In the matter of Pollution of
the Interstate Waters of the
Grand Calumet River, Little
Calumet River, Calumet River,
Wolf Lake, Lake Michigan
and theirTributaries
                          MARCH 2-9,1965








                Conference  in the matter of pollution of

                the  interstate  waters of the Grand Calumet

                River, Little Calumet River, Calumet River,

                Lake Michigan,  Wolf Lake and their tribu-

                taries  (Indiana-Illinois).



                     MR. MURRAY STEIN,  CHAIRMAN




17                                   McCormick Place
                                    Banquet  Room

                                    9:30 o'clock a.m.
                                    March 5,  1965

19                                   Chicago,  Illinois




                          Unvironmrtil Protection




                Regional Program Director,  Illinois
         MR. BLUCHER A. POOLE, Technical  Secretary, and
                State Board of Health,  Indiana
         MR. CLARENCE W. KLASSEN, Technical Secretary, and
10               State Sanitary Water  Board,  Department
                of Public Health,  Illinois.
         MR. PRANK W. CHESROW, President,  and
     MR. H. W. POSTON,
            Department  of Health,  Education, and Welfare,
            U. S.  Public  Health Service, Division of
            Water  Supply  & Pollution Control,
            Stream Pollution Control Board,
13               The Metropolitan Sanitary District of
                Greater Chicago, Illinois










                         "joriTiVV'T''! 0"^ kCEKC**.
             T~>-p7-> ''I'1 ^  i.kJ-1 f  ' ' """*  -""^ •









        MR.  A.  J.  COCHRANE,  Assistant  to the  Operating
          Vice  President, The Youngstown Sheet  and Tube
          Company                                           1030
         MR.  ALLEN D.  BRANDT,  Manager of Industrial
           Health Engineering, The Bethlehem Steel
         MR. KENNETH G. JACKSON, Attorney, National
           Steel Corporation                                1102

         MR.  ROSS HARBAUGH,  Assistant to the Vice
           President,  Manufacturing and Research,
           Inland Steel Company                             1155

         MR.  M.  C. LEAVITT,  Assistant Plant Manager
           Union Carbide Corporation, Chemicals Divi-
           sion, Whiting, Indiana.                          1175

         MR.  GRANVILLE A. HOWELL,  Assistant to the
           Administrative Vice President, United States
           Steel Corporation                                1188
                   (continued on page 1249)
         MR.  RUSSEL C. MALLATT, Technical Service
           Superintendent, American Oil Company             1265
         DR.  G.  H.  MC INTOSH,  Chief Chemist,  American
           Maize Products                                   1285
         MR.  A.  G.  GIANNINI, City Engineer, Sanitary
18          District,   Hammond,  Indiana                      1365
                   (continued  on page  1388)
         MR.  RICHARD  D.  TINKHAM,  Attorney, Lever
           Brothers Company, Hammond,  Indiana               1412
                   (continued  on page  1428)
        MRS. GERALDINE HANSEN,  Secretary-Treasurer,
          South Lake County Stream and Pollution
          Council                                           1445







\ F

Mr. B. A. Poole

MR. ALLEN D. BRANDT, Manager of Industrial
Health Engineering, The Bethlehem Steel

MR. CHARLES SANDOR, Superintendent, Department
of Public Works, City of Hammond, Indiana
MR. PAUL WAGNER, City Engineer, City of
East Gary, Indiana
PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER, Izaak Walton League of
MR. THOMAS E. DUSTIN, State Secretary, Indiana
Division of the Izaak Walton League of America
MR. LILBURN J. TITUS, Mayor, City of Hobart,

MR. DONALD E. WILL, Mayor, City of Valparaiso,
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Town of Porter, Indiana
MR. LEO LOUIS, President, Gary-Hobart Water
Corporation, Gary, Indiana
MR. JAMES R. HOOPER, Central Division Chief
Engineer, Simmons Company, Munster, Indiana
MR. W. A. THIEL, Chief Engineer, LaSalle
Steel Company, Hammond, Indiana
























MR. ROLLIN M. SCHAHFER, Vice President,
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
MR. A. G. GIANNINI, City Engineer, Sanitary
District, Hammond, Indiana




and General Counsel, The Youngstown Sheet and
Tube Company, to Hon. George H. Fallon,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works, U. S.
House of Representatives

by Mr. W. W. Mat hews, Superintendent, Gary
Sanitary District, Gary, Indiana; and
DISCUSSION, by Mr. S. Mogelnicki, Research
and Development Engineer, Waste Disposal,
The Dow Chemical Company










         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   May we  reconvene?

                  The  conference will  come  to order and  reconvene,

                  On my right  now is Mr.  Robert Snyder.

    Mr.  H.  W.  Poston will be a  few minutes late.

                  Mr.  Poole?

         MR.  POOLE:   I  went over  the list  of Indiana people that

    were still on  the  agenda last night and  it is impossible for

    us to finish the Indiana presentation  today if everybody


                  We  are very anxious  to  finish today, but on the















 other hand,  we  don't  want to shut anyone off that we feel or

 he  feels has a  real message which is apropos to the subject

 under discussion here.

                Now the  thing I am proposing is that we

 utilize our  time wisely today.  We have the large industries,

 all of whom  I believe I have left on my list that have been

 mentioned in the Health, Education,  and Welfare Report, and

 then we have the smaller industries in the municipalities and

 I would hope the others that are on our agenda.  For those

 who have prepared statements,  bring them up to Mr. Perry

 Miller and me.   Maybe with some help we can get those all In

 at  the morning  intermission.  We will see that your statements

 are  not  only filed  in the  record but  if you want  to leave

 eight  copies, that  copies  are  passed  around  the table for each

of the conferees.  The people that I think we must hear today,

and  I am referring to United States Gypsum—should I take


 l   United States Gypsum off?

 2        A VOICE:  You have a statement.

 3        MR. POOLE:  We will put in the record the statement

 4   of the United States Gypsum Company.


 6                  The United States Gypsum Company, 101 South

 7   Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, having been designated

 8   by the State of Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board as

 g   a participant in a conference in the matter of pollution

10   of certain interstate waters in Illinois and Indiana,

H   submits the following statement to the conferees:

12                  It has long been the policy of the United

13   States Gypsum Company to cooperate fully with local, state

,.   and Federal authorities in their efforts to reduce and

    even to eliminate water pollution.  Consistent with that

    policy, the United States Gypsum Company constructed its

    East Chicago, Indiana, facility so as to minimize the

    quantities of material which might be discharged into the

    Indiana Harbor Canal.  The Company's early recognition

    that substantial efforts should be made to reduce water

    pollution is no doubt largely responsible for the fact that

    today the relative quantity of industrial wastes discharged

    Into the Indiana Harbor Canal from its East Chicago plant

    is extraordinarily small.*


























                * See Table VI-5Q, Report on Pollution
                  of Waters of the Grand Calumet River,
                  Little Calumet River, Calumet River,
                  Lake Michigan, Wolf Lake and Their
                  Tributaries prepared by the U.S. Department
                  of Health, Education, and Welfare, etc.,
                  February 1965.

                Since its East Chicago plant was originally

 constructed, the United States Gypsum Company has taken

 additional steps to further minimize the quantity of any

 industrial wastes which might be discharged into the Canal.

 Although it has no way of accurately estimating the

 quantity or type of material which may be discharged into

 the Canal, the Company believes that the "suspended solids"

 referred to in the HEW Report of February 1965 consist

 either largely or entirely of fine gypsum dust,  in 1951

 the Company spent substantial sums to install dust collectors

 at various locations throughout its plant to catch the

 fine gypsum dust  generated during the manufacturing process.

 These dust collectors sharply reduced the quantity of dust

 which have been discharged into the Canal.   Furthermore,

 the  Company has for  some time been  working on  a plan to

 increase the effectiveness of these  dust  collectors.   If

 this  plan  proves  feasible, it  is  believed that  the

 increased  efficiency of these machines would very materially

reduce whatever small amount of gypsum dust might currently

be discharged into the Canal.

               In  addition  to the dust collectors,  the


 1   Company has long utilized pieces of machinery called Save-alls,

 2   This machinery catches virtually all the cement, asbestos,

 3   and sand passing through it from the Company's shingle

 4   plant and retains these materials for re-use in the manu-

 5   facturing process, thus preventing their being discharged

 6   into the Canal.  These Save-alls, in conjunction with the

 7   dust collectors, have enabled the Company to keep the

 8   quantity of whatever solid material may be discharged into

 9   the Canal down to quite insignificant amounts.

10                  In conclusion, the United States Gypsum

    Company reaffirms its willingness to continue to cooperate

12   fully with those who seek to decrease the quantities of

13   polluting substances discharged into the Nations waterways.

14   Dated:  March 2, 19&5
                                   Norman A. Lang
15                                  Assistant Secretary
                                   United States Gypsum Company











!                      UNITED  STATES GYPSUM  COMPANY

2                Mr.  B. A.  Poole

                 Technical  Secretary

3                State of Indiana

                 Stream Pollution Control Board    March 4,  1965

4                1330 West  Michigan Street

                 Indianapolis,  Indiana 4620^

                 Dear Mr. Poole:

                    I have  Just had a chance to examine

                 your most  thorough and complete presentation

                 to the conference on Grand Calumet River,

                 Little Calumet River,  Calumet River, Lake

                 Michigan,  Wolf Lake and tributaries (Indiana-

                 Illinois)  called by Secretary Anthony J.

                 Celebrezze, Department of Health, Education,

                 and Welfare starting March 2, 1965,  at

                 Chicago, Illinois, dated February 1965.

15                While I  find that the portions of that re-

                 port dealing with the United States Gypsum

                 Company  are generally accurate, there is one

                 error therein which I  would like to call to

                 your attention.

                    The table on page 51 of the Report states,

                 in effect, that the United States Gypsum

                 Company  has no industrial waste treatment.   As

                 I  pointed  out  in my statement  to the conference

                on March 4,  1965, the United States  Gypsum

                utilizes  both dust collectors and save-alls whose


 1                combined effect is to reduce sharply what-

 2                ever solid material may be discharged into

 3                the Indiana Harbor Canal from its East Chicago

 4                Indiana plant.  I believe these machines
 5                qualify as industrial waste treatment devices

 6                and should have been so included in your

 7                report,

 8                                    Sincerely,


10                                    Norman A. Lang
                                     Assistant Secretary
11                                    United States Gypsum Company
















          MR.  POOLE:   Then,  Youngstown Sheet and Tube and
     Inland Steel.   Then, I  am going to do something that I
     swore yesterday I wouldn't, and that is we've got two
     people that have to make plane connections and we would
     follow Inland Steel by  Bethlehem and follow Bethlehem
     Steel by Midwest and then come back to United States Steel.
                    Then, we would have Union Carbide, American
     Oil, American Maize and the City of Hammond and Lever
 9    Brothers.
10                   Now, this is without question going to take
n    a good portion of the day.
12                   So, I will take it by consent and if some-
13    body feels that he just must speak, all he needs to do
H    is not bring his prepared statement up here at the
is    morning recess.
16                   We will  now call on Youngstown Sheet and
17    Tube, Mr. A.  J.  Cochrane, Assistant to the Operating Vice
18    President.
19         CHAIRMAN STEIN: For the record, Mr. Ben Leland is
20    now sitting with Mr. Klassen for Illinois.
21                   Mr. Leland is in charge of the Chicago office.
22         MR.  COCHRANE:  Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
23    gentlemen:  My name is  A. J. Cochrane, and I am Assistant to
24    the Operating Vice President of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube
25    Company.   We have a plant located at East Chicago on the
     Indiana Harbor Canal.


 l                  Mr. B.  A.  Poole of the Indiana Stream

    Pollution Control Board has asked us to tell you of our

 0   progress in the Indiana Harbor Works waste control

    program.  I will review for you,  first, some historical

    aspects of the area water problems; second, the program

 e   we have under way for solving them; and last, the consid-

    erable progress we have made in the past few years and

    the scheduled program with the State of Indiana for the


                   In much of the Nation the accepted way of

    life until after World War II permitted the discharge of

    untreated sewage and industrial wastes into the waterways.

    That way of life has been changing.  With increasing recogni-

    tlon of the value of the water resource, efforts to protect

    it are providing accomplishment.

                   The Lake County, Indiana - Cook County,

    Illinois, area preceded most of the Nation in doing some-

    thing about its waste problems.  Reports already given

    are testimony to this.  The motivation was protection to

    health.  That goal was accomplished.  The citizens of the

    area do have safe drinking water.

                   In order to accomplish this, however, unique

    approaches were employed.  The location of this metropolitan

    area in the pocket at  the south end of Lake Michigan made

    the  unique  approach a  necessity.

1  1 Since the known methods for treatment of wastes leave
2  | a residual, there must be  some  course for ultimate
                  To provide  it  in this area required reversal
   of  a river.   It  also took  a court  to get agreement and action
   started, but  the  Job was done.
                  The  provisions for  pollution abatement
   to  meet the court decree represented the best engineering
9 I! talent then available for  both  municipal and industrial
10  treatment.  Since then our understanding of the effects
   of  pollution  has developed.   So has the potential  for
pollution, for this area has experienced large industrial
growth with a variety of industries.  These industries have
offered Jobs and Jobs bring people, so the population
has increased as well.
               The waste treatment facilities considered
adequate 20 years ago anticipated neither this growth
nor the wastes which new industrial processing would
create.  The increasing concentration of municipalities
and industries is but part of the story.  The hurdle of
geographic location faced by those who started pro-
 ecting the water supplies over 60 years ago still remains
as a major factor.
              This Is particularly so in the  Indiana
 25 Harbor ShlpOanal.  Plow in the Canal may be to Lake

 6   flow to the Lake — wastes can accumulate and then








    Michigan,  away from the  Lake  or  stationary.   The Indiana
    Harbor Ship Canal drains the  Grand Calumet River
    and carries the discharges from  sewers of cities,
    steel, oil and chemical  companies.  Because  it can hold
    stationary for periods of time — with little or no
    with a change in wind direction or with rainfall in
    the area,  the Canal content moves into the Lake.
                   As the representative of the Youngstown
    Sheet and  Tube Company,  I want to tell you about how
    our program is influenced by this Canal and how we
    are attempting, with State guidance, to determine
    with sound data both cause and effect so that the
    construction of treatment facilities will provide
    adequate protection of the water resource.
                   The Indiana Water Pollution Control
    Board has given this conference a summary report on
    accomplishments in preventing and abating pollution
    in Lake County.  Undoubtedly,  these actions would not
    have taken place without the Board's direction and
    insistence.  There may have been a change in attitude
    by the public in what is acceptable but mental attitude
    by the public must be translated to specific directives
    and objectives if effective pollution abatement
    facilities  are to be  constructed.



















               The Indiana Board's policy  has been  to

require  adequate treatment for  all new production

facilities  and a continuing  program  for controls on

older process operations.  Our  Company has been

complying with that  policy.   However,  as was mentioned

earlier,  facilities  which would be adequate without

question on a flowing stream may not do the Job on  this

tidal Canal.

               The HEW report has summarized the

occurrences of problems at water supply intakes, on

the  beaches and in respect to the appearance of the

Ship Canal. The report has  also provided  data  on

maximum  and average  concentrations of  some of the

water quality characteristics measured during its com-

prehensive  three-year survey,

               In some respects the  data as presented

are  inaccurate but of greater significance, in  our

opinion,  the report  offers no real guidance for

solution of the more difficult  problems.  The recom-

mendation for exclusion of certain types of waste

discharges  is totally unreasonable for an  area  so

heavily  industrialized and which uses  such vast volumes

of water  in processing.  The  alternative offered of

treatment is without guidelines as to either method

or degree.

                   The proposal that the companies institute

    permanent programs of sampling waste discharges to provide
    more complete information on the waste characteristics

    and then provide the data to the State to be kept in

    open files does not provide guidance to answer problems.
    It does offer the concept that pollution is measured by
    the sum of the discharges, not by the quality of the
    receiving water.
                   The concept of the State of Indiana and much of
    industry, certainly Youngstown Sheet and Tube, is to
    determine what water uses are being affected and what
    causes the adverse effect.  Past surveys by this Company
    have shown that it takes more than the routine proposed
    in this report to accomplish protection of water.
                   If the cleanup of the Indiana Harbor
    Ship Canal, and we agree it is polluted, is to be
    accomplished within a reasonable time, the answer must
    be something other than total exclusion of discharges or
    long-term detailed chemical analyses of discharges.
                   A first requirement is to determine the
    water uses to be protected and the quality necessary
    for that protection.  This means there must be a reconcilia-
    tion of individual opinions and desires and a deter-
    mination of what uses are in the best public interest.



 l                  As an example, the water intakes in Lake

 2   Michigan should with reasonable treatment be able

 3   to provide safe and palatable water.  Another example

 4   would be recognition that the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal

 .   is an industrial harbor and not a site for recreation.

 .                  In this report I hope to convey to you some of

    the concepts which guide our pollution control program and

    to show the accomplishments to date and scheduled as well

    as some of the problems remaining.  The program has been

    a continuing one and directed to meet State requirements

    of protecting reasonable water uses.

    Indiana Harbor Works

                   To set the background, let me point out that

    The Youngstown Sheet and Tube property is on the west shore

    of the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal and fronts on Lake

    Michigan.  The Indiana Harbor Works is an integrated steel

    plant with 3 blast furnaces, coke plant, open hearth

    furnaces, rolling mills, pipe mills and sheet

    and tin mills.  The district employs an average of

    11,000 persons and has a rated capacity  of 3,420 ingot

    tons annually.

                   The Company is presently expanding its operation

    To provide the necessary land for a multimillion dollar

    expansion, a slag fill protected  by a breakwater is

    being extended into Lake Michigan.


i   Water Supply

2                  The district purchases its drinking water

3   from the City of East Chicago.  There is some limited use

4   of this for Industrial operations.

s                  Industrial process and cooling water is

6   supplied by two large pumping stations.

7                  No. 1 intake is located at the entrance

8   to the canal, within the breakwater.  This station pro-

9   vides 132 million gallons a day.  Since it pumps water

10   from the canal, the quality of the water is the same as

n   that in the canal.  Measuring the concentration of

12   substances in this water when it leaves the plant gives

13   an impression of waste discharged even when nothing is

14   added by the plant operation.  Unless waste loads

15   discharged from a plant are corrected by substracting

16   the intake loads, the data are in error.

17                  No. 2 intake is located on Lake Michigan.

18   This station at present provides 101 million

ig   gallons a day.

20                  As plant enlargement requires more water,

21   the additional supply will be taken from the lake.  And

22   as part of the Company's program for water control,

    the present plans include the eventual abandonment of

    the canal intake and the obtaining of the total supply

„,   from the lake.  This will automatically reduce the


    measured waste load to the canal.  It will also provide

2   more of a diluting effect on the waters in the canal.

3   Sewage

                   All sewage from the plant is connected

    directly to the East Chicago sewerage system.  None is

    discharged from our plant directly to any waterway.

                   All sewage from the sanitary facilities to

    be located in the new mill construction will also be

    connected to the municipal sewers.

    Blast Furnaces

                   There are three blast furnaces in which

    iron ore, limestone and coke are processed to free the

    Iron from impurities.  The large volumes of hot air

    forced through the furnaces carry some of this charged

    material out.  This flue dust is partially recovered

    in dry dust catchers and the gas is then washed with

    water to remove the remaining solids.  This gas washer

    is clarified in two large settling basins called thickeners,

                   One approach is to provide more effective

    recovery to change the method of washing the gas.  Use of

    venturi washer reduces the amount of water required by

    half.  This in turn increases the time the water stays

    in the thickener and provides more time for the solids to

    settle down.









               One gas washer has been changed to
include the new type cleaning.  Since Installation re-
quires the furnace to be down, installation on the other
units will be scheduled with furnace relining.
               The Company has also been working on means
to recycle the blast furnace gas washer water so that
there will be no discharge to the stream.  Such a pro-
gram is now under way at the Youngstown district plant.
With any new furnace construction at Indiana Harbor
the closed system would be included.
               Of particular importance is the effect
of changing technology on waste loads.  New methods
for preparing sinter and operating the furnace have
reduced the flue dust produced from 300 pounds per
ton to 97 pounds at the Harbor plant.
Rolling Mills
               The polluting materials originating in
rolling mills are mill scale and oil.  The scale is
broken loose by high pressure water sprays from the
ingots, billets, strip or pipe and flushed to settling
basins where it can be prevented from going to the
canal or lake.  Lubricating oil lost on the mills is
also carried by this cooling and flushing water.
               Because the scale pits in the main part
of the steel plant were too small to be modified for


    effective scale removal, a new, very large scale pit

    was constructed at the Lake Shore in 1956 and the three
 3   sewers which carried the discharges from the existing
    scale pits were connected to it.  In 1964, oil recovery
 c   facilities were added to provide continuous oil removal.

 c   Prior to that when oil accumulated it would be pumped out.

                   When the seamless mill was constructed in

 o   1955 an adequately sized basin was provided to settle scale

    and trap oil.  This discharge and the discharge from

    the large terminal settling basin Just described are the

    only two on the lake front.

                   Turning to the canal discharges, the hot

    strip mill is the principal source of scale and oil.
1 w

    In 1957 a new scale recovery basin was installed.  This

    basin is adequately sized and has a bucket crane located

    over it to permit regular cleaning.  Oil recovery from

    this unit has not been effective, so a new oil recovery

    system was designed and is now under construction.

                   Completion of the project is scheduled

    for April 1965.  This source is the largest oil loss

    in the plant, amounting to about one half the total loss.

                        The only other scale pit is at a small

    pipe mill operation.   This scale pit requires modification

    by installation of baffling to make  it  effective.   This  is

    scheduled  as  part  of  the program.


                     There are three rolling mills with

2   sewers discharging to the canal.  In the cold rolling

3   operations an emulsified oil is used.  Such oils are

4   dispersed in water as long as there is adequate agitation.

5   When the oil -water mixture is allowed to stand quiescent,

6   the oil separates and floats on the surface.

7                    The practice on these cold rolling mills

8   is to recycle the oil-water mixture until it becomes dirty.

    Then the solution is replaced.  Survey work by

10   Youngstown Sheet and Tube on movement of odor bearing

    substances through water showed the important role such

12   soluble oils could have.

                     With the building of the new 6 stand

    rolling mill, facilities were provided for breaking the
    emulsion, separating and recovering both the oil and the

    accumulated fine scale.
                     The other two cold rolling mills are
    older operations.  To prevent difficulty from these

    mills, the oil emulsion solutions are hauled to a slag

    dump for disposal.  These solutions formerly were dis-

    charged to the Canal.

                     For the new installations under con-

    struct ion on the lake front a new approach has been

    adopted.  The sewers from this area discharge to the

    lake behind the breakwater.  Since the mill scale in

















some finishing mill operations  is  so fine,  it presents

a  color  problem  rather  than  an  accumulation of  solids.

To handle  this the cooling waters  in the  mills  have

been separated from processing  water which could con-

tain either  solids or oil.  The process water  after  it

leaves the scale basins discharges into a pond  or lagoon

which  is being developed in  this new fill area.

                  The  lagoon  will permit solids  to settle

and oil  to separate.  The water will reach the  lake  by

filtering  through the slag fill.

                  There  is also  a new cold rolling mill

under  construction  in this area.  Treatment facilities

are provided to  break the oil emulsions and separate

and recover  the  oil and solids. To provide additional

insurance  the discharge from this  treatment plant

also goes  to the lagoon.

Spent  Acid

                  The  cleaning of steel  in acid  is

called pickling  and the solution is called pickle liquor.

                  There  has been a  continuing program of

providing  intercepting  storage  sumps and  pumps  to lift

the accumulated  spent acid to trucks for  haulage to  the

slag dump  for disposal.  When the  spent acid is dispersed

over the slag, it is neutralized by the limestone  in

the slag.


                     Such facilities and haulage of acid have

 2   been provided for conduit plant (1950), sheet mill

 3   (1952-53), tin mill (1955), merchant mill (1962),

 4   sheet mill (1963).

 5                    The majority of the acid is now hauled

 6   to the slag disposal area.  Only the hot strip mill

 7   area acid is discharged to the canal.

 8                    YS&T is presently evaluating a new

 g   pickling practice which can change the technology

10   of pickling.  It offers the possibility of recovering

    and reusing acid rather than loss or haulage.

12   Metal Finishing

                     When the halogen tin mill was constructed

    in 1955, provision was made in accordance with the

    Indiana Water Pollution Control Board regulation for an

    intercepting sump which is not connected to any sewer.

    This sump is to catch any solution which might be

,0   accidentally or deliberately discharged in the process

    area.  The waste is pumped to an elevated holding tank

    where it is loaded into trucks and hauled to a slag

    disposal area.  There is also a neutralizing sump to

    provide mixing and control for rinse waters.

                     Repeated surveys using dyes and chemical

    analysis have never indicated any of this material reaching

    the lake from the slag disposal area.


                     Continuous sampling and daily analysis

 .   on the sewer discharge carrying the rinse waters to

    the canal are maintained as part of the state requirement.

    In addition there is a daily analysis for the same con-

    stituents in the canal.  This acts both as a check on

    the waste discharge and as background on canal water

    quality to determine the influence of this operation.

    Coke Plant

                     The HEW report correctly put emphasis

    on the occurrences of taste and odor at the public water

    intakes in Lake Michigan.  The report, however, attempted

    to utilize phenols as the means of tracing and assessing

    responsibility for the trouble.

                     The fallacy of the approach has been well

    documented.  Measurement of phenol in water is

    indicative of wastes from coke plants, chemical industry

    refineries or even decaying vegetation as well as

    sewage.  However, not all tastes and odors are due

    to phenol, and a program which would ignore causes

    of taste and odor unless associated with phenol offers

    little real help to the water plants.

                     The YS&T work in tracing taste and odor

    causes at times of occurrence of trouble at a water

    works is an example of the philosophy expressed earlier

    in this report.  Several years of surveys on the


 !   Mahoning River provided adequate proof that phenol in

 .   itself was no criterion of taste and odor.  These

    studies have been reported in the literature.

                     It was determined that odor can be

    traced; that odor occurrences can be caused by high

    concentrations of organics and that at such a time the

    presence of a particular chemical may predominate and be

    emphasized by the odor level of the other material

    even though, if alone in the same concentration, it would

    not be noticed.

                     These surveys, utilizing an analytical

    method for odor developed at Dow Chemical Company,

    prompted more work on odor analysis and tracing by

    Mellon Institute, Gulf Oil Corporation, Manufacturing

    Chemists Association and others and has resulted in the

    refinement and adoption of the analytical procedure by

    the American Society for Testing Materials.

                     This background is given as evidence

    that solution of some waste treatment problems

    requires development of means to locate the sources.

    The work on the Mahoning River showed that attention

    to phenols had diverted attention from sources of

    waste which did not carry phenols but which caused

    very bad tastes in the downstream water supply.

    When odor was considered as an entity,  sources of

    trouble were found.   The reduction in days of trouble

    at this water intake from 47 days in 1956 to 6 days in
    1964 indicates the progress made.  When sources of trouble
    were defined, controls were provided to prevent
    future difficulty.
                     The findings from the Mahonlng survey are
    guiding the program at Indiana Harbor.  In addition to
    eliminating the losses of soluble oil, there is a pro-
    gram scheduled in the coke plant to eliminate the
    occasional losses of organics which have been shown to















be high odor carrying material.
                 The coke plant has  a dephenolizer to
remove phenolics.  There is  also  an  ammonia  still to
remove the free  ammonia and  lime  is  added to spring the
fixed ammonia.   The dephenolized  still waste goes to
the canal.
                 The sources of waste which  have been found
to be high in persistent odor  (even  though low  in phenol)
and which are of importance  in causing taste and odor
problems are being collected for  disposal in the coke
quenching.  When the organics hit the hot coke  they
are destroyed.   This program will be completed  by 1966.
                 Survey work in the canal and lake during
the 1959 steel strike and since has shown the
importance of the canal movement in taste and odor effects.

                     A program is planned with the Gary-Hobart

    Water Company to identify and trace causes of taste
    and odor as well as to determine the effectiveness of
    the present program for eliminating the slug losses.

                     The HEW report emphasizes the ammonia

    concentrations found in the Indiana Harbor Canal and along
    the lake shore.  The report observes that these
    concentrations are much higher than those measured
    in the middle of Lake Michigan.  This should be
    expected and points up the need to define the uses of the







    water for the area.  Any proposal that the quality of

    the water in the Ship Canal and along the shore

    should be the same as that in the middle of Lake

    Michigan must contemplate closing down industries in
    Lake County.
                     The HEW report notes the ammonia
    concentrations at the Chicago intake as usually less
    than 0.10 parts per million,  in this report these

    concentrations are considered as high and a significant
    source of trouble in water plant operation.  In the

    HEW report to the conference on the Mahoning River, in

    which YS&T participated, there was the statement

    "Ammonia in surface waters comes from the decomposition

    of organic matter, and in clean water rarely exceeds a

    few tenths of a part per million."

                     This is mentioned not to excuse ammonia
    discharged from industries but to suggest that all
    sources of ammonia — natural, municipal and industrial ~
    be put into proper perspective and also to determine its
    effect accurately rather than simply by comparison to the
 6   concentration in the middle of Lake Michigan.
 7   Population Equivalents
 0                    We would be remiss if in reporting on

this  program at  Indiana Harbor we  did  not  suggest
that  the  conferees correct  the misimpression held  by
many  after reading the  HEW  report  that our discharges
had a pollution  load  equivalent  to the untreated sewage
from  100,200 persons.
                  It is  the  Department!* standard practice
to convert data  it obtains  on  industrial organic dis-
charges to what  it calls population equivalents of
sewage discharge.   While both  sewage and industrial
organics  have an oxygen demand on  the  river,  it is
wholly untrue that the  industrial  organics have any
bacterial disease  producing potential  as does sewage.
We feel very strongly that  by  portraying effluent
data  in this  manner,  representatives of  the Department
of HEW misrepresent the  facts  and mislead  the public.
We can only see confusion by this arbitrary conversion
and publication of misleading  information.

























Waste Load Data Reporting
                 One of the HEW report recommendations

calls for permanent sampling of sewer discharges for

some 12 or more chacteristics, measurement of flows

and reporting monthly on both concentrations and

tonnages in the discharges to the state.  The recom-

mendation further suggests that these records be kept
in open file.
                 We objected to releasing plant effluent
data to HEW prior to and at the Mahoning conference and

would like to provide for the record here our objection to

reporting of such information for open file records.

                 Our objections are twofold.  The first is

that we regard the data as confidential both because

some of it is measuring wastes from company processes

which are not available to our competitors and because

it can easily be interpreted as to volume of production

in competitive lines.  The second objection is

our concern over the misuse which the Department has

made of the data in the past.

                 As an example of the latter consider the

reporting of waste discharge data in a report without

making allowances for material in the water supply.

The report indicates one sewer has a flow of approximately

50 million gallons a day.  The sulfate content in the


   discharge  is  the  same  as  in  the water  intake  — about

   50 parts per  million.   This  is far below the  Public Health

   Service drinking  water standard of 250 parts  per million

   considered as acceptable. The HEW report noted this

   sewer as contributing  35,000 pounds a  day of  sulfate to

   the Canal. Actually,  it  added none.

                     We are most willing to work  with the

   State and  supply  to them  such data as  the State deems

   desirable  and meaningful.


                     The HEW  report has provided  an excellent















    summary of normal conditions of flow in the lake, the

    areas of influence on the lake, types of wastes from

    municipalities and industries and the difficulties ex-

    perienced by the water companies.

                     In addition, the report discusses some of

    the potential future problems which may be anticipated

    by broader planning of controls on discharges or

    changes in process operations in new Industrial

    plant expansion to eliminate or minimize such wastes.

    This planning,  however, must be integrated with the

    operation of the Chicago  drainage system and  its possible

    enlargement  to  include the Grand Calumet area in Indiana.

                     In  line with this,  it has been suggested

   that the diversion of the Grand  Calumet  to the  Chicago


   drainage  system should be provided with a positive

   continuous withdrawal from Lake Michigan via the

   Indiana Harbor  Ship  Canal.  This deserves evaluation,

   for  the potential  of buildup  in the  Canal of residual

   materials even  after full treatment  could affect  Lake

   quality.  This  proposal  is not appraised in the HEW

   report.  Such a proposal would seem  to require additional

   diversion water.

                    Of  immediate concern are the obvious  slug















effects on the Lake Michigan water intakes.  Since washout of

Indiana Harbor might be at times responsible for

some of this trouble, the State of Indiana and the

industries involved could develop with the water plants

a Joint monitoring program.

                 Of longer range is the necessity to decide

the programs, municipal and industrial, which would be

necessary to provide different quality standards or

permit different uses to have priority.  Progress in

waste control by the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company

has been accomplished in cooperation with the State of

Indiana by a planned program of approach.  We pledge our

continued assistance in answering the remaining problems.


 j        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Cochrane.

                     I wonder If you would wait for questions.

                     We do have a couple of housekeeping records

    and announcements that I would like to make as early as


                     First, I would like to note Mr. H. W.  -

    Poston has replaced Mr. Snyder as the Federal conferee,

    and I want to express thanks to Mr. Nicholas J. Melas,

    a trustee in the Metropolitan Sanitary District of

    Greater Chicago and Orville Anderson whom we have known

    through the years for sitting in temporarily for Colonel

    Frank Chesrow and Mr. George Lane who are here now.

                     I would like to give you the schedule,

    as we see it now for the rest of the conference.

                     Remember, these are always subject to —

    we expect to finish the Indiana presentations today.

                     As we have roughly computed it here,

    there are about five hours of statements without questions.

    Conferees, of course, can ask any questions or make any

    comments they wish.  But, gentlemen, I am afraid I am

    going to have to keep your nose to the grindstone until

    we finish tonight.  So, the time is yours.

                     After this, we will recess for the; weekend

    and Monday.   We will reconvene again on Tuesday in Room

    11 of McCormick Place at 9:30.


                     At that time, the Sanitary District will

    make its presentation, the conferees will have their

    discussion and consultation, and an announcement will be

    made as to the conclusions and the summary.

                     In other words, we will recess today

    after Indiana and on Tuesday we will reconvene in Room

    11 of McCormlck Place at 9:30 a.m.  The Sanitary

    District will make its presentation, the conferees will

    have discussion and arrive at conclusions.  Announcements

    will be made and the conference should be brought to a

    conclusion on Tuesday.

                     Now, if we may call for comments or

    questions to Mr. Cochrane — thank you for waiting.

    I wanted to make these announcements as early as possible.

         MR. KLASSEN:  Yes, there are several questions  I

    wanted to ask of Mr. Cochrane, some purely Informational

    and some to clear up a little confusion that exists  in

    my own mind.

                     About the philosophy — the way I interpret

    it here, and I would like to Just comment on this — I

    refer particularly to your statement on Page 4 when  you talk

    critically of the Report, and I have been in the posi-

    tion at other times of criticizing Health, Education,

    and Welfare Reports, but certainly not in the same vein

    that you have commented hare.


                      "The Report offers no real guidance  for

                      Do  I interpret  that  correctly that you are

    looking to Government to  suggest solutions for your

    industrial waste  problems?

                      If  it  is,  it  is a little  contrary to my

    own  concept  of free  enterprise on one hand for production

    and  then  you look to someone else to  solve your waste

    treatment problems.
                      Is  that  what  you are leaving with us?
          MB.  COCHRANE:  You mean the —
          MR.  KLASSEN: You  stated  that the  — "report offers
    no guidance  for the  solutions  to the  more  difficult problems."
                      In  other words, you  solve the easy ones and
    when you  get to the  difficult  ones you  expect the Govern-
    ment to give you  the solution,  is that   correct?
          MR.  COCHRANE:  No, I think we are trying to point
    out  here  in  the second  to the  last paragraph  — I will
    repeat it.
                      "The State of  Indiana and much of
    industry, certainly  Youngstown  Sheet  and Tube,  is to
    determine what  water uses are being affected  and what
    causes the adverse effect."
         MR. KLASSEN:   Where  are you reading?
         MR.  COCHRANE:  Second to the last paragraph on Page 4.

 7        MR. COCHRANE:  We think this should be solved in
 8   connection with both State and Federal cooperation.
 9        MR. KLASSEN:  That is in connection with —















That is in connection with the states, if you please.
     MR. KLASSEN:  In other words, I was incorrect in
the interpretation that you are looking to the Government
for the solution of your more difficult problems?
     MR. COCHRANE:  Correct.
     MR. KLASSEN:  This is what you inferred.
     MR. COCHRANE:   Primarily the State of  Indiana,
 our  State, of  course.
     MR. KLASSEN:  You  are kind of evading  my question here.
                 I am possibly not making myself  clear.
                 You feel that —
     MR. COCHRANE:   Let me clear it up.
                 Insofar as, for instance,  the Gary-Hobart
 Waterworks, we certainly worked through Mr. Poole of
 Indiana if it  involved  other state waters and probably Mr.
 Poole would work in  connection with you.
     MR. KLASSEN:  I am getting back to the basic
 responsibility for solving your problem.
                 I personally feel that you create the
 problem, therefore,  it  is your responsibility to  find
 the  solution with whatever assistance you can get  from
 Government but basically, the responsibility is yours.

 i                    Now, do you  agree with this?
 2        MR. COCHRANE:  We think  collectively we  should
 3   work.  That  is,  industry should work with our State
 4   officials  in working  out this cause  and effect basis in
 5   which  to control this problem.
 6        MR. KLASSEN:   I  agree  with that,  you should work with
 7   the  State  agencies  but I am coming back to  where the prime
 8   responsibility rests  for solving  the problem.
 9        MR. COCHRANE:  I think I made it  quite crystal  clear
10   that we will accept our role  wherever  it  might be indicated.
n        MR. POSTON:  Do  you mean to  say that you will clean up
12   pollution  when you  find that  it affects someone?  Or you
13   would  wait until it affects someone  before  you would clean
14   it up?
ls        MR. COCHRANE:  We are  recommending that  this approach
16   should go  a  little  further  than what you  suggest in  your
17   report.
18                    We think this concept of determining what
19   water  quality  uses  are being  affected  and what causes the
20   adverse affect  is a proper  approach.
21        MR. KLASSEN:   In other word*, you will wait until it
22   is pointed out to you before  you will  do  anything about  it?
23        MR. COCHRANE:  Not necessarily.
24        MR. KLASSEN:  Well,  then, what  is your approach?
25                    This is  my understanding —

 g        MR. KLASSEN:  This is all right.  You are a little















         MR. COCHRANE:   As I mentioned before, we're entering

    in a program at the Oary-Hobart Waterworks to determine
    the difficulties responsible for taste and odor and we
    expect to monitor,  in connection with them and the State
    of Indiana officials here, the special ingredients that are
    causing this difficulty and if we are concerned with them,
    if they originate in our plant, we certainly will take the
    usual effort to correct them.
 ahead, you are on page  13 where  I have  some other  notes,
 I will comment on that  now.
                 This is, and  if you will pardon me,
 I might be a  little biased in  my view on pollution but  this
 is  — and you have used a couple of phrases here,  "A
 program is scheduled, a program  is planned	"
 this is a part of a well-known Jargon that we
 very often get.
                 What I am wondering is when is this program
 going to be put  into operation and why  haven't you done this
 before?  Why  are you Just planning this now?
                 Is it  because someone  called it to your
     MR. COCHRANE:  I made it  quite clear that our program
 at Youngstown Sheet and Tube has been a continuing program.
I outlined in the report what progress would be made prior to


 l   this time, what progress we  are making now,  and what

 2   progress we  are making  in  the  future, particularly

 „   under the  guidance  of our  State officials  in Indiana.

         MR. KLASSEN:   There are several places  in here that

    I have  comments on.

                     One is on Page 8,  talking about  the  1964

    Oil Recovery Facilities and  on Page 9 on the breaking

    up of your oil emulsion which  we  recognize and know from

    our own experience  is a very difficult problem.   I

    would be interested, in a  technical standpoint, as  I mentioned

    yesterday, on the same  comment and  this  would go  for  the

    second  paragraph on Page 9,  it is one thing  to have

    facilities and I am not pointing  my finger at you or  the

    State of Indiana because we  have  the same  experiences  in

    the State  of Illinois.

                     Recently, one of our industries, and this

    is what is discouraging to state  agencies, when industries

    provide treatment facilities as you have here and then  you

    go there and find that  they  are not being  operated  or are

    not being properly  operated, and  when asked  why they are

    honest enough to say, "Well, you  haven't been back."

                     Well,  I would like to know  what has been

    your experience in actual operation of the facilities you put

    in,  particularly on oil removal and oil emulsion separation

    and  removal?


 !                    Are you keeping all of the oil out of the

 2   water at the present time or is some of it getting away

 3   from your facilities?

 4        MR. COCHRANE:  I would say we are making a very strong

 5   attempt to remove the oil from the water both by — as I

 6   have indicated here, by our program of, you might say,

 7   continuing expansion of putting in facilities to control

 8   this problem.

                     I think I outlined in one particular spot

    where we were installing another piece of equipment and it

    would take care of one-half of our present oil waste load

12   in the plant.

         MR. KLASSEN:  I had a comment on this.

                     What happens to the other half of the oil

1C   waste load?

,.        MR. COCHRANE:  The other half we are still working on.

         MR. KLASSEN:  When can we expect it to be corrected?

,0        MR. COCHRANE:  We are working with our State officials

    on that at the present time.

                     We will expect to work this problem out

    with them in the future.

         MR. KLASSEN:  In other words, that's the answer to


                     To me, that isn't satisfactory.  But,

    if this is what you want in the record — I have stated this

 i   for  2 (Jays.  I only  state this to our own  industry, .what  I
 2   hope to get out  of this  conference with  anybody,  even in  Illi-
 3   nois that  Is contributing pollution, what  they are  going  to do
 4   which you  haven't told us,  and when, which you haven't.
 K                    In  other words,  it  is my  understanding  —  I
 6   Just want  it to  be on the record  -  - that  your answer to  this,
    as far as  I am concerned, is definitely  not satisfactory  be-
    cause you  haven't told us what you  are going to do  and when
    you  are going to do  it.  But, if  this  is what you want on the
    record, this is  up to you.
                     One other  point  — on Page 10, under "Spent
    Acid", you leave the inference here, and it might be true,
    and  I am asking  you  this from a technical  standpoint because
    our  operations of these  haven't been too satisfactory,
    where you  say the spent  acid is dispersed  over the  slag
    and  it is  neutralized by the limestone in  the slag, is
    this actually your experience, that  the  limestone in the
    slag will  neutralize this acid?
                     We  haven't been  too successful in  some of
    our  operations because the  limestone is  soon coated and it
    becomes ineffective.
                     This seems to be a kind of a pot and pan
    method to me.
         MR.  COCHRANE:   The answer to that Is on  Page 11, Mr.
24                                                   or
    Klassen,  the second paragraph.


j        MR. KLASSEN:  Is this It?

2                    You never Indicated any material reaching

3   the lake?

         MR. COCHRANE:  Correct.

.        MR. KLASSEN:  Well, I don't want to get into a technical

c   discussion with you here.  We always use dyes but some

    dyes are — the colors are immediately removed and you are

    not going to find them anyway.

                     You talk about and I — this I am quite

    familiar with, having currently been the Chairman of the

    Engineering Committee of Ohio River Compact about this

    question of phenols, and I believe that it was your Company

    that was one of the ones that made a real contribution to

    the fact that phenols are not the sole indicators of taste

    and odors.

                     But, let's accept that.  But if phenols

    are not the sole source of cdor, do you know what some of

    the other sources of odor are?

                     Is your Company at the present time discharg«

    ing any of these other materials into the water other than

    phenols that you know that will cause odor?

         MR. COCHRANE:  Yes, at the present time we are

    indicating in this program here that we are taking

    corrective measures.



         MR. KLASSEN:  On the bottom of Page 12, "A Program

2   is scheduled."

3                    This is a good word and it leaves the

4   inference that you got something down on paper.

5                    Can you give us a time or a schedule?

6   This is all part of the schedule.  Whenever you read schedule

7   you expect to find a time indicator.

                     What is the time that you are going to

    eliminate the occasional releases from organlcs you mentioned

    in connection with coke quenching?

         MR. COCHRANE:  I believe we mentioned the program will

    be completed in 1966, the second paragraph, Page 13.

         MR. KLASSEN:  Also, Just a passing comment on — of

    course, this is a phrase that we often get, too, so my

    sympathies are with the State of Indiana, that there is a

    tendency to set up a straw man by saying that the water, in th

    canal, for example, Indiana Harbor Ship Canal shouldn't be
    the same as it is in the middle of Lake Michigan.
lg                    Has this actually been proposed or is this

    something that you set up for comparison?

21                    Did anybody propose that the water in the

    Indiana Harbor Ship Canal should be the same as the water in

    Lake Michigan and if so,  that this would require all of the

    industries to close down  in  Lake County?

25       MR. COCHRANE:   It would  be  inferred that if we were


    to quit discharging pollutants in the canal, we infer that

    is what you want.

         MR. KLASSEN:  Has anybody ever indicated that  the

    water  in the Harbor Ship Canal should be the same as we

    find in the middle of Lake Michigan?

                     I am not pressing you, I  Just want to  —

         MR. COCHRANE:  Strictly drawn by inference.

         MR. KLASSEN:  I am looking for information.

         MR. COCHRANE:  I say, it is strictly  drawn by

     MR. KLASSEN:  This/sWhat I wanted you to bring out.
10                          is

    Because  very often,  inferences  are pulled  out  of  the  report

    and made to look  like waste control  agencies are  against

    Industrial expansion, and  it  is quite  the  opposite.

                     We  are trying  to get  you  better  water in

    industry and sometimes you make it a little difficult for  us

    to do this.

                     One thing that really interested me  and this

    is, I think, this might be the  last  question.

                     In  the middle  of page 16, I read this with

    you rather hurriedly, but  in  the middle, in line  with this,

    are you  suggesting in here that the  waste  from the Indiana

    Harbor Ship Canal area be  diverted into Illinois  without

    enough lake water to flush it into Illinois and dilute it?

                     I hope I  am wrong,  but is this what  you are


         MR. COCHRANE:  This is not necessarily our proposal.

    thought —
                     This has been suggested  In the past and we
         MR. KLASSEN:  By whom?
         MR. COCHRANE:   ~  (continuing)  it  should be mentioned.
         MR. KLASSEN:  By whom?
         MR. COCHRANE:   I really  can't give you the reference
    but it has been proposed.

         MR. KLASSEN:  This, obviously,  is  in your report here
    in the record.  Is this something that  your Company is  ad-
         MR. COCHRANE:   No,  not necessarily.  We think  that

    this is  Just an item that the conferees may want to discuss
    among themselves and we thought  it might be good to include
    it for discussion..
         MR. KLASSEN:  We sure will, thank  you.
         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there  any  more questions  or
         MR. POSTON:  I  have a few comments I would like to
    make.  I would like  to  read on Page  4 of your report,
    Mr. Cochrane.
                     "A  concept of the State of Indiana and
    much of industry, certainly Youngstown  Sheet and Tube,  is
    to determine what water uses are being  affected and what
    causes the adverse effect."
                     And  I would point  out  to  you  that  both

 i   Congress and the President are very concerned about
 2   pollution that is affecting our waters right now and
 3   they have legislation and the President asked for stepped-up
 4   enforcement authority for the Federal Government.
 5                    He says that Federal Government must be
 e   able to prevent pollution before it occurs and before it
 7   happens right at the very source, rather than waiting until
 8   this pollution gets in the stream.  I think if you adhere
 9   to your statement here we can expect greater Federal
10   activity into the enforcement area.
u                    I would like to adcyou, Mr. Cochrane,
12   whether or not you would give the Federal Government
13   information on your discharges, the effluent characteristics,
14   the pounds of material that you put into the waters?
15        MR. COCHRANE:  I thought we answered that satisfactorily
16   and beginning on page —
17        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  I think he answered that.
18                    As a matter of fact, Mr. Cochrane, the point
    is, one of the reasons to your objection is the misuse,
.   which the Department has made of the data in the past.
                     Presumably, this misuse that you indicate has
    been the inclusion of data in official and public reports
    which certainly can be subject to rebuttal,
    Certainly, dealing in this area, what the Chicago water
    people seem to think was fairly satisfactory and they expresse


 1   their agreement with; certainly a report that the oil

 2   industries, when they made their statement yesterday,

 3   specific industries seemed to think it was satisfactory

 4   and correct according to them, but the point  is that you

 5   feel that this, as I understand it, can be misuse.

 6                    I wonder what you would think of us if

 7   we didn't want to give data to the newspapers because we

 8   didn't  like their editorials?

 9                    This is a rhetorical questions, I  guess,

10   I don't know.

n        MR. COCHRANE:  I don't want to belabor this, I

12   think you understand our position pretty well.

13        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  While I have the floor, may I

14   make one point?

15                    You suggest that the diversion of  the

16   Grand Calumet, of the Chicago drainage system, should be

17   provided with continuous withdrawl and that we should

18   look into this and evaluate this in terms of  the time

19   schedule and in view of the experience that Chicago has

20   had, getting another thousand cubic feet of — I wonder

21   if we can alleviate Mr. Gerstein's or expect  to alleviate

22   his problem within our lifetime if we employ  this approach?

23        MR. KLASSEN:  I took this as a compliment because

24   we have some of the best legal talent in Illinois and New

25   York on this and this hasn't  been decided,  so maybe we can.

         MR. POSTON:  I note further that you object to the

    terminology, "Population Equivalent," and I think you
    have misinterpreted our definition of "Population
                     We define it on the very first page of
    our report what we mean by "Population Equivalent" and
    that is defined as the discharge of one sixth pound of
    five day, 20 degree biochemical oxygen demand per day.
                     And I see that you have inferred that
    we haven't given a proper definition here.  I can't under-















stand your statement on Page 14.

     MR. COCHRANE:  Maybe this will help clarify it.

                 We very definitely think that the general

public misinterprets that statement.

                 I can point out to you that two days ago

one of the men standing on this podium made reference to

the raw sewage equivalent of 4£ billion people dumped

into Lake Michigan by industries and this probably is as
good an example as I can give you.

     MR. POSTON:  We have some figures on Youngstown

Sheet and Tube that were presented in our report, a

population equivalent of 100,000 PE.

                 We have some 4,000 pounds of ammonia

nitrogen and 6,000 total nitrogen pounds, phenol!cs

250, oil 18,900, 17,000 pounds of soluble iron from

 2                   Do you disagree with these figures?
 3       MR. COCHRANE:  No, we don't
 4       MR. POSTON:  All right.   I think this in  an
    answer to Mr. Klassen's question.  These  are some  of the
    polluting substances that Youngstown is discharging
                     These are some of the things that we  have
    concern for and things that we would like to eliminate
10  from the water so that we can  have clean  water.
li       MR. COCHRANE:  We recognize that concern, I should
12  say this, too, that some of these figures might have to
13  be corrected for — that is, taken into consideration  the
14  receiving water in the Canal and that sort of thing which
15  we brought out in our report.
15                   I think we went to great length to show
17  you we have recognized these problems.  We have been working
18  with the State of Indiana in the past, now and we  will
    work with them in the future.
2o                   We take this  thing very  seriously and we
21  are lending every effort to alleviate the condition.
22       MR. POSTON:  I hope in time to come  and in a  short
23  time, that we can revise these figures downward.   I think
24  this is very necessary,  and I certainly hope that we can
25  revise these figures down  in time  to come.

          MR. COCHRANE:  We can look forward to that.  I
     wanted to add, so you notice, from Mr. Miller's report
     yesterday they show no increase in outflows of the Canal,
     Dickey Road Bridge in the last five years, and the water
     supply in Chicago is still safe and palatable according to Mr,
     Qerstein.  When you realize that the vast increase
     in industrial output in the last 10 years or 13 years,
     the great increase in population, and to think that this
 9    situation has held at least stationary, I think it is
10    quite a tribute to the work of the people in our area
11    and to Mr. Poole for his extensive efforts in controlling
12    the situation.
13          MR. POSTON:  I note that Mr. Gerstein made some so-
u    called goals for his waterworks Intake, water that he
is    wanted and I see in the papers this referred to the
16    "pie in the sky."
17                   I wonder how you feel about Mr. Gersteln's
18    standards for his water intake?
19         MR. COCHRANE:  I am really not in a position to answer
20    that.  I am not qualified to, but I am sure that when
21    Mr. Poole and Mr. Miller get into this with Mr. Klassen and
22    get into the work of the setting of standards we will be
23    well represented.
24         MR. KLASSEN:  I have one more question, Mr. Stein.
25         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Yes.


 !        MR. KLASSEN:   I think  it  is kind of  an  important  one

 2   we  kind of  left  dangling.

                     This  Company  is on record as not  releasing

 4   information on their waste  loadings. I would like to  have

    Mr. Cochrane make  a suggestion how the  public then can

 .   know by what mechanism would we know how  you are using or

 ?   hopefully not misusing public  waters?

 0                    Have  you got  any  suggestions in that  regard?

         MR. COCHRANE:  Well, as I said before,  we work very

    closely with our State officials and when it seems appro-

    priate and  desirable on their  part and  our part, then  we

    make information known.

                     You realize the general  public, generally

    speaking, doesn't  recognize the technical aspects  of

    this problem.

         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Mr. Cochrane,  you mean to say

    because you are  afraid the  general public doesn't  understand

    the technical aspects  of a  problem that you,  as a  Company

    policy, want to  keep that Information confidential?

         MR. COCHRANE:  If you  wish to belabor this further,

    I have a statement  here that our General  Counsel sent  to

    the Honorable George H.  Fallen, Chairman  of  the Committee

    of  Public Works,  and I will  be  glad  to  quote from this

    if you like.

         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  I don't care.

         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   I have heard this before.















     MR. COCHRANE:  It refers to the Mahonlng Conference.
                 In the interest of saving time,  I thought
 it might be repetitious.
     CHAIRMAN STEIN:  You can put it into the record  as a
     MR. COCHRANE:  All right, I shall do that  and if you
 wish, I would present the letter to be Included.
     CHAIRMAN STEIN:  If you wish.
     MR. COCHRANE:  "On behalf of my —"
     MR. COCHRANE:  You have?  Then  shall  I  not?
     CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Go right ahead.
     MR. KLASSEN:   I haven't heard it.
     MR. COCHRANE:  "On behalf of my Company,  I
decline to make  our effluent data available  to the
Department.  To  avoid any misunderstanding of  my  reasons,
I would like to  state them  in this letter  to you  and  to
the Public Works Committee.
                 "Lest we be charged with  being uncooperative,
may I say that we have made available elaborate
effluent data, as well as stream quality data,
at frequent intervals to the Water Pollution Control  Board
and the Department  of Health in Ohio, which  has Jurisdiction
over our Company under the Ohio Water Pollution Control

!                    You understand this refers to the
2   Mahoning Conference which has Jurisdiction over our
3   Company under the Ohio Pollution Control law.
4                    Then, I will take the liberty of,
5   in the interest of time, going to Page 2.
6                    He said, "We regard the data as
7   confidential both because of secret processes and
8   because it contains information as to our volume of
g   production in competitive lines."
10                    He said further, "We are also particularly
jj   concerned over misuse what the Department has made of
12   effluent data it has obtained on a voluntary basis in the
13   past.  It is the Department's standard practice to convert
..   data it obtains on industrial organic discharges to what
J5   it calls Population Equivalent of sewage discharge.  While
J6   both sewage and industrial organics have an oxygen demand
    on the river, it is wholly untrue that the industrial organics
10   have any bacterial disease producing potential
    as does sewage.
2Q                    "We feel very strongly that by  portraying
    effluent data in this manner, representatives of the
    Department of Health,  Education, and Welfare grossly
    misrepresent the facts and mislead the public."
         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Thank you very much.



 !        MR. KLASSEN:  I Just want to comment on that.

 2                    Maybe this is a conflict between an

 3   engineer not  agreeing with the lawyer which very often

 4   happens.

                     There is one more point from Mr. Cochrane

 „   that  I  do want  to mention here which strikes

    me  as a kind  of philosophy.

                     You state that the water in this area

    hasn't  deteriorated in the last five years.  This may be

    true.   But  I  think five years ago it was bad and that

    the Chicago Water supply as Mr. Gerstein has mentioned

    has been safe for drinking during this  period.
1 *»

                     I want to point this out and emphasize this:

    The reason  that the Chicago water is safe is because  of the

    competency  in the operation of the Chicago water supply,

    not because of  the contributions made by your Company.

                     I want to ask you, must we wait until  the

    Chicago water is unsafe before you do something?

                     Is this what you are waiting for?

         MR. COCHRANE:  I totally disagree  with your statement

    because as  I  indicated in my report, we have made substantial

    programs and  progress in waste control, as I have indicated

    in  the  report.  You can refer back to it.

         MR. CHESROW:  Mr. Stein.

         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Yes?


          MR. CHESROW:  Mr. Cochrane, on Page 8, you state

     that the discharge, referring to scale and trap oil —

     "This discharge and the discharge from the larger terminal

     settling basin Just described  are the only two on the


                      What is the total amount of oil in

     gallons per day that you are talking — that you are

     referring to?

          MR. COCHRANE:  I really don't have the figures

     handy.  They are in the report.

          MR. CHESROW:  Are you referring to the 18,900?













     MR. COCHRANE:  Whatever that figure was  in  the  report.

It will be cut  in half  according to  our report.

     MR. CHESROW:  I must concur with Mr. Klassen, Mr.

Poston, and Chairman Stein and thank you, Mr. Klassen, for

taking Chicago  into consideration as you always  do.

                 We are very, very much concerned with

the quality of  safe drinking water and you say in your

report on Page  2 that the citizens of the area do have

safe drinking water.

                 Yes, Chicago does have safe drinking water,

but at a price and to a great extent the capabilities of

the men that are operating the water treatment plants.

                 Just  one  other question  —

    MR. COCHRANE:  I quite agree with you  on  that point  —

     it is at a price,  yes and a heavy price.
          MR. CHESROW:   It is at a price,  yes,  and a
     heavy price.
          MR. COCHRANE:  Yes, I would say, too, that we
     have — the conferees will evaluate this economic problem
     considerably in their discussions which will lead to
 7    some recommendations.
 8                     There are other economic considerations
     which I am sure they will take into consideration.
10         MR. CHESROW:   By the same token, you take the
     Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to
12    task with reference to Population Equivalent and the
13    industrial waste,  as it is now set up; the BOD demand
14    is a contributing factor and a factor that does have a
15    lot to do with reference to the quality of our water.
J6                     Now, do you know of any other way we
17    could figure the population demand?
18         MR. COCHRANE:  I am sure there's — I am not
19    a technician in this field and I am sure there are
20    enough people.
21         MR. CHESROW:   I thought maybe you have another
22    formula for a population figure.
23         MR. POSTON:   Mr. Cochrane,  I would  like to —
24    you mentioned  that the  economics of this pollution
25    problem.

 1                     I would like to think that the conferees
 2    will think not only of the economics but the health of the
 3    people and conservation of water.  I think I brought this
 4    out at first and I think it is more than Just the dollar.
 5    It is the health of the people that we are talking about here
 6         MR. CHESROW:  Thank you, Mr. Boston, again because
 7    those were the words of our Mayor Daley of Chicago in which
 8    he stressed very strongly that it is a question of
 9    economics also.
10         MR. COCHRANE:   Well, I might remind you again that
n    when we mentioned our concept and cetainly Youngstown
12    Sheet & Tube is to make certain that there is a safe and
13    palatable water supply.
14         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any further comments or
15    questions?  If not, thank you very much, Mr. Cochrane.
16                     You have been a very forbearing witness.
17                     I would suggest that that entire letter
18    that you have appear in the record so no one can say any-
19    thing was taken out of context.



,                         YOUNGSTOWN 1, OHIO

3               Robert F. Doolittle
                Vice President and General Counsel

4                                      February 17, 1965

5               Hon. George H. Fallen
                Committee on Public Works
                House of Representatives
                Washington, D. C.

8               Dear Mr. Fallon:

                     I wish to urge your serious  consi-

                deration of the  subpoena power proposed

11               to be given to the Secretary of Health,

12               Education, and Welfare under Section  5
                 (e)  (i)  of H. R.  3988.
14                     I  have  Just  come  from the  Conference

15                on  the  Mahoning River  conducted February

16                16  and  17, 1965 in Youngstown,  Ohio,  by

17                the Secretary.

18                     The  HEW Conferee  made repeated re-

19                quests  of industry representatives for

20                submission to HEW of their effluent data.

21                He  argued that such data  from individual

22                companies and facilities  in the reach of

23                the stream at Youngstown,  Ohio, was

24                essential for an  evaluation of  water  quality.


                      On behalf of my Company, I decline to

                 make our effluent data available to the
                 Department.  To avoid any misunderstanding
                 of my reasons, I would like to state them

                 in this letter to you and to the Public
                 Works Committee.
                      Lest we be charged with being unco-
                 operative, may I say that we have  made
                 available  elaborate effluent data,  as well
                 as stream quality data, at frequent intervals
                 to the Water Pollution Control Board and the
                 Department of Health in Ohio, which has
                 jurisdiction over our Company under the
                 Ohio Water Pollution Control Law.
                      We have done this in connection with
                 an elaborate water pollution abatement
                 program worked out with the state, which is
                 functioning under regulations of the Ohio
                 River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
                 under an 8-state compact,  in this
                 connection we have developed and installed
                 over the past several years extensive pro-
                 cedures and  facilities  for  elimination and
                 control of our discharges,  at a  cost  to
                us of many millions of dollars.


                      Under Ohio law state authorities are

 2                prohibited from disclosing company data  with-

 3                out the company's consent.  This preserves

 4                a confidential relationship between the

 ,                company and the state.

 6                     The Department of HEW, however, both

 7                by its actions and statements of intention




















                 has made it very clear that it would

                 release the information to the public,

                 and even broadcast it through publicity


                      We regard the data as confidential

                 both because of secret processes involved

                 and because it contains information as to our

                 volume of production in competitive lines.

                      We are also particularly concerned over

                 misuse which the Department has made of

                 effluent data it has obtained on a voluntary

                 basis in the past.  It is the Department's

                 standard practice to convert data it obtains on

                 industrial organic discharges to what it calls

                 population quivalents of sewage discharge.

                 While both sewage and industrial organics

                 have an oxygen demand on the river, it is

                 wholly untrue that the industrial organics

                 have any bacterial disease producing potential

                 as does sewage.

                      We feel very strongly that by  portraying

                 effluent data in this manner,  representatives

                 of the Department  of HEW grossly misrepresent

                 the  facts and mislead the public.

                     Arming an administrative agency with the

                 drastic power of subpoena in this kind

                 of situation is both dangerous and un-
                 necessary.  Our people and our Congress
                 throughout our history have been loathe
                 to vest this inquisitorial power in
                 administrative bodies except as a part
                 of grand jury or court procedure.

                      Apart from these concerns, we feel
                 strongly that the Department of HEW has
                 no need for individual company data in
                 order to discharge any of its duties

                 under the Federal Water Pollution Control
                 Act.  Certainly it does not need this
                 information for setting water quality
                 standards.  Nor does it need it for the
                 conduct of Conferences.
                      The Secretary can call the Conference
                 if he has reason to believe there is
                 pollution occurring in a state other than
                 that where the discharge occurs.  This Involves
                 determination of the water quality in the
                 receiving state, and not in the state of
                      H. R.  3988 would  recognize the  primary
                 responsibility of  the  states to prevent  and

                 control water pollution.  The enforcement

                 functioning of the Department of HEW is limited
                 to taking action where the state or inter-
                 state body having Jurisdiction is failing to
                 make effective progress toward pollution
                 abatement in the interstate water.
                      Once the Conference is called it is
                 concerned with (l) the degree of pollution,
                 if any, in the receiving state and its
                 effect on health or welfare there, (2)
                 whether there is in the originating state

                 a sound program of control and effective
                 progress being made thereunder  toward abate -
                 ment, and (3) causes of delay.
                      Not only is individual company data in
                 the state of origin not needed, but
                 even if obtained it would in no way determine
                 water quality in the receiving state, in
                 view of dilution and other self-purification
                 occurring during passage downstream.

21                     The Conference contemplated by the

22                statuteis one with the state agencies.

23                We submit  that the nature  of their programs

24                and the extent  of  progress being made  under

25                them, or lack of it, can very  clearly  be

                 demonstrated  by the states and  industries


 l                involved.   This can  be  done  without  any

 2                necessity whatever for  the disclosure of

 3                any individual company  data.

 4                     Effluent data is obviously designed

 5                to assess responsibility when downstream

 6                pollution is found,  but responsibility is

 7                not an issue at Conference level.

 8                     I urge strongly against the amendment

 g                which would vest this subpoena power in  the

10                Department of HEW.  I do so in the conviction

n                that this extreme, Inquisitorial power is

12                susceptible to gross abuse.   Further, it

13                is clear that the Department has no need

14                for individual company  data in order to

15                discharge its Conference responsibilities

16                or to set water quality standards.

17                     Of even greater concern, this power

18                would enable the Department  to compel pro-

19                duct ion of highly competitive data on pro-

20                cessing operations,  production, scheduling of

21                operations, and all  manner of confidential

22                business data which  it  does  not need for

00                stream analysis.

24                               Respectfully  submitted,
                                Robert F. Doolittle
25                RFD/mw


 j         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Off the record

                    (Discussion off the record.)

          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Back on the record.

                    Mr. Poole.

          MR. POOLE:  I have a man that I promised to

     get on an airplane at Noon.  So, I am going to call on

     Dr. Allen D. Brandt, Manager of Industrial Health En-

     gineering of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation.

          DR. BRANDT:  Mr. Chairman, Conferees, Ladies and


                    In the Interest of saving time, it appears

     now that we are taking more time than we should for these


                    I will read only a portion of mine if the

     Chairman will permit, and wish that the copies as dis-

     tributed go into the record.

          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Without objection, that will be


          DR. BRANDT:  My name is Allen Brandt.  I am employed

     by Bethlehem Steel Corporation as manager of Industrial

     Health Engineering with headquarters in the home office

     at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

                    At the invitation of B.  A. Poole,  Technical

     Secretary of the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board,

     I  am here to describe briefly the Water  Pollution Control


 !    facilities and program at the Burns Harbor plant of

 2    Bethlehem Steel Corporation.

                    The first phase of Bethlehem's Burns Harbor

     plant went into operation less than three months ago when

     last December the first plate was rolled on the 160 inch

     plate mill.  Only two years earlier, on December 3, 1962,

     Mr. Arthur B. Homer, then Chairman of Bethlehem Steel Com-

     pany, announced publicly Bethlehem's decision to build

     a steel plant at Burns Harbor.  The plant is located in

     Porter County, Indiana on the southern shore of Lake

     Michigan and about 10 miles east of Gary, Indiana.

                    The plant's production facilities will

     be in the nature of rolling and finishing mills; specifically

     first, a 160 inch plate mill, now operating, second, a

     cold reduction and finishing mill scheduled for completion

     later this year and then third, an 80 inch hot strip mill.

                    Raw material in the form of slabs and coils

     will be supplied to the Burns Harbor plant from one or

     more of Bethlehem's integrated steel plants located in
i y

     the East.

                    Waste Disposal:
21                   	K	

                    Bethlehem retained a consulting engineering

     firm which was known to have had experience with steel mill

     waste treatment to design the water supply and waste water


 i    disposal facilities for the new plant.
 2                   Their engineers are experienced and
 3    especially competent in this area of engineering design,
 4    and are familiar with the area around the southern shore
 s    of Lake Michigan and with the pertinent regulations of
 6    the State of Indiana.
 7                   Bethlehem's engineers outlined the
 g    facilities to be installed at Burns Harbor and the
 _    consulting firm investigated similar installations at
     other steel plants to see how the wastes were being handled,
u    what problems were being encountered and what changes that
12    might be made to improve the facilities.  The best available
13    engineering knowledge and experience from all sources have
     been used to develop the disposal system for the Burns
     Harbor plant.
16                   All concerned in the development of the
17    system, and the type of equipment to be used and in the
lg    final design and layout of the entire waste handling and
     treatment system were closely working with the Indiana
2Q    Health Department Engineers and especially with Mr. Poole,
     the Technical Secretary of the Indiana Stream Pollution
     Control Board.
23                   All of the Health Department Engineers with
     whom we had contact  were very helpful and  cooperative.   The
25    Stream Pollution  Control Board,  in our  opinion, was very

     demanding at times.  We found out early the Board was
 2    pursuing diligently the objective set forth by its
 3    Technical Secretary on September 3,  1963.
 4                   Possibly those objectives deserve repeating
 5    at this time.  They are:
 _                   1.  Unreasonable pollution be abated
                        as soon as possible.
 0                   2.  New facilities to provide adequate
                    3.  Existing  industrial plants must pro-
                        vide adequate treatment facilities
                        as part of the plant renovation
                        or expansion.  Since ours is a
     new plant, only objective No. 2 is perinent in this
,_                   Bethlehem's Burns Harbor Plant waste
     handling and waste treatment system has been designed to
     allow the utmost flexibility In  handling wastes with
     a view toward spotting and isolating as quickly as
     possible any problems that might arise.  In general, the
     different waste waters receive primary treatment where
     they originate in the mill.  They then are given secondary
     treatment at the central waste treatment plant, following
     which they flow to the terminal lagoon, then through a
     drainage ditch to the Little  Calumet  River.

                    A separate sewer system is being

     provided to handle the waste flows from each of the
     following four sources:

                    1.  The Plate Mill.
                    2.  The Cold Mill.
                    3.  Pickling Operations.
                    4.  Sanitary Facilities.
                    When 80 inch hot strip mill goes
     into operation, its waste waters will enter the plate
     mill sewer.  In addition, a network of ditches drains the
     property and stormwater away.

                    All of the sewers drained to the west
     treatment plant located on about 10 acres of ground  in
     the southwest corner of the property.  Here the waste
     waters remain separated until after they have received
     secondary treatment, then they are combined and flow to
     the terminal lagoon which occupy an additional 78 acres
     the same general area of the plant property.
                    The lagoon is designed to handle all
     waste water from the plate mill, hot strip mill, cold
     strip mill, and sanitary sewage treatment plant, with a
     detention time of more than 24 hours.
                    It will accomplish cooling and reaeration
     and  will  serve  as a double  check against  possible  discharges


 l   of  solids or oil  into the Little Calumet River.
 2                  At this point,  I would  like  to  show
 3   some  slides, sir, which  show  some  of the equipment
 4   going in.   Inasmuch  as this is a new plant,  much of
 5   this  is under  construction or has  not  been  tried.
 6                  Nevertheless,  we will show you  some of
 7   the facilities.
 8                  Actually, this, I think,  is  not too
 g   necessary.  It shows exactly  where the Burns Plant is
10   located.
H                  This  is an aerial view  of the plant
12   site  taken  about  six months ago overlooking northeast.
13                  For the record, I might point out that
14   the area purchased by Bethlehem for the  construction of
15   the plant is roughly 10  times the  figure sited by Mr.
j6   Le  Bosquet  on  Tuesday of this week.
17                  Next  slide, please.
18                  This  is an aerial view  of the waste
lg   treatment plant  showing  the general layout  and control
20   buildings.  It is in the foreground, not the background,
21   That  is the operating plant.
22                  Next  slide, please.



 j                   This Is an aerial view of the plate mill

 2    flocculator-clarlfier at the pump station, the pump station

 3    being on the right.

 4                   Next slide, please.

 5                   This is the close-up aerial view of the four

 6    cold mill flocculators with again the control building on

 7    the right.

 8                   This Is an aerial view of the 78 acre terminal

 g    lagoon.

10                   Next, please.

                    This is a waste water pump station showing the

     five hot mill waste water pumps.

..                   Next slide, please.

                    Three hot mill flocculators, looking east at

15    the waste water pumping station which is in the background.

16                   Next, please.

17                   This is inside the control building showing

.-    the three cold mill filters.

19                   Next slide, yiease.

20                   Inside the control building again,  but looking

21    south at the waste pickle liquor neutralization process

22    tanks at the left and the air compressors at the right.

23                   Next,  please.

                    The  instrument panel  board  for both  the  hot

25    and  cold mill treatment units.


                    Next,  please.

 2                   Instrumentation for waste pickle liquor

 3    neutralization pickle process; and the next and last slide,

 4    please.

 5                   The oil separation plant for the sheet and

 6    tin mill wastes.

 7                   Now, we will turn, for the benefit of the

 g    conferees who have a copy of this, turn to page 8, the

 g    conclusions.

._                   The waste handling and treatment system and

     facilities at Bethlehem's Burns Harbor plant have been

     developed and laid out with great care.
1 A

                    The engineering design work was done by

     competent persons, there were consultations with State Health

     Department personnel, and approval of the Indiana Stream

     Pollution Control Board was obtained for each phase of

     the system and facilities as the overall design program

10    progressed.

                    Incidentally,  Bethlehem is grateful for,  and

     values, the advice and assistance given unstintlngly by

     the State Health Department engineers.

                    So far as I know, all changes in plans re-

     quested by the Health Department were made.

                    Consequently,  it is our opinion that  the  faci-

     lities  provided represent the latest know-how and

                    We have reason to believe that the waste treat

     raent being provided will be more than adequate.

                    Should we encounter trouble spots as this new

     equipment, most of which still is untried, goes on stream,

     we still do the best we can to rectify the shortcomings to

     the end that, hopefully, we may meet all the requirements

     of the pertinent laws, and of even greater importance, not

     cause pollution of any of the waters of the States of

    . Indiana or Illinois.

                    Thank you.

                                     (Whereupon, the complete

                                     Statement by Allen D. Brandt

                                     was made a part of the record

                                     as follows:)



                    Statement by Allen D. Brandt, Manager of

     Industrial Health Engineering, the Bethlehem Steel

     Corporation,  Bethlehem, Pa.

                    Presented before:   Grand Calumet Conference

     called by U.  S. Department  of Health,  Education,  and

     Welfare,  Chicago,  Illinois,  March 2-4,  1965




                    My name is Allen Brandt.   I am employed by

 2    Bethlehem Steel Corporation as Manager of Industrial Health

 3    Engineering with headquarters in the home office at

 4    Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

 c                   At the invitation of B. A. Poole, Technical

 6    Secretary of the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board,

 7    I am here to describe briefly the water pollution control

 0    facilities and program at the Burns Harbor plant of

     Bethlehem Steel Corporation.


                    The first phase of Bethlehem's Burns Harbor

     plant went into operation less than three months ago when
1 £*

     last December the first plate was rolled on the 160-inch

     plate mill.  Only two years earlier, on December 3, 1962,

     Mr. Arthur B. Homer,  then Chairman of Bethlehem Steel

,.    Company, announced publicly Bethlehem's decision to build

     a steel plant at Burns Harbor.  The plant is located in

10    Porter County, Indiana, on the southern shore of Lake

     Michigan and about 10 miles east of Gary, Indiana.

                    The plant's production facilities will be in

     the nature of rolling and finishing mills; specifically,

     (l) a 160-inch plate  mill, now operating, (2) a cold

     reduction and finishing mill scheduled for completion

     later this year and then (3)  an 80-inch  hot  strip mill.

                    Raw material in the form  of slabs and coils wil|l

 i   be supplied to the Burns Harbor plant from one or more of

 2   Bethlehem's integrated steel plants located in the East.

 3                  Waste Disposal
 4                  Bethlehem retained a consulting engineering

 5   firm which was known to have had experience with steel

 6   mill waste treatment to design the water supply and waste

 7   water disposal facilities for the new plant.  Their

 8   engineers are experienced and especially competent in this

 g   area of engineering design, and are familiar with the
10   area around the southern shore of Lake Michigan and with

n   the pertinent regulations of the State of Indiana.

12   Bethlehem engineers outlined the facilities to be installed

13   at Burns Harbor and the consulting firm investigated

14   similar installations at other steel plants to see how

15   the wastes were being handled, what problems were being

J6   encountered and what changes might be made to improve the

17   facilities.  The best available engineering knowledge and

18   experience from all sources has been used to develop the
19   disposal system for the Burns Harbor plant.
20                  All concerned in the development of the system,]
21    in the type of equipment to be used and in the final design

22   and layout of the entire waste handling and treatment

23    system worked closely with  the Indiana Health Department

24    engineers  and especially with  Mr.  Poole,  the  Technical

25   Secretary  of  the  Indiana  Stream Pollution Control Board.


    All  of  the  Health Department  engineers with whom we had

    contact were  very helpful  and cooperative.  The  Stream

    Pollution Control Board,  in our opinion,  was very demanding

    at times.  We found  out  early that  the Board  was pursuing

    diligently  the objectives  set forth by its technical

    secretary on  September  3,  1963.

                    Possibly  those objectives deserve repeating

    at this time.  They  are:
          1.  Unreasonable pollution be  abated as  soon  as
          2.  New  facilities  to provide  adequate treatment.
          3.  Existing industrial  plants must provide adequate
              treatment facilities as part of the  plant
              renovation  or expansion.   (Since ours is  a new
              plant,  only objective No.  2 is  pertinent  In  this
                    Bethlehem's Burns Harbor  plant waste
    handling and  treatment  system has been designed  to allow the
    utmost  flexibility in handling wastes with a  view  toward
    spotting and  isolating as  quickly as possible any  problems
    that might  arise,  in general,  the  different  waste waters
    receive primary  treatment  where they originate in  the mill.
    They then are given  secondary treatment  at the central
    waste treatment plant following which they flow  to
    the  terminal  lagoon,  then through a drainage ditch to the

     Little Calumet River.
                    A separate sewer system is being provided
     to handle the waste flows from each of the following four
     sources:  (1) the plate mill, (2) the cold mill,  (3)
     pickling operations and (4) sanitary facilities.  When
     the 80-inch hot strip mill goes into operation, its waste
     waters will enter the plate mill sewer.  In addition, a
     network of ditches drains the property and carries storm
     water away.  All of the sewers drain to the waste treat -
10   ment plant located on about ten acres of ground in the
     southwest corner of the property.  Here the waste waters
12   remain separated until after they have received secondary
13   treatment, then they are combined and flow to the terminal
14   lagoon which occupies an additional 78 acres in the same
     general area of the plant property.
16                  The lagoon is designed to handle all
17   waste water from the plate mill, hot strip mill, cold strip
ig   mill and sanitary sewage treatment plant, with a detention
19   time of more than 24 hours.  It will accomplish cooling and
20   reaeration and will serve as a double check against
21   possible discharges of solids or oil into the Little
22   Calumet River.
23                  Plate Mill
24                  As stated earlier,  the plate mill is the
2S   first  facility to go into operation.   It  produces mill

 !   scale which is carried away by means of water from the
 2   surfaces of the steel being rolled.  In addition, a small
 3   amount of the lubricating oils and grease finds its way
 4   into the waste water from the mill.  Consequently, the water
 5   leaving the plate mill contains suspended solids in the
 6   form of iron scale and a small amount of oil and grease.
 7   The size of the particles varies from very large pieces of
 8   scale knocked off the steel slabs as they leave the reheat
 9   furnaces down to extremely small particles produced in the
10   finishing stands of the plate mill.
11                  The waste water is collected in a scale pit
12   located at the plate mill.  Here the large particles of
13   scale are removed before the water is pumped via the
14   plate mill sewer to the waste treatment plant.  The
is   scale pit is equipped with an oil skimmer to remove the
16   floating oil.  The oil so collected is pumped to a heated
17   tank where some of the entrained water and other impurities
is   are removed, following which it is hauled away by tank
19   truck.
20                  Facilities at the main treatment plant Intended
21   to remove mill scale and certain other suspended solids
22   consist of three clarifier-flocculators.  The influent flume
23   to the cJarifier-flocculators is equipped with an oil
24   skimmer.  The waste water in the clarlfier-
25   flocculators will be treated chemically so as to effect


 i     good removal of the fine suspended solids that  are not

 2    removed in the scale pit.  The sludge which collects in  the

 3    tanks is dewatered by vacuum filters and may be  either used

 4    as fill in the area or sold.  The effluent flows to the

 5    terminal lagoon.

 6                   Cold Reduction and Finishing Mill

 7                   The cold reduction and finishing  mill is  under

 8    construction and is expected to go into operation later

 9    this year.  Production facilities at the mill will

10    include a continuous plckler, continuous cleaning and

n    annealing lines, a tin line, cold reduction mills and

12    allied facilities.

13                   The continuous pickler will produce waste

14    pickle liquor which will be handled separately from other

is    mill wastes.  A special pipeline will convey the spent

16    pickle liquor to the waste treatment plant where it will

17    be neutralized with lime using a hot oxidation process.

18    The neutralized slurry will be discharged to the plate mill

19    flocculator-clarifier for settling and removal of the

20    solids.

21                   A deep-well has been drilled and  it is

22    hoped that it may serve as a better disposal method for

23    the spent pickle liquor than the neutralization  equipment,

24    Should that turn out to be the case, it is Bethlehem's

25    intention to use the deep-well for such waste.

 j                  The waste from the continuous cleaning
 2   and annealing operations and the tin plating operation
 3   will contain a variety of materials, some alkaline and
 4   some acid, in small amounts.  Some of these wastes will
 5   be given primary treatment close to their sources after
 6   which they and the others not given such primary treatment
 7   will be collected in a holding tank and discharged from it
 8   at a slow and uniform rate into the cold mill sewer.
 9                  Rolling oils from the cold reduction mills
10   will be collected, separated and concentrated at an oil
n   separation plant adjacent to the mill.  The recovered oil
12   will be recycled to the mill or removed by tank truck.
13   The waste water will be discharged to the cold mill sewer.
14                  All waste water discharged to the cold
15   mill sewer will flow to the secondary waste treatment
16   plant where it will be subjected to chemical coagulation,
17   flocculation and sedimentation.  An oil skimmer is
13   provided at the treatment plant for the cold mill waste.
19   Sludge collected in the tanks will be dewatered by vacuum
20   filters and may be either used as fill in the area or
21   sold.  The effluent flows to the terminal lagoon.
22                  Hot Strip Mill
23                  The waste water from the 8o-inch strip
24   mill, to be constructed as the third phase of the present
25   program, will have characteristics similar to that from

    the  160-Inch plate mill.  Therefore, It will  be discharged
    to the  same sewer and will be  given the same  treatment in
    the  secondary  plant  as was described previously for the
    plate mill.
 5                    Sanitary Sewage Treatment
 6                   All sanitary  sewage throughout the  plant
    is collected in a separate sanitary sewer system and
    conveyed to a  new sewage treatment plant adjacent  to the
 9   industrial waste treatment facilities.  It is a conventional
10   activated sludge plant.  Its design capacity  was based on
11   experience at  the other steel  plants both as  to the volume
12   rate of flow (350 Gpm at present) and as the  probable
13   loading.  (For purposes of comparison, this sewage treat-
14   ment plant is  about  the same size as one capable of serving
15   a community of approximately 1200 homes.)
16                   As and when the need arises, the sanitary
17   sewage  treatment plant will  be expanded to a  capacity of
18   about 560 gpm.  This can be  done by adding another
19   aeration tank  and secondary  clarlfier.  If further
20   expansion ever becomes necessary, the plant can be con-
21   verted  to the  contact stabilization process by the addi-
22   tion of one more aeration tank.
23                   The existing  sanitary sewage treatment
24   plant consists of a  comminutor for grinding solids, a
25   primary settling tank, two aeration tanks, a  secondary


     clarifler and  chlorine  contact  tank.   Two aerobic  digesters

     are provided for handling excess  sludge.   The  treated

     effluent  is discharged  to the terminal lagoon  and  is expected

     not to create  a bacterial pollution  problem anywhere.

                      Terminal Lagoon

                    The  lagoon has a total  volume capacity of

     approximately  120 million gallons.   It will result In a

     detention time of 1.2 days.  The  surface  area  of the

     lagoon Is about 78  acres. The  lagoon  will accomplish

     cooling and reaeration  and is equipped with scum baffles

     and skimmers to prevent the  discharge  of  any floating


13                     Conclusion

                    The  waste handling and  treatment system

1C    and facilities at Bethlehem's Burns  Harbor plant have

,_    been developed and  laid out  with  great care.  The
     engineering design work was done by competent  persons,
,0    there were consultations  with State  Health Department

ig    personnel, and approval of the Indiana Stream Pollution

20    Control Board was obtained for each  phase of the system

21    and facilities as the overall design program progressed.

22    Incidentally, Bethlehem is grateful  for,  and values, the

23    advice and assistance given unstintlngly  by the State

24    Health Department engineers.  So far as I know all changes

25    in plans requested by the Health Department were made.

     Consequently, It Is our opinion that the facilities
     provided will be more than adequate.  Should we encounter
     trouble spots as this new equipment, most of which still
     is untried,  goes on stream, we will do the best we can
     to rectify the shortcomings to the end that, hopefully,
     we may meet  all the requirements of the pertinent laws,
     and of even  greater Importance, not cause pollution of any
     of the waters of the states of Indiana and Illinois.

10         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Brandt, for a very
11    comprehensive statement.
12                             (Applause.)
13                   Are there any comments or questions?
14         MR. KLASSEN:  I don't have a question, I Just wanted
15    to make a comment, that this gives those of us in the
16    water pollution control area encouragement, Mr.  Brandt.
17                   We know —
18         MR. BRANDT:  Thank you.
19         MR. KLASSEN:  — it is an indication the job can be
20    done and we  appreciate this contribution.
21         MR. BRANDT:  Thank you.
22         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Brandt.
23                   I suggest you may have given some of them
24    the clue they lacked so much, not to mention the method of

 1   dealing with the States and if they would put up plants  like
 2   you do with this type equipment.
 3        MR. BRANDT:  I would like to point out this is a new
 4   plant.
 s        MR. KLASSEN:  I think there was something significant
 6   if you deal this way with the State, you don't have to
 7   deal with the Federal Government.
 8        MR. CHESROW:  Congratulations.
 9        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Mr. Poole.
10        MR. POOLE:  If you indulge me one more, I will call
11   on Ken Jackson of Midwest Steel, because he has a  plane
12   to catch.
13                  Js Mr. Jackson in the room?
14                  Mr. Jackson is general counsel for  Midwest
15   Steel, I neglected to add that.
16        MR. JACKSON:  Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
17   gentlemen:
18                  My name is Kenneth G. Jackson.  I am an
13   attorney residing in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and represent
20   National Steel Corporation in matters involving
21   stream pollution, the treatment of industrial wastes and
22   related problems.
23                  I have.for many years been associated with
24   the Steel Industry Action Committee, which, as you gentle-
25 I  men know, is a voluntary committee of representatives of

     the various steel producing and processing companies
     organized in the formative days of the Ohio River Valley
     Water Sanitation Commission to work with that Commission
     on pollution abatement  proHems.
 5                   I am here today to tell you about the
 6    waste water control and treatment facilities of Midwest
 7    Steel Division of National Steel Corporation, which is
     located in the town of  Portage, in Porter County, Indiana,
     approximately eight miles east of Gary, Indiana.
10                   Midwest  is, in the parlance of the industry,
11    a new finishing mill which was built on the southern
12    shore of Lake Michigan.  I will tell you more about this
13    plant in connection with a series of slides which have
14    been prepared for presentation in connection with this paper.
is                   Midwest  Steel is fundamentally different
16    from an integrated steel plant in that the raw materials
17    with which the Midwest  operations begin are coils of hot
18    rolled steel, whereas in an integrated plant, production
19    commences with the making of the steel which requires the
20    consumption of large quantities of coal, limestone, iron
21    ore and scrap.  Consequently, the water requirements and
22    the subsequent water contaminants at Midwest are, substan-
23    tially less per ton of  finished product  than at an
24    integrated mill,
25                   For example, the Midwest finishing plant

 !     consists  of  a pickler,  a  tandem mill,  an  electrolytic
 2    tin line,  a continuous galvanizing  line, a continuous
 3    annealing  line and  other necessary  equipment.  Midwest's
 4    water requirements  are approximately 5*000 gallons per
 5    ton of finished product.   At  an integrated steel  plant,
 6    in addition to finishing operations,  such  as those found
 7    at Midwest, there are coke ovens, sintering plants,  open
 8    hearths or basic oxygen  plants, blooming mills and hot
 9    strip mills.   The water  requirements in a  basic steel
10    producing  plant can amount to as much as 25*000 gallons
n    per ton of finished steel. In either type plant  the
12    water is spoken of  as being used, but is actually not
13    consumed.   For the  most  part, the water is used,  treated
14    and returned  to the stream or other source from which it
is    is drawn;  in  this case,  Lake  Michigan.
16                   Not  only  are the water requirements for
17    the finishing plant different from  those of an integrated
18    plant, but so also  are the water contaminants.  In
19    addition to the contaminants  and treatment processes at
20    the Midwest finishing plant which are hereinafter dis-
21    cussed, an Integrated steel plant is faced with many
22    other and  probably  more  serious treatment  problems.  The
23    integrated plant must contend with  phenols, chlorides,
24    flue dust, roll scale, and others,  depending upon the  raw
25    materials  and the methods  of  processing at the particular

 !    plant.   In many  cases the concentration of these
 2    contaminants In  the process water Is  small, but the quantl-
 3    ties  of  water required to be handled  In the manufacturing
 4    process  and therefore required to be  treated  are enormous.
 5    For example, the large hot strip mill may require thirty to
 6    forty million gallons of water per day for scale
 7    removal  alone.
 8                  The treatment problems faced by integrated
 9    steel plants are complicated by at least two  important
10    factors.  First, most integrated plants in the United
n    States were built before industry and government realized
12    the importance of stream pollution control, and, second,
13    most  known methods of water treatment  today are based on
14    retention time.   Stated simply, retention time means that
15    the large quantities of water used in steel making must
16    be held  or stored for varying periods of time during the
17    treatment process and therefore require large land areas
18    for treatment facilities.  In many instances  such land is
19    not available in the proximity of integrated  steel plants,
20    regardless of price.
21                  In the older integrated plants the problem
22    of economics is  particularly difficult.  By this I mean
23    not only the cost of acquisition, installation and opera-
24    tlon  of  the treatment equipment and facilities, but the
25    practicality of  adapting new treatment facilities to

 1   equipment in an old plant, the economic life of which is
 2   highly uncertain in light of the presently increasing pace
 3   of changes and improvements in the production and finishing
 4   processes in the steel industry.  Such changes sometimes
 s   beget new problems in the area of water treatment which
 6   tax the ingenuity of our best engineers and scientists
 7   in their effort to arrive at a workable solution consonant
 8   with costs and construction and operating practicality if
 9   not feasibility.
10                  For example, subsequent to the completion
11   of the Midwest plant, one of the divisions of National
12   Steel Corporation installed a 7 stand 80" strip mill at
13   its plant in Michigan.  In planning this strip mill the
14   Corporation secured the best engineering advice available
15   to the industry and drew upon its own extensive experience
16   in high speed steel strip production.  Armed with this
17   advice and information it engineered and installed as a
18   part of this mill what is believed to be the last word
19   in mill scale recovery.  Up to this time a 6 stand mill
20   was as far as the industry had gone in this phase of
21   steel production.  However, an additional finishing stand
22   was incorporated in this mill.  When the mill was put into
23   operation it was discovered that although the scale
24   recovery system worked well for the first five stands,
25   the iron oxide particles produced at the last two finishing


     stands,  some of which were submicron In size,  would not

     settle out in the conventional scale pits which had been

     installed and which were the most up to date in the

     industry.  Therefore, although the treated  water from

     this strip mill is free of mill scale as the industry

 c    has known that term up to the time of this new 80" strip

     mill, these tiny iron oxide particles simply will not

 0    settle out.  They do not have any apparent adverse effect

     on the waters, but seem to reflect light, thereby pro-
     ducing a hitherto unknown and as yet unsolved problem in
n    that they appear to color the water,  yet actually do not

12    do so.  Fortunately, this reflection  disappears within a

13    short distance from the outfall.   We  are advised that one

14    of the other steel companies, which is now building a

15    new 80" strip mill, having from our experience been

16    alerted to this problem, is taking steps to avoid it by

17    separating, for separate handling, the water from the

18    last two stands which produce these submicron particles.

19    This we cannot do because the entire  collection and

     treatment system for this new mill is so incorporated

21    into the mill and its foundations that such separation

22    is almost impossible.

23                   As will appear from the following

24    discussion of our treatment program at Midwest Steel, large

25    areas of land are required for a relatively small finishing

plant, using today's treatment practices.  Transfer these
same treatment practices, if you will, to an older,
crowded, integrated steel plant and the problems become
readily apparent.  There appears today to be no ready
answer to the problem of complete treatment of industry
wastes at old integrated plants.
               Now, the waste water control program at
Midwest Steel's new finishing mill.
               As suggested above, Midwest is a finishing
mill.  Hot rolled coils produced by another division of the
Corporation are shipped to Midwest for further processing.
This steel is first pickled at a continuous pickling line,
using a solution of sulfuric acid, and then reduced in
gauge by cold rolling on a 5-stand tandem mill.  After
cold working, the steel may also be applied either by
continuous galvanizing or by electrolytic tinning, In
accordance with customer requirements.  Some of the steel
is also worked in the tin temper mill to produce con-
ventional tin plate.  This mill is also used to reduce
steel to very thin gauges.
               National Steel Corporation, in constructing
the new plant of its Midwest Steel Division, has accepted
the financial and moral obligation of waste water control.
               As soon as the decision to erect a new
 25  mill was made, a  sampling program was Initiated to

     evaluate  the  quality and  availability  of the water from
     Lake Michigan adjacent  to the  plant  site.
                    Local, State  and Federal authorities were
     consulted eai$r in the program  and were  continuously
     contacted and consulted as the program  developed.  Among
     these  agencies and authorities were  the County Zoning
     and Planning  Board, the United States Corps of Engineers,
     the Indiana Conservation  Department, the Indiana Flood
     Control and Water Resources  Commission  and the Indiana
10    Stream Pollution Control  Board.  As  you know,  the Stream
11    Pollution Control Board considers and deals with each
12    potential water discharge on the case-by-case  basis.
13    This,  of  course, was done in the case of Midwest, and
14    meetings  were held regularly with members of the Board.
15    Throughout the initial  stages  of planning and  construction,
     Midwest kept  that Board informed of  contemplated mill
17    operations, and secured advice and guidance from it in
18    establishing  a proper waste  water control program.
19                   Fortunately,  sufficient  land was available
20    to permit the construction and operation of adequate
21    control and treatment facilities. A very generous portion
22    of the total  acreage being used for  the manufacturing
23    processes has been allocated to waste treatment.  At  the
24    present time  at Midwest more than ten per cent of  approxi-
25    mately 280 acres of land  being utilized by the plant  is


     devoted exclusively to waste treatment and disposal


                    In preparing the following parts of this

     statement I  have drawn largely from the paper entitled

     "Waste Water Control at Midwest Steel's New Finishing
     Mill"  which  was delivered atAl?th Industrial Waste

     Conference at Purdue University on May 1, 1962, and to

     supplement my paper I am furnishing the conferees a copy

     of that document, marked Exhibit 1 — unfortunately, it

10    is not so marked — which explains in somewhat more

11    detail the story of the development and operation of the

12    Midwest mill, including preconstruction planning for

13    waste  control and the various waste treatment facilities.

14    In the interest of everyone,  I will therefore not go into

15    too much detail on these items.




19                   (Text Continues on Page 1113)







                   WASTE  WATER  CONTROL
                   Presented at Purdue University
               Seventeenth Industrial Waste Conference
                           May 1, 1962
C. D. Hartman
F. E. Tucker
P. D. Simmons
A. S. Toth
Superintendent of Utilities, Midwest Steel Division,
        National Steel Corporation
Supervisor Industrial Health Engineering, Research
        and Development, National Steel Corporation
Industrial Health Engineer, Research and Development,
        National Steel Corporation
Principal Engineer,  Hydrotechnic Corporation

Figure 1














               Expansion in steel making and finishing
capacity elsewhere in the world has been outstripping

corresponding growth in the United States.  While we are

still able to maintain leadership in this major industry,

the increasing number of new installations and the

availability of low cost labor in other lands are

threatening this position.  Still other pressures are

being exerted by domestic metal, glass, and plastic

n  I                 To fight back, steel is building new
modern facilities and retiring old Inefficient facilities.

By speeding up production, automating certain operations,

improving product quality and producing new marketable

items, new plant construction is required.  In nearly

every such case, local authorities are requiring the

installation of adequate waste control facilities to

satisfy the Increasing need for the protection of the

water resources in the area.  Steel plants, such as the

plant of Midwest Steel, a division of National Steel, on

the shore of Lake Michigan, are accepting the financial

and moral obligation of waste water control while most

foreign competitors do very little in their Installations
toward cleaning up Industrial wastes discharges.

 2                  The  site  of  the new mill  at the  southern-

 3    most  tip of  Lake Michigan is  adjacent to Burns  Ditch,  an

 4    artificial drainage channel,  installed by court order  in

 5    1927.  Figure  1 is  a photograph  of the unimproved  site,

 6    an area within the  belt  of  the Indiana sand  dunes,  which

 7    is now the object of special  interest groups to conserve

 8    its natural  beauty.

 9                  National  Steel Corporation first acquired

10    the land in  1929 and thirty years later, it  was used for

11    the construction of the  Midwest  finishing mill. Figure

12    2 shows the  completed mill  which produced galvanized steel

13    as early as  December 1960.

14                  The  finishing  mill operations are identi-

15    fled  in Figure 3 and may be referred to  in tracing the

16    travel of steel in  the Midwest plant.  Hot rolled  colls

17    produced by  the new 80-inch hot  strip mill at Great Lakes

18    Steel, a sister division, near Detroit are shipped to

19    Midwest.  Steel is  first pickled at the  80-inch continuous

20    pickling line  using a solution of  sulfuric acid and then

21    reduced in gage by  cold  rolling  on the  5-stand  tandem

22    mill.  After cold working, annealing  and  tempering  of the

23    strip may be required.  For final  finishing, a  protective

24    coating may  be applied by continuous galvanizing or by

25    electrolytic tinning. The  tin temper  mill normally used

 i   to toughen the  surface  of  the  steel,  can  also be used to

 2   reduce  tin plate to  very thin  gauges.


 4                   As soon  as  a  public  announcement was

 5   made  of the  new mill, a sampling program  was initiated to

 6   evaluate the quality of the  water adjacent  to the  plant

 7   site.   The water survey was  organized for examination of

 8   samples of water collected periodically at  various points

 9   in Burns Ditch  and in the  lake.   The  survey information

10   provided valuable data  for selecting  the  location  of the

n   lake  water supply intake,  as well as  establishing  a

12   reference for general water  quality of the  region  before

13   starting any mill construction.

14                   Local, state  and  Federal authorites were

is   consulted as early as possible to learn what regulations,

16   or limitations, may  have bearing upon the utilization of

17   water by the mill.  Among  the  government  groups frequently

18   consulted were  the Porter  County Zoning and Planning

19   Board,  the U. S. Corps  of  Engineers,  the  State of  Indiana

20   Conservation Department, Flood Control and  Water Resources

21   Commission and  the Water Pollution  Control  Board.  Indiana

22   regulations  and laws stipulate limits of  permissible

23   discharge of certain waste substances, which are known to

24   be common to most domestic and industrial activities.  In

25   addition, the Water  Pollution  Control Board considers each

 !    potential waste  water discharge  on  an  individual  case
 2    basis to determine  what  effect it may  have  on  water
 3    quality in the general area or how  it  may influence any
 4    subsequent uses  of  the water.  It was  necessary to  meet
 5    regularly with members of  the Water Pollution  Control
 6    Board, during the initial  stages of planning to inform
 7    them of contemplated  operations  in  the mill and to  have
 8    guidance in establishing a proper waste  water  control
 9    program.
10                  The  mill  and its  personnel would produce
11    many waste products eventually becoming waterbome which
12    would require treatment  before disposal.  Sanitary  sewage
13    contributed by a mill population of 2,000 persons would
14    involve control  measures for biochemical oxygen demand,
15    dissolved oxygen, suspended solids  and floating material.
16    Waste Water from mill operations would convey  additive
17    materials including pH depressants, suspended  solids,
18    floating and soluble  oils, color inducing substances,  iron,
19    tin, zinc, chromium and  fluoride.   The concentrations  of
20    all of these would  have  to be controlled to within
21    acceptable limits before releasing  any water to Burns
22    Ditch and it soon became evident that  such  control  could
23  I  not be provided  effectively by one  central  facility treat-
24  j  ing all waste flows together no  matter how  appealing it
25    might be for initial  cost  and ease  of  operation.

 i                   Each of the major contaminants had to be

 2    studied to determine what waste flows at  the mill could
 3    be combined and conveyed together in an industrial waste
 4    sewer system for treatment and which waste flows had to
 5    be kept segregated for individual treatment.  With this
 6    analysis completed, overall planning could begin by con-
 7    sidering equalization of flow rates and of varying concen-

 8    tratlons, the proper staging of step treatment,  design
 9    criteria for treatment processes, the elimination of
10    pumping trunk sewer flows and concentrating the  waste
n    water control facilities in as few sites  as possible.
12                   At this point, a preliminary engineering
13    report and general plans outlining the waste water control

H    facilities were prepared and submitted for consideration
is    by the Water Pollution Control Board.  The comments
16    and suggestions of the Board representatives, Messrs.
17    Blucher   Poole, Robert Heider and Perry  Miller, were
18    helpful in establishing certain objectives of the waste
13    water control program.  Later, final designs were
20    reviewed and approved by the Board before construction of
21    anyfacllity was started.
22                   The general plan included  as the  first
23    step, the separation of clean cooling water into the
24    storm drainage system for direct discharge.  Then all
25    compatible flows collected in the Industrial wastes sewer

 x    could be  treated Jointly at  a chemical treatment  plant.
 2    Caustic cleaning rinse  water and  dumps,  pickling  acid
 3    rinse water,  most floor drain sump  discharges, blowdowns
 4    and certain chemical  treatment flows  are combined,  and in
 5    all, about twenty-five  different  streams are  collected
 6    in the industrial wastes sewer.   The  remaining wastes flow are
 7    conveyed  separately to   the  industrial wastes pre-
 8    treatment area In three individual  oily  wastes streams,
 g    a chromium  system, a  fluoride system  and a waste  pickle
10    liquor collection system.
u                   Figure k shows the sites  selected for
12    the treatment facilities. The pretreatment area  is lo-
13    cated just  east of the  continuous annealing building.
14    After proper  pretreatment, the flows  are discharged to
15    the industrial wastes sewer, the  oily wastes  sewer  or to
16    sludge disposal pipelines.   The oily  wastes sewer termin-
17    ates at the mixing tank of the chemical  treatment plant
18    and its flow  is given final  treatment here.   Sludges are
19    disposed  of in holding  lagoons.   Sanitary sewage  is
20    pumped over to the west side of Burns Ditch to the  sewage
21    treatment plant.  These facilities  can  be seen in
22    relation  to the steel mill buildings  in photograph,
23    Figure 5.
25                   Sewage is collected  in a cement-lined cast

 i    iron pipe system and delivered to a pumping station at
 2    the east bank of Burns Ditch.  The sewage is pumped in a
 3    force main over a utility bridge to the treatment plant
 4    shown in photograph, Figure b.
 5                   The sewage treatment plant is designed to
 6    treat a flow of 330*000 gallons per day and can be expanded
 7    to handle 640,000 gpd.  The treatment process incorporates
 8    the latest developments in activated sludge treatment and
 9    aerobic digestion of sludge.  The final innocuous sludge
10    is disposed of in the sludge lagoon.  Figure 6a is a
11    schematic representation of the sewage treatment process.
12                   The process provides a reduction of 95
13    percent in BOD and 90 percent removal of suspended solids.
14    The effluent is returned to Burns Ditch in a 24-inch out-
15    fall sewer.  All flow before leaving the sewage treatment
16    plant is disinfected by chlorination.
is                   The chemical treatment plant is located
19    along the east bank of Burns Ditch, approximately 1,000
20    feet from Lake Michigan.  Figure 7 is a photograph showing
21    the location of this waste water control facility.  The
22    chemical treatment plant provides final treatment by
23    coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation for the
24    various pretreatment plant effluents and the numerous
25    flows collected by the industrial wastes sewers.

           Figure 2
                                                              iiJB  A A.
                                                                            - -,--^-
Figure 3

           Figure 4
Figure 5
                                                    SEWAGE  TREATMENT  PLANT
          Figure 6
Figure  6a


 i                   Figure  ?a is  a simplified diagram of  the

 2    collection system for  discharges  from mill  operations  and

 3    from wastes pretreatment facilities  and shows  how these

 4    flows are clarified in the chemical  treatment  plant.

 5                   The hydraulics of  the collection system

 6    and the flow through the treatment plant were  carefully

 7    worked out to avoid the Installation of a low-lift pumping

 8    station.  In order to  convey the  flow by gravity to  out-

 9    fall N0. 1 and Burns Ditch with sufficient  head for

10    discharge during periods of  extreme  high water caused  by

11    heavy runoff or by adverse lake conditions, it was

12    necessary to construct the chemical  treatment  plant  in

13    a depression some ten  to twelve feet below  mill grade.

14    By depressing the flowline,  most  of  the treatment units

15    had to be constructed  below  the water table and required

16    subdralns to control uplift  pressures whenever a treatment

17    unit was being dewatered.

18                   All flows, excepting  the flow of the  oily

19    wastes sewer, discharge into equalization basins.

20    Incoming flow is distributed in the  basins  and retained

21    to equalize flow variations  and to blend the different

22    types of wastes.  Since the  dominant characteristic  of

23    the combined waste is  acidic, the concrete-lined basins

24    have a protective coating.  Limestone backfill is also

25    used around the effluent distribution channel  in the

 i    basin.   Diffused  air keeps the wastes  agitated and  also
 2    helps to satisfy  the oxygen  demand exerted by the ferrous
 3    sulfate In acid rinse water  from the pickling operation.
 4    Oil skimming is performed in a quiescent corner of  the
 5    basin.
 6                   The  flow  leaving the equalization basins
 7    is mixed with the flow of the oily wastes sewer at  the
 8    mixing  tanks where  chemicals are added for coagulation,
 9    and air, again is used to help agitate the flow.  The  two
10    mixing  tanks can  be used in  series, or Individually.
n    After mixing, the flow enters the final treatment units
12    and is  distributed  across the flocculation sections of
13    each tank.
14                   Following a 20-minute minimum period of
is    flocculation, the flow passes directly Into  the sediraen-
16    tation  area.  Each  sedimentation tank  is equipped with a
i?    longitudinal sludge collecting mechanism, a  cross collector
is    and a sludge drawoff pipe leading to the wet wells  of  the
is    sludge  pumping station at the control  building.  Oil and
20    scum are removed  at the  effluent end of the  tank by a
21    transverse pipe skimmer  drained by gravity into a sump
22    and then pumped to  the oil  separator tank for concentra-
23    tion.  The treated  plant effluent Is measured by a
24    Farshall flume before being  discharged.
25                   The  average  flow of the chemical treatment

 i    plant is approximately 4,000 gallons per minute and can
 2    be Increased to 16,000 gpm as more mill facilities are
 3    added.  The effluent from the chemical treatment plant
 4    is the main discharge from the finishing mill facilities.
 s    Acid Neutralization
 6                   Acid neutralization is the first to be
 7    described of the different facilities shown in Figure 8,
 8    a photograph of the industrial wastes pretreatment area.
 9    The dominant acid to be neutralized is waste pickle liquor
10    overflow from the continuous strip pickler.  In addition
n    to this flow, pickling tank dumps and chromic acid dumps
12    from the electrolytic tinning line and from the continuous
13    galvanizing line are directed to the acid neutralization
14    plant.
15                   The waste pickle liquor contains from 6
16    to 8 percent of sulfuric acid and approximately 16 per-
17    cent of ferrous sulfate.  The pH of waste pickle liquor
is    is less than 1.0 and its temperature may be as high as
19    190° P when discharged from the continuous strip pickler.
20    The dally volume of waste pickle liquor is approximately
21    45,000 gallons.
22                   The waste pickle liquor from the continuous
23    strip pickler is pumped from the mill area in a
24    Saran-llned steel pipe to the Industrial wastes pr e treat-
25    ment area.  It first passes through a heat exchanger, as

                                                  SCHEMATIC  FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                              CHEMICAL   TREATMENT  PLANT
                                                     »«STC mrttt CONTROL *T MIDWEST STEEL
        Figure  7
 Figure 7a
        Figure 8
  Figure 8a
       Figure 8b
Figure 8c


     shown In Figure 8a, to lower its temperature before

     undergoing neutralization in order to control the temper-

     ature rise from a subsequent heat of reaction.  The cooled

     liquor passes to the holding tank which has a storage

     capacity of 100,000 gallons.  Other waste acids from mill

 c    operations are pumped directly to the holding tank.   The

     chromium in the chromic acid dumps is reduced by the

 0    waste pickle liquor in the holding tank and later precipl-

     tated during neutralization.  Waste pickle liquor is also

..    used for coagulating, chromium reduction, and demulslfying

H    wastes in nearly every facility in the industrial wastes

12    pretreatment area as well as in the chemical treatment

13    plant.

14                   Neutralization of waste pickle liquor is

15    carried out at a constant rate of flow by means of a

16    magnetic flow meter and a control valve.  Byproduct  lime

17    from acetylene production is used as the neutralizing

18    agent.  Facilities are installed to feed lime either as

19    a fine dry hydroxide powder, or as a lime slurry to the

2o    rapid mixing tanks.  The rate of lime feed is adjusted

21    by pH measurement of the effluent from the neutralization

22    process.  After the addition of lime, the liquor is held

23    for a period of 30 minutes, or more, in a reaction tank

24    before discharging to the wet well in the basement of the

25    general operations building where air operated sludge

 l    pumps  pump the  neutralized  sludge to the holding  lagoons,
 2    The  neutralization  process  may be followed  on the flow
 3    diagram presented in Figure 8b,
 4                   A bucket  elevator and screw  conveyor un-
 5    load the lime supply from the railroad cars to  an over
 6    head lime storage bin having a capacity of  170  tons.
 7    Below  the bin,  two  lime  slurry mixer tanks  and  feed pumps
 8    are  Installed in the general operations building  to provide
 9    lime slurry  for other treatment processes in pretreatment
10    area.   The neutralization facilities are shown  in photo-
u    graph, Figure 8c.
13                   In the Initial phase of steel finishing at
14    Midwest, the 5-stand tandem mill and the operation of
15    the  tin temper  mill for  double-reduced tin  plate, produce
16    as great a variety  of oily  wastes as will be discharged
17    by all mills ultimately  installed.  Therefore,  some
18    nominal capacity for each type of oily wastes control
19    facility had to be  built immediately.  These facilities
20    are  located  in  the  industrial wastes pretreatment area
21    east of the  continuous annealing building.
22                   The  5-stand  tandem mill is versatile and
23    produces tin plate, galvanize sheets and mill clean
24    back plate by cold  working. When the mill  is on  tin
25    plate  or light  gages of  galvanize,  a recirculation

 I    system Is used to lubricate the strip and for cooling.

 2    The system recirculates a rolling solution of 10,000

 3    gallons made up with about 1,000 gallons of oils with

 4    emulsifying and bactericidal agents added.  By straining,

 5    cooling, conditioning and adding makeup to the solution,

 6    it may be reused for seven to ten days.  When the solution

 7    is considered spent, it is dumped in a few minutes and

 8    a fresh solution of 10,000 gallons Is substituted.

 9    Whenever the mill is on heavy gages of galvanize or mill

10    clean black plate, some of the stands use the direct

11    method of rolling.  In this case, lubricant and water

12    applied to the stand Is used only once and discharged

13    directly to sewer.  The flow entering the sewer contains

14    approximately 200 ppm of oils, and if all stands are on

15    the direct method, the rate of flow may reach 6,000 gpm.

16    The oils used may be of mineral, animal or vegetable

17    origin, soluble or insoluble, and may be found In the

is    waste water in different degrees of being free or

19    emulsified and saponified or unsaponified.

20                   The tin temper mill is operated In a

21    manner similar to the 5-stand tandem mill whenever double-

22    reduced tin plate is being produced.  However, since only two

23    stands are doing the work and reductions are only

24    nominal, the rate and amount of oil and water use are

25    much lower.  The average flow is from 100 to 150

 1    gpm,  but  It  may have  an  oil  content  in the  range  of  a
 2    thousand  parts  per million.  The  oils used  for double-
 3    reduced tin  plate are emulsified  when applied and must be
 4    comparatively clean because  of  the thin  gage metal.
 5                   In addition to the waste  flows from mill
 6    operations,  other oily wastes are generated by washdowns,
 7    fog eliminator  sluicing  and  blowdowns.   To  cope with all
 8    of these  variables in volume, in  oil content, and in
 9    characteristics, it is necessary  to  provide control  faci-
10    lities of at least three general  types.  The wastes  can
11    be directed  to  the proper receiving  unit as generated,
12    and then  can be processed progressively  to  obtain a
13    lesser oil concentration in  the larger volumes of water
14    and a greater oil concentration in the smaller volumes
15    of water. The  three  types of facilities are:
16         1.        Oil Interception - for large water volumes
17                   with low  oil  content.
18         2.        Oil Separation  - for  moderate water volumes
19                   or oil content.
20         3.        Oil Concentration  - for small volumes having
21                   high oil  content.
22    At each type of control  facility, chemicals, air or  heat,
23    are added to help  separate the  oils  from the waste water.

     how oily wastes are controlled.
     Descriptions of these facilities and flow diagrams explain

                   Oil Interception
                   The waste discharge from the direct method
    of rolling is pumped from a skimming tank to the basement
    of the 5-stand tandem mill through a 24-inch steel force
    main to an equalization tank at the industrial wastes
    pretreatment area.  Figure 9 shows the waste water control
    facilities at the oil interception plant.
                   The incoming flow is mixed in the equali-
    zation tank before passing to the mixing tank where it is
10   Joined with the treated  water from the oil separation
11   plant.  At the mixing tank, waste pickle liquor may be
12   added to lower the pH and assist in breaking oil emulsions
13   prior to discharge to the interceptor tanks.  Each oil
14   interceptor tank has a volume of 66,000 gallons and provides
15   a detention period of 20 minutes at its design flow
16   of 3,300 gpm.  Free oils, which float to the surface, are
    skimmed off at the effluent end of the tank and then
18   pumped to the oil concentration plant.  Solids settling
19   to the bottom are removed from the tank by a sludge
20   collector mechanism which deposits them into containers
21   at plant grade.  The treated flow is gauged and is dis-
22   charged to the oily wastes sewer to be conveyed to the chemi-
23   cal treatment plant for a final step in treatment.  The
24   treatment process can be followed on the flow diagram,
25   Figure 9a.

 i                  Oil Separation
 2                  The chemical flocculation and dissolved
 3   air flotation process for separating oils is suitable
 4   for handling the moderate continuous flow from the fog
 s   eliminator and tunnel sluicing, the waste rolling solu-
 6   tion from double-reduced tin plate and the water drawoff
 7   from oil concentration.  The treatment units housed at
 8   the north end of the general operations building near
 9   the oil interception facilities are shown in Figure 10.
10                  All flows enter the primary holding tank
n   where free oils and solids are separated.  The oils are
12   pumped to the oil concentration facilities and the solids
13   to oil Interception.  The effluent from the primary tank
14   contains emulsified oils which are treated with  waste
15   pickle liquor, lime, and air and then pumped to a reten-
i6   tion tank to allow reactions and dissolution of air to be
17   completed.  The treated flow is released in the flotation
18   tank where the coagulating chemicals form a floe and the
19   entrained air under reduced pressure forms tiny air
20   bubbles.  The floe and bubbles sweep upward and carry
21   suspended oils to the surface.  The flotation tank  is
22   designed for an overflow rate of 2 gpm per square foot
23   at a flow of 250 gpm.  The clarified water is discharged
24   to the oil interception tanks.  Figure lOa presents the
25   schematic flow diagram for oil separation.

                                          SCHEMATIC  FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                        OIL  INTERCEPTION  PLANT
 Figure  9
  Figure 9a
                                          SCHEMATIC  FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                         OIL  SEPARATION  PLANT
                                            WASTE WATE* COMTHOl AT MIDWEST STEEL
 Figure 10
 Figure lOa
                                          SCHEMATIC  FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                          OIL CONCENTRATION  PLANT
Figure  11
Figure  lla

 i                   Oil Concentration
 2                   Spent rolling  solution, blowdowns, and
 3    similar wastes  are pumped in  a steam traced force main
 4    to  an  oil  concentration tank.  Heat is added to the in-
 5    sulated oil holding tank to separate water and concentrate
 6    the oil.  The water from the  holding tank is pumped to
 7    oil separation, the solids to oil interception and the
 8    oil to the oil  storage tank.  Further oil concentration
 9    occurs in  the heated storage  tank before final disposal
10    of  collected oil by trucking.
n                   The oil concentration facilities are
12    adjacent to the oil interceptor tanks and a small pump
13    house  as shown  in Figure 11.  Most of the oil, water
14    and sludge pumps used in oily wastes control are installed in
15    the small  building.  The transfer of these substances
16    is  outlined in  Figure lla for the oil concentra-
17    tion operation.
19                   The chromium wastes pretreatment facili-
20    ties are located in the industrial wastes pretreatraent
21    area just  to the east of the  tin temper mill as shown
22    in  Figure  12.   Chromium compounds, in the hexavalent form,
23    are used for chemically treating finished product in
24    the electrolytic tinning and  galvanizing lines.   After
25    the strip  leaves the chemical treatment unit,  rinse

     waters are applied to clean the strip of excess material.
     These chrome-bearing rinse waters are treated by using
     waste pickle liquor to reduce chromium to the trivalent
     form which can readily be precipitated by adding  lime.
                    The rinse waters are pumped from the
     operating lines to the two equalization tanks  located
     above plant grade where inflow rates and variations in
     concentration are equalized.   The flow leaving the
     equalization tanks is metered and then enters a mixing
 IQ   tank where waste pickle liquor is added.  Approximately 30
     minutes detention is provided in reaction tanks where
 12   mixing continues to permit the reduction process to be
 13   completed.  The ferrous sulfate content of the waste
 14   pickle liquor acts as the reducing agent and the residual
 15   sulfuric  acid of the  liquor maintains an adequate  level
     of pH to promote complete reduction.   Complete reduction
 17   of hexavalent chromium is obtained when the reduction
 18   potential is held at 500 millivolts, as measured  by an
 lg   oxidation reduction potential meter, with a 10  percent
     excess of ferrous sulfate and a pH of about 2.5.
                    The treated flow enters an effluent sump
22   where a lime feed connection  may be used to apply lime to
23   start neutralizing the waste  and form insoluble precip-
24   itates,  or simply for pH adjustment for sewer conditions.
25   Final application of  lime at the chemical  treatment  plant

     neutralizes the waste and  completes the precipitation of

     chromium hydroxide  and ferric hydroxide which  are removed

     from the sedimentation basins and pumped to the  sludge

     lagoons.  The  process is outlined in Figure 12a.


6                  The  electrolytic  tinning lines  is the

     source  of fluoride-bearing waste flows in  the  mill.  The

     tin plating process used by Midwest is known as  the

9    "Halogen Line" in which a  plating solution comprised of

10    several reagents is used.  Plating solution, which is a

     relatively expensive solution, contains stannous tin,

12    fluorides, chlorides, and  DuPont Agent No. 2.

13                  The  process involves several preparatory

14    steps before the strip enters the first level  bank of

15    plater  cells where  its underside surface is tinned.  The

,c    strip travels  vertically to a second level of  cells where

1?    the other side is tinned.  At a  third level, the strip

     enters  a reclaim tank where plating solution is  recovered

     and the strip  is rinsed before leaving the tank.

20                  A final water spray is used to  remove

21    small residual amounts of  plating solution.  The water

     used at the spray tank is  reused at the plater fume

     exhauster washer which discharges a flow of 125 gpm to a

    pretreatment reservoir in the  basement  of the mill.   From

    this point,  the waste water is pumped to  the  fluoride

                                               SCHEMATIC  FLOW   DIAGRAM

                                          CHROMIUM  WASTES   TREATMENT
                                                 WtSTE WTEM CONTROi »T HIDWCST STCCL
Figure 12
Figure 12a
                                             SCHEMATIC   FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                        FLUORIDE  WASTES  TREATMENT
                                                mm mil* CMTMI »T HIMCST ITCCL
Figure 13
                                                    Figure 13a

     wastes treatment  plant.
                    The 125 gpni flow leaving the electrolytic
     tinning line contains small representative amounts of the
 4    plating solution,  although the concentration of each
     contaminant will  vary from time to time.
 .                   Since plating solution is valuable and
     contains high concentrations of substances of a critical
     nature to acceptable water quality, the mill was designed
     so that no possible discharge of solution to sewer could
     be made inadvertently.  All plating solution sludges from
     periodic cleaning operations are collected, stored and
     processed in a sludge treating plant at the mill to extract
     all readily precipitable compounds for recovery, or
     disposal.  Small  quantities of centrifuge overflow are also
     directed to the fluoride wastes treatment plant for
     further treatment.
                    Facilities for treating fluoride wastes
     are shown in Figure 13.   The flow is pumped from the sump
     at the mill to an  elevated equalization tank where surges
     in flow and variations in chemical composition are
     moderated.  When  the flow leaves the equalization tank,  it
     is metered before  entering a mixing tank where measured
     amounts of lime and waste  pickle  liquor are added in
    proportion to  the  flow being delivered.  The  flow is
    subject to mixing,  sludge recirculation, flocculation,


     settling and  clarification  in  a circular  reaction  clarifier.

                    Lime is added in excess in the reaction

     clarifiers to drive the reaction between  the lime  and

 4    sodium bifluorlde to completion within a  reasonable period

     The excess is also helpful  in maintaining a ready  supply

 c    of lime in contact with the waste to act  as a buffer should

 7    feeding equipment fail to operate properly and to

 8    overcome any inaccuracies in feeding.  Waste pickle

 g    liquor is added to form a gelatinous precipitate so as

10    to coagulate the colloidal  suspension of  calcium fluoride

     formed in the treatment unit.

                    The reaction clarifier is  an upflow
I /

          unit which maintains a layer of sludge in the lower

     section of the tank.  Each  unit is designed for a  deten-

     tion of two hours and 40 minutes and an overflow rate of

     0.6 gpm per sq. ft. at a flow of 250 gpm.  Clarified

17    effluent is discharged to the  oily wastes sewer.  Sludge

18    accumulation is controlled  automatically  by desludging

     measured volumes to the wet well in the acid neutralization

     plant.  The process is outlined in the flow diagram

     presented on  Figure 13a.

22                   The small  residual amounts of soluble

     compounds will  be  discharged in the  effluent  from  the

    fluoride treatment plant.  Among these are calcium

25   fluoride, only  slightly soluble in water,  chlorides and


 !    some tin.  The small amounts discharged are not in

 2    quantities which will develop concentrations in Burns

 3    Ditch above acceptable limits.


 5                   Industrial wastes treatment facilities,

 6    similar to those installed by Midwest Steel, are costly

 7    even in the case of a new plant which can incorporate in

 8    the original planning all necessary piping, pumping,  and

 g    treating units.  For an old established plant,  equal

10    facilities would cost substantially more, and in some

n    cases of overcrowded plant conditions, would be very

12    difficult to provide.

13                   Of great assistance in planning new

14    facilities is the willing participation of stream

15    pollution control officials in providing guidance, review

lg    and suggestions concerning a waste water control program.

17    Their helpful cooperation extends from the initial phases

lg    of planning through the final consummation of approved

ig    designs.

20                   As for the industrial plant, the expendi-

     ture of monies for waste control can be repaid  only in  the

     form of good public relations which may engender greater

     sales of its products and in the satisfaction obtained

24    from doing a good  Job in  conserving an increasingly

25    important  natural resource, water supply.


j                   And finally,  only by proper monitoring of

     the final effluents can management be assured that its

.    investment in facilities and good will is not being

     dissipated and that its objectives are being met.

                    General Engineering Design by:  Hydrotechnic

     Corporation Consulting Engineers, New York, N.Y.

                       TREATMENT FACILITIES

                    The treatment of sanitary wastes at Midwest

     involves a mill population of approximately 2,000 employees,

     requiring measures for biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved

     oxygen, suspended solids and floating material.  Industrial

     waste water from the mill operations includes pH depres-

     sants, suspended solids, floating and soluble oils, color

     inducing substances, iron, tin, zinc, chromium and chloride.

                    The treated water is returned to Lake

     Michigan through Burns Ditch, an artificial water course

     which had previously been constructed by public authorities

     to serve the drainage purposes of a large area to the south

     of the Midwest properties, and of course including the

     Midwest property.


                    Sanitary wastes are collected and treated

     in a sewage system completely segregated from all other

    wastes  and  treatment  at  Midwest.   This waste  is  collected

    and  carried  in  a  cement-lined  cast  iron  pipe  system and


     delivered  to a pumping  station  on the  east bank of the Burns

 2    Ditch.   From here  it  is pumped  in a  force main across Burns

 3    Ditch to the sewage treatment plant  which is  designed to

 4    treat a flow of 330,000 gallons per  day, which capacity

 5    could be approximately  doubled  if necessary.  The treatment

 6    process incorporated  the latest developments  in activated

     sludge  treatment and  aerobic digestion of sludge. The

 0    treated sludge is  disposed  of in the sludge lagoon.   The

 9    effluent water after  disinfection by chlorination is  re-

1Q    turned  to  Burns Ditch in a  24"  outfall.


                    The chemical treatment  plant is located on

     the east bank of Burns  Ditch.   It provides final  treatment

     by coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation for the

     various pretreatment  plant  effluents and the  various  flows

     collected  by the Industrial wastes sewers.  The wastes are

     distributed in retaining basins to equalize flow  variations

     and to  blend the different  wastes.   Diffused  air  agitates

     the wastes and helps  to satisfy the  oxygen demand exerted

     by the  ferrous sulfate  in acid  rinse waters from  the  pickl-

     ing operations. Oil  skimming is performed in a   quiescent

     corner  of  the basin.  After mixing,  adding of chemicals

     for coagulation and aeration, the flow is directed to the

     final treatment  units and distributed  across the  flocculation

     sections of each tank from whence it  passes  directly into the

     sedimentation area.  The sedimentation tanks are equipped
     with sludge collecting mechanism and a sludge drawoff pipe
 3    leading to the wet wells of the sludge pumping station at
     the control building.  Oil and scum are removed at the
     effluent end of the tank and drained by gravity into a sump,
     thence to the oil separator tank for concentration.
                    The average flow of the chemical treatment
     plant is approximately 4,000 gallons per minute, which can be
     increased about four-fold to accommodate possible future
     additional mill facilities.
                    Due to the versatility of the 5-stand tandem
     mill a variety of oily wastes is produced calling for dif-
     ferent treatments for the different types of wastes.
                    When the mill is producing tin plate or light
     gauges of galvanize the coolant oils are filtered, cooled
     and otherwise reconditioned and recirculated.  When the
   I  mill is producing heavy gauges of galvanized or mill-cleaned
     black plate by the direct method of rolling, the lubricant
     and water is not  recirculated but discharged directly to the
     collection sewer.
                    The operation of the tin mill is somewhat
     similar  to that of the  5-stand  tandem mill except
23                                                   K
    that only  two stands  are doing  the work  and  gauge  reductions
    are only nominal.  Consequently, the rate of flow  and the


     amount of oil and water are smaller.

                    In addition to the waste flows from the

     mill operations,  other oily wastes are generated by wash-

     downs, fog eliminator sluicing and blow-downs.  Three types

     of facilities are used in the treatment of these wastes:

                    1.  Oil interception - for large water

 6                      volumes with low oil content.

 7                   2.  Oil separation - for moderate water

                        volumes or oil content.

                    3.  Oil concentration - for small volumes

 9                       having high oil content.

10                   Each of these facilities and the operation

11    thereof is more fully described in Exhibit 1 hereinabove

12    referred to.


14                   Most of the acid to be treated consists of

15    waste pickle liquor from the continuous strip pickler.

16    There is also acid from the pickling tank dumps and chromic

17    acid dumps from the electrolytic tinning line and from the

18    continuous galvanizing line.

19                   Waste pickle liquor is pumped from the mill

20    area in a Saran-lined steel pipe to the pretreatment area.

21    On this Journey it is cooled and deposited in a holding

22    tank along with other waste acids from mill operations

23    pumped directly to the tank.  The pickle liquor reduces

24    the chromium in the chromic acid which is later precipitated


 l   during neutralization.  The waste pickle  liquor  is also
 2   used  for  coagulating  and deraulsifying wastes  substantially
 3   throughout the pretreatment area as well  as in the chemical
 4   treatment plant.
 5                  After  addition  of lime for neutralization
 6   the pickle liquor  is  held  in a reaction tank  and the  sludge
 7   then  discharged to the wet well pump from where  it is deliver
 8   ed to the holding  lagoons.
10                  Chromium wastes are produced in the electro-
n   lytlc tinning and  galvanizing  lines.  These chrome-bearing
12   rinse waters are treated by the use of waste  pickle liquor
13   to reduce the chromium to  the  trivalent form  which is then
14   precipitated by the addition of lime.  The rinse waters are
15   pumped to equalization tanks,  the flow from which is  metered
lg   and directed to a  mixing tank  where waste pickle liquor is
17   added.  The flow thus treated  enters an effluent sump where
18   lime  is fed in order to commence neutralization  of the wastes
lg   or for a  pH adjustment for sewer conditions.  Final
2Q   treatment occurs at the chemical treatment plant  where
21    chromium  hydroxide  and ferrous hydroxide  are  precipitated.
22    The precipitates are then pumped to the sludge lagoons.
*G        T "" -    "-I-- •-•---• -.-   ._    -T
24                  The  plating solutions  at  the electrolytic
2S    tinning  lines contains stannous tin, fluorides, chlorides


     and DuPont Agent  No.  2.   Since  this solution is relatively

2    expensive, the strip, at the end of the plating process,  is

3    run through a reclaiming tank where as much of the solution

4    as possible is recovered for reuse.  The small residual

5    amount of solution  adhering   to the plate is removed by final j

  J                                                                i

6    water spray.  This spray is reused at the blast fume exhauster

     washer from where it is  discharged into a pretreatment reser-

     voir in a sublevel of the mill.  From this reservoir

     it is pumped to the fluoride waste treatment plant.  The

     fluoride effluent from the plant is discharged to the oily

     waste sewer and the sludge is delivered by measured volumes

     to the acid neutralization plant.

                    The wastes treatment processes which I have
1 0

     briefly described hereinabove are as they existed until

     the recent past.

                    Now, we have had some recent changes in

     disposal and controls at Midwest as new as that plant may


                    We have found it necessary to make modifica-

     tions in our treatment process to improve operations and

     performance of these facilities.

                    Consistent with its policy of keeping abreast

     of developments in the industry,  consonant  with treatment

     requirements  and  other factors  which must be  considered,

    Midwest has recently completed  a deep well disposal facility


 1    which is now being used for disposal of waste pickle acid

 2    and chromate wastes.

 3                   Shortly after initial operation of the plant,

 4    it became obvious that the land used for waste lagoons in

 5    the neutralization of waste pickle acid was excessive.  For

 6    this reason we initiated a research program to develop an

 7    improved method of waste acid disposal.  We investigated

 8    the newer methods of neutralization which produced a rela-

 9    tively dry sludge.  We also conducted an extensive program

10    of investigation of acid recovery processes in the hope

II    that we might discover a usable process, although this

12    field of research has been thoroughly covered by the steel

13    industry over the past many years.

14                   In 1964 we undertook a feasibility study

is    of deep well disposal for waste pickle acid.  It was

16    concluded from this study that the geology of the area

17    at the Midwest plant site was peculiarly suitable for

13    deep well disposal.  The study indicated the presence of

19    the Mt. Simon sandstone formation, which is approximately

20    2,000 feet thick,  covered by adequate cap rock to render

21    upward migration of the wastes improbable.  There re-

22    mained,  however,  the problem posed by the incompatibility

23    of the  connate  water in the  Mt.  Simon  formation with  the

24    waste pickle acid.  This formation water  contains approxl-

25    mately 6,000 to 7*000 ppm. calcium as calcium chloride

     which, as you know,  when mixed with the waste pickle
 2    acid, precipitates calcium sulphate which would render the
 3    Mt. Simon formation much less desirable for further
 4    disposal.  To overcome this we have injected a large pre-
 5    determined quantity of fresh water into the disposal area
 6    around the well bore to serve as a buffer wall between
 7    the waste pickle acid and the connate water.
 8                   The feasibility study was furnished to the
     Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board with our request
1Q    for a permit to complete the well and use it for the in-
..    dicated purpose.  This permit has been granted.
12                   In delivering the acid waste to the disposal
     horizon it is delivered from the pickle line to a holding
     tank, filtered to remove all suspended solids above
     microns in size, and then pumped by centrifugal pumps
,c    down to the horizon.  The well was bottomed out at ap-
     proximately 4,200 feet.  The well diameter is 7" to the
     bottom and the injection tubing is introduced through
     the well bore into the disposal horizon for a distance
     of approximately 100 feet below the cap rock.
                    Notwithstanding the construction and opera-
     tion of this deep well, the Indiana stream Pollution
     Control Board has,  as a condition to the grant of the
     permit  for  the well,  required  Midwest  to maintain in
25    stand-by readiness  our  complete  acid neutralization


     facility referred to hereinabove.

2                   Although we anticipate that the deep well

3    will resolve land use problems associated with neutraliza-

     tion of waste acid, it has posed a new problem for Midwest

,    in its chromate treatment facilities.  We formerly used

6    waste pickle acid for the treatment of chromates.  The

7    disposal of acid in the deep well necessitated the develop-

0    ment of new treatment practices for chromates.  After a
     thorough study of the problem we concluded that it would
10    be possible to include the chromate wastes with the waste
     acid being disposed of through the deep well.  These two
12    solutions are chemically compatible and we think will not

13    give rise to any additional problems in the disposal horizon.

     The deep well permit has been modified to include disposal of

     chromate wastes.


17                   A new development in the steel industry which

18    occurred after the construction of our Midwest plant is the

     production of double reduced or thin reduced tin plate.  In

2Q    order to produce this product at Midwest Steel it was neces-

21    sary to convert the tin temper mill which is a dry rolling

22    mill to a solution rolling mill for the rolling of double

23    reduced tin plate.   A solution rolling mill  uses a soluble

     oil.  These  emulsions are  very difficult  to  break  down  and

25   recover from waste effluents.  For this reason Midwest


 l    installed a total reclrculating system.  When double reduced

 2    tin plate Is reduced on the tin temper mill, all of the

 3    rolling solutions are recirculated through a system of

 4    filters for scale removal and reapplied to the rolling

 5    mill.  When it becomes necessary to dump these solutions,

 6    they are removed for offsite disposal.

 7                   Now, I would like you to bear with me for

 8    a few moments while I show you a series of slides which I

 g    think are quite interesting and informative and will serve

10    to clarify the foregoing part of this presentation.

H                     This is Slide No. 1, which I have been ad-

12    vised that the time is short and I will therefore not go

13    into any lengthy description of the slides.

14                   Slide No. 1 is a picture that was taken

15    approximately in July 1959> and is the unimproved plant

16    site we referred to.  As you look at this slide, east is to

1?    the right.  The property fronts on the southerly side of

._    Lake Michigan, looking north in viewing the slide.  We see

     to the left what we have been discussing in this conference

2Q    as Burns Ditch, which we all know is a drainage ditch serv-

21    ing the drainage purposes of a large area south of this

22    tract, which we view in this slide.  Treated water from the

     Midwest operations is emptied into Burns Ditch,  which, as

     can be seen here,  empties into Lake Michigan.

25                   Adjoining Burns Ditch on the  westerly side,

 i    the company has additional property which extends to the
 2    limits of the City of Ogden Dunes.  The sanitary waste
 3    treatment plant which treats all of the sanitary waste
 4    from Midwest Steel is located on this property.
 5                   No. 2, this picture was taken approximately
 6    August 1961.  It is a general view of Midwest Steel plant,
 7    showing Burns Ditch and the northeasterly part of the lagoon
 8    area.  Beginning at the lower right hand corner of this
 9    picture we see parts of two of the four waste lagoons.
10    The structure across Burns Ditch is a foot bridge which
11    also supports pipes leading to the lagoons and the waste
12    sewage treatment plant.  The small green building between
13    Burns Ditch and the lagoons is the waste sewage treatment
14    plant.  The small square structure at the end of the bridge
15    on the left side of the ditch is the sewage lift station.
16    The excavated area in the center of this picture and
17    parallel to the ditch is the uncompleted industrial waste
19    water treatment plant which was then under construction,
19    but which has since been completed.  Approximately at the
20    lake end of that excavation and at the edge of Burns Ditch
21    is the outfall leading from the treatment plant where the
22    treated water is discharged to the ditch and thence to the
23    lake.   At  the extreme  left  of  the main plant building is
24    located the industrial waste primary treatment plant, which
25    treats wastes  such as oils, chromates, fluorides, waste


 1   pickle liquor and tin solutions.  This part of the treat-

 2   ment facilities extends for some distance back of this

 3   building out of view and may be seen more clearly in a

 4   later slide.

 5                  Slide No. 3» this is an aerial view taken

 6   in the summer of 1963 approximately one year after opera-

 7   tions commenced.  The view is looking from north to south.

 8   Incidentally, this is a picture which was published in

 9   Factory Magazine for the "Factory of the Year Award" made

10   to Midwest Steel in 1963.

li                  Slide No. 4, this is a reproduction of a

12   schematic drawing which shows the plant layout and the

13   area of waste treatment facilities including a new deep

14   well for acid disposal and the building housing the new

15   tin sludge recovery and the new tin recovery processes.

16                  Slide No. 5, the primary treatment plant

17   may be seen at the left center of this slide.

18                  Slide No. 6, in the center foreground is

19   shown a more detailed picture of a portion of the treat -

20   ment plant.  As you may guess, this picture was taken from

21   the top of the plant buildings.  In somewhat better detail

22   can be seen, beginning at the lower foreground, the

23   chromium treatment  plant.  The waste is first pumped into

24   the equalization tanks in the lower center portion of the

25   picture.   From these tanks there is a controlled flow  into

 1    the retention basins where the chrome is mixed with waste
 2    pickle acid in the proper proportion to recipitate the
 3    chromates and then pumped to the waste lagoons for storage.
     The two tank-like structures in the center of the picture
 r    are fluoride treatment facilities.  The structures to the
 ,.    left of that are the acid neutralization facilities.
                    Slide No. 7, this slide shows the secondary
 0    treatment plant.  Equalization basins are at the lower left
     The buildings in the center provide oil separation and
     chemical treatment.  This is followed by the flocculation
     basin and final sedimentation basin.  The fully treated
     effluent leaves the plant at the upper center of the slide
     and empties into Burns Ditch.
                    Slide No. 8, this shows the sewage treat-
     ment plant previously located.  Since there was no munci-
     pal sewage treatment plant available we were required by
     the Stream Pollution Control Board to construct this
     facility for treating sanitary waste.
ig                   Slide No. 9, shows the equalization tank
     and two flocculation tanks which are used for the chemical
     treatment of fluorides in plating solution waste.
22                   Slide No. 10 shows the equalization tanks
     and  the  above-ground  portion  of  the  chrome  treatment
     facilities.  The greatest part is below ground.  The
    reaction tanks which are a part of this treatment process

 i    are underground beneath the agitators.
 2                   Slide No. 11 shows the acid neutralization
 3    facility.  In the center of the slide can be seen a lime
 4    storage silo and a lime slurry building.  To the left of
 5    the lime slurry building, located underground, are the
 6    acid neutralization reaction basins.  The tank located on the
 7    right is a waste pickle liquor storage tank.
 9                   Slide No. 12 shows an interior view of the
 9    acid pumping and control building.
10                   Slide No. 13 shows a portion of the oil
11    separation facility, comprising the oil equalization tank
12  '  on the left, the two vertical tanks or oil concentrators,
13    and the reclaimed oil storage tank.  The building located
14    in the lower righthand corner contains the oil pumping
15    and control facilities.
16                   Slide No. 14, shows the oil interceptors
17    and sludge draw-off equipment particularly necessary in the
18    primary treatment of wastes containing relatively low oil
19    concentration.
20                   Slide No. 15 shows three of the concentrating
21    tanks which are a part of the oil separation plant.
22                   Slide No. 16.  This is an exterior view of
23    the Centrifuge Building.  The centrifuge is used to recover
24    the sludge  from the Fluoride Treatment Plant.   This sludge
25    would  otherwise be  pumped  to the  lagoons.


                   Slide No.  17  shows  our Deep Well Disposal

2    building.   This well,  4,308  feet deep, will  be used  to

3    dispose of our waste pickle  acid and a portion of  our

4    chromic wastes.


6                       CONCLUSION
                    Consistent with its policy,  Midwest  Steel
o    will continue to look to the future  to keep abreast  of

     developments in the area of wastes treatment and  controls.

     When we planned and constructed  our  present plant with  its

     treatment facilities, as was noted hereinabove, we attempted

     to make provision for future increase  In capacity and pro-

     duction.  We must,  of course, also bear in mind the  over-

     riding necessity for keeping abreast of steel production

     and processing developments in the industry.  We  have done

g    the best we know how to anticipate all of these possible

17    future problems but have no way  of knowing whether our

._    guesses have been good or bad.   So far,  they appear  to

     have been good but  in either event we  have done our  best.

20                   We would like to  take advantage of this

21    opportunity particularly to thank  the  Indiana Stream

,    Pollution Control Board and its  Technical Secretary, Mr.

     Poole,  for  the continuous help and cooperation which they

     have rendered  to  us  in  coping with the many problems which

     so far we have, with their help,  been able to solve.  At


     times we have recoiled somewhat at their strict require-

     ments but we realize that all of their efforts, and we

     hope they realize that all of our efforts, are in the

     interest of achieving a mutually desirous end.

                    Thank you, gentlemen.

          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

                    This Just isn't professional courtesy, I

     want to thank you for a very thorough and comprehensive

     and interesting statement of the work that is done at


                    Are there any comments or questions?

          MR. CHESROW:  I want to point out that Mr. Jackson

     Just illustrated the high degree of waste control and

     disposal that can be achieved by industry.


          MR. JACKSON:  Thank you.

          MR. POSTON:  I would like to comment on or ask a

     question about page 16, the next to the last paragraph.

     It says, "When it becomes necessary to dump these solu-

     tions, they are removed for offsite disposal."

                    I wondered whether there was any super-

     vision on this disposal, site or what is it?

          MR. JACKSON:  This is done through an independent

     contractor and we have his assurances that it is disposed

     of  in such a manner as not possibly to interfere with the



         MR. POSTON:  The reason I ask this is I know in the

    past there have been itinerant septic tank cleaners who
3   K

    pump out a septic tank and rush  it to the nearest stream

    and dump this material in the stream.

         MR. JACKSON:  That, of course, we have guarded against.

    No question  about that.

         MR. POSTON:  I am glad to hear that.

         MR. POOLE:  For Mr. Poston's information, we license













     septic tank  cleaners  in  Indiana because  of  that.  That  is

     one  of the most momentous endeavors.

         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Glad to hear that.  I know Jackson

     and  Fred Tucker wouldn't deal with an  itinerant, either.

                   Thank  you.

         MR. JACKSON:  Thank you.

         MR. POOLE:  Next, I am going to call on  Inland Steel

     who  will be  represented by Mr. Ross Harbaugh, Assistant to

     the  Operating Vice -President .

                   Mr. Harbaugh.

         MR.  HARBAUGH:  Mr. Chairman and  gentlemen of the


                   I am Ross Harbaugh, Assistant to the Vice-

    President,  Manufacturing and Research,  Inland Steel Company.

    I represent my company in response to a letter dated

    December  29,  1964  from Mr.  Poole  of  the Indiana Stream


 l    Pollution Control  Board,  in which  Inland  was  designated  as

 2    one of the industrial participants in this conference.   We

 3    appreciate this opportunity to state  Inland's policy and

 4    to present our views on this important matter.

 5                   Inland personnel have  been interested and

 6    active in water and waste treatment for many  years and  for

 7    many reasons.  For the past twelve years, I have been Inland's

 9    representative on  the Steel Industry  Action Committee,

 9    advisory to the Ohio River Valley  Water Sanitation Commis-

10    sion.  In 1961, at the start of the Great Lakes-Illinois

n    River Basins Project, I was designated the industry repre-

12    sentative for steel on the Technical  Committee to that

13    Project.  As you know, both of these  committees are still

14    active.

15                   Inland Steel Company was named a participant

16    in this conference because of the  location of its Indiana

17    Harbor Works.  This plant, which is the third largest steel

18    plant in the United States, is situated adjacent

19    to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal,  and occupies a man-made

20    peninsula jutting  into the lake to the east of the mouth

21    of the canal.

22                        INLAND'S STAKE IN CLEAN WATER

23                   Immediately to the  east of the Harbor Works is

24    the East Chicago Water Department  treatment plant and pumping



 l     station, with  a  water  intake  located  in  close  proximity

 2     to the end  of  the peninsula.   Also adjacent to the eastern

 3     boundary of Inland's plant  is the East  Chicago city park,

 4     marina and  beach.  The 57,000 residents of East Chicago

 s     depend on this water supply for domestic use and for rec-

 6     reation. Our  21,500 employees drink and bathe in this

 7     water,  inland,  therefore,  has a vital  interest in protect-

 8     ing the quality  of this water and, as I will recount, has a

 9     record of accomplishment in doing so.

10                   The Indiana  Harbor Works is a fully integrated

11     steel plant.  Its operations include coke plants, sintering

12     plants, blast  furnaces, open hearths, hot and cold rolling

13     mills, and  tinning and galvanizing plants.  Supporting these

14     manufacturing  operations are three major power plants gener-

is     ating most  of  the needed electrical energy, shops of various

16     kinds, storage facilities for millions  of tons of raw

17     materials,  some  200 miles of railroad trackage, lake ship-

18     ing docks,  and other facilities which are vital to such a

19     large operation.  Ingot steel production last  year was

20     approximately  6,500,000 tons.

21                   Inland's plant is one  of  seven  large steel

22     plants in the  Chicago  Steelmaking district,  which pours

23     more steel   than any other  district in the United States.

24     Steel  production in  the  geographical  area  covered  by this

25     conference  is  about  20^  of the national total,  or  about 24

 l   million  tons  a year.  Only  four nations  of the world  produce
 2   more  steel  than  the  Chicago steelmaking  District.
 3                  The uses  for water  in  this plant  are many and
 4   varied.   Water for drinking is piped  throughout  the plant
 5   from  the East Chicago municipal  system.  For  the largest
 6   use,  cooling  water,  simple  screening  to  keep  fish out of
 7   the system  is sufficient treatment.   For other uses,  as
 8   for example in the final processing of tin plate,  de-
 9   ionized  or  distilled water  is required.
10                  When  the  present  plant expansion  program  is
11   completed in  1966, the total amount of water  used will
12   approximate that of  the  City of  Chicago, or about one
13   billion  gallons  a day.
14                  Almost all water  discharged from  the  Inland
15   Steel plant enters the Indiana Harbor Ship canal and  ship-
ie   turning  basin, which is  part of  the Grand Calumet River-
17   Indiana  Harbor Ship  canal drainage system, extending  from
18   about Columbia Avenue in Hammond to the  northeast section of
19   Gary.
20                  Virtually all land  along  the ship canal is
21   industrial  property,  and the land  bordering this portion of
22   the Grand Calumet is also given over  mainly to industrial
23   use or to municipal  sewage  plants.  The  dry weather flow in
24   this  system is comprised  largely of municipal sewage  plant
25   effluents and industrial waste water discharge.  Ship and


     barge transportation is virtually the only other water use.

                        SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL
 2                       	'	~~~~  '

                    The February 1965 report on Illinois-Indiana

     pollution prepared by the U. S. Public Health Service reviews

     in considerable detail the problem of bacterial pollution.
     The press has carried a number of stories in which sewage
     was mentioned prominently.  It is appropriate that this
     discussion of Inland's effort in the protection of water
     quality start with a review of the treatment given sanitary
                    In the late 1940's, Inland elected to treat
     such wastes generated in the Indiana Harbor Works rather than
     discharge all wastes into the city sewer system.  The first
     part of what is now a 22-mile system of separate sanitary
     sewers was installed at that time, along with a treatment
     plant.  In an expansion program ten years later, a second
     sewage plant was built, and is now being enlarged.  In
     anticipation of future plant expansion, a third sanitary
     treatment plant has been approved by the Indiana Stream
     Pollution Control Board and is now under construction.
                    The design, construction and operation of thes4
     three sewage treatment plants has been approved by Indiana
     authorities, who receive periodic laboratory reports of
     their operation.   The final effluent  from each of these



     plants is chlorinated.   As an additional safeguard,  alj

     industrial sewer outfalls are checked regularly for B.

     Coli count, in order to detect any accidental cross con-

     nections between the sanitary and industrial sewer systems.

                    We are confident that this phase of the pollu-

     tion problem is under control at Inland, and that it will

     remain so.

                         INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT

                    Our approach to sanitary sewage disposal may

     be used as an example of what can be accomplished: (l) when

     the problem is recognized; (2) when goals are clearly defined

     and (3) when knowledge of treatment method is available.

                    In the field of industrial waste treatment,

     however, the situation is considerably different, and one or

     more of these three requisites is missing in many cases.

                    The industrial water treatment problem as out-

     lined in the February PHS report presents several examples

     where these three conditions are not present.

                    For example, the concept of damage to Lake

     Michigan waters by discharge of nutrients is new, and has

     not heretofore been recognized as a problem.  This general

     term, as we understand it, refers to nitrogen compounds,

     phosphorus compounds,  and perhaps to undefined organic

     matter  which would be  included in Population Equivalent.


 l                   In another example, although phenols hare been
 2    recognized as a problem in a general way, goals have not
 3    been estblished, and effects upon water quality  at the
 4    point of use are only now being correlated with  amounts
 5    at the point of discharge.
 6                   The discharge of cyanide falls  into a similar
 7    category.  In the more than half century that  blast furn-
 3    aces and coke plants have been operated in the Calumet
 9    area, I can recall no mention of a resulting cyanide
10    problem.  If this is a problem which should be recognized,
n    obviously we must establish a goal, and take steps to reach
12    i^
13                   Much more work remains to be done  in this
14    area, and the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board and the
15    Public Health Service are to be complimented for  the excel-
16    lent start they have made.  I emphasize that it  is only
17    a start.  It is not enough to say only that our waters
18    must be kept clean or pure or unchanged.  Mankind uses
lg    water for a purpose.  That use, whether by man individu-
20    ally or by man in industry, almost always changes the
21    water.  Whether or not that change constitutes pollution
22    requires thought and study, and a weighing of the many
23    factors that  must  be considered in deciding upon a reason-
24    able  solution.
25                   Referring  again  to  the  February report by the


     PHS, the Inland data in the table on page 20, is at least

     in part, based on information freely given by Inland to

     representatives of the Indiana Stream Pollution Control

     Board and U.S. Public Health Service on August 8, 1962.

                    Since that time, certain improvements have

     been made.  We are happy to say that BOD values from which

     the Population Equivalent of 200,000 was calculated have

     been reduced from 8.4 ppm to an average of 5.4 ppm for 1963

     and 4.2 ppm for 1964.  The dissolved oxygen for 1964 was

10    8 ppm,

                    If I may digress for a moment, I would like

12    to comment on the use of the term Population Equivalent —

13    or PE.  I recognize that this is a useful tool for the

14    sanitary engineer, who must design his disposal plant to

     meet the oxygen demand coming to it, from whatever the

16    source.  I question the use of this term in the present

17    case.  The press and the public, naturally, are led to

18    equate PE to human sewage, which, in this case, is clearly

19    erroneous.

                    A reduction has also been made in the ammonia

21    nitrogen loading.  Recovery practices at our Plant 3 Coke

22    Plant have been improved to capture some 2,600 pounds per

23    dav previously discharged.  A detailed review of operating,

24    maintenance and other procedures is now in progress,  and,

25    hopefully will make possible a further reduction.

                    Phenols and other coke plant wastes, such as
     naphthalene, are the subject of other investigations.

     Although Inland operates two phenol and three naphthalene

     recovery systems, it is recognized that some of these
     reputed odor and taste producing materials escape.   In

     this connection, we have under way an experimental program

     to determine whether the residual phenol in dephenolized
     waste can be further reduced by biochemical treatment.

     Suggestions and help in this project have been received

10    from the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board.
n                   The report cites values of oil discharge
12    which figure out to a concentration of 6.2 parts per million.
13    Further reduction poses an extremely difficult engineering
14    problem when these discharges are mixed with a half billion

15    gallons of water.  We know of no way to eliminate oil
16    completely, but as a step to use one of the water treatment
17    means available to us, plans are currently in progress to
18    more than double the size of an existing oil separation
19    lagoon.

20                   Mav I point out here that it is common
21    practice for regulatory agencies to approve discharges carry-
22    ing oil in much higher concentrations than the 6.2  ppm which
23    formed  the basis for the  PHS  report.

24                   Inland  also received  attention  In  the  report
25    for  discharging waste  pickle  liquor.   The  Indiana Stream


     Pollution Control Board has been asked for approval for

     deep well disposal into the Mount Simon formation at a

     depth of over 4,000 feet.  It is only recently that any

     practical method has been developed and to date, we know

     of only one successful installation.  As a possible al-

     ternative, we are studying a plan for substituting the use

     of hydrochbric acid for sulfuric, with inclusion of a

 8    complete recovery system.  Extensive studies providing

 9    a basis for initiating such a program have already been

10    carried out.

n                   Blast furnace flue dust has been cited as

12    another pollutant causing difficulty.  All Inland blast

13    furnaces are served by thickeners and filters.  Routine

14    sampling and analysis indicates consistent recoveries of 97$

15    to 99$.  This high efficiency results from installation of

18    low volume, high energy, scrubbers which were Installed

17    recently to reduce the flow to the thickeners, and thus

18    Increase the recovery of flue dust.

19                   A listing of water treatment facilities at

     the Indiana Harbor Works follows:

21                   Existing Facilities

22                   13 scale pits at:

23                   19" Mill and #1 Billet Mill
                    100" Plate Mill
24                   24" Bar Mill
                    #1  Blooming Mill

Spike Shop
76" Mill
44" Mill
2                   #2 Blooming Mill
                    #3 Blooming Mill
3                   #4 Slabber
                    10" Mill
4                   14" Mill
                    28" and 32" Mills

                    2 Ammonia recovery stills

                    2 Settling pits - ammonia still waste liquor

                    2 Phenol recovery plants

                    3 Naphthalene recovery units

                    4 Settling basins - quench water

                    2 Thickeners - l40' diameter each

                    1 Thickener - double tray, 80' diameter

                    5 Sludge Filters

                    2 Sanitary Sewage Treatment Plants

                    2 Waste Lagoons

                    2 Oil Recovery Plants

                    1 Flotator - Clarifier and Oil Recirculat-
17                     ing System

18                   5 Roll Collant Tanks and Separators,
                    and I think Perry Miller had 2 settling
19                   basins in his report that I forgot when
                    I wrote this.

                    New Facilities Under Construction

                    Expansion of #2 Sewage Plant

                    #3 Sewage Plant

                    Scale Pits and Oil Separator - #2-A
24                   Bloomer and Billet Mill



 !                   No. 4 B. 0. P. - Isolated
                    Recirculatlon System - No
 2                   Discharge

 3                   Complete waste water treatment
                    plant - 80" Mill

                    The No. 4 B. 0. F. (Basic Oxygen Furnace
     Steelmaking plant) scheduled for completion this year is
     designed for an Isolated water recirculation system.  All
     waste water will be treated, settled and reused, with no
                    The waste water handling and treatment plant
     at the 80" Hot Strip Mill is worthy also of more detailed
     discussion, since this installation is an outstanding
     example of modern industry's effort to maintain water quality
     It is the result of the combined efforts of our own Engineer-
     ing Department, outside engineering consultants, and the
     Indiana State Board of Health,  it combines three multi-cell
     scale pits equipped for continuous solids removal, oil
     separators, and four 115-foot diameter clarifiers.  There is
     also a control building with laboratory space, provision for
     adding coagulent chemicals and other auxiliary equipment.
     Under construction for the past two years, this waste water
     treamtmert  plant is now near ing completion at a total cost of
     more than 9-1/2 million dollars.
                    Cost  of waste water treatment  facilities at
     the Harbor  Works,  built and  under construction,  is about


 l    26 million dollars.  This does not include many of the

 2    early installations, where it has been impossible to

 3    identify separately costs for pollution control.

 4                        CORRECTIVE ACTION

 5                   We would now comment briefly on the corrective

 B    action recommended in the PHS report.  I will direct my

 7    remarks to the first two recommendations, which affect

 8    Inland directly.


10                   "industrial plants in both Indiana and Illinoi^

il    take immediate steps to improve practices for exclusion

12    or treatment of wastes, especially the following con-

13    stitutents:

14                   Oil and tarry substances;

is                   Phenolic compounds or other persistent organic
                    chemicals that contribute to taste and odor
16                   problems;

17                   Ammonia and other nitrogenous material;

18                   Phosphorus;

19                   Suspended matter; and

20                   Highly acidic or alkaline materials."

21                   Inland is in agreement with the objectives of

22    this recommendation.   This requires,  of course,  that we

23    continue  our  efforts.   Our program, which  involves  ex-

24    panded laboratory facilities, an enlarged  technical  force


 i    an in-plant housekeeping and reporting system, as well
 2    as our new and improved treatment facilities, is such a
 3    continuing effort.  We believe the Indiana Stream Pollu-
 4    tion Control Board can attest to our increased activity
 5    in this area.
 7                   "Major industrial plants institute permanent
 8    programs of sampling their effluents to provide more
 9    complete information about waste outputs.  Location and
10    frequency of sample collection should be sufficient to
n    yield statistically reliable values of waste output and
12    its variations.  Analysis should include the following:
13    pH, oil, tarry residues, phenolics, ammonia, organic
14    nitrogen, total nitrogen, cyanide, toxic metals, phosphorus,
15    suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand.  Waste water
16    flows should be measured, and results should be reported in
17    terms of both concentrations and tonnage rates.  Monthly
18    reports of results, which, by the way, the Blue Book didn't
19    do, should be submitted to the appropriate State water pol-
2o    lution control agencies, where they will be available in
21    open files.  Unusual increase in waste output and accidental
22    spills should be reported immediately to the State agency."
23                   We  agree that some routine surveillance is
24    desirable  but  firmly believe that frequency and  type  of  analysjis

 1    required on individual outfalls must be limited to the
 2    significant pollutants in each case.  We would object
 3    strenuously to a requirement for expensive and time-con-
 4    suming sampling and analysis unless the results are
 5    necessary and pertinent to the problem.  Incidentally, all
 6    approvals received for waste treatment facilities from the
 7    Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board are contingent upon
 8    establishment of a technical control and reporting program.
 9                   We do object to the open file provision
10    because we believe the files should be open only to those
n    with a legitimate interest.  We also feel that administration
12    of the open file provision should be left to the state agency
13    involved.
14                   I would like to make one personal recommenda-
15    tion which is prompted by my experience as one of the origina
16    members of the Technical Committee to the Great Lakes-
17    Illinois River Basins Project.  I have been impressed by
18    the technical competence of those who have been involved
19    in the direction of this project.  I have subscribed to
20    their logical approach to a difficult problem.
21                   The GLIRB staff, in the course of many meet-
22    ings with the Technical Committee, has stressed the need for
23    developing cause  and  effect  relationships,  the necessity
24    for  determining the water uses  to  be  served  and the  re-
25    quirements for serving those uses.

 l                   The Technical Committee formed several work
 2    groups, composed of specialists from municipal water
 3    departments,  representatives of the States of Michigan,
 4    Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois, and from a number of
 5    industries bordering Lake Michigan.
 6                   These work groups,  in cooperation with the
 7    GLIRB staff,  are even now formulating guides for water
 8    quality in Lake Michigan.  It is my understanding that the
 9    final report  on the Lake Michigan portion of the GLIRB
10    project may be a year away.  Guides and goals now being de-
n    veloped would be of great value to this conference, particu-
12    larly in reference to the question of definition of pollution
13    The solution  to problems discussed in this conference
14    must in the final analysis be based on scientific fact
15    and engineering knowledge.  A major contribution to this
16    background of fact and knowledge will be the final report
17    covering the  Lake Michigan portion of the GLIRB Project.
18                   The work of the GLIRB staff is not completed,
19    nor is the work of the Technical Committee.  Because these
20    "two important groups have not yet  finished their studies,
21    It raises some concern that the importance of the sound
22    and painstaking effort put forth in the GLIRB Project
23    may be overlooked.   I recommend  that  the conferees give
24    careful  consideration to  this work which is now  in pro-
25    gress, and to incorporation of the results in the  conclusions


 1    of this conference.

 2                   On the basis of long personal experience and

 3    knowledge of water use in this area, I do not and cannot

 4    believe that the quality of Lake Michigan water has deterior-

 5    ated to a stage of crisis.  In some respects, at least, it

 6    is better now than it was some years ago because of the

 7    installation of new facilities with modern water treatment

 8    devices, the renovation of old facilities, and the improve-

 9    ment in industrial waste and sewage treatment practice.


                    Any criticism expressed or Implied in this

     presentation has been offered in the Interest of developing

     a reasoned and sound approach to the solution of a mutual

     problem.  Inland Steel derives as much benefit from maint-

     enance of water quality as any who have, or who will appear

     at this Conference; more in fact than most, because of our

     many uses of water.

                    Inland's policy, in respect to maintenance of

     water quality, is based on the same principles which under-

     lie its policy in other areas.  Inland management recognizes

     its responsibility to its employees, to the immediate com-

     munity surrounding its plants and to the public generally.

                   We are committed to the  installation of ade-

     quate  control  equipment  for  each new or modernized  productive



 !    facility we build,  and to continue maintenance and opera-

 2    tion of such control equipment.

 3                   This policy results in constantly improved

 4    water quality.  In this present period of tremendous techno-

     logical change in the steel industry, this improvement is

 6    more rapid than heretofore.

                    To insure that each control installation is

     truly adequate, we maintain wide Industry contacts, employ

     outside consultants, support activity in many professional

     and scientific organizations, and are in frequent touch with

     State and Federal agencies.

                    Inland stands ready to cooperate in the future

     as in the past, in the orderly development of control program^

                    Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Harbaugh.  I would

     like to take this opportunity to commend Inland.  This is a

     company that has an old plant and while the conferees

     may not agree with all the plans stated by Mr. Harbaugh,

     I think the philosophy expressed — fair exchange of

     information and the working out of the problem with

     State, Local and Federal authorities — has, in the past,

     proved successful and I am sure will prove successful again.

                    I am sure any industry that has done that will

     continue to do it.   I would also like to point out, at least

     for your industry,  this  seems to be  the  first  statement  at

 l    this conference where anyone in industry recognizes that the
 2    Federal law exists.
 3                   Thank you.
 4                   Are there any comments or questions from the
 5    conferees?
 6         MR. KLASSEN:  I didn't have any particular question.
 7                   Those of us that know Mr. Harbaugh recognize
 8    him as one of the real, technically competent people  in his
 9    field.
10                   I Just wondered if he would  — this is princi-
H    pally for our own use, not necessarily as applies to  this
12    conference — in the flue dust thickeners for the blast
13    furnace system, you consider this any appreciable source of
14    cyanide?
15                   We ran into this in another  steel plant in
16    another part of Illinois and frankly, trying to determine
17    whether this is an appreciable source or not, would you want
18    to venture an opinion on this?
19         MR. HARBAUGH:  There are two questions.  It is a source
2Q    of cyanide.  I think the amount of cyanide developed  in any
21    one furnace depends on a great many things, which, I  am
22    hardly competent to go into and can't go into without knowing
.-    more about it.
24                  Whether it  is an appreciable source depends on
25    the  definition of  "appreciable".

 1         MR. KLASSEN:  Would you say there is any practical

 2    means of treating or reducing this if it would be ap-

 3    preciable?

 4         MR. HARBAUGH:  Well, I should think so.

 5                   There are recirculation systems now and means

 6    for recovery — removing cyanide as it builds up to some

 7    predetermined point.

 8                   This is one thing that I think now that the

 9    question has been raised,  we will have to look into a little

10    more thoroughly than we have in the past.

n         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any other further comments

12    or questions?

13                   Mr. Poston?

14         MR. POSTON:  I would like to comment that I am glad

15    to see that Inland has recognized the figures of the Public

16    Health Service and then moved ahead to make reductions

17    prior to being asked to do this by the Federal Government.

13                   I think this shows that some of the other

19    tools that the Federal Government has for aid in this pol-

20    lution abatement overall program can be of use.  That is,

21    planning for the future and seeing the needs, laying them out

22    ahead of time, and doing this in a cooperative manner

23    with industry, the states and other agencies.

24                   I, too,  appreciate Mr.  Harbaugh's forthright

25    statement  in  acknowledging needs,  but  — in  expressing

 1    this desire to cooperate.
 2         MR. KLASSEN:  Also, Mr.  Boston,  I  thought you were
 3    going  to mention  it,  this  open  file provision be  left  to
 4    the State  agency.
 5                   I  appreciate this  and  I  would say  that  it is
 6    one — as  one State  agency we are willing to accept  that
 7    responsibility, Mr.  Harbaugh, and thanks for suggesting  it.
 8         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Are  there any further comments?
 9                    (No response.)
10                   If not,  thank  you  very much, Mr. Harbaugh,  for
n    a  very constructive  statement.
12                   Mr. Poole.
13         MR. POOLE:   I am going to  pass United States Steel
14    once more  because we allotted them 45 minutes and I  under-
i$    stand  they will take most  of  it.
16                   We  offered  Union Carbide 20 minutes and this
17    will allow us to  finish for lunch about 12:30 if  there aren't
18    too many questions.
19                   Union  Carbide, I am going to call  on  — who
20    is going to present that?
21                   Mr. Leavitt.
22         MR. LEAVITTr Mr. Chairman and Conferees:
23                   My name is M.  C.  Leavitt,  j am  Assistant
24    Plant Manager  of  the  Chemicals Division's plant  of Union
25    Carbide Corporation,  located  in  Whiting, Indiana.   I  am


     appearing here at the invitation of the Indiana Stream

     Pollution Control Board.  They have designated our plant as

     a participant in this conference.

                    Our Whiting plant is one of the Chemicals

     Division's smaller plants, employing 515 people, about

     ten percent of whom are college-trained engineers.  We

     manufacture chemicals and plastics.  For raw material,

     we use liquified petroleum gases, known to the trade as

     LPG; and by the application of heat, and the removal of

10    hydrogen, we convert these gases to a more reactive form,

H    known as olefins.  In turn, we react these olefins with

12    air and/or water, and with each other, to form such com-

13    pounds as isopropanol, acetone, ethylene glycol, and the

14    plastic polyethylene.  The consuming public is probably

15    familiar with isopropanol as rubbing alcohol; acetone

16    as nail polish remover; and ethylene glycol as antifreeze

17    for the automobile.  Polyethylene appears in many forms,

18    but is commonly seen as protective sheeting, squeeze

ig    bottles, and as flexible pipe for underground water systems,

20    I will have more to say about polyethylene later in this

21    statement.

22                   We have read the "Report on Pollution of the

23    Waters of the Grand Calumet River,  Little Calumet River,

24    Lake Michigan,  Wolf Lake,  and their tributaries — Illinois

25    Indiana,"  issued  by the  United  States  Department  of Health,


 i    Education, and Welfare, dated February 1965, a°d to which

 2    I will refer to as the HEW report.

 3                   Our plant receives water from the City of

 4    Whiting for drinking and sanitary purposes, and this water is

 5    returned to the City's sanitary treatment facilities.  We

 6    have not put sanitary sewage to the lake since 19^7.

 7                   Lake water is pumped to our plant by four

 8    10,000 gallon per minute pumps which limits our maximum tn-

 9    put to 58 million gallons per day.  The 43 MOD figure given

10    in the HEW report represents our average usage.

u                   Lake water is used for feed to our steam

12    boilers, to condense the vapors from our still columns, to

13    cool the product from our still kettles, as a reserve for the

14    fighting of fires, and similar industrial uses.

15                   Our operation requires the use of inorganic

16    compounds such as lime and soda ash for water treating,

17    sulfuric acid as a catalyst, and sodium hydroxide for

18    neutralization of the acid.  We must remove the hardness from

lg    the water before it is fed to the boilers, and these solids

2Q    are returned to the lake from whence they came.  As far as

21    the acids and bases are concerned, all of our water is return!

22    ed to the lake within a few tenths of the original  pH value.

23                   Our products are expensive.  They sell for

24    fifty cents  to a dollar a gallon in tank car quantities and itj

25    is an economic  necessity  that  we  hold  losses to a minimum.

 i    Despite this,  we do lose some product  due to equipment
 2    leakage, distillation procedures,  washing of equipment,
 3    operating upsets, and similar occurrences.  These losses,
 4    being organic in nature,consume oxygen and are responsible
 5    for the BOD analysis of our outfall.  As I mentioned before,
 6    we do not discharge sanitary sewage to the lake.
 7                   The HEW report refers to our plant in the
 8    Industrial Wastes section on page 21.   We are In general
 9    agreement that the figures shown here are representative
10    of our outfall.  On this same page, the statement is made:
n    "Recently large amounts of pellets of material similar to
12    polyethylene have been found washed ashore on the beaches
13    In Chicago.  It is believed that Union Carbide is a pos-
14    sible source of this material."  Insofar as we know, we are
15    the only producer of polyethylene in the area, but we
16    supply only one-third of that used in pellet form by pro-
17    cessors in this immediate vicinity.  Some of these pellets
18    probably originated in our plant and,  if so, they represent
ig    an economic loss to us.  They are extremely inert, have no
20    odor or taste, and do not contribute to BOD.  These pellets,
21    while harmless, do detract from the esthetic value of a
22    beach.  Our polyethylene plant started operation in 1959,
23    and we have continuously made improvements as we gained
24    experience.  One addition was the  installation of screens
25    to prevent  polyethylene  pellets  from entering the sewer.

 i    We are currently spending an additional $61,000 to improve
 2    this screen system and insure its reliability.
 3                   In the operation of a chemical plant, it is
 4    sometimes difficult to differentiate between money spent for
 5    improving product recovery and that spent to minimize pol-
 Q    lution.  Since our plant started operation In 1935» we
 7    estimate that we have spent almost a million dollars solely
 s    in pollution control.  Some of the items provided by this
 9    expenditure are equipment and piping to remove sanitary
10    wastes from our sewer and transfer this sewage to the treat-
11    ment facilities of the City of Whiting; the installation of
12    a closed system for that part of our process in which cool-
13    Ing water comes into direct contact with hot gases; a cool-
14    Ing tower, retention basin, screens to remove polyethylene
15    pellets from waste water, sampling devices, outside labora-
16    tory analyses, and so forth.
17                   Work on the elimination of products entering
18    the sewer continues to have a high priority at our plant.  In
19    addition to refinements in the polyethylene process, we are
20    installing drain lines to collect oil leakage from com-
21    pressors, relocating storage tanks to collect waste materialSj
22    which will be used as fuel for our boilers, and reviewing
23    our distillation procedures to minimize losses and upsets.
24    One engineer  is  spending full  time on  these projects and  we
25    have  emphasized  to all of our  operating personnel  that control

 !    of pollution is as Important as the manufacture of products.
 2                   At our plant, primary emphasis will continue tt>
 3    be given to elimination of pollutants.  We are aware of
 4    the problem, and it has been brought even more forcefully
 5    to our attention by the recent Jones Committee Hearing in
 6    Chicago, the GLIRB Survey, and this HEW conference.  As
 7    brought out in the HEW report, a knowledge of all contamln-
 8    ants present in the outfall is essential to the understand-
 9    ing of the problem.  We are using an independent laboratory
10    for these determinations, and equipment is being installed
u    in our own laboratory so that we can make a more coraprehen-
12    sive water analysis.  We will continue to keep the Indiana
13    Stream Pollution Control Board informed as to our actions,
14    and furnish them all the information necessary for their
15    studies.
16                   To summarize, we have already spent almost a
17    million dollars toward the elimination and control of
18    pollution.  This is a continuing effort on our part and
ig    we have many projects being implemented or in planning
20    for the further reduction of chemicals discharged to Lake
21    Michigan.  These projects include refinement of existing
22    pollution control facilities, collection of wastes for
23    disposal by burning, treatment of certain wastes from
24    equipment washing and maintenance,  and improvement of
25    operating procedures and  techniques.  Sampling and analysis

 !    of our effluent will yield statistically reliable values
 2    of our waste and its variation.  We will continue to co-
 3    operate fully with the Indiana Stream Pollution Control
 .    Board and make available to them any information they
 5    desire.  Finally, we wish to commend the authors of the
 6    HEW report for their excellent presentation of the problem.
 7                   Thank you for your attention.
 8         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Leavitt, for an excel-
 g    lent presentation.
10                   Are there any comments or questions?
n         MR. KLASSEN:  Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to
12    get into the position of defending pellets, but, I do think
13    that they have served a very useful purpose.
14                   To me, they are in the same category as
15    detergents.  They call public attention like no other gimmick
J6    that the sanitary engineers could have developed to bring
17    about the awareness of the people.
18                   We have seen here in this audience — people
19    can't understand BOD or PE, but when they see detergents, the;
20    are suddently conscious that somebody used this water before
21    they did, and I think this serves a very useful educational
22    purpose because we are going to have to become accustomed
23    in this country to use water that somebody else has  used
24    before,  because we  can't all  continue to  live  up-stream.
25                  So, while I am glad that you, of course,  are


 l    going to remove the pellets, I think in this respect they

 2    have done a Job which I say is parallel with our fine press

 3    coverage, making the public aware there was something in

 4    their water.

 5         MR. POSTON:  I think what Mr. Klassen is saying, the

 6    Board of Directors will be on the lookout to find the source

 ?    of a little extra dividend for the shareholders.

 0                   I would like to comment on the effect that I

     think you brought out a very important point when you

     emphasized to all of your operating personnel that control

     of pollution is as important a manufacturer of the product.

     I think many of our cases that have been brought to the

     public's attention occurred because of a spill because of som

     employees' failure to recognize a hazard and have either dump

     ed or carried out some operation where a spill has occurred,

     and as an example, recently with an aluminum tank which was

     to carry alkaline solution and they put in an aluminum tank.

     It wasn't very long before the whole contents of this

     aluminum tank, alkaline material, had gone on the ground

     because aluminum will not hold strong alkali solutions.

                    Many examples that we here have and see

     where there's been pollution because of poor housekeeping,

     Just nobody being concerned about what is happening to some

     of the waste products.

         MR.  KLASSEN:   I  had  one more question that  I  had  here

     that I neglected to ask Mr. Leavitt.

 2                   I say this with a background of considerable

 3    experience that we have had with the Petro Chemical

 4    Company in Illinois—National Petro Chemical Company and

 5    their waste problem involving a question of toxicity of

 6    their waste products either individually or in combination

 7    that might be discharged.  So far as I know, that Company

 8    was the first and the only industry to employ, and they did

 9    this—this was done at the Ketterling Laboratory, University

10    of Cincinnati—to conduct toxicity studies, including even

n    small areas on their waste because this was an important
12    question.
                    Has your company done any of this or have you
14    any assurance that the materials or combination of materials

15    that you are discharging are not toxic?

16         MR. LEAVITT:  In all due respect to National Petro

17    Chemicals, Mr. Klassen, who are one of our valued cora-

18    petitors, I think you will find in the record that Union

ig    Carbide had done this work much before them.  This was

2Q    done at the Mellon Institute and we have been in the

21    chemical business since 1925.

22                   We are the first, really,  in the synthetic

23    business and we have  complete records  on  all of this

24    which was  obtained  at the Mellon Laboratory in  Pittsburgh.

25        MR. KLASSEN:  Thank you.  I wish  I would have talked

 i    to you years ago.
 2         MR. CHESROW:  You added that you are the only producer
 3    of polyethylene in the area.  Well, I want to point out,
 4    the pellets that have been found on the Chicago beaches
 5    portray the flow of current to our area.
 6                   Now, this is a good example of pollutants
 7    coming to the Chicago beaches from the Indiana area.
 8         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Mr. Leavltt, you want to comment?
 9         MR. LEAVITT:  I have no comments on the lake currents,
10    sir.
11         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any further comments or
12    questions?
13                   (No response.)
14                   If not, thank you very much, Mr. Leavitt.
15         MR. LEAVITT:  Mr. Le Bosquet gave you gentlemen a
ie    sample of plastics.  Here is how the pellets leave us.
17         MR. CHESROW:  They are uncomfortable underfoot.
18         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  They look cleaner from the plant
19    than when they are found on the beach.
20         MR. LEAVITT:  You may be interested, I have used this
21    as mulch in ray garden and my wife objects to it.  She con-
22    tinually refers to it as tapioca in the ground.  They are
23    still the same color as when they were put In three or
24    four years  ago.
25                   I  don't  know  what  that  has picked  up (indicat-


                    That is the way they look when they make them.

 ,         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Maybe Colonel Chesrow wants to in-

 3    dicate this, or Mr. Klassen, what is in the water.  If

 4    they pick it up in the water like this — off the record.

                    (Discussion off the record.)

          MR. LEAVITT:  They happen to be a little expensive

     if you don't happen to be an employee of Union Carbide.

 8                   (Laughter.)

          MR. POSTON:  Do these come in various colors?

10         MR. LEAVITT:  Normally, a processing plant makes them

n    this way and the color is added.  I mean, a manufacturing

12    plant produces them this way, although we are now making

     some black pellets.

14         MR. FOSTON:  The reason I asked that, I understood

     the pellets found over on the Michigan beaches were colored,

     some of them were red.

          MR. LEAVITT:  We do not make any colors other than

     this in black, and very little black in proportion to

     this type.

          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Just a few black in these that they

     found on the beach (indicating).
          MR. POOLE:  Maybe they didn't come from Union Carbide.
„         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any further questions or
                    (No response.)


 i                   Thank you very much,  sir.

 2                   Mr. Poole, do you have an  announcement to make

 3         MR. POOLE:  We have as a must remaining for this

 4    afternoon,  the United States Steel Corporation,  American

 5    Oil, American Maize Products, the City of Hammond and

 6    Lever Brothers.

 7                   I can assure you those five are going to give

 8    us a full afternoon.

 9                   I hope all the rest of you who are on the

10    Indiana list, and I am sure you have seen the program or

11    the agenda, will cooperate with the head  table,  and some

12    time during the noon intermission will turn in to Mr.

13    Miller or me your statement which I can pass on to the

14    other conferees and particularly important, one for the

15    record.

16                   If anybody feels, other than those that I have

17    mentioned,  that he or she is absolutely compelled to talk,

18    we will work you in after the five important ones, and it

19    may  be pretty late in the afternoon.

20         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  That is right.  Mr. Poole has indicated

21    what his preference is on the time and Mr. Poole is in full

22    charge of Indiana time.

23                   What we intend to do  this  afternoon is go to

24    approximately 4:30,  have  a short  recess and if anyone wants

25    to do  this, we will  be  available.


 i                   Now,  anyone who puts his statement in the

 2    record  is  assured he will have it appear in the record

 3    as  if read.  This will be given,, I can assure you, full

 4    consideration  by the conferees.  Because when the conferees

 5    discuss this,  the statements will be as fully considered

 6    as  if they were  read.

 7                   With  that, we will recess for lunch and

 8    reconvene  at 2:00.  Thank you.

 9                    (Whereupon, the proceedings in the above-

10    entitled matter  were continued to 2:00 P.M., the same

11    date.)
















l                      AFTERNOON SESSION

2         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   May we reconvene.

3                   Mr. Poole.

4         MR.  POOLE:  Next  on my list  is  the  United States

5    Steel Corporation which is represented here  by Granville

6    A. Howell,  Assistant to Administrative Vice  President  of

7    United States Steel Corporation.

Q                   Mr. Howell.

          MR.  HOWELL:   Mr.  Chairman, Conferees, ladies  and

1Q    gentlemen:

                    I  am Granville A.  Howell, Assistant  to  the

12    Administrative Vice President, United States Steel  Corpora-

13    tion.  I have been delegated to report to this Conference

14    the water conservation progress of U. S. Steel's Northern

15    Indiana facilities.

16                   If you  will permit a  personal word,  this

17    occasion marks the beginning of my 47th  year of water  con-

._    servation stewardship  for the U.  S.  Steel's  Gary facilities.

                    U. S. Steel has a  direct  and  vital  interest
     in water conservation.   Water  is  vital  to our  processes.
     Our thousands of employees in the  Chicago area drink

22   Lake Michigan water.  They and their families  use the  lake

     for recreational purposes.  As a Corporation,  we have  been

24   committed for  years to research and installation of facilities

25   to  control industrial waste.  We want to be a good neighbor

     to the communities in which our employees live.  Our plans


    for the  future  include  the  installation of the most  modern

    control  equipment on all our new facilities,  improvement

    of control equipment on older facilities and  continuing

    research in all phases  of the problem.   We have cooperated

    through  the years with  local control authorites in Indiana

    and Illinois,  and we feel that progress is being made.

                    Every time the subject of water temperature

    comes up — and  it does rather frequently these days — I

    recall my baptism by immersion in the Grand Calumet.

                    Checking level and flow one icy February

    morning, I fell in up to my neck.  My fellow  workers

    pulled me out,  a solid  cake of ice, and I resolved that

    day never again to swim in  the Grand Cal.

                    I started at Gary in 1917 and  one of my

    first assignments was laying out the sedimentation basins

    you will see in this presentation.  The Grand Calumet

    flowed by No.  4 Blast Furnace, and we were forced to move

    it — the  river,  I mean — south to its present location, to

    make room for  three new blast furnaces  which  would help

    meet the Nation's needs for armor and ammunition in the

    First World War.

                    It sounds odd to pick up a river and  move

    it,  but  then everything about  this wandering  stream  has

    been unusual.

                   Prior to the  industrial development of Gary















 1    the character of the Grand Calumet was such as hardly to

 2    merit the use of the name"river" and it was described as

 3    more of a bayou than a river.  Generally, and especially

 4    in the eastern six or seven miles, it was a winding, twist-

 5    ing, tortuous, boggy stream usually no more than one or

 6    two feet deep with an occasional pool of from eight to

 7    ten feet.  Prom time to time it turned into a marsh or bog

 8    with no discernible channel at all.  A fair idea of its

 9    nature may be obtained by the fact that in this area, a

10    person desiring to travel the stream in a boat would

n    use a punt and a pole, since at places, a rowboat could

12    not pass.

13                   Much of this eastern stretch of the stream

14    was on the large tract of shorelands which were acquired

15    in the early 1900's by U. S. Steel Corporation.  After

16    commencing construction of the st^el mills on these lands

17    in the area which became the City of Gary, U. S. Steel,

18    at its own expense, straightened the channel of the Grand

19    Calumet for about two miles east of the street which is

20    now Broadway.  This work was done for drainage and sanitation

21    purposes and provided the stream in this area with a straight

22    well-engineered, banked channel.

23                   The  Grand Calumet and the Little Calumet

24    Rivers were,  until  some 170 years ago,  parts of the same

25    stream.   Its  origin was the eastern part of  Porter  County,

 1    Indiana, several miles south of Lake Michigan.  It flowed
 2    westwardly into Illinois, along the channel now known as
 3    the Little Calumet River, turned Northwestwardly until
 4    it reached the Blue Island Bluffs and then turned east-
 5    ward and flowed roughly parallel to and north of its ori-
 6    ginal course, along the channel now known as the Grand
 7    Calumet River, entering Lake Michigan in the vicinity of
 8    what is now Marquette Park, in Gary.
 Q                   According to Indiana historical  sources,
10    changes occurred 170 years ago which altered the character
n    and flow of the river.  These authorities indicate that in
12    the area between Calumet Lake and Wolf Lake, which mainly
13    consisted of swamps and marshy lands, Indians built a
14    canoe portage which diverted Calumet waters north from
15    that point into Lake Michigan.  This rendered negligible
16    the eastward flow in what is now called the Grand Calu-
17    met.  As a result, sometime before 1845 and probably as
18    early as the 1820's the "mouth" of the Grand Calumet at
19    Lake Michigan was closed by winds and shifting  sands.
20    The current of the stream, such as there was, shifted
21    thereafter from east to west.
22                   Lake Michigan caused the second flow
23    diversion.  When  I first  met  the  Grand  Calumet,  its waters
24    flowed westerly into the  Calumet  Sag  channel  at  Blue Island
25    and ultimately reached the Mississippi through the Des Plaines


     and Illinois Rivers.  Lower Lake Michigan levels then

 2    diverted the Grand Calumet flow into the Lake through

 3    the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.

 4                   Since we are now in the low dip of the water
     cycle, there is every probability that we will encounter
 c    another flow reversal in the Ship Canal as Lake Michigan

 7    rises.

 Q                   This river, legend tells us, was named

     for the reeds growing along its marshy shores which the

     Indians used as stems in their calumets, or peace pipes.

                    Evidence shows, however, that the habitants

     of the Grand Calumet didn't enjoy uninterrupted peace.

     In excavating for a powerhouse in the old Calumet marsh

     area during the 20fs we unearthed an ancient military


                    The Grand Calumet, in turn peaceful and

     embattled, sending its waters first east, then west, then

     north, finally emerged from a bayou into a river when man

     saw the industrial possibilities of the Calumet Region.

.                   If ever he shaped a river's destiny, man

     did the Grand Calumet's, guiding its very course to serve

     the needs of this mushrooming Industrial community in

     Lake County,  Indiana.

                    And if ever a river  merited  the  term

     "workhorse of industry"  that  title  has been earned  by  the


1    Grand Calumet.

2                   How well, then, have we taken care of this

3    workhorse of a river that serves so many people?   This

4    part of my report will cover U. S. Steel's performance

5    in fulfilling that part of the responsibility within

6    its province for safeguarding the interstate waters.

7                   Our report of water pollution control progress

8    at U. S. Steel's Northwestern Indiana facilities will cover,

9    primarily, the three adjacent steelmaking plants:  Gary

10    Steel Works, Gary Sheet and Tin and the Gary Tube Works.

11    The Gary Tube Works utilizes Gary Steel Works sewers.

12                   U. S. Steel has two other Gary plants.

13                   The American Bridge Division's Gary Plant

14    has constructed separate sewers which deliver all sanitary

15    wastes to the City of Gary Treatment Plant and stormwater

16    to the Grand Calumet.  A well supplies what little process

17    water they need and, all of it is recirculated.

18                   The Universal Atlas Cement Plant at Bufflng-

19    ton pumps water from Lake Michigan for cooling, and boiler

20    feed water supply.  The cooling water returns to the Lake

21    with Its quality unimpaired.  Universal's sanitary treat-

22    ment plant has been officially declared adequate  to

23    serve  1,000 persons—more  than ample  for Universal's

24    Buffington  employees.  The plant Engineer  at Universal

25    Atlas recalls with  considerable satisfaction that on his

 1    last visit to the plant, Mr. Woodley of the Indiana State

 2    Board of Health noticed fish swimming at the point of

 3    discharge into Lake Michigan.

 4                   United States Steel's Gary facilities have

 5    aligned their control efforts with the three objectives

 6    of Indiana's Stream Pollution Control Board as set forth

 7    on September 6, 1963, by Blucher Poole, the Board's

 8    Executive Secretary:  Unreasonable pollution be abated

 9    as soon as possible; new facilities to provide adequate

10    treatment; existing industrial plants must provide adequate

n    treatment facilities as part of all plant renovation or

12    expansion.

13                   We not only accept them as the embodiment

14    of the law of the land; we embrace them as a sound, real-

is    istic approach to our water problems.

16                   On this note, then, may I begin the examina-

17    tion of U. S. Steel's water conservation progress at

18    Gary with our newest facilities.

19                   The new 84-inch mill:  Sketched into the

20    left foreground of this (slide 1) aerial photograph of

21    U. S. Steel's Gary, Indiana, facilities, is the new 84-

22    inch hot strip mill as it will appear in 1966.  Over four-

23    fifths of a mile long, the new mill will be capable of

24    rolling in a single year "enough steel for a band more

25    than  six feet wide  that  would  encircle   the earth nearly

i    15 times."  The new mill will double the Corporation's
2    ability in the Chicago industrial area to produce hot
3    steel strip to supply the rising demand for light, flat-
4    rolled steel products.
5                   These engineers (slide 2) at the construction
6    site of the new 84-inch hot strip mill illustrate the
7    approach of United States Steel plants to the new indus-
3    trial waste control problems that confront them every time
9    they install a new production facility.  They are
10    examining the site for the equipment designed to control
11    waste discharges which will accompany the operation of
12    the new 84-inch mill.
13                   Mill scale will be the principal waste control
14    problem in this new Installation.  Hot steel oxidizes
15    rapidly and the scale formed is removed in the rolling
16    process and carried away in a stream of cooling water to
17    scale pits.
18                   Three scale pits located over the four-
19    fifths of a mile length of this new facility have been
20    designed with the latest technology to prevent virtually
21    all of the mill scale from escaping.
22                   Tne roughing section primary scale pit will
23    be 58 feet long and 57 feet wide.   The secondary pit  will
24    be 121  feet  long  and  18 feet wide.   They will  settle  out
25    scale from the  roughing stands, which  house the mill's

i    first reducing rolls.   It will be divided into compartments
2    for scale removal in successive stages.
3                   The second scale pit,  110 feet long and
     18 feet wide, will serve the finishing stands.
5                   The third pit, 87 feet long and 18 feet
6    wide, will remove scale from the run-out table.
7                   The effluent from the finishing stand
8    scale pit will be further treated in deep-bed sand filters.
9                   Tramp lubricating oil will be the other
10    waste problem on the new 84-inch mill.  Each of the
11    three scale pits will be equipped with mechanical
12    skimming devices designed for maximum waste oil recovery.
13                   Oxygen steelmaking shop:  Now, may I show
14    another aerial photograph (slide 3) to locate the new
15    oxygen steelmaking facilities now under construction at
16    Gary.
17                   This structural steel framework (slide 4)
18    will house the basic Oxygen Steelmaking Shop.
19                   The engineers in the foreground (slide 5)
20    Play a vital part in the construction of this new steel-
21    making facility.  Theirs is the responsibility for in-
22   stallation of efficient waste control equipment as an
 23   integral component of this ultra-modern steelmaker.
 24                  In this process, the vessel is charged with
 25   steel scrap,  blast furnace hot metal and fluxes.   The charge

 i    is then refined by blowing oxygen into the metal bath.
 2    During the blow, large volumes of hot, dust laden gases
 3    are emitted from the mouth of the vessel and are collected
 4    in a water-cooled hood and then directed to the gas clean-
 5    ing facility.
 6                   The water to cool the surface of the hood
 7    will be circulated between the inner and outer shell
 s    and will never come in contact with the dirty gases before
 9    discharge to the river.
10                   The gases leaving the vessels (slide 6)
u    will be cooled by water sprays and enter the gas cleaning
12    plant through this main (1) to the gas cleaning facilities.
13    The effluent water will wash along the bottom to the main
14    to the scupper (2) located Just ahead of the Venturl
15    scrubber.  Water and solids collected in the scupper will
16    be piped to a stationary screen, where particles 1/2-
I7    inch and larger will be removed, and finally to a callow
18    cone (3) where additional settling will take place.
19    The solids from the callow cone will be continually
20    drawn off as a flurry to the classifier and thickener
21    (4).  The overflow water will be recirculated back to the
22    gas cooling tower and then recycled to the gas cleaning
23    system.
24                  From the scupper the gases will  pass through
25    the narrow  throat  of  a  Venturi  scrubber  (5) where  intense


 !    water sprays will wash out the dust particles.

                    There will be two such throat sections for

     each of the two separators shown in the drawing.  They

     will be connected in parallel so that each will process

     one-half of the gas.

                    The cleaned gas and dirty water from the

     Venturi enters the cooling towers (6) at the bottom where

     the dirty water is collected and drawn off.

                    The clariflers, 60 feet in diameter, will

     collect the solids at the bottom and remove them to

     a centrifuge for dewatering.  The water will be recir-

     culated back to the thickener and the solids removed as

     filter cake.

                    Blast furnaces flue dust recover:  These

     (slide 7) are the 12 blast furnaces, which supply iron

     to the open hearths and will also supply the new OSM


                    Landmarks on the Lake Michigan skyline,

     they helped build our country and the product they make

     reaches through the fabric of our economy into the daily

     lives of every one of us.

                    The rails that carry you across the continent,

     the floor of the Mackinac Bridge that transports you to

     Michigan's upper peninsula,  the automobile that takes

     you to work,  the steel structure of Chicago's newest  sky-

 i    scraper, bear the stamp of these furnaces.
 2                   Converting into iron the mountains of ore
 3    and limestone you see at the left in this slide produces
 4    a lot offlue-dust-laden water, and this part of our
 5    presentation describes the network of control devices
 6    employed at Gary to keep the elusive iron oxide particles
 7    from bothering our down-stream neighbors.
 8                   Each (slide 8) Gary Works blast furnace
 9    is equipped with a four-stage system for flue dust control,
10    and three of the four stages are shown in this photo-
11    graph.
12                   Dust generated in the blast furnace passes
13    through the top of the stack to the dry dust catcher where
14    the heavier dust particles are deposited.
is                   The finer particles that escape the dry
16    dust catcher are moved from the gas stream by sprays
17    in the washing unit.  In the third treatment stage the
18    fine dust is captured wet in a Venturi scrubber or electro-
19    static precipltator.
20                   The dust laden liquid (slide 9) from the
21    cleaners flows to four sedimentation basins like this
22    where part of it is intercepted as wet sludge with the
23    effluent water going to the Grand Calumet.
24                   This huge control complex,  designed to do
25    the  Job  when installed,  has an  increasingly difficult time

 i    in keeping up with today's much heavier production loads.
 2                   As far back as 1923* it was realized that
 3    too much flue dust was escaping into the river and dredging
 4    of the Grand Calumet commenced.
 5                   This dredge (slide 10) operates practically
 6    full time pumping flue dust out of the Grand Calumet
 7    that escaped our treatment processes.  The dust laden
 8    liquid is pumped (slide 11) to these settling ponds
 g    where it settles out and the effluent water flows to the
10    river.
n                   Thus, dredging and lagooning have served
12    as the final stage, so to speak, in Our flue dust treatment,
..                   This blast furnace control system is not
     reported as a complete and final solution to our flue
     dust problem, but rather to indicate what we are doing
,„    to fulfill our responsibility in this area until our
     treatment facilities catch up with our production advances.
,.                   Now, having described our newest and oldest
     treatment facilities, let's examine our day-to-day per-
.    formance at U. S. Steel's Gary facilities in keeping the
     waterborne wastes generated in steelmaking out of the

22    river'
_.                   Mill scale recovery:  Mill scale is one
     of the heavy-weight control problems at Gary.  As we
..    have already said,  hot steel oxidizes rapidly and the


     scale formed must be removed before it is rolled.  This

     is done by"scale breaker rolls" and huge pressure  sprays

     with the scale settling pits providing successive  sedi-

     mentation stages.

                    Depicted in red  (slide 12) is our new

     160/210-inch Plate Mill.

 7                   The (slide 13) mill scale recovery  system

 8    installed as an integral function of the new mill  is

     illustrated in this diagram.

10                   A water flume runs the entire length of

     the Mill's rolling section from the scale breaker, arrow

12    1, the Mill proper, arrow 2, to the leveler, arrow 3.

13                   This view (slide 14) of the scale pit shows

14    the various stages of scale recovery.

15                   Another function (slide 15) of the  scale

16    pits is waste oil removal.  Surface skimming keeps waste

17    oil out of the effluent water.

18                   This sampling pump (slide 16) is one of

19    two which automatically deposit a composite sample of

20    the effluent water from this Plate Mill in this five-

21    gallon container every day.

22                   A D*.  S.  Steel chemist (slide 17) is shown

23    here analyzing the  effluent samplings for solids,  oil

24    value,  and pH.

25                   Representatives  of  the  Indiana Water


     Pollution Control Board reviewed steps taken in the design

 2    and engineering of this mill scale treatment system.

 3                   This (slide 18) shows the clamshell bucket

 4    and scale it has removed from the 46-inch Slabbing Mill

 5    Scale Pit.  It was installed when the 46-inch Mill was

 6    built in 1958.   It is performing adequately under tight

 7    operating controls.

 8                   All Gary rolling mills, including the

 g    rail mill, the 44-inch blooming mills, and the 11 bar

10    mills have scale pits.  The older ones are suffering from

n    overloading.  Built in accordance with the technology of

     the time to handle much lighter production loads, they

     are not containing all of the scale generated in

     today's rolling operations.

..                   Treatment of spent rolling oils:  Our

     discussion (slide 19), up to this point, has covered waste

     lubricating oil control as a function of the scale pits.

     Waste cold rolling lubricants are handled separately.

     While some of the cold rolling oil readily separates and

     floats, most of it is emulsified in the water and difficult

     to remove.

22                   U. S. Steel's recent facilities have made

     substantial progress in keeping this particular effluent

2    out of the Grand Calumet River.

25                   Have  you ever  seen  a  waste water treatment

 1    facility which occupies three times as much area as the
 2    production unit it serves?
 3                   This is the new 5-stand cold reduction
 4    mill, which increases U. S. Steel's ability to produce
 5    cold rolled sheet by 50 percent in the Chicago area.
 6                   These are the complex treatment facilities
 7    for waste cold rolling oils at the new 5-stand mill.
 8    They remove rolling oil by gravity separation.  Oil skim-
 9    med from the top of the separation tanks flows to  other
10    tanks for further concentration.
11                   The bottom sludge layer is pumped out for
12    further treatment (slide 22).
13                   Gravity oil separators (slide 23) further
14    treat the effluent from the separation tanks, concentration
15    tanks, and the chemical treatment section.  The settled
16    solids are scraped off the bottom and floating oil is
17    skimmed from the top.
18                   This (slide 24) is the end product of the
19    treatment facilities for spent cold rolled oils at the new
20    5-stand cold reduction mill-intercepted before it could
21    reach the river.
22                   Here (slide 25) we can see an area being
23    prepared for the new  6-stand cold reduction mill.
24    Treatment  facilities for waste cold rolling oil  at  the
25    new mill will be  similar to those we  Just  saw for the


 1    new five-stand mill.

 2                   Coke plant wastes:  This (slide 26) aerial

     photo shows the Coke plant.

 4                   The Coke Plant which provides coke for

 5    the blast furnaces recovers coal chemicals from the coal

     charged in the coking process.  The major waste stream

 7    is used for coke quenching.

 8                   Beginning in 194-8 in cooperation with the

     Gary Sanitary District and with the permission of the

10    Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board tests were conducted

11    to determine the efficiency of treating the major waste

12    stream in the Gary municipal plant.  The tests proved

13    successful as reported in an article, "Treatment of

14    Ammonia Still Maste by Activated Sludge Process," by

15    W. W. Mathew, General Superintendent of Gary Treatment

16    Plant, in the February 1952 Sewage and Industrial Waste.

17    The article is submitted with this paper.

18         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  It will be included in the record.

19                               (Whereupon, the document refer-
                                 red to above was made a part
20                                of the record.)









4                    By W. W. Mathews
5          Superintendent-, Gary Sanitary District,  Gary,  Ind.

          Presented at 2^th Annual Meeting, Federation  of
          Sewage and Industrial Wastes Assns.; St.  Paul,

          Minn.; Oct. 3-11, 1951.

                    On October 27* 1950, an experiment  was
     started to determine to what extent ammonia  wastes could
     be treated and phenol effectively destroyed  by the activated
     sludge process.  Ammonia liquor from  the Gary,  Ind., coke
     plant of the U.S. Steel Company was pumped to  the  main
     interceptor on this date and continued without  interruption
     until April 30, 1951.  The liquor was discharged at  a
     uniform rate throughout 24 hrs.  The  first loading was
     approximately 10 percent of the total load expected.
     From time to time the load was increased as  the experiment
                    Local Conditions:  The Gary treatment
     plant is connected to about 200 mi. of combined sewers.
     Some of the heaviest rain storms have occurred  in  January and


 j    February.  Excessive runoff could have interfered

 2    materially with this experiment.  At no time during the

 3    period were there any severe storms.  Heavy runoffs

 4    occurred on a few days, but these were caused by melting

 5    snow.  Generally speaking, ideal conditions prevailed

 6    for the entire period of the experiment.

 7                   Biochemical Oxidation of phenol:  Using

 0    a biological process to destroy phenol is not a new de-

     velopment.  Numerous references (l) (2) (5) (6) (7) are

     available on the use of sprinkling filters and activated

     sludge for this purpose.  Some of the references report

     experimental work, whereas others record plant operation.

     The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Mich., operates a plant

     including sprinkling filters and an activated sludge plant

     in series, where large quantities of phenol are destroyed

     each day.  As far as the writer has been able to ascer-

     tain, this is the largest phenol destruction project

     in the world (6) (7).  The Milwaukee, Wis., activated sludge

     plant treats phenolic waste with no difficulty.  Probably

     many plants, either of sprinkling filter or activated

     sludge types, throughout the country treat this waste or

     gas plant wastes containing phenol; if it is in low con-

     centrations and has caused no trouble, the operator

     may not be aware of its being present  in the raw sewage.

                    The  Problem at Gary:  With the  reference


     given heretofore, the question may arise as to why the

     experiment at Gary was necessary.  The south end of Lake

     Michigan which serves as a source of water supply for

     the four Calumet area cities  (East Chicago, Gary, Hammond,

     and Whiting, Ind.) and the South Side filtration plant

     of Chicago, 111., is a critical area as regards pollution.

 7    It is mandatory for all municipalities and industries

 8    in the area, as a result of a suit by the state of  Illinois

 9    against the four cities, the  State of Indiana, and  the

10    Industries, to abate and keep all pollution out of  the  lake,

     This was agreed upon at hearings before a Master in

12    Chancery, appointed by the U. S. Supreme Court.  Certain

13    stipulations were set up and  agreed to by the industries.

14                   Gary, having a treatment plant in operation

15    at the time, was excused from the suit.  East Chicago and

16    Hammond also had plants in operation and were likewise

17    excused.  The city of Whiting agreed to take steps  to stop

18    Its pollution of the lake.  Whiting did not have a  sewage

19    treatment plant in operation  then and has none in operation

20    now.  Arrangements were made  by Whiting to have its sewage

21    treated In the Hammond plant  for the present.  Since the

22    suit, several millions of dollars have been expended by

23    industry in constructing new sanitary sewer systems,

24    connecting to municipal sewer systems,  and making process

25    changes (10).

 i                   The physiography of the Calumet area is
 2    such that effluents from all sewage treatment plants
 3    and Industries which discharge into the Grand Calumet
 4    River flow in great part into the south end of Lake
 5    Michigan.  Since phenol had never been a pollutant as
 6    far as Gary was concerned it was necessary to determine
 7    how efficiently it could be destroyed if the treatment of
 8    ammonia wastes was to be undertaken as an operational
 9    routine.  The writer was not enthusiastic about starting
10    the project.  It was obvious that if appreciable amounts
11    of phenol passed through the treatment plant and finally
12    into Lake Michigan, the city of Gary would be responsible
13    for this pollution.  Estimates based on past performance
14    of the Gary plant, insofar as reduction of 5-day
15    B.O.D. was concerned, indicated that 95 percent
15    destruction might be expected.  If this estimate proved
17    to be correct, from 75 to 100 Ibs of phenol might be
18    discharged into the Grand Calumet River daily.  Some
19    of this, in turn, would find its way into the water
20    supplies of the various cities.  If the experiment
21    were to be successful from a treatment standpoint, it meant
22    In this area practically 100 percent destruction would
23    be required.
24                   Study of the problem indicated that certain
25    basic data should be collected during the progress of the

 i    experiment and, as much as possible, established as posi-
 2    tive facts.  These were as follows:
 3         1.  Whether the ammonia wastes could be treated
 4    effectively, and the efficiency with which phenol
 5    could be destroyed;
 6         2.  The effect on the treatment process of
 7    the variable factors in the ammonia wastes;
 8         3.  The effect of the wastes on gas production;
 9         4.  Data which would serve as a base in computing
10    fair costs of treating the wastes.
n                   The list, of course, does not purport
12    to cover all the research work possible on this problem.
13    If obtained, however, the data would give a starting point
14    for a more detailed examination of the problem.
15                   The project was cleared as an experiment
16    with the State of Illinois through C. W. Klassen, State
17    Sanitary Engineer, by B. A. Poole, Director of Environ-
18    mental Sanitation, State of Indiana.
19                   Stipulations Controlling the Experiment:
20    Before proceeding with the project certain stipulations
21    were set up by the Gary Sanitary District, as follows:
22                   Ammonia wastes should be discharged at a
23    uniform rate throughout 24 hrs.;
24                   No change in load  should be made except
25    as specified by the District;

1                   The waste would be shut off immediately
2    if necessary;
3                   The test continued for several months,
4    including the month of lowest sewage temperature.
5                   The maximum load expected as from 1,500
6    to 2,000 Ibs. of phenol per day in 500,000 gal. of  ammonia
7    still  liquor.  The liquid load was estimated on the basis
8    of 25  gal.  of water per ton of coal coked.  Phenol  content
9    was  shown by past analyses as quite low, amounting  to
10    less than 0.1 Ib. of phenol per ton of coal coked,  and
n    this without dephenolizers, as there are none at the
12    Gary plant.  E. C. Kennedy, superintendent of the Gary
13    coke plant, stated that the low phenol content results
u    from the coal mix, which contains a higher percentage of
15    low  volatile coal thafi is ordinarily used at most coke
16    plants.
17                   Preliminary Investigations:  About four
18    weeks  before the experiment started, technicians from
19    Mellon Institute brought in the necessary laboratory
20    apparatus,  including a Beckman B. Spectrophotometer.
21    Joseph H. Wells, then Senior Fellow at the Institute,
22    made all arrangements for the laboratory setup.  Preliminary
23    determinations were run on river water samples, the raw
24    and  clarified sewages,  and the final effluent.  A few parts
25    per billion were found,  but the results were spotty.


1    Checks were made with the local hospitals and a plastics

2    industry to find If phenol was being used.  No phenol

3    was being discharged from any of these sources and the

4    plastics industry had none In stock.  It was concluded

5    that these test were not significant.

6                   Treatment results at Dow Chemical Company

7    (6) showed that with lower sewage temperatures in the win-

8    ter months there was a decrease In the phenol removal,

9    particularly in the sprinkling filter plant.  Experimental

10    work (3) (4) has shown that the rate of oxygen utilization

u    by activated sludge and sludge-sewage mixtures decreases

12    with lowering temperatures.  With the experiment starting

13    in October, facing decreasing temperatures and increased

14    loadings, it was obvious that the critical point would

15    be reached when the raw sewage was at the lowest annual

16    temperature.  Prom past records this should occur some

17    time in February.  On February 11, 12 and 13 raw sewage

18    temperatures of 48°* ^7°, and 49° *• were noted.  Initially

     the sewage temperature was 65°F.; at the finish, 60° F.

     With the completion of this cycle the experiment ceased.

                    Loads Expected from Waste:  Preliminary

     studies Indicated that the increased loading from phenol

     alone might total about 20 percent of the normal secondary

     loading.  The theoretical oxygen demand of phenol has been

     shown to be 2.38 Ibs.  per pound of phenol (l).   Laboratory


 i    tests showed that with synthetic phenol solution this

 2    was 1.9 plus Ibs. and that the 5-day B.O.D. is quite close

 3    to the ultimate B.O.D.  Nothing was known about the

 4    5-day B.O.D. of the ammonia wastes, but later determinations

 5    showed this ranged from 1,200 to 1,900 ppm as it left

 6    the stills.  At no time was it possible to establish a

 7    direct relation between the pounds of phenol received

 8    on any one day and the 5-day B.O.D. of the ammonia wastes.

 g                   Table 1 shows results of analyses of the

10    ammonia wastes.  This table is a combination of complete

..    analysis of two samples, plus a few additions on some of

     the items made during the test.  This does not cover the

13    field of ammonia wastes, but rather local conditions.

     As a result, a wide variation from the values given will

     be found in numerous articles in technical Journals on

..    this waste.  (See Page 1213for Table 1)

1?                   It will be noted from Table 1 that this is

10    a complex waste.  It may well be designated a "rough"

1Q    waste to treat.  Total solids may show variations from

2Q    approximately 7,700 to 20,000 ppm with volatile solids

     ranging from 7 to 46 percent.  Suspended solids

     range from approximately 1,000 to 2,000 ppm.

                    Description of Experiment:  The initial

24    loading was Just under 200 Ibs. of phenol per day in 43,000

25    gals, of ammonia waste (Table II)  This was held constant

                    (See Page 1214 for Table II)

 1    TABLE I — Analysis of Ammonia Still Wastes
 2         Constituent                        P.P.M.
 3    Free lime, CaO                       0 to 6,9^0
 4    Calcium, Ca                          1,900 to 3,00
 5    Magnesium, Mg                        50 to 750
     Sodium, Na                           50 to 60
 7    Free ammonia, NH3                    60 to 1,820
 8    Carbonates, 003                      1,700 to 3,600
 9    Carbon dioxide, C02                  90 to 595
10    Sulfate, SOU                         110 to 375
     Chloride, Cl                         2,300 to 2,800
12    Thiosulfate, S20^                    16° to
J3    Thiocyanate, CNS                     115 to 325
M    Cyanide, CN                          52
15    Iron oxide and alumina, R2°3         40 to 660
16    Silica, S102                         100 to 170
     Phenol                               400 to 550
     Total Solids                         7,700 to 20,000
ig    Volatile                             7 to 462
20    Suspended solids                     1,000 to 2,000
21                    A combination of two complete analyses
22    plus data noted during experiment.  Dilution factor of
23    sewage to ammonia wastes varied from 40:1 to 50:1.
24                   2 percent.


                        9"9"9"  «"8«"   S


                           §oo-i>  Q to to
                           OO  WI0O
                         o <
MNOO   NO 00   


TABLE III. — Monthly Average and Maximum Phenol
of Ammonia Still Wastes, November, 1950,
April, 1951.
Month Phenol Ammonia Phenol
(1950-51) Load1 Still in Still
(ibs./ Liquor1 Liquor
day) (g.p.d.) (its./

November 3*11 81,307 4,2
December 432 151,770 2.9
January 694 225,948 3.1
February 836 281,630 2.7
March 914 275,900 3,3
April 1,578 429,667 3.7


in Still


Average values.

                    (See Page 1215 for Table III)
 i    until November 3, when the phenolic load was increased,

 2    presumably, to 400 Ibs. per day with a flow of 86,400

 3    gal. of waste.  It was found that although it was a

 4    simple matter to control the rate of flow, phenol load

 $    varied considerably with uniform flow.  Loading in the

 6    secondary bracket—that is, during November— averaged

 7    only 34l Ibs. per day  (Table III).  Daily loading of phenol

 8    in this second bracket ranged from a low of 136 Ibs. to

 9    a maximum of 657 Ibs.  Mixed liquor solids had been increas-

10    ed from 1,100 to 1,354 ppm.  (Table IV).  On November 2,

n    and each day following when backpressure on the blower

12    system permitted, a second blower was operated, usually
                                                     (See Page  121
13    from 4 to 8 hours per day and sometimes longer.for Table  IV)

14                   The phenolic load was increased by incre-

15    ments up to March 21, 1951* when the total waste was dis-

16    charged to the interceptor.  This continued until the

17    experiment was terminated.  A railroad strike during the

18    winter interfered with coal mixes at the coke plant and

ig    necessitated changes in coking time from 17 to 24 hrs.,

20    along with temperature changes.  In one month this caused

21    the load to vary daily from a low of 20 Ibs. to a high of

22    1*530 Ibs. (Table II).  These fluctuations did not affect

23    the efficiency of the treatment process or the efficiency

24    of the oxidation of phenol.

                    The highest concentration of phenol in

                       SEWAGE AND  INDU8TBIAL WASTES
                                                                          February, 1952

usp. Solids
                    §       S       3        S
                    U9       IO       *O        ^J*
                    coo to  aos>t~.     o   v        at  o   t^   co
                                      cooo«   co'oco   •* oo M   coooo   co t- 6
                    c> ofo   -Tco
           > CJ S   « U5 g

                   «« o>
	I -H   — IN IN
—i f e»   co t- t
O e* —'   -r O) oo
O~M"OO"'   —"M'OO"
                    I** *9* oo   55 to ™*   (p w £2   *2! ^** *"^   *^3 ^ "^   ^ *^ ^®   ^ ® !^
                    Tf* (O ro   *Q t^ **t*   *Q p" fQ   *r) • *f*   ^* t^ CO   *O t*» C9
                    600   666   666   666   odd   odd   ddd
                         *J<   O N O   O — N   C5 00 O
                         CO   COU5W   ViOCO   CO^CO
                                                                           SCI <
                                                                           M I
                    •«< b-Ct   td 00 CO
                                                         2S°°"   Jfgf*""
                                          I «^    lO O tO   f^* C0 O   O "*& 00   O (N 00
                                          >«fi    eoiSeo   "T00^?   -<**'-««   poNf*
                                      w co     w «** *«   eo •«*• c«   ec-^   OOtD'tf*   CO<«-C»>   CDCMW   iO 00 «
                                                            > *
                                                                  _ t^ —   -< <
                           28"   2;
                                              00 O>l>-
                                      ^MO   O^*Q   lOCOuJ  00 O CO
                                      —• O -^*   CNt*.00   O Cl OO  OOOSt^
                    •^•oirf   otor*   TNO   MOW   -»f<^HN   -^r^c<   eotoo*
                    O    toust-
-^vo   coo»r^   uso^^
oo>oo>   o -i co   ooo)
                     •  S .s    • «.£    • 5 .s    • «.E     •«£     • S s    -5s

                 O        £        Q        4       £

     the raw sewage was 12.3 ppm.  This happened to come on
 2    the last day of the run.  The final effluent that day
 3    showed no phenol.  The fact that no phenol registered
     in the final effluent was not as important as the fact
     that the results all the way through were consistently
     low.  A phenol content of 5 P.p.b. is equivalent to 1
     Ib. of phenol in the final effluent, with a flow of
     24 million gallons per day.  On only 23 days of the ex-
 9    periment was a reading of 5 P.p.b. or more registered.
10                   There were five days in which the final
     results were out of line with all others.  The first was
12    on December 2, 1950, when a heavy thaw and runoff increased
13    the pumpage to., 28.12 m.g.  This required the operation of
14    a second raw sewage pump for 12 hrs., which reduced the
15    detention period in the aerators to approximately 3.3 hrs.
16    during that time.  The final effluent carried a total of
17    1.8 Ibs. of phenol for this date, although loading at this
18    time was only 4l4 Ibs. of phenol in the raw sewage.  The
19    short detention period in the aerators was responsible
20    for this result.  On December 4, the final effluent showed
21    1.7 Ibs. with a flow of only 19 m.g.d.  The mixed liquor
22    solids were out of balance on account of the high rate
23    of pumpage on December 2; the total mixed liquor solids
24    being only 473 p.p.m. explains the amount of phenol getting
25    through the plant.


 1                   On January  3,  1951, the  final  effluent

 2     showed  17 p.p.b., with  2.6 Ibs.  of phenol  in  the final

 3     effluent. The flow was low (19.23 m.g.) and  all operating

 4     conditions were  apparently normal.   No  reason was  apparent

 5     for  the high phenol result.  Thawing on January 10,  1951,

 B     again required a second pump in  service for 9.5 hrs., with

 7     pumpage of 27.00 m.g.   The short aeration  period for this

 8     time again gave  a high  phenol content of 3.8  Ibs.  in the

 9     final effluent,  with  a  loading of 99^ Ibs. of phenol.

10     This demonstrated again the importance  of  an  adequate de-

n     tention period.   On January 11,  1951, with less than

12     1 p.p.m. of  D.O. at the end of aeration, the  final effluent

13     carried 1.60 Ibs. of  phenol.  Lack of D.O. was apparently

14     all  that was out of line on this date and  indicated

15     oxygen  deficiency.  Undertreatment  probably gave the

16     result  shown

17                   The  preceding data appear to be repetitive,

18     but  the information is  given in  detail  because of  its

19     importance.   With a combined sewer  system, flows at any

20     treatment plant  will have  a wide range  from low to high,

21     which interferes with the  treatment  process.   This makes

22     it impossible to produce at all  times the  high quality

23    effluent  desirable when treating an  industrial  waste

24    that  should  be destroyed practically 100 percent.

25                   The total amount of phenol  received  at the


 !    plant during the period of test was 145,034 Ibs.  Of this

 2    total, 83 Ibs. passed through the plant for an average

 3    of 0.44 Ibs. per day, or approximately 3 p.p.b.  The reduc-

 4    tion accomplished was 99.94 percent.

 .                   Phenol determinations were made using the

 c    technique of the 4-aminoantipyrene test as described

 7    by Ettinger and Kroner  (9).

 0                   Nitrogen Determinations:  Nitrogen deter-

     minations were run on raw  and clarified sewages and the

     final effluent.  Analyses  were made for organic, ammonia,

n    nitrate, and nitrate nitrogen.  Ordinarily these are not

     run on raw and clarified sewages, except possibly in

     special cases where research work may be necessary.  In

     order to have a complete picture of the process before and

     during the test, these were made dally for about two weeks be

     fore and until December 14.  There was so little difference

     shown in the results that  after this date they were run

     once a week, moving up one day each week.

                    At no time  has there been overtreatment

     at Gary.  Nitrates in the  final effluent have always

     ranged from about 0.06 to  0.15 p.p.m.  With exceptions

     of a few maxlmums up to 0.24 and 0.36 and one of 0.60

     p.p.m., averages throughout the experiment stayed within

     previous limits (Table V).  Final B. 0. D. determinations

     have never been hampered by high nitrate content.

                    (See Page 1621 for Table V)

                 SEWAGE AND INDUSTBIAL WASTES        rebruarjr, 1952

     TABLE V.—Nitrogen Determinations', October, 1950, through April, 1951
Nitrogen (p. p.m.)
Raw Sewage




























Clarified Sengt




























Final Effluent




























' Monthly average*.


 i                   Organic and ammonia nitrogen showed very

 2    little variation from past records.  Single maximums were

 3    somewhat higher, but averages for the entire period showed

 4    no marked change from previous data.  Averages for organic

 5    nitrogen over the entire period were 14, 10 and 4 p.p.m.

 6    in the raw, clarified, and final effluent, respectively.

 7    Corresponding ammonia nitrogen averages were 14, 13 and

 8    14 p.p.m.  The changes were less than had been anticipated.

 9                   Functioning of the Activated Sludge Process:

10    During the progress of the experiment certain changes

11    were made in the various parts of the activated sludge

12    process  (see Table IV).  These included an increase in

13    air blown, higher concentration of solids in the mixed

14    liquor and return sludge, and an increased rate of return.

15    None of these changes were made suddenly except that of

16    return sludge, when, on February 1, 1951, a third pump

17    was placed in operation, which was then operated continuously

18    with the other two pumps until the end of the experiment.

19                   Air Requirements:  Air, at the beginning

20    of the test, was being supplied at between 9,000,000 and

21    10,000,000 cu. ft. per day.  This was at an average rate

22    of 0.47 cu. ft. of air per gallon of sewage.  (Cubic feet

23    of air per gallon of sewage is not a good unit to use in

24    comparing the performances of activated sludge plants,

25    but  it  is a handy tool around a  single plant.

 1    Cubic  feet  of  air  per  pound  of  B.O.D.  reduced  Is the unit
 2    ordinarily  employed  in making comparisons.)
 3                    On  and  after  November 2,  1950,  a second
 4    blower was  operated  for several hours per day  whenever
 5    possible, the  length of time being governed by the D.O.
 6    at the end  of  aeration.  It  was not always possible to
 7    operate this blower  every day because of high  backpressure
 8    on the blower  system.   Periods  of high relative humidity
 9    always cause a rapid rise in pressure when diffuser tubes
10    are partially  clogged.  With pressure above normal with
11    one blower  in  operation, it  is  Impossible to place a second
12    blower on the  line.
13                    A D.O.  of 3 p.p.m. at the end of aeration
14    was desired.  Although this  was maintained throughout  the
is    test,  as shown in  Table IV,  except for October and November,
16    there  were  short periods when the D.O. was below 2 p.p.m.
17    and one period of  below 1 p.p.m.  The amount of air supplied,
18    as shown in Table  IV,  indicates a minimum use.  Slightly
19    more air would have  been used if atmospheric conditions
20    had permitted.  In January,  aerators 1 to 4  had clean
21    tubes  Installed to ensure an adequate air supply until
22    the experiment was completed.   Ordinarily tubes are not
23    changed  at this  time of  the  year because  of  the hazardous
24    working conditions from  ice forming on the floor of the
25    aerators when drained.


 1                   It will be noted that in February, the month

 2    of highest B.O.D. in the clarified sewage, the D.O. at

 3    the end of aeration was the highest for any month.  There

 4    was only a slight increase in air over the previous month.

 5    The reason for this higher D.O. (also in January) was

 6    better distribution of air throughout the length  of the

 7    four aerators where clean tubes had been installed.

 8    Clogging occurs in great part at the head end of  the

 9    aerators, where return sludge mixes with the clarified

10    sewage and mixed liquor.  From one-fourth to one-third the

11    length of the aerators may have a sluggish roll,  where tubes

12    are partially clogged, so that the computed aeration de-

13    tention period does not give a true picture of actual con-

14    ditions.  Only with all tubes clean does the theoretical

15    detention period agree with the actual period.

16                   Solids Concentrations:  At the start of

17    the test the mixed liquor solids content was about 1,100

18    p.p.m.  By January, this concentration had been raised

19    so that the average for that month was 3,035 p.p.m.  As

20    the ammonia waste load increased (Tables II and III),

21    higher mixed liquor concentration followed (Table rv).

22    Return sludge solids naturally increased with higher

23    mixed liquor concentration.  Initially, return sludge

24    averaged about 4,300 p.p.m. and reached a high level in

25    February,  with 13,426 p.p.m.  when mixed liquor solids


     was 3,5^7 p.p.m.  Following February, which was the month

     of highest loading,  solids were decreased  so that  in

     April they averaged  2,430 and  9,529 p.p.m., respectively,
     The last five days of April  showed ranges  in mixed liquor
     solids  of from  1,778 to 2,010  p.p.m., with return  sludge
     solids  of 7,520 to 8,812 p.p.m.
                     It was intended originally  to hold  sol-
     ids at  3,000 p.p.m.  With the  high organic loading in
     February, and with the  higher  concentration producing a
     very  satisfactory 5-day B.O.D. in the final effluent,
     3*5^7 p.p.m. was maintained  with  an  average of 6 p.p.m.
     5-day B.O.D. in the  final effluent,  and with a range
     of 3  to 11 p.p.m. for the month.  Working  with high con-
     centrations of  solids,  wasting had to be scheduled
     carefuHy to prevent  solids building  up  to  excessive
     levels. It was noticed that at these levels,  solids
     beget solids, and quite rapidly.
                     Return Sludge Rate Changes: Rate of
     return  sludge has always been  maintained at a  high level
     at Gary.  When  the plant was placed  in  operation in
     August  1940, sludge  return at  25  percent was tried.
     In a  short time septic  conditions developed in the return
     sludge  and the  rate  was increased.  For the first  10  months
     of 1950, the average rate of return was  35.9 percent.
     This rate was maintained by operating two  out  of three

 l    return sludge pumps available.  These pumps were operated
 „    continuously and any changes in the percentage rate were
 3    caused by variations in the sewage flow.
 4                   To produce a good final effluent with the
 c    activated sludge process, aerobic conditions must be
 6    maintained throughout the secondary process.  This is
     accomplished by supplying air in such quantities that a
 .    satisfactory D.O. is maintained at the end of aeration,
     plus a rate of return that will permit the return sludge
     to enter the aerators before septic conditions have had
     time to develop.  The sludge mixture has an extremely
     high oxygen demand and the supply ceases as soon as the
1 A
     mixed liquor flows over the weirs of the aeration basins.
     It is obvious that the quicker the sludge can be returned
     to the aerators, the less chance there is of deterioration
     due to lack of oxygen.  The D.O. of return sludge in
     overflow manholes at the secondary clariflers ranges
     from 1.2 to 3.6 p.p.m.  Time of flow from manholes to
     aerators is from 2 to 2.5 min.
                    Sludge return uses relatively little power,
     as it is a low-head pumping operation.  The power require-
     ment (minimum for Gary air supply) is one 300-hp. gas
     engine driving a 7,000-cu. ft. blower; Just above minimum
     requirements may necessitate an additional unit for 2
     hrs. per day.  Motors for the three return sludge pumps

 i    total 60 hp., divided into 15-, 20-, and 25-hp. units
 2    Only two of these are operated under average  sewage load
 3    conditions.  If either additional  air or return sludge
 4    capacity is needed, it has been found at times that it  is
     more economical to run a  15-  or 20-hp. motor  for  24 hrs.
 6    than to run a second blower unit for 2 hrs.   It has been
 7    demonstrated that with three  return sludge pumps  in operation
 8     (third unit placed in service), a  better final effluent
 9    can be produced than by operating  a second blower part
10    time.
                    About February 1, 1951, sludge began to
     build up on the floor of  the  secondary clarifiers.  (Table
13    IV indicates mixed liquor and return sludge solids at the
14    highest level in February.)   Soundings taken  three times
     daily normally show 6 in. of  sludge at the center baffles
16    of the 75-ft. square final clarifiers, less than 6 in.
17    at the quarter point, and the same at the outer walls.
     Soundings  are taken by conventional sounding  rods with
19    6-oz. bottles mounted front and back at 6-in. intervals.
20    About this date soundings showed a build-up to 12 in.,
21    and in one case to 18 in., at the  center.  This showed
22    that the rate of return was too low and a third unit was
23    placed in  operation on February 1  to bring the sludge
24    blanket down to normal level.  All three return sludge
25    pumps were  then  operated  continuously until the end of


     the experiment, when one unit was shut down.  During

     the summer months (1951) clogged tubes again interfered

     with aeration and the third pump was again placed in opera-

     tion.  This cleared up a cloudy final effluent.  At this

     time it was impossible to operate a second blower because of

     high backpressure.  When cleaned tubes had been installed

 7    in six aerators, the extra unit was again shut down.

 8                   Load Changes on Treatment Process During

 9    Experiment:  Table VI shows the average daily 5-day

10    B.O.D. loading in the clarified sewage.  The total for

11    October can be taken as a base, because this checks quite

12    closely with the load for the previous October and succeeding
                                          (See Page 1229 for
13 ||  months showed only normal variation.         Table vi)

14                   The heaviest organic loading in the clarified

15    sewage occurred during the month of February.  This re-

16    suited from a combination of two factors—stoppages in

17    the sludge hoppers and raw sludge suction lines caused

18    a greater depth of raw sludge than usual to be held

19    in storage in the primary clarifiers, plus the increased

20    load of the ammonia wastes.  The high level of sludge in

21    the primary clarifiers caused the clarified sewage to

22    carry more suspended solids than usual, almost three times

23 I  the normal amount.  Clearing up stoppages covered the

24 ||  period from February 23 to March 11, after which no dif-

25 I  ficulty was experienced in pumping raw sludge.  It will



TABLE VI.— 5-Day B.O.D. In Clarified Sewage, Average
Dally Loading, October 1950
Month B.O.D. Loading
(Ibs./ (Ibs./
day) day/cu.
ft. aer.

October 13,676 17.1
November 1 5, 839 19.7
December 17,282 21.5
January 20,944 26.1
February 27 , 916 34 . 8
March 19,945 26.0
April 15,125 18.9

through April 1951.
Air per Aer. Eff.,
Ib. Lb. B.O.D.
B.O.D. Dig. per Lb.
Removed 0^ Blown (#)

655 7.82
758 7.79
686 8.6l
601 9.83
406 14.55
533 11.08
801 7.39



!    be noted (Table IV) that there was a drop in clarified

2    suspended solids and 5-<3ay B.O.D. in March and also in

3    April.

4                   The Gary plant was designed for 170,000

5    population loading with 10 aerators in service.  Assuming

6    a 35 percent reduction of 5-day B.O.D. in the primary

7    clarifiers, this would give approximately 110,000 equi-

8    valent population loading for the secondary process.

0    Equivalent population loading from February clarified

10    sewage was 164,000, with only six aerators in service.

     This gave a loading in terms of pounds of 5-day B.O.D.

     per 1,000 cu. ft. of aerator capacity much higher than

     usual, amounting to 3^.8 Ibs.  This previously had

     reached 22 Ibs. only, and the average for the year 1950

     was 17.5 Ibs.  Increased loadings may be obtained through

     cutting down on aeration capacity by reducing the number

     of aerators in service.  If this is done, however, the

     aeration period may be decreased to where the quality

     of the final effluent is degraded and the operator will

     find that a better effluent can be produced with a

     lighter loading and lower aeration efficiency.

                    There is no reason why loads of 35 Ibs.

     or more of 5-day B.O.D. per 1,000 cu. ft. of aeration

     capacity cannot be used, provided adequate air supply is

     available and a high rate of sludge return is included


 1    in the plant design.  It is interesting to note that the

 2    "Tentative Standards for Sewage Works," compiled by the

 3    Upper Mississippi River Board of Public Health Engineers

 4    and the Great Lakes Board of Public Health Engineers

 5     (Jan. 1951)  specify that "tank volume  shall have 30 cu.

 6    ft. per Ib.  of  5-day B.O.D. in the aerator inlet."  This

 7    is equivalent to 33 Ibs. per 1,000 cu. ft. of aerator

 8    capacity.

 9                    During February, daily  loadings in the

10    clarified sewage ranged from a low of  9*000 Ibs. to a

n    high of 99,600  Ibs.  At no time during the experiment

12    were shock loadings experienced with either high alkalinity

13    or acidity.  Once the flow of the waste  (pH 9.6 to 12.7*

14    with average of 11.5) was started, an  alkaline stability

is    was established in the raw and clarified  sewages.

16                    The maximum load of 99*600 Ibs. occurred

17    on February  3,  1951.  This was caused  by  a heavy carryover

18    of a mixture of primary and secondary  solids from the

19    primary clariflers during a wasting period of 5 hrs.

20    Ordinarily,  wasting was for 2 or 3 hrs. with one of the

21    return sludge pumps shut down.  This was  to decrease the

22    rate of waste sludge into the primary  clarifiers and to

23    prevent an excessive carryover.  On this  date wasting for

24    5 hrs.  was scheduled and the outside operator failed to

zs    shut down one of the pumps.   This gave a carryover which


     showed 1,296 p. p.m. in the composite clarified sample,

 „    so during the wasting period it must have been much higher.
 3    The B.O.D. composite showed 539 p. p.m.  Expressed in

     pounds of 5-day B.O.D. loading this was 99,667 Ibs., with





     an equivalent population load of 585,000.  The loading
     on the aerators was 124 Ibs. B.O.D. per 1,000 cu. ft. of
     aerator capacity and the air per pound of B.O.D. reduced
     amounted to 124 cu. ft.  These two figures happen to be
     in empirical agreement, which is of no significance.
                    The total of this load was not known for
     five days, but on the following day the clarified
     cone had about 8 in. of solids after settling, whereas
     ordinarily this is only about 1 in.  Wasting was started
     at once and maintained on a correct routine so that the
     solids in the aerators were brought down to a normal content
     This heavy load was not reflected by a poor final effluent.
     Suspended solids in the final effluent were 11 p. p.m.
     on the preceding day, rose to 20 p. p.m. on the day of
     heavy loading, and on the succeeding day were down to
     10 p. p.m.  The final effluent 5-day B.O.D. was 7, 6,
     and 5 p. p.m. for the three days.  The sludge index showed
     the greatest variation, being 119,252, and 121 for the
     corresponding days.
                    This loading may be called a false loading,
     in that it originated in the process itself and is one


     that would not ordinarily occur.  It may also be stated

     that the carryover was primed or seeded for the biological

     process, as it carried large quantities of secondary

     sludge, which had the same pH as the secondary process.

     Granting all this, the analyses showed that there was a

     heavy loading of organic material which required treatment.

     It is further agreed that if the attempt were made to operate

     on this level for any length of time, with the small amount

     of air supplied, the previous normal operation of the

     process would be upset.

                    The results of this day's operation indicated,

     however, that in buffering the plant for the loading from
1 it

     the ammonia wastes, the solids concentration in the

     mixed liquor was higher than required.  Also, that there

     was considerable reserve capacity at 3,500 p.p.m. in the

     mixed liquor present that day.  It was concluded that if

     at some future time the treatment of ammonia wastes were

     undertaken as a regular treatment routine, the concen-

     tration of solids in the mixed liquor would be built up

     at a slightly lower rate than was employed in the experiment.

                    Aeration Efficiencies:  Also shown in

     Table VI is the amount of air supplied per pound of 5-day

     B.O.D. reduced and the aeration efficiency, which is pounds

     of 5-day B.O.D.  reduced per pound of oxygen blown (not

     corrected to standard conditions).   It will be noted that

 l    with the exception of November, heavier aerator loadings
 2    required less air per pound of 5-day B.O.D. reduced.
 3    Table VI shows that with increased aerator loadings
 4    higher aeration efficiency may be obtained.
 5                   Since daily organic loadings on the secondary
 g    process are beyond the control of the operator, oxygen
 7    utilization efficiency is likewise beyond his control.
 8    He may have worked out an efficient operating routine as
 9    regards concentration of mixed liquor solids, amount of
10    air blown, and rate of sludge return, and produce a
u    highly polished effluent.  The efficiency, however, is
12    going to vary from day to day: with an increased load
13    and with the same amount of air, will rise: with a
14    decrease in load, it will decline.
15                   Effect of Wastes on Treatment Process:
16    No one could predict how the process would react to the
17    treatment of ammonia wastes.  Changes were expected and
ig    the aerators, final clarifiers, and final effluent were
19    closely watched.  Analytical results were checked by
20    visual inspection of the aerators and final clarifiers,
21    and although at times results would indicate a satisfactory
22    effluent, the appearance of the effluent would Indicate
23    some changes were needed.  Most frequently noticed was
24    a cloudy effluent which tested low in suspended solids.
25    However, this cloudiness usually indicated undertreatment


     from an air supply viewpoint.  A  slight  amount  of  air

     added  at various times proved this was what was needed

     in  a majority of cases.

                    Mixed  Liquor and Sludge Index:   The mix-

     ed  liquor  gradually lost  its brown color as the load in-

     creased and assumed a grayish cast.   At  no time did the

     mixed  liquor  have  as  bright a color,  if  that word  can be used

     while  treating the ammonia wastes, as when treating a typi-

     cal domestic  sewage.  Yet, despite this  drab appearance,

     the B.O.D. in the  final effluent  was  consistently  good.

     Sludge index  records  indicate that for about two months

     adjustments were being made in the treatment process to

     find a good operational routine.  Monthly averages of

     sludge Indexes for the 6-month period, November to

     April, were as follows:

       Month                   Sludge Index
16    	Av.	Max.     Min.

17    November    224           398     105

18    December    180           312      87

19    January     100           282      4l

20    February      83           252      37

21    March         87           249      65

22    April       140           369      81

23                   During the first two months the  solids

24    concentration was being built up, so  that by December 20,


3,000 p.p.m. had been reached.  This level was maintained
or slightly exceeded until about the middle of April,
when the solids were gradually reduced until the waste
was shut off.  Air supply was from one and two blowers
each day when possible.  After February 1, when a third
return sludge pump was placed in operation the index more
or less stabilized, with fewer peaks than In the previous
 8 I  months.  From March 1 to 17, inclusive, the sludge index
varied only between 64 and 80, with ranges in loading
from 9,000 to 48,000 Ibs. of 5-day B.O.D. in the clarified
sewage and with mixed liquor concentrations of from
2,456 to 4,114 p.p.m.  It will be noted that the greatest
variable during this period was in the loading, which
had a range from low to high of approximately 500 per-
15    cent.
                    The treatment process was quite sensitive
     as regards daily sludge index variations.  High loads
     cannot be determined until five days after they have oc-
     curred.  Therefore, daily changes in air supply cannot
     be made to follow changes of load.  At times of high
     loading, with one blower in service, or if a second blower
     happened to be In operation, the sludge index might vary
     overnight from around 100 to 300.  When this occurred
     sludge index could be brought back to normal if extra air


 i    could be supplied.  High sludge index did not always
 2    mean high suspended solids in the final  effluent,  as
 3    shown by the following results at various times:
13    Pumpage rate probably had more effect  on the suspended
14    solids  content  of the final  effluent than any other
15    factor. One day of high pumpage  the sludge index was
ie    and the suspended solids concentration in final effluent
17    was 28  p.p.m.
18                    Secondary Clarifiers:  Most  of the time
19    when treating domestic sewage only,  the  secondary clari-
20    fiers are clear and the raking mechanisms  can be seen.
21    About two weeks after the experiment started,  a light
22    solids  blanket  had risen to  about 4  in.  below the water
23    surface.  This  left a clear  zone  over  the top of each
24    secondary clarifier and final effluent was  skimmed out of
25    this zone over  the saw toothed weirs.  This blanket held
Susp. S<
in Pin. I


 i    stationary throughout the experiment and never lifted

 2    so that a high solids content appeared in the final effluent

 3    Two weeks after the waste was shut off the rakes were

 4    again visible.  This was on May 13, and they had not been

 5    seen since the previous November.

 6                   Gas Production:  Although treatment of

 7    waste did not inhibit the aerobic process, it did cause

 8    a drop  in gas production.  In November, a month of light

 9    loading of ammonia wastes, the gas production increased

10    about 20,000 cu.  ft. per day over October.  This was quite

n    encouraging and it was thought that possibly the alkaline

12    waste would tend  to raise gas production.  Through Decem-

13    ber, and up to and including March, each succeeding month

14    showed  a decrease.  April showed some recovery, but not

15    back to normal.   With the waste cut off at the end of

16    April and the contents of the digesters being gradually

17    displaced with raw sludge containing no waste, gas pro-

18    duction started to increase.  May and June both showed

ig    increases and apparently conditions were back to normal

20    in the  multi-digestion system.  Total gas production for

     the 6-month period from November to April, over the past

22    seven years, showed the 1950-51 period ranked sixth.

23                   Digestion was irregular with the waste

24    present.  There were periods when gas production decreased

25    for a week or two, followed by a recovery period.  This


 i    was repeated several times from January to April,  inclu-

 2    sive,  surlng the period  of heavier  loadings  of waste.

 3    Recirculation  and  agitation were  tried to overcome this

 4    handicap,  but  apparently had  no effect.  This adds to the

 5    cost  of  treatment. There is  the  loss of gas, plus the

 6    increased  amount of gas  required  to furnish  additional

 7    air needed for the increase in loading from  the  waste.

 8                    Summary:   It has been demonstrated  that

 9    ammonia  wastes containing up  to 12.3 p.p.m.  phenol, in

10    terms of sewage flow,  can be  treated successfully  by

n    the activated sludge process at Gary, with the waste having

12    a composition  as noted in Table I.   It has also  been demon-

13    strated  that the anaerobic process  is inhibited  by the

14    waste that is  pumped to  the digesters with the raw sludge,

15    resulting  in a decrease  in gas production.

16                    Conclusions:   Conclusions drawn from the

17    experiments described  herein  are  as follows:

18                    Phenol  in the  ammonia still waste,  in terms

19    of sewage  flow, could  be treated  in concentrations up to

20    25 p.p.m.  and  with approximately  100 percent effective-

21    ness,  providing there  was no  excessive build-up  in con-

22    centration of  some other toxic substance that might inhibit

23    the aerobic process;

24                   Solids  concentration  in the mixed liquor

25    must be increased to take care of the increased load;

 j                   Extra air must be supplied because of the

 2    additional organic load imposed on the treatment process;

 3                   A higher rate of sludge return is required

     if air requirements are to be kept to a minimum;

                    Complete destruction of phenol cannot

 e    be effected with the aeration period greatly reduced.

                    Acknowledgments:  Other persons working

     on this project who previously have not been mentioned

     include San Karan, then Junior Fellow, Mellon Institute,

     who did most of the laboratory work on phenol de-

     terminations; Dean B. Plotts, chemical Engineer, Gary

     Coke  Plant, U. S. Steel Company, who assisted in the

     laboratory work or substituted for Mr. Karan; and  George

     J. Haddad, Fellow, Mellon  Institute.


     Mohlman, F. W., "The Biochemical Oxidation  of Phenolic

           Wastes."  Am. Jour. Pub. Health, 19, 2 (1929).---#1

     Kay,  A.,  "Gas Works Effluents and Ammonia." No. 188

           Inst. of Gas Eng., London  (Nov., 1938).—#2

     Sawyer, C. N. and Nichols, M. S., "Effect of Sludge

           Concentration and Temperature upon Oxygen  Utilization."

           Sewage Works Jour., 11, 1, 51  (Jan., 1939).—#3

     Sawyer, C. N., and Rohlich, G. A., "influence of Tempera-

           ture upon the Rate of Oxygen Utilization by Activated

           Sludges."  Sewage Works Jour. 11, 6, 946 (Nov.,



     Eldridge, E. P.,  "The Biological Filtration of the Phenolic

          Wastes from  a Gas Plant." Bull.87, Michigan Eng.

          Exper. Station, East Lansing, Mich.  (Nov., 1939).--#5

     Powers, T., "The  Treatment  of Some Chemical Industry

          Wastes."  Sewage Works Jour., 17,  3,  330  (Mar.,

 7         1945).--#6

     Harlow, I. P., and Powers,  T. J.,  "Pollution Control

          at a Large Chemical Works."   Ind.  Eng. Chem., 39,
 9                                       	**	

1Q         572  (19^7).—#7

     Ettlnger, M. B.,  and Ruchhoft, C.  C.,  "Removal of Phenol

          and  Cresols  from Natural Waters."   Ind. Eng. Chem.,
12                                                   "

          4l,  1422  (1949).--#8

     Ettinger, M. B.,  and Kroner, R. C.,  "The  Determination

          of Phenolic  Materials  in Industrial  Wastes." Proc.,

          Fifth Indus. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Series

          No.  72, p. 346  (Nov.,  1949).--#9

     Carpenter, C. B., and Mathews, W. W.,  "industrial Problems

          of Water Contamination."  Midwest  Eng., p. 2 (Oct.,


     Carpenter, C. B., and Mathews, W. W.,  "industries Treating

          Wastes in Lake  County,  Indiana."   Sewage Works  Eng.,

          19,532 (Oct., 1948).--#11




 1                      DISCUSSION


 3                    by S. Mogelnickl

 4    Research and Development Engineer, Waste Disposal, The

 5                   Dow Chemical Company,

 6                      Midland, Mich.

                    Mr. Mathews has presented a very comprehen-
     sive and significant paper.  To some of us in industry,
     however, its greatest significance is not in the technical
     data revealed, but in the fact of cooperative endeavor
     on the part of a city and one of its industries toward
     the solution of a local, but also widespread, problem.
                    He has shown that the Gary municipal sewage
     plant can treat ammonia still wastes very successfully.
     The questions remaining are:  "Will such a project be
     undertaken?"; "if so, when?"; and "What action is to be
                    Successful pollution control nationally
     is going to call for a great deal more of this type of
     cooperation between municipalities and their industries.
                    To those engaged in large-scale destruction
     of phenol, there seems to have been a considerable lack
     of interest in, or perhaps understanding of, the biological
     oxidation of phenol.  This large-scale experiment is,

 i    therefore,an encouraging sign, as is also the interesting

 2    laboratory work  of A. Henderson, of the  Hydrotechnic

 3    Corporation.  Such work will no doubt give welcome  assistance

 4    to those who may be  confronted with similar waste treatment

 5    problems.

 6                   It should be emphasized that biological

 7    oxidation of phenol  is accomplished quite easily with

 8    ordinary soil bacteria and does not require a specially

 9    developed culture as some people have been led  to   believe.

10    It has  been found that phenol is one of  the most readily

11    oxidized organic compounds.  With well-seeded dilution

12    water,  the 5-day B.O.D. of phenol will be very  close

13    to the  theoretical    2.38 p.p.m. per part of phenol.  This

14    can be  confirmed by  an oxygen consumed test, although any

15    test which does  not  compJetely destroy phenol is of

16    limited value.   For  treatment of phenolic wastes, it  is

17    believed advisable to design a plant on  the basis of

18    complete oxidation.

19                   Mr. Mathews1 paper does not discuss  the

20    preservation of  samples for analysis, and it can only be

21    presumed that the determinations made were accurate.

22    It should be pointed  out that, in working with  wastes

23    of this type, special precautions must be taken to  Inhibit

24    bacterial oxidation in stored samples in order  to prevent

25    erroneous results.   Spot  samples taken through  the treatment

 i    plant, incidentally, are an excellent check on results

 2    of composite samples.

 3                   With two or three exceptions, the writer

 4    is in general agreement with Mr. Mathews1 conclusions.

 5    Specifically, exception would be taken with regard to

 6    his conclusions on solids build-up, effects on gas pro-

 7    duction, and air requirements.

 8                   Considering the Gary experiment as a whole,

 9    it is believed that a misjudgment was made in apparently

10    pre-supposing that certain modifications in process would

u    be necessary in handling the ammonia still wastes.  Because

12    certain modifications were made before any phenolic wastes

13    were received and continued throughout the experiment,

14    it has still not been proven whether or not the plant

15    could handle these wastes in normal operation.  Nor has

16    the experiment shown the degree to which modifications,

17    if any, are needed.

18                   Specifically, it might be noted that the

     plant was evidently prepared for the still wastes by

2Q    increasing the concentration of solids in the aeration

     tanks substantially above normal.  Had the plant been left

     in normal operation instead, then the quality of the effluent

     In terms of phenol would have indicated if and when more

_.    solids were needed and a determination of the amount needed
     could then have been made.  Samples taken through the

 i     aeration tanks would have demonstrated  how  and  where  the
 2     phenol  disappeared  in  the process.   Also, it  is quite
 3     probable that 90  percent of  the phenol  was  oxidized in
 4     less  than  30 rain.
 5                   As a matter of fact,  the writer  believes
 6     that  no build-up  of solids was necessary; that  the normal
 7     concentration was ample to handle the additional wastes
 8     satisfactorily.   This  view would seem to be supported by
 9     the fact that, although the  daily loadings  of phenol varied
10     widely, the phenolic content of the  effluent  was consistently
n     low.   It seems to be supported, also, by the  experience
12     reported on December 4, when the solids concentration
13     was out of balance. Solids  were only 473 p.p.m., whereas
14     they  were  apparently being carried at an average of about
15     2,500 p.p.m.
16                   On that day,  it was noted that 1.7 Ibs. of
17     phenol, or about  triple the  usual amount, was discharged
18     in  the  effluent.   On the face of it,  this might appear to
19     be  a  tremendous drop in efficiency.   However, if looked
2Q     at  from the viewpoint  of phenol destroyed,  it becomes
21     quite another matter.  The average daily phenol input for
22     December was 432  Ibs.  If December 4  can be assumed to have
23     been  average, then  the plant  on that  day removed  430.3
24     Ibs.  of phenol, even though the mixed liquor  solids were
25     less  than one-fifth of their  average  concentration  for

 1    the month.  In other words, the drop in efficiency was
 2    actually very slight.
 3                   The results of the Gary experiment showed
 4    a decrease in gas production during treatment of the still
 5    wastes.  However, this might have been due to garbage or
 6    other factors, such as sulfates or detergents.  Since it
 7    is known that phenol undergoes complete destruction under
 8    anaerobic conditions, there is no Justification for such
 9    a conclusion in view of the lack of conclusive supporting
10    data.
n                   Mr. Mathews made an interesting statement
12    when he said that loadings of 35 Ibs. of B.O.D. per 1,000
13    cu. ft. of aeration capacity could be used.  The writer
14    is of the same opinion, but the loading depends on the
15    rate at which the waste can be oxidized,  in the experiment
16    at Gary, the period of highest loading in terms of pounds
17    of B.O.D. per 1,000 cu. ft. of aerator capacity was also
18    the period of highest suspended solids in the clarified
19    sewage.  This is very significant and should not be falsely
20    interpreted to mean that  an equivalent loading in true
21    solution could be oxidized, unless the rate of oxidation
22    was the same as the previous rate of removal.  If the
     loading were expressed as pounds of B.O.D. oxidized per
     1,000 cu. ft. of aerator capacity per hour of aeration,
25   it would take into account the rate of oxidation.  The

     day of  so-called false loading mentioned by Mr. Mathews

 2   was indeed  a false  loading, which was  subsequently  removed

 3   to the  digesters.

 4                   Mr.  Mathews was very observing of  his activate^

 5   sludge  process  but  experience has shown that  a "poor-

 6   looking" activated  sludge is  not  necessarily  an indication  of

 7   something wrong in  the process.   On the contrary, some of the

 8   best  results have been obtained with gray, drab sludges.

     Also, cloudiness of the  effluent  could be  the result of

     over-aeration,  as well as underaeration.

                     The  air requirements of a  sewage activated

     sludge  plant and an industrial wastes  activated sludge

     plant can vary  considerably.  This is  evidenced by the

     necessity of maintaining 3 p.p.m. of dissolved oxygen

     at the  end  of aeration in the former,  whereas In  the latter,

     excellent operation and  results  can be obtained with less

     than  0.5 p.p.m. of  dissolved  oxygen.  As  a further compari-

     son of  activated sludge  plant information, the following

Jg   data  are presented  from  operating experiences at  Midland.

     The activated sludge plant for treatment of phenolic wastes

     uses  4,000,000  cu.  ft. of air per day  in the  treatment of

     15 to 20 m.g.d. of  waste.  This is  equivalent to  0.20

     to 0.25 cu.  ft. of  air per gallon of waste treated.   With

     a  waste flow of 16  m.g.d., the aeration period  is 80 min.

     based on the total  flow  through the  aerators.  Rate  of

 1    sludge return is 35 percent.  The suspended solids in the
 2    mixed liquor are maintained between 1,000 and 1,500 p.p.m.
 3    with a sludge index of 50.  The plant oxidizes 4 Ibs. of
 4    5-day B.O.D. per 1,000 cu. ft. of air.  This is equivalent
 5    to 67 Ibs. of 5-day B.O.D. per 1,000 cu. ft. of aeration
 6    capacity, or 250 cu. ft. of air per pound of B.O.D.
 7    satisfied.  The aeration efficiency  (pounds oxygen demand
 8    satisfied per pound oxygen blown X 100) varies from  16  to
 9    22 percent.
10                   It  should be emphasized that the above data
u    are in terms of B.O.D. satisifed, instead of removed,
12    because  the activated  sludge  process in sewage treatment
13    is a method of removing B.O.D., but not a process of
14    complete oxidation, as some of the load is transferred,
15    via the  waste activated sludge, to the digesters for final
16    destruction.
17                   The experiment at Gary demonstrated the
18    feasibility of treating ammonia still wastes by the  acti-
19    vated sludge process.  However, the conclusions drawn
20    by Mr. Mathews in  regard to mixed liquor solids concentra-
21    tion and air requirement are  open to question until  defin-
22    itely proven.  In  view of the experiences at Midland,
23    the writer must disagree with him.  However, much can be
24    learned  from experiments in the laboratory, and it is
25    hoped that Mr. Mathews can continue his good work and that
     all can  share in his future findings.


 l                              (At this point,  oral presen-
                                tation continues.)
                     Unfortunately, at that time it was not
      possible to work out an arrangement for this method of
      disposal.  Hopefully, we may eventually reach an agree-
                     Early last summer a survey of all Gary
      Steel Works sewer outlets was begun to determine the
      extent of contamination contributed by the various operating

      areas.  The survey indicated that the Coke Plant sewers
      were one of the major contributors.  As a result, an inten-
      slve survey was then started of one of the Coke Plant
      sewers with an outflow of approximately 45,000,000 gallons
      per day and is still in progress, attempting to identify

      the cause by extent of pollution from each facility or

      process.  Hopefully, by identification of the contaminant

      from each facility and process, we then start to determine

      remedial action.

                     Spent pickle liquor disposal:  "Pickling"

      (slide 27) in steel mill language refers to the immersion

      in diluted sulphuric acid solution by which steel rids

      itself of the oxide film which has formed during cool-


                     The reaction of acid and scale gradually
      reduces the strength of the solution and  this spent



 l    sulphate liquor presents the disposal problem.

 2                   Continuing research over many years has

 3    yielded many processes which promised high efficiency

 4    disposal but none has proven practical in full-scale

 5    operation except the disposal of the liquor in wells drilled

 6    to  a depth far below the water table—the level of water

 7    that may be drawn upon directly for community use or that

 8    might  find its way  into adjacent streams.

 9                   With the approval of the Indiana Stream

10    Pollution Control Board, the deep well injection method

11    of  waste sulphuric  acid disposal has been adopted.

12                   This drilling crew  (slide 28) is winding

13    up  a 43-day water conservation assignment.  They have Just

14    completed a 7-inch  well 4,000 feet down into the Mt. Simon

15    Sandstone Strata which will absorb the plant's spent

16    sulphuric acid wastes.

17                   This solution to the stubborn spent pickle

19    liquor disposal problem was developed after geological

19    studies established that deep well injection in  the Mt.

20    Simon  strata would not impair the quality of ground or

21    surface water.

22                   Our  engineering people worked closely with

23    Indiana's Stream Pollution Control Board in the design

24    and installation of this deep injection well and, at the

25    Board's request, provided test boring samples through-

     out the drilling.  The well will be in operation, providing
     complete disposal of spent pickle liquor, by late 1965
     when lagooning will be discontinued.
                    Treatment of chemical wastes:  Waste segrega-
     tion for maximum control efficiency is a basic guide
     line of our over-all waste treatment program.  A good
     example is this  (slide 29) drawing of a waste acid treat-
 8    ment plant.  It  is nearlng the construction stage now
 9    and will be operating by late 19&5.
10                   This new treatment plant will neutralize
11    acid and caustic wastes from No. 5 and No. 6 tinning
12    lines and the nitric and fluoride wastes from the stainless
13    steel pickle lines.  The widely varying acid wastes from
14    these processes have one common characteristic:  All of
is    them are effectively treated by lime neutralization.
16    In their own treatment, the caustic wastes will  also be
17    useful in neutralization of the acids.
18                   This plant, which will occupy a site adjacent
19    to our new deep  injection well, was designed in  close
20    coordination with the Indiana Stream Pollution Control
21    Board.
22                   Sanitary waste treatment:  The City of
23    Gary's Municipal Sanitary Waste Treatment Plant, which
24    treats the wastes of all U. S. Steel Gary facilities,
2s    except the Universal Atlas Cement Plant which provides

1    its own treatment, illustrates our community wide approach
2    to water conservation.
3                   Every resident of the Gary district, of
4    course, has a stake in this treatment plant.  We're
5    reminded of our personal interest when the bill arrives.
6                   We  incorporate Gary's treatment plant  as
7    part of U. S. Steel's treatment story because we have
8    three  important links to this modern plant.  First, as
9    a major taxpayer,  we shared in its construction costs.
10                   Second, between 1948 and  1952, we constructed
11    separate sewer lines from  our facilities to the treat-
12    ment plant, segregating sanitary wastes  from both storm
13    and process waters.  Our investment in this arrangement
14    of our intricate  sewer line complex involves a civic
15    benefit by preventing storm water from flooding the
16    treatment plant.
17                   Interest No. 3:  As users of the plant,
18    we pay a significant part  of its operating costs.
19                   Our community-wise approach to water con-
20    servation is working, beyond question, to the benefit of
21    everyone in Gary.
22                   We  have presented this rather comprehensive
23    review of industrial waste practices at  our Gary plants
24    in the hope that as conferees, you will  gain a better
25    understanding of the problems and the type of things  we

 i    have done to  solve them.  As  I have  indicated,  all the
 2    facilities  that  have  been constructed  in  recent years  in
 3    our Gary plants  have  very efficient  water treatment  controls
 4    installed as  a matter of routine.  This has been done
 5    not only to comply with the requirements  of the Indiana
 6    Stream Pollution Control Board,  but  also  in compliance
 7    with  the Nationwide policy  of U. S.  Steel to provide
 8    adequate waste treatment on new installations.
 9                   As I  am sure the conferees are well aware,
10    the  cost of installation of waste treatment facilities
n    in an industrial plant, like those in the steel industry,
12    can be very high—particularly  when it is necessary to
13    install equipment on  facilities that have been  built
14    a number of years in  the past.
is                   In recent years,  the Indiana Stream Pollution
16    Control Board has Intensified its program to have water
17    treatment facilities  installed  at all industrial
18    locations and they have put themselves on record that  they
jg    expect a rapid acceleration in  the development  of such
20    facilities  in the years ahead.   U. S.  Steel,  like all
21    industry, has accepted the  program of the Indiana Board
22    in the spirit in which it has been formulated,   we believe
23    that they are qualified by  knowledge and  experience  of
24    industrial  practices  in their State  to see that this pro-
25    gram is  carried  to its logical conclusion.

 l                   As I have indicated, treatment facilities

 2    are not only costly to install and costly to operate,

 3    but do not result in any increased production or advan-

 4    tages.  Some members of the Indiana legislature have recog-

 5    nized this fact and are promoting legislation which

 6    would provide for exemption from certain state taxes in

 7    cases where facilities used for water treatment purposes

 8    are installed.

 9                   I have appreciated this opportunity to

10    discuss with you the industrial waste control practices

11    of U. S. Steel at its northwestern Indiana plants.  The

12    interest that you have taken in my remarks is deeply

13    appreciated.  I hope that what I have said has been help-

14    ful to you as you seek to determine the size and scope

15    of any interstate water problems which may exist in

16    the Calumet area.

17         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Howell.

18                   Are there any comments or questions?

19         MR. POSTON:  I would like to ask Mr. Howell if he

2o    intends to make a statement at a later date concerning

21    the Southworks Plant of United States Steel.  Is this

22    anticipated?

23         MR. HOWELL:  I am prepared to do that if requested.

24         MR. POSTON:  I see.

25         MR. KLASSEN:   I was interested in a couple of points

 l    Mr. Howell; principally it centers around your pickle
 2    liquor problem.
 3                   Do I understand that  all your pickle will
 4    be discharged to this disposal well  by 1965?
 6         MR. HOWELL:  Yes, sir, from the Gary facilities.
 6         MR. KLASSEN:  And the next two  may be more for
 7    personal information.
 8                   The newer process of  descaling is mechanical
 g    descaling,  is that it?
10         MR. HOWELL:  Descaling and high pressure water
n    separation.  Yes, sir.
12         MR. KLASSEN:  Yes, and this scale then will be
13    handled in  the normal settling sedimentation?
14         MR. HOWELL:  Yes.
15         MR. KLASSEN:  Out of Just—Another out of personal
16    interest.   I have seen what you successfully did at one
17    of your Illinois plants on pickle liquor to protect the
18    lake in Waukegan and it is quite a novel process.
19                   I am wondering why this wasn't applied
20    here.  Was this a cheaper method, a  better method?
21    Wasn't your waste at northern Indiana amenable to the
22    same process?
23         MR. HOWELL:  The answer to that, Mr. Klassen, is the
24    Waukegan facilities generate something less than 20 percent
25    of the amount of pickle liquor generated at Gary,


 l    and it would not be practical to use that solution at

 2    Gary.

 3         MR. KLASSEN:  Also, getting into the area  of  money,

 4    I was  interested because we work with a number  of  Atomic

     Energy installations  and know the high percentage  of

 6    waste  costs.

 7                    Have you Just a  round, rough  figure of

 8    what percentage of the capital  investments in the  City

 9    of  Gary  works  has gone into waste treatment?

10                    I know these figures don't mean  much, but

n    I mean in  percentages, is  it 1, 2, 3?

12         MR. HOWELL:  I am sorry, sir, I can't answer  that.

13    I don't  know.

J4         MR. KLASSEN:  One last question.

                     This is an  observation.   I was particularly

     interested in,  I think it  was the second very fine picture

17    you had  here of your  new works  and I was particularly

     interested in  the tall derrick  and this boom that  extended

     way up into the sky.

20                    I wondered  whether I detected a  piece of

     pie on the end  of it?

22                    (Laughter.)

„         MR. HOWELL:  That is  possible.

          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Any  more  comments or questions?

          MR. LANE:  Mr. Chesrow.

1         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Colonel Chesrow.
2         MR. CHESROW:  Yes, please.
3                   You referred  to  all  that  United  States
4    Steel has been doing  in contributing to  the economy of
5    the  country, rails, bridges, skyscrapers.
6                   Those  are  fine.   I don't  think you are
7    devoting, and  it  was  brought out as you  were asked what
8    percentages go into Just  plain  people that  make all this
9    possible.   We've  got  to give due consideration  to the
10    time off that  these people have. Now, it's been borne
n    out  that we are getting pollution into the  lake and we
12    are  getting it into Illinois.
13                   The beaches in Indiana and the beaches
14    on our  South Side of  Chicago are closed  due definitely
is    to polluted water.
16                   Now, the statement is a very, very fine
17    one; but the problems of  getting rid of  the actual
19    polluted material —  you  have a dredge in the Grand Calumet
19    to remove this blast  furnace flue dust that you speak of,
20    that's  fine.
21                   Now, a good percentage of that is coming
22    down into,  as a pollutant, into  our Lake Michigan.
23                   Wouldn't it be possible to set up a
24    sediment basin and avoid that flowing down the Grand
25    Calumet and avoiding this so-called derrick that you have

 1    permanently set up there to remove all of this?

 2         MR. HOWELL:  I think I brought out in my statement,

 3    sir, that my report on flue dust recovery is not reported

 4    as the final action.  This, we are studying.

 5         MR. CHESROW:  Well, you are devoting, again you

 6    are making such an extensive study on development, in

 7    enlarging your plant facilities, I think more time

 8    and effort should be given to enlarging your pollution pro-

 9    blem facilities.

10         MR. HOWELL:  Well, sir, you made the statement that

n    a large percentage of this flue dust flows down the Grand

12    Calumet some 12 to 14 miles and then north and gets into

13    the lake.

14                   I don't agree with that.  I think in years

15    past this was partially true.  In recent years, the Army

16    Engineers, I think, have determined that very little

17    of this flue dust gets into the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal

18    from the Gary facilities.

19         MR. CHESROW:  Well, in your Indiana book you dls-

20    charge indirectly into Lake Michigan; process waste

21    waters are discharged into the Grand Calumet.

22                   Benzol condensates are discharged to the

23    River.

24                   Is any processing done prior to their

25    going into the Grand Calumet?

 I         MR. HOWELL:  Definitely, my report  covered this.
 2         MR. CHESROW:  But the  Indiana book  here,  Indiana
 3    Stream Pollution Control book does not qualify the state-
 4    ment.
 5                    I am  reading from this book,  "Benzol
 6    condensates  are discharged  to the river."
 7                    "Untreated Waste waters to  the  Grand
 8    Calumet River."
 9         MR. HOWELL:  The facts are, sir, when each facility
10    was installed  at Gary by United States Steel,  entirely
n    adequate controls were  installed at  that time  for the
12    production loads that we experienced at  that time.  And
13    in accordance  with the  technology at that  time.
14                    I stated that the facilities in all cases
15    are not adequate today  and  that our  production increases—
!6    Or our waste treatment  control  have  failed to  keep pace
n    with our production  Increases.
18         MR. CHESROW:  Well, thank  you.
19                    Yes,  I was going to—You  answered  ay next
20    question by  going at this in reverse and you have answered
21    that very  well.
22                    One other question—What  do you consider
23    unreasonable pollution?
24                   Here  in your  statement on page  6 it  says,
25    "The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board has set forth

I    on September 6, 1963, by Mr. Blucher Poole, the Board's
2    Executive Secretary:  1.  Unreasonable pollution be
3    abated as soon as possible."
4                   Is there a set standard for what is con-
5    sidered reasonable and what is considered unreasonable?
6         MR. HOWELL:  Well, certainly that is not my language.
7    I didn't make that statement.
8                   I am quoting; you will have to ask somebody
9    else.
10         MR. CHESROW:  But, the standard has been set for
u    your corporation and your following the standard?
12         MR. HOWELL:  I know of no such standard.
13         MR. CHESROW:  Thank you.
14         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  You have another question?
15         MR. CHESROW:  I was going to ask if I could have a —
16    Would it be possible to get a copy of the standards set
J7    forth by Indiana as far as reasonable and unreasonable
..    pollution?
          MR. POOLE:  I don't know if we have one, Colonel,
2Q   as far as reasonable or unreasonable is concerned.
21                  We got one simple standard which I would
22   be happy to send to you.  I think in connection with
23   this, Just to clarify the air, that I think there is
24   still some unreasonable pollution coming from the Gary
25   works of United States Steel, Mr. Howell, oils —

 1         MR. CHESROW:  What Is reasonable?  He is refering
 2    to you, Mr. Poole, in all due respect to you —
 3         MR. POOLE:  I think reasonable, Colonel, is pollu-
 4    tion that does not damage another beneficial water use.
 5                   In other words, I don't happen to sub-
 6    scribe to the theory that you keep every drop out, but I
 7    think you must keep out enough that you do not damage other
 8    beneficial water use.
 9         MR. CHESROW:  Not to belabor the subject, but what
10    I am pointing out is that he does refer to the rule  set
11    forth on September 6 of 1964 that are their guide lines.
12                   No other questions.
13         MR. POSTON:  I would like to ask Mr. Howell, if, in
14    connection with his pickle liquor well, would you have
15    stand-by treatment in the event that your well fails  to
16    function?
17         MR. HOWELL:  Yes, sir.  We will have a second well
18    plus a lime neutralization plant.
19         MR. POSTON:  I see.  Those will be available.   It is
20    similar to what inland proposed.
21         MR. HOWELL:  Yes, sir.
22         MR. POSTON:  Do you agree with the figures on waste
23    discharges in the Grand Calumet River as shown in the
24    Public Health Service report?
25         MR. HOWELL:   Mr. Poston, we have no scientifically


 l    reliable data as to water analyses except on newer facili-

 2    ties that I have shown on the slides.

 3         MR. POSTON:  Then, you wouldn't question the dis-

 4    charges as posed in the Blue, February report of the

 5    Public Health Service?

 B         MR. HOWELL:  No, sir, I do not.

 7         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Any further comments?

 8         MR. POSTON:  I don't think so.

 9         MR. CHESROW:  I have one.

10         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Yes, Colonel?

11         MR. CHESROW:  Do the figures reported in our bible

12    here, the Blue Book, so-called Blue Book, 1,700 pounds

13    of cyanide per day.  Is any effort made to recover,

14    treat or dissipate the cyanide?

15         MR. HOWELL:  No, sir.

16         MR. CHESROW:  Where does that 1,700 pounds per day

17    go, please?

18         MR. HOWELL:  Goes to the river, of course.

19         MR. CHESROW:  Grand Calumet?

20         MR. HOWELL:  Yes, sir, it was found in the river by

21    the Public Health Service.

22         MR. CHESROW:  I am wondering if this cyanide is a

23    contributing factor.  The other day we heard about the

24    fish and birds on Lake Michigan.

25                   Cyanide being the most deadly poison we


     have, I wonder whether this is a contributing factor to

     the poisoning of the loons and the birds and the ducks

     that have been referred to in excess of 10,000.  If so,

     I am surprised that nothing is being done to abate the

     amount of cyanide that goes into the river.

          MR. HOWELL:  As I said in my statement, we are

     making an extensive survey at the moment and we are

     studying this problem.

          MR. CHESROW:  But, you still proceed to build









bigger and better plants to roll out more  steel to build

higher skyscrapers but this affects the  little man, the

man on the street, and that's who we are interested in.

               I thought that the purpose  of this session

was to protect the people and it is in that interest that

I am directing my questions and especially to the chemicals

that are being dumped into our waters.

               These figures are correct,  you accept them

as being correct?

     MR. HOWELL:  I am not in a position to comment on

the Public Health Service report, since  we have no know-

ledge as to the technics of sampling, duration, location,

method of analysis, et cetera.

     MR. CHESROW:  They may have been received from some-

body at your organization,  your engineers  and your chemists.

I don't think these were picked up —


 1         MR. HOWELL:  No, sir, the Public Health Service got

 2    these figures themselves.

 3         MR. CHESROW:  Well, from somebody?

 4         MR. HOWELL:  From analysis of the river.

 5         MR. CHESROW:  Came up with the factor that you are

 6    dumping 1,700 pounds of cyanide a day?

 7         MR. HOWELL:  That's a calculated figure based on

 8    a sample taken at a bridge.

 9         MR. CHESROW:  Could it be more?

10         MR. HOWELL:  It could be less, I am not in a position

11    to say.

12         MR. CHESROW:  Thank you.

13         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any further comments or

14    questions?

15                   (No response.)

16                   If not, Mr. Howell, thank you.

17                   I want to commend you.  It seems to me you

18    are the ideal type of witness for anyone.

19                   I have never seen a combination of more

20    exalted rococo and industrial prose as was in your

21    statement and yet such plain answers to questions.

22                   The combination is wonderful.

23         MR. KLASSEN:  Mr. Chairman, this is a meeting for

24    the common people.  Just use ordinary language, please.

25         MR. POOLE:  American Oil Company, Mr. R. C. Mallatt,

     is Director of the Technical Services.   He will make the
          MR. MALLATT:  Mr. Chairman, distinguished conferees,
     ladies and gentlemen:
                    My name is Russell C. Mallatt.  As Techni-
     cal Service Superintendent at the Whiting, Indiana, re-
     finery of the American Oil Company, I am here to present
     a brief summary of our Company's program and facilities
 9    for improving the quality of effluent water.  My discussion
10    will cover both our Whiting refinery and the Calumet
n    Nitrogen Products plant at Hammond, Indiana.
12                   The principal points that I shall make
13    are two:
14                   First, American Oil has demonstrated its
is    interest in the purity of public water in practical ways.
16    In 19^8 we spent several million dollars on facilities
17    for the treatment of wastes in the effluent water at the
18    refinery, and in 1960 we spent more millions of dollars
19    on additional facilities for the same purpose.  Beyond
20    that, we have spent considerable sums on research in the
21    complex problems of water quality control.
22                   These were not investments made with any
23    hope of earning a profit on them.  They were expenditures
24    made to protect the quality of Lake Michigan water.
25                   Second,  despite this spending of time and

     money and energy,  we are under no illusion that we have
     completed our Job in this important area.  We have plans
     already in the works for further improvements, some of
 4    which will be brought to realization within the current
 5    year.
 6                   The need for improvement in the quality
     of public water is obvious.  We ask only that any proposal
     for obtaining the needed improvement should be demonstrated
 9    to be in the public interest and should be technically
10    and economically feasible.
11                   Most of the research leading to the con-
12    struction of waste treatment facilities at each of our
13    several refineries has been carried out at Whiting.  We
14    have found that effluent quality control is a complex
15    business, and technical and economic considerations
16    have resulted in the development of a unique solution
17    to the problems at each location.
18                   At Whiting, we use the Bio-Flotation process,
19    which I shall describe in some detail after presenting
20    a brief summary of our present effluent treating facilities
21    and pertinent background information.
22                   The American Oil Company refinery at Whiting,
23    Indiana, has a crude oil processing capacity of 207,000
24    barrels a day and produces a complete line of petroleum
25    products.  Process and cooling water is pumped from

 l    Lake Michigan  at  a maximum rate  of  about  140  million gallons
 2    a  day  and  is returned  to the  lake after treatment.
 3                    Most  of the water is used  only for cool-
 4    ing.   Ninety to one  hundred millions of gallons a day
 5    are recirculated through cooling towers and reused.   All
 6    sanitary sewage is routec! to  the Hammond  sewage treatment
 7    plant—none enters the lake in our  effluents.  I would,
 8    of course, like to stress this point.
 9                    Process water  is gravity settled in a large,
10    modern oil-water separator of API design  and  then routed
11    to the bio-flotation process  for secondary treatment prior
12    to being returned to Lake Michigan.  Cooling water is
13    handled in a separate  collecting system and API oil-water
H    separator.
15                    Construction of the  Whiting refinery began
16    in 1889.  Until 1924,  spent cooling water, process water,
17    and sanitary sewage  from the  refinery were handled in
18    a  common collecting  system and the  combined effluent re-
19    ceived primary treatment.  Thus, we have  also had some
20    form of treatment.
21                    In 1924 a separate collecting  system for
22    cooling water  was installed,  and in 1934  the  carrying
23    capacity of the process  water collecting  system was  greatly
24    expanded.  In  connection with this  expansion,  a large new
25    oil-water  separator of API design was  constructed


 1    to provide additional protection for Lake Michigan.

 2                   Water quality requirements had grown as

 3    the crude running capacity of the refinery increased,

 4    and the years 1941-43 saw appreciable further expansion

 5    of the refinery to produce 100-octane aviation gasoline,

 6    toluene, and other material vitally needed in the war

 7    effort.

 8                   Despite war-time restrictions on manpower

 9    and materials, we began work on a major  expansion of

10    our waste handling facilities, developing these plans  in

11    cooperation with the Indiana Board of Health, engineers

12    with whom we have always had the finest  and most effective

13    working relationship.

u                   Engineering was completed and construction

is    began  as soon as the Government would permit use of materials

16    for such a project.  Sixteen pumping stations and a good

17    many miles of collection systems were installed and on

18    December 13* 1948, a large, modern API oil-water separator,

19    consisting of 34 units and covering about 4 acres of ground,

20    was completed and placed in operation.   The new separator

21    handled process water, the former separator was placed

22    in spent cooling water service and all sanitary sewage

23    was routed to the Hammond sewage treatment plant.  This

24    is the facility mentioned earlier that was constructed

25    in 1948.

 i                   With the  startup of the new facilities,
 2    we undertook on our own  initiative a  comprehensive review
 3    of all operations within the  refinery, as part  of  a con-
 4    tinuing good-housekeeping program.  Sixteen monitoring
 5    stations were provided as a means of  exercising control
 6    over the quality of process and cooling  water discharged
 7    to the collecting systems within the  refinery.
 8                   These monitoring stations are  automatic.
 9                   Permanent monitoring stations  were  also
10    installed  on the two effluent streams, process  and cooling
n    water, being discharged  to  Lake Michigan.  Equipment at
12    these stations collect composite samples  over  a  24-hour
13    period and analysis of the  samples provides a measure
14    of the quality of our effluents.
15                   For many  years a separate Reclamation
16    Department has operated  the conservation and  waste treat-
17    ment facilities within the  refinery and  has assisted
18    other departments in improving the quality of both air
lg    and water. About 19^9 management instituted  a  long-range
20    research program aimed at evaluating  processes  for secondary
21    water treatment at Whiting  and other  locations.
22                   Prom 1950 to 1955, our technical service
23    staff studied the applicability of many  conventional
24    treatment methods to the further purification of refinery
25    effluents.  These studies included laboratory and  pilot

 1    plant work, some on a very large scale, on chemical
 2    flocculation, trickling filters, activated sludge, bio-
 3    logical treatment  in oxidation ponds, chlorination,  ozoni-
 4    zation, and other  processes.  All of these processes were
 5    found to have definite limitations for use at Whiting.
 6                   However, as an outgrowth of this  extensive
 7    research, we developed the essentially new process,  which
 8    we  call bio-flotation.  This process, which we have
 9    protected by patents, embodies the principles of sedi-
10    mentation, biological oxidation, and air  flotation.
n    The process features a novel means of aerating water by
12    means of rotating  water wheels or brushes.
13                   The air is impelled into the water as a
u    myriad of fine bubbles, which provides maximum surface
15    area and efficient oxygen transfer.  The  new secondary
16    treatment facilities, placed in operation at Whiting in
17    I960, are of this  type.  These are the facilities mentioned
19    earlier which were constructed in I960.
19                   Our present lakefront treatment facilities
20    are shown in Figure 1—Are shown in the first slide,
21    if  we may have it, please.
22                   Spent process water ic carried from the
23    refinery through a large underground collecting  system
24    and  enters the modern oil-water separator, shown in  the
25    center of the figure, through a bar-screen located at point

l    "A".  The purpose of the bar screen is to remove any
2    large pieces of solids which may have entered the
3    collecting system.
4                   The water is then distributed among the
5    34 compartments of the oil-water separator.  Each compart-
6    ment consists of a primary and secondary stage and each stage
7    provides almost two hours of retention time at present
8    flow rates.  The compartments are equipped with
9    mechanical skimmers or flight scrapers to recover the
10    separated oil from the surface and remove separated solids
11    from the floor of the compartments.
12                   The oil and water removed from the surface
13    is transferred to a large rectangular basin shown between
14    the parallel roadways near the center of the separator.
15                   From this collecting basin, oil and emul-
16    sions are transferred to four emulsion treating tanks
17    shown at the right-center.  Oil from emulsion treating is
18    returned to the refinery; the water is returned to the
19    separator.  The sludge, which is removed from the bottom
20    of the separator compartments,  is transferred to the
21    vertical tank at the left end of the separator and processed
22    through a centrifuge to recover occluded oil and water.
23                   Effluent from the oil-water separator is
24    lifted  by.huge  pumps  located  in  the  two-story building
25    adjacent  to the separator  and discharged  into the reinforced

 i    concrete-walled channel, which carries it to the bio-
 2    flotation basin shown in the lower left portion of the
 3    picture.
 4                   Water enters the upper right hand compart-
 5    ment through  a distribution baffle.  The first compart-
 6    ment provides about three hours of additional gravity
 7    settling.  Facilities are available for the periodic  re-
 8    moval  of oil  from the surface of this first presettling
 9    compartment of the bio-unit.  The water passes from
10    the presettling compartment over control weirs and through
11    the mechanical aeration devices located at B, C, D
12    and E.  The retention time in each of the compartments
13    following the aeratixm stages is about three hours.
14                   Biological oxidation, additional sedi-
15    mentation, and air flotation of biological solids and
16    oil occurs in each aerated basin.
17                   The surface skimmings are removed by  a
18    patented skimming device at point E.  The treated effluent
19    passes over a level control weir at point F, through
20    the outfall channel, and enters the lake at a location
21    not shown on  the photograph.
22                   Although the performance of both the  pri-
23    mary and secondary treatment facilities has fully met
24    our expectations,  we recognize that the quality of our
25    process water effluent can be further improved.  Mere

l    expansion of the facilities  is not the  answer, however,
2    We believe that the best way to  achieve further quality
3    improvement is to  reduce the load on  and improve  the1
4    performance of these  facilities.
5                   The refinery  has  undergone rapid moderni-
6    zation in the last ten years. Despite  an increase in
7    the  capacity of the refinery, maximum total water pumped
8    from the lake for  use in the refinery has been reduced
g    from 260 million gallons a day in the early 1950's to
10    140  million gallons a day  in 1964.  Retirement of obsolescent
n    process units has  brought  about  a significant reduction
12    in the amount of oil  and other contaminants entering
13    the  refinery collecting system.
14                   Within the  next 30 days, we expect to bring
15    on-streara a modern hydrofining unit,  which will permit us
16    to retire the acid and clay  treating  section of a lubrl-
17    eating oil dewaxlng plant.  This modernization step will
18    eliminate a source of finely divided  solids which have
}g    tended to interfere with operating our  effluent quality
2Q    improvement facilities at  peak efficiency.
21                   During the  coming year,  we plan to install
22    additional aeration equipment in one  or more compart-
23    ments  of the bio-flotation basin on an  experimental  basis.
24    If beneficial results  are  obtained,  these  facilities will
25    be made  permanent.

 l                   We are also watching with  interest the

 2    success of neighboring companies in the use of deep wells

 3    for the disposal of  small-volume,  concentrated wastes.

 4    Our own studies show that the geology of  the  area is

 5    highly favorable, and we are giving serious consideration

 6    to drilling  a  5000 ft. deep well for this purpose.  A

 7    few carefully selected wastes which have a high oxygen

 8    demand would be pumped down the well.  This would reduce

 9    the load  on  our present treating facilities and  improve

10    the quality  of water entering the  lake.

ll                   Let's turn now to a very brief discussion

12    of Calumet Nitrogen  Corporation facilities.

13                   It is pertinent to  point out that the plant

u    began operations in  1956 as a joint project of Standard

15    Oil Company  (lndl£.na) and Sinclair Refining Company.

16    The facilities are operated by personnel  from American

17    Oil's Whiting  Refinery.

18                   At present, the plant produces a  maximum

19    of 450 tons  per day  of ammonia, a  part of which  is con-

2o    verted to nitric acid for subsequent use  in the  manufacture

21    of ammonium  nitrate  solutions, which are  in turn

22    blended with ammonia and urea to produce  a variety of

23    agricultural chemicals.  To provide a permanent  solution

24    to the problem, an agreement was worked out with the

25    City of Hammond to send the most contaminated wastes to

 i    the municipal sewage plant for treatment.

 2                   A tie-in to the Hammond  sewer  system was

 3    completed  in July  1964, and  contaminants entering

 4    the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal from the  Calumet  Nitrogen

 5    Corporation plant  have been  greatly reduced.  The  data

 B    in Table VI-5c of  the February 19^5,  Public Health

 7    Service report on  Illinois-Indiana water pollution were,

 8    as the report itself says, taken before this  connection

 9    to the Hammond sanitary sewage system.

10                   These, then,  are  the two points  that I

H    said  at the outset I would make:  First, American  Oil

12    has demonstrated by major expenditures  on  research and

13    facilities and considerable  success in  results, its practl-

14    cal concern with Improving the quality  of  public water.

is    Second, we recognize that there  is room for further im-

16    provement  in our facilities  and  operations, and we are

17    studying steps to  Insure  that improvement.

18                   We  hope that  future water quality goals

19    will  be established on a  technically sound and  reasonable

20    basis.

21                   Some questions in this area still need

22    answers:   What, for example, are the  proper and practical

23    quality requirements for  the different  uses of  water?  What

24    are reasonable water-quality goals for Lake Michigan?

25    Where will they be applied?


2                   Through active participation in the work

2    of the Technical Committee of the Great Lakes-Illinois

3    River Basin Project, our company has tried to contri-

4    bute to the answers to these and other pertinent questions,

.                   Unfortunately, this Important work is not

6    yet completed, and I for one would hope that no prect-

7    pitate action will be taken before the results of

0    this careful study are in and can be fully evaluated.

.                   Now, although the foregoing concludes

     my formal remarks, I would like to address a few com-

     ments to the recommendations in Section 9 of the Public

     Health Service report that pertains to industry.

                    Recommendation #1 pertains to further

     exclusion or treatment of wastes by industrial plants.

                    Ours is a continuing program and the

     additional steps which we have in progress and under

     study are consistent with meeting the objectives of

     this recommendation.

                    Recommendation #2 pertains to permanent

     programs of sampling plus submitting effluent quality

     reports to the appropriate State agencies.

                    We have been doing essentially this for

     the past 18 years.

                    Recommendation #3 pertains to appropriate

     state or local agencies establishing a system for

     monitoring the quality of public waters at strategic points,
                    In the past we have made our own  limited
     surveys of the quality of lake waters  and would  be  glad
     to cooperate with the Stream Pollution Control Board in
     any program that may be deemed appropriate.
                    In conclusion, I would  like to show  five
     or six colored slides to give you still a better under-
 8    standing of the scope of our operations.
 9                   This is a general view  of one section of
10    the refinery showing its proximity to  Lake Michigan.
11    The units which you see in the foreground are cracking
12    units essential for the production of  gasoline and  28
13    associated vapor-recovery units, the cooling towers from
14    which the water vapor is rising are, of course,  an
15    essential part of our water reuse program.
16                   I think I probably should get in  a plug
17    for our effective air pollution control also.  In this
18    slide you will notice the air over the refinery  is
19    quite clean.
20                   Can we have the next slide, please?
21                   This is an aerial view  of our waste  treat-
22    ment facilities.  It is quite similar  to the one you
23    saw presented by the Public Health Service on the first
24    day.
25                   Near the top of the slide is the API

 l    separator which is used for processing our cooling water.
 2                   This slide does show  something that the
 3    previous one did not; namely, the bay into which  our
 4    effluent discharges.
 5                   You will note here there  is no free-
 e    floating oil to create an unsightly  appearance  either
 7    in this slide or the one shown by the Public Health
 9    Service on Tuesday.
 9                   I am rather proud of  the  appearance of
10    our  refinery effluent.
n                   May we have the next  slide, please?
12                   This is a close-up view of one end of  the
13    biological treatment facilities and  shows in some detail
14    the  location of three or four areas  of aeration equipment
15    and  shows the effervescent—The water inside the  pond is
16    considerably deeper than outside.
17                   You notice the lightening in color as  it
18    goes through the treatment process.
19                   Next slide.
20                   This is a close up view showing  some de-
21    tail on the aeration devices which are employed.  This
22    equipment is capable of putting in of the order of 40
23    pounds of oxygen per linear foot per day, we got  720
24    linear feet of the things so you can see we are putting
25    in a tremendous amount of oxygen for purification purpose.

 l                    Next  slide.
 2                    This  is  the  final slide and I inserted it
 3     simply to give  you a better feel for the size of these
 4     facilities.   You are looking now at the presettling com-
 5     partment with the water-entry canal coming in from the
 S     lower right-hand side.   The gray and purple boxes at
 7     the end are  electrical  control equipment for the pumps,
 8     sumps, and other equipment  associated with the opera-
 9     tion.
10                    I believe that is all of the slides.
U                    Now,  in  addition to the facilities which
12     I have discussed and shown, we, of course, do carry out a
13     number of additional, highly beneficial, programs and
14     good housekeeping practices which have been mentioned by
15     others but not  named specifically in my report.
16                    For example, we also seal most of our
17     spent caustics  and we return all our spent acids and
18     acid sludges to the  processor for recovery.
19                    We have  ballast water handling facilities
20     and separators  in our dock  area and so on.  These are
21     actually not named in the report but we have them.
22                    Mr. Chairman,  this concludes my presenta-
23    tion unless  there  are questions.
24         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Thank you.  Are there any comments
25    or questions?



 1         MB. KLASSEN:   I wanted  to  ask Mr. Mallatt when,

 2     specifically  referring to Calumet Nitrogen  on page 19*

 3     I  think of  the  Indiana report,  it indicated that  your

 4     waste  waters  from the American  plant  plus your cooling

 5     water  blow-down is discharged to a separation basin.

 6                    Is this the waste that now goes to

 7     Hammond?

 8         MR. MALLATT:   Yes,  the  bulk of that does now go to

 9     Hammond.

10         MR. KLASSEN:   In other  words, the waste from the

il     ammonia plant plus your  cooling tower blow-down goes to

12     the  Hammond area?

13         MR. MALLATT:   Mr. Klassen, what  we have done there

14     is to  divert  to Hammond  the  blow-down waters that contain

15     the  predominant amount of ammonia nitrogen  and total nl-

16     trogen alone.  They were shown  in that tabulation.

17                    Actually, these  amounts have been  reduced

18     about  80 percent,  they are 20 percent of previous

19     values and  we have additional plans which will make

20     another 3C  percent reduction.

21         MR. CHESROW:   What  is the  oil concentration  at the

22     effluent of the bio-flotation process?

23         MR. MALLATT:   You are talking about concentrations

24    of oil, you have to define your analytical—In order that

25    we are  talking on a common basis with  the  Public  Health


     Service report and use a pH method which is the one used

2    by the Public Health Service report.

.                   The oil concentration  on a total average

4    basis would be of the order of  10 to  15 parts.  If you

     are talking on a few parts per  million of oil, this is

e    not in any sense floating oil but it  will impart  at most

     a slight  florescence to the water.  The figures I quoted

     are combined, which is consistent with the—

          MR.  CHESROW:  Parts per million  would be 10?

          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Ten to 15.

          MR.  CHESROW:  One other question.

          MR.  MALLATT:  Somewhat higher on the process water,

     some lower on the cooling, the  cooling water is probably

     four to five parts per million.

          MR.  CHESROW:  You have done a fine Job in reducing

     the water from 260 million gallons per day down to 140.

                    I was wondering  if any thought had been

     given to  recirculation?

          MR.  MALLATT:  We are recirculating about 100 million

     gallons through cooling towers which  were shown in one

     of the slides.

          MR.  CHESROW:  How about the balance, does that go—

     That goes into Lake Michigan?

          MR.  MALLATT:  That is right.

          MR.  CHESROW:   I'm Just  wondering.

 1         MR. MALLATT:  The amount of so-called contaminants

 2    in our cooling effluent are so very low they do not

 3    constitute -a problem.

 4                   I mentioned in our cooling tower, our oil

     concentrations are probably of the order of four to five

     parts per million by the APH.

                    Our suspended solids are also very low and

     when you have this situation, it certainly is not Justi-

     fiable to practice additional recirculation.

10                   Your cooling exchangers, so on, in the

     refinery are designed for water at certain temperatures;

12    in connection with new units we do give consideration to

13    the relative merits of additional cooling.

14         MR. CHESROW:  Thank you, my thought was to try to

15    prevent even that effluent from going to Lake Michigan.

16         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any further comments?

17         MR. POSTON:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask

     Mr. Mallatt whether he disagrees with the figures of

19    the amounts of waste discharged as shown in the Public

     Health Service report of February that applied to the

21    American Oil Company,

22                   I did note in one place he indicated a

23    change.

24                   I mean, at the time this test was made,

25    these figures compared with your results.

 l         MR. MALLATT:  I would have no reason for taking

 2    exception to these dat% Mr. Poston.  I think they  quite

 3    probably could have been the values on the  sampling day

 4    involved.

 5                   In other words, they fall within the

 6    normal range of probability for the quality of our

 7    effluent.

 8                   All right.

 g         MR. POSTON:  Now, one other question that I would

10    like to  ask concerns the taste and odor problem that  is

ll    occasioned at the South District Treatment  Plant of the

12    Chicago Water Department.  They indicate that one  of

13    their greatest problems comes from hydrocarbon type

14    odors, and I wondered whether—I realize that there are

15    other refineries and other sources for this, but,  I

18    wondered whether you would care to comment  on this as

17    to what this might consist of, how this might be traced

18    a little better to the actual sources.

19                   This has been a very difficult problem

20    from the standpoint that nobody, no one knows what it is

21    and the  analytical procedures for collecting the small

22    amounts involved are also difficult.

23                   I wondered if you would care to comment

24    on that.

25         MR.  MALLATT:   I believe that the Public Health


1    Service presentations shows very clearly that the bulk

2    of the oil does not come from oil refineries.

3                   Therefore, I think it is a little unfor-

4    tunate to refer to this as refinery type odor.

5                   Oil is oil regardless of the source.

6         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Are there any further comments

7    or questions?

8                   You know, there is one thing I wondered

9    about.

10                   You said at American Oil, before you put

n    that effluent in Lake Michigan, do you run that through

12    a "final filter"

13         MR. MALLATT:  I have to confess we do not.

14                   (Laughter.)

15         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you.

16         MR. POOLE:  Next is American Maize-Products and

17    Dr. G. H. Mclntosh, who is Chief Chemist for the Company.

18    He is going to make their presentation.

I9         DR. MCINTOSH:  Mr. Chairman, members, and conferees,

20    ladies and gentlemen:

21                   My name is George H. Mclntosh.  I am

22    Chief Chemist-Quality Control of the American Maize-

23    Products Company, Hammond (Roby), Indiana, on whose

24    behalf  I am speaking today.

25                  American  Maize-Products  Company is  a

 i    manufacturer of  starches  and  syrups,  and we derive these
 2    principal products  from corn  as the raw material.   Our
 3    plant was built  in  1907,  and  is located in Hammond,
 4    Indiana, although our post office  address is Roby.
 5                   The  plant  is located approximately  2,000
 6    ft.  from the south  shore  of Lake Michigan.
 7                   We have a  36 inch fresh water Intake
 9    2,200 ft. off-shore and a 36  inch  outfall back into the
 9    lake about  800 ft.  off-shore. We  pump an average  of
10    11 million  gallons  of water from the  lake each day of
n    operation,  and return to  the  lake  as  cooking water an
12    average of  9 million gallons. The 2  million gallons
13    that are retained are treated in our  water treatment de-
14    partment and are used by  our  power department,  in  cer-
15    tain stages of our  process.
16                   The  process that we employ to derive starch
17    from corn and  to isolate  the  other components  in the
18    kernel is called the wet  milling process, and  this process
19    is typical  of  what  is sometimes termed a "bottled-up"
20    system.
21                   The  essential  components of the  kernel of
22    corn are the germ,  which  contains  the oil, the  gluten,
23    starch and  fiber.   Relatively large volumes of  water
24    are  used in the  process,  first to  steep the corn,  which
25    in turn softens  it  and facilitates the separation  of

 l    the kernel's components; second, to slurry the material
 2    after grinding and thus to have the water used as a
 3    vehicle for transporting the material through the various
 4    stages of process; third, as cooling water; and fourth,
 5    for manufacture of steam by the power department.
 6                   The primary objective of our entire process
 7    is to isolate the starch.  The germ, gluten, and fiber
 g    are considered by-products, although they have valuable
 9    uses.
10                   The starch, which comprises about 76 percent
n    of the corn kernel on the dry solids basis, is washed
12    free of solubles and is either processed to dry starch
13    products, or converted to corn syrups.  Fresh water
14    enters the system only for washing the starch in the final
15    stage, and about 10 gallons of water is used in this way
16    for each bushel of corn ground.
17                   A plant processing 50,000 bushels of corn
lg    per day will produce about 500,000 gallons of process
19    waters which have to be concentrated by evaporation.
20    The raw water required to condense the vapors in the
21    evaporation will approach 3 to 4 million gallons per day.
22                   Another 4 to 6 million gallons of raw
23    water is required in the concentration of the corn syrup.
24    It is in the concentration of these liquors that traces
     of the product are carried to the condensing or cooling

l    waters.
2                   At this point I would like to touch on some
3    of the highlights in our experience with waste control.
4    In 1940 sanitary sewage facilities were made available
5    to the plant by the Hammond Sanitary District, and from
6    that time on—about 25 years, now—no sanitary sewage
7    has been included in the waters that we have returned
8    to Lake Michigan.
9                   In 1944, we launched an extensive waste
10    abatement program that spanned a six year period, and which
11    incorporated these major improvements in our in-plant
12    systems and methods:
13                   The isolation of all waste-bearing waters;
14                   The reuse of process waters;
15                   The recovery of all solids possible by
16    tightening up of losses at their source.
17                   This phase of our over-all program was
18    completed in 1950, at a cost approaching 1 million dollars,
19    and with the result that our daily plant loadings in the
20    cooling waters to Lake Michigan were reduced approximately
21    92 percent.
22                   In 1952, we started a plant modernization
23    and expansion program that essentially converted our
24    operations from a batch type process to a continuous
25    stream process.  An outgrowth of this operational transl-

 i    tion was the development of more waste waters than could

 2    be handled by the waste abatement program that we had

 3    Just completed  about  a year or two before.

 4                    Extensive research was carried out to de-

 5    termine the best way  to handle these waters.  We ultimately

 6    evolved an idea that  led to the creation of an original

 7    two-stage lagoon system on our property for the bacterio-

 8    logical reduction of  much of our industrial wastes.  Ten

 9    acres in size,  it consists of an anaerobic first section

10    covered with Syrofoam Insulation followed by an aerobic

ll    second section  employing mechanical aeration.  The Styro-

12    foam insulation on the anaerobic section raised the

13    average yearly  efficiency of the system from 68 percent

14    overall to 88 percent overall.

is                    I will not go into detail on this aspect

16    of our experiences because our exhibits, which I will

17    submit at the conclusion, will contain detailed descriptions

18    of the lagoon operations.

19                   The latest phase of our plant modernization

20    program was completed in June 1964, with the virtual

21    completion of an electronically controlled continuous

22    conversion syrup refinery.   Since 1952,  we have spent more

23    than $20 million on  plant modernization  of which $700,000

24    went directly for waste abatement.  This  large  capital

25    investment has had a most beneficial effect on our


 1    waste control efforts.  Furthermore, during this same

 2    period, the plant capacity has been increased 40 percent.

 3    The volume of water required has not increased

 4    due to the conservation program we have followed.

 5                   In connection with our day to day efforts

 6    in waste  abatement, we have a modern laboratory, with

 7    a chemist and two senior technicians assigned full  time

 8    to the Industrial Waste Program.  In addition, we have

 g    one man assigned full time to "in-plant dontrol" of

1Q    product losses.

n                   Chemical analyses are made each day,  seven

     days a week, of the cooling waters returned to Lake

     Michigan, and a bacteriological analysis is made five

     days per week.  The volume of these waters is accurately

     measured  and recorded, the temperature is recorded,  and

     the waters sampled by a continuous sampler.  The cooling

     waters we return to Lake Michigan are chlorinated and

     contain absolutely no sanitary sewage.

                    in addition to this outfall sampling, we

     have 33 sampling stations throughout the process, 14

     of which  are on the cooling water lines connected to

     the Lake Michigan outfall.  These stations have contin-

     uous samplers, and the principal ones have volume recorders,

     The samples  are collected  at  eight  hour intervals,  and

     are  analysed  daily,  seven  days per  week.  The  annual


     operating costs for Industrial Waste Control is now
     approximately  $130,000 per year.
                    Our 1965 Industrial Waste Control Program
     calls  for several corrective measures that  should make
 5     for  considerably more  improvement.  The  program  calls
      for  a surface  condenser  for  a large evaporator,  a  clari-
 7     fler for  the waters  going to the  lagoon,  the  increasing
      of the lagoon's  capacity,  and the diverting to the lagoon
      of some condensates  from the cooling  waters now  going  to Lake
      Michigan.  Thus, our continuing capital  program
      for  waste abatement  will total approximately  $170,000
      for  this  year  19^5 and we expect  to reduce  the reported
      load in our cooling  waters going  to Lake Michigan  by
      50 percent or  more.
                    From  the  very beginning of our waste abate-
      ment program our policy  has  been  to work closely with  the
      Indiana Stream Pollution Control  Board and  the Hammond
      Sanitary  District.   Both of  these agencies  have  received
      monthly reports  of our daily operations,  and  both  agencies
      have been very helpful to  us in our work.
                    Our program for pollution  control and water
      conservation has been  part of  our operations  for a  long
     duration.   Our management has had a deep-rooted and serious
     interest in the problems connected with water conserva-
     tion  and the fostering  of beneficial programs  in  the


 l     control of  industrial waste.  The program has never

 2     taken  on  the  character  of  a  short-term expediency to

 3     meet some fleeting  problem,  but  rather has  been established

 4     deeply and  permanently  with  us as a  continuing  and

 5     essential phase  of  our  over-all  operations  for  today and

 6     the days  to come.

 7                   As evidence of the work we have  done  at

 8     American  Maize-Products Company  in the field of waste

 9     abatement,  we submit the following publications as part

10     of this statement:

11                   A reprint from INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING

12     CHEMISTRY,  Vol.  44, March  1952,  entitled, "Corn Products

13     Manufacture." This reprint  gives a  detailed account of

14     the waste abatement program  that was started in 1944 and

15     completed in  1950.

16                   A reprint from the January 1964, issue

17     of GOOD PROCESSING  Magazine  entitled,  "Year Round Lagoon

19     Operation."  This reprint  describes  the lagoon  operations

19     at American Maize-Products Company.

2o                   A brochure  entitled,  "Lagoon Treatment of

21     Corn wet  Milling Wastes."  It gives  a detailed  discussion

22     of the Anaerobic-Aerobic lagoon  treatment system in

23     operation at  American Maize-Products;  also,  much analytical

24    data and  the  costs of operations.

25         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Dr. Mclntosh,  if it is agreeable

 1    with you, these  three will  appear  as  exhibits  and  not part

 2    of the transcript.  The references will  be  there and since

 3    this is  a readily available published material I think

 4    they can refer to it if they wish.

 5         DR. MCINTOSH:  Briefly, in  summary:

 6                   Since 1940,  twenty-five years ago,  all

 7    sanitary sewage  has been  sent  to the  Hammond Sanitary

 8    District.

 9                   Between 1944 and  1950  we  put into effect

10    a waste  abatement program costing  almost 1  million dol-

11    lars which  reduced our loadings  to Lake  Michigan approxi-

12    mately 92 percent.

13                   Since 1944 we have  had an active research

14    program  including a laboratory devoted solely to indus-

15    trial waste and  water conservation.

16                   Between 1952 and  the present time we

17    have raised plant capacity  40  percent with  no increase

18    in water demand.

19                   We maintain  a 365-day-per-year,  around-
20    the-clock monitoring system on incoming,  in-plant  and

21    out-going waters.

2?                   All cooling  waters  returned  to  Lake Michigan
23    are chlorinated.

24                   The annual operating cost  for Industrial

25    Waste  Control is  now  approximately $140,000 per year.


 i                   Since 1940 our capital expenditures speci-

 2    fically for waste abatement  and control have totaled

 3    1.7 million dollars and we expect our expenditure  of

 4    $170,000 this year, 1965, to reduce the loadings in our

 5    cooling water going to Lake  Michigan by 50  percent or

 0    more.

 7                   Our management policy in this entire problem

 8    has been and will continue to be one of full coopera-

 9    tion with  all agencies.

10         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank  you, Dr. Mclntosh.

jj                   Are there  any comments or  questions?

12         MR. KLASSEN:  One on the percentages,  Dr.  Mclntosh.

13                   You say reduce it by 50 percent. We are

14    getting more and more that we like to have  some

15    actual figures and I say this because in  the Indiana

16    presentation on page 25 it says, "The ultimate  objective

17    of the company is to produce a plant effluent with a

18    .5 population equivalent per bushel of corn processed."

19                   Was this correctly stated, would you

20    s*y?

21         DR. MCINTOSH:  Yes, sir, that is the terminology

22    that has been used in the corn industry as  population

     loadings in terms of bushel  of corn ground.

          MR.  KLASSEN:   Population equivalent?
          DR. MCINTOSH:  Per bushel of corn ground in reference


     to this we might  say that this  figure of  44,000, we  al-

 2    ready report  our  figures in  pounds  of B.O.D.  and C.O.D.

 3    and this  44,000 the report we accept as being very accurate.

 4         MR.  KLASSEN:  The  reason I bring this  out is  .5

     population equivalent first  of  all, it's  good to see

 6    that you  recognize population,  the  term population equi-

 7    valent  and also,  the East Chicago and Hammond plants,  I

 0    believe are reducing their load there, 95 percent  which

 g    gives them a  .05  population  equivalent.

._                   Yours is.5 and theirs is  .05 and I  am

     Just wondering about the objective  of the American Maize

.„    as compared to what the cities  are  doing.

13         DR.  MCINTOSH:  Well, I  better  restate  that.
                     Ours  is  as  I  say  in  the  corn  industry we
     have reported  it  in  terms  of  bushels  of  corn  processed

16    and it's  a five-tenths  of  a population equivalent  per

     bushel of corn.

18                   Now,  you want  to  go back  to  the  pounds

     of B.O.D., that 44,000  will represent about 7,400  pounds

     of H-O_r>

21                   We will  reduce that, we hope over 50 percent

     We are quite sure, we want to be a little conser-


          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Any other further comments or



l                    (No response.)

2                    If not, thank you very much.

3                    Before we go  on, there are  one  or  two

4     announc ement s.

5                    One,  on Tuesday, I  understand to avoid

6     involvement with the admission  charge which might be

7     required  for the boat show,  it  is  suggested that  you

8     enter  through the north entrance which  is  up in that

9     direction, although  I suspect we have had  meetings

10     in  conjunction  with  boat  shows  before,  we  suggest that

11     entrance  at the time we are  calling the meeting,  to

12     avoid  too much  confusion.

13                    However, if you  do  run into a problem, we

14     have a liaison  man,  Mr. Tom  Keller.

15                    Would you  stand  up, Tom?

!6                    If you have any  problem  with the boat show

17     or  get involved with them and want to be sorted

18     out and come to us,  ask for  Mr. Keller  and he  will handle

19     it. Sometimes  it gets to  be a  very big operation.

20         MR.  KELLER:  May I remark?

2i                    In 214 we have an exhibit from  the United

22     States Public Health Service.

23         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Now, we have several statements

24    which have been submitted for the  record.

25                   One is by Charles Sandor, Superintendent,

     Department of  Water  Works,  Hammond, Indiana.   He will


     put it in the record as if it were read.

          MR. SANDOR:  The City of Hammond, Indiana, owns,

     maintains and operates a complete waterworks system.

     The waterworks  system includes a complete and modern

 5    water filtration plant which employes the latest conven-

 6    tional methods  and equipment in water treatment.  The

 7    Hammond Water Department's obligation is to provide a

 3    safe and satisfactory water to its patrons; to the towns

 9    of Munster,  Indiana; Highland, Indiana; Lansing, Illinois;

10    and to the Peoples Water Company of Black Oak, Indiana.

n    A total of 75,000 people as well as many industries

12    depend wholly on the Hammond Water Department for its

13    water.

14                    The Hammond Water Filtration Plant is

15    located on the  south edge of Lake Michigan at Calumet

16    Avenue and Lake Front, Hammond, Indiana.  The water

17    supply is taken from Lake Michigan.  The three water

18    intakes which supply water to the filtration plant lie

19    within the basin formed by the southernmost end of Lake

20    Michigan.

                     The City of Hammond began operating the

22    waterworks in 1891.  In the period from 1891 to the

23    1930's,  the only treatment required to provide a safe and

24    satisfactory water  was  chlorination.   In the  early 1930's

25    the water often  was unpalatable mainly due to pollution.


     A water filtration plant was built and placed into opera-

     tion in 1936.  Although the degree of pollution in the

     water supply was constantly increasing from 1936 to the

     early 1950's, the water filtration plant was able to

     provide a safe and excellent quality water for its consu-

 6    mers.

 7                   Since the early 1950's there has been an

     accelerated degradation of the quality of Hammond's raw

     water supply.  A definite pollution problem exists and

10    it is becoming more and more difficult to produce a safe

11    and satisfactory water.  An analysis of the records of

12    the Hammond Water Filtration Plant indicates the severity

13    in the increase of pollution at Hammond's water source.

14                   Pure water is practically tasteless and

15    odorless.  However, when pollution is introduced into

16    the water, disagreeable odors and tastes in a water supply

17    result.  The most common causes of disagreeable tastes

18    and odors result from (1) micro-organisms, either alive

19    or dead, (2) dissolved gases, (3) mineral substances, and

20    W Phenols and other tarry or oily wastes.

21                   Hammond's raw water supply usually contains

22    a combination of causes for disagreeable tastes and odors

23    and very frequently there are two or  more distinct  types

24    of  taste  and  odors  in  the  raw water at the  same time.

25   Very likely,  the raw water that the Hammond Water Fll-


l    tration Plant is forced to accept through its intakes

2    is second to the poorest in quality of any water treatment

3    plant using Lake Michigan water.

4                   Let us take a  look at the increasingly

5    poor quality of Hammond's raw water during the  last

6    eleven years.  A dramatic parameter to illustrate this

7    is the threshold number.

g                   The qualitative  and quantitative determina-

g    tion of odor adopted by the American Public Health Associa-

j0    tlon is the threshold number.  This method is used by the

n    Hammond Water Department.  Generally speaking,  the

12    higher the threshold number, the more pollution  is present,

13    and the more intensive treatment and greater amount  of

14    chemicals are required to produce a finished water which

J5    is both safe and satisfactory.  Please bear in  mind,

16    where Lake Michigan water is  relatively pollution free,

17    the threshold number barely exceeds 3 or A.

18                   Three charts pertaining to the duration

j     of raw water odors have been  prepared from the  records

2Q    of the Hammond Water Filtration Plant.  Figure  1 pertains

     to the  duration in hours when  the raw water had a thres-
21                                                         (See
     hold odor of thirty and over.   This graph shows that: Page
23                   The raw water  in 1964 was by far the poorest

2    quality ever recorded by the Hammond Filtration Plant.
                    The duration in hours for the year 1964


     amounted to 4,966 or 56-1/2  percent of the time;
2                   The 1964 total is an increase of 98 percent
3    over the previous record year of poorest quality
4    water which was in 1963 when odors of 30 and over existed
5    2,5H hours;
6                   The 1964 duration is 279 percent greater
7    than the yearly average for the preceding ten years.
0                   Figure 2 pertains to the duration in hours
Q    when the raw water had a threshold  odor of fity and
10    over.  The graph indicates that:    (See Page 1302)
                    The duration in hours for the year 1964
12    existed for 2,£88 hours or 30 percent of the time;
13                   The 1964 total is an increase of 73 percent
.     over the previous record year 1959 when odors
     of 50 and over existed for 1,544 hours;
lg                   The 1964 duration is 248 percent greater
._    than the yearly average for the preceding ten years.
18                   Figure 3 pertains to the duration in hours
     when the raw water had a threshold odor of one hundred
     and over.  The graph points out that:  (See Page 1303)
21                   The duration in hours for the year 1964
     existed for 698 hours;
23                   The 1964 total is an increase of 38 percent
24    over  the previous  record  year in 1960  when odors
     of 100 and  over existed  504 hours;




l                   The  1964 duration is  262 percent  greater

2    than the yearly  average for the preceding ten years.

3                   The  following  observations may be made

4    from the graphs:

5                   The  average raw water is rapidly  becoming

6    poorer  in quality;

7                   The  instances  of poorest quality  raw water

8    is  occurring  more frequently  and for greater hours in

9    duration;

10                   There  are  some dips  in the graphs; these

11    dips may well be attributed to the  years of slight economic

12    recession and/or to temporary or token pollution abatement

13    efforts.

14                   The  pollution  which  strains  the Hammond

15    Water Filtration Plant the most are the phenols  and oily

16    wastes, sewage and  plankton.

17                   The  phenols and the  oily wastes give the

18    greatest problems.  Very  often these industrial  wastes

19    travel  in slugs.  The filtration operators  are trained,

20    schooled and  skilled. They must practice everlasting

21    vigilance because a slug  might enter the water intakes

22    at  any moment.   The operators take  threshold number odor

23    tests and make phenol tests hourly.   When the water is

24    extremely poor, tests are taken every twenty minutes.

25    It is only because the  filtration operators arc ever


 1    vigilant,  skilled,  diligent  and  because  of  the  high dosages

 2    of chemicals used  that  the quality  of  water entering the

 3    distribution mains is  safe end of  satisfactory  quality

 4    during  these peak  pollution  period?;.

 5                    Chemical dosages  per million gallons of

 6    water run  extremely high when these peak pollution periods

 7    exist.   Activated  Carbon is  usually fed  into the  raw water

 8    at a rate  of ^0 pounds  per million  gallons  of water at

 9    10  threshold number odor when sewage or plankton type

10    pollution  is present.   Carbon has  been fed  into the water

11    at a rate  of 1,200 pounds per million  gallons of  water

12    at 600  threshold number odor when phenol pollution existed.

13                    At  times the  industrial pollution  is so

14    great that  all  the activated carbon slurry  that the pumps

15    can feed into the  raw water  is not  ample.   In these

16    cases,  additional  carbon is  added on top of the filters

17    in order to complete the chemical requirement.  We are

18    wondering what  will happen to the quality of our  finished

19    water if this pollution is allowed  to  continue  and if this

20    pollution is allowed to increase.

21                    The Hammond Water Filtration Plant  is located

22    such that it rarely escapes  heavy pollution.  When the wind

23    is from the south,  the  sewage pollution greatly increases

24    with  the duration of the southerly wind.   When the wind

25    persists in the  east and northeast,  large amounts  of oil


 1     type  pollution  and  phenols  are  expected  from  the  industries

 2     east  of  the  Hammond Water Filtration  Plant.   When the

 3     wind  direction  is from the  west for an extended period,

 4     the Hammond  Water Filtration  Plant receives sewage pollu-

 5     tlon  and industrial pollution beginning  from  the  second

 6     or third day of west wind,  and  greater concentrations

 7     exist until  the wind changes  direction.  This pollution

 8     coming in with  an extended  westerly wind undoubtedly

 9     comes from the  Illinois  side  of Lake  Michigan.

10                    Only when there  is a strong north  wind

11     does  the pollution  diminish in  the Filtration Plant's

12     raw water supply.   The fresh  water from  the north pushing

13     in displaces and dilutes the  polluted water.

14                    When there is  an ice cover extending from

15     the shore past  the  intakes, pollution increases alarmingly.

16     The water movement  is restricted, there  is little air

17     contact  with the surface of the water and the pollution

18     becomes  more and more concentrated; there are records of

19     twenty to thirty days of constant and increasing  pollution

20     occurring before the ice moved  out.

21                    To sum it up the quality  of raw water

22     at the Hammond's water source was excellent between the

23    years 1891 and  1925, satisfactory between the years  1926

24    and 19^5, poor between the  years 1946 and 1955, and very

25    poor quality  between the  years 1956  to 1965.   The  quality


1     level of the period  1926-19^5  should be restored  and

2     maintained.

3                   The effect  of the  degradation  of the

4     present water  quality is that  it  is becoming  very diffi-

5     cult to produce  a safe and satisfactory water using the

6     present conventional equipment and chemicals  and  employing

7     the present  conventional water treatment  methods.

8                   The Hammond Water  Department respectfully

9     requests that  the Conferees initiate  steps which  would

10     improve the  quality  of water in the receiving basin of

H     the Hammond  Water supply.   The Hammond Water  Department

12     further recommends the establishment  of water criteria

13     for municipal  water  sources in the lower  end  of Lake

14     Michigan and also recommends that the water quality

15     criteria encompasses the development  of the maximum limits

16     permissible  under various  parameters  of quality for

17     municipal water sources which,  after conventional  treat-

18     ment, would  produce  safe and quality water supplies.

19         CHAIRMAN  STEIN:   We have  a statement from the

20     City Hall, East  Gary,  Lake County, Indiana, from  Mr.

21     Paul Wagner, the East  Gary City Engineer.

22         MR. WAGNER:  Gentlemen:

23                   The City of East Gary is aware of the

24    necessity of abatement of pollution sources,  and our plans

25    are pointed in  such direction.


 I                   We also realize that while our  involvement

 2    in the pollution problem is small, we still would  be

 3    expected not to increase the problem by any lack of

 4    effort on our part.

 5                   A survey of our disposal system can be

 6    summarized as follows:

                    The establishment of a cumulative sewage

     disposal fund in about the year of 1952.  At that  time the

     Town was partially sewered, with raw sewage discharged

     into the Burns Ditch.

                    By 1956 work was started on construction

     of sanitary sewers, which at the present time  is approxi-
1 A

     mately 70 percent complete.  Disposal was started  with the

     first phase of the sanitary system by intercepting the

     original raw sewage discharge into Burn's Ditch and

     provided a delivery system to the Gary-Miller  Disposal


                    The Gary-Miller Disposal Plant  is operated

     by the City of Gary,  "he East Gary sewage is  processed

     through this plant on the basis of number of households

     served.  The treated sewage is discharged into Burn's Ditch,

     The present East Gary sanitary system includes  old combined

     sewers as well as recently constructed sanitary sewers,

     which at times of heavy runoff causes overflows into

     the Burn's Ditch.


                    The City of East Gary proposes to continue

     the Tax Levy providing for the cumulative disposal fund

     and thereby allow for the construction  of storm sewers

     to relieve the heavy load on the  combined sewers.

                    With no problem of industrial wastes  contri-

     buting to the pollution of our outlet,  that is, the

     Burn's Ditch, our plans are to either acquire the Gary-

 8    Miller disposal plant, or in the  event  of the abandonment

 9    of the said plant, to connect our outlet with the Gary

10    sanitary system in the Northwest  area of our town.   The

     latter proposal would largely eliminate our pollution of

12    Burn's Ditch except for some discharge  of diluted sanitary

13    flows contributed by our combined sewers.

14                   East Gary is populated largely of one-family

1S    dwellings, located in the area along and south of the

16    Michigan Central Railroad.  At the present time with no

17    industrial development, our City  has a  low assessed  valua-

18    tion, which results in one of the highest tax rates  in the

19    State of Indiana.  Our contribution to  the cleanup

20    of stream pollution must necessarily be limited to

21    availability of funds, but this does not hinder us from

22    taking steps toward this end.

23         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Another presentation from the

24    Town of Schererville,  Indiana.





 3                   The Town  of Schererville,  Lake County,

 4     Indiana, is  in the process of  laying sewer pipe and  build-

 5     ing the Treatment Plant  at the present time, and expect

 6     to have the  plant in  operation,  on  or about  April  15,  19&5.

 7     This should  solve our pollution problem.

 8         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   We have  a statement from  the Porter

 9     County Chapter of the Izaak Walton  League of America.




13                  Mr. Chairman and Conferees:

14                   The Porter County Chapter  of  the Izaak

15     Walton League of America owns  property and has  its club-

16     house on the Little Calumet River about 2 miles east of

17     the Junction of the Little Calumet  and Burns Ditch.  As

18     residents of the area and as part of a group with  a  long

19     history of interest in attempting to prevent water  pollu-

20     tion, we have first-hand knowledge  of the magnitude  of

2i     the problem.  We know where pollution is, some  of  its

22     sources, and, most important to us, the developing  and

23     future sources of water pollution.

24                   Federal Problem:  We  believe  water  pol-

25    lution to be  an interstate and  therefore  a Federal  issue

l    because:
2                   The Little Calumet River watershed is  in
3    two  states;
4                   Lake Michigan  borders  four  states;
5                   The proposed Port of Indiana is  planned
6    for  a location 1-1/4 miles east of Burns Ditch  and  for
7    which Federal funds are  expected;
8                   The proposed Indiana Dunes  National  Lake-
9    shore would  be 1-1/4 miles east of the  aforementioned
10    port.
ll                   Since wind and current do not respect  man-
12    made political boundaries, pollution  introduced into  any
13    point within the  Calumet River basin  or Lake Michigan
H    can  travel from one state to  another. The direction
is    of pollution travel often varies with the  shifts in wind,
16    which in  turn affects  the direction of water flow.  The
17    rate of fall of the Little Calumet in many areas near
18    the  Illinois-Indiana state line is so slight that wind
19    shifts readily reverse direction of flow.   While the  main
20    direction of Lake Michigan water is from northwest  to
21    southeast, a littoral  drift along the shore travels back
22    toward the west,  thereby carrying any pollution present  back
23    and forth between two,  three,  or even four  states.
24                   Sources  of Pollution—Existing and Potential:
25                  Upstream from our property  on the Little


 l    Calumet River, the Town of Porter,  Indiana,  is  dumping

 2    untreated  sewage.  The town  is  presently  annexing  much

 3    of  the unincorporated area along the river, which at

 4    least simplifies the jurisdictional responsibility.

 5                   Bethlehem  Steel  has  cut  a  new and very

 6    large ditch  into the Little  Calumet River at the Portage-

 7    Westchester  line, which drains  much of  their plant site.

 8    We  are not aware of pollution now,  but  the water should

 9    be  regularly monitored.

10                   At the junction  of the Little Calumet  and

11    Burns Ditch, pollution enters from  the  west,  sources  of

12    which are  both municipal  sewerage and miscellaneous.

13                   Near the mouth of Burns  Ditch, Midwest

14    Steel has  a  large discharge  pipe.   At times  discolorations

15    appear in  the discharge water,  and  we request that this

16    source be  regularly monitored.   We  have a colored  slide

17    of  the water discoloration.

18                   Midwest Steel is disposing of its acid-

19    bearing process wastes into  large pits.   At  first  the

2o    pits were  located on the  state  owned property of the

21    proposed port.  Recently  the pits have  been  located west

22    of  Burns Ditch on Midwest Steel's own property.  We request

23    that the effect on the water table be investigated to see

 24    if there  has been sufficient filtering action.  We also

 25    request that  future  disposal plans  for  this waste be

l    determined, since the pits are rapidly filling up with
2    sediment  and cannot be used  indefinitely.
3                   Bethlehem Steel plans to use  a deep well
4    to dispose of  their acid-bearing process wastes.  We
5    are  not  satisfied with the vague assurances  that future
6    water  supplies will not be contaminated.  We therefore
7    request  that a more comprehensive  study be undertaken.
8                   The potential pollution due to the proposed
9    Port of  Indiana  is of critical importance.   One of the
10    conditions recommended by the U.S. Bureau of the Budget
11    and  endorsed by  the Army Corps of  Engineers  is:
12                   "Water and air pollution sources will
13    be controlled to  the maximum  extent feasible  in order  to
14    minimize any adverse effects on public recreational
15    areas  in the general vicinity of the harbor."
16                   However, no evidence of plans for such
17    preventive measures exist.   One of the users of the pro-
18    posed  harbor will be the Rail-to-Water Transfer Co. which
19    now  operates a coal transfer facility along  the Calumet
20    River.  This is  an extremely dirty operation as illustrated
21    by the remarks of Mr. Leo Geissal, President of Rail-
22    to-Water, as taken from the  record of the Interstate
23    Commerce Commission hearings  concerning the Monon Rail-
24    road plans for  a  coal  dock.   Excerpts from Mr.  Geissalfs
25    testimony are as  follows:

 1                    P.  1558
 2                    Q.   (By Mr.  Krueger)   "Mr.  Geissal,  when you
 3     are  on  the  dock,  as you describe  in  your testimony, in opera-
 4     tion, does  it  produce  any dust?"
 5                    A.  ¥Well,  at certain  times of the year, yes,
 6     sir. Under certain loading conditions it does.*
 7                             *****
 8                    P.  1559
 9                    Q.   "Now,  what  is  your prevailing wind
10     direction at your  dock?"
11                    A.   "The prevailing wind at our dock is from
12     the  west."
13                    Q.   "At the  time of your operation — your
14     dock is in  operation,  does  this wind have  any effect on the
15     dust?"
16                    A.   "Yes,  sir,  it  carried the dust toward the
17     east.1'
18                    Q.   "You are explaining the action of the
19     wind."
20                    A.   "And sometimes I  will have to admit,  the
21     dust is pretty thick which  causes a  scum to form on the
22     river."
23                   Q.   "Does that scum on  the  river  lie dormant
24    around the dock or does it move with the water?"
25                   A.   "it  Just  depends on how much movement we
     have  in  the  river,  sir.  Sometimes if there is no movement in
     the river the dust  stays there,  but when a ship comes around

 1    and agitates the water then, of course, it is carried away."
 2                   p.  1560
 3                   Q.   (By Mr. Shepard)   "You testified  that we
 4    have no practical  way of  allaying the dust that you  testified
 S    to at  this  time.   That means that you don*t  have  at  Rail-to-
 6    Water  any particular installation for the purpose of allaying
 7    the dust; is that  correct?"
 8                   A.   "I do  not have."
 9                   Q.   "But there  are such  devices in existence?
10                   A.  "Yes."
                          * # # #  *
12                   The plans  of the Indiana Port  Commission are
13     to transfer the  existing  equipment  from the Calumet  River to
14     the lakefront  only 1-1/4  miles  west of the  proposed  Indiana
is     Dunes  National Lakeshore  and 3  miles west of  the  existing
16     Indiana Dunes  State Park.  Since the wind and water  can
17     carry  coal  dust  many miles,  you can understand our concern.
18                   A review of  the  cost breakdown for moving
19     and reconstructing the coal  dock as shown by  the  Indiana
20     Port Commission  includes  no  allowance for coal dust  control.
21                   In addition,  there is the potential problem
22     of  disposal  of petroleum  wastes  in  connection with port
23    facilities, and of controlling discharges from ships.
24                   We hope that this conference can take the nece
25    sary steps to control and  prevent the pollution problems we
     have outlined here.


 i                   Porter County Chapter, Izaak Walton League

 2    of America.

 3                   James M. Fallis, President

 4                   Herbert P. Read, Conservation  Chairman

 5                   M. R. Box 438, Chesterton,  Indiana

 6    Addendum:

 7                   Informal conversations with some  of the  coal

 8    shippers described  above have indicated willingness  to  incor-

 9    porate  coal  dust controls.  However, we believe  that all po-

10    tential harbor users should be  advised that pollution

n    controls would be expected of them,  so that the  costs of

12    such installations  can be taken into consideration before

13    work is begun.

14          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have a presentation  from  the town

15    of Dyer, Indiana.

16                   The  statement which follows is submitted

17    on behalf  of the Town of Dyer,  Indiana, by its consulting

18    engineers  for use in the conference  in Chicago,  Illinois,

19    beginning  March 2,  1965, regarding water pollution in the

20    Calumet District.   The statement  is  being  made consistent

21    with advice  received by the Town  officials from  Mr.  B,  A.

22    Poole,  Technical Secretary, Stream Pollution  Control Board,

23    State of Indiana.

24                   The Town of Dyer, Lake County,  Indiana,  is

25    located on the stream of Plum Creek  (Hart Ditch),  some

     five miles upstream from its junction with the Little


     Calumet River.   Plum Creek passes through the built-up

     portion of Dyer, which comprises approximately fifteen

     percent of the total corporate area.

                    The town which is residential in character

     has a present population of about 4,000.  During past years

     the town has utilized an existing system of local and sub-

     main sewers and drains which collect both raw sewage and sep-

     tic tank effluent from residences and other buildings and

 9    discharge the same directly to Plum Creek at some 25 separated

10    points.  As the population in the developed area has

11    increased, there has been a corresponding increase in the

12    extent of pollution in the stream and in the degree of

13    resulting nuisance.

u                   Since early 1963, anticipating aid in

15    financing through a Federal grant the Town of Dyer, through

16    its Board of Trustees, has been engaged in efforts to

17    construct facilities for the proper collection and treatment

18    of the sanitary sewage, and thus eliminate the pollution of

19    Plum Creek.

20                   Subsequent to the earlier employment of its

21    engineers and the preparation of plans and specifications,

22    bids were received in December 1963 for the construction of

23    an intercepting sanitary sewer system and  a sewage  treatment

 24   plant;  also for a  system of  local  and  sub-main  sanitary

 25   sewers  connected to the  intercepting  sewer  system,  to  permit

    the treatment of sewage  from approximately  500 people  in a

 i    developed  area  located remotely from the main built-up
 2    area of  the  town.
 3                    An  entirely new group of town officials  had
 4    been  elected shortly before  the  construction bids were
 5    received.  The  new officials  who  assumed responsibility
 6    in January 1964 necessarily required time  to become ac-
 7    quainted with the  proposed project  in  all  of its aspects.
 8    Construction contract awards, however, were made in early
 9    February 1964,  conditioned upon receipt of a Federal grant
10    and upon the sale  of bonds to finance  the  project  costs.
ji                    Shortly thereafter some organised local
12    opposition to the  project  developed, which resulted in  an
13    injunction suit being filed against it.  This delayed
u    progress in  carrying out the  required  legal proceedings
15    preliminary  to  the sale of bonds, until early October 1964,
16    at which time the  objectors finally agreed to withdraw  the
17    injunction suit.   The statutory proceedings preliminary to
18    the sale of  the bonds were completed as soon as possible
19    thereafter,  thus permitting revenue bonds  in the amount of
20    $720,000 to  be  sold on November 12, 1964.
21                    Since November 13,  1964, the town has had  in
22    progress the construction  of  the  intercepting sewer system,
23    the sewage treatment plant  and the  other sewers described
24    above.   Schedules provide for completion of the  construction
25    to permit the plant and  system to go in operation by Septem-
     ber of this year.

 l                    The intercepting sanitary sewer system is
 2     located and designed to intercept the sanitary sewage from
 3     the existing sewers in the built-up areas of the town as well!
 4     as that from the new sewered areas and to deliver the same
 5     to the sewage treatment plant.   The intercepting sewers are
 6     designed to serve a population  of approximately 24,000,
 7     thus to meet the estimated requirements at the end of an
 g     approximate 45 year period.
 9                    The sewage treatment plant is of the
10     diffused air activated sludge-separate sludge digestion
ll     type with facilities included for the chlorination of final
12     effluent.  The plant is designed to provide complete
13     treatment for the sanitary sewage from a population of 6,000
14     people.  The structures and plant layout, along with the pro-
15     perty acquired for the site all lend themselves readily
16     to future expansion and enlargement.
17                    It is anticipated the Dyer Sewage Treatment
18     Works will provide a continuously responsible contribution
ig     to the Lake County Stream Pollution Control Program.
20                    Respectfully submitted,
21                    Besozzl,  Carpenter & Ignelzi,  Consulting
22     Engineer.
23                    By Carl B.  Carpenter,  Partner,  Project
24     Engineer  March  1,  1965,
25         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have a  statement by Mr. Thomas E.

 1    Dustin, State Secretary, Indiana Division of the Izaak
 2    Walton League of America.
 3                   (Statement)
 4                   The Indiana Division of the Izaak Walton
 5    League of America is grateful for this opportunity to
 6    address this conference.  For your records, I would like
 7    to introduce representatives of several northwestern Indiana
 8    League chapters who are also present here:  Mrs* Edith Adele
 9    Jensen, of Gary, and a member of the Marquette Chapter,
10    Portage;  Mrs. Beatrice Jannelle, of Chesterton, President
11    of the Marquette Chapter, and also a National Director of
12    the League;  Mr. John Yuhasz, of Gary, and a member of the
13    Gary Glen Park Chapter; and Mr'. Herbert Read, Past President
14    of the Porter County Chapter, and also a resident of
15    Chesterton.
16                   I am Thomas E. Dust in, State Secretary of
17    the Indiana Division of the League, of Fort Wayne.  Since I ajn
18    not a resident of the immediate area whose problems you are
19    considering, I would like to defer Mr. Read,
20    whose long association with the region will be useful.
2i                   However, I am not unfamiliar with the area,
22    and have long enjoyed the natural regions of the Indiana
23    dunes.  I have also often flown over the Indiana shoreline
24    with the  specific intention  of observing the extremes of its
25    environmental  condition.

 l                    On two such occasions,  April and September
 2     1963,  I made  many aerial slide photographs of the Indiana
 3     Lake  Michigan shoreline from Michigan  City Harbor on the east
 4     to Indiana Harbor on the west.  I have these slides with me,
 5     and they are  available for your examination.  If it pleases
 6     the panel, the Indiana Division wishes to supply one set
 7     of enlargements of these slides which  pertain to your
 8     purposes,  and would like to send these to the Chairman for
 9     more  detailed study.  Many of the photographs are exception-
10     ally  detailed, and I think they will be useful.
11                    The problems of water and air pollution are
12     of central concern to the Izaak Walton League.  We are
13     concerned  about both present and future pollution of both oui
14     cities and our remaining natural and unspoiled areas.  The
15     environmental conditions in this particular bi-state Lake
16     Michigan border region are very probably the worst in the
17     United States; and I say that with some previous exposure
18     to some other port and industrial complexes from New York
19     to San Francisco.
20                    Specifically among the  photographs I will
21     forward (slides available at the conference) are several
22     indicating what is probably illegal  encroachment on the
23     riparian lands  of  Indiana by one  of  the  Lake County steel
24    firms.  The photograph shows  a remnant beach almost  entirely
25    covered with possibly 20 feet or more of slag and other waste


 1    used for fill.  At irregular intervals, the slag not only

 2    entirely covers the sand beach, but also bulges out into

 3    the lake waters.  This is unquestionably a source of

 4    pollution through leaching of soluble  contaminants.  The

 5    irregular and patternless encroachment of this fill material

 6    into the waters would indicate that it has not been sanctionejd

 7    by public authority.

 8                   Others of these aerial  photographs illustrate

 9    dramatic discoloration of waters, particularly at Indiana

10    Harbor and extending eastward along the shore to Gary Harbor,

n    where it again becomes more intense.   Since there is little

12    if any soil silt in these particular waters, the littoral

13    flow being sand, the discoloration is  evidently chemical or

14    other waste matter directly attributable to the manufactur-

15    inS plants of that area.  Some of the  photographs pretty

16    well indicate the sources, especially  in the case of the

17    Inland Steel Company works on the large artificial land

18    fill area forming the east side of Indiana Harbor.

19                   For your additional interest, I am attaching

20    a copy of an investigation of this shoreline pollution

21    published in the August 27, 1963 edition of the Indianapolis

22    (Indiana) Times.  This illustrated story indicates not only

23    the ruin of existing recreational values,  and the growing

24    evidence of the spread of this blight,  but also indicates

25    the threat  of pollution from future ports  and industry on

 l     the Indiana shoreline.
 2                    While the Izaak Walton League is gravely
 3     concerned about pollution past and present, which has been
 4     going on and getting worse here for 50 years or more, it
 5     is equally or more concerned about pollution, future.  If
 6     we set and stand by proper ground rules now, it will be
 7     easier to avoid the calamities which are before us.
 8                    We are not entirely satisfied with public
 9     relations claims and non-specific assurances of the newer
10     plants in Porter County, and will not be until these are
n     supported with well-defined and publicly understood
12     standards^  We believe it is in the public interest that
13     such standards and commitments to them be established.
14     Broad assurances are too subject to later interpretations.
15                    It is our understanding that present and
15     planned discharges from the newly established finishing
17     mills in Porter County — a subject entirely germane here —
18     largely consist of water which the industrl3s describe as
19     cleaner than when drawn from the lake.  We have no specific
2o     cause at this time to question the claim, but it would seem
2i     quite appropriate that all these discharges be independently
22     monitored on a regular basis by appropriate Federal
23     agencies  to  assure that  standards  are  met in perpetuity.
24                   Establishment of  such standards is especially
25    important because the new complexes in Porter County are only


























in their earlier stages of development.  Production of basic

steel, which we understand may at some time be contemplated,

is quite another matter.  Those problems, and their firm

solutions, should be specifically known before - not after -
the fact.
              It is further understood that plans of the
Bethlehem Steel Company in Porter County - at least according

to a recorded statement by the General Manager of the plant -

include discharge of some materials into the Little Calumet

River.  I do not know what all of these materials may be,

but would like to note that even chemically pure water can

be a deadly pollutant and can biologically murder a stream

if it is hot when discharged.  If that is the case, it would

seem wise to require that any materials, even water, dis-

charged into this interstate stream or into other bodies

of water, incapable of quick self-rectification, meet not

only physical and chemical tests of purity, but also thermal

and biological,

              We also understand that the more lethal

effluents of the new Porter County plants are being contem-

plated for deep-well disposal.  This may be an adequate

solution, and we do not specifically oppose it at this time,

but it is worth asking the question if this approach is

merely handing the problem to the future.

              Several biologists to whom this approach has


    been suggested are not sure it is a wise idea.  For example,

    I have been informed that substances below the impervious

    layer of that area are carbonates or lime-like.  These would

    react with acids, and for a period of time would presumably

    be self-neutralizing.

                  However, the natural availability of these

    neutralizing agents is not inexhaustible, and the spread of

    contaminants and the eating away of the understructure would

    seem almost certain.  The capacity of these disposal wells

10  would probably outlive us, and might even outlive the

    plants, but it would seem that knowledge of the long term

l2  legacy should be determined in advance of the fact.  Such

l3  massive poisoning of sub-strata could be likened to radio-

    active contamination, since nothing could really be done

    about it by the time the first evidence appeared.  Curing

16  problems of this scope at a future time could make child's

17  play of the huge problems we have even in 1965.  It would

18  seem as much in the public interest to prevent ills as to

19  cure them.

20                In May and July of 19^2, a chemical settling

21  pond was observed east of the Porter County plant of Midwest

22  Steel Corporation, only a short distance from the edge of

23  Lake Michigan.  While specific tests were not made of this

24  material, it was apparent from the varigated colors that the

25  liquid was not water alone.


 l                Seepage  through  the  completely porous  sand  of

 2   that  area from  such practices  would  Inevitably  find  the way

 3   into  the waters  of the lake.   I  do not know if  this  pond  is

 4   still  in use, and if it  is not,  what alternatives  are  being

 5   used,  but I  do  have colored photographs  of it,  and these

 B   will  be included in the  portfolio  I  will forward.  I have

 7   the colored  slides of  this, however, and would  be  pleased to

 8   show  these to you at this time if  you care to take the time.

 9                Since it is probable that  much of what remains

10   of the unspoiled shoreline and dunes area will  be  established

11   as The Indiana  Dunes National  Lakeshore  which will be  region-

12   al and National  in significance, either  legal or illegal

13   pollution would  seem untenable.

14                In closing, I would  like to note  one additional

15   event  which  may  help set an example  for  us in this region.

16   I have seen  a budget figure for  the  State of New York

17   quoted at $1,700,000,000 for antipollution efforts alone.

18   This  figure  seems so fantastic that  it is difficult  to believe

19   --- and I apologize to  this panel if  I am mistaken.  But  if

20   the figure is accurate,  it cannot  help being compared  to

21   almost an exact  same amount which  the Indiana General

22   Assembly contemplated  only a few days ago for the  operation

23   of the entire state for the next two years.

24                At this  time, if I may have permission to  do

25   so, I would  like to yield to Mr. Read, who has  also  prepared


 i   a statement based on his lifetime of intimate knowledge of

 2   this region.

 3                 Thank you.

 4        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have a statement from the City of

 5   Hobart, Indiana, submitted by Mayor Titus.

 6                                 (Statement)

 7        To:  Stream Pollution Control Association

 8        Re:  Statement of improvements during the last 12 years.

 9                 Gentlemen:

10                 The City of Hobart, Lake County, Indiana, from

11   July 1953 to June 1962 was served by a Primary Sedimentation

12   type of sewage treatment plant with one 50 ft. diameter heated

13   digester designed for a flow of 2 million gallons per day,

14   plus facilities for chlorination of final effluent.  During

15   these nine years, the average daily flow was in the order of

16   620,000 gallons per day with a removal of 49 percent of B.O.D.

17   and 6l percent of suspended solids.

18                 In order to secure a better reduction of organic

19   material, facilities for Secondary Sewage Treatment was

20   added in June of 1962.

21                 The new plant was designed as a complete

22   activated sludge type of installation and in June of

23   1962 the secondary portion of this plant was completed and

24   put into operation,  our present average daily flow is

25   903*000 gallons per day, a 31 percent increase over 1955.


 l   At present,  we are removing an average of 84 percent  of

 2   the suspended solids and 8? percent  of the B.O.D.  from the

 3   sewage treated,

 4                 The cost  of additions  to our plant and  sewer

 5   extensions since 1961 has exceeded $2.6 million.  The design

 B   of additional sewers for the west  side of the City of Hobart

 7   is under contract at the present time  at an estimated

 8   construction cost of over $1.2 million.

 9                 It is our desire to  give every assistance

10   possible to  the  Stream  Pollution Control Association  to

11   preserve the natural resources,health, and well-being of  the

12   Southern Lake Michigan  Region.

13                 Respectfully submitted,

14                 Luther J. Titus, Mayor

15                 Carl R. Boutilier,  Operations Superintendent.

16        CHAIRMAN STEIN: We have a presentation from the City

17   of Valparaiso, Indiana, presented  by Mayor DonaE E. Will:

18                      (Statement)

19                 The Citycf Valparaiso, Indiana employed 0.  M.

20   Leonard & Associates to make a survey, report, and recommenda-

21   tions on the current and future estimated requirements for

22   the City of Valparaiso, Indiana,  in the light of the  indicated

23   expansion of industry in this area.

24                 This report has been promised to be furnished  us

25   in the near future, but it will not be completed for  use  or


    presentation in its entirety for this March meeting in

    Chicago, Illinois.

                  The City requested Mr. Leonard to furnish a

    letter giving an outline of the summary recommendations. I

    have a copy of the Engineer's letter, and request permission

    to read this and use it as my report.

                  This letter will show that the City has already

    recognized the probability of a pro*blem and has taken steps

    to have it analyzed, and then initiate a progressive program.

10                 Sincerely,

11                 Donald E. Will, Mayor of Valparaiso.

12                           * * * *

13        The Honorable Mayor, and
         Board of Public Works & Safety
14        City of Valparaiso, Indiana
         City Hall
15        Valparaiso, Indiana

16                                 Re:  City of Valparaiso, Indiana
                                       Sewers and Sewage Treatment
17                                      Facilities

18                 Gentlemen:

19                 In accordance with your request we herewith

20   present a brief resume of the data which will be presented

21   in our engineering report and recommendations for sewerage,

22   sewage treatment, and drainage for the City of Valparaiso,


24                 1.  Scope of Planning:  The City of Valparaiso,

25   Indiana, is adjacent to and is a part of a large industrial


 l   expansion in the Calumet area.  Expenditures of new capital

 2   have been estimated at one billion dollars per year for the

 3   tri-county Calumet area.  Valparaiso has experienced an

 4   increase in the past three (3) years of about 5*000

 5   population in the utility area served by the City.

 6                 It is our opinion that this present population

 7   of approximately 17,000 within the 4 1/2 square miles of

 8   incorporated area, may be reasonably expected to double,

 9   and the corporate area to increase to about 14.0 square

10   miles within the next fifteen years (1980).  In addition to

11   the anticipated increase in residential area, provision for

12   some Industrial waste treatment will be necessary for

13   industries moving into the area.

14                 ?.  Sewerage and Drainage System:  The

IS   present sewerage system serving the City is a combined

16   system.  This system improved and extended in 1958 has

17   adequate capacity for storm and waste water service to the

18   present area of the City, and sufficient capacity for the

19   anticipated future sanitary and waste water which will be

20   discharged from the additional and partially developed

21   areas now under study, provided that all storm drainage

22   from future areas are discharged into separate storm

23   drainage systems; discharged direct to natural drainage

24   watercourses.

25                 The engineering survey and report we are now


     preparing for the  City of Valparaiso,  Indiana,  will  show

     the  boundaries of  seven (7)  separate  storm drainage  areas.

     The  total area encompassed by these separate  districts

     or areas  are  shown on  the attached sketch  drawing.

                   All  sanitary and waste  water collected in

     these  new areas to be  served by a separate system of sanitary


                   (a)  That the operation  of  all sewerage

     systems and sewage treatment facilities  be supervised by

 10   a  qualified professional engineer who  is a member of the

     Board  of  Public V.'orks  and Safety, or  such  other professional

 12   engineer  employed  by the Board to review and  approve

 13   plans  for all new  construction and all proposed alterations

 14   to existing sewerage or sewage treatment facilities, and

 15   to also supervise  the  proper operaton and  maintenance of  the

 16   systems and treatment  facilities.

                   \>e believe that by adoption  of, and enforcement

 18   of the regulatory  ordinances necessary to  provide for all

 19   sanitary  sewage and trade wastes from  new  additions  to be

 20   separate,  and that the supervision and operations of the

 21   sanitary  sewerage  system and sewage treatment facilities  be

 22   made a mandatory responsibility of an  experienced and

23   technically qualified  authority,that the municipality can

     reasonably meet the requirements imposed by the accelerated

25   population growth  and  area expansion which the  City  is

















now taking place.
              Yours very truly,
              C. M. Leonard & Associates
              Signed by 0. M. Leonard
Enclosure:  (Area Outline Map) (See Page 1332

     CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have a statement by the Board of
Trustees, Town of Porter, Indiana.
                TOWN OP PORTER, INDIANA
              The Town of Porter is now daily discharging
approximately 65,000 gallons of raw sewage into the Little
Calumet River, in Westchester Township, Porter County,
              The discharge takes place one-half mile down-
stream from the recently constructed sewage treatment plant
now treating the sewage from the Town of Chesterton.
              Chesterton's capacity far exceeds current
requirements, and the two Town Boards, Porter and Chesterton,
have beennegotiating a contract by which Porter would lease
capacity in the Chesterton plant equal to twice Porter's
present requirements.  It is expected that the two towns
will reach an agreement within the next three or four weeks.
              Board of Trustees, Town of Porter
              Signed by Thomas Wagner, Trustee.



         ':_    FOR


 1        CHAIRMAN STEIN:   We have the statement of Mr.  Leo
 2   Louis,  President of the Gary-Hobart Water Corporation,
 3   Gary, Indiana.
 4                        (STATEMENT)
 5                 As testimony presented to the conference on the
 6   matter of pollution of interstate waters of the Grand Calumet
 7   River,  Little Calumet River,  Calumet River, Lake Michigan,
 8   Wolf Lake, and their tributaries  - March 2-5,  1965, McCormick
 9   Place,  Chicago,  Illinois:
10                 I wish to refer to  the 1965 Report of the
11   United States Department of Health, Education, and  Welfare
12   on the matters discussed at this  conference, particularly
13   in regard to the comments in the  report referring to Gary-
14   Hobart Water Corporation.
15                 On page 12,  under Chapter V - Water Uses, it is
16   indicated that we are one of the  municipal water systems in
17   Indiana which uses Lake Michigan  as its source of water
18   supply.  We do have two filtration plants -- one of which
19   was completed in 195^* and the second one now nearing
20   completion.
21                 Our Jefferson Park Filtration Plant in Gary
22   is located at Seventh Avenue and  Madison Street near the
23   downtown area, and the water supply for this plant is obtained
24   through a three mile long intake  tunnel which was constructed
25   at an elevation approximately 90  feet below lake level.  This

























 intake extends due north from our plant under the United

 States Steel property and ends in an intake crib located at

 the bottom of the lake in approximately 40 feet of water.

               Water flows by gravity from the intake to our

 filtration plant, and the end of the intake is approximately

 one mile from the present shore line.  This intake was

 constructed in the years 1906-1908 and is now reaching its

 design capacity during our peak days in summer months.  Our

 records indicate the intake was designed for about 55

 million gallons per  day, and, in 1964, we did pump around

 54 million gallons per day through our plant.

               The second filtration plant, now under

 construction,is being built in the southwest corner of the

 Town of Ogden Dunes adjacent to the Inland Steel Company

 property.  The primary reason we moved that far east was

 because we were unable to obtain other property and access

 to the lake closer to Gary.

               We do not have room at the Jefferson Park

 location for further expansion, and we decided it would be

 too difficult to do with our decision to move to the Porter

 County site.  The intake for the Ogden Dunes plant consists

 of a pipe line located in the lake bottom terminating in an in

let at the bottom of the lake in approximately 25 feet of

 water 2,300 feet from the shoreline.
25                 The report indicates that the principal lake

    currents flow from east to west and from south to north in our
    area.  Consequently, the principal sources of pollution
    mentioned in the report, after they are mixed with lake
    water, do not generally flow toward our intakes with the
    exception, of course, of Burns Ditch.  For this reason,
    we have not encountered the extreme conditions noted by
    other water utilities.
                  In general, our raw water supply is very good,
    and, while we do have some periods of unsatisfactory water
10   which result in some increased chemical costs and increased
11   technical supervision techniques, we have never complained
12   too much about these problems.
13                 We are anxious, of course, to keep pollution
14   in the lake to a minimum, but we have been willing to
    undertake some increased treatment costs realizing that
16   Lake Michigan water is so very much better than many other
17   utilities in other parts of the country have to deal with.
18   We are also cognizant of the fact that we are located in an
19   industrial area, we serve large industries with at least
20   part of their water supply, and we are anxious to have
21   other industries locate in our area to promote the growth
22   of the area and our water system.
23                 On page 19* in the last paragraph, the report
24   includes - :;The lakeward reaches of Indiana Harbor are rust-
25   colored from v;aste pickle liquor."  Iron wastes in the raw


     water at  our  Jefferson  Park  station do  constitute our  major

     complaint on  lake  water pollution.   At  fairly  regular  inter-

     vals,  our raw water is  highly  colored and  does contain

 4   measurable amounts of iron.

 5                 During the last  three years  the  average  iron

 6   content in the raw water has been approximately 0.2 parts

     per  million to 0.3 parts per million.   Of  course, as I

     have stated,  we do not  have  iron in the water  at all times,

 9   so these  average figures do  indicate that  when we do have

10   iron the  quantities are much higher.

11                 In 1963,  we had  a  maximum concentration  of

12   iron in our raw water of 2.9 parts  per  million.  This  iron

13   is generally  in the ferric or  insoluble form,  which has

14   been oxidized and  is high colored.   V.'e  have flown over the

     lake during periods of  iron  in the  raw  water,  and we can

16   definitely see the red  colored water flowing toward our

17   intake from Indiana Harbor.

18                 It was our impression that this  iron  may have

19   originated from the iron ore storage bins  along the Harbor

20   but,  of course,  we can't be  sure of that.  Actually, aside

21   from the  appearance of  the raw water, the  iron doesn't

22   cause  us  too  much  difficulty in  treatment.  It does in-

23   crease our chlorine demand slightly but not sufficiently to

24   cause  us  any  overall increases in our costs.

25                 We are, of course, worried from  the standpoint

 l   that there may be other things in the water that would be
 2   more harmful than the iron when this pollution does approach
 3   our intake.  As I stated,  generally the lake currents do not
 4   flow from Indiana Harbor toward our intake, and I would
 5   assume that the only time this condition occurs is when the
 6   wind direction changes and the currents then change from
 7   west to east toward our intake.
 8                 On page 40,  the second paragraph again
 9   mentions Gary-Hobart Water Corporation.  The report indicates
10      I! The Gary-Hobart Water Plant reports that, when high
11   carbon dosages are required, hydrocarbon odors are always
12   responsible."  This statement is a little too positive
13   because, while this is generally true, we do not always have
14   hydrocarbon odors when there are high carbon dosages.
15                 Most of this paragraph accurately states,
16   however, that we do have mod: of our problems in the winter
17   months.  Vie think that most of these problems are caused
18   by ice cover on the lake during this period of the year.
19   cur carbon dosages at our plant are not nearly as high
20   as other water plants with usual winter carbon dosages
21   consisting of from 80 pounds to a maximum of 150 pounds per
22   million gallons of water.
23                 V.'e have made phenol analyses on occasions and
2*   these have indicated the phenol content in our raw water
25   during winter months running as high as 0.048 parts per


















              Although our water treatment problems in

1964 were not generally as severe as they were in 1963,

we have noted an upward trend in our costs of treating

water.  Cur total chemical costs for the period 1958 through

1964 have run as follows:: (These figures are in dollars per

million gallons of water treated).  Delivered costs of

chemicals, with the exception of a five percent increase in

aluminum sulphate in 1962, remained the same in this period.

                   1958         $6.52
                   1959          7.51
                   I960          6.50
                   1961          6.80
                   1962          7.13
                   1963          7.32
                   1964          7.62

              The trend of upward costs is not necessarily

indicative of taste and odor producing wastes, however.

The cost of treating the water with activated carbon for

taste and odor removal was actually the lowest in 1964

since 1958.  Cur carbon cost in 1964 was $1.50 per million

gallons compared with $1.42 in 1958 and $2.36 in 1959.  The

cost of chlorine has not changed materially.  In 1964, the

chlorine cost was $124 per million gallons compared to $0.94

in 1958 and $1.23 in 1960.

              The cost of aluminum sulphate in 1964 was $3.08

compared to $2.40 in 1960 and $2.93 in 1959.  AH of these

costs are again in dollars per million gallons of water


























              Cn page 43 of the report, the Gary-Hobart
VJater Corporation is again quoted in the last paragraph.
The report indicates that we are reporting odors suggesting
gasoline,  our laboratory thinks we have been misquoted
here because we usually describe these odors as hydrocarbons.
              It is true we do experience fairly high ammonia
concentration.  In 1963, ammonia nitrogen averaged 0.17 parts
per million and in 1964 averagedO.13 parts per million.  The
maximum ammonia nitrogen noted in our  raw water was 2.43
parts per million.  For some reason,however, the ammonia
has decreased to almost none present during the last few
              Page 44 again quotes us on iron concentrations,
and  I have already mentioned this.  However, we did not
indicate that:    "This iron probably comes from waste pickle
liquor discharged to  Indiana Harbor."
              We have collected intermittent samples, particul-
arly in 1963, of water near the end of our intake at the
Ogden Dunes plant, and the water collected is not too
different than the quality of the Jefferson Park intake.  We
do note that the iron content is much lower while the ammonia
nitrogen content is as high if not higher.  This may indicate
that the relatively high ammonia content in our raw water
at the Jefferson Park plant is actually coming from sewage
in Burns Ditch if the prevailing westviard lake currents flow
















from Burns Ditch toward Gary.

     CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have the statement of the Georgia-

Pacific Corporation:


              On January 1, 1965 Georgia-Pacific Corporation

purchased the paper mill at Gary, Indiana, formerly owned

and operated by Stiner Tissue Mills.  This is such a short

time ago that it hasn't had time to develop a program of

pollution abatement.

              For this reason it has no specific statement

of plans for future work to present at this time.  The

Corporation is in agreement with the aims of the conference

and can be depended on for its complete cooperation.

              Yours very truly,

              Signed, Paul Solheim, Resident Manager.

     CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have the statement from the Town

of Griffith, Lake County, Indiana:


              Attached is a chronological resume of the

Town of Griffith, Indiana, activities and construction

relative to the abatement of stream pollution in Turkey

Creek, Cady Marsh Ditch and tributary streams.

              All residential, commercial and industrial

construction within the Town of Griffith is required to tie

into the sanitary sewer sysbem.

                  During 1964 and currently, the Town of Griffith

    has planned and installed internal sewer facilities in

    addition to the original proposals.  These facilities are

    being installed and extended by the Town in such a manner

    and location that makes it mandatory for all new construction

    to tie in.

 7                 Signed, Chester J. Ziemniak, Town Engineer

 8                 Glen Rayome, Sewer Commissioner.



11                 July 30, 1959.  Town of Griffith received

12   from the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board a Cease and

13   Desist Order from causing and contributing to the pollution

14   of Cady Marsh Ditch, Turkey Creek and tributaries.

                  November 21, 1959.  Town of Griffith enters

16   into agreement with Consoer, Townsend & Associates, Chicago,

17   Illinois, as Consulting Engineers to prepare plans and

18   specifications for the construction of a system of sanitary

19   intercepting sewers to convey sanitary sewage from the

20   Town of Griffith to the City of Hammond, Indiana - sewage

21   treatment facilities.

22                 June 11, 1960.  Upon recommendation of its

23   consulting engineers, the Town of Griffith formally petitions

24   the city of Hammond to enter into a sewage treatment contract

25   with the Town of Griffith whereby the Sanitary District of

























Hammond will accept and treat the sanitary sewage conveyed to

it for treatment by the Town of Griffith.

              June 16, 1960.  Town of Griffith enters into

agreement with the Board of Sanitary Commissioners of the

Hammond Sanitary District for the treatment of Town of

Griffith's sewage.

              September 1961:  Town of Griffith received

Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board approval and

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare tentative

approval of the Town of Griffith's plans and specifications

for sewage facilities.

              September 5, 1961.  Town of Griffith advertises

for construction bids in connection with the above sanitary

sewage facilities project.

              December 5, 19^1.  Town of Griffith receives

bid proposals for construction of intercepting sewers, force

mains, and pumping station.

              January 16, 1962.  Town of Griffith awards

contracts to successful bidders on the above sewage facilities,

              March 19&3.  Pumping station begins delivery

of Town of Griffith sewage to Hammond on a test basis.

              May 20, 1963.  Pumping and delivery of sewage

to Hammond begun in accordance with contract agreement.

              August 1963.  All construction work covering

approved plans and specifications is basically completed.


 l        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have the statement from the Town

 2   of Portage Town Trustees.




 6                 Gentlemen:

 7                 The Town of Portage, Indiana is located in the

 8   northwest corner of Porter County, and encompasses an area

 9   of roughly twenty-two square miles.

10                 Portage is drained by Willow creek in the

H   western areas, and empties into Burns Ditch just inside the

12   western boundary, and by Salt Creek in the eastern areas and

13   this empties into Burns Ditch approximately one and one-half

14   miles from the discharge of the ditch into Lake Michigan.

15   Salt Creek is joined by the Calumet River just inside the

16   eastern boundary.

17                 Portage is a new town, being incorporated in

I8   July 1959* and is still largely a residential area except

19   for the industrial growth along the lake.  Our growth has

20   been rapid in the past five and one-half years.  Our

21   population in the 1960 Federal Census was 11,822, and late in

22   a special census found 13,654 persons living in Portage.  It

23   is now estimated that our population is in excess of 17,000

24   people.

25                 Being such a new town, we have not had time to


 l   construct many public facilities, but have started planning

 2   for them.  A Master Plan was adopted in 1960 to insure

 3   that the building boom then in progress did not progress

 4   in a manner to endanger the health and safety of the existing

 5   and future inhabitants of Portage.

 6                 m 19^1 an engineering firm was hired to

 7   survey the town for three major facilities, water supply,

 8   storm drainage and sanitary sewers and disposal plant.

 9                 Since that time a water supply system has

10   been installed by the Portage Water Company, a subsidiary  of

11   the Gary-Hobart Water Company.

12                 Storm drainage has been started, plans have

13   been prepared by our consultant and have been approved by

14   the Indiana Flood Control and \ ater Resources Commission.

15                 We are presently interviewing consulting

16   engineering firms with the intention of hiring one to design

17   and supervise the installation of a sanitary sewer system

18   and a sewage disposal plant.

19                 At the present time there are three small

20   private disposal systems in operation in Portage, two of

21   them being in subdivisions, and the third serving the P0rtage
22   Township Junior High School and,High School located near the

23   center of town.  All three units were approved by the State

24   Board of Health before installation.

25                 Last September the Indiana State Board of

 1   Health ordered these units to provide chlorination of all

 2   effluent.   Two of these units are already chlorinating

 3   effluent and the third will be by July 1, 1965.   These units

 4   have been operated in an excellent manner, but cannot be

 5   considered permanent solutions to the problem.  The Town

 6   Board has already enacted an ordinance providing that all

 7   private systems will connect their sewers to the public

 8   system when it is installed,

 9                 In addition to providing for connection of

10   sewers, the ordinance referred to above provides for in-

11   spection of installation of individual disposal  systems.

12   In the past it was the duty of the County Sanitarian to

13   inspect such installations, but because of the building

14   throughout the county,he could not give the service needed.

15   It was at  his suggestion that the inspections were taken over

16   by  the Portage Building Department after enactment of the

17   ordinance.

18                 Just this past week a survey was completed of

19   the watersheds in Portage with regard to stream pollution.

20   AS you know, this is not the best time of the year to

21   determine degrees of pollution because of the cold, nor is

22   one survey sufficient to be specific as to causes of

23   pollution, but a general idea can be gained from even one

24   survey taken at this time.

25                 In general this survey shows that Portage does

























contribute slightly to the problem, but much of this can

probably be attributed to agricultural sources and to the

bog lands through which our streams flow.  Perhaps later

surveys can pinpoint sources of pollution which can be

dealt with individually until our sewage system can be

installed.  This survey also shows that much more pollution

enters the town from outlying areas, some of which are rural,

and some urban in character.

              In conclusion, I wish I could say we have

sewers and a disposal plant being installed, but I can say

we hope to be started on such a system in the very near


     CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have a statement from the Simmons

Company of MUnster, Indiana.






              Mr. Chairman and members of this conference:

              My name is James R. Hooper.  I am Central

Division Chief Engineer for Simmons Company with headquarters

at our Munster, Indiana Plant, located at 9200 Calumet Avenue,

              Our Munster Plant began manufacturing in March

of 1958.  We employ at the present time approximately 1,600

    people; our principal products at Munster are mattresses,
    upholstered dual-purpose furniture, and metal furniture.
                  Sanitary wastes are handled by the Hammond
    Sanitary District.
                  The wastes from our Plating operations are
    combined with our storm sewer facilities and are pumped
    approximately one mile to the Little Calumet River  (West).
    These wastes are inorganic in nature.
                  On April 30, 1959* plans for a Waste Treatment
10   Plant were submitted to the State of Indiana.  After
11   exchanging modified plans several times, the State of
12   Indiana gave us an approval "go ahead" on September 30, 1959.
13                 In April 1961 we found it necessary to do our
14   own  chrome plating, and on April 14, 1961, we applied to
    the  State of Indiana for such permission.  Approval from
16   the  Stream Pollution Control Board of the State of  Indiana
17   was  made on July 18, 1961.
is                 Operation and Cofrtrol of Facility
19                 All work and/or consulting was performed by
20   the  Industrial Filter & Pump Manufacturing Company of
21   Cicero, Illinois, on all phases of our installation of our
22   Waste Treatment Plant.
23                 pH Control is maintained by the use of the
24   Foxboro Controllers which insure optimum pH in the
25   effluent.


                  The system for destroying cyanides to  gaseous

    end products is as follows:

                  1.  Cyanide rinses enter the first reaction

    basin, where a mixer insures a homogeneous mixture with lime

    and sodium hypochlorite.

 6                a - Sodium Hypochlorite - 15 percent.

 7                b - Calcium Hydroxide, approximately 1 Ib.

    per gallon.

                  c - Retention time in the basin approximately

10  48 minutes.

n                d - pH range 9-5 to 10.

12                The line is fed by means of the Foxboro

13  Controller which is actuated by electrodes in the basin.  The

14  flow is through an automotic valve over the basin which is

15  controlled again by the Foxboro instrument.  The Sodium

16  Hypochlorite is fed by means of an ORP Controller Recorder

17  which is actuated by electrodes in the basin.  The flow is

18  through an automatic valve over the basin which is controlled

19  by the ORP Controller.

20                2.  After the specified retention time the mix-

21  ture, now with the cyanides oxidized to the cyanate  form,

22  overflows a weir and underflows a baffle into the second

23  reaction basin.  This method is used to insure against short

24  cycling across the top of the basin.  In the second  basin a

25  mixer allows for a homogeneous mixture of the chemicals:

 1                 a - Sodium Hypochlorite 15 percent
 2                 b - Sulphuric Acid 10 percent
 3                 c - pH range 7.5 to 8
 4                 d - Retention time approximately 42 minutes.
 5                 e - Provision for lime fed manually.
 6                 The acid is fed into the second reaction basin
 7   by means of the Poxboro pH Controller, which is actuated by
 8   electrodes in the basin.  The flow is through an automatic
 9   valve over the basin which is controlled by the Foxboro.
10                 The Sodium Hypochlorite is fed by means of a
11   Poxboro ORP Controller Recorder, which is actuated by
12   electrodes in the basin.  The flow is through an automatic
13   valve over the basin, which is again controlled by the
14   heretofore mentioned instrument.
15                 Lime may be fed through a manually operated
16   valve into this basin in the event that the pH should drop
17   below the optimum levels.
18                 After the specified retention time, the waste
19   overflows a weir and underflows a baffle into the final
20   neutralization to undergo hydration and pH adjustment.
21                 The reaction basins are equipped with covers
22   and adequate ventilation.
23                 The procedures outlined herewith indicate the
24   methods employed at our Monster Waste Treatment Plant, and
25   the State of Indiana carefully checks our procedure and the

    resulting effluent carefully and often.
                  Charts are maintained on a time basis, pH basis,
    quantities of chemicals consumed, O.K.P. final neutralization,
    and chlorine residual and are dated to conform to state
                  In 1964 we used 6,875 gallons of Sodium Hypo-
    chlorite, 1,155 gallons of Sulphuric Acid, and 26,000 Ibs. of
                  We have, on a full time basis, one man for
10  each shift who continually checks the Poxboro automatic
11  controllers and makes continuous checks of our Chrome
12  Reduction and makes reports via charts and schedules of the
13  Waste Treatment operation.
14                The effluent as it leaves our Waste Treatment
    Plant is clear and practically odorless.
16                All plans, specifications, and procedures were
17  submitted to the State of Indiana and approved prior to any
18  operation at our plant.
19                The last inspection by the Indiana Stream
20  Pollution Control Board was made in January 1965.
21                We are planning, in the near future, on setting
22  up a standard procedure, with a most reliable and fully
23  equipped laboratory, for a program of sampling our effluents
    for a complete analysis.  This will be done on a monthly
25  basis and in accordance with effective procedures followed in


 1   such an  evaluation  of  our  type  effluent.

 2                 A  waste  water  flow  meter  will  be  installed.

 3                 Cur charts maintained  for the  Stream Pollution

 4   Control  Board  will  be  expanded  to include  our planned future

 5   controls as  I  have  just mentioned.

 6                 Simmons  Company is  most happy  to  be  committed

 7   to  a program of  rigid  controls  for pollution abatement in  the

 8   Calumet  area.  We join with  all other industry  in  this area

 9   in  thanking  the  State  of  Indiana  for the fine cooperation  we

10   have received  from  its Stream Pollution Control Board, which

11   has helped in  making our beautiful plant truly  a modern

12   institution.

13        CHAIRMAN  STEIN:  We have a report  from  the La Salle

14   Steel Company, Hammond, Indiana,  submitted by W. A. Thiel,

15   Chief Engineer:

16                          (Statement)

17                 As reported  in Table VI-4A of  the United

18   States Department of Health, Education, and  Welfare report

13   on  the pollution of the waters  of the  Grand  Calumet River,

20   Little Calumet River,  Calumet River, Lake  Michigan, Wolf

21   Lake, and their  tributaries, La Salle Steel  Company disposes

22   of  some  pickle liquor, which is neutralized  by  the addition of [Uine,

23   by  discharging it into the Grand  Calumet River.

24                 The amount  disposed of is relatively small,

25   about 18,000 gallons a week. This is neutralized  by the

 i   addition of lime to achieve a neutral pH reading.  This is
 2   accomplished by simultaneously emptying the pickle tube
 3   and the lime tube, both draining into a large settling
 4   basin having a capacity of 19,700 gallons.  Here the
 5   neutralization is fully accomplished; the solids, lime,
 6   iron oxides and other solids settle out.  The liquid is
 7   then pumped into a drain that empties into the Grand Calumet
 8   River.
 9                 In 1961 an abrasive cleaning machine was
10   installed and in 1963 another similar machine was installed
11   to replace 80 percent of our pickling operations.  These
12   machines clean the steel by using steel grit.  It is our
13   intention to use abrasive cleaning for all of our cleaning
14   operations and eliminate pickling entirely.  V.e hope to
15   accomplish this in the near future.
l6                 In the meantime, It is our Intention to continue
17   to neutralize all of the spent pickle liquor which is dis-
18   charged into the Grand Calumet River, checking the pH
19   reading before discharge, thereby making sure no acid
20   liquor is discharged into the river.  The solids are removed
21   by means of a bucket and disposed of by a commercial carrier.
22                 All sanitary sewage is connected to the Hammond
23   sanitary sewer system.
24        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have a statement of the Northern
25   Indiana Public Service Company, submitted by Rollin M.
    Schaefer, Vice President and Joseph A. Pelletier, Manager,


General Engineering Department.

                     STATEMENT ON THE
                        OP THE
                        MARCH 1965

              The Northern Indiana Public Service Company has

three plants located within the area included in the Feb-

ruary 19^5* Report on Pollution of the Waters of the Grand

Calumet River, Little Calumet River, Calumet River, Lake

Michigan, Wolf Lake and their tributaries; namely, the By-

Product Gas Plant located on Indianapolis Boulevard and

Riley Road adjacent to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, the

D. H. Mitchell Electric Generating Station on Lake Michigan

immediately east of Buffington Harbor, and the Bailly

Electric Generating Station, on Lake Michigan, in Westchester

Township, Porter County, Indiana.

              This report covers the work that has been done

to prevent water pollution with details concerning the

sewage and industrial waste disposal facilities installed at

each of the above stated plants.

              By-Product Gas Plant
 21               This plant, constructed in the early

 22 twenties, operated originally as a purification plant for

 23 boke-oven gases.  It presently operates as a natural and

 24 propane gas storage plant where propane and air are mixed

 25 with natural gas for peak shaving operations.

















              All sanitary sewage at this plant goes into

the sanitary sewer located on the north side of Riley Road.

ether plant waste consists of storm water, roof drains and

gas holder water overflow.  These empty into a 30" storm

sewer located on the east side of Indianapolis Boulevard.

The water-sealed gas holder overflow is approximately 3,000

gallons per year (varies with rainfall).  Propane storage

tanks are located within concrete retaining dikes to

prevent runoff in the event of tank leakage.

              Deaii H. Mitchell Electric Generating Station^

              On June 1, 1955, Approval No. 3114 was

received from the State of Indiana Stream Pollution and

Control Board for sewage and industrial waste disposal

facilities proposed for Dean H. Mitchell Generating

Station, which was under construction.

              Sanitary System

              The sanitary waste at this plant is discharged

into septic systems set up for the main buildings and con-

struction buildings.  These facilities cost approximately


              Oil Drainage
              Turbine oil storage has been provided with

an oil drainage bed 20' x 32'-6!lx7' deep and is filled with

coarse gravel.  Oil-filled transformers located on the property

are surrounded by coarse gravel filter beds 55Ix55'xll deep.

























Each pair of transformers has a filter bed of the stated

size which is adequate to absorb all of the oil in the

transformer in case of accidental rupture.

              Circulating Water

              Circulating water used by the plant to absorb

waste heat is circulated through the condensers and

returned to the lake.  The quantity of water circulated

by the plant is 1^9,000 g.p.m. when the lake-water tem-

perature is coldest and 318,000 g.p.m. when the lake-water

temperature is warmest.  The water temperature is raised

approximately 23°F. with the 159,000 g.p.m. flow.  To

control algae growth in the condenser, chlorine is the

only chemical injected into the circulating water.  The

following quantities are used:

              Winter - 1.736 pounds per minute for five

minutes twice a day.

              Summer - 1.736 pounds per minute for five

minutes three times a day.

              Ash System

              The ash produced by burning coal in the boiler

is conveyed to ash storage area settling ponds.  Approx-

imately 370 tons of ash per day are conveyed to the ash

storage area.  Ash is hauled from the property by truck.

              Bailly Electric Generating Station
              On August 23, 196l, Approval Number I.W. 66 was
















  received  from the State of Indiana Stream Pollution and
 Control Board  of  the  sanitary sewer and  industrial waste
 disposal plans for the  Bailly Generating Station,  which was
 under  construction.
                Sanitary Sy s_t em
                The sanitary waste is discharged into septic
 systems set up for the  main buildings and construction  building
 These  facilities  cost approximately $13,500.
                Large  oil—filled  transformers located south of
the main building are placed  on concrete  foundations  surrounded
by a filter bed 95' x 31' x I16"  deep  filled  with coarse
gravel.  The capacity of the  bed  is more  than the volume  of
oil that could be discharged  in case of rupture  of the

transformers.  An oil-drain bed is provided near the  gas,  oil,
and hydrogen building to absorb the oil from  the turbine-oil
tank if it should ever become necessary to dump  the oil.
               Circulating Water
               Circulating water  used  by  the  plant to absorb
waste heat is circulated through  the condenser and returned
to the lake.  The quantity of water circulated by the plant
is 70,500 g.p.m. when the lake—water  temperature Is coldest
and 141,000 g.p.m. when the lake-water temperature is warmest.
The water temperature is raised approximately  l6°F. with
25   70,500 g.p.m.  flow.  To control algae growth in the condenser

      chlorine  is  the  only  chemical  injected  into  the  circulating
      water.  The  following quantities  are  used:
                    Winter -  1.38 pounds per minute for a five
      minute period three times a day.
                    Summer —1.4 pounds per  minute for  nine
      minutes three times a day.
  7                  Ash System
  8                  Approximately 175  tons of ash per day from
      firing the main  steam generator is conveyed  by water to an
 10    ash  storage  area south of the  plant.  Ash is hauled from
 li    the  property by  truck.
 12                  Summary
 13                  Our By-Product  Gas Plant,  as  a storage and
 14   mixing plant, is a  closed system  with no  exposed raw
 15    materials, treating or extraction facilities and is generally
 16    free of industrial waste materials.
 17                  The  electric generating  stations  circulate
 18    large volumes of water to absorb  waste  heat  from the steam
 19    condensers.  Daily  chlorination of the  water and removal of
 2o    debris with  screen filters improves the condition  of the
 2i    circulating  water returned to  the lake.   Both of these
 22    plants are relatively new and  the sanitary systems  and
23    waste disposal facilities were installed  to  prevent
24    possible water pollution.
25        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have  a statement from the  Town of


     Highland,  submitted March 3,  1965,  by David A. Morrow,

     President,  Board  of Trustees,  Highland,  Indiana:

 3                     (Statement)

 4                  It is with a great deal of pleasure and

     appreciation  that we,  of Highland,  Indiana, have  been asked

     to  appear  before  this  committee for abating stream pollution

     in  the  Calumet  area.  The United States  Department of Health,

     Education,  and  Welfare and this committee are to  be commended.

     Their vital interest and concern for the well-being of the

10   people  of  this  area and the future  of America is  evident.

11                  This being the  date  set for a hearing

12   relative to pollution  of the waters of the Grand  Calumet

13   River,  the  Little Calumet River,  Lake Michigan, Wolf Lake

14   and  their  tributaries  in Illinois and Indiana,  and that the

IS   Town of Highland,  Indiana,  has been mentioned as  a con-

16   tributing  factor,  we,  therefore,  wish to present  facts

17   pointing out  that we are correcting this problem  as finances

18   are  available.

19                  In retrospect,  Highland has been working

20   toward  the  ultimate  goal of no pollution since May of 1958.

21    On this date  the  City  of Hammond  entered into its first

22   contract with the Town of Highland  to treat and dispose of

23   a part  of the sanitary sewage.   Subsequently, Highland has

24   been installing sewers and  lift  stations to deliver sewage

25    to our  Fifth  Avenue  pumping station from which we pump into

    Hammond's system.
                   By  June  of  1966  Highland  will  have  spent,
    since 1958, approximately  $1.5  million on  sewers,  lift
    stations, and appurtenances necessary to deliver our  sewage
    to the City of Hammond.
                   This seemingly insurmountable  problem  of
    disposing of Highland's sewage  could not have been accom-
    plished had it not been for the foresight, knowledge  and
    courage of the City of Hammond, their Mayor Dowling;  City
10   Engineer, A. G. Gianinni;  City  Controller, Mike Kampo;  The
11   Hammond City Sanitary Board and the Hammond City Council,
12   chaired by Mr. George Carlson.  These men, contrary to  some
13   public opinion and ridicule, in 1964, ratified a new  contract
14   with the Town of Highland.
15                  We would be remiss in our presentation today
16   if we did not mention that the Town of Highland, with a
17   population of 20,000, has  sacrificed many and varied  other
18   services, conveniences,  and necessities, in order  to  cease
19   and desist the pollution of these waterways, by expending
20   their tax dollars toward this goal.
21                  The Town of Highland by the end of  1966  will
22   no longer be polluting these streams except during excessive
23   rain fall.  This cannot be eliminated until the combination
24   type sewer is made obsolete.  Vie can only realize  this  end
25   result as finances are available, which means that Federal



grants are going  to  be  necessary to  expedite  or speed up
this solution.
                The City of Hammond  is  willing to help and
serve their smaller  neighboring  towns,  but  continue  to have
their own problems and  need assistance  also.
               Jn  conclusion,  it  is  obvious  the major stumbling
block for the complete  elimination  of  this  problem is fin-
ancing.  It follows  then that  if this  job is  to be accom-
plished by the  individual  cities and towns, we will  be
another half century debating  in committee  the pros  and  cons
 11   before  the  ultimate goal is realized.
               We,  therefore,  wish  to  point  out  that  the
need for complete cooperation  and coordination is more
 14   prevalent  now than ever before between Federal,  state and
local governments.
     CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We have a  report  from  the  City  of
Crown Point, Indiana:
19                  The City of Crown Point in Lake County,
Indiana, is about to construct two new large interceptor
sewers.  These new interceptor sewers will make is possible
22   for the  City  to  install  local  sewers  in parts  of the City
not previously served, to relieve existing sanitary sewers
and separate certain combined storm and sanitary sewers, and
to serve new areas being annexed to the City.


 1                  The City of Crown Point  is also  in  the

 2   process of expanding and improving its  sewage treatment

 3   plant to handle the increased sewage flow from  the new

 4   interceptor sewers.  It is believed that no untreated sewage

 5   will leave the City of Crown Point after the completion of

 6   the new interceptors and the expansion  of the treatment plant.

 7                  Respectfully submitted,

 8                  Signed, William F. Carroll, City Attorney.

 9        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Now, you can be sure that all  these

10   statements will be read carefully and listed by the  con-

11   ferees and this will be part of the record.  Just  because

12   they are not read, in the interest of time, we  nevertheless

13   will give it full credence, and we will take these into

14   account.

15                  As an example, to show you the type of

16   importance of these, we have the statement of Charles

17   Sandor, Department of Water Works, City of Hammond,  Indiana,

18   and I would like to read a few sentences from his  statement,

19   which will indicate the type of material.

20                  "The raw water in 1964 was by far the

21   poorest quality ever recorded by the Hammond Filtration

22   Plant.

23                  "The average raw water is rapidly becoming

24   poorer in quality.

25                  "The instances of poorest quality raw water is


  l  occurring more  frequently  and  for  greater  hours  in duration.

  2                  "The  pollution  which  strains  the  Hammond

  3  Water Filtration  Plant the most are  the phenols  and oily

  4  wastes, sewage  and plankton.

  5                  "At times the industrial pollution is  so

  8  great that all  the activated carbon  slurry that  pumps  can

  7  feed into the raw water is not ample.

  8                  "To sum it  up,  the  quality  of raw water at

  9  the Hammond's Water  source was excellent between the years

 10   1891 and 1925,  satisfactory between  the years 1926 and  1945,

 11   poor between the  years 1946 and 1955, and  very poor quality

 12   between the years 1956 to 1965.  The quality level of  the

 13   period 1926 to  1945  should be restored and  maintained.

 14                   "The  effect of the  degradation of the present

 15   water quality is  that it is becoming very  difficult to

 lg   produce a safe  and satisfactory water, using the present

 17   conventional equipment and chemicals and employing the

 18   present conventional water treatment methods."

 19                   We have one other statement by the Mayor of

 2o   the City of Whiting,  Mayor Joseph B. Grenchik:

 21                        (Statement)

 22                   Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and

 23   gentlemen:

24                   I am Joseph B. Grenchik, Mayor of the City of

25   Whiting,  Indiana.   This  statement is for and on behalf of the

    people  of Whiting.
                    The  City of  Whiting is  interested in abating
    water pollution in  Lake Michigan  for several  reasons.   First,
    we have a moral obligation  to  all the  people  who also  benefit
    by their proximity  to  Lake  Michigan.   Secondly,  our raw
    water supply  for our Water  Filtration  Plant is drawn from the
    Lake along our  shoreline.   Thirdly, we have,  over a great
    number  of years,  maintained a  beach on Lake Michigan which
    attracts hundreds of bathers daily during  the hot summer
10  months.  The  City of Whiting intends to keep  this beach open
11  in  the future  if the  Lake  County Board of Health permits.
12                  In 1945 the  City of Whiting entered into an
13  agreement with  the  Board of Hammond, Indiana, Sanitary
14  District, for the treatment of its sanitary sewage.  This
15  agreement is  today  in  full  force  and effect.  Over the past
16  five years the  City has  paid approximately $8.00 per year for
17  each man, woman and child residing in  whiting for the  treat-
18  ment of its sanitary sewage, and  the agreement calls for highe
19  costs in the  future.
20                  It is true that during  torrential rainstorms
21  it becomes necessary to  by-pass the sewage plant of the
22  Hammond Sanitary  District.  Not having a dual sewer system
23  makes this necessary.   As soon as  the  sewer level recedes,  the
24  by-pass to the  Lake is  closed.  Since  taking  office  on
25  January 1, 1964,  one of  my  main concerns is to be certain

     that the by-pass is closed except during a heavy rain.
                    In December of 1964, the present City
     Administration negotiated a contract with the engineering firm
     of Consoer, Townsend and Associates for the purpose of
     conducting a complete survey of our entire sewer system.
     The cost to the City for this survey will be approximately
     $1.00 per each citizen.
                    Just last year the City celebrated its 75th
     Anniversary, and many of our sewers are at least that old.
 10   I cannot say that the City of Whiting will install a separate
 11   sewer system as a result of this survey,  but I can say that
 12   the Administration will cooperate in the  problem of water
 13   pollution abatement.
 14                  Thank you for giving the City of Whiting
 15   an opportunity to make this statement.
 16        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Mr. Klassen?
 17        Mr. Klassen:  Mr. Chairman, could  I  add one more
 18   statement from the Hammond Water Works  Superintendent?
 19        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Certainly.
 20        MR. KLASSEN:  "Only when there is  a  strong north wind
 21   does the pollution diminish in the filtration plant's raw
 22   water supply.   The fresh water from the  north pushing in
23   displaces and  dilutes the polluted water."
24        CHAIRMAN STEIN:  I can assume from your selecting that
25   sentence that  Illinois is in that direction?


  l                       (Laughter)

  2        MR. POSTON:  Mr. Chairman,

  3        MR. KLASSEN:  This is of particular interest, though,

     Mr. Chairman,  inasmuch as the Mayor, I believe, of East

     Chicago, yesterday intended to show that the water in that

     area was of good quality and I think — I don't know Mr.

     Sandor, don't  know anything about him, but I think that,

     from reading this, he's certainly joining the ranks of

     dedicated people who are trying to do a job in providing

 10   safe water under extremely difficult conditions.

 11        CHAIRMAN  STEIN:  I will give these to the reporter and

 12   would you enter these into the record, please.

 13        MR. POOLE:  I have an emergency phone call.

 14                  Would you introduce —

 15        MR. POSTON:  Mr. Chairman, I noticed that you read one

 16   of these many  reports which you have entered in the record

 17   here.

 18                  Does that infer that all of the other

 19   reports are of the same significance as this one of Mr.

20   Sandor?

21        CHAIRMAN  STEIN:  I just selected sentences from the

22   record.

23                  I made no evaluation as to significance.

24   I hope the conferees will read them carefully.

25                  Mr. Poole or Mr. Miller, will the Mayor of

 1    Hammond  —  is  he  going to  appear so that we could ask him
 2    some  questions about  that?
 3         MR.  MILLER:   Mr. Giannini has been designated.
 4         MR.  POOLE:   By the Mayor of Hammond.
 5         MR.  KLASSEN:   A  representative of the City,  we  will get
 B    an  opportunity to  ask him  some questions.
 7         CHAIRMAN  STEIN:   Mr.  Miller.
 8         MR.  MILLER:   The next representative will be from the
 9    City  of  Hammond and will be Mr.  A. G.  Giannini,  City
10    Engineer, Sanitary District,  Hammond,  Indiana.
11         MR.  GIANNINI:  Mr. Chairman, conferees,  ladies  and
12    gentlemen:
13                   I  have presented  this brief as requested  by
14    our Mayor Dowling,  in reply to the report prepared by the
15    Health, Education,  and Welfare Department in February of  19&5.
16                   In  presenting this brief, if I may, Mr.
17    Chairman, I should  like to  just  skip over briefly
18    the various chapters  in the interest of saving time.
19         CHAIRMAN  STEIN:   Would you  want the whole thing to
20    appear?
21         MR. GIANNINI:  I would like  the whole thing  to  appear.
22         CHAIRMAN  STEIN:   Without objection,  this will be done.
23         MR. GIANNINI:  The Hammond  Sanitary District, charged
24    with  the task  of disposing  of all  sanitary waste  materials
25    from  sources within the  district,  was  organized on October

     31,  1938 >  more than 50 years after Hammond became an
     incorporated city.   In the years preceding its formation,
     the  city fathers had become concerned about the city's
     drinking water supply and were searching for ways to solve
     the  increasing lake pollution problem.  Local sanitation
     also was becoming a problem.
                    During the growth of Hammond, the city,
     through its Board of Public Works and Safety, had builfc a
     network of sewers which handled both stormwater and sewage.
10   All  of the waste from the kitchen, laundry and bathroom,
11   as well as surface  water from streets and industrial
12   wastes, were discharged into the Grand Calumet River,  the
13  -Little Calumet River,  and Lake Michigan.  This situation was
14   creating both a health hazard and a nuisance.
15                  Of greatest concern to the city fathers, was
16   the  fact that dumping raw sewage into Lake Michigan increased
17   the  problem of supplying safe drinking water to the residents
18   of the area,  since  Hammond and other Calumet Region cities
19   all  obtain their water from the lake.  It was time, they
2o   felt,  to provide a  special treatment of domestic and
21   industrial wastes before the situation became serious.
22                  The  Sanitary District was thus formed through
23   authority  cf the Indiana Acts of 1917, which contained rules,
24   regulations and procedural instructions for its establishment.
25   The  District today  is still governed by these acts  and


    subsequent  amendments.   A  Board  of Sanitary Commissioners

    was  set  up  to  run  the District and carry out the  aims  of

    the  administration.  Members  of  the Board include the  city

    engineer, by virtue  of his office,  and  two other  men

    appointed by the mayor.  The  Board meets every first and

    third Thursday in  the Administration Building and all  such

    meetings are open  to the public.

                    Under the law, the  district also had  bonding

    power apart from that of the  city.   It  was this that

10  enabled  the District to raise funds through the sale of

ll  bonds so that  it could build  facilities to handle the

12  sanitation problem.  At its inception,  the District  had

13  bonding power  limited to two  percent of the assessed valuation

14  within the boundaries of the  city  of Hammond.   (Today, the

15  District's bonding power has  risen  to a limit  of  eight

16  percent of the  assessed valuation  of the cities of Hammond

17  and  Munster combined, which came into the District in  1948,

18  or more than $15 million,  compared  with about  $3-5 million

19  in 1938).

20                  Once  the District was created,  the

21  commissioners got down to  the business  of building facilities.

22  But  before they could do this, they had  to raise  the money

23  to be able to pay for them.   Fortunately for the  District,

24  the  Federal Government at  this time was  providing funds  for

25  cities to improve their public works facilities.














               The Government, through  the  Public  Works
Administration, would pay 45 percent of the  cost of  building
a treatment plant, pumping stations and necessary  inter-
ceptor sewers.  However, the Government could not  enter into
the cost of the site.  The total cost, including the site,
to get the sanitary district in operation,  came to about
$7 million.  But of the total, the District  only paid about
$3,250,000 as its share of the cost.  This  included  purchase
of the site.
               Once the plans for the District facilities
were complete the Commissioners had to look  around for a
treatment plant site.  There were two requirements that had
to be met in finding a suitable location.   First,  the site
had to be near a receiving stream, so that  the treated flow
could be removed and, secondly, the area had to be large
enough to handle the wide-spread facilities  needed for the
operation of a sewage treatment plant and also for its
future expansion.
               The Commissioners began searching the city
for a location that not only would meet these requirements
but one that also could be bought cheaply.   Several  sites
were found that would suit the purpose of the Sanitary
District and it was finally agreed that a 58-acre tract
along the Columbia Avenue and the Grand Calumet River was
best suited for the purpose.

               The  land was  cheap  because  it  was  river
bottom land and of  little value for industrial or commercial
usage.  It also was picked because the  city already  owned
about one-quarter of it which  could be  turned over to the
Sanitary District.
               And, finally, a pumping  station had been
built by the Board  of Works  on Columbia Avenue to handle the
flow to the river which could  be converted for use by the
Sanitary District.  The only thing necessary  to make the
property usable was to fill  it in  and thus raise  it  several
feet above the level of the  river.
               Once the necessary  papers were signed to give
the District ownership of the  58-acre tract, ground  breaking
ceremonies followed.  Construction of the plant facilities
was begun in December of 1938, just two months after the
District was created.  At the  same time, the District took
inventory of what equipment  and facilities already in use
could be converted  for sanitation  purposes.
               The  engineers found that much  of the  existing
sewer system could be used to  transport sewage to the
treatment plant, with modifications and improvements.   It
also was determined that the pumping station on District
property,  at Columbia Avenue,  could be renovated  and
enlarged to direct the sewage  to the plant.
               At the same time, it was determined that








three pumping  stations would have  to be  built  to  accommodate
the operation.  These were located at Kennedy  Avenue  and
Michigan Street, the South Side station  at 77th Street  and
Columbia Avenue and the Robertsdale station at 115"th  Street
and Atchison Avenue.
               Construction of the treatment plant  itself
included a network of tanks, such as primary,  aeration,
final clarification and sludge digestion, through which the
sewage would pass and be treated; buildings to house
mechanical equipment needed to operate the tanks, and an
administration building from which to direct the  operation
of the plant.
               The administration building, located in  the
center of the District property, houses  offices for the
Board, superintendent, supervisory personnel and  clerical
help and a laboratory where the tests are made of the
various processes the sewage passes through while it  is
 18 I  treated.  Finally,  20 miles of intercepting sewers were
 19   added to the city's sewer system to facilitate the movement
 20   of waste to the plant.
 21                  The work that started in late 1938 to give
 22   the City of Hammond a sewage treatment works took four years
 23   to complete.  The multi-million dollar plant was placed
 24   in complete operation in September of 19^2.
25                  Since that time, all the sanitary sewage

 originating  within the District,  as well as all industrial
 wastes discharged  to  the  sewer system,  has received complete
 treatment  in the Columbia Avenue  plant.
                Designer of the treatment works was Charles
 H. Kurd.   Most  of  the District improvements during the
 past few years  have been  designed by Consoer Townsend and
 Associates,  the city's consulting engineers.
                Pour years after completion of the treatment
 plant, the first improvement  in the city's sanitary sewer
 system was made.   Sewage  was  being dumped into the existing
 sewer system and during heavy rains,  the sewers couldn't
 handle the increase and caused the sewers to back up and
 flood basements.
                It  was decided that an extension of the south
 side interceptor sewer be  made from 165th Street  and Columbia
 Avenue to  Michigan Street  and Columbia  Avenue.   This extension
 paralleled the  existing city  sewer and  removed  the load from
 it in heavy  rains.
                In  19^8, the town  of Munster was brought into
 the District, through mutual  agreement  of the  administrations
 of the two municipalities.  Munster residents  were taxed
 equal to those  in Hammond  and  they were  to  receive the
 same benefits.  This  arrangement  also increased the  bonding
power of the District  because  it  would  then include  the
assessed valuation of  Munster.


                    The addition was  made  during the early part

     of  the year  and work  began  immediately  to  tie  in the  Munster

     sewer system so that  the  sewage  could be treated at the

     Hammond plant.   The District, by this arrangement, was

     responsible  for building  a  pumping station to  service Munster

     and also to  build  an  interceptor sewer  to  establish the


                    When this  work was completed, sewage in the

     far east and far west portions of Munster  was  relayed for

10    treatment in the Hammond  plant.   At this time,  most of the

11    center of Munster  was still farm land.  The Munster work cost

12    about $360,000  to  complete.

13                   One year later, in 1949, the Hanmond Sanitary

14    District took over the responsibility of operating all the

15    stormwater pumping stations  in the city from the Board of

16    Works.  This required renovation of stations along the

17    Little Calumet  River and  the addition of two more pumping

18    stations, one at Tapper and  the  river and  the  other at Van

19    Buren and the river.  With  the two that had been built along

20    the Little Calumet at Baring and Hohman Avenues, this brought

21    to seven on  the  Hammond side of  the river  for  which the

22    Sanitary District  was responsible.  There  were  two more  on

23    the Munster  side.

24                   It  wasn't  until 1952 that expansion finally

25    was needed at the  sewage  treatment plant.   Because of the

    growth inside the District, the plant was  reaching  capacity
    and had to be made larger to handle projected  increases.
    First three additional stormwater pumps were put in the
    Columbia Avenue pumping station.  Then three sludge con-
    centration tanks were added to aid sludge  disposal  at  the
    plant.  Also added were eight sludge disposal  beds  and an
    extension of the south side interceptor to Cline Avenue.
                   All of these additions in 1952  totaled
    $850,000 and was the first major work at the plant  since its
10  original construction.
                   Besides treating all of the sewage in
12  Hammond and Munster, the Hammond Sanitary District  also
13  treats sewage from the towns of Whiting, Griffith and
14  Highland.  However, since theyj«r«not part of  the District
15  itself, they are charged by the amount of sewage treated
16  on a contractural basis.  The town of Griffith made  prepara-
17  tions in 1963 to have the Hammond Sanitary District  treat
18  its sewage, similar to the other neighboring towns.
19                 Treatment Plant and Its Operation
20                 The physical properties of the  sewage treat-
21  ment plant cover about 20 acres of the 58-acre tract owned
22  by the Sanitary District along Columbia Avenue and the Grand
23  Calumet River.  During the latter part of 1962 and early
24  1963,  a multi-million dollar expansion program was carried
25  out at the plant to increase its capabilities.  This


     expansion saw several more acres of the property covered with

     new structures and equipment.

                    Various size tanks and sand drying beds are

     located  at the Sanitary District site,  besides a number of

     buildings from which the operation is run and  controlled.

                    Located there are the Administration Building,

     Primary  Treatment  Building,  Power Building,  Gas Control

     Building,  Sludge Control Building and the Maintenance  and

     Equipment Storage  Building.  The buildings are constructed

10   of  yellow brick, are fireproof and are  equipped with the

11   most modern instruments,  electrical  and mechanical  machinery

12   needed to carry out  the  sewage treatment process.

13                  There are 12 shift operators at the  plant

14   and 12 at the  pumping stations scattered throughout the

15   city.  Relief  operators  are  available for vacation  purposes

16   and emergencies.   The  operatorsAselected for their  mechanical

17   aptitude  and are given whatever  training is  necessary  to make

18   good operators.

19                  Other personnel of the District include two

20   chemists  for the laboratory, a part-time electrician,  a truck

21   driver used for hauling  sludge,  seven maintenance—men

22   mechanics, painter and laborers,  all  used  when necessary to

23   maintain  the buildings and repair  equipment.   Maintenance  of

24   the equipment  is important because the  plant is  in  operation

25   2^ hours  a day, seven days a week.

                The treatment plant is of the so-called
 biological  type,  employing the activated sludge process
 along  with  separate sludge digestion.  Essentially,  the
 plant  functioning is dependent upon the utilization  of
 certain  bacteria  and other biological organisms normally
 contained in  the  sewage  which reaches the plant for  treat-
                The physical plant  in operation provides and
 maintains environmental  conditions favorable to the  life
 requirements  and  growth  of these biological  individuals,
 11  which are put to work  in accomplishing  the  sewage  treatment
               The  sewage,  or  influent,  comes  into  the
plant system through the Columbia  Avenue pumping  station,
after passing through the maze of  sewers and pumping  stations
located throughout  the city to collect and relay  the  v/aste
material.  The first stage of treatment is handled  at the
pumping station.  All rough and coarse material is  removed
by screens and transported to a hammer mill grinder inside
the station.  Here, ragfl, sticks and other coarse debris
are removed, ground and fed back into the sewage  to be
treated.  This process prevents pipes through which the
waste passes from clogging up and protects the expensive
pumping equipment.
               The  sewage is first pumped into pre-aeration


tanks  (20 by 30 feet wide and 8 to 12 feet deep) where  two
functions are performed.  One is the removal of grit, con-
sisting of sand, cinders, etc., by separating it from the
organic matter.  The grit is thoroughly cleaned and makes
excellent fill material, which has been used on the District
               After it is cleaned, the grit is moved by
conveyors to trucks and then to where it is needed.  About
3 or 4 cubic feet of grit is processed each day.
               The second function of the pre-aerat±n tanks
is to freshen the raw sewage by blowing air under pressure
 12   into it.   The  waste material then passes into primary
sedimentation basins where more solids are separated from
the liquid waste.  This is all part of the primary treatment
process.  The sewage is then run through a secondary treat-
ment process before it is discharged into the Grand Calumet
River, a clear liquid.
               During the treatment of the sewage, two by-
products are acquired which become available for use at
the plant.  One is a methane gas which is produced in sufficient
quantities to be used as fuel for two 425 h.p. gas engines.
If this gas were bought, it would cost between $1,600 and
$2,200 a month to keep the plant fully supplied.
               The gas engines drive blowers producing air
required in the aeration tanks.  Heat recovered from both

     the water jacket and the exhaust gasses of the engines is
     used for maintaining temperatures within the sludge digestion
     tanks.  Boiler facilities also are provided that use the by-
     product gas for heating the sludge digestion tanks and plant
                    During the digestion of the sewage solids,
     after the volatile matter (biological breakdown) has been
     reduced to  a practical limit,  the character of the residual
     material is entirely changed.   It becomes a thick viscous
 10   liquid, having a not unpleasant tarry odor, and is otherv/ise
 11   not readily identified as to its original source.
 12                  As a black, tarry liquid, the sludge is
 13   permitted to flow by gravity to the surface of sand-drying
 14   beds,  where by percolation into the sand and by air
 15   drying, most of the moisture is removed.  The material which
 16   remains on  the bed is in the form of a cake, which resembles
 17   black soil  in appearance.
 18                  The material, called humus sludge, is used to
 19   supply humus to soil and as  a  fertilizer.   Farmers pick up
20   the humus sludge at the plant  free.  The process for turning
21   the heavy sewage into a usable  product is a lengthy one taking
22   from 20 to  40 days to complete.
23                  The sewage treatment plant, prior to the
24   expansion program,  handled about 28 million gallons of raw
25   sewage per  day.   However,  when construction on new


     facilities is completed,  the plant will handle up to 38

     million gallons  of raw sewage per day.   Expansion was

     necessary to  keep  up  with the ever growing District.

 4                  instruction

 5                  In  1959,  while recognizing the need for main-

     taining a safe drinking  water supply  in Lake  Michigan,  the

     Sanitary District's Board embarked on a construction program

     to  improve the environmental health problem of flooded

     basements caused by back-up of our combined sewers during

10   storms.  The  city's rapid growth  of the 1950's caused our

il   existing sewer system to  be inadequate.  A substantial

12   amount  of relief sewer and pumping station construction

13   became  necessary for  the  prevention of  combined sewer

14   flooding.

15                 The two-fold purpose of  the Board was

16   clearly demonstrated  by the 1959  project  in the Robertsdale

17   section of Hammond.   A stormwater relief  sewer was installed

18   in  the  western half of Robertsdale to handle  only the run-off

19   from streets.

20                 The project included the erection of a pumping

21    station in Forsyth Park discharging only  stormwater into

22   Wolf Lake.  In the eastern half a stormwater  relief trunk

23    sewer was  provided with additions to  the  existing pumping

24   station at 115th and  Atchison Avenue.   These  relief sewers

25    are designed  to  permit the eventual complete  separation of










Robertsdale  sewers  by  installing  branches  and  laterals  to

pick up  street drains  only.

               As soon as money becomes available it is
  4   planned to complete the separation of Robertsdale's

     sewers by installing branches and laterals to pick up

  _   street drains only.

                    As soon as money becomes available it is

     planned to complete the separation of Robertsdale's sewers

     in such a manner that only stormwater will be discharged
     into Lake Michigan and Wolf Lake.  The existing combined
     sewers will then become separated sanitary sewers flowing
     continuously to the District's Sewage Plant.  Results since
     1959 indicate that the environmental health problem was

     eliminated and a good start made on the longer range

     separation plan.
               The population explosion of the 1950's  caused

treatment plant improvement with four new digesters ii  the

1959 construction program to handle a greater amount of

organic material coming into the plant.  To further improve

the plant effluent discharged into the Grand Calumet River,

the District in 1962 constructed at the plant six new

primary tanks, two aeration basins, two final clarifiers and

shallow lagoons for sludge disposal utilizing the existing

flood plain of the Grand Calumet River.  The District  received!

    a $250,000 Federal grant  from the United  States Department

     of Health, Education, and Welfare for its treatment plant
     work handled through a $3,100,000 bond issue.
                     Also, in 1962 a  storm relief  sewer was
     started in the  Downtown area with a pumping  station on Sohl
     Avenue discharging into the Grand Culumet River.  This
  6 1 relief sewer is also designed to handle future branches
     and laterals picking up street  drains in the area and  thus
     eventually leading to a separate sewer system.  When money
  9 I! is available to complete the separation, the Sohl Avenue
 10  station will discharge only stormwater into  the Grand










     Calumet River.
                    The last project initiated in 1962 was
     the Hessville Munster project.   In Hessville the project
     was similar to those in Robertsdale and the Downtown section.
15 I  It  provided storm relief sewers and a pumping station
16    addition to the existing Kennedy Avenue pumping station.
17                   Planned eventual separation will again have
     the Kennedy Avenue station pumping only stormwater into
     the Grand Calumet River.   The  Munster project provided new
     sanitary interceptor sewers to pick up dry weather flow

     South of the Little Calumet River and in the Schoon

     Ditch area.
                    The Little Calumet River was improved by

     cutting off the sewers discharging directly into the
     River and connecting them to the new interceptor carrying the


 1   sanitary wastes to the District's Treatment  Plant.  To

 2   further abate the pollution of the Little Calumet River,

 3   the Sanitary Board, in 1962, agreed to treat the sanitary

 4   wastes of Highland and Griffith.  In the following year

 5   the first connections to our South Side interceptor were

 6   made by both towns.  Contracts are in force  for eventual

 7   treatment of all the dry weather sanitary flow from

 8   Highland and Griffith as soon as additional  sewers can be

 9   constructed.

10                  In 1961 the Sanitary Board hired the firm

n   of Consoer-Townsend and Associated of Chicago to survey

12   the entire District and advise the Board on what was needed

13   to up-date the sewer system.  The engineering report out-

14   lined a complete program for improvements to eliminate the

15   continuing health hazard and property damage due to back-

16   flooding of basements.

17                  In December of 1964, the Near North Side

18   storm relief sewer was initiated with the sale of a bond

19   issue for $2,640,000.  Construction contracts have  been

20   executed and the work will begin in March of 1965.  The

21   North Side relief sewer is again planned for eventual separa-

22   tion of existing sewers with the Johnson Avenue pumping

23   station on the north side of the Grand Calumet River some

24   day discharging only stormwater into the river.

25                  The Sanitary Board and the Board of Public


    Works, on advice of the Indiana State Board of Health

    has Insisted since 1957 that all new subdivisions have

    separated storm and sanitary sewers wherever possible.

    In 1964 the District contracted for a stormwater pumping

    station at Calumet and Sheffield Avenue to service the

    new storm sewer being constructed on Sheffield avenue.

    The pumping station will discharge only stormwater into

    Wolf Lake.  The Board of Public Works contracted in

    February of 19^5 for the storm sewer to be started this

10  spring.  The District also contracted for the separate

11  sanitary sewer on Sheffield Avenue since this is an

12  industrial area having no sewers at all.

13                 Bond ing Powe r

14                 The crux of water pollution control in the

IS  final analysis has been and always will be financial.  The

16  big problem of the Sanitary Board in the past was lack

17  of £inds to finance needed improvements.  Enabling legislation

18  passed by the State Legislature limited the bonding power of

19  the District to a maximum two percent of assessed valuation

20  of the property within the District.  In 1955* this was

21  raised to four percent, four years later to six percent

22  and in 1961 to eight percent.  A bill raising the bonding powe

23  to ten percent is in the present legislature and has passed

24  the Senate.  When passed by the House, the District will

25  again proceed with planned Improvements outlined in their


     engineer's report of I^6l.

                    Table I - Bonds Outstanding gives a clear

     picture of the financial operations of the District down

     through the years.     (See Page 138l)

                    Table II shows that the District has used its
                             (See Page 1382)
     power to the limit in recent years.  The present Board is

     determined to make every effort to improve conditions in

     Hammond as money becomes available.  Approximately $670,000

     will become available in 1965 as bonding power due to repay-

 10   ment of principal on outstanding bond issues.  This will be

 11   put to use as soon as the final actions of the legislature

 12   are known.

 13                  Federal grants have been received by the

 14   District totalling approximately $475,000.  More grants

 15   will be sought where projects qualify but it appears that

 16   'the amount of the grants will have to be increased sub-

 17   stantially if Hammond is to achieve ideal water pollution

 18   abatement in a short period of time.

 19                  This becomes evident when we consider that

20   our planned program of sewer separation covers an area of

21   approximately 10 square miles.  Estimates of costs, by our

22   engineers, are $8,600 per acre.   Other engineers' estimates

23   have been quoted being as high as $15,000 per acre.

24                  Using our engineer's cost estimate, the

25   District will need an additional  $55,040,000 for separation

bO 0
C1 1TN *
rH ** *
•d ON O
C iH 0
nX I ^
TO 1 **
•p TH vr\
oo en en
•p i
3 CM
•H 0
p* »
•P 0
OQ vr>
JU .*
0) vr> ON
43 NO
Hc»n ^
QD *
•H O
H -dvn o
<3 C3 O CM
H CO 1
*•* i > --*
§ $1
VA o
VO 0
ON •
H 0
1 O
,00 175,
w •
<•-! O
r* CM i-l r-IHCN-CMcnH XT>
NOJ*ON vAvrvcMO(>-oo^j-3r
cn CM en CM CM vo
                             TABLE II


ASSESSED VALUATION OP HAMMOND	  $     181,032,725.00

ASSESSED VALUATION OP MUNSTER.........	  I      24.313.9^-0.00

TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION..............	  |     205,3^6,665.00

SANITARY DISTRICT BONDING POWER..8^..or....  f      16,^27,733.20

OUTSTANDING BONDS as Of 12-31-65.....	  $      16,078,600.00

UNUSED BONDING POWER as of 12-31-65........  f         3^9,133.20

BONDS RETIRED as of 12-31-65	  |         669,600.00
                                        January 1,  1965

     of the existing combined sewers.  Planned improvements
     require another $5,000,000 making a total expenditure  of
     $60,000,000 before total water pollution abatement  can
     become a reality in Hammond.   (Approximately $6,000,000
     are required for completing the sewer separation  in the
     Robertsdale area along Lake Michigan).
                    The taxpayers of the District are  willingly
     footing the bill for the planned improvements of  the
     District.  But it will be purely conjecture as to how  far and
 10   how fast the taxpayers will approve increased bonding powers
 11   by action of the State Legislature.
 12                  Federal grants would be of great help.
 13   Interest costs of $2,588*159 on present bond issues are
 14   shown on Table I to be compared to bond retirement  to-date
 15   of $3,599,^00.  Thus, Federal grants would speed  up the
 16   work for pollution abatement and at the same time save the
 17   taxpayers the bond interest costs.
 18                  Re^ommgndatipii for Corre^ctiye^ _Actiori
 19                  The Hammond Sanitary District has  fully
 20   cooperated with the Indiana State Board of Health and the
 21   Stream Pollution Control Board in the past and will continue
 22   to do so.  ¥e rely on their recommendations for improving
 23   the public waters of the area and have gone so far as to
 24   agree to disinfecting our treatment plant effluent as soon
25   as we can.

                    Last year we agreed to install chlorination
     equipment to sterilize the effluent at an estimated cost
     of $400,000.  However, after reading in Recommendation No. 5
     for a dam built across the Grand Calumet River east of the
     outfall from the East Chicago  Municipal  Waste Treatment
     Plant, we are of the opinion the money for sterilization
     equipment would be wasted.
                    The dam would cause our plant effluent to flow
     west continuously in the Grand Calumet and eventually into
 10   the Illinois River where natural improvement is found
 11   at Peoria.  It is our contention that if the City of
 12   Chicago does not have to chlorinate their much larger amount
 13   of plant effluent it should not be necessary for Hammond
 14   to do so since we have comparable treatment.
                    We agree that the effluent should be improved
 16   only if the suggested dam is placed west of our plant
 17   outfall.  We realize that natural improvement of the effluent
 18   flowing into Lake Michigan through the Indiana Harbor Ship
 19   Canal cannot be accomplished.   To improve the source of our
 2o   drinking water supply — Lake  Michigan — it would behoove
 2i   Hammond to chlorinate its plant effluent.  But not if
 22   natural improvement  is found in a westerly flow.   Until
 23   the dam location is  settled we will hesitate and  will want
 24   to further study the value of  chlorination to Hammond.
2s                  Hammond has been complying with Recommendation

    No.  6 since  its treatment plant was  constructed.   We  have
    secondary treatment and since 1948 have been treating the
    municipal wastes of the small town Munster, Indiana.  The
    towns of Griffith and Highland are likewise under  contract
    with Hammond for their municipal waste treatment.   The
    towns, and Hammond have been moving toward integrated sewer
    systems as rapidly as money for necessary construction work
    became available.
                   In regard to Recommendation No. 7,  the
10   Sanitary District constructed sludge lagoons in the flood
11   plain bordering its plant.  Constructing lagoons for  further
12   tre^jnent of waste effluents is of questionable value  since
13   the building of the Cal-Sag Channel in Hammond will displace
14   the lagoons.  It is our understanding that Stage II of the
15   Cal-Sag improvement in our area is in the not too distant
16   future,  since Stage I in Illinois is almost completed.
17                  Recommendation No. 8 has been discussed
18   above with Recommendation No. 5.
19                  In the final analysis, it is obvious that
20   the Sanitary District has worked diligently through the
21   years for the better water pollution control on all of its
22   lakes and rivers.  Major steps indicated herein have  been
23   taken toward a final solution of the pollution problem.
24                  The one remaining hurdle is sufficient funds
25   for a rapid solution.  With the District retiring bonds at the

     present rate of $670,000 per year and its bonding power ex-
     hausted,  it will require from 60 to 100 years to complete
     its water pollution abatement program.  It is apparent that
     other new sources of money will have to be found to
     expedite  the necessary construction in the cities and towns.
                    Hammond Park District
                    The City of Hammond Park Board, by ordinance
     #2123 (1929) sold to Lever Brothers the land that their
     building  is now situated on.
 10                  On March 25, 1936 an agreement was drawn up
 11   between Lever Brothers and the Health Department of the City
 12   of Hammond regarding the composition of materials proposed to
 13   be emptied into Wolf Lake.  Prom the above stated date to
 14   the present date,  there has been contention between Hammond
 15   Park Board and Lever Brothers Company as to pollution of
 16   Wolf Lake and Wolf River.   Our last letter to the Stream
 17   Pollution Control  Board regarding pollution of Wolf River by
 18   Lever Brothers was dated June 14,  1961,  requesting prompt
 19   consideration to action necessary to terminate pollution and
20   contamination reported in  Wolf Lake.
21                  Between 1936 and 1965, the Hammond Park
22   Department has lost the use of Wolf River as  a swimming
23   area  and  fishing area due  to pollution.
24                  From May 6,  1929,  until March  22,  1946,  the
25   Hammond Park Department was  in contention with the  American
















Maize  Products  Company  (Amaizo)  regarding  their  discharge into
the Wolf River.  On March 22, 19^6, the Department was
notified that the Amaizo plant no longer pumped  any dis-
charge into the Wolf River.
                Prom the above mentioned statement, it was
learned that Amaizo pumped their discharge into  Lake Michigan.
This discharge has been investigated by the State Streams
Pollution Control Board.  It was stated that pollution of
the lake was composed of sugar and starch.  Records of this
pollution should be on file at the State Stream  Pollution
Control Board Office in Indianapolis.
                In 1948 the Hammond Park Board found it
necessary to close the Lake Michigan Beach to swimming upon
the request of the Hammond Board of Health.  This beach
has never been reopened.  Bacterial counts at Lake Michigan
Beach vary from 4600/ to too many to count.  Pollution is
said to be the result of industrial wastes and raw sewage
being discharged from the Whiting pumping station on
Atchison Avenue.
               John N. Higgins, Administrator.
     MR. GIANNINI:  The first chapter is introduction to  the
Hammond Sanitary District.  We have a history here.  The
only thing I want to say about this history, in  1938 when
the Sanitary District of Hammond was formed, the sentence here
says, "Of greatest concern to the City fathers was the fact

     that dumping raw sewage into Lake Michigan increased the

     problem of supplying safe drinking water to the residents

     of the area, since Hammond and other Calumet region Cities

     all obtain their water from the lake."

                    I assure you that that is the same feeling

     that exists today and has existed throughout the City of

     Hammond's Sanitary District.

                    Skipping over to page 4, we have a summary

     of the treatment plants and its operation.

10                  This is only put in here to answer any

ll   questions the conferees may have and if there are any

12   further questions beyond what we explained here, we would

13   be glad to answer them.

14                  I am skipping over to chapter 2, page 6,

15   which is the improvements.

16                  I don't think I will read them off as they

17   are here because Mr.  Perry Miller has covered them pretty

18   ivell in his statement.

19                  I do want to point out though, that we have

20   a  twofold purpose of  the Board  in trying to complete these

21   projects.  Since 1957>  eight,  nine years — eight years  of

22   the present administration - we have spent some 12 million

23   dollars in putting in improvements to improve the pollution

24   of the  waters around  Hammond.

25                  One of the major projects that Perry Miller












 mentioned was the three million six hundred thousand dollar
 ($3,600,000) improvement to our treatment plant.
               Then, we have three major sewer  projects that
have been completed, all of them with the express purpose
of relieving, first of all, an environmental health
situation that exists in Hammond due to the backing of the
combined sewers in the basement, but while we were putting
in these relief sewers to relieve this condition, we have
always kept in mind to eliminate all pollution  around
Hammond, in its rivers, and its lakes and that  it would one
day be necessary to separate our sewers.  So, all of the
storm relief sewers we have put in would be with the idea
that some day we would eventually be able to separate our
sewers and have a separate system.
               While doing this, as an example  of separating,
we have taken the west side of Robertsdale, which is up on
the lake front, and separated that with a relief sewer and
a pumping station that discharges nothing but stormwater into
Wolf Lake channel.
               We separated and relieved the sewers there
and we think we did the job properly.
               It is an example of the job we intend to do
all over the whole city, whenever the money becomes available.
               On the other side of Robertsdale, we put in
the relief sewers and added to the relief pump  at Robertsdale


    with the idea eventually of one day completing the separation


                   We have installed relief sewers in our

    downtown section of Hammond.  They are all operating with

    a new pumping station, stormwater relief station, discharging

    from the new sewers which also will one day contribute to

    the eventual separation of our system.  In Hessville, the

    same thing holds, with a pumping station discharging into

    the Grand Calumet River.

10                 Vie moved into Munster at the same time

11  we did  the work in Hessvllle.  We moved into Munster with

12  a sanitary interceptor to remove the pollution of the outfall

13  source  from the Munster area that were draining constantly

14  in to the Little Calumet River.

15                 We want to see the Little Calumet River

16  cleaned up.  We have an interest in that to do that.  We

17  cooperated with Munster.

18                 We took them into the Sanitary District in

19  19^8.  We have since taken in by contract, Highland and

20  Griffith, all with the eventual and with the definite Idea

21  of eliminating Calumet River.

22                 We haven't completed this in Munster.  This is

23  a program in the last two or three years,  it is progressing

24  as fast as those towns can get money to tie into our

25  system  and as fast as we can add interceptors to this system,





this will proceed.
                    I would like to skip over from that to the

  3 (I finances because the crux of water pollution control in the

  4 I final analysis has been and always will be finance.

                    The big problem of the Sanitary Board in the

     past was lack of funds to finance needed improvements.

                    Enabling legislation passed by the otate
Legislature limited the bonding power of the District to a
 9   maximum two percent of assessed valuation of the property

 10   within the District.

 11                  In 1955* this was raised to four percent,

 12   four years later to six percent and in 1961, to eight

 13   percent.
               You will notice that for many years, from

1938 to 1955* industry accelerated at a two percent rate.

Since this administration has been in, we have been

successful in working with other sanitary districts in

the State of Indiana in getting this bonding power increased
19   so we could proceed toward eventual elimination of pollution.

20                  A bill raising the bonding power to ten
percent is in the present legislature and has passed the

Senate.  When passed by the House, the District will again

proceed with planned improvements outlined in their

engineer's report of 1961.

               Bonds outstanding on Table I in this report

     gives a clear picture of the financial operations of the
     District down through the years.
                    Table II shows that the District has used its
     bonding power to the limit in recent years.  The present
     Board is determined to make every effort to improve
     conditions in Hammond as money becomes available.
                    Approximately $670,000 will become available
     in 1965 as bonding power due to repayment of principal on
 9   outstanding bond issues.  1his will be put to use as soon
 10   as the final actions of the legislature are known.
 11                  Federal grants have been received by the
 12   District totalling approximately $475,000.
 13                  More grants will be sought as projects
 14   qualify, but it appears that the amount of the grants will
 IS   have to be increased substantially if Hammond is to
 16   achieve ideal water pollution abatement in a short period
 17   of time.
 18                  This becomes evident when we consider that
 19   our planned program of sewer separation covers an area
 20   of approximately ten square miles.  Estimates of costs,  by
 21    our engineers are $8,600 per acre.  Other engineers'
 22    estimates  have been quoted  as being as high as $15,000
 23    per acre.
 24                   Using our engineer's cost estimate,  the
25    District will need  an additional  $55,040,000 for separation

 1   of the existing combined sewers.
 2                  Planned improvements require  another
 3   $5,000,000, making a total expenditure of $60,000,000 before
 4   total water pollution abatement can become a reality in
 5   Hammond.
 6                  The taxpayers of the District are  wilKa^ly
 7   footing the bill for the planned improvement of the District,
 8   but it will be purely conjecture as to how far and how fast
 9   the taxpayers will approve increased bonding powers by
10   action of the State Legislature.
11                  Federal grants that will save the  taxpayers
12   substantial interest costs for bond issues would  be of
13   great help.  Interest costs of $2,588,159 on present bond
14   issues are shown on Table I, to be compared to bond retirement
15   to date of $3,599,^00.
16                  Thus, Federal grants would speed up the work
17   for pollution abatement and at the same time, save the
18   taxpayers the bond interest costs.
19                  Moving on to the conclusions.  We  have heard
20   remarks based on the recommendation of the Health, Education,
21   and Welfare report, recommendations for corrective action.
22                  The Hammond Sanitary District has  fully
23   cooperated with the Indiana State Board of Health and the
24   Stream Pollution Control Board in the past and will continue
25   to do so.


                    We rely on the recommendations for improving

     the  public  waters of the  area and have gone so far as to

     agree  to  disinfecting our treatment plant effluent as soon

     as we  can.

                    Last year  we agreed to install chlorination

     equipment to  sterilize the  effluent at an estimated cost of

     $400,000.  However,  after reading a recommendation, #5,  for

     a dam  built across the Grand Calumet River east of the outfall

     from East Chicago Municipal Waste Treatment Plant,  we are

10   of the opinion  the money  for sterilization equipment  would be

n   wasted, —  this is a first  glance.

12                  The dam would cause our plant effluent to

13   flow west continuously in the  Grand Calumet and eventually

14   into the  Illinois  Hiver where  natural  improvement  is  found

15   at Peoria.  It  is  our contention  that  if  the City  of  Chicago

16   does not  have to  chlorinate their much larger amount  of

17   plant  effluent,  it should not  be  necessary for Hammond to do

18   so since  we have  comparable treatment.

19                  We  agree that the  effluent should be improved

2o   only if the suggested  dam is placed west  of our plant  outfall.

21   v/e realize  that  natural improvement of the effluent flowing

22   into Lake Michigan through  the Indiana Harbor Ship  Canal

23   cannot be accomplished.   To improve the source of  our

24   drinking  water  supply  —  Lake  Michigan — it  would  behoove

25   Hammond to  chlorinate  its plant effluent.   But,  not if












natural improvement is found in a westerly flow.
               Until the dam location is  settled,  we  will

hesitate and will want further studies of the value of
     chlorination to Hammond.

                    Hammond has been complying with  the  recommenda-

     tion #6 since its treatment plant was constructed.  We have

     secondary treatment and since 19^8* have been treating the

 8 I  municipal wastes of the small town Munster, Indiana.

                    The towns of Griffith and Highland are

 10 II  likewise under contract with Hammond for their municipal
waste treatment.  The towns, and Hammond, have been moving

toward integrated sewer systems as rapidly as money for
 13   necessary construction work became available.
               In regard to recommendation -#7> the Sanitary

District constructed sludge lagoons in the flood plain

bordering its plant.  Constructing lagoons for further

treatment of waste effluents is of questionable value since

the building of the Cal-Sag channel in Hammond will dis-

place the lagoons.  It is our understanding that stage 2

of the Cal-Sag improvement in our area is in the not too

distant future, since stage 1 in Illinois is almost
               Recommendation #8 has been discussed with
recommendation #5.
               In the final analysis, it is obvious that the


     Sanitary District has worked diligently through the years

     for better water pollution control on all of its lakes

     and rivers.

                    Major steps indicated herein have been taken

     toward  a final  solution of the pollution problem.

                    The one remaining hurdle is sufficient funds

     for a rapid solution.  With the District retiring bonds at

     the present rate of $670,000 per year and its bonding power

     exhausted,  it will require from 60 to 100 years to complete

10   its water pollution abatement program.  It is apparent that

11   other new sources of money will have to be found to expedite

12   the necessary construction in the city and towns.

13                  That is the extent of it, Mr. Chairman.

14       CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Well, thank you very much, sir.

15                  Are there any comments or questions?

16       MR.  POSTON:  I note that Mr. Giannina — you would like

17   to  improve  the  source of your drinking water supply,  Lake

18   Michigan,  and it would behoove Hammond to chlorinate  its

19   plant effluent  if,  as I understand,  if they put the dam

20   in  there,  to my understanding,  from Mr.  Miller's statement,

21   that the  normal direction of flow of Hammond sewage,  under

22   normal  lake level  conditions,  that the flow is toward

23   the west.

24                  Do you then propose to put Hammond sewage

25   treatment plant  effluents  back into  the  lake and  chlorinte


    Is that the purpose of your  chlorination  there  then?
         MR. GIANNINA:  I was going  to ask you some of these
    questions along this line.   Maybe we  can  arrive at a
    solution.  At least give me  some understanding.  Apparently,
    which I haven't gotten from  your report thus  far,  I want
    to make it clear if the dam  - this temporary  dam the  Army
    Engineers are proposing as a controlling  device for this
    Cal-Sag channel - if it is placed to  the  west of our  effluent
    there, there will be no chance for our effluent to get  to
10   the west.  It will have to go to the  east  and it will go  out
11   the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal to Lake Michigan.
12                  Under those conditions, it  would  behoove  us to
13   chlorinate, but I see no reason to chlorinate if the  dam  is
14   placed east of us and then we are forced  to send our  effluent
15   to the west.  It would be of necessity.   It would  have  to
16   go there.  There would be no place else for it  to  go.
17                  I want to ask, why are you recommending  that
18   we chlorinate going to the west into  the  Illinois  water
19   waste and so forth and we will enter  the  Cal-Sag channel  and
20   then so on and so forth where the Calumet  Treatment Plant
21   from Chicago empties their effluent, why  are  we just  a  few
22   miles away required to chlorinate and not  the Chicago
23   Sanitary District?
24        MR. POSTON:  I am kind  of like Mr. Klassen.  I came
25   to ask questions, not to answer them.

          MR.  GIANNINA:  I am asking you regarding the report,
          MR.  POSTON:   My point here has been that Hammond's
     effluent  normally flows to the west and I find it difficult
     why you want  to reverse it back to the source of your
     water supply.  I had —
          MR.  GIANNINI:  I don't care where we go.  I want to see
     we  get clean  water.   If we are forced to go to the east,
     the Army  Engineers are forcing, we are not Interested in
 10   where the dam is  placed.
 li                  We are interested in doing the job.  If it
 12   is  placed to the west by the Army Engineers, we will chlorinate
 13   but if, by your suggestion and it is in your report, not
 14   mine,  it  be placed east of us and we have to ship our
 15   effluent  to the west,  why are we required to chlorinate
 16   and not Chicago?   Why is Lansing, Lansing, Illinois, who
 17   buys Hammond  water,  the same water we treat, they buy it from
 18   us,  most  of the people work in Hammond and East  Chicago
 19   industry,  why are they not asked to chlorinate?
20                  They  go through the same system,  the same
21   that Hammond  does.  Why not Bloom Township, they will
22   eventually end up at the Cal-Sag?
23                  I  don't understand the report. Why have you
24   singled out Hammond  for sterilization and not the other
25   towns  and  cities?

         MR.  KLASSEN:   I  think,  Mr.  Giannina  has  a  good
    practical point there of why we  would  like  to see  chlorinated
    effluent  come from  Indiana.
                    I would  say  that  in  all fairness and  I may
    be  — I don't agree with this report then that  I understand
    that, if  your effluent  goes  to the  lake,  you  will  chlorinate,
    there is  no question.   If it goes to the  west,  you will
    chlorinate if everybody else has to chlorinate?
         MR.  GIANNINI:  Exactly, right.  When you set  the
10   standards, Mr. Klassen  —
11        MR.  POSTON:  I —
12        MR.  GIANNINI:  I found  you  to  be  a very  reasonable
13   man.
14                   I have known  you  from my waterworks days.   Of
15   course, these people haven't had much  chance  to talk.
16                   I have been disappointed in  the  whole  hearing.
17   It's been a wonderful thing, Mr. Stein, I am  not wanting
18   to degrade it.
19                   I think  you are doing a great  public service
20   and I mean, the general public, talking to  them, the
21   conditions that are prevailing in our  region, I do want to
22   see — it's become, even though the melodious voice of Mr.
23   Klassen has been a wonderful thing, it's  been monotonous
24   hearing him talk and asking  the questions.
25                   It is a  nice  hearing, I have enjoyed it, but --

      CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Sir,  I appreciate your comments but
you  can't  have two  things.   That  is,  you can't expect to
have  state rights and  have  unanimity.  I am as much for
states  rights as the .next one.  Once  we have state  rights —
and  the Congress says  that  the  states should Invite their
people  to  the conference — if  two  states adopt a different
policy,  this  is the price we pay  for  democracy in America.
      MR. GIANNINI:  It is a fair  price.
      CHAIRMAN STEIN:   If it bores you,  I am sorry.
      MR. GIANNINI:  It hasn't bored me  one bit. It has made
me tiresome.   It has not bored  me at  all.   I learned some-
thing.  As Mr. Klassen said,  I  am glad  he  said he is
learning from us,
                I am disappointed  that Mr.  Klassen hasn't seen
fit to  invite  the people from the Purity League, this  lily
white section.  Why didn't  he invite  the  industry and  give
them  a  chance  to extol  their version?
      CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Mr. Klassen has answered that.
                I think I will answer  again.
               Mr.  Klassen  and  I  were puzzling a little bit
about your integrated  treatment works and  I  would have
expected we would have heard about the  Purity  League.
     MR. POSTON:  I would like  to ask one  further question
and that is, Mr. Gerstein gave  some water quality goals  for

     his  waterworks  intake,  water supply.
                    I wondered,  do you think that  you should have
     that  same kind  of water down in  Hammond?
          MR. GIANNINI:  Yes.   And now that  you mention Hy
     Gerstein, I would like  to  say if I may,  Mr. Chairman,  he is
     an old friend,  a fine friend.  I say, I spent seven years with
     the Water Department before  I got kicked upstairs.   I got
 8   to know the people.  They  are the finest in the  world.
 9                  When Hy  Gerstein  gives you a set  of criteria,
10   you can follow  them and not  go wrong.
11                  When I was  Superintendent of the  Water Depart-
12   ment, in Hammond, I was a member of the  Sanitary District in
13   East  Chicago.   This was in the early 1950's up to  about 1957.
14   I was sitting over there as  a  member of  the Sanitary Board
15   in East Chicago  and hearing  of this case,  that Mr.  Chesrow
16   mentioned sometime earlier in the  meeting,  about the suit
17   that  the Supreme Court  had.   The Master  in Chancery was in
18   St. Louis and constantly sending us notices that various
19   Indiana industries were being excused from the suit.
2o                  All this time I was sitting in Hammond,  trying
21    to filter and clean up  the vrater that was  coming out of the
22   Grand Calumet River and finding  that we  were  having just as
23   tough a time as  they are today,  and I would like to point
24   this  out.
25                   We used  to  make trips and I can give you eye
     witness reports  — eye  witnesses to testify of this and I am

 1                We used to make trips and I can give you  eye
 2   witness reports — eye witnesses to testify of  this  and  I  am
 3   sure, as a lawyer you would appreciate —
 4         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  We haven't had much of it here.
 5         MR. GIANNINI:  I know you would appreciate it.  We have
 6   an  intake crib there a mile out in the lake and every  spring
 7   and fall we have to go out and replenish the gas for the
 8   light on the  crib.
 9                 Innumerable times we would go out  there and,
10   when the wind is from the south or southwest, because  the
11   wave action was less and easier for us poor sailors  to navi-
12   gate, when we got through taking care of the gas, we would
13   swing around  Calumet Harbor.  You heard, when the wind is  off
14   shore the lake immediately drops a foot.  On those days  and
15   that happened for days at a time whenever the south  wind was
lg   there, here would come the red discolored water out  of the
17   river.  This  is eye witness testimony.  If you  want  it,  I
18   will give it  to you.
19                 I saw it innumerable times.  We saw the red
20   discharge that would come out and get behind the breakwater
21   and it would  swing out toward the Hammond intake and would
22   sit there and when the north wind came, that would bring us
23   phenol in the winter time.  We attributed that  strictly  to
24   the Calumet  River.
25                Now, our State  Board  of  Health  people  can

 1   remember  that while  I  am sitting  there  on  the  Sanitary

 2   Board  seeing our industry being excused from the suit, we are

 3   having all  of these  difficulties  with taste and odors coming

 4   out  of the  Calumet River.

 5                I  am asking our Sanitary Board people at water-

 6   works  meetings,  "Well, why don't  we  institute  a suit against

 7   the  Illinois industries, let's get this thing  straightened

 8   out."

 9                They said that they  wanted to cooperate, they

10   felt they could  accomplish more.

11          CHAIRMAN  STEIN:   That is right and I think you have an

12   important point. We expect that  we  will consider the whole

13   area.   I  think  this  has been the  point  of  the  enforcement

14   provisions  of the Federal Act— the  recognition of diffi-

15   culties and possible inequities that you put out in the

16   fortuitousness  of who  brings the  suit against  who.  When

17   we cover  the area, we  cover the whole area.

18                I think if you follow at least the Federal

19   program or  at least  our record, if we haven't  done anything

20   else,  I think we have  treated everyone  alike.

21                Our main  operation,  our main  intent is the even

22   handling  of the  administration of the law,  and we try to

23   deal with big discharges,  small discharges,  upstream and

24   downstream  states rights.  When you  come to  chlorination or

25   any discharge of any other lakes,  particularly where a stream


    does not run right between two states, but goes from one

    state to another, UP have always maintained that the state

    downstream had to have at least a clean-hands doctrine.

                 Personally, I see no reason for one state to

    clean up water and send it across the state line and when the

    other state gets it, it is going to clobber it to pieces.

                 But,, as I read the recommendations here on

    sanitary wastes, I am sure I quite understand the sensitive-

    ness of the Hammond people .

                 It says "all sanitary wastes" and I guess this











    is the phrase you use for that out here.

                 I think I tnow what you mean, "all sanitary

    waste be disinfected before discharge.  Disinfection should

    be practiced in the manner prescribed by state pollution

    control agencies.  This is mutually agreed upon between the

    two states."

                 Now, if this is the recommendation, I don't

    see anything in that that is going to say who is going to

    sell your interests down the river and that Hammond is going

    to be required to do something that other communities are not

    going to be required to do.

          MR.  GIANNINI:   I  object  that,  if that is the case.

          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Well, we  are  all  citizens of the Unitec

   States,  and you are  a representative of  the State  of  Indiana.

   We don't want to be  made neither fish nor fowl out  of one or


    the other.  We want to be treated equally.

          MR. GIANNINI:  I think, Mr. Stein, I want to offer this

    constructively to you.  If you were to conduct a hearing

    again of this kind, you would have a much better response  —

    we from the audience — there's been some very bad feelings

    and I have built them up myself in constantly seeing  a drumm-

    ing by one person.

                 You conduct the hearings, I womt suggest any-

    thing — I think you know best about this, but in a case

10   where you have them from across the state lines, one  of

    Illinois, one Indiana, have our Mr. Poole — let him  say

12   something.  He sat here for three days.  He is an intelligent

13   man.

14                A fellow like Mr. Klassen, I respect both

15   equally.  If you do that, I think your audience will  be more

16   interested.

17                This is Just smack-too-much of one-sidedness

19   and you excuse the fact the Illinois industries aren't on  the

19   agenda because you left it to Mr. Klassen.

20         MR. CHESROW:  That is fine, we accept that.

21         MR. GIANNINI:  In all fairness and equality, we haven't

22   had a chance to learn anything from Illinois industries.   I

23   would like to learn as I go.

24        CHAIRMAN STEIN:   You may,  this is going to be still open

25 I                 Let me make this point.  As I see this,  and I


 1    guess we sit  here differently and look at things differently.

 2                 I don't look at this business of Industry

 3    testifying from a particular state at all as a disadvantage.

 4    I look at it  as a distinct advantage.  You are right, I have

 5    conducted every one of the conferences we have had under the

 6    Federal law,  there is quite a considerable number, now

 7    involving about 700 industries.  The most successful confer-

 8    ences we have had have been where industry has come up, been

 9    invited to come up and tell their story.  The ones where they

10    haven't created,  at least psychological problems with the

11    industry.

12                 But, I believe, as I said the other day, that

13    no one can tell the story as well as the industries or the

14    murlcipalities themselves.

15                 It is the same as you can tell your Hammond

15    story and give your feelings.  I don't at all see that  the

17    Indiana Industries have a disadvantage.  As a matter of fact,

19    I think their story came through.  Each one will be evaluated

19    on its individual merits.

20                 I don't think that I am making any judgements

21    here,  but there are obvious examples of industry in Indiana

22    which  have done an outstanding Job and availed themselves

23    of the  opportunity to  say it  here.

24                I don't think they are whipping boys or  anything

25   of that kind.   Despite the fact that you have heard Mr.

    Klassen's dulcet voice most of the time,  I think  your
    Indiana  industrialists can handle themselves  and  answer
 4         MR. GIANNINI:   I agree.  I would  like to make  this
 5   statement.
                  I  felt  proud when we had Midwest Steel  and
    National Steel  proudly come out and tell  what they have done.
                  I  am  afraid the Illinois industries  are not
    proud, that  is  why they are staying away.
j0                 They  are maintaining we might do a better job
    if  we learned from them.  That is the attitude that  is taking
12   place.
13         CHAIRMAN  STEIN:  Mr. Klassen is the man who is advocat-
14   ing open files.
15         MR. GIANNINI:   How do you like that —  but  Mr. Stein,
16   I want to point out  one other thing, why  some of  the feelings
17   develop  in Indiana.
ia                 This  is a peculiar situation but the industry
ig   from this area  are communities^  We are known as  coming from
2Q   the region,  and, no  doubt, to Indianapolis "the region" is
21   a derogatory remark.  What you are doing  by conducting a
22   hearing  of this nature?  You are not only giving  us  what  is
    known as a region  in  Indiana,  we are going to become a region
    and nationally it will be that  we are a bunch of culprits  and!
25   we  are  looking at  it  that  way.

 l                 You are  mganifying our  problem.   You make it
 2    tougher for us to live it down.
 3          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  That is what  everyone  says when we
 4    come in.  But in about a year or six months afterwards,  they
 5    say, pretty generally —   this is the pattern — "this is
 6    the best thing that ever happened."   This may be like a
 7    tough medicine at first to take but  you will  like it.
 8                 You know, in Sioux City, when we came in —
 9    and Mr. Poole was up there — we not only had a conference,
10    but we had to go to a hearing and there was the most acri-
11    monious discussion of this Sioux City.  It had not
12    grown since the '20s in population — no new  industry.  After
13    they put their treatment plant in, they got the All American
14    City Award.  They began growing in population, for the first
15    time attracting new industry, and we kind of  get a love
16    letter each month from the City Manager and members of the
17    City Council.
18          MR.  GIANNINI:  We could use some of that in Hammond.
lg    We hope something like that will come about.
2o          CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Well,  we will give you the idea how
21    to do it to start.
22          MR.  GIANNINI:   One more suggestion  that I  have.
23                 I would  like to  make  a  suggestion.  You  asked,
24   or you  asked  for someone  here to offer the  information that
25   the Calumet River, along  somewhere in this hearing, only does


 1   not, the Little Calumet River does not flow in Indiana.

 2   Again,  I would like to give eye witness testimony that  in the

 3   flood of 1954, and again in the flood of 1957, on the Little

 4   Calumet River, I  saw the Little Calumet River entering  into

 5   Hammond, proceeding west, and I followed it all the way out

 6   to Lake Michigan  through the Burns Ditch.

 7                Now, that is eye witness, and I don't  care what

 8   anybody else may  say.  I want to point out, it is documented.

 9   The Army Engineers'Preliminary report on the flood  control

10   that they  are proposing here will state that also.  The

n   Indiana Flood Control System and Water Resources Commission

12   has documented it in their studies on the Little Calumet River

13                Whatever anyone else may tell you, you can find

14   it in documents.

15                That is all I have.

16         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you.

17         MR.  KLASSEN:  Could I readjust my halo here and ask

18   you a question?

19         MR.  GIANNINI:  This is the way to do it, with coopera-

20   tion in a  friendly spirit.  We used to do it with the water-

21   works.

22         MR.  KLASSEN:  Wait until you hear my question.

23                I —

24         MR.  GIANNINI:   Mr.  Klassen,  from you it  will be

25   wonderful.


          MR. KLASSEN:  Seriously, I had this here that I  wanted

    to ask you concerning Hammond's policy on sewer extensions

    on the combined basis.

                 Do you extend sewers on the combined basis or is

    this part of a very commendable program of separating  sewers?

          MR. GIANNINI:  Mr. Poole might have told you, in 1957 I

    took my Mayor down to see Mr. Poole and he explained to us

    from here on they would request and require we put in

    separated sewer systems in all new subdivisions and we have

10   taken Mr. Poole's suggestion and lived up to it since  1957.

n                In fact, in this report, if you will read it,

12   I skipped over it, I am sorry, we would have precluded this

13   question.   You will note in the report we mentioned this

14   improvement.  There is a sanitary sewer being constructed by

15   the Sanitary District on Sheffield Avenue.  The citizens,

16   taxpayers, are going — this was an industrial area, we are

17   now about to start it in the next 30 days and that is  along

18   the line you are asking.

19                I am sorry I didn't go into it.

20         MR. KLASSEN:  That is all right.  As you know, Mr. Poole

21   and I both highly respect each other,  but we do check  on each

22   other.

23                He told me this, but I wanted to ask you.

24         MR. GIANNINI:   Are you keeping the  Illinois  industries

25   away?


           MR.  KLASSEN:   I  am not.

           MR.  GIANNINI:  They may  help  us  learn.  We  all  learn

     from these questions.

           MR.  KLASSEN:   I  am not keeping them away.   The

     opportunity has been given to  the Chicago Sanitary District

     to invite  the industries and we  are told  they were invited.

     They were  invited  for  next week.

 8          MR.  GIANNINI:  They are  not on the  agenda.

 9                 I would like to have a reason to come back,  Mr.

10    Stein.  Is it possible we will hear something?

11          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   We are  not keeping them  off.

12          MR.  GIANNINI:  Well, this  is  your agenda.   You  don't

13    have it  on the agenda.

14          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   The agenda is tentative.   I know

15    you have been here most of the time and you have  seen how

16    closely  we followed  the agenda.  You know it  is available for

17    adjustment.  Any time  that Indiana  industry shows up  here, at

18    any time Colonel Chesrow or Mr.  Klassen designate them to

19    speak, they will be  up right where  you are now  and I  will be

20    all ears and most  attentive.

21          MR.  GIANNINI:  Very good,  and I  will Join you.

22                 That  is all I have.

23          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Thank you, sir.

24          VOICE:   May I  ask a  question  from the floor?

25          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   I  said  at the beginning that we  cannot

i    accept  questions from the floor.
2                 We have been here a  week and this has beoa the
3    pattern.   Once we do that, afford this to one person, we
4    have to do it to all.
5         MR.  POOLE:  Time is getting late, we had better move
6    on to Lever Brothers, who will be represented by R. D.
7    Tinkham,  Counsel for Lever Brothers.
8         MR.  TINKHAM:  Mr. Chairman, it  is now ^:30.   Perhaps
9    if I give  my name and address I can sit down, but  I will skip
10    a lot of our prepared report and  not  read at all.
jj                 My name is Richard D. Tinkham; I am a lawyer
12    practicing in Hammond, Indiana.
13                 The facts in the statement which has  been sub-
..    mitted  to  the conferees are based on  a lengthy hearing,  the
15    transcript of the evidence of a lengthy hearing held before
16    the Indiana Stream Pollution Control  Board in 1962.
17                 The reason I am presenting the report is I
18    happen  to  be the one most familiar with the facts  contained
     in that transcript of evidence which  is quite lengthy.
i y
2Q                 I ask that the complete statement together with
     exhibits be made a part of the record,  Mr.  Chairman.
22         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   It  will be included.   Without  objection
     it will be  done.
25                Lever Brothers Company, Hammond, Indiana, Plant

     ("Lever")  does  not discharge  any water  or  other material  to

     Lake Michigan.   It draws  raw  water  from Lake  Michigan,  uses

     it  in plant  cooling  processes and discharges  it to Wolf Lake.

     All sanitary sewage  and the maximum permitted amount of

     industrial wastes are sent  directly to  the Hammond Sewage

     Treatment  Plant. The following subjects will be  discussed

 7    in  this statement:

 8                 1.  There is no  pollution  of  waters  endangering

     the health or welfare of  persons  in a state other than that

10    in  which the discharge originates.

                  2.  The effect of the  pollution  on the legitimat<

12    uses of the  water is not  of sufficient  significance to

13    warrant the  exercise of Federal Jurisdiction.

14                 3.  All necessary remedial action has been taken

15    by  the Indiana  Stream Pollution Control Board.

j6                 4.  Adequate measures  have been  and  are being

17    taken toward abatement of pollution.

18                 The facts stated herein are taken from the

ig    transcript of a hearing held  before the Indiana Stream

20    Pollution  Control Board  ("Indiana Board")  in  February,  1962.

21    Effort has been made to make  an unbiased statement of the

22    facts.  As a result  of the  hearing,  the Indiana Board and

23    Lever entered into a Stipulation (Exhibit  B attached hereto),
                     (See  pages
24  and the Indiana Board has had the right since September 30,

25  1964, to ent~r such rinal order as it deemed appropriate,


 1    subject  to Lever's right  of appeal,  if the order were adverse

 2    to Lever.

 3                 References to the "Report on Pollution of the

 4    Waters of  the Grand Calumet River,  Little Calumet River,

 5    Calumet  River, Lake Michigan, Wolf  Lake and Their Tribu-

 6    taries," dated February 1965, will be designated as

 7    "H.E.W.  Report."

 8                 1.  There is no pollution of waters endangering

 9    the health or welfare of persons in a state other than that

10    in which the discharge originates.

11                 Lever operates a plant in the City of Hammond,

12    Indiana, for the manufacture of soaps, detergents,  refined

13    glycerine, shortening, margarine and fatty acids.  The plant

14    Is located in the northwest corner of the City of Hammond

15    between  Lake Michigan and Wolf Lake.

16                 Wolf Lake is an interstate body of water, with

17    565 acres  in Indiana and  485 acres in Illinois.  (See a map

18    of Wolf  Lake showing the  location of the plant and  other

19    locations, attached hereto, made a part hereof and  marked

20    "Exhibit A."
                                  (See Page l4l7)
21                 Lever draws  raw Lake Michigan water from its

22    own intake in the lake, and after use in the plant  cooling

23    processes,  discharges  it  into a pond at  the north extremity

24    of Wolf Lake from which the  effluent passes  under Indianapolis

25   Boulevard and down Wolf Lake Channel.  This  channel is 6,800

                 (continued on Page l4l6-A)

                                             EXHIBIT "B"


 j                At 1:30 p.m.  a discussion regarding the Lever

 2   Brothers Company,  Hammond  hearing was held.  Messrs. Richard

 3   P. Tinkham and Oliver W. Koester, representing Lever Brothers

 4   Company, were present.  Mr. Witham informed the Board that

 5   Mr. Perry Miller,  Mr. Tinkham,  Mr. Koester, and himself had

 6   worked out a tentative agreement, for consideration by the

 7   Board, complying with Mr.  Finch's letter of June 27, 1963, and

 0   Mr. Tinkham's letter to the Board of July 29, 1963.

                  On the suggestion  of Board members and with the

     concurrence of Lever Brothers representatives two minor

     changes to the proposed agreement were incorporated as part of

     the agreement.  It was moved by Mr. Finch and seconded by Mayc

     Mitten that th^ BocrC ratify the following agreement between

     the Stream Pollution Control Board and Lever Brothers Company

     to wit:

                  "Lever Brothers Company will employ an industrial

     waste treatment expert for an indefinite period on a retainer

     basis, who initially will  be Dr. C. Fred Gurnham,  to direct

     applied research for the purpose of attempting to develop


                  (a) by which  existing waste treatment processes

     can be rendered more effective,  and (b)  which singly or com-

     bined  with the existing facilities,  will accomplish a signifi-

     cantly higher  degree  of treatment  than is being obtained

     through the use  of  existing equipment, all  for  the  purpose

     of improving the quality of the effluent to the  channel portio

                                             EXHIBIT "B"

     of Wolf Lake,  or the elimination of the effluent therefrom.

     Lever  Brothers Company will submit reports to the Board;  the

     first  report will be a six (6)  months status report to be

     submitted on or before March 31, 196^,  and semi-annual report

 5    thereafter.

 6                Following receipt  of each of the reports, the

     Board  will review the status of the case and after the receip

     of the first two (2) reports the Board may, upon notification

     to Lever Brothers Company, render a judgment or order in this

10    case in accordance with the requirements, powers, duties and

H    procedures as  are established in Chapter 2l4, Acts of 1943,

12    and Chapter 365, Acts of 1947,  of the General Assembly of

13    Indiana.  In the event any Judgment or order is adverse to

14    Lever  Brothers Company, it will have and may exercise any and

15    all rights to  Judicial review,  or other relief  as provided

16    by the law."   The motion carried unanimously.

17                Mr. Koester and Mr. Tinkham acting on behalf

18    of Lever Brothers Company accepted the  conditions as set  forth

}g    in the preceding agreement.

20                This is to certify that the preceding is an  exact

21    record of the  minutes of the Stream Pollution Control Board

22    meeting of September 24,  1963,  insofar  as they record action

23    taken  in  the case  of Lever  Brothers  Company,  Hammond,  Indiana.

24                Signed:  B. A. Poole, Technical Secretary.



















      feet  in length and operates as a purifying agent much as a


                   The plant began operation in 1930, at which time

      a preliminary survey revealed that Wolf Lake Channel was a

      stagnant pond, covered with green scum, had a disagreeable

      odor  and the entire lake had no source of fresh water except

 7    drainage from an area of about 6,000 acres of land in

      Illinois and Indiana.

   p~ —  4  OVALS  THRU  DIKE
                 MAP     OF     WOLF      LAKE
                                           TRACED  FROM PK5TOGRA.PHS  BY
                                            CHICAGO  AERIAL IIOUSTRIES , IMC.
                                                AERIAL SURVa DiVlSIOM
                                                 10265  fRMIILIM  AVE.
                                               FRANKLIN  PAIK, ILLIWOI-5
                                          PHOTOGRAPHS DATID APRIL 15,1959
                                     "THIS TRACIWQ BY C J.Mlu.ER,JR. ON NOV. 3,1961
                                                 LEVER  BP«S.  CO.


                 Analyses  of water  in  the  channel  showed  total

     solids  of  635  parts  per million, and  similar sampling in the

     lake proper showed 415 parts  per million.   Lever presently

     discharges eight  to  ten million gallons  per day of effluent iijito

     the northern terminus  of the  channel.

                 This discharge provides  a current in the channel

     and the lake,  and is primarily  responsible  for maintaining

     the level  of Wolfe Lake some  two feet  higher than the level

     of the  Lake Michigan.  Lever  believes  its effluent actually

     improves the condition of  the channel.  Analyses of plant eff^u-

     ent in  June, 1964, showed  total solids of 204  parts per


                 It was  clear  at  the hearing before the Indiana

     Board,  above referred  to,  that  all of  the contaminating

     material in the Lever  waste water  was  settled  out or oxidized

     by the  time the water  reached the  end  of the channel.

                 Following are the  latest  figures  as to B.O.D

     of the  plant effluent  as reported  to the Indiana Board:

                    February,  1964           68  ppm.

19                   March, 1964            139  ppm.

                    June,  1964              36  ppm.

                 We are  informed  that  similar samplings by the

     Indiana Board  revealed better results  than  these.

                 As appears on Exhibit A,  there is  a bathing

    beach on the east side of Wolf Lake proper.  The City of

    Hammond maintains a constant  check on the quality of the

    water  at  this  beach  during the  swimming season,  and it  has nev^er

    been closed  due to contamination.
                 It should also be  observed from Exhibit A
    that there are two barriers to  the free flow of water from the

    Indiana side of the lake into Illinois, consisting of the
    Indiana Toll Road and a dyke constructed on the Indlana-
    Illinois state line.  These barriers provide openings for the
    passage of water from east to west of about 24 feet in  width.
    There also appears on Exhibit A further impediment to the
    free flow of water on the Illinois side, consisting of  a
    railroad causeway, which provides  one 20-foot opening for the
    passage of water.
                 Surveys and samplings admitted in evidence at
    the hearing above referred to before the Indiana Board  indi-
    cate that no contaminating materials reach the opening  under
    the Toll Road  appearing as Letter"G" on Exhibit A.  It  thus
    must be concluded that none of  the contaminating materials
    in the Lever effluent find their way across the state line
    into Illinois.
                 This was confirmed by the H.E.W. report, which
    stated on page 4:  "....investigation by the Public Health
    Service has  not disclosed  significant  Interstate pollution
    on Wolfe  Lake."  This was  deleted  in the Addenda and Errata
    section of the report.  This same statement appeared on page
    22 of the report, but this was likewise deleted.  The absence


    of  interstate bacterial pollution in Wolf Lake  is noted  on

    page  32  of the  report.  This was not deleted.

                 References to the  clean condition  of the water

    of  Wolf  Lake are  also found on  page 14  of the report.

                 2.  The effect of  the pollution on the  legitimate

    uses  of  the water is not  of sufficient  significance  to warrant

    the exercise of Federal Jurisdiction.

                 The  waters of Wolf Lake are not used by the

    public or any governmental agency for any purpose other  than

    boating, fishing  and swimming.  There is no industrial or

    agricultural use  of the waters. Even though it be  conceded,

    and Lever does  not so concede,  that the channel is  unfit for

    all of these uses, it should be observed that the channel

    consists of approximately 40 acres of the body  of water  or

    four  percent of the Lake.

                 Thus, under  the evidence adduced at the hearing,

    above described,  96 percent of  Wolf Lake  (1,008 acres of

    1,050) remains  open and available for all the uses  to which

    the lake is put.

                 The  evidence at the hearing, above described,

    shows that the  dissolved  oxygen in the  channel  is more than

    sufficient to support fish life, except for a short  distance

    about half-way  down stream.  The dissolved  oxygen in  Wolf

    Lake itself approaches the saturation point.

                 In the Addenda and Errata section  of the H.E.W.

    report, reference  is made  to the Lever waste as  "causing  fish

     kills  in  a portion  of  the  Lake,  and  tainting the  flesh of
     game fish in  Wolf Lake."   At  the hearing before the  Indiana
     Board  there was evidence  of one  fish kill in the  spring of
     1962.   Samples of water taken at the site by the  State reveal*
     sufficient dissolved oxygen to support fish life. The only
     specific  evidence as to the cause of the kill was given by
     Dr. Arthur D. Hasler of the University of Wisconsin,  who is
     an expert in  the field of zoology and limnology.   He gave  his
     opinion that  under  the facts  the kill was due to  a natural
10    winter kill,  which  also occurred at  the same time in other
u    lakes  in  the  area.
12                 The Addenda  and  Errata  section of the H.E.W.
13    report also refers  to "tainting the  flesh of game fish,"
14    There  was some evidence in the record of the 1962 hearing
15    that fish caught in the channel  "tasted like soap".   Since
16    no waste  waters from soap or  detergent manufacturers are
17    discharged to Wolf  Lake,  it is believed that this testimony
18    was psychogenetic.   The word  "Lever" is synonymous with "soap
19    therefore, the fish taste like soap.
2Q                 It; is  common knowledge  among fishermen  that fish
21    caught in ponds or  lakes  which have  no source of  fresh water
22    have a "muddy" taste.   There  was also evidence at the
23    hearing that  fish from the  lake  tasted  "real  good", but that
24   fish caught in the channel had a muddy, but not soapy taste.
25                It is submitted that Table VI - 4a of the H.E.W.

     report  is  inaccurate when  it  states  that  "soap"  is a part  of
     the waste  from the  Lever plant.
                  It must be concluded, therefore,  that at least
     96 percent of Wolf  Lake is wholly adequate for the uses to
     which the  lake is put, and that  the  effect of  pollution of
     the channel is not  of  sufficient significance  to warrant the
     exercise of Federal Jurisdiction.
                  3.  All necessary remedial action has been taken
     by the  Indiana Board.
10                 Since  1937, the  Lever effluent to Wolf Lake has
11    been subject to surveys and suggestions by the Hammond Park
12    Board,  the Hammond  Sanitary District and  the Indiana Board.
13    Improvements in treatment  and the quality of the effluent  to
14    Wolf Lake  have been made periodically and progressively since
15    that time.
16                 Better and more  efficient treatment methods have
17    been brought to the attention of Lever from time to time.   These
18    have been  investigated and, where proved  feasible,  have been
19    put into use.   This will be discussed in  the next section  of
20    this statement.
21                 A survey of Wolf Lake was made by the Hammond
22    Sanitary District in 19^2.  Certain  recommendations were made
23    at  that  time,  and Lever attempted to follow these.   In  1946,
24   the Indiana Board and the  Sanitary District of Hammond formall
25   designated  standards of quality for the lever effluent.  Lever

 1    attempted to comply with these standards, and employed a
 2    number of industrial waste treatment experts to assist it in
 3    doing so.
 4                 In 1957, the Indiana Board summoned Lever to a
 5    hearing concerning Wolf Lake.  As a result of the hearing,
 6    the parties entered into a Stipulation, under which Lever
 7    agreed to study existing and new treatment methods, to adopt
 9    such as proved feasible and to make periodic reports to the
 3    Indiana Board.
IQ                 The evidence at the subsequent hearing in 1962
H    was undisputed that, except in a few minor particulars, Lever
12    complied with the terms of the Stipulation.
13                 On July 19, 19&1, Lever was again summoned to a
14    hearing before the Indiana Board.  The hearing was begun on
15    January 30, 1962, and lasted for nine days.  The transcript
16    of the oral testimony at the hearing consists of four volumes,
17    totaling 1,378 pages.
18                 In addition,  123 exhibits were admitted  in evi-
19    dence.
20                 AS a result of this hearing, a further Stipula-
21    tion  was entered  into between the Indiana Board and Lever,  a
22    c°Py  of  which is  attached hereto,  made a part hereof  and marke|d
23    "Exhibit B".   Lever  is now  engaged in  the performance of its
24   obligations under this Stipulation, as will be detailed in
25   the next section of this statement.

                  It will be  observed  that  the  Stipulation empowers
     the  Indiana Board  to enter  an  appropriate  final order if the
     Board deems that  such  is indicated.  The transcript of this
     hearing will be made available to the  Public Health Service
     should it be desired.
                  4.   Adequate measures have been and are being
     taken toward abatement of the  pollution.
                  Beginning as early as 1937, Lever, in conjunctior
 9    with the Hammond  Sanitary Board,  the Hammond Park Board and
10    the  state Board of Health engaged in studies, experiments and
11    the  installation  of improvements in  efforts to Improve the
12    quality of the effluent  to  Wolf Lake.   Lever employed, over
13    the  intervening years, a number of experts on the treatment oi
14    Industrial wastes to advise the Company, and a number of theix
15    suggestions have  been  adopted.
16                 Continuous  chlorlnation of the effluent Lake
17    Michigan water began in  19^3 at the  suggestion of the Indiana
18    Board.  This water is  retained in the  plant and in the plant
19    processes for a period of one  and one-half to two hours,
20    effectively kills harmful bacteria and reduces the algae
21    contained in the  effluent Lake Michigan water.  Today,
22    automatic chlorination into the effluent waters is maintained
23    24 hours per day  and 365 days  per year.  The chlorine residual
24    in the  effluent water  to Wolf  Lake is  .2 parts  per million.
25   Bacteria in the effluent Lake Michigan water are successfully

j   eliminated.
                 The  contaminants  in  the  Lever  effluent  to Wolf
    Lake  consist of suspended  solids  and  dissolved  solids.
    Lever's  treatment processes  have  effectively dealt   with the
K   former,  but the dissolved  solids  present  a  difficult problem.
.                Eighty  to  90  percent of  the  suspended solids in
    the effluent to Wolf Lake  are removed  by passing the  effluent
    water through  skim tanks and then through two Colloidair units
    which separate the solids  from the effluent water by air
    flotation  and  skimming.  The Colloidair units were installed
    in 1952  and have  been operated continuously since.   The
    efficiency of  these  units  has  been improved from time to time.
                 However, the  dissolved solids  in the effluent
    are not  susceptible  to  effective  treatment  by any practical
    method known at this time.   Since the dissolved solids are
    exceedingly dilute,  the problem is made more difficult.
                 It will be observed  from Exhibit B, the Stipula-
    tion  entered into between  Lever and the Indiana Board
    on September 26,  1963, that  Lever agreed  to employ an Indus-
    trial  waste treatment expert,  who initially would be Dr.  C.
    Fred Gurnham of Illinois Institute of Technology, to direct
    applied research  for the purpose  of attempting  to develop
    means to improve  the effluent.
                 It will  also be observed' that Lever is obligated
    to make a report  each six months on the  status of efforts to

 i    improve  the  effluent.  Dr. C. Fred Gurnham has been retained
 2    and  has  been engaged in  active  research  on this  matter since
 3    October  1, 1963.
 4                 Two  reports have been made  under the  Stipulation,
 5                 Studies of  the  effluent described in  the  first
 6    report reveal that  about 90  percent of the foreign material
 7    In the effluent  (after passing  through the present treatment
 8    process)  consists of dissolved  material  not  susceptible of
 g    treatment in the  existing treatment facilities.  Possible
10    methods  of treatment were likewise discussed.  One of  the
u    current  efforts  is  to attempt to  eliminate these wastes at
12    their sources.
13                 The  second  report  was rendered  September  30,
14    1964, and the principal  sources of dissolved solids in the
15    wastes were  then  identified.  A substantial  amount of  this is
16    glycerine in solution.   Since this glycerine has a substantial
17    market value,  Lever is as desirous as anyone to  find a method
lg    for  its  recovery.   The third report is due March 31, 1965.
19                 Lever  is now assigning a chemical engineer to
2Q    devote full  time  to conduct experiments  with new methods of
21    treatment suggested by Dr. Gurnham.  One of  these  will be  to
22    determine the feasibility of chemical oxidation  despite the
.,    fact that recent United States  Public Health Service studies
24   have been discouraging.
25                Another will be the use of carbon as a purifier


     for the effluent.   Efforts will likewise be made to reduce

     the volume of flow to the present treatment facilities in an

 3   attempt to secure more efficient operation.  Lever is con-

 4   tinuing to eliminate wastes at their sources.

                  It should be observed that the Stipulation of

     September 26, 1963, gives the Indiana Board the right at any

     time after the receipt of the first two reports (which have

     now been received) to enter an appropriate order if the Board

     determines that such is indicated.


                  It should appear clearly that the Indiana Board

     and Lever are doing all that they can at the present time to

     solve the problem presented.  It is, therefore, respectfully

     submitted that:

                  1.  There is no pollution of waters endangering

     the health or welfare of persons in a state other than that

     in which the discharge originates.  The contaminating poten-

     tials are confined to Wolf Lake Channel, which is wholly in


                  2.  The effect of the pollution on the legitimate

     uses of the water is not of sufficient significance to warrant

     exercise of Federal Jurisdiction.  Except for 4 percent of

    the lake (the channel),  Wolf Lake affords full  opportunity

    for boating,  bathing and fishing,  the  only uses to which the

    lake is  put,

 l                 3.   All  necessary remedial  action has been taken
 2    by the Indiana Stream Pollution Control  Board.  The Indiana
 3    Stream Pollution Control Board has completed one phase of the
 4    action prescribed by  the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
 5    and is in position to take final action  if deemed necessary.
 6                 4.   Adequate measures have  been and are being
 7    taken toward abatement of the pollution.  Present treatment
 8    methods now remove the maximum possible  amounts of suspended
 9    solids under the best known treatment methods.  Research and
10    experimentation are now proceeding in efforts to find methods
11    to remove the maximum possible amounts of dissolved solids.
12                 Respectfully submitted,
13                 Lever Brothers Company,  by  0. W. Koester, Plant
14    Manager, Hammond, Indiana.
15                     * *  * * *
16          MR. TINKHAM: All right, I want to say at the outset
17    that, anticipating a  question by Mr.  Poston, our records on
18    file and to be filed  with the Indiana Stream Pollution Control
19    Board are open to inspection by any authorized person from
20    the Department — from the Service.
21          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   May I say,  with your company, in
22    other parts of the country,  we have always received full
23    cooperation  with  whatever  information  we wished,  whether it  ha|s
24   been  a research demonstration, enforcement or  any program
25   involved with pollution control.


                 All  we  had  to do  is  ask.

2          MR.  TINKHAM:   I  am glad  to  hear  that.

3                Actually, this  was a decision made without

     knowing what the  other plants  were doing.  So,  we are not

     going to catch the devil for doing it, I guess.

                 I might say that  our plant is located in the

     northwest  part of Hammond.

                 It draws  raw water from Lake Michigan and dis-

     charges in the Wolf  Lake Channel.

10                All  sanitary sewage  and the maximum permitted

     amounts of industrial  wastes are  sent  directly to the Hammond

12    Sewage Treatment  plant.

23                We have been told on a number of occasions  that

14    the plant  cannot  take  any more of our  wastes.  We will dis-

15    cuss this  subject briefly under four sub-divisions.

16                Number  1, there is no pollution of waters en-

17    dangering  the  health or  welfare of persons in a state other

18    than that  in which the discharge  originates.

19                Number  2, the effect of the pollution on the

20    legitimate uses of water is  not of sufficient significance

2J    to  warrant the exercise  of Federal Jurisdiction.

22                Number  3, all necessary remedial action has

23    been taken by  the Indiana Stream  Pollution Control Board.

24                Number  4, adequate measures have been and are

25   being taken toward abatement of pollution.


 i                As I said, the facts stated herein are taken

 2   from the transcript of the evidence of a ten-day hearing

 3   before the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board.  That

 4   evidence is contained in four volumes, thirteen hundred sevent(y

 5   eight  (1,378) pages with 123 exhibits.  I may say that that

 6   also is open to inspection by any of the conferees

 7                We have attempted to make an unbiased statement

 0   of this record.  I would ask the members of the conference to

 Q   open the statement of Lever Brothers to Exhibit A which is a

10   map of the Wolf Lake area.

n                You will observe, if you will unfold the exhibit,

    the plant of Lever Brothers Company in the upper right hand

    corner and you will observe the channel of Wolf Lake just
I w

    across Indianapolis Boulevard and forms a small pool to the

    northeast side of Indianapolis Boulevard.

..                What has already been referred to as Wolf Lake

    Channel appears running down south on the map.  That channel

    is 6800 feet long.

                 Our discharges are discharged into the pool

    northeast of th3 channel and have the benefits of natural

    purification for that more than a mile of channel.

                 When our wastes submerge from the channel in the

    neighborhood of the islands appearing on the map,  our wastes

    are substantially oxidized  and,  as  a  matter  of fact,  there is

    no effect upon Wolf Lake proper.


 l                 Now,  in the beginning when our plant was

     established in 1930, the channel was analyzed and the lake

     was analyzed by the Columbus Laboratories here in Chicago.

                  Briefly, I won't give you all of the data, but,

     in 1930, the channel had 635 parts per million of total

 .    solids.  The lake proper had 4l5 parts per million of total


                  Today, the channel has less than a third of

     that sum, 200 parts per million of total solids.

                  You will note on the map the Wolf Lake Park and

     Beach over in the right or east side.  That beach has been a

     steady operation and has not been closed due to any contami-

     nation from any source.

                  As a matter of fact, in our local paper, the

     Hammond Times, soweone - I forgot who it was now - in connec-

     tion with the park was quoted as saying that the water was

     almost good enough for drinking water.

                  Now,  you will also observe from the lake or from

     the map that the Indiana Toll fload running about the center

     of the map and running off to the southeast divides the lake

     or forms a barrier for the passage of water from east to west,

                  Point G on the map indicates a 24 foot opening

     in  the Toll Road.

                 Moving  to the  left or west, you will find a dike

    in the middle of the lake on the state line, point F.  Point p


    on that map indicates —  indicates four openings of  about  six

    feet each.

                 Moving further to the west to the  Illinois  side,

    you find  Point E  on a railroad viaduct or a  railroad track

    across the lake and Point E affords  a 20-foot-wide  opening

    for the passage of water  from east to west.

 7                So,  you see, the lake is effectively divided

 8   into four smaller lakes.

 9                The  passage  of water  is restricted from the east

10   to the west by these three barriers.

                 Now, the lake has 1050  acres, 565  of which  are

12   in Indiana and 485 which  are  in  Illinois.

13                We think that our effluent discharged  to Wolf

14   Lake Channel has  actually improved the quality  of water  in

    Wolf Lake, based  not only upon the scientific survey of  the

16   lake made before  the plant was established,  but also upon

17   appearance today.

                 You  v/ill note in the picture and the slides taker

19   by the Public Health Service, the  lake has a very good color.

2o   If you will go out and  inspect it  today; you will find it  has

21   a very good color

22                Incidentally, it is our opinion that the Hammond

23   Beach would not be open if it weren't for the Lever  Brothers

24   discharge of 8 to 10 million  gallons per day.   That  discharge

25   helps to make a current in the lake  which has no source  of


    fresh water whatsoever, except drainage, and discharge from

    Lever Brothers Company.

                 We think the  lake level which  is  two  feet higher

    than Lake Michigan  is maintained or helped  to  be maintained

    by the discharge  from Lever  Brothers Company.

                 Now, it was clear at  the hearing  before  the

    Indiana  Board that  all of  the contaminating materials in  the

 8   Lever waste water was settled out  or oxidized  by the  time the

 9   water reached the end of the channel.

10                As a matter of  fact,  the dissolved oxygen in

11   the lake itself approaches the saturation point.

12                There  is only one place in  the channel and that

13   is about half way down, as I recall it,  where  the  dissolved

14   oxygen is not sufficient to  support fish life  and  fishing is

15   carried  on in the channel  and in the lake even through the

16   ice in the winter time.

17                The  latest figures on the plant B.O.D. effluent,

18   February 1964 and March 1964 and June 1964  were respectively

19   as follows: 68 parts per million,  139 parts per million,  and

20   36 parts per million.

21                Although I haven't seen them,  we  are  informed

22   similar  analyses made by the Indiana Stream Pollution Control

23   Board at the same time revealed better results than this.

24                I  am skipping over part of this.

25               The  fact  that  we contend there  is  no  interstate


 l   pollution was well borne out by this evidence.  It was  also

 2   borne out by the original Health, Education, and Welfare

 3   report, when it said on Page 4, "investigation by the Public

 4   Health Service has not disclosed significant interstate

 5   pollution."

 6                For some reason or other, which we have been

 7   unable to find or discover, that part was deleted in the Errat

 8   and Addenda section of the report.  We don't know why.

 9                Likewise, on page 22 of the report, that was

10   repeated, that there was no interstate pollution.  That like-

11   wise  was deleted.

12                In the Indiana report which was read by Mr.

13   Miller, on page 39, the same contention is made.  Fortunately,

14   that has not been deleted as yet that there is no interstate

15   pollution of Wolf Lake.

16                References to cleanliness of the water of

17   Wolf Lake is found in several places in the Health, Education,

18   end Welfare report.

19                There is one place where they say the wild fowl

20   avoid polluted waters, but plenty of them are found on  Wolf

21   Lake.

22                In another place, on page 32 of the Health,

23   Education, and Welfare report, it states there is no signi-

24   ficant interstate bacterial pollution of Wolf Lake and  this wa

25   not deleted.

                 My  second  point  is  the  effect  of pollution on

 2    the  legitimate uses  of  the  water is  not  of  sufficient

 3    significance to  warrant the exercise of  Federal jurisdiction.

 4                Now,  if you refer to Exhibit A again,  this is

     the  map of  Wolf  Lake, there are  ten  hundred and fifty  (1050)

 6    acres  in the old lake itself  and some 40 acres, I believe,

 7    40 acres in the  channel.

 8                The channel constitutes almost four percent of

 g    the  total acreage.   The only  uses to which  the lake is put

10    are  fishing, boating and bathing.

H                Of  those 1050  acres, the public can enjoy,

12    without any restriction whatsoever,  except  as restricted by

13    the  Toll Road  and  Railroad  dike, the railroad crossing or
     the  railroad  track and  the  dike,  unrestricted use of the water
15    of Wolf Lake  for  the uses to which it  is put.

16                 There  is no agricultural  use of Wolf  Lake water
17   whatsoever.
                  It  is  not  used  for  drinking water so that  we  say
lg   that Wolf  Lake  is  free  and  open,  96  percent  of Wolf Lake  is

2Q   free and open for  all the uses  the public  wants  to put  it to

    and I have talked  about dissolved oxygen.

22                In the Addenda and Errata  section of  the Health,

    Education, and Welfare report, reference is made that the

    Lever waste causes fish kills in  portions  of the lake and kULs

25   game and fish in Wolf Lake.


                 Now, at the hearing, which was a full-dressed

    hearing before the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board, th€

    only evidence of a fish kill in Wolf Lake was that in the

    spring of 1962 and there was a substantial kill at that time.

                 The State took samples of the water at the site

    of the kill and it was revealed that the water had sufficient

    dissolved oxygen in it to support fish life and the only

    evidence, absolutely the only evidence as to the cause of the

    kill was given by Dr. Arthur D. Hasler of the University of

10   Wisconsin who is an expert in the field of zoology and

11   limnology.  He gave his opinion that, under the facts surround

12   ing the kill, the kill was due to — due solely to a natural

13   winter kill and this was further buttressed by the fact that

14   there were winter kills in other lakes in the area at the

15   same time, in which lakes there was no industrial waste

16   deposit whatsoever.

17                Now, the Addenda and Errata section of the Health

18   Education, and Welfare report also referred, and I refer to

19   this, "tainting the flesh of game fish."

20                In the hearing before the Board, the evidence

21   from some witnesses was that the fish tasted like soap.

22                Well, we believe that that was purely psycho-

23   genetic in origin because there is no soap waste or no deter-

24   gent waste whatsoever sent to Wolf Lake or Wolf Lake Channel

25   by Lever Brothers Company.

 l                The word  "Lever"  as I  say  in this report  is
 2    synonymous with soap and, therefore, naturally,  if the fish
 3    taste bad, it  is soap  that  causes it.
 4                Now,  it is  common knowledge  among fishermen  and
 5    I  am one—I happen to  know  Blucher  Poole  is  another—that, if
 6    you catch fish in  a body of water without fresh  water  inlets,
 7    they have a "muddy" taste.
 8                That's been true  in the many years  that I have
 9    been fishing and I think every fisherman will admit  that.
10                There is  evidence in this  hearing that  fish
n    caught  in Wolf Lake proper  tasted real  good.  As a matter of
12    fact, I think  one  witness said he told  the people to whom he
13    fed the fish that  he caught them up in  the north woods some
14    place and they said they were  delicious.
15                Later on, he told them that he  caught them in
16    Wolf Lake, and they were a  little doubtful about the quality
17    of the  fish.
18                So, we conclude on this point that  at least  96
J9    percent of the lake is as good as any lake in our area and in
20    most areas.
21                3.  All necessary remedial action has been taken
22    by the  Indiana Board.
23                I won't go into the numerous surveys that have
24   been made and  surveys that we have made ourselves, and  the
25   experts  that we have  had  employed  to tell  us  what to  do or to


    advise us.  That is all set out in the statement.

                 We have attempted to comply with the requests

    and  suggestions made by the Hammond Sanitary District,  the

    Hammond Water Department, the Hammond Park Board, and the

    Stream Pollution Control Board through the years.   We had one

    hearing in  1957 that ended in a stipulation.  We complied

    with that stipulation.

                 In January 1962 we had another hearing.  That

    is the hearing I referred to where the record is 1378 pages

10   long and  at the end of that hearing, we urged these facts

    upon the  Board that, after all, we were entitled to a reason-

12   able use  of the lake and we were only using a part  of the

13   channel and that was a reasonable use to support this industry

14   to use only four percent and we don't believe we use even that

15   and  that  that was  a reasonable use of the lake  for  our  pur-

16   poses

17                However, the hearing ended in a stipulation

18   between the Board  and Lever under the terms of  which we were

19   to agree  to employ an industrial waste treatment experiment.

20                Dr. C. Fred Gurnham, of IIT, was agreed upon

21   and  he has  been employed and we have submitted  two  reports

22   td the Board.

23                Our initial endeavors have been to try to

24   isolate the wastes and stop them at their points of origin

25   and that is under way now.


                  Incidentally, under the terms  of  the Stipulation,

     the  Indiana Stream Pollution  Control Board  has the  right  to

     enter  any order  in this  matter, in this  pending matter, which

     they deem appropriate  at any  time.

                  Now,  we have taken adequate measures,  we  think,

     and  the  measures we feel are  the best  to accomplish these


                  Since 1937, to improve our  wastes to Wolf Lake,

     we continuously  chlorinate the effluent  24  hours a  day, so

     if there is a .2 parts per million residual in the  waste,

     there  is no bacteria in  the waste  and  the chlorination helps

     to kill  the algae.

                  The chlorination is in the  effluent water so that

     the  chlorine remains in  the water, well, it goes to the plant

     and  the  detention  period is one and one-half to two hours.

     That is  automaticchlorination.

                  Now,  the  contaminants to  Wolf  Lake are suspended

     solids and dissolved solids.   Present  treatment process,  which

     consists of two  skim tanks and two colloidair  units separates

     the  solids from  the effluent  water by  air flotation and

     skimming process.   It  takes about  90 to  —  80  to 90 percent

     of the suspended solids  out of the effluent.   We think that

     is good performance.

                 However,  the dissolved solids present  a more

    difficult problem,   as all of you here will recognize.


 !                Now,  unfortunately,  this  is  not  in  the

 2    written statement  — we  don't  add very much by way of sus-

 3    pended  solids  to our effluents.

 4                I was glad  to hear,  I think  it was  Mr.  LeBosquet

 5    say,  the other day,  that some  company  couldn't be  blamed

 e    for the oil they were putting  into the effluent  because they

     were taking it in  in their water  supply intake pipe.  That

     is the  case with Lever Brothers.

                 I have some figures  here  which  are  not  in the

     figures in the statement.  They  are for three days and in

     March,  July, September and December of 1964.

                 In March, our effluent water contained  166 parts

     per million of dissolved solids  or effluent water  contained

     180 parts per  million of dissolved solids or  we  added 14

     parts per million.

                 In July, we had  - we took in 169 parts  per

     million of dissolved solids.   We  put out  208  parts per

     million, so we added 39  parts  per million.

                 The September figures were 177  in,  195  out or

     we put  in 18.

                 In December,  we took in 201  and  put out 193 or

     we took out less than we took  in.

                 We  don't  know of  any methods, any practical

     and feasible methods  at  this time to eliminate these

    dissolved  solids from the  effluent.  They  are exceedingly

 1   diluted  in  some  8  to 10 million  gallons  of water.

 2                We  are,  however,  investigating  various  methods

 3   and we have investigated,  as was revealed  in our evidence

 4   before the  Stream  Pollution Control Board, many methods

 5   including all  of the methods that have been  suggested through

 6   the years.

 7                Our efforts  are continuing  to improve the

 8   operation of our system for the  elimination  or reduction of

 9   suspended solids and to find some means  of reducing  or elimi-

10   nating the  dissolved solids.

n                Incidentally,  a substantial part of our dissolved

12   solids is glycerine.

13                Now,  glycerine has  a very high  price and we

14   would be delighted to discover some method of recovering the

15   glycerine that goes out with our waste.

16                Our third report, under our stipulation, is

17   due the  end of this month  and  will be filed  at that  time.

18   And the  Public Health Service  is welcome to  a copy of it.

19                We  are now assigning and as soon as we  can clear

20   it with  the Union,  a  chemical  engineer to devote full time to

21   conduct  experiments with new methods of  treatment suggested

22   by Dr. Gurnham.  One  of these will be to determine the

23   feasibility of chemical oxidation, despite the fact  that

24   recently United States Public Health Service studies have been

25   discouraging this.


















             Another will be the use  of  carbon  as  a purifier

 for the effluent.

             Efforts will likewise be made  to reduce the

 volume of  flow to  the  present  treatment  facilities in an

 attempt to secure  more efficient operation.

             We are continuing — incidentally, we have made

 substantial progress in this field to eliminate wastes at

 their sources.

             Oh, someone mentioned here  the other  day about

 education  of personnel to avoid spills and  to operate the

 equipment  efficiently.  That has been done  for  a number of

 years at Lever Brothers Company.

             Every two weeks there is a  meeting with the

 operating  personnel at which a subject is discussed and kept

 constantly in  front of the  operating  personnel.

             In conclusion, we say there is no  interstate

 pollution  of water.  The only  contaminants  are  confined to

 Wolf Lake  Channel.

             The effect of  the pollution on the legitimate

 uses of water  is not of sufficient significance to warrant

 exercise of Federal jurisdiction.  Wolf  Lake affords the

 opportunity for boating, bathing and  fishing, the  only uses

 to  which the lake  is put.

             All necessary remedial action has been  taken  by

the Indiana Stream Pollution Control  Board.

                 Now, the question may be  asked,  "Well, why

     didn't you  act before they  got after you?"

                 Well, we thought that what we  were  doing was  the

     best we  could do at  that  time.

                 They got after us nevertheless.   They got after

     us  and that was  our  part  of our  evidence  in the  case,  that we

     were doing  all we knew how  to do and all  that present

     science  was capable  of telling us what to do. We  say that

     adequate measures have been taken by the  Stream  Pollution

10    Control  Board, I mean, adequate  measures  have been taken or

11    are being taken  presently for the abatement of pollution and

12    are trying  to attack our  dissolved solids programs at  the

13    same time.

14                In  closing,  I  want  to say that somebody mentioned

15    tax help by the  State of  Indiana. One of the things  that  I

16    think that  could give great impetus to that in this area is

17    to  secure some kind  of Federal income  tax assistance.

18                Now, I  was in  this  case that Al  Meserow was

19    talking  about, the State  of Illinois against  the State of

20    Indiana, in the  Supreme Court.

21                We  went to Washington, a  group of us  at that

22    time, and tried  to get some  legislation giving rapid

23   depreciation for everything to aid in  clearing up pollution.

24                I would suggest that the  conferees might discuss

25   that problem,  too.  I think a lot of people would be more


     anxious to proceed  immediately with  it.

2                Thank  you  very much.

3          CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Well,  as you  may  know,  on your last

     point, our basic legislation  goes  before the Public Works

     Committee of the House  and Senate, I think the members of thai

     Committee, both parties,  have indicated  they favored legisla-

     tion of the  kind you speak of and  possibly others.  But the

     substantive  legislation of tax measures  goes before other

     committees and they have not  been  very receptive as far as I

10    know in any  administration.

11                These  proposals  have  been around since the

12    Truman Administration and the Democratic or Republican

13    administrations and the Treasury Department never have given

14    this legislation a  favorable  report.

15                So, I  don't know that this  group is your best

16    avenue here, although this is being  considered again and I

17    think it's become more  active.  As a matter of fact, Senator

18    Ribicoff put some legislation in the last Session which was

19    somewhat different  and  kind of a little  more modern than the

20    depreciation.

21                He is  taking a tax right off the  top and making

22    it more attractive  than the five-year depreciation.

23          MR. TINKHAM:   It  would  be better.

24          CHAIRMAN  STEIN:   Are there any questions  or  comments?

25                (No response)


 1                 Mr.  Poole?

 2          MR.  POOLE:   If I may have your indulgence,  I am told

 3    for five minutes  more, I want to introduce to you one of the

 4    most patient ladies.  She has sat here from the very beginning

 5    of this conference to make a very short presentation on behalf

 6    of the South Lake County Stream and Pollution Council.  Mrs.

 7    G. Hansen, Secretary-Treasurer.

 8          MRS. HANSEN:  Mr.  Chairman, Honorable conferees, ladies

 9    and gentlemen:

10                 I  am Geraldine Hansen, Secretary-Treasurer of

11    the South  Lake  County Stream and Pollution Council.

12                 The  South Lake County Stream and Pollution

13    Council realizes  that out community is contributing to

14    your pollution  problem in the Chicago-Calumet region.  We

15    also are aware  of the extreme danger to the health and

16    welfare of the  whole community.  We have been hacking through

17    a Jungle of bureaucracy  and legislative formalities  to no

18    avail; therefore,  our appeal at this time is for  your help

19    and assistance.

20                 The  pollution problem, as expressed  by the

21    President  of the  United  States in his recent State of the

22    Union and  Inaugural  Address,  are very serious.

23                 Scope:   Local  and  state  authorities  have  either

24   been unwilling or unable to help with these problems.  At the

25   present, untreated or inadequately treated sewerage is being

     permitted to be discharged into streams which eventually flow
     into the Little Calumet River (West).
                  Summary:  All Lake County citizens, and specifi-
     cally those interested in conservation, are extremely concern
     with this pollution problem.  Lake County is 28,000 acres sho:
     for Park Land.  These Park Lands would include lakes and/or
     streams which would be used for boating, fishing and swimming
                  The Little Calumet River (West) is now being
     polluted by improper and inoperative septic tanks, by plant
10   waste and improperly operating municipal and private sewerage
H   treatment plants.  This polluted water is reaching the Little
12   Calumet River (West) by the following contributing streams:
13 ||               The Beezer Ditch, which along with the #1 Spur,
14 ||  Graper Ditch and Niles Ditch all flow into the Beaver Dam
15 I  Ditch, which in turn flows into Deep River,  which empties int
.j6 j|  Lake George in Hobart,  Indiana,  which again  flows into Deep
1? I  River, which empties into the Little Calumet River (West).
18   Turkey Creek also picks up Kaiser Ditch,  and then flows into
19   Deep River ahead of Lake George  in Hobart.
20                Conclusion:   if the laws we  now have on the
21   County and State level  were  properly enforced  and new Federal
22   pollution  laws were to  be  enacted  with stiff penalties  for
23   violators, this  would be the solution to the pollution problem!
24  But, no law is any better than its enforcement 1
                 Thank you.

 1         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  Thank you, Mrs. Hansen.
 2                 It  is  groups  like yours  that  keep us  on  the ball
 3   Without you we might deteriorate.
 4         MRS. HANSEN:  Never  underestimate  the  powers of a woman
 5                 Thank  you.
 6         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   I never have.   I  am surrounded by them
 7    at  home.
 8                 (Laughter)
 9         MR.  POOLE:  I am not going to make any closing  speech
10    on  behalf  of  Indiana.   I think you  heard enough  from  Hoosiers
11    in  the last few  days,  notwithstanding the  fact that I want
12    the rest of the  conferees  to know the State  of Indiana recog-
13    nizes that there is still  problems  and particularly with
14    respect to the south end of Lake Michigan.  We will keep
15   working at that  problem at an accelerated  rate and within the
16    limits of our resources.
17         CHAIRMAN STEIN:   Thank you, we  have  two statements here
18   which have been  submitted  for the record by  Mr.  Poole.
19                 One  is from the Town of  Chesterton  Utilities,
2o   by  order of Mr.  James  R. Harrington,  P.E.
21                 At  this point, it will be included  in the record.
23                At the direction of the Chesterton,  Indiana Town
24   Board,  i,  Mr.  James R.  Harrington, Professional Engineer,  and
25   Superintendent of the  Chesterton  Sewage Disposal  Plant, presen

 l   the  following statement to  the Department  of  Health,  Education
 2   and  welfare  at the  Water  Pollution  Conference held  March 2,
 3   through 6,  at McCormick Place, Chicago,  Illinois.
 4                 Part  I.   Recitation of the  facts as to the
 5   financial obligation  assumed  by  the citizens  of Chesterton,
 6   Indiana, to abate  their pollution of the Little Calumet River,
 7                 1. A  revenue  bond  has been issued in  the amount
 8   of $720,000.
 9                 2. Interest plus  operational expenses raise
10   the  total obligation  to  $2,440,000  over  the next 30 years.
11                 3. This is  $1,740  per household user; or $542
12   per  capita.   (Population  4,500).
13                 Part  II. Recitation of the facts as to the
14    sewage plant constructed  with the above  money.
15                 1. One twin  unit 750,000 gpd (each half) 1.5 mgd
16   total treatment capacity  plant.
17                 2. Including 2  aerated primary tanks, 2 aerator
18   2 final tanks, 1 chlorine chamber,  2 digesters, 1 vacuum
19   filter unit; plus  structure,  pumps, compressors, and all
20   sanitary equipment.
21                 Part  III. Recitation  of the facts concerning
22   operation of the plant.
23                 1. The  plant  has been in operation since June  1
24   1963.
25                 2. 'The  plant  processes 400,000  gpd, or 146 mgy.
                  3. We give  primary treatment, secondary treat-
    ment  and chlorination..


 1                 4.   Based on design we are using 20 percent of

 2    capacity.   Based on volume we are using 25 percent for future

 3    users.

 4                 Part IV.  Recitation of results obtained.  The

 5    citizens of Chesterton, Indiana, have eliminated their

 6    pollution of the Little Calumet River.  Test results show -

 7    treated sewage discharged into the River 400,000 gpd, having

 8    the  following analysis.  Temperature 45 to 75 degrees Fahrenhe

 9    pH 6.8, dissolved oxygen 2-3 ppm. relative stability test

10    greater than 30 days.  BOD removal without chlorination 90

11    percent.  BOD with chlorination, nil.  Note:  we carry 3-4

12    ppm.  free chlorine to compensate for additional pollution due

13    to raw  sewage being dumped into our final effluent.

14    Suspended solids:  oil, grease, etc., nil.

15                 By order of the Chesterton, Indiana Town Board.

16                 Signed, James B. Barrington, P.E.

17         CHAIRMAN STEIN:  At this point we will stand recessed

18    until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, in room 11 of this building, and

19    don't get  confused with the boat show.

20                 Come back to MeCormick Place.

21                 We  stand recessed until Tuesday, thank you.

22                 (Whereupon the Conference in the above

23    entitled matter  was  adjourned until March 9,  1965 at 9:30 a.m.


                                             * U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1966 O—799-414