City as soon as
6 practicable and by Crown Point, Hobart, and
7 Valparaiso within 10 years. This will include
g nutrient removal. The four large cities will be
9 required to disinfect combined sewer overflows
10 as soon as practicable with Hammond and Whiting
11 to provide treatment and disinfection of storm
12 and combined sewer overflows, that discharge
13 directly to Lake Michigan, on or before the end
14 of 1970.
15 All industries are to provide treatment
16 to meet the water quality standards of the Stream
17 Pollution Control Board and the Conferees of the
18 1965 conference. This is to be accomplished by
19 the Lake Michigan industries within the timetables
20 recommended (December 31* 1968) by the Conferees
21 in the Federal enforcement case except for four
22 steel plants (three companies). These have pro-
23 gressive waste treatment construction programs
24 with the latest completion date being June 30»
25 1970. Following the reconvening in September 1967
-------
1930
! PERRY MILLER
2 of the 1965 conference and at the request of
3 the Board, the steel industries appeared before
4 the Board and submitted revised timetables. These
6 were subsequently accepted by the Board and they
6 appear later in the report. Except for three
7 small industries, cooperation has been good and
8 most programs are on schedule. 'Enforcement
9 actions have been initiated where necessary.
10 The principal sources of pollution in
n the basin in Indiana are industrial wastes,
12 municipal sewage, and combined sewer overflows.
13 Other wastes discharged intermittently may have
14 serious local effects or may cause temporary
15 excessive pollution. Among these wastes are
16 accidental spills from storage tanks and barges;
17 wastes from lake vessels, barge tows, and pleasure
!g craftj and materials from dredging operations.
19 All sewered municipalities have some
20 combined sewers which contribute to pollution
2i during periods of storm. Combined sewer overflows
22 contribute gross bacterial pollution, high sus-
23 pended solids concentrations, and heavy BOD
24 loadings. Industrial waste present in such
25 systems contribute to the pollution problem.
-------
10-31
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Phosphates and other nutrients contribute to
3 algae growth in receiving waters.
4 The water quality in the open water
5 of Lake Michigan is excellent with the exception
6 of periods of high threshold odors and increased
7 concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen caused by
g industrial wastes.
9 Shore water east of the Inner Harbor
10 Basin is of good quality and generally satis-
11 factory for whole body contact recreation.
12 However, shore water within the Inner Harbor
13 Basin is of poor quality which is attributed
14 to combined sewer overflows and wastes discharges
15 in this basin. The Front Street combined sewer
16 overflow at Whiting at times discharges untreated
17 sewage directly to Lake Michigan, and the Atchison
18 Avenue pumping station is Hammond discharges storm-
19 water overflow from combined sewers to Lake
20 Michigan. In addition, stormwater overflows from
21 East Chicago and Gary to the Grand Calumet River
22 and the Indiana Harbor Canal contribute to the
23 poor water quality. Reduction of combined sewer
24 overflows or control facilities including disin-
25 fection of storm overflows will be necessary.
-------
1932
1 PERRY MILLER
2 The Inner Harbor Basin water quality
3 is generally satisfactory. However, there are
4 intermittent periods of high threshold odor,
5 ammonia-nitrogen, phenols, and coliform bac-
6 teria. This pollution is the result of direct
7 discharges to the lake from sewers and the flow
8 from the Indiana Harbor Canal.
9 Waters of the Indiana Harbor Canal
10 and the Grand Calumet River are unsightly and
11 characterized by floating debris, oil, discolora-
12 tion, and high suspended solids loading. These
13 waters are industrial process and cooling water,
14 treated and chlorinated effluents from the Gary
15 and East Chicago Sanitary Districts treatment
16 plants and combined sewer overflows. The 26
17 industries with direct discharges to the Grand
18 Calumet River, Indiana Harbor Canal or Lake
19 Michigan waters and the status of their waste
20 treatment or control facilities are shown in the
2i appendix. Further treatment of industrial wastes
22 is necessary to enhance the water quality and to
23 meet the standards for the Grand Calumet River,
24 Indiana Harbor Canal and Lake Michigan waters.
25 Water quality is generally good in the
-------
1933
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Little Calumet River-Burns Ditch-Lake Michigan
3 drainage area. Provision of sewage treatment
4 by the Town of Porter, improved operation of
5 sewage treatment plants, disinfection of ef-
6 fluents, treatment of all industrial wastes,
7 and improved soil conservation measures to re-
8 duce pollution from agricultural runoff are
9 needed to meet the water quality criteria. Water
10 quality in Trail Creek is generally poor due to
11 high bacterial counts resulting from combined
12 sewer ovefflows during periods of storm and from
13 the bypassing of raw sewage at the Michigan
14 City sewage treatment plant. Michigan City will
15 complete construction in 1968 of a project to
16 provide additions, including effluent chlorination,
17 to its activated sludge plant for a design capacity
18 of 15 MGD.
19
Summary of Water Uses
20
21 1. Lake Michigan open water and
22 Inner Harbor Basin water will be
23 required to be suitable for public
24 and industrial water supply, main-
25 tenance of a well-balanced, warm-water
-------
193*1
1 PERRY MILLER
2 fish population, water~oriented
3 recreation and will also be re-
4 quired to meet the standards as
5 set forth in Regulations SPG 4
6 and SPG 6, respectively.
7 2. Lake Michigan shore water,
8 including the three existing
9 "bathing beaches located in the
10 Inner Harbor area, and Wolf Lake
11 will be required to be suitable
12 for maintenance of a well-balanced,
13 warm-water fish population, whole
14 body contact recreational activities
15 and will also be required to meet
16 the standards set forth in Regula-
17 tions SPG 5 and SPG 10, respectively.
18 3. The Grand Calumet River and
19 Indiana Harbor Canal serve as sources
20 of industrial water supplies and must
21 meet the standards set forth in Regu-
22 lations SPG 8 and SPG 7, respectively.
23 4. The Little Calumet River-Burns
24 Ditch and tributaries and other
25 streams flowing to Lake Michigan
-------
1915
1 PERRY MILLER
2 will be required to support a
3 well-balanced, warm-water fish
4 population, be suitable for
5 partial body contact recreation,
6 and agricultural uses, and meet
7 the standards as set forth in
8 Regulation SPG 1R.
9
Implementation and Enforcement Plan
10
11 The Board will require construction of
12 municipal treatment facilities in accordance with
13 the following timetable:
14 i. The Town of Porter is to pro-
15 vide treatment facilities as soon
16 as practicable in compliance with
17 the outstanding Stream Pollution
18 Control Board order. The Attorney
!9 General has filed for enforcement
20 action in the Porter County Circuit
21 Court. Plans are underway for treat-
22 ment of sewage from Porter at the
23 Chesterton sewage treatment plant.
24 2. Expansion of treatment facili-
25 ties will be required by Hammond and
-------
1936
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Valparaiso on or before the end
3 of 1972.
4 3- Installation of advanced waste
5 treatment will be required at East
6 Chicago, Gary, Hammond, and Michi-
7 gan City as soon as practicable and
8 at Crown Point, Hobart, and Val-
9 paraiso within the next 10 years.
10 I might say here that we think of ad-
11 vanced treatment not only in terms of removal of
12 nutrients but also in removal of BOD and other
13 constituents that are in the sewage.
14 East Chicago has completed prelimi-
15 nary pilot plant operation of ad-
16 vanced waste treatment methods and
17 is embarking on the second phase of
18 advanced waste treatment studies.
19 Nutrient removal will be required
20 as a part of advanced waste treat-
21 ment. The smaller municipalities
22 in the basin may also be required
23 to provide an advanced degree of
24 treatment to meet water quality
25 criteria.
-------
1937
1 PERRY MILLER
2 4. Installation of sewers and
3 sewage treatment will be required
4 within the next 10 years for most
5 of the incorporated communities
6 with public water supplies and no
7 recognized sewer system. This in-
g eludes Beverly Shores, Dune Acres,
9 Long Beach, Michiana Shores, New
10 Chicago, Ogden Dunes, Portage and
11 the Town of Pines.
12 5' The municipalities of Hammond
13 and Whiting will be required to pro-
14 vide treatment and disinfection of
15 sewage and stormwater overflows
16 from the Robertsdale, Atchison
17 Avenue and Front Street outlets to
18 Lake Michigan on or before the end
19 of 1970. (In December 1967, Hammond
20 authorized an engineering study of
21 sewer separation in the Robertsdale
22 area.) The Municipalities of East
23 Chicago, Gary, Hammond, and Michigan
24 City with storm and/or combined sewer
25 overflows will be required to provide
-------
1938
1 PERRY MILLER
2 disinfection and control of pol-
3 lution from these overflows as
4 soon as practicable.
5 The industries in the basin which have
5 inadequate control or treatment facilities will
7 have to provide them as shown in the following
g listing:
9 1. Completion of construction by the end of
10 1968.
11 a. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.,
East Chicago
12
*b. Adolph Plating, Inc., East Chicago
13
*c. M & T Chemicals, Inc., East Chicago
14
*d. Industrial Tissue Div., Georgia-
15 Pacific Corp., Gary
16 e. American Maize-Products Co.,Hammond
17 f. American Chemicals Co., Griffith
18 g. Phillips Drill Co., Michigan City
19 h. Gary Tube Works, U.S. Steel Corp.,
Gary
20
21 * On December 19, 1967, the Board issued a
22 final order to the Adolph Plating, Inc., East
23 Chicago, to abate pollution of the Grand Calumet
24 River by the end of 1968. The order requires pre-
25 liminary plans by March 1, 1968, and final plans
-------
1239
1 PERRY MILLER
2 by June 1, 1968.
3
On December 19, 1967, the Board scheduled
4
administrative hearings with the M & T Chemicals,
5
Inc., for pollution of the Indiana, Harbor Ship
6
Canal and with the Industrial Tissue Division,
7
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Gary, for pollution
8
of the Grand Calumet River. M & T Chemicals, Inc.,
9
obtained an agreement with the East Chicago Sani-
10
tary District for connection to the District's
11
sewerage system and has agreed that the connection
12
will be made by July 31> 1968, but in any event
13
no later than December 31» 19°8. The hearing with
14
Georgia-Pacific Corporation was held on January 17,
15
1968. The hearing officer's findings and recom-
16
mendations should be completed soon.
17
18 2. Cities Service Oil Company, Mobil Oil Company,
19 Sinclair Refining Company, American Oil Company,
20 and Union Carbide Chemicals Company will have to
21 provide timetables for construction of additional
22 waste treatment facilities to control BOD, oil,
23 and threshold odor substances, which are consls-
24 tent with the requirements of the Conference on
25 Pollution of the .Grand Calumet River, Little
-------
! PERRY MILLER
2 Calumet River, Calumet River, Wolf Lake, Lake
3 Michigan, and tributaries. The conclusions and
4 recommendations of the Conferees established
5 December 1968, as the latest date for completion
6 of water pollution abatement facilities by industry
_ except for a few industries where variation is
8 Justified and approved by the Board and Conferees.
9
3. The original timetable was June 30, 1970, for
10
completion of all the necessary pollution abate-
ment facilities by Inland Steel Company, Youngs-
12
town Sheet and Tube Company, and U. S. Steel
13
Corporation's Gary Tube Works, Gary Steel Works,
14
and Gary Sheet and Tin Mill. However, the schedule
15
has been re-examined and new construction time-
16
tables established. In accepting the revised tlme-
17
tables, the Indiana Board took into consideration
18
the complexity and magnitude of the job, the time
19
required for site preparation prior to construc-
20
tion of some facilities, and the availability of
21
skilled labor in the area. In view of these factors
22
the proposed schedules appear reasonable and the
23
Board concluded the end objective, correction of
24
pollution by the steel mills, would be accomplished
25
The new timetables and companies' estimates of the
-------
1 PERRY MILLSR
2 percentage reduction of contaminants to meet
3 established criteria are as follows:
4 Following is a listing of facilities
5 proposed and under construction, and I will
6 read the project and the old and new completion
7 dates, both of. which were submitted by the
8 company.
9 United States Steel Corporation
Gary Tube Works, Gary, Indiana
10
1. Waste pickle liquor collection
11
system. No discharge to receiving stream.
12
This one is completed -
13
2» Solids clarification and oil
14
skimming facilities. Both the old and
15
the new are December 31> 1968.
16
17 United States Steel Corporation
Gary Steel Works, Gary, Indiana
18
1. Coke plant. Permanent connection
19
of Coke Plant wastes into the Gary Sanitary
20
District sewerage system and in-plant
21
controls and waste separation. The old
22
completion date was December 31» 19&9S
23
the new, December 31* 19°"8.
24
2. Blast furance area. Additional
25
settling basins for flue dust, oil separators
-------
1 PERRY MILLER
2 in power station and waste segregation. The
3 old,June 30, 1970; the new, December 1, 1969.
4 3« Steel making area. Construction of
5 oil separators and segregation of waste water
6 discharge to Blast Furnace Area, flue dust
7 settling basins. The old date, June 30, 1970;
8 the new, December 31> 1969.
9 4. Hot mills area, construction of
10 sewers, sumps, pumps, piping, and settling
11 and oil skimming basins. The old date,
12 June 30, 1970; the new, De.cember 31, 1969.
13
United States Steel Corporation
14 Gary Sheet and Tin Mill, Gary, Indiana
15 1. Six-stand Tandem Cold Reduction
16 Mill facilities. Now completed.
17 2. Eighty-four-inch Hot Strip Mill
18 filtration facility. Completed.
19 3. Deep well disposal system. No
20 discharge to receiving stream. Completed.
21 4. Acid rinse waters from the existing
22 sheet and tin mill, 66-inch continuous
23 pickling line and the new 84-inch continuous
24 pickling line will be diverted to the
25 existing 6-stand tandem cold reduction
-------
1 PERRY MILLER
2 mill waste treatment plant. The old date,
3 December 31, 1968] the new date, June 1,
4 1968,
5 5. Oily waste water from the 80-inch
6 5-stand cold reduction mill treatment plant
7 will be diverted to the 6-stand tandem cold re
g duction mill waste treatment plant. The
9 old date, June 30, 1968; the new, June 15>
10 1968.
11 6. Segregated wastewater from the
12 tin mill will be discharged to the existing
13 6-stand tandem cold reduction mill waste
14 treatment plant. The old date December 31»
15 1969; the new, June 30, 1969,.
16 7. Segregated wastewater from sheet
17 mill will be discharged to the expanded
18 6-stand tandem cold reduction mill waste
19 treatment facilities. The old date March 30,
20 1970; the new date June 30, 1969.
21 8. Wastewater from the 80-inch hot
22 strip mill scale pits will be diverted to
23 the expanded 84-inch hot strip mill filtration
24 plant. The old date was June 30, 1970. The
25 new date is March 1, 1970.
-------
1944
1 PERRY MILLER
2 In order to handle the additional waste
3 loadings listed in items number 6 and number 7,
4 additional primary solids and oil skimming,
5 flocculation-clarification, and oil and solids
6 handling facilities will be constructed at the
7 6-stand tandem cold reduction mill waste treat-
8 ment facilities (the Terminal Treatment Plant).
9 Additional filtration facilities will be added
10 to the 84-inch Hot Strip Mill waste treatment
U plant to handle the waste load listed in item
12 number 8. The expansion of both the Terminal
13 Treatment Plant and the Hot Strip Mill will be
14 completed by March 1, 1970.
15
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company
16 East Chicago, Indiana
17 1. Coke Plant - Construction of
18 napthalene scrubbers and connection of
19 waste to the East Chicago Sanitary District.
20 Completed.
2i 2. No. 2 Open Hearth - Clarification
22 facilities, cooling towers and water reuse
23 system. No discharge to the receiving stream,
24 Completed.
25 3. No. 3 Hot Strip Mill - Oil and
-------
1 PERRY MILLER
2 solids removal, chemical flocculation,
3 scale pits, and filtration facilities.
4 Both dates March 1, 1968.
5 4. Buttweld Mill - Pressure filters.
6 The dates are December 31, 1968.
7 5. No. 1 Tin Mill - Sumps, pumps and
g sewers to collect oily wastes. Dates are
9 December 31* 1968.
10 6. No. 1 Tin Mill, No. 2 Tin Mill and
11 No. 2 Cold Reduced Sheet Mill - Central Water
12 Treatment Plant for chemical treatment of
13 oils and suspended solids, December 31, 1969,
14 for both dates.
15 7. Hot Rolling Mills - Terminal lagoon
16 for secondary clarification of effluent from
17 lakefront scale pit. Dates are June 30, 1969.
18 8. No. 2 Cold Reduced Sheet Mill -
19 Sumps, pumps and sewers to collect waste
20 pickle liquor; and sumps, pumps, and sewers
21 to collect oily waste. Both dates December 31;
22 1969.
23 9. Blast Furnace - Sewers, sumps and
24 pumps to collect and recirculate all clarified
25 waste from the Blast Furnace. No discharge
-------
1 PERRY MILLER
2 to receiving stream. Both dates June 30,
3 1970.
4 10. North Lagoon - A settling lagoon
5 to collect treated wastes from the No. 5
6 Stand of the Tandem Rolling Mill, Sewer No.
7 23, and the No. 3 Hot Strip Mill. All
8 effluent from the lagoon will be recirculated.
9 No discharge to receiving stream. Completion,
10 both dates June 30, 1970.
11
Inland Steel Company
12 East Chicago, Indiana
13 1. Permanent connection of Plant No. 2
14 and No. 3 Coke Plant ammonia still wastes and
15 selected wastes to East Chicago Sanitary
16 District sewerage system. Completed.
17 2. Additional settling bas.ins and
18 recirculation pumps will be installed at the
19 Coke Quenching Stations in Plant Ho. 2 and
20 No. 3 Coke Plants. Completion dates are
21 November 1, 1968.
22 3. Plant No. 2 and No. 3 Blast Furnace
23 Area in-plant controls and secondary flue
24 dust settling basins. Both dates October 1,
25 1968.
-------
1947
1 PERRY MILLER
2 4. Deep Well disposal system. No
3 discharge to the receiving stream. The
4 old date was June 30, 1968; the new date
5 is March 1, 1968.
6 5. Twelve-inch Merchant Mill waste
7 treatment plant. The old date was December 31
8 1968; the new date is November 30, 1968.
9 I might indicate that this is entirely
10 a new operating unit at the mill.
11 6. Terminal settling and oil skimming
12 basin. The old date was May 1, 1970. The
13 new date is May 1, 1970.
14 I might indicate here that Inland has
15 bids out and,four contractors are currently pre-
16 paring bids on this facility and there will be
17 a pre-bid meeting on February 6.
18 Inland Steel Company and U. S. Steel
19 Corporation contended before the Board they would
20 meet the criteria established by the Conferees by
21 December 31, 1968, but could not meet the Indiana
22 criteria until all the proposed facilities were
23 completed. It is our judgment the total program
24 is necessary to maintain the water quality criteria
25 that have been adopted by both the Conferees and
-------
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Indiana,
3 The next table presents percentage
4 compliance with requirements, and these tables
5 were prepared and submitted by the companies and
6 they show the completion of facilities to meet
7 the water quality criteria. I will start with
8 the December 31* 19&7, information, and this shows
9 for United States Steel Corporation that:
10 40 percent of the oil facilities will
11 be complete;
12 Suspended Solids, 62 percent;
13 Phenol, zero;
1* Ammonia, zero;
15 Cyanide, zero;
16 Acidity, 100 percent;
17 Dissolved Iron, 100 percent.
18 For Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company;
19 Oil, 30 percent;
20 Suspended Solids, 20 percent;
21 Phenol, 100 percent;
22 Ammonia, 100 percent;
23 Cyanide, 100 percent;
24 Acidity, 100 percent;
25 Dissolved Iron, 100 percent.
-------
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Inland Steel Company:
3 Oil, 79 percent;
4 Suspended Solids, 33 percent;
5 Phenol, 84 percent;
5 Ammonia, 36 percent;
7 Acidity, zero;
g Cyanide, 95 percent;
9 Dissolved Iron, zero.
10 I might say on the ones that have 100
11 percent with completion dates of December 31,
12 that we have not yet made determinations of their
13 effectiveness.
14 June 30, 1968, United States Steel
15 Corporation:
16 Oil, 53 percent;
17 Suspended Solids, 71 percent;
18 Phenol, zero;
19 Ammonia, zero;
20 Cyanide, zero.
21 Youngs town Sheet and Tube Company:
22 Oil, 35 percent;
23 Suspended Solids, 25 percent.
24 Inland Steel Company:
25 Oil, 81 percent;
-------
1930
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Suspended Solids, 33 percent;
3 Phenol, 84 percent;
4 Ammonia, 36 percent;
5 Acidity, 100 percent;
6 Cyanide, 95 percent;
7 Dissolved Iron, 100 percent.
8 December 31, 1968, United States Steel
9 Corporation;
10 Oil, 65 percent;
11 Suspended Solids, 73 percent;
12 Phenol, 100 percent;
13 Ammonia, 100 percent;
14 Cyanide, 100 percent.
15 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company;
16 Oil, 35 percent;
17 Suspended Solids, 45 percent.
18 The Inland Steel Company;
19 Oil, 90 percent;
20 Suspended Solids, 85 percent;
21 Phenol, 100 percent;
22 Ammonia, 100 percent;
23 Cyanide, 100 percent.
24 June 30, 1969. United States.^.Steel
25 C.orjB.o.ration!
-------
1931
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Oil, 72 percent]
3 Suspended Solids, 7^ percent.
4 Youngs town Sheet and Tube Company:
5 Oil, 55 percent;
6 Suspended Solids, 65 percent.'
7 Inland Steel Company:
g Oil, 90 percent;
9 Suspended Solids, 85 percent.
10 December 31, 1969, United States Steel
11 Company;
12 Oil, 90 percent;
13 Suspended Solids, 98 percent.
14 Youngs town Sheet and Tube Company:
15 Oil, 100 percent;
16 Suspended Solids, 95 percent.
17 Inland Steel Company:
18 Oil, 90 percent;
19 Suspended Solids, 85 percent.
20 And for June 30, 1970, United States
21 Steel Corporation:
22 Oil, 100 percent;
23 Suspended Solids, 100 percent.
24 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company:
25 Suspended Solids, 100 percent.
-------
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Inland Steel Company:
3 Oil, 100 percent by May 1, 1970, and
4 Suspended Solids, 100 percent, again by
5 May 1, 1970.
6
St. Joseph River Basin - Indiana
7
Status of Pollution Abatement
8
9 All municipalities in the St. Joseph
10 River Basin with a population above 3,000, except
11 Elkhart, have secondary treatment. Mishawaka and
12 several of the smaller municipalities now provide
13 effluent chlorination. Elkhart has primary treat-
14 ment and chlorination and has plans for secondary
15 treatment. South Bend has completed plans for
16 additions to its activated sludge plant and for
17 effluent chlorination. Both of these cities filed
18 applications for construction grants and would have
19 proceeded to construction this year if sufficient
20 construction grant funds had been available.
21 It is interesting to note here that in
22 fiscal 1967 and 1968 Indiana had requests from 57
23 applicants for grant funds totaling $17,187,000-plus
24 and only received allotment of $4,728,500. Indiana
25 appropriated 3.65 million dollars for 25 percent
-------
1933
1 PERRY MILLER
2 matching grant funds in 1967 and 1968 and 4.95
3 million dollars for '68-69. We understand the
4 budget request for the Federal budget is for
$ $225 million. Unless the Federal Government
6 fulfills its commitment by appropriating the
7 authorized monies, the municipal construction
g program will not keep pace with the schedules
9 and the plan of implementation. All sewered
10 municipalities are to provide secondary treatment
U and chlorination by the end of 1972.
12 The eight industries in the St. Joseph
13 River Basin with inadequate treatment facilities
14 will be required to provide adequate treatment
15 by the end of 1969.
16
Pollution
17
18 The sources of pollution in the St.
19 Joseph River Basin are municipal sewage, combined
20 sewer overflows, and industrial wastes.
21 All but four sewered municipalities
22 (less than 2 percent of the sewered population)
23 in the St. Joseph River Basin provide sewage
24 treatment facilities. Of the 13 municipalities
25 providing sewage treatment, 11 have secondary
-------
x PERRY MILLER
0 treatment. The Cities of Elkhart and Ligonier
&
0 need to expand primary treatment facilities by
o
. adding secondary treatment. Mishawaka and South
4
Bend need plant expansion and effluent chlorination
5
is needed at South Bend.
6
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control
7
Board in 1964 mandated that South Bend provide
8
effluent chlorination and an engineering study
*r
of sewage works improvement needs. However, the
city has appealed the Board's order and this
litigation is now pending in the Starke Circuit
12
Court. Plans for chlorination facilities for South
13
Bend have been approved. Plans for sewage works
14
expansion have been submitted by South Bend,
15
,. Elkhart, and Ligonier.
lo
While the present concentrations of phos-
I phate in the St. Joseph. River are not considered
lo
significant due to the adequacy of dilution water,
u
20 it may be necessary in the future for South Bend,
21 Mishawaka, and Elkhart to provide phosphate removal
22 as part of their treatment. Because of conditions
23 in lakes below Angloa and Kendallville, it will be
24 necessary for these municipalities to provide
25 nutrient removal.
-------
1953
1 PERRY MILLER
2 I might say that this report was
3 prepared in 1966 and we are now willing to
4 agree that nutrient removal is needed at these
5 plants to protect Lake Michigan.
5 There are 22 industries in the St.
7 Joseph River Basin which handle a significant
8 volume of waste. Seven of these industries
9 provide treatment facilities with soil absorption
10 of the effluent and, therefore, have no outlet
H to a receiving stream. The remaining 15 indus-
12 tries discharge treated effluents directly into
13 streams of the basin, and of these there are eight
14 that do not have adequate treatment. The appendix
15 shows the type and status of treatment facilities.
16 The industries listed as inadequate have been ad-
17 vised by the Board to abate pollution.
18 Another pollution problem of the basin
19 is the bacteriological pollution of the St. Joseph
20 River caused by treated municipal sewage and com-
21 bined sewer overflows from South Bend, Mishawaka,
22 and Elkhart. There are some locations in the river
23 with slightly depressed bottom fauna due to sludge
24 deposits.
25
Summary of Water Uses
-------
1956
1 PERRY MILLER
2 1. All waters in the basin
3 will be required to support a well-
4 balanced, warn-water fish population
5 and must be suitable for agricultural
6 uses.
7 2. All waters, where natural
8 temperatures permit, will be required
9 to support put-and-take trout fishing.
10 3« All reservoirs and lakes in
11 the basin and the St. Joseph River
12 must be maintained for whole body
13 contact recreation and all other
14 streams for partial body contact
15 recreation, such as boating, canoeing,
16 and fishing.
17 4. All waters which are used for
18 public or industrial water supply must
19 meet said criteria, and where needed
20 for this purpose in the future will
21 meet the criteria.
22
Implementation and Enforcement Plan
23
24 The Board adopted SPC 1R as the standard
25 of water quality for the waters of the St. Joseph
-------
1957
1 PERRY MILLER
2 River Basin. All waters, based on the use concept,
3 will be required to meet the standards, for the
4 appropriate public and industrial water supply,
5 aquatic life, recreational, and agricultural uses
6 mentioned previously. Compliance with these stan-
7 dards will enhance the quality of waters within
8 this basin. In existing high quality waters every
9 effort will be made to maintain high quality con-
10 sistent with the powers granted under the Indiana
11 Act.
12 The Board will require construction of
13 municipal treatment facilities in accordance with
14 the following timetable:
15 1. Secondary treatment
16 facilities are to be provided by
17 the City of Elkhart by the end of
18 1969 and by the City of Ligonier
19 by the end of 1972. Said facilities
20 are to include effluent chlorination.
21 Both cities have submitted plans for
22 plant additions.
23 2. Expansion of secondary
24 treatment facilities will be re-
25 quired by South Bend and Mishawaka
-------
1958
1 PERRY MILLER
2 by the end of 1972. South Bend
3 has submitted plans for plant
4 expansion.
5 3- South Bend is to provide
6 effluent chlorination facilities
7 as soon as practicable. Ashley,
8 Goshen, and LaGrange are to provide
9 effluent chlorination by the end
10 of 1972.
11 4. Treatment facilities,
12 including effluent chlorination,
13 are to be provided by Cromwell,
14 Milford Junction, Topeka, and
15 Wakarusa on or before the end of
16 1972.
17 5. Installation of advanced
18 waste treatment or provision for low
19 flow augmentation will be required
20 at Angola within the next 10 years.
21 Phosphate removal will be required
22 at Angola and Kendallville as soon
23 j as practicable methods are developed.
24 The eight industries in the basin with
25 inadequate treatment facilities will be required
-------
1959
I PERRY MILLER
2 to provide adequate treatment for indicated con-
3 taminants by the following time schedule:
4 The end of 1968, Weatherhead Corporation,
5 Angola.
6 The end of 1969, Bristol Band Instrument
7 Company, Bristol;
8 Continental Can Company, Elkhart;
9 New York Central System, Elkhart;
10 Penn Electric Switch Company, Goshen;
U Middlebury Cooperative Creamery, Inc.,
12 Middlebury;
13 New Paris Creamery Company, New Paris;
14 Gentner Packing Company, South Bend.
15 I might say here that the Federal Report
IQ also has eight industries, but the last five differ
17 between those in their report and the ones in our
lg report:
19 The Elkhart Packing Company has no dis-
20 charge, according to inspections made in 19&7;
21 McCray Refrigerator Company, Kendallville
i
I
22 and Bendix Corporation, South Bend, both discharge j
23 their wastes to municipal sewer systems.
24 The Price Duck Farms at Milford, starting
25 in 1966 raised ducks on channels with no discharge
-------
I960
1 PERRY MILLER
2 to the stream, and the Slabaugh Duck Farms at
3 Milford no longer raises ducks and this is shown
4 by inspections in 1966 and 1967.
5
Summary
6
7 1. Completion of the programs
8 outlined herein will greatly enhance
9 the water quality of the extreme
10 south end of Lake Michigan and the
11 St. Joseph River Basin. However,
12 some sources of pollution, i.e.,
13 nutrients, oil, wastes from water-
14 craft, dredged materials, and dead
15 alewives, require additional study
16 and a general agreement by all con-
17 cerned on programs to provide the
18 necessary control.
19 2. Mandatory certification
20 of plant operators, both municipal
21 and industrial, will improve the
22 efficiency of treatment plants and
23 reduce accidental discharges.
24 Here I would like to add that the General
25 Assembly in 1967 enacted a law requiring mandatory
-------
1961
1 PERRY MILLER
2 certification of both municipal and industrial
3 treatment works.
4 3- Additional studies are
5 needed to develop plant scale pro-
6 jects to effect phosphate and other
7 nutrient removals. Significant
8 sources of nutrients, aside from
9 that measured in sewage treatment
10 plant effluent, need to be deter-
H mined and methods developed for ef-
12 fective control. Nutrient removal
13 will be required of major sources
14 as soon as practicable methods are
15 developed.
16 4. The discharge of oil from
17 lake-going vessels and iriscellaneous
18 sources must be abated. Strengthened
19 Federal legislation on oil pollution
20 will be helpful. However, there will
21 always be accidents or "Acts of God"
22 which will require more effective
23 surveillance, the development of a
24 warning system, and the development
25 of practicable control procedures
-------
1962
1 PERRY MILLER
2 which can be put into effect quickly.
3 5» Pollution caused by the dis-
4 charge of wastes from watercraft, in-
5 eluding untreated sewage, ballast and
Q bilge water, litter and garbage, and
7 oil, requires additional attention.
8 The Indiana Boating Law prohibits the
9 discharge of human waste from boats
10 on all Indiana waters except Lake
11 Michigan. It will be recommended to
12 the 1969 General Assembly that the
13 law be amended to include Lake Michigan
14 waters.
15 6. The States should support
16 Federal legislation to regulate pol-
17 lution by commercial vessels engaged
18 in interstate commerce and each State
19 should provide for uniform regulation
20 of pollution by recreational watercraft.
21 7. The pollution caused by
22 dumping of dredged materials in Lake
23 Michigan must be controlled. On
24 August 16, 1966, the Indiana Stream
25 Pollution Control Board adopted a
-------
1963
1 PERRY MILLER
2 policy opposing the dumping in
3 Lake Michigan of dredged material
4 which contains substances that are
5 polluting in character, whether
§ they be of organic material or of
7 petroleum sources. It is recognized
g dredging of harbors must continue
9 in order to maintain navigation.
10 There should be close cooperation by
11 the States and other affected agencies
12 with the Corps of Engineers in its
13 pilot program. It is recommended
14 that a timetable for the discontinuance
15 of disposal in the lake of dredged
16 materials which are polluting in
17 character be adopted which is similar
18 to the timetables established for
10 municipalities and industries.
20 8. The alewife problem requires
21 immediate attention to effect satis-
22 factory disposal of dead alewlves that
23 are anticipated in the summer of 1968.
i
24 Measures must be developed and put in
25 operation to abate the alewife population
-------
10,64
1 PERRY MILLER
2 explosion. As this problem is
3 pertinent to all the Great Lakes,
4 effective control measures should
5 be initiated by appropriate Federal
6 agencies with the cooperation of
7 State agencies.
g 9« In addition to the current
9 problems in Lake Michigan, many
10 future problems of pollution can be
11 avoided or minimized through a program
12 of coordinated and comprehensive plan-
13 ning for the development of the water
14 resources of the Great Lakes Basin.
15 The newly-created Great Lakes Basin
16 Commission, of which all the Great
17 Lakes States and involved departments
18 of the Federal Government are members,
19 appears to be the proper vehicle for
20 such coordination.
21 Thank you.
22 MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, Mr.
23 Miller.
24 (Applause.)
25 (Which said report, with attached tables
and maps, is as follows;)
-------
1965
1 PERRY MILLER
2
3
4
5 FOR CONFERENCE
6 ON
7 LAKE MICHIGAN
8
9 CALLED BY
10 SECRETARY STEWART L. UDALL
11 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
12
13 STARTING JANUARY 31, 1968
14 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
15
16 ON BEHALF OF THE
17 INDIANA STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
18 AND
19 THE STATE OF INDIANA
20
21
22 JANUARY 1968
23
24
25
-------
1Q66
1 PERRY MILLER
2
3
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
5
Page
6
7 Introduction 1
g Lake Michigan Basin ' 2
9 St. Joseph River Basin ..... 14
10 Summary 19
11 Appendices
12 Lake Michigan Basin
13 Basin Map 21
14 Municipal Waste Treatment
Status 22
15
Industrial Waste Treatment
16 and Control Facilities
17 St. Joseph River Basin
18 Basin Map 30
19 Municipal Waste treatment
Facilities 31
20
Industrial Waste Treatment
21 and Control Facilities 33
22
23
24
25
-------
10.67
1 PERRY MILLER
2
Introduction
3
4 In accordance with the requirements of
5 the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965, Indiana
6 undertook the adoption of updated water quality
7 standards in 1966. Pursuant to the provisions
8 of Chapter 120, Acts of 19^5, public hearings
9 were held on proposed standards in river basins
10 throughout the State. The proposed standards and
11 plans for implementation, which included proposed
12 timetables, were mailed to municipalities, in-
13 dustries, adjacent States, the Federal Water Pol-
14 lution Control Administration, and others prior
15 to the hearings. At the public hearing for the
16 Lake Michigan Basin, the Illinois Sanitary Water
17 Board endorsed the proposed criteria as consistent
18 with those adopted by Illinois. The proposed time-
ID tables were not questioned by Illinois or the
20 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
21 At the public hearing for the St. Joseph River
22 Basin, the State of Michigan agreed with proposed
23 criteria but offered the comment that the MPN/100
24 ml coliform index would be unrealistic during
25 periods of stormwater runoff. Following the
-------
1968
1 PERRY MILLER
2 hearings, Regulations SPC 1R, SPC 4, SPC 5, SPC 6,
3 SPC 7) SPC 8, SPC 9, and SPC 10 and implementation
4 plans for the respective basins were adopted by
5 the Stream Pollution Control Board as Indiana's
6 new water quality standards and submitted to the
7 Department of the Interior for consideration of
8 approval. Secretary Udall notified Governor
9 Branigin on July 18, 19&7, that he had approved
10 the Indiana Water Quality Standards.
11 The implementation plans for the
12 respective basins provide background information,
13 cite specific pollution sources, enumerate water
14 uses and provide a timetable for municipalities
15 and industries to complete construction of
16 necessary facilities.
17 The following report includes the status
18 of municipal and industrial waste pollution abate-
19 ment and control measures in the Lake Michigan
20 drainage area of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte
21 Counties and in the St. Joseph River Basin. Much
22 of the material is excerpted from the Indiana
23 plan submitted to the Department of the Interior.
24 Where necessary it has been updated.
25
-------
1969
1 PERRY MILLER
2
Description of Basin
3
4 Geography
5 The Lake Michigan drainage basin is
6 located in the northwestern corner of the State
7 and covers an area of 6l5 square miles including
g portions of Lake, Porter, LaPorte, and St. Joseph
9 Counties. The basin averages 15 miles in width
10 and curves around the southern tip of Lake
11 Michigan for a distance of about 50 milesj and
12 it is bounded on the north by the State of
13 Michigan; on the south by the Kankakee River
14 Basin; and on the west by the State.of Illinois.
15 Population
16 The northern portions of Lake and Porter
17 Counties have experienced a tremendous rate of
18 growth since the turn of the century. Lake County
19 alone has, during this period, shown an increase
20 of 1,250 percent. The plentiful supply of water
21 available from Lake Michigan; industrial develop-
22 ment; excellent highways; railroads; waterway trans
23 portation arteries; and the Chicago urban area are
24 a few factors stimulating this phenomenal growth.
25 it should be noted that 8^ percent of the Lake
-------
1Q70
1 PERRY MILLER
2 County population is located in the upper third
3 of the county along the shores of Lake Michigan
4 and the major watercourses of the basin. The
6 estimated I960 population of the Lake Michigan
6 Basin in Indiana was 620,588.
7 Water Quality
g At present, the Stream Pollution Control
9 Board and the Indiana State Board of Health operate
10 15 water quality monitoring stations in the basin.
n There are four located on Burns Ditch near Portage;
12 four on the Grand Calumet River (one at Hammond,
13 two at East Chicago and one at Gary); three on the
14 Indiana Harbor Canal In East Chicago; two on Lake
15 Michigan (one each at the Michigan City and Whiting
16 water supply intakes); one on the Little Calumet
11 River in Hammond; and one at Wolf Lake at the
lg culvert at the state line.
19 Pollution
20 The principal sources of pollution in
2i the basin in Idnaian are industrial wastes,
22 municipal sewage, and combined sewer overflows.
23 Other wastes discharged intermittently may have
24 serious local effects or may cause temporary ex-
25 cessive pollution. Among these wastes are
-------
1971
1 PERRY MILLER
2 accidental spills from storage tanks and barges;
3 wastes from lake vessels, barge tows and pleasure
4 craft; and materials from dredging operations.
5 All sewered municipalities have some
6 combined sewers which contribute to pollution
7 during periods of storm. Combined sewer overflows
g contribute gross bacterial pollution, high sus-
9 pended solids concentrations, and heavy BOD load-
10 ings. Industrial waste present in such systems
11 contribute to the pollution problem. Phosphates
12 and other nutrients contribute to algae growth in
13 receiving waters.
14 The water quality in the Open Water of
15 L&ke Michigan is excellent with the exception of
16 periods of high threshold odors and increased
17 concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen caused by
18 industrial wastes.
19 Shore water east of the Inner Harbor
20 Basin is of good quality and generally satisfactory
21 for whole body contact recreation. However,, shore
22 water within the Inner Harbor Basin is of poor
23 quality which is attributed to combined sewer
24 overflows and wastes discharges in this basin.
25 The Front Street combined sewer overflow at
-------
1972
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Whiting at times discharges untreated sewage
3 directly to Lake Michigan, and the Atchlson
4 Avenue stormwater pumping station in Whiting
5 and the Robertsdale stormwater pumping station
6 in Hammond discharge stormwater overflow from
7 combined sewers to Lake Michigan. In addition,
8 stormwater overflows from East Chicago and Gary
9 to the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor
10 Canal contribute to the poor water quality. Re-
11 duction of combined sewer overflows or control
12 facilities including disinfection of storm
13 overflows will be necessary.
14 The Inner Harbor Basin water quality
15 is generally satisfactory. However, there are
16 intermittent periods of high threshold odor,
17 ammonia-nitrogen, phenols, and coliform bacteria.
18 This pollution is the result of direct discharges
19 to the lake from sewers and the flow from the
20 Indiana Harbor Canal.
21 Waters of the Indiana Harbor Canal and
22 the Grand Calumet River are unsightly and charac-
23 terized by floating debris, oil, discoloration,
24 and high suspended solids loading. These waters
25 are industrial process and cooling^water, treated
-------
1213
1 PERRY MILLER
2 and chlorinated effluents from the Gary and East
3 Chicago Sanitary Districts treatment plants and
4 combined sewer overflows. The 26 industries with
5 direct discharges to the Grand Calumet River,
6 Indiana Harbor Canal or Lake Michigan waters and
7 the status of their waste treatment or control
8 facilities are shown in the appendix. Further
9 treatment of industrial wastes is necessary to
10 enhance the water quality and to meet the standards
11 for the Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor Canal
12 and Lake Michigan waters.
13 Water quality is generally good in the
14 Little Calumet River-Burns Ditch-Lake Michigan
15 drainage area. Provision of sewage treatment
16 plants, disinfection of effluents, treatment of
17 all industrial wastes, and improved soil conserva-
18 tion measures to reduce pollution from agricultural
19 runoff are needed to meet the water quality cri-
20 teria. Water quality in Trail Creek is generally
21 poor due to high bacterial counts resulting from
22 combined sewer overflows during periods of storm
23 and from the bypassing of raw sewage at the Mich-
24 igan City sewage treatment plant. Michigan City
25 will complete construction in 1968 of a project
-------
1974
1 PERRY MILLER
2 to provide additions, including effluent
3 chlorination, to its activated sludge plant
4 for a design capacity of 15 mgd.
5 Summary of Water Uses
6 1. Lake Michigan open water and Inner
7 Harbor Basin water will be required
g to be suitable for public and in-
9 dustrial water supply, maintenance
10 of a well-balanced, warm-water fish
11 population, water-oriented recreation
12 and will also be required to meet
13 the standards as set forth in Regu-
11 lations SPG 4 and SPC 6, respectively.
15 2. Lake Michigan shore water, including
16 the three existing bathing beaches
17 located in the Inner Harbor area,
18 and Wolf Lake will be required to be
19 suitable for maintenance of a well-
20 balanced, warm-water fish population,
21 whole body contact recreational ac-
22 tivities and will also be required
23 to meet the standards set forth in
24 Regulations SPC 5 and SPC 10, respec-
25 tively.
-------
_____ . 1975
1 PERRY MILLER
3. The Grand Calumet River and Indiana
2
Harbor Canal serve as sources of in-
3
dustrial water supplies and must meet
4
the standards set forth in Regulations
5
SPC 8 and SPC 7, respectively.
6
4. The Little Calumet River-Burns Ditch
7
and tributaries and other streams
8
flowing to Lake Michigan will be re-
9
quired to support a well-balanced.
10
warm-water fish population, be suit-
11
able for partial body contact recrea-
12
tion, and agricultural uses, and meet
13
the standards as set forth in Regula-
14
tion SPC 1R.
15
Implementation and Enforcement Plan
16 ~ • •
The Board will require construction of
municipal treatment facilities in accordance with
18
the following timetable:
1. The Town of Porter is to provide
I treatment facilities as soon as
ft\
22 practicable in compliance with
23 the outstanding Stream Pollution
24 Control Board order. The Attorney
„_ General has filed for enforcement
-------
1976
1 PERRY MILLER
2 action in the Porter County Circuit
3 Court. Plans are underway for treat-
4 ment of sewage from Porter at the
5 Chesterton sewage treatment plant.
6 2. Expansion of treatment facilities
7 will be required by Hammond and by
8 Valparaiso on or before the end of
9 1972.
10 3- Installation of advanced waste treat-
11 ment will be required at East Chicago,
12 Gary, Hammond, and Michigan City as
13 soon as practicable and at Crown
14 Point, Hobart, and Valparaiso within
15 the next 10 years. East Chicago has
16 completed preliminary pilot plant
17 operation of advanced waste treatment
18 methods and is embarking on the second
19 phase of advanced waste treatment
20 studies. Nutrient removal will be
21 required as a part of advanced waste
22 treatment. The smaller municipalities
23 in the basin may also be required to
24 provide an advanced degree of treatment
25 to meet water quality criteria.
-------
1977
1 PERRY MILLER
2 4. Installation of sewers and sewage
3 treatment will be required within
4 the next 10 years for most of the
5 Incorporated communities with
6 public water supplies and no
7 recognized sewer system. This
g includes Beverly Shores, Dune
9 Acres, Long Beach, Michiana Shores,
10 New Chicago, Ogden Dunes, Portage,
11 and the Town of Pines.
12 5- The municipalities of Hammond and
13 Whiting will be required to provide
14 treatment and disinfection of sewage
15 and stormwater overflows from the
16 Robertsdale, Atchison Avenue and
17 Front Street outlets to Lake Michigan
18 on or before the end of 1970. (In
19 December 19&7, Hammond authorized
20 an engineering study of sewer separa-
21 tion in the Robertsdale area.) The
22 municipalities of East Chicago, Gary,
23 Hammond, and Michigan City with storm
24 and/or combined sewer overflows will
25 be required to provide disinfection
-------
1978
1 PERRY MILLER
2 and control of pollution from
3 these overflows as soon as prac
4 ticable.
5 The industries in the basin which have
6 inadequate control or treatment facilities will
7 have to provide them as shown in the following
listing:
9 1. Completion of construction by the end
10 of 1963.
n a. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Inc., East Chicago
12
*b. Adolph Plating, Inc., East Chicago
13
*c. M & T Chemicals, Inc.,East Chicago
14
*d. Industrial Tissue Division, Georgia-
15 Pacific Corporation, Gary
16 e. American Maize-Products Company,
Hammond
17
f. American Chemicals Company, Griffith
18
g. Phillips Drill Company, Michigan City
19
h. Gary Tube Works, U.S. Steel Corporation,
20
2i *• On December 19, 1967, the Board issued
22 a final order to the Adolph Plating, Inc.,
23 East Chicago, to abate pollution of the
24 Grand Calumet River by the end of 1968.
25 The order requires preliminary plans by
-------
1979
1 PERRY MILLER
2 March 1, 1968, and final plans by June 1, 1968
3
On December 19, 1967, the Board scheduled
4
administrative hearings with the M & T Chemicals,
5
Inc., for pollution of the Indiana Harbor Ship
6
Canal and with the Industrial Tissue Division,
7
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Gary, for pollution
8
of the Grand Calumet River. M & T Chemicals,
9
Inc., obtained an agreement with the East Chicago
10
Sanitary District for connection to the District's
11
sewerage system and has agreed that the connection
12
will be made by July 31, 1968, but in any event
13
no later than December 31, 1968. The hearing
14
with Georgia-Pacific Corporation was held on
15
January 17, 1968. The hearing officer's findings
16
and recommendations should be completed soon.
17
2. Cities Service Oil Company, Mobil Oil
18
Company, Sinclair Refining Company,
19
American Oil Company, and Union Car-
20
bide Chemicals Company will have to
21
provide timetables for construction
22
of additional waste treatment facili-
23
ties to control BOD, oil, and threshold
24
odor substances, which are consistent
25
-------
1980_
1 PERRY MILLER
2 with the requirements of the
3 Conference on Pollution of the
4 Grand Calumet River, .Little
5 Calumet River, Calumet River,
6 Wolf Lake, Lake Michigan, and
7 tributaries. The conclusions
8 and recommendations of the Con-
9 ferees established December 1968,
10 as the latest date for completion
11 of water pollution abatement
12 facilities by industry except
13 for a few industries where varia-
14 tion is Justified and approved
15 by the Board and Conferees.
16 3. The original timetable was June 30,
17 1970, for completion of all the
18 necessary pollution abatement
19 facilities by Inland Steel Company,
20 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company,
21 and U. S. Steel Corporation's Gary
22 Tube Works, Gary Steel Works, and
23 Gary Sheet and Tin Mill. However,
24 the schedule has been reexamined and
25 new construction timetables established.
-------
1981
PERRY MILLER
2 The new timetables and companies1
3 estimates of the percentage re-
duction of contaminants to meet
established criteria are as follows:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1982
FACILITIES PROPOSED AMD UNDER CONSTRUCTION
United States Steel Corporation
Gary Tube Works, Gary, Indiana
Old New
Contaminants to Completion Completion
Project be Removed Date Date
1. Waste pickle liquor Acid and iron 12/31/6? Completed
collection system. No
discharge to receiving
stream.
2. Solids clarification and Oil and suspended 12/31/68 12/31/68
oil skimming facilities. solids
United States Steel Corporation
Gary Steel Works, Gary, Indiana
1. Coke Plant - Permanent Ammonia, cyanide, 12/31/69 12/31/68
connection of Coke Plant phenols, oils, BOD,
wastes into the Gary and suspended solids
Sanitary District sewerage
system and in-plant controls
and waste separation.
2. Blast Furnace Area - Oils and suspended 6/30/70 12/1/69
Additional settling basins solids
for flue dust, oil separa-
tors in power station and
waste segregation.
3. Steel Making Area - Con- Oil and suspended 6/30/70 12/31/69
struction of oil separa- solids
tors and segregation of
wastewater with discharge
to Blast Furnace Area
flue dust settling basins.
h. Hot Mills Area - Construe- Oil and suspended 6/30/70 12/31/69
tion of sewers, sumps, solids
pumps, piping, and settling
and oil skimming basins.
United States Steel Corporation
Gary Sheet and Tin Mill, Gary, Indiana
1. 6-Stand Tandem Cold Suspended solids, — Completed
Reduction Mill facilities. free oils,
emulsified oils,
BOD, and iron
-8-
-------
j.983
FACILITIES PROPOSED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION (continued)
Old New
Contaminants to Completion Completion
Project be Removed Date Date
2. 81f-inch Hot Strip Mill Suspended solids, ~ Completed
filtration facility. oils, and iron
3. Deep Well disposal system. Acidity and iron ~ Completed
No discharge to receiving
stream.
U. Acid rinse waters from the Iron, acidity, and 12/31/68 6/ 1/68
existing Sheet and Tin suspended solids
Mill 66-inch Continuous
Pickling Line and the New
81f-inch Continuous
Pickling Line will be
diverted to the existing
6-Stand Tandem Cold
Reduction Mill waste
treatment plant.
5. Oily wastewater from the Suspended solids, 6/30/68 6/15/68
80-inch 5-Stand Cold free oils,
Reduction Mill treatment emulsified oils,
plant will be diverted to and iron
the 6-Stand Tandem Cold
Reduction Mill waste
treatment plant.
*6. Segregated wastewater from Iron, suspended 12/31/69 6/30/69
Tin Mill will be discharged solids, free oils,
to the existing 6-Stand emulsified oils,
Tandem Cold Reduction and BOD
Mill waste treatment plant.
*?• Segregated wastewater from Iron, suspended 3/30/70 6/30/69
Sheet Mill will be dis- solids, free oils,
charged to the expanded emulsified oils,
6-Stand Tandem Cold and BOD
Reduction Mill waste
treatment facilities.
*8. Wastewater from the 80- Iron, suspended 6/30/70 3/1/70
inch Hot Strip Mill scale solids, and oils
pits will be diverted to
the expanded 8U-inch Hot
Strip Mill Filtration
Plant.
* In order to handle the additional waste loadings listed in Items No. 6 and
No. 7, additional primary solids and oil skimming, flocculation-clarification,
and oil and solids handling facilities will be constructed at the 6-Stand
Tandem Cold Reduction Mill waste treatment facilities (Terminal Treatment
Plant). Additional filtration facilities will be added to the 8U-inch Hot
Strip Mill waste treatment plant to handle the waste load listed in Item No. 8.
The expansion of both the Terminal Treatment Plant and the Rot Strip Mill will
be completed by March 1, 1970.
-9-
-------
1984
FACILITIES PROPOSED AMD UHDER CONSTRUCTION (continued)
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company
East Chicago, Indiana
Old Nev
Contaminants to Completion Completion
Project be Removed Date Date
1. Coke Plant - Construction Ammonia, cyanide, — Completed
of napthalene scrubbers phenols, oils, BOD,
and connection of waste to and suspended solids
the East Chicago Sanitary
District.
2. No. 2 Open Hearth - Clari- Oil and suspended 12/31/6? Completed
fication facilities, solids
cooling towers and water
reuse system. No discharge
to receiving stream.
3. No. 3 Hot Strip Mill - Oil Free oil, emulsified 3/1/68 3/1/68
and solids removal, oil, suspended solids,
chemical flocculation, and iron
scale pits, and filtration
facilities.
k. Buttweld Mill - Pressure Oil and suspended 12/31/68 12/31/68
filters solids
5* No. 1 Tin Mill - Sumps, Oils 12/31/68 12/31/68
pumps, and severs to
collect oily waste.
6. No. 1 Tin Mill, No. 2 Tin Oils and suspended 12/31/69 12/31/69
Mill and No. 2 Cold solids
Reduced Sheet Mill -
Central Water Treatment
Plant for chemical treat-
ment of oils and suspended
solids.
7. Hot Rolling Mills - Oils and suspended 6/30/69 6/30/69
Terminal lagoon for solids
secondary clarification
of effluent from lake front
scale pit.
8. No. 2 Cold Reduced Sheet Acidity, suspended 12/31/69 12/31/69
Mill - Sumps, pumps, and solids, oils and
sewers to collect waste iron
pickle liquor; and sumps,
pumps, and sewers to
collect oily waste.
-10-
-------
1985
FACULTIES PROPOSED AMD UNDER CONSTRUCTION (continued)
Project
9- Blast Furnace - Sewers,
sumps, and pumps to collect
and recirculate all clari-
fied waste from the Blast
Furnace. No discharge to
receiving stream.
10. North Lagoon - A settling
lagoon to collect treated
wastes from the No. 5
Stand of the Tandem Rolling
Mill, Sewer No. 23, and the
No. 3 Hot Strip Mill. All
effluent from the lagoon
will "be recirculated. No
discharge to receiving
stream.
Contaminants to
be Removed
Cyanide, oils, and
suspended solids
Old
Completion
Date
6/30/70
New
Completion
Date
6/30/70
Oils and suspended
solids
6/30/70
6/30/70
Inland Steel Company
East Chicago, Indiana
1. Permanent connection of
Plant No. 2 and No. 3
Coke Plant ammonia still
wastes and selected wastes
to the East Chicago
Sanitary District sewerage
system (temporary facility
in operation at present time).
Ammonia, cyanide,
phenols, oils, BOD,
and suspended solids
10/1/67
Completed
2. Additional settling basins
and recirculation pumps
will be installed at the
Coke Quenching Stations
in Plant No. 2 and No. 3
Coke Plants.
3. Plant No. 2 and No. 3
Blast Furnace Area In-
plant controls and
secondary flue dust
settling basins.
U. Deep Wen disposal
system. No discharge
to receiving stream.
Ammonia, cyanide,
phenols, oils, and
suspended solids
Oils and suspended
solids
11/1/68
11/1/68
10/1/68
10/1/68
Acidity, suspended
solids, and iron
6/30/68
3/ 1/68
-11-
-------
1986
FACILITIES PROPOSED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION (continued)
Qld
Contaminants to Completion Completion
Project be Removed Date Date
5. 12-inch Merchant Mill Oils and suspended 12/31/68 11/30/68
waste treatment plant. solids (new operation)
6. Terminal settling and oil Oils, suspended 5/1/70 5/1/70
skimming basin. solids, and iron
-12-
-------
1987
PERCENT COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
DATA SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANIES
Contaminant
United States Steel
Oil
Suspended Solids
Phenol
Ammonia
Cyanide
Acidity
Dissolved Iron
6-30
1967
12-31
1967
6-30
196S
12-31.
1968
6-30 12-31
1969 1969
6-30
1970
Corporation
28$
30$
0$
0$
0$
0$
0$
Uo$
62$
0$
0$
0$
100$
100$
53$
71$
0$
0$
0$
—
__
65$
73$
100$
100$
100$
—
__
72$ 90$
7^$ 98$
__
—
—
—
_- -_
100$
100$
—
—
—
—
__
Youngstovn Sheet and Tube Company
Oil 25$ 30$ 35$ 35$ 55$ 100$
Suspended Solids 20$ 20$ 25$ U5$ 65$ 95$ 100$
Phenol 0$ 100$
Ammonia 0$ 100$
Cyanide 0$ 100$
Acidity 0$ 100$
Dissolved Iron 0$ 100$
Inland Steel Company
Oil — 79$ 81$ 90$ 90$ 90$ 100$
Suspended Solids — 33$ 33$ 85$ 85$ 85$ 100$
Phenol — 8U$ 8U$ 100$
Ammonia ~ 36$ 36$ 100$
Acidity ~ of0 10o$
Cyanide — 95$ 95$ 100$
Dissolved Iron — 0$ 100$
-13-
-------
1988
1 PERRY MILLER
2
St. Joseph River Basin - Indiana
3
Status of Pollution Abatement
4
5 All municipalities in the St. Joseph
6 River Basin with a population above 3,000, except
7 Elkhart, have secondary treatment. Mishawaka and
8 several of the smaller municipalities now provide
9 effluent chlorination. Elkhart has primary treat-
10 ment and chlorination and has plans for secondary
11 treatment. South Bend has completed plans for
12 additions to its activated sludge plant and for
13 effluent chlorination. Both of these cities filed
14 applications for construction grants and would
15 have proceeded to construction this year if suf-
16 ficient construction grant funds had been available
17 All sewered municipalities are to provide secondary
18 treatment and chlorination by the end of 1972.
19 The eight industries in the St. Joseph
20 River Basin with inadequate treatment facilities
21 will be required to provide adequate treatment
22 by the end of 1969.
23
24
25
-------
1989
I PERRY MILLER
2
Description of Basin
3
4 Geography
5 The drainage area of the St. Joseph
6 River and tributaries in Indiana is approximately
7 1,670 square miles and includes all or parts of
8 St. Joseph, Elkhart, LaGrange, Steuben, Kosciusko,
9 Noble, and DeKalb Counties. The headwaters of
10 tlle st- Joseph River are in southern Michigan.
H The river flows southwesterly into Indiana through
12 the northern parts of Elkhart and St. Joseph
13 Counties, and thence northwesterly back through
14 Michigan where it discharges into Lake Michigan
15 about 50 river miles north of the Indiana State
16 line.
17 Population
18 The estimated I960 population of the
19 St. Joseph River Basin in Indiana is approximately
20 373,500. The largest city in the basin is South
21 Bend with a population in 1960 of 132,4^5. The
22 population of South Bend will probably reach
23 160,000 by 1980 and exceed 230,000 by 2020. The
24 total urban population of the basin in Indiana is
25 expected to be approximately 300,000 in 1980 and
-------
1990
1 PERRY MILLER
2 440,000 in 2020.
3 Water Quality
4 There are two water quality monitoring
5 stations on the Indiana section of the St. Joseph
§ River. One station is about 1.5 miles upstream
7 from Elkhart at a county road bridge. The other
g station is located at the Auten Road Bridge about
9 1.3 miles downstream from the South Bend sewage
10 treatment plant outfall. Data have been collected
H at these stations since 1957 as a part of the
12 State's Water Quality Monitoring Program.
13 The water quality data show the St.
14 Joseph River is generally good. The dissolved
15 oxygen concentrations and biochemical oxygen
16 demand values are satisfactory. High coliform
17 values are noted in the St. Joseph River in the
18 South Bend, Mishawaka, and Elkhart area. However,
19 other than nutrients, it is not considered that
20 the Indiana contribution to the St. Joseph River
21 has any adverse effect on Lake Michigan.
22 Pollution
23 The sources of pollution in the St.
24 Joseph River Basin are municipal sewage, combined
25 sewer overflows, and industrial wastes.
-------
1991
1 PERRY MILLER
2 All but four sewered municipalities
3 (less than 2 percent of the sewered population)
4 in the St. Joseph River Basin provide sewage
5 treatment facilities. Of the 13 municipalities
6 providing sewage treatment, 11 have secondary
7 treatment. The Cities of Elkhart and Ligonier
8 need to expand primary treatment facilities by
9 adding secondary treatment. Mishawaka and South
10 Bend need plant expansion and effluent chlori-
11 nation is needed at South Bend.
12 The Indiana Stream Pollution Control
13 Board in 1964 mandated that South Bend provide
14 effluent chlorination and an engineering study
15 of sewage works improvement needs. However, the
16 City has appealed the Board's order and this
17 litigation is now pending in the Starke Circuit
18 Court. Plans for chlorination facilities for
19 South Bend have been approved. Plans for sewage
20 works expansion have been submitted by South
21 Bend, Elkhart, and Ligonier.
22 While the present concentrations of
23 phosphate in the St. Joseph River are not con-
24 sidered significant due to the adequacy of
25 dilution water, it may be necessary in the future
-------
1992
1 PERRY MILLER
2 for South Bend, Mishawaka, and Elkhart to provide
3 phosphate removal as part of their treatment.
4 Because of conditions in lakes below Angloa and
5 Kendallvllle, it will be necessary for these
6 municipalities to provide nutrient removal.
7 There are 22 industries in the St.
g Joseph River Basin which handle a significant
9 volume of waste. Seven of these industries
10 provide treatment facilities with soil absorption
11 of the effluent and, therefore, have no outlet
12 to a receiving stream. The remaining 15 Indus -
13 tries discharge treated effluents directly into
14 streams of the basin, and of these there are
15 eight that do not have adequate treatment. The
16 appendix shows the type and status of treatment
17 facilities. The industries listed as inadequate
18 have been advised by the Board to abate pollution.
19 Another pollution problem of the basin
20 in the bacteriological pollution of the St. Joseph
21 River caused by treated municipal sewage and com-
22 bined sewer overflows from South Bend, Mishawaka,
23 and Elkhart. There are some locations in the
24 river with slightly depressed bottom fauna due
25 to sludge deposits.
-------
1993
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Summary of Water Uses
3 1. All waters in the basin will be
4 required to support a well-balanced,
5 warm-water fish population and must
6 be suitable for agricultural uses.
7 2. All waters, where natural tempera-
g tures permit, will be required to
9 support put-and-take trout fishing.
10 3. All reservoirs and lakes in the basin
11 and the St. Joseph River must be
12 maintained for whole body contact
13 recreation and all other streams for
14 partial body contact recreation,
15 such as boating, canoeing and fishing.
16 4. All waters which are used for public
17 or industrial water supply must meet
18 said criteria, and where needed for
19 this purpose in the future will meet
20 the criteria.
21 Implementation and Enforcement Plan
22 The Board adopted SPC 1R as the standard
23 of water quality for the waters of the St. Joseph
24 River Basin. All waters, based on the use concept,
25 will be required to meet the standards, for the
-------
1 PERRY MILLER
2 appropriate public and industrial water supply,
3 aquatic life, recreational, and agricultural
4 uses mentioned previously. Compliance with these
5 standards will enhance the quality of waters
6 within this basin. In existing high quality
7 waters every effort will be made to maintain
8 high quality consistent with the powers granted
9 under the Indiana Act.
10 The Board will require construction
11 of municipal treatment facilities in accordance
12 with the following timetable:
13 1. Secondary treatment facilities are
14 to be provided by the City of Elk-
15 hart by the end of 1969 and by the
16 City of Ligonier by the end of 1972.
17 Said facilities are to include ef-
18 fluent chlorination. Both cities
19 have submitted plans for plant
20 additions.
21 2. Expansion of secondary treatment
22 facilities will be required by
23 South Bend and Mishawaka by the
24 end of 1972. South Bend has sub-
25 mitted plans for plant expansion.
-------
199*5.
1 PERRY MILLER
2 3. South Bend is to provide effluent
3 chlorniation facilities as soon as
4 practicable. Ashley, Goshen, and
6 LaGrange are to provide effluent
6 chlorination by the end of 1972.
7 4. Treatment facilities, including
8 effluent chlorination, are to be
9 provided by Cromwell, Milford Junc-
10 tion, Topeka, and Wakarusa on or
11 before the end of 1972.
12 5» Installation of advanced waste
13 treatment or provision for low
14 flow augmentation will be required
15 at Angola within the next 10 years.
16 Phosphate removal will be required
17 at Angola and Kendallville as soon
18 as practicable methods are developed.
19 6. Installation of sewers and sewage
20 treatment facilities will be required
21 within the next 10 years for incorp-
22 orated communities with public water
23 supplies and no recognized sewer system.
24 This includes Middlebury, Millersburg,
25 and Wolcottville.
-------
1996
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PERRY MILLER
The eight Industries in the basin with
inadequate treatment facilities
will be required
to provide adequate treatment for indicated con-
taminants by the following time
End of 1$58
Industry
Ucs-wherhead Corporation, Angola
End of 1S69
Industry
Bristol Band Instrument Co., Bristol
Continental Can Co., Elkhart
New York Central System, EUchart
Pean Electric Switch Co., Goshen
Middlebury Co-operative Creamery,
Inc., Middlebury
New Paris Creamery Co., New Paris
Gantner Packing Co., South Bend
-18
schedule:
Contaminants
Oil, cyanide, and
heavy metals
Contaminants
Cyanide and heavy metals
BOD, suspended solids,
and 'color
Oils, BOD, and suspended
solids
Oil, cyanide, and
heavy netals
BOD and suspended solids
BOD and suspended solids
BOD and suspended solids
-
-------
1997
1 PERRY MILLER
2
Summary
3
4 1. Completion of the programs outlined
5 herein will greatly enhance the water
6 quality of the extreme south end of
7 Lake Michigan and the St. Joseph
8 River Basin. However, some sources
9 of pollution, i.e., nutrients, oil,
10 wastes from watercraft, dredged
11 materials, and dead alewives, require
12 additional study and a general agree-
13 ment by all concerned on programs to
14 provide the necessary control.
15 2. Mandatory certification of plant
16 operators both municipal and Indus-
17 trial will improve the efficiency
18 of treatment plants and reduce ac-
19 cidental discharges.
20 3. Additional studies are needed to
21 develop plant scale projects to
22 effect phosphate and other nutrient
23 removals. Significant sources of
24 nutrients, aside from that measured
25 in sewage treatment plant effluent,
-------
1QQ8
PERRY MILLER
2 need to be determined and methods
3 developed for effective control.
4 Nutrient removal will be required
5 of major sources as soon as prac-
ticable methods are developed
The discharge of oil from lake-going
8 vessels and miscellaneous sources
9 must be abated. Strengthened Federal
10 legislation on oil pollution will be
n helpful. However, there will always
12 be accidents or "Acts of God" which
13 will require more effective surveil-
lance, the development of a warning
system, and the development of prac-
16 ticable control procedures which can
17 be put into effect quickly.
18 5. Pollution caused by the discharge of
wastes from watercraft, including un-
20 treated sewage, ballast and bilge
2i water, litter and garbage, and oil,
22 requires additional attention. The
23 Indiana Boating Law prohibits the
24 discharge of human waste from boats
25 on all Indiana waters except Lake
-------
1999
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Michigan. It will be recommended
3 to the 1969 General Assembly that
4 the law be amended to Include Lake
5 Michigan waters.
Q 6. The States should support Federal
7 legislation to regulate pollution
g by commercial vessels engaged in
9 interstate commerce and each State
10 should provide for uniform regu-
11 lation of pollution by recreational
12 watercraft.
13 7. The pollution caused by dumping
14 of dredged materials in Lake
15 Michigan must be controlled. On
16 August 16, 1966, the Indiana
17 Stream Pollution Control Board
18 adopted a policy opposing the
19 dumping in Lake Michigan of dredged
20 material which contains substances
21 that are polluting in character,
22 whether they be of organic material
23 or of petroleum sources. It is
24 recognized dredging of harbors must
25 continue in order to maintain navigation.
-------
2000
1 PERRY MILLER
2 There should be close cooperation
3 by the States and other affected
4 agencies with the Corps of Engineers
5 in its pilot program. It is recom-
5 mended that a timetable for the dis-
7 continuance of disposal in the lake
g of dredged materials which are polluting
9 in character be adopted which is simi-
10 lar to the timetables established for
11 municipalities and industries.
12 8. The alewife problem requires immediate
13 attention to effect satisfactory dis-
14 posal of dead alewives that are an-
15 ticipated in the summer of 1968.
16 Measures must be developed and put
17 in operation to abate the alewife
18 population explosion. As this prob-
19 lem is pertinent to all the Great
20 Lakes, effective control measures
21 should be initiated by appropriate
22 Federal agencies with the cooperation
23 of State agencies.
24 9» *n addition to the current problems
25 in Lake Michigan, many future problems
-------
2001
1 PERRY MILLER
2 of pollution can be avoided or
3 minimized through a program of
4 coordinated and comprehensive
5 planning for the development of
6 the water resources of the Great
7 Lakes Basin. The newly-created
8 Great Lakes Basin Commission, of
9 which all the Great Lakes States
10 and involved epartments of the
11 Federal Government are members,
12 appears to be the proper vehicle
13 for such coordination.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
2002
UJ
o
1
CO
M
e c
U* .•? "5.
u! 1 I
_J a v*
\ \
O X
SIONITII
APPENDIX
-21-
-------
•P
IB
2003
i
wfi
•P Tl
X
T
%
i!
1
•g
i
I
CO
Re
S
of
nt
•type
.1
§
•H
PQ
•8
-p
Di
gan
Li
Bu
Michi
tt
CO
H
s
t
Acti
ft I
*3a
r
23
•^
I
•P H
« ^«
33 1"
. s •• •"
o
•8
-p
tm
lu
8
•
H
8
1
S
s
nat
II 1! 1
"1
f!
•I
Activa
Activa
•H -H
^^
«s
s
t
Acti
na
or
va
I
hl
Activ
CO
CO*
CO
§
S
I
I I
i i I
!
-p
Grand Cal
to Illinoi
8
I
31
I <3 II
b +? b •»? b
va
or
Sani
COJh COt—
ssas
3
S
Ssa*
jj *rt
•j HH
-------
to
J!
"4*
?ta
8
|I
II
g
s
CO
al
•5;
•H
S
&
of
nt
Tre
•p
^
•<-(
O
•§
p
a
a
o!
8 o ^
<5 3 P
00 42
H d 1
131 I
A* 3
2
-rl -P
-s
I *
CTV ON
H H
i—i »n
"1*
«3
II
Acti
CO
vO
4?
S
S i!
CM
ft 8
H ej
80 ^
O CO
CM m i o
H
H ^
n -p
C\l
rerville
"3
CO
CM
8
ol
s
Q
*s
* §
•) -H
±f J*
II
+» o
S
so
Val
§
•H
1
I
II
2004
-23-
-------
S
•rl
43
3
•H
3
0) 43
CO
8
S|
i
CO
aste
ustrial
Facilities
nd
•3
a a>
8,3
a>
43
cd
ndust
at
O
O
9
I
o
•rl
Q)
Ash disposal with soil
absorption of sluicing
water
8Xf\
OJ
XA -3-
and
Settling
Settling
filter
-P
d>
2005
(H
•3
o
O
h
g
fc
09
S-H
i OSG
•H Q. 0)
3
0\
8
H
m
IH CH
0) O a
a TJ
to -H w y
^ K co e«
«,
4>iH
G -O T3
0-H
•H«H
4» r
«
C
•H
CO 0) b
^S 5
$%
•H CO
0) UJ-P
rH
-*?
4*
C00
CBH
CO C
Q
*>
<«
03 «
Cd
t. 00
-P »
2^12
03 43 C
C-HO
rH 0
O
4»
J30JKI
1? ^
D.TD
0.43 rj (Q
3 Ctj Q)
O iH
U
KI-H
S S
* S
«
*H
°§
•a *H
r-ig'Qa -HOT)
Tf 1 S g " * S
O « eo !> «aj CH S
OO
i^
4> -P
C C8
SH
r-tP
ap
b
C9-H
^O
0 at
C 43
O * ra o H - - -
•H >i -H 43 3 m o
43bcd.Soa.C-H
O 0) MJ O -H 0) 0) CM
CO > C M 00 ^d 1-1
jL, O O 43 4> O (H
43
O
43
JiH
gQ
"w *d
W CO
bp
C
g
o
43 r-i g
«M 4) 4»
-------
•H
$
3
CK
*0
1
O
o
1
43
g
« 1
i £ a
Appendix - conti
Industrial Waste T
Lake Michigan Basi
i §
i 49
}
!
>
1
* 13
i
i
•p
CO
Industrial Waste
Facilities
»— j
•3
? n
0, o>
01 -rl
-J jj
S J
^ s
r
c
o
T
<
c
<
l-
c
c
£
^
•i
C
M
|
jltf
1
8 o
•rl 04
"g jj
H CO
XA
&
*
M
(0 0)
n
o
•rl -Q
49 c
09 CO
O M
0)
C O TJ
$ o 2
Qt OJ O
CO JH 0.
»
I n
3 o
49 >rl
49
o (X
3 0
O* CQ
co «J
M & T Chemicals Co
East Chicago
S S S & SEc 20°6
JD ,2 ,5 ,5 ,0 a) 3
* § g 3 * § 'a «j * if 4?
3 3 3 TO co
•rl 0, -HO. -H 04 -H 04 -rl 0. Q)
•jg-H "S"— 'S'r''§"i-« -§*c''3
MC§ MCO MCOHCO MCO(3
O O O XA Q
\A XA XA tM O
CM XA -S O
XA
CM
M M -< 1* M » ^
J4 ,» 01 r-l
.2 35" fASe'r'
n 49co.H 1 o.C49Q>3
rt TJCO co §•** * -£-**2'i-|SP
H -P G > "d +* 2 ?3 > r-< OJ O. 3 O O r-4
cieico d I w ti 3 co -H b 3 ^ *3 d
occdtH occocoj w o a^riar1
g ^H H - O g iH H W 0 P, ffl rt J3 tH
a H JH « i H *n -a 4>«0co
3 •• co o H -o a •> « -Q dj c c w c iH o -g t>o
^^4>rt-H tv,,3e-45 3 cd C eo n -H -P »>-H 'd
S SH SS, h a,rH h Us -n h -a oo fc^-o Jj ,,
O -rl O O. CO T3 O -H O Q WO) C 0) U O C
49 S S 0 -rl S 45ht<49eH ttf -H O_ *^,(»»3O
<5 is +3 w -a co cd4949coo X>CH a a to -P > w cr
2wC MWGhW -H 0 49XO^-HW
3 0 fi « 0 3 0 J« rj -S Mb M-rl ^ S 0 ffl H g
o.»o.H49o aooacrf-H e3 C4j> ^.PS/i^Sr-
4)-a ort-ri ®TJ »wq -HH .rice •^^^^•'iS
M.349^49 W-H49B103 r-lo ^»H «J2«-^dl32
trt C J< CO W i-t Cj 0. 49 49CO r-j C 0> O ^! ^ O
drlScap iHH3iHa'g -P r-l 490, a! (1) C -H 0 H M
9 H 3 W 5 3 9 ,H -H -H fl 0>H 0>0> 0^«!S-HOai
o n O.-P w o o 01 P, o -o 3 coa cooi co a,rH -P a, m r-i
49 49 4» 49 4>
o o o o o
•H -rl -H -rl -rl
** ** Is is -P
on o co o w o to O ra
&-H M-rl OD-rl tkO-H V'H
SiS *« * a c« a STo
o 3 o o o
5§ o^ ortcS^ Se?
49 .H -P-H U Tl 12 fl •£*?!
aid (o c 53 5 2 S 23
aim COCO COCQCOCO IOCD
(3 CO W CO W CO M CO MCO
O
^ 5
fi
° § | fi 1
ix. bO 0, 0> O
1 1 § S3 |
1 3 ° a>£ j
So «H o e o -o -ri o 55 o
:! ss I? **i |»
3-d JlTl J?ll r^d'S 5'S
°o 2" .s "«5 I6
3« §a ws 1SS Is
££ ^2 &s Saa H,S
-25-
-------
a
+>
s
1
o
5
0
0 +J
O CO
0
+>
§
CO
•P 0
S3
to
an
Q>
'I
CO
•H
0)
M
4»
§
I
•ol
O
•g (H
C3 «
§
=2
CO
•sU*
I
B'
00
21
8
M
c£
55
•p at
CU ?•<
o c«u
0 W 0
£-sw
CO O.H
CO
o
c •> »
O C H C
•HO r-l O
CO -H H -H
as
•o o
•P Q)
>»CO
3 •
(4 -H
8-8
8
o
f-
f
ca I X
at a o
£> Tt O
•O
0
SJ 4» •>
A 0 fi
«H CO O ..
O O CO W
A ^ 00 M4 0 *H
ra co ctf
4> h r-l
"8.
-PQ
a)
ale p
cke
bO-P
_ „ U C iH
•H 0 a] at C
W -P W O O. CO
Is
&
CO p.
•as
CO
Cal
CS
M
•r
s
s§
5S
n a)
•E!c3
at •
% 0
g
t>0
^
o
£
0
8
o
A
to
at
g
18.
.1. W
0
O
43 lit
o VH
CO
O
I
-A
I
0
2007
8
a
§
a
at
CO
3
V.
o
0 •
!:•
-26-
-------
gW
S
rH
§
CO
•w ~r^
Ud
"I
fe
e sposal
ili
Dispo
ties
cd
1
S
-P d
CO
, fr
§ o
-p
So
&t CO
0 43
CO tf
J
«
C
3
8
^52
o
.p
e
3
rH
j O O
C! S $ £S "
H P tQ O T3
-H
n
w
TIO
00. fi
b
H
-P
to
fl)
05
•H
7|
S. Q
c cd
•H * e
^ « fe
-P 0) (0
«> § 4>
(0 09 O
b
43
•85
n
•H
a
I
8
S
»
n
5
'O09
C 3
3 X)
-rl
3
«<•
S. o
O 4>
•H (0
C§«
-27-
I
3
.4
o
§
o o
-p M
a-a
o>£
W -P
fl)
I
to
!
§
o
50
C
-H
(JO rt b
« — _»• -H ft
CO M CO
8 8
H
0°
ss
QJ (tf
» H
-?1
O
-p
wo
O
O
o
Is
J3-H
U U
T)-H
-HO
o
§
• •
O
+»
P. «H
^
m t
o
b
3
U
EH M
§5
2008
-------
c
•H h
d} 4?
o to
*>
SB
n
43
to
CO
0)
•H
•as
£3
4> Q
CQ a
r
osal
a co
CO -H
kH 4»
« -H
*
CO
us
2009
i
•a
o
•H
S
4)
A
S
•H
Q
s
I
o
(9
43
O
4)
4> >
33
8
o
*
2
o
i i
CO
fr
1§
^33
o a o o<
•rl S7 -H »H
43 O 43 O
a CQ
4) Xl
to a)
Sep
abs
O 43
I
n
CD
43
o
4)
2
o
H
•H
Cd
6-i
XA
S
separator
,*
"S c
•p -H
49
££
4» O
O- CO
4) jQ
cO cd
4>
o
•H
>
0)
to
,1
Is «
3 o
-P -rl
+3
o a
•H f7
4» O
8- .8
CO c«
o
H
•rl
2
e-i
exchange,
and sett
4)
00
Activate
-28-
-------
5
!
-p
u>
&n
o>
to .H
•rl -P
Q3
'«
w
4>
n
ft
2010
3
S
°
-
i-4 2
•a
o
£5!
XA
&
i-
isolation
cal
ari
wel
es, che
with cl
dee
ystem
anide
cili
i
n
s
on,
al
Cy
fa
t
cat
dis
•O 4>
3 4
at 0
•P
«
1
-p
*
-p
n
*
!
I
o
1
sr
^
a
o
5s
*
5
W^
1-8
O ti
IS
C-
ON
M
it
i!
i i
< H
-29-
-------
2011
o
w
U
J
<
S
-30-
-------
2012
4) Q>
•p 03
ta o
a
2
•H
8
fi
»g
PH
•8
of
nt
Trea
I
t>
ft
-P
ta
§
o
0}
"
o
IA
W
CO
£
q
.p
CO
•
o
IA •
O 4»
• «
O O
ITN
CO
CO
VO
ON
H
VO H
* £
%
• CO
O 0
8 $
3* °"
IA
ITV
ONON
H H
CO
ITv
C-
"
A
C~ CO
w a\
3
•
CM
%
CO
%
i
h h
jj g
•
H
-
CO CO
\O IA
ONC3S
CO IA
t^ \>
CO VO
s
§ 3
IA «~v
CO IA •
H. W.1S
O O W
CO
J-
O\
r-l
O IA
8^ SN"
•V «*
H CU
£
C-
vO
H
§
•H
a
I
£
OJ
I
•
ON
O
CO
•
CO
CVJ
irv
«
£ §
Ti -H
aJ
i— ] O
•H O
A
h
0>
s
•H
d,
"§§
iH .H
W +>
?3
II
•H fi
r
VO
CO
•\
CO
CO
-------
«a
0)
•s
^1
, S3
•H O
O »0
Stre
«
CO S
S5
EH
«
•P
of
nt
ype
eat
!
11
S
O
5
CO
1§
H -H
ca 43
S
vated
lori
a
,4> §
. J S
^5 %
Ssl .
cu
IS
CM jxl
IT\
O\
H
A
P<
ted si
tional
tment
«5 -H Oj
^^ ^S2J
•8 ° tJ<^
•< <1
ITv
°°*k
CO
!
8
IA
CVJ
«
O Xi
•H 0
IA
ON
Oj
S
3
*
s
o
IT*
H
0)
ca
4)
o
o
fc
ca
•H
I
3g
•p w
- o «
4» -H
H -O -H
I
«BS
SH.H
ed
*15
4) J» _,
J! £8
•^ ^\ i*
•P (0
M to *
V CQ 0)
^M
0)
-P 0
-H M
^5
2013
-32-
-------
n
0
s
„- .e
4 Q) M«
CO
o
4?
n
.at
CO
4>
CO
bO
j* fi
1$
0 CO
£
•o
0 E?
» »
£ o
Cm
4»
at
4>
CO
Q)
^5
^s
Industrial
Facilit
CO
a
o
ex
n
-H
a
0
bO
£g
o
CO
fcw
J^
1%
10
•o
jj
H
4)
3
r-4
•H
CO
o
g
o
^
c
•H
a
o
Grease separati
and septic tank
* S
ft V
O
If
cu
K
Q
o
c
o
•^
4^
o
•^
"8
O5
at at
f^ ^^
o o
bo bo
C3 C*
^E *cC
vi o
O J*j
tTJ
0
II
H O
XA
O
H
*
•o
0 g
s-. at
•t
c PI a «
0 < 5 S -
•rl 4* -rl O C
0) 4> -rl O
Oil separation,
exchange with w
cyanide destruc
chromium reduct
cyanide isolati
facilities
S-,
0
I
CO
n}
i-l
1
§
^r4
4-3
n
^j
co O
4» -H
O Di
•H h
+> O
1
O
«
©
fi
3
J^
"n
f5
M
*Q
2
«
4> 4>
n m
•H -H
« «
n
^
1
I
W
O
_-J
H
0
1
rl H
Bar screens, ai
flotation and s
lagoons
0
[J
0
to
4*
(.1
at
i
b
3
a
o
o
f^
r-l
at
4>
a
%h
fH Co
~4 "2
O rH
0
^
O
*o
C* *O
Cg C3
« ,a
o c
Grease separati
blood collectio
soil absorption
.O Q)
0) 4J
co
' %
£K
fl (3
Co O
i^ ^_j
•f^
o p.
•H ^
b
CO
ex
g
5
O
bo
c
•T1
-M
{J
(2
"tt:
CO RJ
2 "5
aQ
^^
g
o
!
33
O
$
O
H
to
•a
a
T3 O
C3 Oi
CO
Oil separation
soil absorption
0
Jj
CO
4*
£4
Co
i
g
4»
CL
OT
to
h
^3
c
0)
0
Vj
.0 |
J, g
S5 W
J4
0
0
O
r4
1
*H
O
^4
O
•aj
_J
*O ^rj
§0 0
n n
r-l Oi CO
Fine screens, b
collection, gre
separation, and
absorption pond
i
n 5)
a +>
M
M
w O
4» iH
^3
O Qi
•H (H
&§
0
H
§
CO
13
3
3
h
_j
n
£
r*|
•§ *!
o 3
2014
-33-
-------
2015
B>
V
il
5
CO
I
W
§
8
o*
CM
o
8
o
H
?1
!"g«
-P -H O
2^53
S-5&
« H O
mow
*°-3
1
Qo
Goshen
to §
P
-P N
•H
(O to
OJ -P
So1
P, N
g
o
Penn Electric S
Qoshen
or
Goshen
8
o
1
1
g
0 tt
•H 00
I >>
ea
Co O
-P -H
O Qi
•H f-c
•P
o
8
1
a
g
a
&•
o
09
•8
o
w
S c
3 o
+> lH
O "S)
•H h
•P O
o
8
aJ -p
ta
' &
,1
.sl-
O
e
ord
I
t
4
m
*»
M
J3
O
o
4* O
p, m
I
•-9
J
O
8
O
S
O
K
K
OH "^H ^^B 0 «
£ ^X If
1
OB
O
m
8
CM
8
-------
co
0)
6
«S
O
O
•d-a
•H fl>
tn W
•P O
r.
,98
CO
ial Was
lities
us
F
I
•rl
a
0
1
o
CM
O
O
!
§
I
o
n
•8
CO
4*
to
.a o
•P T«
u
'-H
O U
Pi «
(0
55
§
as as
21
o
UN
H
Csl
<3
•2 S
•"^
n
•P O
"8
CQ
CM
O
§
I
«
-35-
2016
«>
-------
2017
1 PERRY MILLER
2 MR. STEIN: As usual, a very excellent
3 and comprehensive and incisive report.
4 Are there any comments or questions?
5 I have three, and I hope they are
6 three short ones.
7 One, did the Federal Republic Steel
g case have any effect on the change of the steel
9 company*s operations as far as you know?
10 MR. MILLER: I don't know that I under-
11 stand the question, Murray.
12 MR. STEIN: Do you remember when they
13 had that Republic Steel case on the dumping of
14 the material that they had to dredge out? Did
15 that ever change internal operations and reduce
16 the material put out in the streams?
17 MR. MILLER: The Republic Steel Company
18 I think you are talking about is located on the
19 Calumet River in Illinois.
20 MR. STEIN: Yes.
21 MR. MILLER: And I am not familiar with
22 what happened there.
23 MR. STEIN: I think you may be right on
24 that.
25 Do you know, Mr. Kla-snen, if they had
-------
2018
1 PERRY MILLER
2 any reduction--
3 MR. KLASSEN: Up to this point, Mr.
4 Chairman, I really was straining to hear what
5 you said. You weren't speaking in the microphone.
6 MR. STEIN: Yes, I am sorry.
7 Did the Republic Steel case, the past
8 Federal action, have any effect on the operations
9 and discharges of Republic Steel into the Illinois
10 waters?
11 MR. KLASSEN: This I don't know. Repub-
12 lie Steel is under the Jurisdiction of the
13 Metropolitan Sanitary District.
14 (Laughter.)
15 MR, STEIN: You see the thicket we can
16 get into.
17 Now I have one more point, and this is
18 something I recognize your State righters do for
19 propaganda reasons, but you talked about the
20 municipal grants and the Federal Government
21 commitment to provide funds. I would like to
22
point out thajb- this was merely a Federal a\i•"-]•>ori-
oq
ration to get a Federal appropriation. The money
24 isn't in the bank. As far as I know, this is not
25 a commitment. If this were a commitment, and I
-------
2019
1 PERRY MILLER
2 know how you Hoosiers feel about big Federal
3 expenditures, I would like you to add up sometime
4 all the authorizations the Congress has ever
5 made and if we have a budget to meet those
6 authorizations, I wonder how you would like that
7 kind of commitment.
8 So I think we both understand that
9 process and I recognize that if the people
10 representing the State governments want to say
11 that is a commitment,, that is all right.
12 Now, one other brief comment--
13 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman.
14 MR. STEIN: Yes.
15 MR. HOLMER: Are you saying that the
16 authorization is not a commitment?
17 MR. STEIN: I surely am. If it were a
18 commitment, you would be able to take us to court
19 and get your money. No authorization, just a
20 mere authorization, is a commitment. As far as
21 I am concerned, that is a hunting license and
22 you have to make that come up in an-appropriation.
23 A lot of these fellows have been for
24 years working on specific water projects and
25 getting them through and getting authorizations
-------
2020
1 PERRY MILLER
2 many years in advance, and it took them five,
3 six, seven, ten years to get an appropriation.
4 I don't think this is peculiar to this
5 program or peculiar to the Federal Government,
6 but I think it is in the State too. We have had
7 many wonderful State programs which have "been
g enacted that Just didn't get funds.
9 By the same token, I think Mr. Klassen
10 alluded to something before. Illinois has as
11 good a State water pollution control law as you
12 are going to have in the United States. He
13 talked about asking for funds for the past three
14 legislatures and they're not increasing the funds,
15 I wonder Just by passing the law whether the State
16 legislature had this commitment.
17 It is not a commitment. This is our
18 type of government. And I think there are two
19 processes here, one is the authorization process
20 or the basic law process and the other is the
21 appropriation. You know, in our society we need
22 both and the proof of the pudding is getting up
23 the money. But no commitment is made until the
24 money is appropriated. I think this should be
25 well understood as to how our government operates.
-------
2021
! PERRY MILLER
2 MR. HOLMER: Let me ask one other
3 question about how our government operates, and
4 I will not pursue this facet of it.
g I think some of us were left a little
6 confused, and I would just like clarification
7 for my own information from Mr. Klassen, as to
8 the relationship between his Board and the Sanitary
9 District.
10 Did I understand that you have no juris-
11 diction in the Metropolitan Sanitary District?
12 MR. KLASSEN: Let me clarify this.
13 The Sanitary Water Board law of the State
14 of Illinois gives exemption to the Metropolitan
15 Sanitary District, not by name, but by stating
16 that any Sanitary District with a population of
17 a million or more. The last session of the legis-
lg lature amended the Sanitary District Act, not the
19 Metropolitan Sanitary District Act, the Sanitary
20 Water Board Act, amended it. We now have authority
21 to set and enforce water quality standards. But
22 the primary responsibility for meeting those
23 standards rests with the Metropolitan Sanitary
24 District. The only Jurisdiction that the State
25 of Illinois has over the Sanitary District now is
-------
2022
1 PERRY MILLER
2 to set and enforce water quality standards, which
3 we have done and are doing.
4 MR. HOLMER: Thank you.
5 MR. STEIN: Mr. Holmer.
6 MR. HOLMER: I have one more comment
7 for you, Mr. Chairman, and that is to point
8 with pride to Wisconsin's appropriation procedure,
9 which might frighten some people but has been
10 fairly satisfactory for Wisconsin.
11 Our water pollution control assistance
12 to local government is financed by a sum suffi-
13 cient appropriation. In other words, the treasury
14 is open up to a limit of $6 million. Our present
15 appropriation is only $1 million to meet our
16 obligations, but if it were necessary to go to
17 $6 million a year, that sum has already been
18 appropriated. And if the Federal Congress wants
!9 to borrow from Wisconsin's book, they are welcome.
20 MR. STEIN: I know the U S. Congress
21 has looked to Wisconsin, as to the other States,
22 for many legislative innovations. I suspect if
23 we bring that Wisconsin proposal to our national
24 Legislature they might say that is where the
25 cheese is binding.
-------
2023
1 PERRY MILLER
2 (Laughter.)
3 I notice that your steel company
4 schedule, and this is one we are particularly
5 interested in, dealing with United States
6 Steel, Youngstown and Inland, the way I
7 understood this, you have pared off quite a
8 few dates with the United States Steel Corpora-
9 tion and we are getting a lot closer together.
10 And Youngstown, as far as I can see,
11 all the applicable dates remain the same,
12 condition unchanged.
13 And Inland Steel, and I wish them
14 luck, I knew they would do this, the big
15 improvement that they have made is in their
16 deep well.
17 Otherwise the dates remain the same.
18 MR. MILLER: I think the one big thing
19 at Inland that still needs to be completed is the
20 terminal--
21 MR. STEIN: Yes.
22 MR. MILLER: And if you remember the
23 pictures that PWPCA shows, it even shows that
24 the work has started on the fill for this. So
25 while it is completion in '70, work is currently
-------
2024
1 PERRY MILLER
2 underway on parts of it.
3 MR. STEIN: Yes. But that terminal
4 facility, you won't be able to throw the ,switch
6 until—
6 MR. MILLER: May '70.
7 MR. STEIN: It is '70 on your best
g estimate.
9 By the way, this, terminal facility,
10 at least the plans and the plant and the projec-
H tion according to all the technical information
12 I have, is a really wonderful thing and should
13 be examined and looked at as a method of finishing
14 off the residual wastes in the Inland Mill.
15 Any other comments or questions?
16 MR. KLASSEN: I would just like to ask,
17 I think directed toward you, Mr. Chairman. It
18 refers here to your original timetable with June
19 1970.
20 MR. STEIN: Yes, I noticed that.
21 MR. KLASSEN: I believe — correct me
22 if I am wrong--! believe that this is the original
23 timetable in reference to the State of Indiana,
24 not for the Conferees.
25 And may I ask you, Mr. Stein, because
-------
2025
1 PERRY MILLER
2 you have been the Chairman of the Illinois-Indiana
3 Conference, is the present timetable, the official
4 date of that Conference, December 1968? And what
5 has Secretary Udall done about any change so far
5 as that that was recommended by a three-to-one
7 vote on the September 11 meeting?
g MR. STEIN: I did a double take on that
9 too, Mr. Klassen, when Mr. Miller read that. I
10 assume you meant the original timetable for the
11 State, is that it?
12 MR. MILLER: As I read it, I had some
13 words added and it says, "The original timetable
14 accepted by the Board was--"
15 MR. STEIN: Yes. Now, Mr. Klassen is
16 entirely correct, the date established by the
17 Federal-State Conference for the lower end of
18 Lake Michigan involving Illinois and Indiana,
19 the Sanitary District and the Federal Government,
20 set December '68 as the date. This date has
21 been endorsed and adopted and recommended by
22 Secretary Stewart Udall. In response to many
23 inquiries Mr. Udall says he has not changed the
24 date nor does he have any present intentions of
25 changing that date.
-------
2026
1 PERRY MILLER
2 We, of course, are always open to
3 any additional information, evidence, and the
4 door is always open for discussion.
5 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't
6 want to belabor this point, but this is extremely
7 important to the State of Illinois.
g At the September 11 Conference, by a
9 vote of three to one of the Conferees, it was
10 voted to extend this to June 1970. Subsequently,
11 not officially, but unofficially, I read in the
12 paper that this vote was changed three to one the
13 other way.
14 Now, I directed a communication to
15 Secretary Udall on December 18 on behalf of the
16 Illinois Sanitary Water Board as to what the
17 status is. Is he going to accept the recom-
18 mendations of the Conferees at the September 11
19 meeting to extend the deadline? Is he going to
20 reject that recommendation? And, if so, how
21 is that going to fit into the June 1970 date
22 that the Secretary has already approved for
23 Indiana? This is something that we would like
24 clarified.
25 MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, here, and I
-------
2027
1 PERRY MILLER
2 thought, I hoped you had gotten a letter back
3 from the Secretary then.
4 That meeting you talked about was
5 what month, September?
6 MR. KLASSEN: September 11.
7 MR. STEINt September 11. On Septem-
8 ber 11 we didn't hold a session of the Conference;
9 we held a progress meeting. At the progress
10 meeting a discussion of the extension of the
11 deadline was held. This progress meeting did
12 not stop there, but we had another day. The
13 second day, as you recall, involved a visit to
14 the United States Steel plant,
15 Now, after the remarks at that meeting—
16 unfortunately I think you had to leave for an
17 ORSANCO meeting, but the statements we had at
18 the end of the meeting was that three of the
19 Conferees, yourself, Mr. Poston and Mr. John
20 Egan of the Sanitary District,were not in favor
21 of the extension.
22 We viewed this proceeding as a whole.
23 We gave the results of this to the Secretary.
24. Mayor Daley made an inquiry, and I think the
25 substance of Secretary Udall's response to Mayor
-------
2028
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Daley was about as I gave it: He was not
3 extending the deadline nor did he presently
4 contemplate to extend the deadline.
5 Now, I recognize that you and Mr.
6 Poole may have had a prior commitment that
7 only permitted you to stay for half of that
8 meeting, but the meeting wasn't over yet. We
9 had another day.
10 MR. KLASSEN: Do I understand that
11 the September 11 meeting was continued on the
12 property of the U* S. Steel Corporation the
13 next day and you voted? If you did, I never
14 heard--
15 MR. STEIN: No, we don't have any
16 votes on progress meetings. We have an expression
17 of opinion.
18 Now, there was a 1968 date set. There
19 was an expression of opinion on the--the date was
20 not changed of the previous progress meeting and
21 the views given by the Conferees indicated that
22 they didn't change their mind afterwards. There
23 was no vote. Unless there was positive action,
24 we didn't change any official position, and I am
25 not sure, Mr. Klassen, that at a progress meeting
-------
2029
1 PERRY MILLER
2 other than a conference we are empowered to do
3 that. There was no change.
4 In other words, the original Federal
5 date was at the end of December 1968. I think
6 nothing has led the Secretary up to the present
7 time to change his recommendations endorsing
8 that date, and as far as I know after the last
9 progress meeting three of the Conferees indicated
10 their endorsement and satisfaction of that date.
11 MR. KLASSEN: All right. Then you have
12 answered my question, I believe.
13 The official date of the Conferees is
14 December 1968 that has been approved by Secretary
15 Udall?
16 MR. STEIN: That is correct.
17 MR. KLASSEN: How is that fitting into
18 Secretary Udall's approval of the Indiana deadline
19 of June 1970? It looks like he is approving two
20 dates.
21 This is all I am asking for, this
22 clarification.
23 MR. STEIN: I see. As far as I know
24 we are dealing with an enforcement case and
25 Secretary Udall has indicated that he has approved
-------
2030
1 PERRY MILLER
2 the December 1968 date. That is our enforcement
3 function. That is the date that prevails in this
4 enforcement case.
5 MR. KLASSEN: You haven't answered my
Q question, but I am not going to belabor it.
7 MR. STEIN: Are there any further
g questions or comments?
9 MR. POSTON: I have a question for Mr.
10 Miller.
11 MR. STEIN: Yes.
12 MR. POSTON: It pertains to his No. 5
13 recommendations, discharge of wastes from water-
14 craft. It indicates that you do not permit
15 watercraft under your boating law to discharge
16 human waste.
17 Does this mean then that if you
18 included Lake Michigan in your law that it would
19 be unlawful then to discharge any human wastes
20 into Lake Michigan and that you would then be
21 consistent with the ordinance that the City of
22 Chicago has, for example?
23 MR. MILLER: As I read the boating law,
24 this is what it says, that you cannot discharge
25 human wastes into waters in the State of Indiana,
-------
2031
1 PERRY MILLER
2 but it excepts Lake Michigan. So if this
3 were taken out it would apply to all the waters
4 in Lake Michigan as well.
5 MR.BOSTON: Did you have any date in
6 mind when you might make the new law applicable
7 to Lake Michigan?
8 MR. MILLER: Well, again I would come
9 back, we go to the legislature in 19&9* and
10 hopefully if it would be enacted then there
11 would be discussions and I at this time couldn't
12 say. But again, it would come back to the
13 passage of a law and then enforcement of it.
14 MR. POSTON: That is all I had.
15 MR. STEIN: Are there any comments
16 or questions?
17 (No response.)
18 MR. STEIN: If there are none
19 thank you very much.
20 MR. MILLER: I had one other, Mr.
21 Chairman.
22 MR. POOLE: We have a brief statement,
23 Mr. Chairman, by the Indiana Attorney General,
24 which Mr. Miller will read while he is up there.
25 MR. STEIN: All right.
-------
2032
1 JOHN J. DILLON
2
STATEMENT OP THE HONORABLE.JOHN J. DILLON
3
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
4
THE STATE OF INDIANA
5
Prepared for the Federal Conference on the
6
Pollution of Lake Michigan, convened by the
7
Honorable Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the
8
United States Department of the Interior.
9
February 5> 1968 - Sherman House - Chicago, Illinois
10 (Read by Mr. Perry Miller.)
11 I regret that previous commitments
12 prevent my attendance in person at the Four-
13 State Conference on Pollution of Lake Michigan.
14 Indiana officials and legislators are
15 firmly committed to the protection of our water
16 resources, including the waters of Lake Michigan
17 on which Indiana has a shoreline of about 45
18 miles, and the Attorney General has the ultimate
19 responsibility for enforcement of our pollution
20 control program.
21 The Indiana General Assembly of 19^3
22 created the State Stream Pollution Control Board
23 and subsequent legislatures have strengthened the
24 State pollution abatement program.
25 In 1967 a new Clean Water program was
-------
2033
1 JOHN J. DILLON
2 enacted which concentrated on a positive approach
3 to pollution abatement. The positive program is
4 threefold:
5 1. It exempts from the property
6 tax rolls facilities for water
7 pollution control installed and
8 operated by industrial plants in
9 Indiana.
10 2. It grants State funds to cities
11 and towns equal to 25 percent of the
12 cost of municipal sewage treatment
13 facilities.
14 3- It provides for and requires the
15 certification of operators of sewage
16 and industrial waste treatment facili-
17 ties.
18 Indiana's Clean Water program, including
19 standards, inducements and enforcement, was approveji
20 by the United States Department of the Interior in
21 July 1967.
22 As one of four States adjacent to Lake
23 Michigan,, Indiana shares with Illinois, Michigan
24 and Wisconsin in the benefits of this priceless
25 natural resource and in the responsibility for
-------
2034
JOHN J. DILLON
2 its protection.
3 The Attorneys General of our four States
met in Chicago, November 3, 1967, to discuss our
common enforcement problems and procedures for
pollution abatement of Lake Michigan. I understand
7 that copies of the statement issued at that Novem-
8 ber 3 meeting have been distributed by Attorney
General Prank J. Kelley of Michigan to Conferees
at this present meeting.
You will see from that statement that
12 the four Attorneys General agreed (1) to identify
the polluters of Lake Michigan from their respec-
14 tive States, (2) to make this information mutually
15 available, and (3) to cooperate in concerted
16 enforcement actions against the identified pol-
17 luters.
18 A list of Indiana polluters has been
compiled by the State Stream Pollution Control
20 Board. I trust it will be made available to this
21 conference as well as to the chief legal officers
22 of Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. The four
23 Attorneys General expect to meet together in the
24 very near future to plan and implement a vigorous
25 four-State enforcement program against major
-------
2035
1 JOHN J. DILLON
2 polluters.
3 I appreciate the opportunity given my
4 office to participate in the present conference,
5 and I Join the Governor of our State in pledging
6 Indiana cooperation in the effort to preserve
7 the waters of Lake Michigan.
8 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
9 I have one more question that relates
10 to your previous statement.
11 There has been some question raised
12 from time to time on your industrial waste informa-
13 tion. For the purpose of enforcement action, I
14 have always found the detailed reports and open
15 records of Indiana completely satisfactory for
16 our purposes. I would commend some of the States ojn
17 reporting techniques, not necessarily the States
18 here, but some of the other States, because I
19 think it is just fine. I think I can put my finger
20 on every plant and every mill within the Federal
21 enforcement area and be able to answer a question
22 as to what is occurring. So far as we are con-
23 cerned, we are eminently satisfied with the
24 information and reporting.
25 Now, I would like to ask Mr. Poston.a
question.
-------
2036
1 PERRY MILLER
2 Mr. Poston, are you satisfied with the
3 industrial waste data you are getting from Indiana?
4 MR. POSTON: Very much so. We have been
5 down recently and reviewed the information in
6 connection with t;his report, and for general
7 perusal of the data as to its adequacy, and we
g find that it is very adequate for our purposes.
9 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
10 MR. MILLER: Thank you very much.
11 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
12 (Applause.)
13 MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole.
14 MR. POOLE: Next I am going to call on
15 Marjory Crawford, who represents Save the Dunes
16 Council. She has told me she will hold it to
17 three to five minutes.
18
10 STATEMENT OF MARJORY CRAWFORD
20 BOARD MEMBER
21 SAVE THE DUNES COUNCIL
22
23 MRS. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, members
24 of the panel. My name is Marjory Crawford. I
25 am a Board Member of Save the Dunes Council and
-------
2037.
1 MARJORY CRAWFORD
2 the statement I am about to read represents
3 the views of Save the Dunes Council.
4 The Save the Dunes Council was formed
5 in 1952 for the purpose of preserving the Indiana
6 dunes for public use in essentially its natural
7 state. This basic objective was realized with
8 the establishment of the Indiana Dunes National
9 Lakeshore.
10 The current goal of the Save the Dunes
11 Council is to protect the basic purpose, aims and
12 objectives of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
13 The purity of the waters of Lake Michigan is
14 obviously an important part of this goal.
15 For the past 16 years, we have per-
16 sonally witnessed the deterioration of Lake
17 Michigan which has accelerated over the past
18 five years. Within this relatively short period
19 of time, the visible amounts of pollutants such
20 as oil, debris, seaweed, and algae have increased
21 alarmingly.
22 Approved water quality standards are a
23 base from which to build stricter standards. We
24 request that all of Lake Michigan be classified
25 for "whole body" contact. To do otherwise in
-------
2038
1 MARJORY CRAWFORD
2 outer waters and harbor vicinities is, in effect,
3 a license to pollute. We oppose this.
4 Lower water quality standards for waters
5 adjacent to industrial areas in northern Indiana
6 will obviously adversely affect the beaches of
7 the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore as well as
g all other existing public and private beaches in
9 this area. There can be no walls or dikes erected
10 between waters polluted and waters unpolluted.
11 In addition to combating present pol-
12 lution problems, our advancing technology is
13 creating at least one new problem for the 1970s.
l4 Presently planned or authorized for the Indiana-
15 Michigan shoreline are four nuclear power gener-
16 atirig .plants. The threat of thermal pollution of
17 Lake Michigan by discharge of superheated cooling
lg water from such plants must be examined carefully
19 and safeguards must be set up. Prevention is much
20 cheaper than cure.
21 Of a more urgent nature is the present
22 situation. We have learned that while Illinois
23 steel mills and other industries will meet the
24 water pollution deadline, Indiana steel companies
25 claim that they need "more time" to build pollution
-------
2039
1 MARJORY CRAWFORD
2 abatement facilities — two more years, in fact.
3 We wonder what the Indiana steel companies have
4 been doing the past two years while the Illinois
5 companies were preparing for and expecting to
6 meet the 1968 deadline. Perhaps the Indiana
7 steel companies believed that the Indiana water
8 pollution enforcement agency would back down in
9 the face of a united "foot-dragging" campaign.
10 In fact, this seems to be just what is happening.
H We have personally observed the steel
12 companies design and construct a completely new
13 steel mill complex in less time than they now
14 claim they need to install pollution abatement
15 equipment. When Bethlehem Steel wanted to level
16 the Indiana Dunes, hundreds of vehicles, operating
17 day and night, destroyed in six months what it
18 took Nature 10,000 years to create. With such
19 technological ability at hand, we are nevertheless
20 • told by the steel companies that it will take many
21 years to clean up the filth being discharged into
22 Lake Michigan.
23 We believe there is no excuse for not
24 meeting the 1968 deadline. We ask for an ac-
25 celerated construction schedule for facilities
-------
20*1-0
1 MARJORY CRAWFORD
2 which will help safeguard the health of the
3 American people.
4 Zone standards presently proposed are
5 designed to decelerate the rate of increase of
6 pollution. These must be rapidly supplemented
7 by effluent standards designed to eliminate all
g discharge of pollutants into the lake. We will
9 accept nothing less than cessation of all pollu-
10 tion of Lake Michigan. Then hopefully we can
11 begin the difficult task of restoring Lake Michigan
12 to its former purity.
13 Thank you.
14 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
15 Are there any comments or questions?
16 (No response.)
17 MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
18 Mr. Poole, I wonder if you would give
19 me Just a few seconds. I have a message here from
20 one of my many bosses, but some messages, as they
21 say, are more immediate than others. This is from
22 Congressman John C. Kluczynski,who is a member of
23 the Public Works Committee. And you know, we go
24 before the Public Works Committee, at least I do.
25
-------
2041
! CONGRESSMAN JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI
2
3 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE.JOHN,C. KLUCZYNSKI
4 U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
5 FIFTH DISTRICT ILLINOIS
6
7 Thank you very much for giving me the
g opportunity to Join you in this discussion of what
9 can and must be done, and what I am confident will
10 be done, to insure the life of our lakes. On
H Tuesday of this week, Colonel Anderson of the
12 Corps of Engineers met with several of the members
13 of the Illinois Congressional delegation in my
14 office to give us a briefing on the information
15 that General Tarbox presented on behalf of the
16 Corps of Engineers here in Chicago this week.
17 This is going to be an expensive program, and a
18 long term one, but I am satisfied that the Corps
19 of Engineers, as well as all of the other Federal
20 &nd State agencies involved, are planning their
21 future work carefully to give us as much help as
22 possible on preventing future pollution and clean-
23 ing up what already exists.
24 The Public Works Committee, as most of
25 y°u know, is responsible for Federal legislation
-------
2042
1 CONGRESSMAN JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI
2 dealing with water pollution, and I can assure
3 you that we will continue to keep a close watch
on everything that is done. We know how big this
5 problem is,not only for Lake Michigan but through-
g out the Nation, and I know that every member of
7 the Public Works Committee shares my personal
determination to see that the water pollution
control programs are carried out.
10 MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole.
n MR. POOLE: I will call on Mr. Gene
12 Minney, who represents the Indiana Division of
13 the Izaak Walton League. He has told me 15
14 minutes, 20 minutes as a maximum.
15
16 STATEMENT OF E. EUGENE MINNEY
17 REPRESENTING THE INDIANA DIVISION
18 THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OP AMERICA
19
20 MR. MINNEY: Mr. Chairman, representa-
21 tives of the different States and organizations
22 that are interested in water pollution.
23 My name is Gene Minney. I am President
24 of the inner chapter group in Lake County, which
25 consists of 15 organizations. I am also on the
-------
2043
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 Committee on Air and Water Pollution, State of
3 Indiana, representing the Division.
4 Just a word to Mr, Stein. If you ever
5 have any trouble with that cheese that is binding,
6 we would like to invite you over to our section
7 and drink a little of that water. I guarantee
g you it might unbind that cheese that is binding.
9 (Laughter.)
10 I am appearing here today on behalf
H of the Indiana Division of the Izaak Walton League
12 of America and for our organization's Water Quality
13 Task Force, of which I am a member.
14 The posture of the League throughout the
15 course of hearings in all parts of the State on
16 water quality is well established and well known
17 to the Board and other State and Federal agencies
18 dealing with the problems of environmental pol-
19 lution.
20 By reference, our statement today in-
21 eludes recommendations in our general letter of
22 September 7, which was given to the Indiana Stream j
I
[
23 Pollution Board, especially in regard to water
24 temperature and tolerable chemical pollutants, by
25 our water quality chairman, Mr. Wayne Stapf. This
-------
2044
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 letter is already in the records of the Board.
3 By reference, the Indiana Division and its Water
4 Quality Task Force also support and endorse the
5 statement of the Glen Park Chapter of the League,
6 our largest Lake County unit, which has main-
7 tained a strong and continuing interest in the
8 problems of water and air pollution in this area
9 and elsewhere. That statement will be offered at
10 this hearing.
H I cannot overemphasize the League's
12 position that DILUTION IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO
13 POLLUTION. We have reiterated this position at
14 every hearing, and that policy is thoroughly
15 established throughout our national organization.
16 in March of 1965, some of us attended a pollution
17 conference in Chicago, attended also by officials
18 of your Board. At that time a number of interests
19 claimed a high degree of effluent purity. As
20 testimony developed, however, it was learned that
21 a number of such claims were based upon pumping
22 great quantities of clean Lake Michigan water
23 into some form of receiving area for purposes of
24 mixing toxic and obnoxious materials, after which
25 the mixed solution was discharged to the lake.
-------
20*1-3
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 The percentage of pollution was related not to
3 the removal or reclamation of polluting materials,
4 but to how much water might be drawn in to dilute
5 it. The Izaak Walton League thoroughly disagrees
6 with this method of handling wastes; and we would
7 infer that the Board would not approve such
g techniques in its implementation and enforcement
9 program.
10 Our position, well stated by the Glen
11 Park Chapter, is that both the outer and shore
12 waters of Lake Michigan should meet all tests for
13 whole body contact at all times. All shoreline
14 areas, especially which are now used in any way
15 for public recreation, or which are authorized by
16 Federal legislation for that purpose, must be re-
17 stored and maintained to meet this use. Under no
18 conditions should any such areas be permitted to
19 fall below whole body contact nor a quality
20 required for sustained, reproducing communities
21 of aquatic life which would occur at the natural
22 temperatures of the lake.
23 We would like to make special reference
24 at this point to the dumping of polluted dredged
25 materials into Lake Michigan under auspices of
-------
2046
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 the Army Corps of Engineers. And may I say
3 that many conservationists these days cannot
4 utter the words "Army Corps of Engineers"
5 without a slight feeling of nausea. It is just
Q getting terrible. You find any stream that is
7 to be straightened out, any dam that is to flood
3 some beautiful valley, the natural sandstone,
9 ledges of the Kankakee River, which they want
10 to dynamite right now, and in good old Hoosier
11 vernacular, you find the Corps of Engineers
12 sitting right smack dab in the middle of the
13 muddy puddle.
14 Now, as I say, we would like to make
15 special reference at this point to the dumping
16 of polluted dredged materials into Lake Michigan
17 under the auspices of the Army Corps of Engineers.
18 Our March 12 State director's meeting in Evansville
19 Indiana, took direct action on this question, and
20 since it is relevant to the purpose of this hear-
21 ing, we ask that it be inserted in the record at
22 this point. I will not read the resolution, but
23 it opposes this dumping and calls for an Immediate
24 halt, not today, not next week, but last week.
25 We were, I would like to add, dismayed by a recent
-------
204?
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 statement in the Senate Congressional Record in
3 which Senator Vance Hartke indicated this dumping
4 practice would be halted forthwith; he based this
5 forecast upon a Joint statement said to have been
6 issued by the Army Engineers and the Department
7 of the Interior. However, we read that Joint
8 statement, and found no commitment whatever for
9 halting this dumping now. The statement said the
10 matter would be studied, as usual. The Izaak
11 Walton League is on record calling for a halt to
12 this right now; if it is not stopped, the recrea-
13 tional qualities of the entire southern tip of Lake
14 Michigan are jeopardized.
15 Since it bears upon a water use, we would
16 also wish to introduce for the record two addition-
17 al resolutions adopted by our March 12 Board
18 session; and I add that all three of these resolu-
19 tions were approved unanimously. The first of thes
20 latter two supports a free-flow stream condition
21 for the Little Calumet River east of the Portage-
22 Westchester boundary for which we also request
23 quality amendments for whole body contact and cold
24 water aquatic life; and the second supports the
25 principles of two Federal measures, HR25 and 8695,
-------
2048
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 the estuarine bills. Among the provisions of
3 these measures are requirements for Department
4 of the Interior approval for any lake filling
5 of estuarine areas, including the shorelines
6 of the Great Lakes.
7 It is relevant in our testimony at
8 this time to refer also to new methods of waste
9 disposal in this basin. We refer to the technique
10 of "needling" waste liquors into deep well dis-
11 posal areas. It is our understanding that three
12 permits have been issued for this technique, and
13 that disposal is into Precambrian rock some 4,000
14 feet below the surface along Lake Michigan. The
15 Izaak Walton League has not opposed this approach,
16 but we would want our concern to be part of the
17 record. It could be argued that the effluent from
18 any one plant poses no problem; and we understand
10 that there are assurances that injection of
20 materials into this layer will never pose a
21 threat to surface waters. However, these assur-
22 ances would be difficult to confirm. And who in
23 God's name wants to take the responsibility of
24 pumping this into the strata with a chance of
25 it coming up again in 10, 15, 20 or 30 years?
-------
2049
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 The world stood on its hind legs to condemn
3 Hitler for murdering millions of Jews, but I
4 wonder how many people we would be murdering
5 if this poison came to the surface and it was
6 in our surface water. We point out that this
7 method appears to be more an alternative to
8 releasing pollutants into surface streams than
9 it is a method of separating and recovering
10 waste materials.
n A member of our State Water Quality
12 Task Force, Dr. William Eberly, an eminent
13 aquatic biologist of Manchester College, has
14 recommended that the appropriate public agencies
15 should develop testing stations in connection
16 with deep well disposal in such a way as would
17 firmly corroborate the general opinion that
18 this is a safe way to handle the problem. We
19 fully support this proposal, and point out that
20 an error in Judgment today, especially in its
21 needling process, could create an irreversible
22 and catastrophic pollution problem for tomorrow.
23 The fact that none of us here today may live to
24 see the day when the error becomes evident is
25 neither a moral nor an ethical argument against
-------
20^0
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 being sure what we are doing is right. Therefore,
3 we ask that as part of the implementation and
4 enforcement program, the State, in conjunction
5 with the Federal Government, develop and install
6 a testing system which will confirm or contradict
7 the deep well approach as a viable alternative to
8 surface treatment and elimination of toxic
9 materials.
10 We note in the Board's recommendations,
11 that is the pollution board of the State of Indiana
12 on page 7 that reuse of water is suggested wherever
13 possible. We strongly subscribe to this idea,
14 and think it is inherent in any conservation-
15 oriented program.
16 We generally concur with regulations
17 proposed by the Board, insofar as we understand
lg them to be within limits which will permit a well-
19 balanced, healthy and sustained aquatic life
20 population and limited contact recreational uses
21 for all the waters of the basin as a bottom
22 threshold quality—in addition to direct contact
23 qualities called for above. We assume that the
24 Board includes swimming and whole body contact in
25 its first item under summary of uses when it says
-------
2051
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 "water-oriented recreation" in the discussion of
3 Lake Michigan.
4 The Izaak Walton League supports the
5 implementation and enforcement recommendations,
6 tut does not concur with paragraph 5, insofar
7 as the period for achievement is specified.
8 Indefinite words like "some", "not all", "as soon
9 as practicable", is no requirement at all, or the
10 words "most", "in most cases." This is not a
11 requirement in any sense of the word. That is
12 about as indefinite as you can get. We refer
13 to the December 1966 promulgation from the
14 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
15 which states no plan will be accepted which does
16 not provide the remedy within five years except
17 in very extenuating circumstances, and even then
18 not more than ten years. Combined storm and
19 sanitary sewers were among the few conditions
20 which FWPCA cited in the 10-year region. A time
21 limit should be established for the achievement
22 of all proposed standards, or they will never be
23 brought about.
24 I We are certain that the Board will hear
25 many appeals asking for "more study" and other
-------
20^2
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 requests which will delay or even defeat the
3 Intent of the Water Quality Act of 1965. It
4 was the intent of Congress in passing this
5 law and the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966
6 to move ahead on a definite timetable toward
7 protecting those waters which were not already
8 polluted and restoring those waters which are
9 contaminated. The timetable, as we are sure the
10 Board appreciates, is the key to this whole
11 affair; and that without it, all of the fine
12 standards and criteria are meaningless. And I
13 am sure you agree with me.
14 We wish to review once again the prob-
15 lems of temperature as that relates to proposed
16 water qualities. We commend the Board for re-
17 ducing the maximum warm water aquatic life value
18 to 60° F from an original value of 73° F. Dr.
19 Eberly, the Board will find in its records, has
20 stated that a maximum summer temperature should
21 not greatly exceed 80° Fj and he has suggested
22 85° F as the maximum permissible. The Izaak
23 Walton League very strongly supports lowering the
24 93° F temperature to this lower value. As Dr.
25 Eberly has stated, the higher temperature will
-------
2033
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 have an adverse effect upon "warm water" forms
3 at one or more points in the overall life cycle,
4 and will adversely affect the food chain necessary
5 to sustain such a community. The higher tempera-
6 ture will also affect other environmental con-
7 ditions which collectively will not serve the
8 desired qualities.
9 Now we are becoming aware that several
10 utilities and other industries use Lake Michigan
11 waters for cooling; and we are especially mindful
12 of a proposed 800,000 kilowatt nuclear plant
13 in Porter County. Northern Indiana Public
14 Service Company has already agreed to permit
15 aquatic biologists in the Izaak Walton League
16 to review general plans with special emphasis on
17 heat exchange. As yet, we have not been informed
18 of these plans. However, we are as concerned
19 with cumulative effects as with the effects of
20 any one installation; and we assume that the Board
21 has the overall picture in mind. This we assume.
22 No one installation can be considered in a vacuum,
23 and at some point there will have to be a cutoff
24 on thermal pollution. ¥e would suggest that the
25 Board envision now the requirement for cooling
-------
203*1
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 towers or lagoons which would receive heated
3 effluents, so that--as Dr. Eberly suggests—the
4 discharge will not be substantially different
5 from that found in the stream or body of water
6 receiving it. And we mean the natural tempera-
7 tures of these streams and bodies of waters.
8 As for enforcement, we recommend a
9 system of State-operated monitoring systems.
10 We feel that the State itself should install,
11 operate, read and evaluate the degree of com-
12 pliance.
13 The Izaak Walton League recognizes
14 the horrendously polluted condition of the Grand
15 Calumet River, and we have confidence that even
16 the exceptionally poor values contained in SPC7
17 and SPC8 probably represent an improvement over
18 the frightful present conditions.
19 I repeat—probably represent an
20 improvement over the frightful present conditions.
21 It could be easier to fly a man to the moon than
22 to clean up this stream. The qualities proposed
23 for this stream would be lethal to a well-balanced
24 warm water aquatic life population, and we ask
25 that the proposed qualities be amended upward to
-------
2055
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 meet the warm water criteria. It will be diffi-
3 cult; but it will never be any easier than it is
4 now, and this objective should be achieved within
5 10 years.
6 The intent of the Act which predicated
7 this hearing and the intent of Congress which
8 passed it into law will not likely be served
9 unless this quality is established as an objec-
lO tive. We are fully aware that the State has for
H all practical purposes reserved consideration of
12 this stream because of the problems involved.
13 Yet the problem must be faced, and today is the
14 time.
15 For the record, in closing, the Izaak
16 Walton League opposes so-called "admixture" zones
17 and calls for effluent standards wherever the
18 issue of "immediate outfall area" is subject to
19 interpretation.
20 Many of us are wondering why the United
21 States Government can force industries to use
22 equal opportunity labor, and if they refuse to
23 use equal opportunity labor they pull their con-
24 tracts. Many conservationists feel that there is
25 no reason why the government can't pull any
-------
2056
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 company's contract that is polluting our waters.
3 Is there any reason why they couldn't? I ask you
4 to think about this, gentlemen.
5 We support the highest quality of waters
6 as the only acceptable approach to multiple use
7 and public interest. We oppose the designation
g of any stream or body of water for its lowest
9 common denominator, and that must include the
10 Grand Calumet.
11 In closing may I say, gentlemen, that
12 the Izaak Walton League appreciates all the hard
13 work that is being done in this area. We are
14 hoping—we are hoplng--we are praying on benaed
15 knee that something will come from this, that
16 this won't be Just the usual hodge podge and usual
17 run-around.
18 I would like to say also that over in
19 Indiana most of us feel like we would like to say,
20 "God bless Mr. Udall," for I think he is one of
21 the greatest conservationists that has ever lived.
22 Thank you.
23 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Minney.
24 (Applause.)
25 (The following material was submitted
-------
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 by Mr. Minney.)
3
RESOLUTION OPPOSING DISPOSAL OF
4
POLLUTED DREDGINGS INTO LAKE MICHIGAN
5
BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OP ENGINEERS
6
7 WHEREAS, the Izaak Walton League of
8 America ^f or over 45 years has been tireless in
9 its efforts to keep America's waters clean; and,
10 WHEREAS, Lake Michigan is one of
11 Americans' greatest reservoirs of fresh clean
12 water, but is in danger of dying prematurely; and,
13 WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
14 has seen fit to dump material dredged from pol-
15 luted rivers and streams into Lake Michigan; and,
16 WHEREAS, the Public Health officials
17 have repeatedly warned of the dangers of con-
18 tinuing said dumpings; and,
19 WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Interior,
20 the Federal agency responsible for water pollution
21 control, has negotiated with the Corps of Engineers
22 toward the objective of ending said dumpings,
23 despite which, polluted material is still being
24 deposited into Lake Michigan;
25 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the
-------
2058
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 Indiana Division of the Izaak Walton League of
3 America, assembled at Evansville, Indiana, March 12
4 1967, that an immediate ending of such dumping
5 be brought about; and,
6 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Corps
7 of Engineers be required to include the cost of
g safe disposal of polluted materials, due to
9 Civil Works Projects in the benefit-cost ratio
10 of such projects, if the cost of safe disposal
11 is not undertaken by local interests or other
12 agencies; and,
13 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Indiana
14 Division of the Izaak Walton League of America
15 specifically oppose the practice of attributing
16 "water quality benefits" to the benefit-cost
17 ratio when such "benefits" are achieved by the
18 process of diluting polluted discharges; and,
19 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of
20 this resolution be sent to the Secretary of the
21 Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers, all Indiana
22 Congressmen, and appropriate Federal agencies.
23
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FREE-FLOW
24
FOR LITTLE CALUMET RIVER EAST OF
25
PORTAGE-WESTCHESTER BOUNDARY
-------
2059
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 WHEREAS, the Indiana Division of the
3 Izaak Walton League of America has long supported
4 and cooperated in the preservation and restoration
5 of productive wildlife habitat, and recognizes
6 the great importance of what remains of unaltered
7 natural environment; and,
g WHEREAS, the Little Calumet River pro-
9 vides water recreation for canoeists of many
10 organizations, who traverse the quiet pools and
11 meandering course which is enlivened by sections
12 of skill-testing rapidsj and,
13 WHEREAS, the rich flora of the bottom-
14 land and wooded beauty of the adjacent slopes
15 provide solitude and inspiration; and,
16 WHEREAS, the Little Calumet River is
17 of exceptional historical interest as a major
18 waterway of American Indians and pioneering fur
19 traders; and,
20 WHEREAS, the Bailly Homestead and
21 Trading Post, a National Registered Historic
22 Site, is situated in almost original condition
23 along the river's banks; and,
24 WHEREAS, a portion of the river valley
25 extends through the Indiana Dunes National
-------
2060
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 Lakeshore; and,
3 WHEREAS, the Porter County Plan Com-
4 mission and Indiana State law have recognized
5 the importance of maintaining a natural flood
6 plain and park-like buffer for residents of the
7 region; and,
8 WHEREAS, it is especially important
9 to retain examples of undisturbed natural en-
10 vironment as more and more lands are developed
11 and converted to other usesj and,
12 WHEREAS, few natural areas remain in
13 this region which have been spared intensive
14 development, such as this portion of the Little
15 Calumet River;
16 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the
17 Indiana Division of the Izaak Walton League of
18 America, assembled at Evansville, Indiana,
19 March 12, 19^7, that,
20 1. The Little Calumet River and its
21 natural valley flow condition represents the
22 soundest conservation principle for this resource;
23 2. The river and its flood plain should
24 be left in their natural state;
25 3. No project should be instituted
-------
2061
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 which would destroy, flood or otherwise relegate
3 the present natural qualities of the flood plain
4 and its rich habitat; and,
5 4. No structures should be considered
6 which would materially affect natural river flow
7 and levels of the Little Calumet River in the
8 Portage-Westchester area.
9 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this objec-
10 tive also be applied to the Little Calumet River
11 major tributaries, especially Salt Creek and
12 Coffee Creek, portions of which are still worthy
13 of protection; and,
14 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Indiana
15 Division of the Izaak Walton League of America
16 favors permanent protection of the Little Calumet
17 River Valley through acquisition of bottomland
18 and adjacent slopes by appropriate agencies as a
19 park or forest preserve; and,
20 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of
21 this resolution be sent to appropriate agencies
22 and officials.
23
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT
24
OF H.R. 25 and S. 695
25
-------
2062
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced
3 in the U. S. Congress for the purpose of initiating
4 a nationwide study of estuarine areas by the In-
5 terior Department for the purpose of identifying
6 those which ought to be preserved by Federal,
7 State, and/or local action; and controlling
g modification of estuaries by requiring Interior
9 Department approval of development proposals; and,
10 WHEREAS, the Izaak Walton League of
11 America has long recognized the importance of
12 estuarine areas for conservation purposes in-
13 eluding protection of fish and other aquatic life,
14 wetland animals and birds, and coastal area plant
15 lifej and,
16 WHEREAS, the Izaak Walton League of
17 America has been in the forefront of the efforts
18 to preserve significant portions of coastal areas
19 in a natural state; and,
20 WHEREAS, coastal marshlands and meadows
21 are important as absorbent areas and flood plains
22 for flood control purposes; and,
23 WHEREAS, natural shorelines, flood plain
24 areas, and estuarine areas are rapidly being
25 altered by bulkheading and filling large areas
-------
2063
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 not intended for, or necessary to, the recognized
3 legitimate use of shorelines for harbors, docks,
4 or navigation purposes; and,
5 WHEREAS, such alteration to the
6 natural shoreline, flood plain, and estuarine
7 areas results in water pollution problems,
8 destroys the aforementioned conservation values,
9 and coastal areas of potential park value, and
10 impairs the natural beauty of the surrounding
11 areas; and,
12 WHEREAS, the coastal areas of the
13 Great Lakes are especially vulnerable to the
14 problems caused by bulkheading and landfills; and,
15 WHEREAS, the Izaak Walton League of
16 America, by National Resolution of 1960, has
17 declared itself to be opposed to bulkheading
18 and filling of shoreline areas except for public
19 purposes; and,
20 WHEREAS, the only existing Federal
21 authority exercising control over such coastline
22 alterations is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
23 and,
24 WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
25 has ruled on such alterations primarily on the
-------
2064
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 basis of interference to navigation, and has
3 not given sufficient consideration to inter-
4 ference with conservation values;
5 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the
6 Indiana Division of the Izaak Walton League
7 of America, assembled at Evansville, Indiana,
8 March 12, 1967, that the aims and purposes of
9 H.R. 25 and S. 695 are hereby fullv endorsed;
10 and,
11 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies
12 of this resolution be sent to the appropriate
13 Federal, State, and local agencies and officials.
14 - - -
15
GLEN PARK CHAPTER
16
THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC,
17
GARY, INDIANA P.O. Box 1841
18
APRIL 10,1967
19
20 TO: INDIANA STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
21 SUBJECT: WATER QUALITY STANDARDS] LOWER LAKE
MICHIGAN, CALUMET RIVER BASIN
22
FROM: GLEN PARK CHAPTER, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE
23 OF AMERICA, INC.
24
GENTLEMEN:
25
-------
2065
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 For over 45 years the Izaak Walton League
3 has maintained a policy of working for clean waters
4 as part of an overall healthy and productive out-
5 door environment and the multiple-use concept
6 of all of America's natural resources. It is my
7 privilege today to represent the Glen Park Chapter
8 of the League, located at Glen Park-Gary, Indiana.
9 My name is John "Fred" Blosl, and I am Secretary
10 of the Chapter.
11 The subject of this hearing is the
12 implementation of the Water Quality Act of 1965,
13 which was strongly supported at all levels of
14 our national organization. This Act requires
15 the States to submit plans for the improvement
16 of all interstate waters.to the Federal Water
17 Pollution Control Administration. We appreciate
18 the opportunity to make our position known as to
19 the qualities desirable in the waters of.this
20 basin.
21 Our Division is fully aware that we are
22 working with what may be the worst water conditions
23 in the State of Indiana in this basin. But, the
24 Water Quality Act specifically states that all
25 waters will be improved, and that those waters
-------
2066
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 not yet polluted must be protected in a clean
3 condition.
4 The Act also states that no proposal
5 by any State which suggests that any stream,or
6 major portion of a stream, be designated for
7 carrying wastes will be acceptable. The water
8 quality which now exists in this basin is com-
9 pletely unacceptable and it is our belief that
10 the authors of the Federal legislation surely
11 must have had this basin, among several others
12 in the Nation, in mind when they wrote the Bill.
13 All of the waters in this basin should
14 be improved to at least those qualities which
15 will permit and encourage a sustained population
16 of well balanced warm water aquatic life. The
17 Grand Calumet River should be improved to provide
l8 for aquatic life, municipal, agricultural, and
19 industrial uses. The Little Calumet River west
20 of the municipal boundary of the Town of Portage
21 and Westchester should be improved to a quality
22 which will provide for aquatic life and limited
23 human contact uses. The Little Calumet River east
24 of the aforementioned boundary should be improved
25 to provide for cold water aquatic life, direct
-------
206?
! E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 human contact, as well as all other water uses.
3 Wolf Lake should be improved for all water uses,
4 including direct contact human recreation. Deep
5 River, Salt Creek, Turkey Creek, Hart Ditch,
6 Duck Creek, Lake George, and all other intrastate
7 waters should be improved to a quality which will
8 provide for aquatic life, limited human contact,
9 as well as municipal water uses. All of the Lake
10 Michigan shoreline which is now designated for any
n form of public recreation, including those beaches
12 which are now closed due to pollution problems,
13 and shorelines which will become available when
14 the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is established
15 should be maintained or restored to meet every
16 water quality standard, including direct contact
17 human uses. All of the open waters of Lake Michi-
lg gan should also be improved to meet the above stan-
19 dards.
20 In the pollution abatement program,
21 special emphasis must be given to the elimination
22 of both thermal and chemical pollutants, including
23 cyanides, phenols, floating and suspended solids,
24 oils, sludges, and other contaminants which have
25 contributed to the biological death of the waters
-------
2068
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 in this basin. The dumping of industrial and
3 municipal wastes and all dredged and other material^
4 other than from natural sources into these waters
5 must stop. And we ask that steps be taken to
6 eliminate damaging agricultural nutrients and any
7 pesticides which can leach into or otherwise find
8 their ways into these waters. We support the rec-
9 ommendations as suggested in the "Report on Water
10 Quality Criteria, Lower Lake Michigan, Calumet
11 Basin" of January 1966. Dissolved oxygen and
12 other parameters should be maintained at qualities
13 which will permit and encourage a sustained popu-
14 lation of well balanced warm water aquatic life.
15 We believe that the objectives for Wolf
16 Lake, Lake Michigan (both open waters and shore
17 waters) and the Little Calumet River east of the
18 aforementioned boundary should be achieved within
l° four years but in no case longer than eight years.
20 The objectives in all other waters of this basin
21 should be achieved within six years but in no case
22 longer than ten years. And that the time to start
23 this accomplishment is right now. In order to
24 achieve these qualities, it will be necessary for
25 the State of Indiana to install and operate an
-------
2069
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 extensive monitoring system and to develop a
3 strong and clear enforcement program which
4 will make violations prohibitive. We will
5 provide all possible support to the Pollution
6 Control Board in all phases of its implementation
7 program.
g Thank you for the opportunity to pre-
9 sent the views of the Glen Park Chapter.of the
10 Izaak Walton League of America.
11
12 John "Fred" Blosl, Secretary
13 Glen Park Chapter
14 The Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.
15 - - -
16
STATEMENT OF WAYNE C. STAFF
17
SECRETARY, INDIANA DIVISION
18
CHAIRMAN WATER QUALITY SUBCOMMITTEE
19
THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA
20
21 September 7, 1966
22
Mr. Blucher Poole, Technical Secretary
23 Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
1330 West Michigan Street
24 Indianapolis, Indiana
25
-------
2070
1 WAYNE C. STAFF
2 Dear Mr. Foole:
3 First, on behalf of the Indiana
4 Division of the Izaak Walton League, I wish
5 to thank you for the invitation to our organi-
6 zation to comment on the criteria developed by
7 the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission,
8 and to suggest criteria which the State may wish
9 to consider in its program related to the Water
10 Quality Act of 1965.
ll The Indiana Division of the League,
12 with more than 5,000 members in *J-3 chapters
13 throughout the State, is part of a national
14 organization with a long and vital interest
15 in the problems of water quality.
16 The basic operating policy of the League-
17 fully supported by its Indiana Division—is found
18 in the following language: "...all water should
19 be fit for direct human use--drinking, swimming,
20 esthetic enjoyment—without special treatment,
21 and it will then be eminently suited for municipal,
22 agricultural and industrial utilization."
23 The League's national position—fully
24 endorsed by us—adds: "There is no sound Justi-
25 fication for water pollution. The people of the
-------
2071
1 WAYNE C. STAFF
2 United States are entitled to wholesome water,
3 usable for all human needs."
4 This League policy is in close parallel
5 with both Congressional intent and the position
6 of the President when he signed the Water Quality
7 Act of 1965: "No one has a right to use America's
g rivers and America's waterways that belong to all
9 the people as a sewer. The banks of a river may
10 belong to one man or one industry or one State,
11 but the waters which flow between those banks
12 should belong to all the people."
13 Congress fully intended to enhance the
14 quality of all interstate waters when it passed
15 this Act, and specifically stated that no proposed
16 standards would be acceptable which designated any
17 stream or portion of a stream for the sole or
18 principal purposes of transporting wastes. The
10 Indiana Division of the League subscribes to this
20 intent, and suggests that the only long-range
21 objective which can be considered as viable is
22 the elimination of all waste and polluting material
23 before it is discharged to any body of water having
24 an impact upon the public domain.
25 In the pursuit of this objective, the
-------
2072
1 WAYNE C. STAFF
2 Indiana Division supports the minimum conditions
3 developed by ORSANCO for application to all
4 interstate waters, with certain modifications
5 and additions: That all waters be:
6 1) Free from substances attribu-
7 table to municipal, industrial or
8 other sources that will settle to
9 form putrescence or otherwise
10 objectionable sludge deposits dele-
11 terious to aquatic life;
12 2) Free from floating debris, oil,
13 scum, foam or other materials
14 attributable to municipal, industrial,
15 or other sources in amounts sufficient
16 to be unsightly or deleterious to
17 human, animal or aquatic life;
18 3) Free from materials attributable
19 to municipal, industrial or other
20 sources producing color, odor or
21 other conditions in such degree as
22 to create nuisances, or which will
23 cause substantial contrast with
24 natural appearance;
25 4) Free from substances attributable
-------
2073
1 WAYNE C. STAFF
2 to municipal, industrial or
3 other sources in concentrations
4 or combinations which are toxic
5 or harmful to human, animal or
6 aquatic life, including but not
7 limited to pesticides, herbicides
g and detergents.
9 ORSANCO approved four general classes of
10 stream uses on May 12, 1966: public water supply,
11 aquatic life, industrial water supply,and recrea-
12 tion. In general, our recommendations are based
13 upon parameters suggested by ORSANCO, but we
14 suggest that as a practical matter it may be
15 extremely difficult to differentially classify
16 streams found in the same watershed, as may be
17 envisioned in the ORSANCO recommendations. There
18 is a danger in such closely related streams of
19 necessarily reducing a system of waters to the
20 lowest common denominator. We do not believe
21 such a result was intended in the Act, nor would it
22 be desired by the public which must realize the
23 greatest possible diversity in use of water re-
24 sources.
25 Therefore, we feel it would be desirable
-------
2074
1 WAYNE C. STAFF
2 to incorporate many of the best parameters from
3 the four different classes into a single set of
4 criteria for all waters. We would also observe
5 that the objective of diversified uses is served
6 by the highest standards, while restrictive and
7 limited uses result from lower standards. It is
8 the broadest public benefit which this program
9 should address.
10 More consolidation of quality standards
11 for all stream waters would appear consistent
12 with the general ORSANCO recommendations that
13 they be "free from substances...toxic or harmful
14 to human or aquatic life."
15 The following criteria are suggested
16 to become part of the four proposals above dealing
17 with all stream waters of the State:
18 1. DISSOLVED OXYGEN: Not less than
19 3 mg/1 or 50 percent saturation, whichever is the
20 higher value;
21 2. TEMPERATURE: Not to exceed 93 F.,
22 May to November; not to exceed 73°F.» December
23 to April; but in no case to be raised more than
24 9°F. above the normal seasonal water temperature;
25 3. DISSOLVED SOLIDS: Not to exceed
-------
2073
1 WAYNE C. STAFF
2 500 mg/1 as a monthly average, nor 750 mg/1 at
Z any time (800 to 1,200 microhmos/cm at 25°C.);
4 4. RADIOACTIVITY: Gross beta activity
5 (no Strontium 90 or alpha emitters present), not
6 to exceed 1,000 micromicrocuries at any time;
7 5» pH: Not below 6.0 nor above 9«5-
8 6. TOXIC SUBSTANCES: . Not to exceed
9 1/10 of the 48-hour median tolerance limit, except
10 that other limiting concentrations may be used in
11 specific cases when Justified on the basis of
12 available evidence and approved by the appropriate
13 regulatory agency?
14 7. TURBIDITY: Shall not exceed such
15 levels as will permit natural populations of
16 indigenous aquatic life (20 cm Secchi disk visible
17 at depths to 50 cm suggested).
18 In addition to these all-stream sug-
19 gestions, we recommend the following criteria
20 for the four water use classifications proposed
21 by ORSANCO:
22 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY (At intake)
23 1. BACTERIA: Colif*rm group not to
24 exceed 5,000 per 100 ml as a monthly average
25 value (either MPN or MP count); not to exceed
-------
2076
1 WAYNE C. STAFF
2 this number in more than 20 percent of the samples
3 examined during any month; nor exceed 20,000 per
4 100 ml in more than 5 percent of such samples;
5 2. THRESHOLD-ODOR NUMBER: Not to
6 exceed 24 (at 60°C.) as a daily average;
7 3- CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS: Not to
8 exceed the following concentrations (or any
9 concentrations) which would be injurious to
10 aquatic life—Arsenic, 0.05 mg/1; Barium,
11 1.0 mg/1; Cadmium, 0.01 mg/1; Chromium, 0.05 mg/1
12 (hexavalent); Cyanide, 0.02 mg/1; Fluoride,
13 2.0 mg/1; Lead, 0.05 mg/1; Selenium, 0.01 mg/1;
14 Silver, 0.05 mg/1.
15 INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY (At intake)
16 1. Same as general recommendations
17 above (1-4 and 1-7).
18 AQUATIC LIFE (Warm water, except immediately
19 adjacent to outfalls)
20 1. DISSOLVED OXYGEN: Not less than
21 5.0 mg/1 during at least 16 hours of any 24-hour
22 period, nor less than 3.0 mg/1 at any time. (For
23 cold water environments: 59°-68° F; 7.0 mg/1,
24 nominal);
25 2. pH: Preferred range between 6.5
-------
2077
1 WAYNE C. STAFF
2 and 8.5.
3 3- BACTERIA: Shall not exceed such
4 levels as will permit natural populations and
5 functioning of indigenous aquatic species and
6 safe limited human contact.
7 RECREATION (Including direct contact, such
g as swimming.)
9 1. BACTERIA: Coliform group not to
10 exceed 1,000 per 100 ml as a monthly average
11 (either MPN or MP count)] not to exceed this
12 number in more than 20 percent of the samples
13 examined during any month; nor exceed 2,4-00 per
14 100 ml (MPN or MF count) on any day.
15 In addition to technical considerations,
16 our organization suggests several additional
17 policies, and that among these should be:
18 a) A system of penalties of
19 sufficient substance which will
20 result in the discontinuation of
21 any practices in violation of any
22 established water standards;
23 b) An adequate monitoring system
24 administered by appropriate govern-
25 mental agencies to assure conformity
-------
2078
1 WAYNE C. STAFF
2 with established standards;
3 c) Adequate research programs
4 leading to accelerated achievement
5 of standards established, and im-
6 provements thereon; advanced waste
7 treatment; in-plant water reusej and
8 better evaluation and control of dis-
9 charged materials, as well as improved
10 methods of qualitative and quanti-
ll tative measurement.
12 The Indiana Division of the Izaak Walton
13 League offers its continuing cooperation and as-
14 sistance in moving a sound standards program for-
15 ward, and in the development of follow-on efforts.
16 We wish to reserve the privilege of
17 expanding on the commentary above, and of providing
18 oral testimony when hearings are scheduled. Thank
19 you again for inviting our comments.
20 Sincerely yours,
21
22 Wayne C. Stapf, Secretary
Indiana Division, IWLA, Inc., and
23 Chairman Water Quality Subcommittee
24 _ - -
25 MR. STEIN: Are there any questions
-------
2079
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 or comments?
3 MR. HOLMER: I have a question.
4 MR. STEIN: Yes, Mr. Holmer.
5 MR. HOLMER: Are the standards which
6 have been so described this afternoon those which
7 were adopted by Indiana and approved by the
8 Secretary of the Interior?
9 MR. STEIN: Who are you questioning?
10 MR. HOLMER: Well, I am asking the
11 gentleman from the Izaak Walton League.
12 Are these the same standards that were
13 approved by the Secretary of the Interior last
14 July that you are seeking to have changed?
15 MR. MINNEY: No, I—well, I don't
16 know whether we--which ones are you talking
17 about, now? I want to be sure I am right.
18 MR. HOLMER: Well, you were raising
19 questions about temperature, for example,
20 as just one item, and if these criteria were
21 submitted by the State Board to the Secretary
22 of the Interior, I assume they are the same ones
23 which are now in effect as Federal standards as a
24 result of approval by the Secretary of the
25 Interior. Is this the situation?
-------
2080
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 MR. MINNEY: I am not sure that I
3 understand your question.
4 Maybe Mr. Poole can answer the question.
5 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Poole or Mr. Mitchell
6 can, I think.
7 MR. MINNEY: Mr. Poole?
8 MR. POOLE: I assumed from listening
9 you were talking about the same standards, namely
10 the ones that we adopted first and submitted and
U were subsequently approved by Interior.
12 MR. MINNEY: Yes. Yes, those are the
13 ones, yes, sir, that is right.
14 MR. KLASSEN: Could I ask a question
15 along that point?
16 MR. STEIN: Yes.
17 MR. KLASSEN: Does the Izaak Walton
18 League in Indiana approve the water quality
19 criteria that the Secretary approved? Are you for
20 this or against it?
21 MR. MINNEY: We will approve a program
22 that makes the central waters of Lake Michigan
23 just as safe for body contact as the shoreline.
24 MR. KLASSEN: You didn't answer my
25 question.
-------
2081
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 MR. MINNEY: I don't understand the
3 question.
4 MR. KLASSEN: You didn't answer my
5 question. . You raised a lot of objections to
6 temperatures and a number of other things. I
7 assume that you are acquainted with the present
g standards that have been approved by Secretary
9 Udall for the State of Indiana. Do you endorse
lO those or do you think they ought to be changed?
n MR. MINNEY: Think they ought to be
12 changed.
13 MR. KLASSEN: Well, then, I dort't
14 quite understand your last statement, and I
15 agree with you, but that Secretary Udall, "God
16 bless him, he is the greatest conservationist,"
17 he approved this, yet you--
18 MR. MINNEY: This is my opinion. I
19 said that is my opinion, not the opinion of the
20 Izaak Walton League. I said that is my opinion,
21 if you will read the record.
22 MR. KLASSEN: Oh, I see. The Izaak
23 Walton League objects to these standards, but
24 you think they are all right?
25 MR. MINNEY: No, I don't. But I think
-------
2082
1 E. EUGENE MINNEY
2 Secretary Udall has done a Job as a man, Just
3 the same. That is my personal opinion.
4 MR. KLASSEN: Even though he approved
5 standards that you don't approve of?
6 MR. MINNEY: Not of that especially.
7 I don't approve of everything President Johnson
8 does either, but he is my President and I voted
9 for him.
10 Does ,that answer your question?
11 MR. KLASSEN: No.
12 (Laughter and applause.)
13 MR. MINNEY: I didn't think it would.
14 (Laughter.)
15 MR. STEIN: Any further comment or
16 questions? Mr. Poole.
17 MR. POOLE: Next and last I want to
18 Introduce the most patient lady in the State
19 of Indiana. She has been sitting- here since
20 last Wednesday, Mrs. Florence Murray of Michiana
21 Shores, and also a member of the Indiana League
22 of Women Voters.
23
24 STATEMENT OF MRS. FLORENCE MURRAY
25 MICHIANA SHORES
-------
2083
1 FLORENCE MURRAY
2
INDIANA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
3
4 MRS. MURRAY: Thank you. Chairman
5 Stein, ladies and gentlemen, fellow colleagues
6 from Indiana.
7 It is always comforting to place the
g blame for any problem, and particularly the
9 problem of water pollution, on the doorstep
10 of someone other than oneself. We read with
11 dismay the charges against the U.S. Army Corps
12 of Engineers who dump the sludge they dredge
13 from rivers into our lake; of huge industries
14 who use tons of clean water daily and return
15 filthy water instead; of cities who open over-
16 loaded storm sewers and permit raw sewage to
17 flow directly into the lake; of the vast amount
18 of fertilizers from farms that pollute our
19 water; but I have yet to read the first article
20 with headlines screaming: "HOUSEWIVES INDICTED
21 IN WATER POLLUTION."
22 I am here to accuse the innocent--
23 innocent of the knowledge but not innocent of
24 the crime--the housewife who accidentally pollutes
25 our water. As a child I can still remember the
-------
2084
1 FLORENCE MURRAY
2 ring around the dishpan because we used soap
3 to wash dishes. The day detergents replaced
4 soap in the housewife's dishpan, and in her
5 washing machine, and in her scrubpail, we
6 eliminated the ring around the sink and con-
7 tributed to the ring around the lake. Because
g detergents are not biodegradable, one can hardly
9 pass a drainage ditch, a stream or a river
*
10 where bubbles of foam do not testify that the
11 detergent has not been dissolved and is foaming
12 away adding nutrients excessively to our fresh
13 water.
14 Now, if these nutrients were nourishing
15 our lakes to produce an acceptable product like a
16 fisherman's dream of abundant trout, we would not
17 be here today. But the alewife propelled us, and
18 the detergents have enriched the alewife and the
19 "seaweed." There has been an unintentional assist,
20 you see, by the housewife to the alewife. In-
21 creased population means increased use of cleaning
22 products and therefore an increase in water pol-
23 lution because grocers' shelves are lined with
24 | detergents and offer no biodegradable product
25 for Madam Housewife's selection.
-------
._ 2085
1 FLORENCE MURRAY
2 If a solution is not found to eliminate
3 the bubbles of foaming detergent, the last line
4 in America, the Beautiful won't read, "Prom sea
5 to shining sea,w but "From bubble to shining bubble
6 With so many experts attending this
7 conference, I feel confident that this plea for
8 detergent reform will result in the elimination
9 of water pollution from this source.
10 Our experience, the stenchy summer
11 of '6? on the beach of Lake Michigan, not only
12 involved water pollution but air pollution as
13 well with a nauseating, revolting wretched odor
14 that Secretary Udall himself described at a
15 press conference as a "tough, miserable problem."
16 Since we cannot legislate air pollution controls
17 over a lake that is unwittingly polluting the
18 air, we must eliminate water pollution.
19 The purpose of this statement is to
20 present the plea of people Just like me, without
21 affiliation or position or influence, who want-
22 to know what the "little l" can do to help the
23 "^ig you." Thank you.
24 (Applause.)
25 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr». Murray.
-------
2086
1 FEDERAL PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
2 I believe Mr. Poston may have one short
3 statement from a participant who has been waiting
4 here three days.
5
6 FEDERAL PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
7
8 MR. POSTON: Mr. Donald Marshall,
Regional Program Chief, Water Supply and Sea
Resources Program of the Public Health Service,
Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
12 is here. He has been very patient.
13 MR. STEIN: I know.
14 How long are you going to be, Don?
15 MR. MARSHALL: Oh, less than 10 minutes,
maybe.
17
18 STATEMENT OF DONALD W. MARSHALL
19 REGIONAL PROGRAM CHIEF
20 WATER SUPPLY AND SEA RESOURCES PROGRAM
21 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
22 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
23
24 MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, Conferees,
25 ladies and gentlemen.
-------
2087
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 A brief message from the Secretary and
3 from our Surgeon General, also Jerry Svore of the
4 Center and Dr. Farney of the Regional Office, who
5 are not able to attend the conference and I am
6 filling in for them.
7 The Department of Health, Education,
8 and Welfare Region V serves five states,
9 including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,
10 and Wisconsin. As Regional Program Chief of
11 the Water Supply Program of the Public Health
12 Service, I represent the Department of Health,
13 Education, and Welfare, and its regional re-
14 sponsibilities and interests in domestic water
15 supplies and the public health aspects of water
16 pollution control and water resources development.
17 These responsibilities are further served in my
18 capacity as Commissioner representing the Depart-
19 ment on the recently created Great Lakes Basin
20 Commission.
21 The Public Health Service is the prin-
22 cipal Federal agency concerned with protection
23 of the public health. The discharge of pollutants
24 and disease-laden waste waters to a body of water
25 such as Lake Michigan and its watershed must
-------
2088
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 inevitably have an adverse effect on the health
3 of people living in the watershed and utilizing
4 the water for domestic supply, commercial and
5 sports fishing, recreation and other purposes.
6 The health threat associated with water is of
7 three types—chemical, biological and radio-
g logical.
9 This statement deals with the health
10 aspects of water pollution control on the Lake
H Michigan. It is made under the provisions of the
12 Federal Water Pollution Control Act 19^5
13 Amendments and the operational and procedural
14 Agreement of September 3> 19^5* between the
15 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
16 and the Department of the Interior. Subjects
17 of vital public health concern regarding which
18 the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
19 have agreed to consult with the Public Health
20 Service are drinking water supply, contact with
21 water in recreation and work, contamination of
22 food sources, and the breeding of insect vectors.
23 The Public Health Service has long been
24 concerned about the quality of water in Lake
25 Michigan. It was on the basis of field
-------
2089
DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 investigations and reports prepared by the
3 Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,
4 Public Health Service, and in accordance with
6 Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
6
Act (33 U.S.C. 466 et. Seq.) that Secretary
- A. J. Celebreeze of the Department of Health,
8 Education, and Welfare, on December 15,
9 called a conference in the matter of pollution
10 of the interstate waters of the Grand Calumet
River, Little Calumet River, Calumet River,
12 Lower Lake Michigan, Wolf Lake and their
13 tributaries (Ill.-Ind.) The findings of this
14 conference definitely established the fact that
15 the interstate waters of the previously mentioned
16 streams and lakes were indeed being polluted by
17 untreated and/or Inadequately treated municipal
18 and industrial wastes being discharged to these
waters, and that these wastes from one State
20 were believed to endanger the health and welfare
2i of persons in another State.
22 At the request of the U. S. Department
23 of Justice, the Public Health Service conducted
24 extensive water quality studies in Lake Michigan
25 and provided the services of expert witnesses
-------
20QO
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 to interpret and explain their findings before
3 Special Master Albert Maris of the U. S. Supreme
4 Court in the recent reopening of the case of
5 Wisconsin vs. Illinois, the Lake Michigan Di-
6 version Case. In his report of December 8, 1966,
7 to the Supreme Court, Judge Maris summarized
8 these findings and their effect on the quality
9 and use of the waters of Lake Michigan. Among
10 the more serious effects of pollution are:
H (1) the rapidly increasing quantities of algae
12 produced by nutrients in waste discharges. These
13 minute aquatic forms reduce water treatment plant
14 capacities by clogging intake screens and filters,
15 produce tastes and odors in the finished water,
16 and interfere with recreation by forming long
17 windrows of odorous, decaying organic masses on
!g bathing beaches (2) the discharge of phenols and
IQ other taste-producing organics which require
20 treatment processes not normally utilized to
2i produce a palatable water (3) the discharge of
22 waste waters to the lake containing pathogenic
23 1 Report of Albert B. Maris, Special
24 j Master, December 8, 1966, in the Supreme Court of
25 the United States.
-------
2091
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 microorganisms and viral agents. Although normal
3 treatment processes are capable of removing or
4 destroying such organisms, their presence con-
5 stitutes a potential hazard because of the ever-
6 present possibility of human or mechanical failure.
7 Such discharges do constitute a hazard to those
g using bathing beaches or having chance contact
9 with the lake waters. Only by frequent monitoring
10 of the bacteriological quality of bathing beach
11 waters can their safe use be assured.
12 For many years, the Public Health
13 Service has promulgated drinking water standards
14 for water supplies used on interstate carriers
15 and has been responsible for the certification
16 of such water supplies. These standards have
17 been adopted or are used as the guidelines for
18 drinking water quality in all 50 States. The
19 Public Health Service also has served as con-
20 sultant and technical assistant to State and local
21 health departments in their programs of safe-
22 guarding the quality of municipal-domestic water
23 supplies. Lake Michigan and its tributaries are
24 utilized as a raw water source for domestic water
25 supplies serving over 6.8 million persons.
-------
2092
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 These waters are also heavily used
3 for industrial water supplies and water-borne
4 commerce. Many of the lake and sea-going
5 vessels take on water from Lake Michigan for
6 use as a potable water supply. Public Health
7 Service regulations allow high quality waters,
3 such as those generally found in the Great Lakes,
9 to be used for drinking and culinary purposes
10 with only disinfection treatment. Recent
H studies (Report on Vessel Watering on the Great
12 Lakes, dated December 30, 1966) of pollution
13 of Great Lakes waters have revealed contamination
14 in certain areas which exceed recognized limits
15 for such treatment. Such contaminated water
16 may pose a hazard to health. In a recent Notice
11 to Mariners, it was recommended that: confined
18 waters such as Green Bay, water within five miles
19 of shore, and water within twenty miles of metro-
20 politan areas not be taken aboard for use as
21 potable water if it is treated by disinfection
22 only, such as chlorination.
23 Lake Michigan is also heavily used for
24 recreational activities such as swimming, boating,
25 water skiing, and fishing. Protection of water
-------
2093
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 quality for these uses is a very important
3 aspect of this conference. We are vitally
4 interested in this feature of the conference
5 and the progress of effective remedial programs.
6 In fulfilling our responsibilities
7 regarding the health aspects of water pollution
8 control, the Public Health Service has developed
9 health guidelines for water resources development
10 including water quality for domestic and food
H processing use, recreational development, and
12 vector control. The conclusions and recommenda-
13 tions of the Conferees of the previous conference
14 pertaining to Lower Lake Michigan and the Calumet
15 Area included the recommendation to establish a
16 technical committee for the purpose of evaluating
17 water quality criteria and make recommendations
18 pertinent to these waters. In their "Report of
19 Water Quality Criteria, Calumet Area and Lower
20 Lake Michigan - January 1966," this Committee
21 submitted raw water quality criteria for Open
22 Water, Inner Harbor Basins and Shore Water as
23 well as for the tributaries to the lake in this
24 area. Constituents considered by the Committee
25 included bacteriological, chemical, physical, and
-------
209^
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 radiological quality limits in the recommended
3 criteria. The recommendations of the Committee
4 appear satisfactory for the protection of these
5 most important raw water sources and compare
6 favorably to the Public Health Service guidelines.
7 The States of Wisconsin, Illinois,
8 Indiana, and Michigan, have recently adopted
9 water quality criteria for interstate streams
!0 including Lake Michigan. These water quality
U criteria also include bacteriological, chemical,
12 physical, and radiological limits similar to
13 those of the PHS Drinking Water Standards - 1962.
!4 Criteria alone cannot solve the
15 problems of pollution. Implementation, action,
16 remedial measures must be initiated and carried
17 out. The Department and the Public Health
18 Service urge that corrective measures with the
19 best of our technical know-how be taken to main-
20 tain and preserve the water quality of Lake Michi-
2i gan, a most important source of water, for domestic
22 and industrial uses, recreation and other water-
23 related activities.
24 I am pleased to represent the Department
25 of Health, Education, and Welfare at this meeting.
-------
2095
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 We in the Public Health Service are ready to do
3 whatever we can to cooperate and assist in the
4 job of safeguarding and improving the quality of
5 Lake Michigan water which is an important raw
0 water source for a large percentage of the persons
7 in the Lake Michigan area. The work and accom-
g plishments of the Conferees are commendable /and we
9 are pleased to join you in this xindertaking.
10 Thank you .
11 Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of the
12 notice to the mariners that was written by Jerry
13 Svore, our Director of the Center. I also have
14 a copy of the report on which this notice was
15 based. I have preliminary drafts of three of
16 the guidelines for health aspects of water
17 pollution. I want you to recognize they are
18 preliminary in nature and they have been sub-
19 mitted to our headquarters for approval, but
20 they can be introduced for the record.
21 MR. STEIN: We would be delighted to
22 have those, Mr. Marshall. And give Jerry my
23 regards.
24 (Which said documents are as follows:)
25
-------
2096
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2
3 DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
4 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
5
National Center for
6 Urban and Industrial Health Refer to:
7 November 3, 19&7
8
NOTICE TO MARINERS
9
10 Gentlemen:
11 Public Health Service regulations allow
12 high quality waters, such .as those generally found
13 in the Great Lakes, to be used for drinking and
14 culinary purposes with only disinfection treatment.
15 Studies of pollution of Great Lakes waters have
16 revealed contamination in certain areas which
17 exceed recognized limits for such treatment. Such
18 contaminated water may pose a hazard to health.
10 ¥e wish to advise you of this and re-
20 quest that water not be taken from these areas
21 for use as potable water if it is treated by
22 disinfection only, such as chlorination.
23 These areas are:
24 a. Lake Erie west of Pelee Point;
25 b. Lake Erie east of the Pennsylvania-
New York State boundary;
-------
2097
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 c. Confined waters such as Green
Bay and Saginaw Bay;
3
d. Water within five miles of
4 shore;
5 e. Water within 20 miles of metro-
politan areas.
6
7 It is recognized that water of quality
g acceptable for use as drinking water with dis-
9 infection only can generally be found in portions
10 of the listed areas. However, because of the
11 hazard which may exist and with the wide choice
12 of locations in the Great Lakes where water is
13 consistently of acceptable quality, there should
14 be no need to take water from the designated areas
15 Information concerning onboard treatment
16 of water and the location of approved shore water-
17 ing points at Great Lakes ports can be obtained
18 from our Regional Offices at 433 West Van Buren
19 Street, Chicago, or 42 Broadway, New York. In-
20 formation will also be available during the annual
21 inspections of interstate carrier vessels.
22 Sincerely yours,
23 (Signed) Jerome H. Svore
24 Jerome H. Svore
Director
25 - - -
-------
20Q8
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2
3 VESSEL WATERING ON THE GREAT LAKES
4 Henning Eklund
5 Chief, Interstate Carrier Activities
6 Region V, Chicago," Illinois
7 December 30* 1966
8
Summary
9
IQ The waters of the Great Lakes are
H generally satisfactory as a source of water for
12 vessels with chlorination as the only treatment.
13 There are areas, however, where coliform densities
14 are higher than permissible for chlorination only.
15 Areas where watering should not be permitted are
16 listed.
17
Introduction
18
19 The Interstate Quarantine Regulations(1)
20 state that "The treatment of water aboard convey-
21 ances shall be approved by the Surgeon General if
22 the apparatus used is of such design and is so
23 operated as to be capable of producing and in fact
24 down produce potable water.... Overboard water
25 treated on vessels shall be from areas relatively
-------
2099
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 free of contamination and pollution."
3 The waters of the Great Lakes have
4 been considered Group II waters which require
5 treatment only by simple chlorination or its
6 equivalent. The Manual of Recommended Water-
7 Sanitation Practice(2) defines Group II waters
g as "....both underground and surface waters
9 subject to a low degree of contamination, and
10 meeting the requirements of the Public Health
ll Service Drinking Water Standards(3) in all
12 respects except as to coliform bacterial content,
13 which should average not more than 50 per
14 100 ml in any month."
15 On October 10, 1966 Mr. C. T. Armstrong,
16 President of Great Lakes Seamen Local 5000 of the
17 United Steelworkers of America, filed a complaint
18 with the Surgeon General(4). He questioned the
19 practice of vessels that take water from Lake Erie
20 and treat it by chlorination only. He considered
21 this practice to be insanitary, and detrimental
22 to the seamen who use this water. He requested
23 that immediate action be taken to stop this prac-
24 tice.
25 On October 25 I talked to Mr. Armstrong
-------
2100
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 and learned that most of the vessels that he was
3 concerned about were in the coal trade in western
4 Lake Erie, and that the specific complaint came
5 from the Crispin Oglebay of the Oglebay Norton
6 fleet.
Field Study
8
9 Eighteen vessels were boarded to in-
10 vestigate the source and condition of the drinking
11 water aboard. The vessels were selected to repre-
12 sent vessels in the coal trade on Lake Erie and
13 vessels of the Oglebay Norton fleet. A few other
14 vessels were boarded also for comparison. The
15 Captain and Chief Engineer or their representatives
16 were interviewed to determine the source of the
17 drinking water aboard, if they ever watered in
lg Lake Erie, and if so, where. Samples of water
19 were taken from the galley for determination of
20 coliform bacteria, threshold odor, color, and
21 turbidity. These samples were analyzed by the
22 water supply laboratories of Detroit, Toledo,
23 and Chicago. Whi"1** these samples were being taken,
24 the concentration of residual chlorine in the
25 drinking water was determined. Two samples of
-------
2101
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 drinking water that had been taken aboard in Lake
3 Erie were sent to SEC in Cincinnati for chemical
4 analysis. The Ashland had taken on water three
5 miles off Long Point, and the Crispin Oglebay
6 had taken on water near Middle Sister Island.
7 The Public Health Service Hospital in
8 Detroit and the Outpatient Clinic in Chicago were
9 contacted to determine the occurrence of gastro-
10 enteritis among merchant seamen.
11 In addition to the above, information
12 on the occurrence of coliform bacteria in the
13 open waters of the Great Lakes, except Lake
I4 Superior, was obtained from the Great Lakes
15 Project of the Water Pollution Control Adminis-
16 tration.
17
Results
18
19 Interviews with the officers of'the ves-
20 sels about source of water aboard yielded the fol-
21 lowing information. Nine had taken water in the
22 Upper Lakes (Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan),
23 five had taken water from approved shore watering
24 points, and four had taken water directly from
25
Lake Erie. When questioned about the frequency
-------
2102
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 of watering in Lake Erie, four reported that
3 they watered regularly in Lake Erie, two watered
4 there occasionally, and eleven reported either
5 that they never watered in Lake Erie or that they
6 had not watered there this year. One vessel
7 master was not asked this question. All masters
8 reported that they disinfect lake water before
9 use, as required by regulation. Of the six vessels
10 that reported taking Lake Erie water regularly or
11 occasionally, four said that they watered off Long
12 Point in eastern Lake Erie, near the deepest part
13 of the lake. One said he watered about 30 miles
14 offshore, but did not specify where. One, the
15 Crispin Oglebay, to which Mr. Armstrong referred,
16 regularly watered in western Lake Erie. The
17 master said he sometimes watered south of Detroit
18 Light. On this particular trip he had watered
19 near Middle Sister Island enroute from Cleveland
20 to Toledo. Other masters who do not water in Lake
21 Erie were asked where they would water in Lake
22 Erie if it were necessary to do so. All replied
23 that they would water off Long Point. The pre-
24 ceding information is summarized in Table I.
25 The Public Health Service Hospital in
-------
2103
1 DONALD W, MARSHALL
2 Detroit and the Outpatient Clinic in Chicago
3 were contacted to determine if any effects on
4 seamen had "been noted as a result of drinking
5 lake water. It was learned that the medical
6 experience of seamen treated at the hospital
7 gives no conclusive evidence of epidemic or
8 multiple attacks of gastroenteritis from one
9 vessel or vessels of one company sailing the
10 Great Lakes. The Outpatient Clinic reported
11 that the observed incidence of gastroenteritis
12 among merchant seamen is less than that in the
13 general population.
14 As previously stated, samples of
15 drinking water were taken from the vessels to
16 determine if they met the 1962 Drinking Water
17 Standards. The analytical results are shown
18 in Tables II and III. All 18 samples were
19 negative for coliform bacteria. The data in
20 Table II also show that color, odor, and turbidity
21 were acceptable except for turbidity aboard the
22 Ben E. Tate. Since this water had been taken from
23 a shore supply, it is likely that the high turbiditjy
24 resulted from sediment in the tank.
25 Table III shows the results of chemical
-------
2104
1 DONALD ¥. MARSHALL
2 analysis of water from the Ashland and the
3 Crispin Oglebay. The Ashland had taken water
4 from Lake Erie three miles off Long Point,
5 and the Crispin Oglebay had taken water from
6 Lake Erie near Middle Sister Island. Since
7 no analyses were made for chloride, carbon
g chloroform extract, sulfate, and total dissolved
9 solids, appropriate values were taken from the
10 Buffalo station of the Water Pollution Surveil-
11 lance Sys.tem(5) • The value for nitrate was
12 obtained from the City of Toledo(6). It is seen
13 that all values are within the Drinking Water
14 Standards.
15 It is concluded from the data presented
16 that water taken from Lake Erie and chlorinated
17 met the 1962 Drinking Water Standards in every
18 respect. It is also concluded that the unchlori-
19 nated surface water also met the Drinking Water
20 Standards in every respect except as to bacterial
21 content. It was for the purpose of determining
22 where Group II waters, those with an average coli-
23 form bacterial content of not more than 50 per 100
24 ml, exist in the Great Lakes that the records of
25 the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
-------
2105
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 were consulted.
3
Lake Erie
4
5 Data from studies by the Detroit River-
6 Lake Erie Project(7) have shown that the Michig-*.
7 waters of Lake Erie cannot be considered as Group
8 II waters. The geometric mean of coliform deter-
9 minations in about one-half of this area is great-
10 er than 100 per 100 ml. The geometric mean values
11 below the Detroit River Light lie between 2^00 and
12 5000 per 100 ml. When it is remembered that the
13 geometric mean is usually a much smaller number
14 than the arithmetic mean, there is considerable
15 doubt that any part of Michigan waters meets the
16 criterion of 50 per 100 ml arithmetic average.
17 Such a conclusion is supported by the fact that
18 the sampling station showing the lowest maximum
19 coliform concentration showed 140 per 100 ml. The
20 next lowest maximum was 100 per 100 ml. It is
21 also concluded that the immediately adjacent waters
22 in Ohio and Canada do not meet the criterion.
23 Records of the Lake Erie Program Office,
!
24 FWPCA, indicate that the open waters of Lake Erie
25 meet the coliform criterion for Group II waters
-------
2106
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 with three exceptions. One area is Michigan
3 waters previously discussed. Another area is
4 immediately west of Pelee Point and north of
5 Pelee Island on shipping lanes where consistently
Q high coliform counts are found. Other isolated
7 high values are found in the area west of Pelee
g Point. The influence of the Detroit River and
9 the vagaries of lake currents are such that it
10 appears inadvisable to take drinking water from
11 any part of Lake Erie west of Pelee Point and
12 treat it with chlorination only.
13 The third area in Lake Erie that is of
14 questionable quality is east of the Pennslyvania-
15 New York State boundary, where median values
16 ranging between 10 and 100 coliform bacteria per
17 100 ml have been found. In contrast to western
18 Lake Erie, there is no immediately apparent
19 reason why high coliform counts should be found
20 here. On the basis of the data, however, it would
21 appear inadvisable for vessels to water in this
22 portion of Lake Erie.
23 Except for these areas, the main body
24 of Lake Erie, including the area off Long Point,
25 appears to meet the criterion of Group II waters,
-------
2107
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 and chlorlnation only should be acceptable treat-
3 ment. Median coliform values are consistently
4 less than 1 per 100 ml in half of this region,
5 and less than 10 per 100 ml in the other half
6 of the region.
7 This conclusion has been supported
8 by documents by the Federal Water Pollution Con-
9 trol Administration. In March. 1965 > it was
10 stated: "Much of the American shoreline of Lake
11 Erie out one to two miles is a polluted zone.
12 Coliform counts decrease rapidly as one proceeds
13 out into the lake so that when one gets beyond
14 the two-mile zone counts are frequently near
15 zero."(8} Again in June 1965 it was stated
16 about the Cleveland area: "studies show that
17 the most seriously polluted zone is an area
18 extending to only about one-half mile into the
19 lake under normal conditions. From the one-half
20 mile zone on out to about three to four miles the
21 transition in quality is gradual until it reaches
22 the background of the lake waters. The Cleveland
23 water intakes are well beyond the polluted zone."(9)
24 The FWPCA Enforcement Conference Report on Lake
25 Erie(10) did not state that the open waters of
-------
2108
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 Lake Erie exhibited high numbers of coliform
3 bacteria.
4
Lake Ontario
5
6 Records of the Lake Ontario Program
7 Office show high coliform concentrations near
8 metropolitan centers. If, however, one excludes
9 waters within a 20-mile radius of the mouth of
10 the Niagara River, within 20 miles of Toronto and
11 Hamilton in Ontario, and within 20 miles of
12 Rochester and Oswego in New York, the remaining
13 open waters are found to meet the coliform re-
14 quirements of Group II waters.
15
Lake Huron
16
17 Records of the Lake Huron Program Office
18 show that all open waters in Lake Huron, except
19 near the mouth of the Saginaw River, meet the
20 coliform requirements of Group II waters.
21
Lake Michigan
22
23 Data of the Great Lakes-Illinois River
24 Basins Project(ll) indicate that the waters of
25 Green Bay, in places, do not meet the coliform
-------
210Q
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 requirements of Group II waters. The open waters
3 of Lake Michigan 20 miles away from metropolitan
4 centers do, however, meet the requirements for
5 Group II waters.
6
Lake Superior
7
8 There are as yet no coliform data avail-
9 able on the open waters of Lake Superior. Records
10 of the Water Pollution Surveillance System (12)
11 show an average coliform density of 35 per 100 ml
12 at the Duluth water supply intake and 22 at Sault
13 Ste. Marie. It is therefore inferred that the
14 open waters of Lake Superior meet the requirements
15 for Group II waters.
16
Proposed Policy Statement
17
18 The information heretofore prese ited
19 in this report shows that the bulk of the water
20 in the Great Lakes meets the requirements for
21 Group II waters, for which disinfection is the
22 only required treatment. There are certain areas,
23 however, from which drinking water should not be
24 taken. It is recognized that acceptable water
25 may be found in some of these areas, but the areas
-------
2110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DONALD W. MARSHALL
of acceptable water are so large that there is
no reason to take water in the questionable areas.
In order
simple,
proposed
to keep instructions to Ships' Masters
five rules for open lake watering are
Water covered by these rules should
not be used for drinking water supply if the
only treatment provided is chlorination. The
restricted waters are as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Lake Erie west of Pelee Point.
Lake Erie east of the Pennsly-
vania-New York State boundary.
Confined waters such as Saglnaw
Bay and Green Bay.
Water within 5 miles of shore.
Water within 20 miles of major
metropolitan areas and tributary
streams.
-------
2111
I DONALD W. MARSHALL
2
3 References
4 1. Interstate Quarantine Regulations,
5 Para. 72.103
6 2. DREW, Public Health Service, "Manual
7 of recommended Water-Sanitation Prac-
8 tice," 1946
9 3. Public Health Service Drinking Water
10 Standards, publication Ho. 956, 1962
n 4. Letter dated October 10, 1966 from
12 Mr. C, T. Armstrong, President, Local
13 5000, United Steelworkers of America,
14 Cleveland, Ohio, to the Surgeon General
15 5« Water Pollution Surveillance System,
ig PWPCA, October 1, 1962-September 30,
17 1963
18 6. The 1965 Annual Report, Division of
19 Water, Toledo, Ohio
20 7. R. D. Vaughan and G. L. Harlow,
21 "Report on Pollution of the Detroit
22 River, Michigan Waters of Lake Erie,
23 and their Tributaries," FWPCA, April
24 1965.
25 8. C. W. Northlngton, "Lake Erie - Sick
-------
2112
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 Dying, or Well," FWPCA, March 1965
3 9. C. W. Northington, "Water Pollution
4 Aspects of the Lake Erie Shoreline,"
5 FWPCA, June 1965
6 10. Report on Pollution of Lake Erie
7 and its Tributaries, FWPCA, July
8 1965
9 11. "A Comprehensive Water Pollution
10 Control Program, Lake Michigan
11 Basin, Green Bay Area," FWPCA,
12 June 1966
13 12. Water Pollution Surveillance System,
I4 FWPCA, October 1, 1963-September 30,
15 1964.
16 - - -
17 HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR WATER RESOURCE
18 AND RELATED LAND USE MANAGEMENT
19 PART 1: WATER QUALITY FOR DOMESTIC
20 AND FOOD PROCESSING USES
21
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
22 USPHS, DHEW
November 1967
23
24 INTRODUCTION
25
-------
2113
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 Health guidelines for water resource
3 management are being prepared for the guidance
4 of Federal and other agencies concerned with
5 the development of the Nation's water resources
6 and related land uses. The guidelines entitled
7 "Part 1: Water Quality for Domestic and Food
8 Processing Uses" are the initial issuance of the
9 health guidelines. Future guidelines will be
10 prepared to cover all other health aspects of
11 water and related land uses.
12 Part 1 also fulfills a portion of DHEW1s
13 commitment to the Federal Water Pollution Control
14 Administration, Department of the Interior, pur-
15 suant to section 5 (a) of the DHEW-Interior
16 Interdepartmental Agreement "Health Aspects of
17 Water Pollution Control," dated September 2,
18 1966, which states as follows:
19 "5. Under the terms of this Inter-
20 departmental Agreement the Department
21 of Health, Education, and Welfare will
22 provide advice to the Department of the
23 Interior as follows:
24 (a) Recommendations on criteria
25 for water quality standard setting
-------
2114
1 DONALD ¥. MARSHALL
2 based on health aspects of
3 intended water use for drink-
4 inter water supplies, shellfish
5 and other marine food produc-
6 tion, bathing, and other water
7 contact activities. Recomraenda-
8 tions will be provided and
9 modified as new supporting data
10 are developed."
11 In considering these guidelines it must
12 be noted that they are based upon available in-
13 formation and are subject to review and modifica-
14 tion as new information becomes available. It
15 should also be recognized that guideline contami-
16 nant levels constitute only one of several health
17 protection tools. Before waters in any one geo-
18 graphic location can be considered safe for any
19 of the various human uses at least two additional
20 facets should be considered:
21 1. Sanitary Survey: As examples,
22 low contaminant levels can mask an
23 intermittent but potentially hazardous
24 pollution source; or special geologic
25 features can provide a short-circuit
-------
2115
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 pathway for quick pollution travel
3 from source to wells used for com-
4 munity purposes. A sanitary survey
5 made by qualified public health
6 authorities is needed to reveal
7 these and other hazardous possibilities
8 in the health consideration of specific
9 waters.
10 2. Epidemiology: As a third facet
11 in the trilogy of health checks,
12 epidemiology will indicate whether
13 identifiable disease occurrences
14 have been associated with specific
15 waters. Initially such an assess-
16 ment will depend upon existing
17 records. Plans should be made how-
18 ever for the systematic recording
19 of pertinent data and the epidemi-
20 ological assessment should be of a
21 continuing or periodic nature routinely
22 done by health authorities.
23 For waters to be considered safe from a
24 health standpoint, a satisfactory finding must be
25 made on water quality levels; and the sanitary
-------
2116
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 survey and epidemiology must reveal no serious
3 hazards or disease occurrence. On the other hand,
4 negative findings on any one of the three aspects
5 would raise serious health questions with regard
6 to the use of specific waters for human purposes.
7
WATER QUALITY FOR DOMESTIC
8
AND FOOD PROCESSING USES
9
10 To be considered safe from a health
11 standpoint, the subject waters should meet indi-
12 cated cirteria for quality, and be Judged safe
13 on the basis of a sanitary survey and an epi-
14 demiological assessment. Water for food processing
15 should meet the same requirements as water for
16 domestic use; however, where food processing
17 may concentrate contaminants or otherwise change
18 the nature of contaminants, additional and
19 stricter requirements may be needed as deter-
20 mined by health authorities.
21
A. Public Health Service Drinking Water
22
Standards - 1962
23
24 As part of its responsibilities under
25 the Public Health Service Act, the Public Health
-------
; 2117
1 DONALD V. MARSHALL
2 Service has developed over the years and kept
3 up to -date the subject standards for potable
4 water used by carriers subject to the Federal
5 Quarantine Regulations. These standards
6 constitute the essential baseline for health
7 criteria with respect to water quality for
g domestic and food processing uses. They also
9 serve as an important reference point for health
10 criteria with respect to water quality for other
11 uses.
12
B. Quality of Untreated Raw Ground Water for
13
Domestic and Food Processing Uses
14
is a) Bacteriological: Should meet
16 Public Health Service Drinking Water
17 Standards
18 b) Physical: Should meet Public
19 Health Service Drinking Water Standards
20 c) Chemical: Chemical present should
21 not exceed the following concentrations:
22 Substance Concentration (mg/1)
23 Arsenic (As) 0.01
24 Barium (Ba) 1.0
25 Boron (B) 1.0
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DONALD W. MARSHALL
• • i I. ..-..i. i, ..,.._, _^»— ••—^•.j^
Substance Concentration (m«/l)
Cadmium (Cd)
Carbon Chloroform Extract (CCE)
Chloride (Cl)
Chromium (Hexavalent, Cr*^)
Copper
Cyanide (CN)
Detergents (Methylene Blue
Active Substances)
Fluoride (P)
50.0-58.3*°F
58.4-70.6*°F
70.7-90.5*°F
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Nitrogen (in nitrate or
nitrite form)
Phenols
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sulfate (SO^)
Total Dissolved Solids
Uranyl ion (U02++)
Zinc (Zn)
Substances not included
0.01
0.2
250
0.05
1.0
.01
0.5
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.3
0.05
0.05
10.0
0.001
0.01
0.05
250
500
5.0
5.0
in the above
table which may have deleterious physiological
effect or which may be excessively
the water supply system should not
in the raw water supply.
corrosive to
be permitted
d) Radioactivity: Should meet Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards
e) Pesticides: Should not exceed
limits:
* Annual average of maximum daily
the following
air temperatures
-------
2119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DONALD W. MARSHALL
Maximum Permissible
Pesticide Concentration *mg/l
1. Endrin
2. Aldrin
3. Dieldrin
4. Lindane
5. Toxaphene
6. Heptachlor
7. Heptachlor Epoxide
8. DDT
9. Chlordane
10. Methoxychlor
11. Total Organophosphorous and
Carbamate Compounds (expressed
in terms of Parathion Equivalent
Cholinesterase inhibitions)
12. 2,4,5-TP Individual limits = 0
13. 2,4,5-T of any combination of
0.001
0.017
0.017
0.056
0.005
0.018
0.018
0.042
0.003
0.035
0.1
. 1 mg/1. Sum
chlorinated
14. 2,4-D** phenoxy alkyl pesticides - 0.1 mg/1.
C. Quality of Raw Water, Treatment
by Disinfectio
Only, For Domestic and Food Processing Uses
a) This water should meet all
the requirements for Physical,
* For long-term exposure
** Short period limit only--two to
more than once or twice a year.
of
three days, no
-------
2120
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 Chemical, Radioactivity, and
3 Pesticides as shown for untreated
4 raw ground water in Sections B. b,
5 B. c, B. d, and B. e respectively.
6 b) Bacteriological:
7 1) Coliform Group: Less than
g 100/100 ml. as measured by a
9 monthly arithmetic mean.
10 2) Fecal Coliform: If fecal
11 coliform density is measured,
12 the above total coliform
13 density may be exceeded, but
14 fecal coliform density should
15 not exceel 20/100 ml. as
16 measured by a monthly arith-
17 metic mean.
18 D. Quality of Raw Water, Treatment by Complete
19 Conventional Means Including Coagulation,
20 Sedimentation, Rapid Sand Filtration, and
21 Disinfection, for Domestic and Food Processing
22 Uses
23 a) Bacteriological:
24 1) Total Coliform Density: Less
25 than 20,000/100 ml, as measured
-------
2121
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 by a monthly geometric mean
3 or,
4 2) Fecal Coliform Density:
5 If fecal coliform density is
6 measured, the above total
7 coliform density may be ex-
g ceeded but fecal coliform
9 should not exceed 4,000/100
10 ml • as measured by a monthly
11 geometric mean.
12 b) Physical: Elements of Color,
13 Odor, and Turbidity contribute
14 significantly to the treatability
15 and potability of the water.
16 Color 75 color units
17 (This limit applies only to non-
18 industrial sources; industrial
19 concentrations of color should be
20 handled on a case-by-case basis and
21 should not exceed levels which are
22 treatable by complete conventional
23 means.)
24 Odor 5 threshold numbers
Turbidity. . .Variable
25
-------
2122
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 (Factors of nature, size, and
3 electrical charge for the dif-
4 ferent particles causing turbidity
5 require a variable limit. Tur-
5 bldity should remain within a
7 range which is readily treatable
8 by complete conventional means; it
9 should not overload the water treat-
10 ment works; and it should not change
H rapidly either in nature or in con-
12 centratipn where such rapid shifts
13 would upset normal treatment opera-
14 tions.)
15 c) Chemical:
16 1) Since complete conventional
17 treatment generally produces
18 little reduction in chemical
19 constituents, raw water should
20 meet the limits given in section
21 B. c of this Guideline.
22 d) Radioactivity: Should meet Public
23 Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
24 e) Pesticides: Should meet require-
25 ments for Pesticides as shown for
-------
2123
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 untreated raw ground water in
3 section B. e.
4
5
HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR WATER RESOURCE
6
AND RELATED LAND USE MANAGEMENT
7
PART II: RECREATION AREA DEVELOPMENT
8
9 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
USPHS, DHEW
10 November 1967
11
CONTENTS PAGE
12
Introduction
13
Site Selection
14
Watershed Management
15
Water Supply,
16
Sewage Disposal *
17
Plumbing
18
Building and Housing Hygiene
19
Milk and Food Sanitation
20
Solid Waste Disposal
21
Compatibility of Recreation
22 and Water Supply,
23 Water Contact Recreation Water Quality. . . .
24 Swimming Pools and Outdoor
Bathing Places
25
Bathing Load for Outdoor Beaches
-------
2124
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 CONTENTS PAGE
3
Travel Trailer Parking,
4
Boating
5
Fish Cleaning Facilities
6
Insect and Rodent Control
7
Campgrounds, Playgrounds,
8 and Picnic Areas
9 Stable Sanitation
10 Conclusion
11
HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR WATER RESOURCE
12
AND RELATED LAND USE MANAGEMENT
13
PART II: RECREATION AREA DEVELOPMENT
14
15 The conservation, development, and wise
16 use of outdoor recreational resources are of great
17 Importance in satisfying the social and health
18 goals of our population. Expanding leisure time,
19 growing interest in outdoor recreation, increased
20 mobility of people, and a rising standard of
21 living make it possible for more people to seek
22 and utilize recreation areas.
23 The term "recreation area" refers to
24 land and water areas dedicated to the enjoyment
25 of the public. These developments generally
-------
2125
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 involve facilities operated by a public agency,
3 concessionaire, voluntary or private groups,
4 or individuals and include parks, campgrounds,
5 shelters, picnic areas, travel trailer parking
6 areas, resorts, motels, hotels, cabin camps,
7 organizational camps, marinas, and other facili-
g ties relating to a variety of activities—swimming,
9 fishing, hunting, boating, sailing, hiking, pic-
10 nicking, camping, touring, and sightseeing.
11 In many instances the planning, pro-
12 vision, and maintenance of facilities in recrea-
13 tion areas have not kept pace with the rapidly
14 increasing visitor load. As a result optimum
15 use of such areas is not possible and deterior-
16 ation of overtaxed facilities is frequently en-
17 countered. Where facilities such as water supply,
18 sewage disposal, and refuse handling are inadequate
19 or lacking, the visitors will fend for themsevles,
20 often creating conditions which are aesthetically
21 offensive as well as serious environmental health
22 hazards for themselves and neighboring community
23 residents or visitors. Available recreation
24 facilities will need to be at least tripled by
25 the year 2000 to meet the needs of the Nation's
-------
2126
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 exploding population and leisure time. Estimates
3 are that adequate environmental health safeguards
4 comprise approximately 30 percent of development
5 costs of new recreation areas. Since these safe-
6 guards represent such an appreciable investment
7 care should be taken in properly planning, con-
8 structing, and maintaining adequate facilities.
9 Experience has demonstrated that when
10 a large number of persons gather in one place
11 health problems are accentuated. The increasing
12 number of visitors to recreation areas has
13 created a need for planning and constructing
14 adequate health-related facilities and for
15 education of the public to observe good sanitary
16 and personal hygiene practices under primitive
17 conditions. Continuing research and studies to
18 develop improved standards and solutions to
19 environmental health problems peculiar to recrea-
20 tion areas and activities need public support.
21 In recognition of the stated relation-
22 ships between recreation and public health interest^
23 and in order to obtain maximum health protection
24 of the population from environmental health
25 hazards in recreation areas, all Federal, State,
-------
2127
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 and local public or private agencies, groups,
3 or individuals having responsibility for the
4 planning, development, design, operation, or
5 maintenance of recreation areas are urged to
6 apply high standards of public health in the
7 administration of and supervision of their
g programs. A high level of performance in this
9 regard can be facilitated by maintaining close
10 cooperation and consultation with concerned
11 health authorities and can be realized by
12 following applicable environmental health
13 standards and criteria.
14 There are many important considerations
15 which must be included in the overall planning,
16 development, and operation of recreation areas to
17 insure that proper health protection of individuals
18 visiting or residing in such areas will be pro-
ID vided and maintained. Among the requisities for
20 a safe and healthful environment in such areas
21 are the following:
22 (I) Site selection based on health
23 and safety considerations as well as
24 convenience, economy, and scenic beauty.
25 (2) Development of sources, treatment,
-------
2128
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 and distribution of water supply
3 to meet quality and quantity
4 standards for domestic use.
5 (3) Proper collection, treatment,
6 and disposal of sewage wastes to
7 prevent pollution hazards.
8 (4) Proper storage, collection,
9 and disposal of garbage and other
10 refuse.
11 (5) Design of kitchen, dining,
12 and other facilities to insure
13 that safe handling and serving of
14 food and drink to the public can
.15 be accomplished. Certification
16 of sources of food, frozen desserts,
17 and milk and milk products during
18 operation.
19 (6) Adequate and safe housing,
20 including campsites, cabins,
21 dormitories, and other public use
22 buildings.
23 (7) Control of insects and rodents.
24 (8) Elimination of accident hazards
25 and promotion of safety.
-------
2129
1 DONALD ¥. MARSHALL
2 (9) Properly designed and operated
3 outdoor bathing areas and swimming
4 pools.
5 The most effective means to insure
6 consideration of these requisites and to insure
7 assessment of their present and future signifi-
8 cance is by active cooperation between health
9 and recreation agencies. The development and
10 review of plans of proposed developments and
11 facilities by qualified public health engineers
12 is essential. A program of periodic surveys
13 and inspection of facilities and their operation
14 in recreation areas should be established by
15 public health and recreation authorities.
16 As an introduction to the factors of
17 concern to health authorities in the development
18 of recreation areas a brief discussion is pre-
19 sented regarding specific problem areas in the
20 following text. The format and much of the text
21 of this Guideline were taken from Environmental
2
22 Health Practice in Recreational Areas.
23
SITE SELECTION
24
25 Sites selected for recreation areas
-------
2130
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 should be well drained, gently sloping, fj?ee
3 from topographical or geological hindrances,
4 and accessible to proposed sources of water
5 supply and sewage disposal works. Sites should
6 be free from heavy traffic, air pollution sources,
7 and noise sources. To be most acceptable and
8 efficient, sites should not encroach on the
9 natural, scenic, esthetic, scientific, or his-
10 toric values of the recreation area. Avoiding
11 locations near swamps and marshes, where insects
12 such as mosquitoes may breed and cause severe
13 annoyance and discomfort, will enable full enjoy-
14 ment and utilization of the area by the visiting
15 public.
16 Other considerations of importance
17 are:
18 (1) Hazard-free entrance to and
19 exit from the recreation area.
20 (2) Surfaced and looped roadways.
21 (3) Availability of an entomologi-
22 cal survey of the area.
23 (4) preclusion of flooding of the
24 recreation area.
25 (5) Control and removal of undergrowth
-------
2131
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 in developed places.
3 (6) Availability of an adequate
4 water supply and sewerage system.
5
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
6
1 Watershed management involves the super-
g vision, regulation, maintenance, and wise use of
9 the aggregate resources of a drainage basin to
10 provide an optimum yield of water of desirable
11 quality, including the control of erosion, pol-
12 lution, and floods. The condition of the soil
13 and the growth it supports have a marked influence
14 on the quality and quantity of water contributed
15 by a watershed. The use of various control
16 measures and management practices in the watershed
17 is essential to conserve water resources and to
18 prevent economic losses to municipal, industrial,
19 and agricultural water supplies, fisheries, and
20 recreation. In carrying out the various functional
21 activities on watersned lands, including grazing
22 of livestock and game, logging, roadbuilding, fire
23 control, sewage disposal, and recreation, it is
24 essential that satisfactory watershed conditions
25 be preserved.
-------
2132
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 Of particular concern are:
3 (1) Erosion control both during
4 and following construction.
5 (2) Controlled cutting of timber
6 in logging areas.
7 (3) Controlled grazing to prevent
8 overgrazing by livestock and game.
9 (4) Control of the disposal of
10 domestic and industrial liquid and
ll solid wastes in and adjacent to
12 recreation areas and. watercourses.
13 (5) Control of mining and ore-
14 processing operations to prevent
15 pollution of the recreation waters.
16 (6) Evaluation of potential health
17 hazards through consideration of the
18 toxicity, persistence, and exposure
19 factors of pesticides to be used.
20 (7) Prohibition of uncontrolled
21 camping in areas without proper
22 facilities.
23
WATER SUPPLY
24
25 An adequate supply of water under
-------
2133
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 pressure which meets the source and protection,
3 bacteriological, chemical, physical, and radio-
4 logical requirements of the Public Health Service
5 Drinking Water Standards-^ or equivalent is
6 essential for the convenience, comfort, safety,
7 and health of visitors and resident staffs at
g outdoor recreation areas.
9 Points which should be considered
10 are:
11 (1) Extension to the recreation area
12 of any State-approved public water
13 supply within a reasonable distance.
14 (2) Quality and quantity of water
15 supplies available.
16 (3) Degree of treatment necessary
17 to provide water meeting the USPHS
18 Drinking Water Standards.
19 (4) Appropriate steps to provide
20 disinfection as well as to prevent
21 chance contamination of hauled water.
22 (5) Completion of a sanitary survey
23 by a qualified person as part of the
24 collection of initial engineering data
25 on the development of the water supply
-------
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 source and Its capacity.
3 (6) Design, construction, and
4 supervision of the proposed water
5 facilities to minimize potential
6 vandalism.
7 (7) Qualified supervision and
g maintenance of the water treatment
9 equipment.
10 (8) Protection of the water quality
H through the design, construction, and
12 maintenance of the distribution system.
13
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
14
15 Safe disposal of human and domestic
16 wastes in recreation areas is necessary for the
17 preservation of the surface and ground waters
18 and the restoration of such waters to the best
19 possible condition consistent with the public
20 health and welfare. Proper sewage disposal pre-
21 vents damage caused by sewage to the propagation
22 and preservation of fish and wildlife, and is
23 essential to protect the visiting public, employees
24 and nearby communities from diseases transmitted
25 through sewage.
-------
2135
I DONALD V. MARSHALL
2 Some important health-related
3 factors are:
4 (1) Provision of a properly de-
5 signed, constructed, and super-
6 vised water-carriage sewage-
7 disposal system. (Pit toilets
8 are unsatisfactory.)
9 (2) Locating outfalls to minimize
10 the potential effects of effluent
ll sewage.
12 (3) Proximity of septic tanks
13 and subsurface disposal systems
14 to buildings, beaches, camping and
15 picnic areas, and water supply
16 ays terns.
17 (4) Properly planned sludge dls-
18 posal.
w
PLUMBING
20
21 Plumbing includes "the practice,
22 materials, and fixtures used in the Installation,
23 maintenance, extension, and alterations of all
24 piping, fixtures, appliances, and appurtenances
25 in connection with any of the following: sanitary
-------
2136
1 DONALD W, MARSHALL
2 drainage or storm drainage facilities, the
3 venting system, and the public or private water
4 supply systems within or adjacent to any
5 building structure, or conveyance] also the
6 practice and materials used in the installation,
7 maintenance, extension, or alteration of storm-
8 water, liquid waste, or sewage, and water supply
9 systems of any premises to their connection with
10 the public sewer system or other acceptable dis-
11 posal facility.H^
12 In planning, the following should
13 be considered:
14 (1) Provision of at least a minimum
15 number of plumbing fixtures based
16 upon peak visitor day use (see Table 1)
17 (2) Conformance of materials used
18 and installation to local and State
19 codes and the minimum standards of
20 the National Plumbing Code (as re-
21 vised).
22
BUILDING AND HOUSING HYGIENE
23
24 Housing of a healthful quality must pro-
25 vide for fulfillment of the physiological needs of
-------
2137
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 man, which include: a thermal environment that
3 not only is conducive to good health but is
4 comfortable and promotes efficiency of livingj
5 air that is chemically pure and free from ob-
6 Jectionable odors; humidity that is healthful
7 and comfortable; and air movement that will
8 assist in maintaining the desired thermal
9 conditions and air purity and will provide
10 for necessary air changes. Housing should be
11 free of noise that may impair health. Lighting
12 should be quantitatively and qualitatively ade-
13 quate including both natural and artificial
14 sources.
15 All buildings and dwelling units should
16 be constructed in accordance with the minimum
17 requirements of the "Proposed Housing Ordinance"
18 prepared by the Committee on the Hygiene of Housing
19 of the American Public Health Association or
20 requirements that are substantially equivalent.
7
21 The "Basic Principles of Healthful Housing,"
22 prepared by the same committee, is another good
23 reference in the field of housing. Those con-
24 cerned with the design, operation, and maintenance
25 of public buildings should consult these references
-------
2138
-,
-»-
-j
LU
_l
CO
<
t-
in
1- 3
4) 4-1
JC X
o u-
i:
in
cn c
c —
— (0
c c
— 3
i- O
O 4-
u
0
in in
-O L.
+-1 3
JC 0
4-^ JC
05 in
CO
in
4)
•_
u
O
4^
03
03
_J
in
• —
05
C
u
— »
in
4-)
03
in
0
O
4J
ro
cn
c.
-a
3 >-
-Q O
C
4- 05
O a
3
4> O
QL O
>- 0
1-
c
05
"o cn 4)
co c. \-
4-1 •— ro
03 £
0 £ -
O — O
— 5 0
in a.
•
in
0)
— CM
03 0
E u-v 4-
03 -^ O
U- —
E
m E
43 0 —
— i-O C
05 ^ —
2T — E
in
0)
— O
03 O
E —
0) --V.
1 1 »^
in o
a) o
ro \
in
0)
— • 1
03
E i
03
U- 1
in
4) L.O
— r--
05 ^.
s: —
in
0)
»—
ro O
E '-O
4) \
U. —
in
0) IJO
03 ^
in
, i_
m — a>
— X -c
O (U
Q. E . -(§
C T( ~^
O) O fO a)
C 0 ^
§(D <
— 03 3 ,—
J as E l*-
oo *-•
UJ
r- «*
O
f-
EX —
3—05
*^y |JL_ TT|
in
4)
L. 4-*
0) —
-O in
G
3 4-
Z O
in
Oj
i
4-J
u. X
0) • —
.0 4-
E
3 4-
Z O
in
(U
U 4-J
Q) .—
_o in
E
3 ' 1 -"-I"
•z. o
- U.
1- 3
0) 4-1
J3 X
E —
3^-4)
z o!
in
41
U 4->
4) •—
JD in
E
3 4-
Z O
— CM
•— rM
O O
CM ro
r i
i r—
CM
— CM
O O
CM CO
1 t
r— V—
CM
, CM ro
— CM
O O
CM ro
1 i
»— •—
?M
-
m
c -o
O c
— 3
4J O
03 U
4-1 (7>
in Q.
g:
4J 03
u u
o
4- L.
§o
4-
o
4)
03
E
4)
'4- 1 1
O in
4)
u u
4) 3
.a 4-1 4)
EX —
3 — ro
Z 4- j;|
cn
c
14— •—
0 -X
L.
i- ro in
4) O. 4)
_r; tj
E i- ro
3 03 Q.
Z o in
1 I .
O m
0)
i_ i_
0) 3
_D *J
E X
3 —
IT 4-
CD
C
U- .—
O Ju:
L.
u 05 in
a) a. 0)
JO O
E i- 03
3 05 CL
Z u in
4)
03
4)
1 1 j^
O — *— • r^
J- X)
CM -3" O
• — CM ro
O
O O CM
_^" CO •"•"
1 1 1
•— F— • ^—
j- oo
in
in ro
C 0)
O u
4-1
03 U
4-1 • —
in c
O
4W »^
L. Q.
O
u- u
§ <£
o
in
0)
03 O
E >*-
U TD
O (U
14— ^
.—
— in
03 4)
C "O
u. in
3 —
— 4->
41
"o in •
C O in
03—3
o —
• U T3
1/5 4> 03
V- !
'O O ^
ro
CM "O
4) ro
M 4.1
in 3 c
03 ••— JC
in 4-* 4-*
O in —
— J"> S
03
u in in
m o>
4-> 13 4-1
03 C —
2 ro in
4-1
CM in L.
— O
C C u-
— 03
03 in in
4J 4)
c < —
O 4->
o —
-o in —
»— 4* O
3 ^" 03
o ro M-
-c E
in cy 4)
M— ~O
(0
O U >
COO
03 4- t.
— Q.
03 yi
-Q 0) T3
•O U 3
000
O 4-> JC
cn ro in
j>
JC 03 C
*j — 0
• «• 1^
S CM 4->
05
C T3 4J
O C in
.- 05
03 in i-
4-1 4-> 0
in 4) M-
m E
4J o 5
I- — O
O O
4-" ^ c*"
E 4*
O *J
U 05 •
5 in
< 43
CM —
m
"O E
C 0)
f0 M-
in
§
O
01
'o
4-1
c
X3
in
C
O
C
o
in
in
c
03
4J
C
cn
C
.*
c
-------
. 2139
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 for more complete coverage of this subject.
3 Plans and specifications convering housing,
4 dormitories, camps, hotels, restaurants, and
5 similar facilities should be submitted to the
6 appropriate authorities having jurisdiction
7 for review and recommendations. Some of the
8 more important aspects of housing not covered
9 elsewhere in this Guideline are outlined below:
10 (1) Provision of adequate openable
11 w.indow area for habitable rooms.
12 (2) Provision of adequate outlets
13 where electric service is available.
14 (3) Provision of adequate safe
15 heating facilities.
16 (4) Provision of screens for doors
17 and openable windows during seasons
18 when it is necessary to protect
19 against mosquitoes, flies, and other
20 insects.
21 (5) Protection of buildings against
22 rodent entry.
23 (6) Construction of water closet
24 compartment and bathroom floor surfaces
25 of material impervious to water.
-------
2140
1 DONAH) ¥. MARSHALL
2 (7) Minimum spacing of buildings
3 as defined in Table II.
4 Table II. Spacing and Location
of Buildings5
5
Feet*
6
Apartment Buildings 40
7
Bunkhouses 40
8
Dormitories 40
9
Duplex residences 30
10
Multifamily dwellings 40
11
Quarters 30
12
Ranger station 30
13
Unit for seasonal occupancy 40
14
15 MILK AND POOD SANITATION
16
Despite the progress which has been
17
achieved in food protection programs, foodborne
18
*Minimum spacing between various housing units and
19 I
any other building regardless of construction type.
20
All buildings in this group should be so located thjat
21
the side facing the a ccess road is not less than 25
22
feet back from the inside line of the sidewalk or
23
road curb where no sidewalk occurs. Each building i|n
24
this group should have one side, other than the one
25
facing the access road, not less than 60 feet from j
-------
21*1-1
DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 any other building.
3 illness continues to be a major public health
problem. The incidence of such illness can be
reduced by the application of the basic prin-
ciples of food protection. However, to achieve
_ this on a day-to-day basis, better understanding
8 on the part of many food-service employees and
employers must be developed, and this in turn
will necessitate a maximum of cooperation between
public health agencies and the food service
12 industry. The need for ever greater attention
to this problem ii. recreation areas is due to the
14 seasonal operation of many areas and the widely
15 fluctuating visitor load that must be accommo-
dated by food service facilities provided.
Seasonal employees who lack adequate training in
lg good food-handling practices introduce additional
19 hazards.
20 The applicable State and local milk
2i sanitation laws and regulations and the Public
22 Health Service "Grade 'A1 Pastuerized Milk
•i 8
23 Ordinance should be followed for the dispensing
24 of milk and milk products. The "Pood Service
25 Sanitation Manual"^ including "A Model Food
-------
2142
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 Service Sanitation Ordinance and Code, 1962
3 Recommendations of the Public Health Service"
4 is a basic reference in the field of food
5 sanitation. Where ice is produced for public
6 use the "Sanitary Standard for Manufactured
7 Ice - 1964 Recommendations of the Public Health
nlO
8 Service should be applied. A basic reference
9 for the dispensing of foods and beverages is
10 "The Vending of Poods and Beverages' ^ a sani-
ll tation ordinance and code recommended by the
12 Public Health Service. When a rood service
13 establishment is constructed, properly prepared
14 plans and specifications, showing layout, arrange-
15 ment, and construction materials and the location,
16 size, and type of fixed equipment and facilities
17 should be submitted to the health authority having
18 jurisdiction for approval before work is initiated.
19
SOLID WASTE 'DISPOSAL
20
21 Public health problems are often
22 associated with improper storage, collection,
23 and disposal of solid waste in recreation areas.
24 Experience has shown that the application of the
25 basic principles of sanitation to solid waste
-------
2143
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 handling results in substantial reductions in
3 fly* rodent, and other insect problems. ^
4 In addition, there are significant relationships
5 between the incidence of certain diseases in
6 humans and animals and improper solid waste
7 disposal.m~>^-5 Many hazards and nuisances, such
8 as fire, smoke, odors, and unsightliness, are
9 also created by poor solid waste handling prac-
10 tices. The full appreciation of recreation area
11 values by the public is often diminished by the
12 disorder of accumulated solid waste.
13 Among the principles to be planned
14 for are:
15 (1) Collection of solid waste in
16 durable, watertight, rust-resistant,
17 nonabsorbent, and easily washable
18 covered containers.
19 (2) Sufficient solid waste collec-
20 tion plans (number of containers,
21 size of containers, and frequency of
22 collection) to prevent unsightliness
23 and fly and rodent problems.
24 (3) Disposal of trash and garbage.
25 a) by sanitary landfill
-------
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 b) by incineration
3 c) by garbage grinding
(to sewage system)
4
d) by feeding cooked garbage
5 to swine and/or
6 e) by modified sanitary
landfill
7
(4) Prohibition of open burning
8
other than camp fires.
9
10 THE COMPATIBILITY OP
RECREATION AND WATER SUPPLY
11
12 The competition among multiple uses of
13 our land and water resources demands assessment
14 of the compatibility of uses such as recreation
15 and domestic water supply. There is no doubt
16 that recreation comprises one of the major uses
17 of water resources, representing major economic
18 and social benefits. Domestic use is also of
19 major benefit and may often be the most exacting
20 use of the water resources. When various uses
21 are not compatible and conflicts exist, compromise
22 is necessary. Where multiple compromises between
23 the two uses should be considered and adopted.
24 The following factors concern these compromises.
25 (1) Present physical, chemical,
-------
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
and bacteriological quality of
2
the water resource.
3
(2) Comparison of the probable
degree of contamination of the
5
water resulting from recreational
6
and other uses to water quality
7
guidelines or State or Federal
O
standards for recreational and water
9
supply use,
(3) Degree of toxicological con-
tamination and deterioration of
12
water quality by wasted oils, motor
13
fuels, pesticides, and other chemi-
14
cals used to maintain and operate
15
,. recreation facilities and equipment.
lo
(4) Interference with the drinking
10 water use resulting from increased
lo
turbidities caused by boating, water
20
contact sports, and erosion from
21 roads and cleared recreation areas.
22 (5) Control of taste, odor, and
23 color producing algal growth.
24 (6) Proposed degree of water treat-
25 ment for the drinking water use
-------
2146
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 (7) Adequacy of the proposed
3 water treatment to handle antici-
4 pated pollution loads with a
5 proper safety factor for producing
6 water meeting the PHS Drinking
7 Water Standards.
8 (8) Provision of a multiple
9 elevation withdrawal tower as
10 the water supply intake to allow
11 the advantage of planned withdrawal
12 of the highest quality of water
13 under varying conditions of water
14 quality in the reservoir.
15- (9) Designation of a restricted
16 area around the water supply intake
17 in which recreational use is pro-
18 hibited.
19 (10) Assurance of a minimum holding
20 time of 30-45 days in the restricted
21 area before transmission to the water
22 treatment plant.
23 (11) Complete clearance of the re-
24 stricted area of vegetation, buildings,
25 manure deposits, swamp debris, and
-------
2147
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 other sources of organic matter.
3 (12) Monitoring of the water
4 quality on a regular basis.
5 Only where these factors have been con-
6 sidered in some detail and resolved to the satis-
7 faction of the concerned health authorities can
g the simultaneous use of reservoirs for water
9 supply and recreation be considered satisfactory.
10
WATER CONTACT RECREATION
11
WATER QUALITY
12
13 These guidelines include biological,
14 chemical, and physical quality criteria. Final
15 Judgment on the acceptability of the use of any
16 water classified under these guidelines should
17 also include consideration of the significance
18 of the findings of a complete sanitary survey
19 and continuous surveillance of possible hazards
20 as well as appropriate safety considerations.
21 Biological (To be reevaluated for
inclusion of sample size
22 and sampling frequency)
23 The fecal coliform density should not
24 exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml with a
25 sampling frequency of 5 samples per month taken
-------
2148
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 during peak recreational use. Not more than 10
3 percent of the samples fecal coliform densities
4 should exceed 4-00/100 ml.
5 Chemical
6 The water should contain no chemical
7 which could cause toxic reaction if ingested
8 or irritation to the skin or eyes. The water
9 pH should be within the range 6.5-8.3'
10 Physical
11 The water color should not exceed
12 15 standard units and its turbidity should not
13 exceed 30 standard units. Maximum water tempera-
14 tures should not exceed 85°F (30°G).
15
SWIMMING POOLS AND OUTDOOR BATHING PLACES
16
17 Public health authorities have been
18 concerned with sanitation and safety problems
19 involving swimming and bathing for many years.
20 While the problem of accidents and drownings
21 are the most dramatic statistics relating to
22 swimming, the communicable disease aspects must
23 be given proper attention.
24 The following factors should be
25 considered:
-------
2149
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 (1) Design, construction, and
3 operation of proposed swimming
4 pools in accordance with require-
5 ments of the health authority
6 having jurisdiction or in accordance
7 with the standards outlined in the
8 "Suggested Ordinance and Regulations
9 Covering Public Swimming Pools"'
10 and "Environmental Health Practice
,,2
11 in Recreational Areas.
12 (2) Acceptability to health
13 authorities of the proposed water
14 supply as a potable water source.
15 (3) Discharge of the swimming pool
16 water through an air gap to the waste
17 water receiver and recharge of the
18 swimming pool through an air gap.
19 (4) Proper design for "user loading."
20 (5) Practice of continuous disinfec-
21 tion of pool water.
22 (6) Routine examination of bacterio-
23 logical samples taken from outdoor
24 bathing places.
25
(7) Decisions on the use of natural
-------
2150
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 bathing areas based upon the
3 results of chemical analyses, bac-
4 teriological examinations, and a
5 sanitary survey of the proposed
6 natural bathing area.
7 (8) Elimination of possible gross
g animal pollution of the bathing area.
9 (9) Evaluation of the effects of
10 peak visitor days on water quality
11 and recreational use.
12
BATHING LOAD FOR OUTDOOR BEACHES
13
14 In a swimming pool whose water is de-
15 rived from a public or other supply of drinking
16 water quality, it may be assumed that the presence
17 of organisms of the coli-aerogenes group indicates
18 pollution by fecal matter. The presence of such
19 bacteria in outdoor bathing places, however, may
20 be largely due to generally harmless soil bacteria.
21 The portion of the total coliforms of fecal origin
22 vary radically in surface waters. Routine bac-
23 teriologic tests can differentiate between harmful
24 and harmless contamination by determining the
25 degree of fecal contamination present through
-------
2151
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 fecal coliform density determinations. Where
3 outdoor teaches are used, harmful contamination,
4 defined as the fecal coliform density, may be
6 caused by sewage from boats, individual dwellings,
6 hotels, factories or other establishments,
7 public sewerage systems, refuse dumping,
8 warm-blooded animals, and bathers themselves.
9 Where water is proposed for beach use
10 and will be dependent upon stream flow or lake
11 circulation for cleansing and dilution, the
^
12 maintenance of a constant and appreciable flow
13 of water past the beach or impounding dam during
14 beach use should be ascertained. Any small
15 stagnant pool patronized by a number of bathers
16 is certain to show bacteriologic pollution in
17 considerable amounts unless disinfection is
18 provided. While no specific amount of diluting
19 water for outdoor beaches can be recommended, it
20 is probably fair to say that less than 500 gallons
21 per bather per day is too small a diluting volume
22 without disinfection. APHA and CSSE Recommended
i 8
23 Practice states "the total number of bathers
24 using a fill and draw swimming pool shall not
25 exceed one person for each 500 gallons of water
-------
2132
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 in the pool between complete changes of pool
3 water without disinfection."
4 The "Becker" formula has been used in
5 New York State1" as a practical guide in deter-
6 minding necessary volumes of diluting water.
o
7 This formula is Q s 6.25T where Q = quantity of
8 water per bather and T = replacement period in
9 hours. By this formula if the water circulation
10 is such that the pool volume will be replaced
11 in 8 hours, Q = 400 and the number of bathers
12 permitted in 8 hours would be the capacity of
13 the pool divided by 400.
14 Whether or not disinfection is employed
15 every effort should be made to eliminate all
16 sources of sewage pollution on small streams
17 or lakes used for bathing and careful sanitary
18 surveys of the watershed are recommended. It is,
19 of course, desirable that bathing be limited to
20 clear bodies of water and that muddy bottoms
21 which will cause turbid water be avoided.
22 From the foregoing discussion, a
23 derivation of bathing load to be used as a "rule
24 of thumb" can be formulated with the following
25 assumptions.
-------
^___ 2133
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 a) Where the replacement period
3 has not and cannot be determined
4 500 gallons of water per bather
6 per bathing period will be con-
6 sidered adequate dilution volume
7 without disinfection.
8 b) The bathing period will be
9 considered to be 8 hours (from
10 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
11 c) Pool volume will be calculated
12 as shown by the cross-sectioned
13 area below.
14 d) The minimum value for the
15 average bottom slope (g) will be
16 0.03.
17 e) Where the beach curvature
18 varies from a straight line
19 radically, the responsible engineer
20 may, according to his best Judgment,
21 use more complicated calculations
22 in determining the pool volume.
23 f) Where the replacement period (T)
24 is known the pool volume per bather
25 per bathing period (v) will be determined
by the simple calculation v=500x-g
-------
2154
r> i .1 i /u\
Pool Volume (V) -
Average
(perpendicular to beach line)
(3.4.i) » 7.5
/ / , ,N
* ((lx3)
V (gallons) « ^^ G x 7.^8 = 50 i
u
Maximum Bather Load
People •--- ^ B x ^ r= o.ll |
-------
2155
I DONALD ¥. MARSHALL
2
TRAVEL TRAILER PARKING
3
4 The great increase in the number of
5 travel trailers on the highways during the
6 vacationing months is quite evident to the
7 motoring public and reflects the increasing
8 amount of leisure time and extra spending power
9 being enjoyed by more people each year. It
10 also points out the need to keep pace by the
n development of adequate travel trailer parking
12 areas and related facilities each year which
13 meet accepted standards of health and safety.
14 Considerations involving accepted
15 standards of health and safety are:
16 (1) Design of parking facilities
17 for both self-contained and non-
18 self-contained travel trailers.
19 (2) Provision of a sanitary
20 station for the disposal of holding
21 tank wastes.
22 (3) Design of travel trailer parking
23 areas for overnight or destination
24 use.
25 (4) Availability of adequate water
-------
2136
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 supply and satisfactory means
3 of sewage disposal.
4 (5) Design of approach roads
5 for trailer traffic.
6 (6) Conformance of the spacing
7 of trailers to the minimum 15
8 foot separation specified by the
9 National Fire Protection Asso-
1(T ciatlon.
11 (7) Remoteness of the water tank
12 filling station and the sanitary
13 station from one another.
14 (8) Special provisions for the
15 disposal of sink wastes.
16 (9) Development of detailed plans
17 for refuse disposal.
18 (10) Convenience and adequacy of
19 service buildings anticipated use.
20 (11) Provision of electrical
21 service by underground cable.
22 (12) Submission of detailed plans
23 and specifications of the travel
24 trailer parking areas to the health
25 authority having jurisdiction
-------
2157
I DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 for review and approval.
3
BOATING
4
5 The outdoor boating industry reported
6 in 1962 that there are more than 8 million
7 pleasure "boats being used for recreation in
8 U. S. waters and the trend is increasing upward.
9 More and more of these boats are being equipped
10 with a galley and toilet facility. Therefore,
11 body wastes, galley wastes, and other debris
12 are being discharged into our watercourses to
13 threaten or damage the recreational values of
14 swimming, fishing, and other aquatic sports.
15 The dredging of boat basins and the construction
16 of small craft harbors, marinas, boat launching
17 ramps, and docking floats are but a few of the
18 projects being constructed or planned for
19 recreation areas. Such new developments which
20 attract and serve boating enthusiasts may create
21 water pollution and related health problems of
22 concern to public health and recreation authorities
23 For this reason it is most important that the
24 planning of such developments consider the
25 environmental health aspects involved as
-------
2138
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 demonstrated In the following:
3 (1) Inclusion of adequate separate
4 facilities for collection and dis-
5 posal of domestic sewage, waste
6 oils and fuel and solid wastes
7 in the planning and design of pro-
8 posed marinas.
9 (2) Location of a permanent comfort
10 station with sanitary facilities for
11 both sexes near the piers.
12 (3) Provision of a water carriage
13 sewage disposal system.
14 (4) Provision of a paved ramp for
15 launching boats at both high and
16 low water levels.
17 (5) Provision for land disposal
18 of wastes from floating facilities.
19 (6) Provisions to eliminate waste
20 and spillage during storage and dis-
21 pensing of gasoline from floating
22 facilities.
23 (7) Regulation of construction and
24 use of boats with marine toilets.
25 (8) Inclusion of refuse disposal
-------
2159.
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 practice, designation of re-
3 stricted areas., safety require-
* ments as recommended by the U.S.
5 Coast Guard, and the control of
6 health and accident hazards in
7 boating requirements.
8
FISH-CLEANING FACILITIES
9
10 Fishing is an activity many visitors
11 enjoy while visiting recreation areas, especially
!2 where natural reproduction and stocking of local
13 waters is accomplished. Where fishing is pro-
14 ductive, consideration should be given to the
15 installation of fish-cleaning facilities near
16 boat docking and launching areas. These facili-
17 ties are essential to control nuisances, odor,
18 and pollution from the indiscriminate cleaning
19 of fish and the disposal of these wastes into
20 lakes, reservoirs, and along shorelines.
21 In planning these units consideration
22
should be given to the following factors:
23
(1) Screening or full enclosure of
24 the facility.
25 (2) Provision of tables having
-------
B 2160
I
1 I DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 Impervious, nonabsorbent surfaces
3 sloping to central drains.
4 (3) Provision of potable water
5 under pressure.
6 (4) Provision of adequate disposal
7 of collected wastes and maintenance
8 of the facility in a clean condition.
9
INSECT AND RODENT CONTROL
10
ll Several groups of arthropods and rodents
12 may create serious public health and nuisance
13 problems at recreation areas. These include
14 species that are vectors of human disease organisms
15 or which serve as reservoirs of these organisms
16 or otherwise interfere with man's health, welfare,
17 and comfort. A number of aquatic insects may
18 be encountered at recreation areas located along
19 the shores of impoundments. Mosquitoes are un-
20 doubtedly the most important of these insects,
21 since several species serve as vectors of
22 encephalitis and malaria, and others create
23 public health problems because of their vicious
19
24 biting habits. Other groups of aquatic insects
25
such as deer flies, horseflies, black flies, and
-------
^________ 2161
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 biting midges are vicious biters of man and
3 sometimes are involved in transmission of disease.
4 In addition to the aquatic insects, people who
5 visit water-related and other recreation areas
6 are often exposed to terrestrial arthropods such
7 as ticks, mites, fleas, and flies, and rodents
g including ground squirrels, rats, mice, and
20 21
9 chipmunks. ' The public health importance
10 of these arthropods and rodents involves a
11 number of human diseases including Rocky Mountain
12 spotted fever, Colorado tick fever, tularemia,
13 relapsing fever, tick paralysis, typhus, plague,
14 bacillary dysentery, and typhoid fever. Irri-
15 tation, discomfort, and annoyance caused by bites
16 of the arthropods can seriously reduce the use
17 of an otherwise attractive recreation area. Thus
18 it becomes most important that measures be taken
19 to eliminate or reduce such insect population.
20 These measures can be considered
21 as follows :
22 (1) Contact with State and Federal
23 health agencies for technical assis-
24 tance in preparing control programs.
25 (2) Utilization of naturalistic
-------
2162
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 and source reduction measures.
3 (3) Delineation of low mosquito
4 production potential areas.
5 (Jj-) Implementation of mosquito
6 control practices in preparation
7 of the reservoir basin prior to
8 impoundage.
9 (5) Planning for maintenance
10 practices to control mosquito
11 production within flight range
12 of recreational and inhabited
13 areas.
14 (6) Steps to be taken to control
15 terrestrial arthropods and rodents.
16 (7) Hazards to humans and animals
17 posed by proposed chemical control
18 measures against insects and rodents.
19 I 22
CAMPGROUNDS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND PICNIC AREAS"
20 I
21 Camping is often a necessary part of
22 any outdoor recreation outing that extends beyond
23 one day. Many vacationers stay in motels and
24 hotels; however, tents, travel trailers, and
25 pickup campers have loomed larger and larger on
-------
^__ 2163
1 DONALD ¥. MARSHALL
2 the camping scene in recent years. Camping in
3 the 1960's is increasing at a faster rate than
4 the provision of sites and facilities for
5 camping. Increases in camping will most
6 certainly accompany increases in travel, for
7 camping makes it possible for families to enjoy
g weekends and vacations economically far from
9 home. Camping facilitates other outdoor activi-
10 ties, such as fishing and hunting. When resources
11 are developed for such purposes, adequate facili-
12 ties for camping also should be provided. A
13 survey of participation in outdoor recreation
14 conducted in 1959 and 1960 showed that about one-
15 third of the campers enjoy camping in remote
16 areas removed from other people, while about
17 the same proportion enjoy camping in an area
O-3
18 where they can visit with outer campers. J Con-
19 sequently both types of camping areas are needed,
20 with proper consideration given for environmental
21 health factors relating to this mode of recreation.
22 Campgrounds and picnic areas should be located in
23 such a manner as to protect the areas that are
24 needed for watershed, timber, range and other
25 basic resources insofar as physically possible.
-------
2164
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 Other factors of importance are:
3 (1) Provision of level and well
4 drained tent areas.
5 (2) Plans for regular maintenance
6 of the grounds (cleaned, mowed, and
7 poisonous plants removed.)
8 (3) Remoteness of playgrounds from
9 traffic areas, hazardous topographic
10 features and hazardous land uses.
11 (4) Convenient location of a water
12 supply and comfort station in the
13 area.
14 (5) Provision of a car parking space,
15 a tent or vacation trailer area, a
16 table and bench combination, and a
17 fireplace for each campsite.
18
STABLE SANITATION
19
20 The primary environmental health concern
21 associated with the use of horses is the stabling
22 of these animals and related manure disposal.
23 Accumulations of such wastes afford breeding places
24 for flies, and unless controlled, will invariably
25 produce large numbers of flies. Public health
-------
2165
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 officials recognize that flies constitute a
3 public health hazard and that the abatement of
4 fly populations is essential to the control of
5 certain communicable diseases.
6 These principles should be applied:
7 (1) Stables convenient to recrea-
8 tion areas, but located to minimize
9 potential odor and nuisance problems.
10 (2) Provision of water outlets for
11 hosing down feed and tack rooms.
12 (3) Provision of adequate water
13 supply and drainage lines.
14 (4) Implementation of insect and
15 rodent control practices.
16 (5) Application of a technique
17 of manure disposal preventing the
18 breeding of flies therein.
19
CONCLUSION
20
21 If these factors or principles have been
22 considered and properly resolved then adequate
23 health considerations have probably been included
24 in the project development. If, however, many
25 health factors are unfamiliar or have not received
-------
2166
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 qualified attention then health considerations
3 have not been adequately provided for in the
4 project development. Inadequate consideration
5 of the health aspects inherent in water resource
6 and related land use development projects will
7 mean the probable incorporation of health hazards
8 in the project and a neglect of optimal resource
9 development and optimal use of development funds.
10 Health agencies at the local, State, and Federal
11 level can be of considerable assistance in pro-
12 viding the technical direction necessary to
13 ensure the Inclusion of a healthful environment
14 in the development of water resources.
15
REFERENCES
16
17 1. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
18 Commission, Outdoor Recreation for America, a
19 Report to the President and to the Congress,
20 245 pp.
21 2. Environmental Health Practice in
22 Recreational Areas, US DHEW, PHS, Publication
23 No. 1195, 1965.
24 3. U. S. Department of Health, Education
25 and Welfare, Public Health Service: Public Health
-------
2167
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 Service Drinking Water Standards 1962. Publication
3 No. 956, Washington, D. C., 1962.
4. The American Society of Mechanical
5 Engineers: National Plumbing Code. ASA-A40.8-1955.
6 (27 West 39th St., New York, 18, N.Y.) 1955.
7 5. U.S. Department of the Interior,
8 National Park Service: National Park Service
9 Building Construction Handbook, Washington, D.C.,
10 1958.
6. American Public Health Association,
12 Inc. "A Proposed Housing Ordinance." (1790 Broad-
13 way, New York 19, N.Y.) 1967, (Draft.)
14 7. American Public Health Association,
15
"Basic Principles of Healthful Housing." (1790
16 Broadway, New York 19, N.Y.) 1954.
17
8. U. S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, Public Health Service: Grade
19 "A" Pastuerized Milk Ordinance. Publication No.
20
229, Washington, D.C., 1965.
21
9. U. S. Department of Health, Edu-
22
cation, and Welfare, Public Health Service: Food
23
Service Sanitation Manual. Publication No. 93^,
Washington, D.C., 1962.
25
10. U. S. Department of Health, Education,
-------
2168
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 and Welfare, Public Health Service: Sanitary
3 Standard for Manufactured Ice. 1964 Reeommenda-
4 tions of the Public Health Service.
5 11. U. S. Department of Health, Edu-
6 cation, and Welfare, Public Health Service: The
7 Vending of Foods and Beverages (A Sanitation
8 Ordinance and Code). Washington, D.C., 1965.
9 12. Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency
10 Committee and Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee
11 "Refuse Storage, Collection and Disposal in
12 Recreational Areas." 1961..
13 13• Weaver, L.,Refuse and Litter Control
14 in Recreation Areas, Public Works Magazine, April
15 1967.
16 14. Anderson, R. J. Public Health
17 Aspects of Solid Waste Disposal. Public Health
18 Reports, Vol. 79, No. 2, February 1964, pp 93-100.
19 15. Solid Waste/Disease Relationships -
20 A Literature Survey. US DHEW, PHS, Publication
21 No. 999-U1H-6, 1967.
22 16. "Recreational Use of Domestic
23 Water Supply Reservoirs." Journal American Water
24 Works Association, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 579-580.
25 May 1958.
-------
2169
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 17 • Joint Committee on Swimming Pools
3 and Bathing Places, the American Public Health
4 Association, Conference of State Sanitary
5 Engineers and Conference of Municipal Public
6 Health Engineers in Cooperation with the Public
7 Health Service, Suggested Ordinance and Regula-
8 tions Covering Public Swimming Pools, 19^3•
9 18. American Public Health Association,
10 Inc., "Recommended Practice for Design, Equipment
U and Operation of Swimming Pools and Other Public
12 Bathing Places." (1790 Broadway, New York 19,
13 N. Y.) 1957.
14 19. Hess, A. D.: "Vector Problems
15 Associated with the Development and Utilization
16 of Water Resources in the United States." Pro-
l7 ceedings 10th International Congress Entomology
18 (1956) 3:595-601, 1958.
19 20. U. S. Department of Health, Edu-
20 cation, and Welfare, Communicable Disease Center:
21 Household and Stored-Food Insects of Public Health
22 Importance, Atlanta, 1960.
oo
[ 21. U. S. Department of Health, Edu-
24 cation and Welfare, Communicable Disease Center:
25
Control of Domestic Rats and Mice, Atlanta, 1960.
-------
2170
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 22. U. S* Department of the Interior,
3 National Park Service, National Park Service Hand-
4 book - Special Park Uses. Washington, D.C., 1961.
5 23. Mueller, Eva and Gurin, Gerald:
6 "Participation in Outdoor Recreation Factors
7 Affecting Demand Among American Adults." Outdoor
8 Recreation Resources Review Commission Report 20,
9 1962.
10
11
HEALTH GUIDELINE^ FOR WATER RESOURCE
12
AND RELATED LAND USE MANAGEMENT
13
PART IV: VECTOR CONTROL
14' "
15 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
USPHS, DHEW
16 November 196?
17
CONTENTS PAGE
18
19 Introduction. . « «
20 Practices for the Prevention
and Control of Vector Problems
ai
A. Impoundments
22
B. Terrestrial Arthropods and
23 Rodents at Recreational Areas
24 c. Waterfowl Refuges
25 D. Irrigation . . .
-------
2171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DONALD W. MARSHALL
CONTENTS PAGE
Piel
S.urv
I.
are
P. Channel Improvements and
G. Waterways, Terraces, Ploodways,
Diversion Channels, and Drainage
H. Supplemental Chemical Control
d Survey and Epidemiological
Introduction
Health Guidelines for Vector Control
intended for the use of public health agencies,
water resource construction and operation agencies,
and
the
lems
for others. The Guidelines should assist in
study and evaluation of vector control prob-
and in the prevention and control of disease
vectors and pests which may be associated with
water and related land resources.
The Guidelines may be broken down
into two categories:
1. Principles and Practices for
the Prevention and Control of Vector
Problems
-------
, _ 217P
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 2. Field Survey and Epidemio-
3 logical Surveillance.
4 Major vectors considered include mos-
5 quitoes from the water resource and terrestrial
6 arthropods and rodents from the related land re-
7 source
8
Practices for the Prevention and Control
9
of Vector Problems
10
In the prevention and control of vector
12 problems, special emphasis must be placed upon the
13 prevention of physical conditions which may result
14 in increased vector populations and upon the estab-
15 lishment of physical conditions which will minimize
16 or eliminate existing vector problems; attention
17 must also be given to factors such as the main-
18 tenance of basic sanitation standards, programs
19 for the application of insecticides, location of
20 habitable areas away from potential mosquito pro-
21 duction areas, and so forth. The following prln-
22 ciples and practices for prevention and control of
23 vector problems should be followed in the planning,
24 design, construction, operation, and maintenance of
25 water and related land resource projects
-------
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 A. Impoundments
3 Practices leading to the prevention and
4 source reduction of mosquito and other aquatic
5 insect "breeding sites include the following:
6 1. All borrow pits and other potential
7 ponding areas associated with construc-
8 tion of the dam, relocation of highways
9 or roads, etc., which are located above
10 maximum pool level should be made self-
11 draining.
12 2. Prior to impoundage, the reservoir
13 basin should be prepared as follows:
14 a. The normal summer fluctuation
15 zone of the permanent pool should
16 be completely cleared except for
17 isolated trees and sparse vegetation
18 along abrupt shorelines which will
19 be exposed to wave action.
20 b. Dense stands of timber rooted
21 below the normal summer minimum
22 pool level but extending above that
23 level should be cleared. In some
24 situations, such timber may be
25 felled and securely tied down in
-------
217.4
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 lieu of disposal.
3 c. Borrow pits, depressions,
4 marshes, and sloughs which will
5 be flooded by the reservoir at
6 maximum pool level and which would
7 retain water at lower pool levels
8 should be provided with drains to
9 insure complete drainage or fluc-
10 tuation of water levels.
11 d. If the summer fluctuation zone
12 of the permanent pool is limited to
13 a few feet, consideration should be
14 given to "building out" mosquito-
15 producing areas located within
16 flight range of population groups
17 or recreation areas through the use
18 of measures such as deepening and/or
19 filling. This would minimize the
20 need for repetitious measures for
21 controlling vegetation and mosquito
22 production.
23 3. After impoundage, the following main-
24 tenance measures should be carried out in
25 all potential mosquito "-producing areas
-------
2175,
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 located within flight range of
3 human population groups or recrea-
4 tion areas frequented by significant
5 numbers of persons:
6 a. All dense vegetation should
w i
7 be removed periodically from
g flat, protected areas within the
9 normal summer fluctuation zone
10 of the permanent pool.
11 b. Vegetation,debris, and
12 flotage should be removed
13 periodically from all drains to
14 insure free flows.
15 ^-. Water level management to minimize
16 conditions favorable for mosquito pro-
17 duction should be used to the maximum
18 degree permitted by the primary pur-
19 poses of the reservoir. This will
20 minimize the need for repetitious
21 measures for controlling vegetation
22 and mosquito production.
23 5. As a general principle, waterside
24 recreation areas, particularly those
25 which have facilities for overnight
-------
2176
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 human occupancy, should be located
3 along sections of the reservoir
4 which have a low production poten-
5 tial for mosquitoes and other
6 aquatic insects of public health
7 importance.
8 6. Biological control measures
9 such as maintaining populations
lO of mosquito larva predators should
H be exercised as needed.
12 B• Terrestrial Arthropods and Rodents at
13 Recreational Areas
14 1. Proper storage, collection, and
15 disposal of solid wastes should be
16 practiced in order to prevent and
17 control flies, wasps, other noxious
18 insects, rats, wild rodents, and
19 other small mammals.
20 2. All buildings should be rodent
21 proofed at recreation areas where
22 rodents which may create public
23 health hazards are prevalent.
24 3. Debris, rubbish, and other
25 materials which may serve as
-------
2177
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 harborage for rodents and other
3 small mammals should be removed
4 periodically. At least twice a
5 week removal of garbage is neces-
6 sary to minimize fly production
7 during the summer months. Where
8 pit privies are provided, they
9 should be fly tight and constructed
10 to minimize the possibility of rodent
11 harborage. Where possible such
12 unsatisfactory facilities should
13 be replaced with modern water
14 carriage sewage disposal systems.
15 4. Brush and weeds along paths,
16 trails, roadways, and other areas
17 frequently used by visitors should
18 be treated with herbicides or re-
19 moved in order to reduce the likeli-
20 hood of tick and chigger infestation.
21 Insecticides should also be applied
22 along paths or roadsides to control
23 tick and chigger infestations but
24 only in accordance with recommenda-
25 tions of appropriate Federal or State
-------
n : 2178
v
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 agencies.
3 C. Waterfowl Refuges
4 l. Whenever possible, waterfowl
5 habitat developments should be con-
6 structed so as to minimize mosquito
7 problems.
g 2. Waterfowl areas which are to be
9 flooded during the mosquito season
10 should be diked or otherwise prepared
11 with steep shorelines to preclude
12 shallow water areas favorable for
13 mosquito production.
14 3. Provision should be made for water
15 level management in waterfowl areas
16 which will minimize mosquito produc-
17 tion.
18 D. Irrigation
19 1. Project Conveyance and Distribu-
20 tlon Systems
21 a. Lining or other satisfactory
22 seepage control measures should
23 be provided for all sections of
24 canals and laterals located in
25 porous soil where excessive
-------
2179
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 leakage would result in water-
3 logged areas, seeps, and ponds.
4 b. Drains should be installed
5 to prevent ponding of excess
6 irrigation water and natural
7 runoff along the upper side of
8 canals and laterals. All
9 drainage crossing or inlet
10 structures should be placed on
11 grade to prevent ponding.
12 c. Borrow areas should be made
13 self-draining to prevent the
14 retention of ponded water.
15 d. Where possible, provision
l<> should be made to prevent idle
17 turn-outs and other hydraulic
18 structures from retaining residual ,
19 water.
20 e. Effective measures should be
21 provided to prevent ponding of
22 leakage from water control struc-
23 tures.
24 f. Every effort should be made
25 to establish delivery schedules
-------
2180
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 which will provide farmers
3 with adequate but not exces-
4 sive amounts of water at proper
5 intervals to insure efficient
6 irrigation of the crops concerned.
7 g. Vegetation and debris which
8 would retard normal flows should
9 be periodically removed from
10 conveyance channels, water con-
11 trol structures, and drains.
12 2. Project Drainage Systems
13 a. Trunk drainage systems should
14 be installed to insure complete
15 removal and proper disposal of
16 excess irrigation water, natural
17 runoff, and seepage from both
18 irrigable and nonirrigable lands
19 affected by the distribution and
20 use of irrigation water on the
21 project.
22 b. Drainage ditches should be
23 designed, constructed, and main-
24 tained so as to minimize ponding
25 in the channels and to insure free
-------
2181
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 flows at all times.
3 c. Provision should be made to
4 prevent water from ponding be-
5 hind spoil banks.
K d. Underdrains, culverts, inlets,
7 etc., should be placed on grade to
8 prevent ponding.
9 3. Irrigated Farms
10 a. The sponsoring agency and other
11 organizations concerned with irri-
12 gation agriculture or mosquito
13 control should encourage irrigation
14 farmers to use the following irri-
15 gation and drainage practices which
16 will prevent or minimize mosquito
17 sources:
18 1) The farm supply system,
19 drainage system, and field lay-
20 outs should be properly fitted
21 to the topography, soil, water
22 supply, crops to be grown, and
23 irrigation methods to be used.
24 2) All surface irrigated fields
25 should be properly leveled or
-------
2182
I DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 graded to provide for effi-
3 cient water application and
4 removal of excess water with-
5 out ponding.
6 3) An adequate drainage
7 system should be provided
8 for removal of excess water
9 from all portions of the farm.
10 JJ-) Irrigation methods should
11 be used which will provide
12 optimum irrigation efficiencies.
13 5) Application of irrigation
14 water should be limited to the
15 amount required to fill the
16 crop root zone plus water to
17 cover unavoidable losses and
18 excess water needed to prevent
19 upward movement of salts.
20 E. Farm Ponds
21 i. The pond basins should be cleared
22 of trees, brush, and other dense vege-
23 tation prior to impoundage.
24 2. Ponds should be constructed with
25 steep banks to discourage growth of
-------
2183
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 vegetation.
3 3. All dense vegetation should be
4 removed periodically from shallow
5 water areas.
6 F» Channel Improvements and Drainage
7 1. Borrow areas resulting from con-
g struction of the project -should be
9 made self-draining.
10 2. Material excavated from channels
H should be disposed of in such a way
12 that it will not cause ponding of
13 water.
14 3. Adequate drains should be installed
15 to prevent ponding of water on berms
16 or behind spoil banks, levees, and
17 dikes.
18 4. Drainage ditches should be designed,
19 constructed, and maintained to concen-
20 trate low flows and reduce silt depo-
21 sition and subsequent ponding, thereby
22 insuring free flows at all times.
23 5. Underdrains, culverts, inlets, etc.,
24 should be placed on grade to prevent
25 ponding.
-------
2184
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 6. Collection sumps should be con-
3 structed with steep side slopes,
4 and any emergent vegetation should
5 be removed periodically.
6 7. Sections of natural channels
7 that are cut off or bypassed by new
8 channels should be filled or provided
9 with adequate drains.
10 8. Interior drainage facilities should
11 be well maintained to avoid excessive
12 ponding.
13 9« The use of biological control
14 measures such as stocking with the
15 mosquito fish,Qambusia Affinis, should
16 be used where feasible.
17 G. Waterways, Terraces, Floodways, Diversion
18 Channels, and Drainage Ditches
19 1. Waterways, terraces, floodways,
20 diversion channels, and drainage
21 ditches should be designed, con-
22 structed and maintained to prevent
23 the retention of ponded water or the
24 creation of ponded areas which would
25 be suitable for mosquito production.
-------
2185
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 2. Biological control measures
3 should be used where feasible.
4 H. Supplemental Chemical Control Measures
5 1. In situations where adequate
6 vector control is not obtained
7 through prevention and source re-
8 duction measures) provision should
9 be made for supplemental use of
10 insecticides and rodenticides to
11 achieve the desired level of control.
12
III. Field Survey and Epidemiological Surveillance
13
14 In order to insure that good principles
15 and practices are actually being implemented, that
16 vectors are being controlled, and that disease and
17 nuisance is being prevented, arrangements should be
18 made for routine field surveys and for epidemic-
19 logical surveillance. The routine field surveys
20 should include not only inspections for implemen-
21 tation of physical measures, but also inspections
22 for the presence of adult and larval mosquitoes
23 and other vectors. Regular information on vector
24 populations or disease occurrence is essential in
25 guiding control programs or instituting new programls
-------
2186
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 to cope with existing vector problems as well as
3 unforeseen or emergency situations.
4 Approximately one-half of the States
6 now maintain full-time vector control specialists
6 usually within the organization of State health
7 departments. The Public Health Service also main-
8 tains vector control programs within the National
9 Communicable Disease Center. Both State and Public
^ Health Service vector control specialists can pro-
11 vide technical assistance in determining proper
12 vector control measures- which should be applied in
13 the implementation of specific projects. For
14 information regarding such technical assistance
15 the State health department or appropriate region-
16 al office of the Public Health Service should be
17 contacted.
18 _ _ _
19 MR. STEIN: I hate to put you on after
Mrs. Murray, because I know she is a terribly
21 difficult one to follow.
22
MR. MARSHALL: I know, that was a tough
23
one.
24 MR. STEIN: But Poole fooled us. He
25 saved his trump card for last and we really had
-------
2187
1 DONALD W. MARSHALL
2 nowhere to go.
3 MR. MARSHALL: That was a real rough
4 one to follow, too.
5 MR. STEIN: Before we recess, tomorrow
6 will be Michigan's day. However, it is expected
7 that Governor Knowles of Wisconsin will be here
g and President John Egan of the Sanitary District
9 of Chicago. And when President Egan and the
10 Governor come, they will be given an opportunity
11 to present statements
12 With that, we will stand recessed until
13 9:30 tomorrow morning.
14 (Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., an adjourn-
15 ment was taken.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
t U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE . 1968 0—312-667 (VOU 4)
-------
6060 if
-------
|