PROCEEDINGS
     Volume 3
                                             Second Sessior
                                         Minneapolis, Minnesota
                                  February 28, March 1 & 2O, 1967
                    ,rff ,H«TBL .
       "'*^w>p|t^;-^'  :
       M:, ?I*7^*uA i.V; v ;
       ;•' -•              -
Conference
     In the Matter of Pollution off the
     Interstate and  Intrastate Waters
     of the Upper Mississippi River
     and its Tributaries-Minnesota
     and Wisconsin
             U. S. Department of the Interior
       Federal Water Pollution Control Administration

-------
           EXECUTIVE SESSION of the Second Session of the



Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate



and Intrastate Waters of the Upper Mississippi River and



Its Tributaries in the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota,



convened at 9:20 a.m., on Monday, March 20, 1967, at the



Leamington Hotel, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
           PRESIDING:  Mr. Murray Stein, Assistant



                  Commissioner for Enforcement, Federal



                  Water Pollution Control Administration,



                  Department of the Interior
           CONFEREES:



                  Dr.  M. M. Margraves, Chairman of the



                  Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission





                  Lyle H. Smith, Executive Engineer, Minnesota




                  Water Pollution Control Commission





                  Chester S. Wilson, Special Assistant,




                  Attorney General, State of Minnesota

-------
CONFEREES (Continued):



       Dr. Demetrius G. Jelatls, Mayor of Red




       Wing, Minnesota






       Freeman Holmer, Director, Department of



       Resources, State of Wisconsin






       Theodore F. Wisniewski, Acting Chief,



       division of Water Resources, Department of




       Resource Development, State of Wisconsin






        . J. Muegge, Member, Wisconsin Water



        esource Advisory Board






       Andrew C. Damon, Legal Counsel to the



       Department 9f Resource Development, State



       of Wisconsin





       P. Odegard, Executive Director, Minnesota-



       Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission






       H. W. Poston, Acting Regional Director,



       Great Lakes Region, Federal Water Pollution



       Control Administration, Department of the



       Interior

-------
                                                       2-A



LIST OF ATTENDANCE;



          John P. Badalich, City Engineer, City of South St.



Paul, Municipal Building, 125 - 3rd Ave. No., South St. Paul,



Minnesota.



          Ken Berglund, News Representative, MoGraw Hill



Publications, 5520 Thomas Ave. So., Minneapolis, Minnesota.



          Lawrence H. Brlemhurst, Associate Public Health



Engineer, Minnesota Department of Health, University of



Minnesota Campus, Minneapolis, Minnesota.



          Robert J. Carroll, Resident Manager, St. Regis



Paper Co., Sartell, Minnesota.



          Mrs. William Crampton, League of Women Voters,



606 Peggy Lane, White Bear Lake, Minnesota.



          Mrs. Irv Deneen, Minnesota League of Women Voters,



831 West Nebraska, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55117.



          T. Robert Edmen, General Manager, Consulting



Services Co., IBM Building, St. Paul, Minnesota.



          Arvid M. Falk, Assistant City Attorney, City of



Minneapolis, 325M City Hall, Minneapolis, Minnesota.



          Mrs. Neil Franey, President, WBL League of Women



Voters, 1323 Hedmanway, White Bear Lake, Minnesota.



          Dennis Gilberts, Steam Plant Sup. Engineer,



Northern States Power, 4l4 Nlcollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota.



          Robert E. Hansen, Project Consultant, South St. Paul,



211 Grand Avenue, South St. Paul, Minnesota.

-------
                                                       2-B



LIST OF ATTENDANCE;  (CONTINUED);



          Fred Heisel,  Public Health Engineer,  Health



Department, Box 675* Fergus Falls, Minnesota.



          Jay Herr, Technical Director,  St.  Regis Paper Co.,



Sartell, Minnesota.




          George R. Irons, Chief Engineer,  Swift & Co.,



Concord & Grand Avenues, South St. Paul, Minnesota.




          C. A. Johannes, Public Health Engineer, Minnesota



Water Pollution Control Commission, University  of Minnesota,



Minneapolis, Minnesota.



          Robert J. R.  Johnson, Reporter, St. Paul Dispatch,



55 E. Fourth St., St. Paul, Minnesota.



          Keith Larson, Sewage Treatment Plant  Superintendent,



City of South St. Paul, South St. Paul,  Minnesota.



          L. W. Marsh,  Executive Secretary,  Minneapolis-St.



Paul Sanitary District, 2400 Childs Road, St. Paul, Minnesota.



          John M. Mason, Dorsey, Owen, et al.,  2400 First



National Bank Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota.



          Douglas A. Maulwurf, Chemist,  South St. Paul,




South St. Paul, Minnesota.



          Arthur Menard, Staff Engineer (Region), Armour &  Co.,



Stockyards Station, South St. Paul, Minnesota.



          Kerwin L. Mick, Chief Engineer and Superintendent,



Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District,  2400 Childs Road,




St. Paul, Minnesota.

-------
                                                           2-C
LIST OF ATTENDANCE  (CONTINUED);


           Robert J. Miller, Chemist, Northwestern Refining Co.,


St. Paul Park, Minnesota.


           John Pegors, Clear Air Clear Water-Unlimited, 315 -

10th Avenue, North, Hopkins, Minnesota.


           M. Barry Peterson, Land Development, T. C. Metro


Planning Commission, 220 Griggs Midway Building, St. Paul,


Minnesota.


           Mrs. J. Homer Plerson, Secretary, Clear Air Clear


Water-Unlimited, Route 1, South St. Paul, Minnesota.

           William P. Poblete, P. E., Public Health Engineer,


Rochester Health Department, 415 - ^th Street, S. E.,


Rochester, Minnesota.


           Lovell E. Richie, Hearings Officer, Minnesota


Department of Health, University of Minnesota Campus,


Minneapolis, Minnesota.


           Maurice L. Robins, Chief Chemist and Sanitary

Engineer, Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District, 2400 Chllds


Road, St. Paul, Minnesota,

           Ira Rogers, Director of Public Affairs, Minnesota


Employment Association, 1200 pioneer Building, St. Paul,


Minnesota.

           Gordon Rosenmeier, Self, Minnesota Club, St. Paul,


Minnesota.


           Raymond T. Wilson, State Planning Direct01


representing the Governor of Minnesota.

-------
                                                2-D




LIST OF ATTENDANCE  (CONTINUED);



          Norman Sefer, Technical Director,  Great Northern



Oil Co., P. 0. Box 3596, St. Paul, Minnesota.



          Richard L. Sha, Engineering Consultant, North



Suburban Sanitary Sewer District, 1440 Co. Rd.  J, Minneapolis,



Minnesota.



          Robert Sterrett, Engineer Pollution  Control,  A.D.M.,



10701 lyndale Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota.



          W. J. Sutherland, Consulting Engineer, 3919 West



44th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota.



          Walter Thorpe, Engineer, Toltz, King, Duvall,



Anderson, 1408 Pioneer Building, St. Paul, Minnesota.



          Orbbie K. Webber, Personnel Manager,  St. Regis Paper



Company, Sartell, Minnesota.



          Carson Wu, Research Assistant, University of



Minnesota Agricultural Economics Department, St. Paul Campus,



St. Paul, Minnesota.



          Stanley York, Assemblyman, Wisconsin Boundary Area



Commission, Legislative Advisory Committee,  118 North Third




St., River Palls, Wisconsin.







                       * * * * *

-------
                PROCEEDINGS








           MR. STEIN:  May we get started?




           The joint State-Federal conference in the matter



of pollution of the interstate waters of the Mississippi



River in the Twin Cities area is reconvened.



           While a few people from Minnesota are not here



yet, we have decided to get started in an attempt to finish



our business.



           At this point I would like the people at the



table to introduce themselves.




           Would you start at the left hand, please?



           DR. ODEGARD:  I,am Peter Odegard, representing



the State of Wisconsin, but also in a sense from the State



of Minnesota, since I do work for the Interstate Boundary



Area Commission.



           MR. DAMON:  I am Andrew Damon, with the Department



of Resource Development, representing the State of Wisconsin,



           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  I am Theodore Wisniewski of the



Resource Development Department of Wisconsin.



           MR. HOLMER:  Freeman Holmer, Department of



Resource Development, State of Wisconsin.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Dr. Hargraves of the Minnesota




State Commission.

-------
           MR. SMITH:  Lyle Smith, Executive Engineer of



the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission.



           MR. POSTON:  H. W. Poston of the Federal Water



Pollution Control Administration.



           MR. STEIN:  And my name is Murray Stein from the



Department of the Interior in Washington.




           Do you want to name your other  two people for the



record now, so that the record will reflect that,  and when



they come in we will note them?



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Well,  Mayor Jelatis from Red Wing



is also one of the conferees, and I believe the storm has



slowed down his progress coming from Red Wing.  Chester




Wilson, who was formerly with us  and has been former Chairmai



of our Commission, is also one of the conferees, as he was ii



the previous meeting.  He too has to come  from Stillwater,



a distance of some miles from this room, and he too has been



delayed and has called in and will be here.



           MR. STEIN:  And Mr. Olsen, will you identify




yourself?



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Mr. Olsen has joined us this




morning.



           MR. OLSEN:  I am Raymond T. Olsen, State Planning



Director and representing the Governor of  Minnesota.



           MR. HOLMER:  The fifth member of the Wisconsin

-------
delegation Is Mr. 0. J. Muegge, member of the Resource
Development Board of the State of Wisconsin.
           MR. STEIN:  At this point I would  like to intro-
duce Senator Gordon Rosenmeier of Minnesota,  who, as you all
know, has been very interested in water pollution control in
the State of Minnesota.
           We are very happy to have you with us
           Since the last session of the conference, the
Technical Committee has met and has come up with a rather
imposing set of proposals.
           I have not discussed this with the panel and the
other conferees, but my suggestion is that we might use this
as a text and go down it and see if this can  be a basis of
agreement.
           Is this agreeable?
           MR. HOLMER:  Do you have other copies of this?
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.
           Before we get started with that, as you know, we
also kept the record open for statements which were to appear
in the record.
           Mr. Smith, do you have any of those that you
might want to Introduce at this time?
           MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, I have a number of
statements which were received since the session on February

-------
28th and March 1st.
           The first one I have is from the City of South
St. Paul, dated March 8, 196?
           The second one is from the Minneapolis-Saint
Paul Sanitary District, supplementary statement to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, dated March
6, 196^
           The next statement is from the City of Minneapolis,
headed "Statement for Presentation at Federal and Interstate
Conference on Pollution of the Mississippi River at Minnea-
polis," dated February 28, 1967.
           The next is a statement by the Hopkins Democratlc-
Farmer-Labor Club for the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the
Interstate and Intrastate Waters of the Upper Mississippi
River and Tributaries, Convened February 28, 196?> Minnea-
polis, Minnesota.
           I also have a statement by the Twin City Pipe
Trades Council, Minneapolis-St. Paul.  This is for the
Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate and
Intrastate Waters of the Upper Mississippi River and
Tributaries, Convened February 28, 1967* Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
           I also have a statement from the Plumbers Union
No. 15, Minneapolis, Minnesota, to be presented at the

-------
Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate
and Intrastate Waters of the Upper Mississippi River and
Tributaries, Convened February 28, 1967, at Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
           I also have a statement from Muskies, Inc., dated
February 28, 1967.
           I also have a statement actually in the form of
a memorandum to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion from K. L. Mick, of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary
District, regarding the July 1966 "Report on Pollution of
the Upper Mississippi River and Major Tributaries," Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, dated March 15, 1967.
           I also have a statement submitted by the City of
St. Paul in a letter of March 15th of the St. Paul Union
Stockyards, dated February 28, 1967.
           I also have a letter from Swift and Company,
South St. Paul, Minnesota, dated March 15, 1967.
           The next statement is a supplemental statement of
the North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District, dated March 20,
1967.
           The last I have is a letter dated March 3* 1967,
from Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc.
           Mr. Chairman, I would like all of these to be
entered into the record.

-------
                                                       8
           MR. STEIN:  Without objection, this will be



done.




           (The following are the statements above referred



to:








              CITY OF SOUTH SAINT PAUL




             SOUTH SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA



Office of




JOHN P. BADALICH



City Engineer and



Superintendent Water Dept.




Tel. 451-1738                         March 8, 1967








Mr. Lyle Smith



Executive Engineer



Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission



Minnesota Department of Health



University Campus



Minneapolis,  Minnesota 55440



                  Re:  Conference on Pollution of the



                       Upper Mississippi River, etc.




Dear Mr. Smith:



           I wish to submit the following recommendations




and suggestions for your further consideration and that of

-------
                                                      9
the conferees on the matter of pollution of the Interstate
and intrastate waters of the Upper Mississippi River and its
tributaries in behalf of the City of South St. Paul.  It Is
my understanding that this writing will be made part of the
record of the meeting which was held on February 28, 1967*
and March 1, 1967* in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
          Referring to the general recommendations of the
summary report and to Page 29, Paragraph 3, regarding
treatment of municipal wastes, It appears that the require-
ment of continuous disinfection of the effluent on a year
around basis is unreasonable and would place an undue
hardship on the City of South St. Paul.  We feel that the
river classifications and standards set for the Mississippi
River by the MWPCC on March 28, 1963* are more than adequate
in providing the necessary protection In the river during
the summer months or recreational season.  It is estimated
that the City of South St, Taul would have to spend in excess
of $38,000.00 more each year to provide continuous chlorina-
tlon other than during the 4 month recreational season.
          Another item of great concern to the city is the
specific recommendation for waste loads to the river, this
being the limited amount of 68,500 Ibs/day of 5-day (20°o)
B.O.D.  The major question confronting us at this time is by
what method will this fixed amount of 68,500 Ibs/day of

-------
                                                       10



B.O.D. be allocated to the City of South St. Paul and the



MSSD?



          Reference Is made to Table V-8 of the detailed



report on pollution of the Mississippi River, etc., by



the FWPCA whereby it Is stated, and as an assumption, the



MSSD and SSP would have equal effluent concentrations of



B.O.D. and that the ratio of flow rates remain constant.



The MSSD would be allotted 63,700 Ibs/day of 5-day B.O.D.



This would then leave the City of South St. Paul an



effluent B.O.D. concentration of 4800 Ibs/day, which would



then require the City of South St. Paul to remove 96.9



percent of 5-day B.O.D. presently, 97.1 percent of 5-day



B.O.D. in 1970, 97.4 percent of B.O.D. in 1980 and 97.7



percent of B.O.D. in 2000 if this method of allocation is



used.  This method of allocation would be most unreasonable



and a practically impossible approach to this problem, as



it would require the city to go Into sand filtration of



our wastes or into some other highly expensive tertiary



treatment process.  Our present, long range plans for up-



grading our treatment facilities are geared for a 95 percent



removal of 5-day B.O.D. with an effluent of 65 mg/1 or



less, of 5-day B.O.D.



          A more equitable or practical approach to this



allocation of the 68,500 Ibs/day waste load would be in

-------
                                                       11



the area of requiring the City of South St. Paul to In-



crease their percentage of treatment to an amount 50



percent greater than the effluent from the MS-^D plant on



the remaining percentage of removal up to 95 percent.  As



an example, if MSSD had an 80 percent B.O.D. removal, SSP



would be required to have a 90 percent removal and if MSSD



increased to 90 percent removal, SSP would be required to



increase to 95 percent removal which in effect would be our



maximum requirement.



          Another approach to this B.O.D. allocation could



be a method based on a population equivalent of the influent



entering the respective plants.  I am sure MSSD would not



sit still for this method of allocation.



          In any event, we fesl that this strict appllca~



tlon of a maximum amount of 5-day B.O.D. loading to the



river is unreasonable and unrealistic-based on an assumed



low flow of 1990-1950 ofs in the Mississippi River.  To



spend millions of dollars In capital costs and additional



operating and maintenance costs to satisfy a theoretical



river condition based on an arbitrary low flow that occurred



a few consecutive days in the past 25 years, is an unreason-



able demand to place on the taxpayers of the State.  During



the minute period that this low flow or critical river



condition exists, the city's municipal sewage treatment



facilities could employ one of many supplementary methods

-------
                                                   12




of treatment, such as chemical chlorination and aeration



of the effluent rather than building expensive unneeded



extra capacity in the treatment works.



          We certainly feel that the desired oxygen level



of 3.0 mg/1 can be maintained as a minimum in the river



at all times under the standards set for the Mississippi



River from the MSSD plant to Lock & Dam No. 2 by the



MWPCC.



          One further point that should be mentioned is



the time schedule set forth in the summary report, which



states that all construction shall be completed and plants



placed Into operation within 36 months.  Not that we In-



tend to drag our feet, but due to our limited construction



season and the need for evaluating operating data after



completion of certain improvements, the 36 month time



period will fall short by approximately 12 months.



          As an example, our proposed schedule of stage



improvements at our municipal sewage treatment plant calls



for immediate construction of an additional interceptor



sewer and other first stage improvements costing in excess



of 2.5 million dollars.  This work should be completed and



placed into operation by February of 1968.  Following



this construction, a period of one year will be necessary




to evaluate the results of these improvements and at the

-------
                                                       13



same time we would be evaluating the use of chemical



flocculants or polymers to determine to what extent



further secondary treatment would be required, either by



high rate trickling filters, anaerobic digestion, chemical



flocculation or some other economical method.  Following



this evaluation a 6 to 9 month period is necessary to



prepare plans and specifications for bidding.  Following



receipt of bids a 12 to 18 month period of construction



would be required for the building of these additional



secondary treatment units.  Totaling up this schedule of



plans, specifications, evaluation and construction would



indicate a practical minimum of 48 months.



          Again I wish to thank you, Mr. Murray Stein and



the conferees from Minnesota and Wisconsin for the op-



portunity afforded the City of South St. Paul in stating



both verbally and by letter, our position and progress



regarding the matter of water pollution In the Mississippi



River.



                            Sincerely yours,



                 (Signed)   John P. Badalich



                            John P. Badalich, P. E.



                            City Engineer







                       * * * * #

-------
                                                   14




        MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL SANITARY DISTRICT



               SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT



                       TO THE




  FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION



             U. S. DEPARTMENT OP INTERIOR



                   MARCH 6, 1967








          A statement was submitted at the Federal Water



Pollution Control Administration Conference of February



28th and March 1st which outlined the accomplishments of



the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District toward pol-



lution abatement and cited certain objections which the



District has to the recommendations of the FWPCA report.



          While the District has registered objection to



several areas of the FWPCA report in its statement of



February 27th, there are two of the report's recommenda-



tions which the District firmly opposes.  These are the



following:



          1.  The limitation of the combined waste load of



              the effluents of the District and South Saint



              Paul treatment plants to 68,500 pounds per



              day of 5 day BOD and 85,500 pounds per day



              of suspended solids on a year around basis.



          2.  Chlorinatlon at the heavy dosage required



              to maintain ooliform Guide B level on a year

-------
                                                   15
              around basis.

EFFECT ON THE DEGREE OF TREATMENT

          This limitation on the effluent load at  the
District's treatment plant has the effect of Imposing a
higher degree of treatment In the Hastings pool than in
other upriver reaches of the Mississippi River.  The
treatment required at the District plant would exceed by
a substantial measure the minimum uniform level of 80
percent BOD and suspended solids removal recommended for
all waste treatment facilities.  Instead of the 80 percent
efficiency permitted at other plants (including upriver),
the restriction on the effluent load would require at the
District a BOD removal of 90 percent in 1980 and 94 percent
in the year 2000.  The Hastings pool which is downstream
from the centers of population and flowing through an
industrialized area should be subject to less restrictive
water quality criteria and lower treatment requirements as
compared to other sections.
          This requirement of a very high level of treat-
ment on: a year around basis is not only unjustified from
the standpoint of economy, but also would be virtually im-
possible to comply with under all river flow conditions.

-------
                                                       16



The effluent load limitation should be applied to low river



flow periods only, not to the entire year.








TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES








          The arbitrary establishment of a maximum effluent



load as recommended by the PWPCA report precludes employ-



ment of treatment procedures which are particularly well



suited to the wide seasonal variation in the assimilative



capacity of the Mississippi River.  More consistent with



the environmental and climatic conditions of this area



would be the employment of a continuous base level of



secondary treatment in the order of 75 percent removal,



with higher levels of treatment accomplished on a modulating



basis to conform to the established river water quality



standards.



          The District proposes the employment of



auxiliary methods which are available to augment dissolved



oxygen resources.  In addition to "in-plant" effluent



aeration and chlorlnatlon for BOD removal and retardation,



the river's resources can be augmented by river aeration



at hydro-plants, mechanical or diffused aeration, Deration



at dams, and by low flow augmentation.  Many of these



methods can accomplish the same objective — maintaining

-------
                                                   17
minimum dissolved oxygen levels at the critical point —
much more economically than the seemingly simple expedient
of requiring a higher degree of treatment.

ADDITIONAL COSTS

          Maintenance of the water quality of the river
in the Hastings pool to the relatively high levels recom-
mended in the FWPCA report will require another expansion
of the main treatment plant in addition to the $27.0
million project which is nearing completion.
          A preliminary investigation indicates that to
meet this effluent quality on a continuous basis will
necessitate the employment of the Step Aeration Process.
An additional expenditure of approximately $10.0 million
will be required for the first phase of these treatment
and sludge disposal works, based upon a design period and
loading which corresponds with the plant expansion presently
underway.  In addition to the large capital cost involved,
higher operating costs will be incurred to the extent of
$300,000 per year.  As the plant is expanded in future
years, each Increment will cost proportionally more per
unit of capacity to provide for the higher level of treat-
ment .

-------
                                                        18




          It is Imperative that every dollar spent on new



creatment works or on plant operation results in some "real"



benefit in terms of the enhancement of the quality and



value of the water resource which is in the public interest.



The District urges a reasonable and realistic balance be-



tween the cost of treatment and the results of treatment.








CONFLICT WITH COMPREHENSIVE SEWAGE WORKS PLAN








          Based upon the conclusions of extensive studies



and investigations, the Board of Trustees of the District



and the District's engineers have consistently held to the



judgment that the best solution to the water pollution prol




lems of the metropolitan area Involves the collection and



treatment of sewage at one or more plants downriver of the



centers of population.  Application of the effluent load



limitation shifts several factors to favor upriver treatment



plants, to the detriment of water quality in sections of



river through highly populated areas.  The District cannot



support these recommendations which are in conflict with the



Comprehensive Sewage Works Plan.








CHLORINATION OF EFFLUENT








          Chlorlnation on a year around basis as Included



in the report recommendations is not consistent with the

-------
                                                       19

stated river water uses of limited body contact recreational

activities and commercial shipping.  Both of these activi-

ties are limited by the climate and the resulting ice cover

to no more than one-half of the year.  Chlorination at the

heavy dosage required to maintain the coliforra Guide B

level during winter months causes a substantial expenditure

toward pollution abatement without accomplishment of any

real benefit.

          The cost of effluent disinfection is nearly pro-

portional to the duration of Its employment.  Our estimate

is that the continuous ohlorlnation cost will be approximate-

ly $360,000 per year while the cost of four months of
                                     -v
chlorinatlon will be approximately $150,000.  It is the

Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District's position that

the expenditure for chlorlnation outside of the recreational

season is not justified in terms of the benefits to down-

river users.  Chlorlnation of the plant effluent to these

low levels of coliform would be negated by overflows from

the combined sewer system at times of heavy rainfall.  Even

with complete separation of the sewers, there will be

heavy coliform contaminations from the runoff discharged

from the storm sewers.



CONCLUDING STATEMENT

-------
                                                      20



          The Sanitary District urges the deletion from



the specific recommendations of the restrictive and arbi-



trary limitation of the effluent waste loads of the District



and South Saint Paul treatment plants to 68,500 pounds per



day of 5 day BOD and 85,500 pounds per day of suspended



solids on a year around basis.  Further, the District.pro-



poses the modification of the year around effluent dis-



infection recommendations to conform to the realistic water



uses.



          Based upon the accomplishments of the Minneapolis-



Saint Paul Sanitary District and in recognition of the status



of its plant expansion program,, the District requests a



modification to the Schedule of Remedial Program to permit



a full evaluation of the effect of new plant on the



Mississippi River before proceeding further with any addi-



tional improvements.







                       # * * # #








                   CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS



              Statement for Presentation at



              Federal and Interstate Conference



              on Pollution of the Mississippi



              River at Minneapolis



                  February-28, 1967

-------
                                                          21



          The Public Works Department of the City of



Minneapolis is responding to the Invitation of the Water



Pollution Control Commission with respect to the policy



of the City of Minneapolis concerning the problem of



pollution with reference to the Mississippi River as it



Involves the city.



          As the largest city on the Upper Mississippi



River Watershed, the City of Minneapolis has long recognized



and exercised its responsibility in the control and abate-



ment of water pollution and the protection of the metro-



politan area's water resources.



          In 1933* as the culmination of an extensive In-



vestigation of the pollution of the Mississippi River, the



City of Minneapolis joined with the City of Saint Paul as



the major participants in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sani-



tary District.  The accomplishments of the Sanitary District



include the engineering and construction of a major system



of interceptor sewers and treatment works which set the



pattern of downstream pollution abatement and waste treat-



ment practices.  Beginning operation in 1938, the Sanitary



District's primary sewage treatment plant has established



an outstanding record of successful and efficient operation,



effecting a significant Improvement in the past downstream



river conditions and maintaining reasonable levels of water



quality.

-------
                                                      22



          In response to the surge of growth and develop-



ment experienced in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan



Area in the early 1950's, the Minneapolis-Saint Paul



Sanitary District in 1956 embarked upon a costly and ex-




tensive study of the sewage works requirements of the



metropolitan area.  With the preliminary investigation



essentially completed in June 1961, the District authorized



a major expansion program to the existing Pig's Eye Lake



Sewage Treatment Plant.   This treatment plant expansion




project, which has a total estimated cost of $25,750*000* is



now approaching completion of construction.  It includes



additional capacity for the growth and development of the



two Central Cities as well as the contracted suburban com-



munities which comprise a sewered area nearly double that



of Minneapolis-Saint Paul proper.  In addition, the new



expanded treatment plant includes secondary treatment which



will accomplish levels of treatment substantially higher



than that presently attained.



          Supplementing the program of the Sanitary District,



the City of Minneapolis has Instituted independent programs



which have benefited long range water pollution control ob-



jectives.  The city's program 01 replacing the originaj.



combined sewer system with separate storm and sanitary




sewers has substantially reduced overflow of untreated

-------
                                                   23



sewage to the river during times of rainfall and runoff.



Over the years, approximately $22,000,000 has been expended



on this storm water separation program.  An accelerated



program has been scheduled for the future years and these



projects are being constructed as rapidly as financial




resources permit.



          The September I960 report of the engineering



consultants to the Sanitary District (Volume Three, Page



12-4) shows that of the 27,710 acres of sewered area in



the City of Minneapolis, 15*847 acres (or over 57 percent)



was served by separate sanitary and storm sewers.. Work



completed since this report was made, together with pro-



jects now being built, will add approximately 4,000 acres



served by separate sewers, increasing to over 70 percent



the total area having completely separated sewers.  The



conversion of substantial areas of Minneapolis from a



combined system to separate sewers for storm water and



sanitary sewerage has made it possible for Minneapolis to



convey through its system of trunk sewers and interceptors



the sanitary sewage from surrounding suburban communities.



At the present time there are twenty-seven suburbs and



agencies that use or have made arrangements to use the



Minneapolis sewer system.




          In the spring of 1962 the State of Minnesota,

-------
                                                      24



through Its Water Pollution Control Commission and State



Board of Health, held formal hearings proposing "classi-



fication of the Mississippi River and its tributaries



between the Rum River and the St. Croix River and for the



establishment of Pollution Standards therefor."  The City



Council authorized introduction of a statement favoring



the proposed classification.  Standards proposed for the



section between the Rum River and St. Anthony Falls are



essential to protect the water supply of Minneapolis, St.



Paul and the suburban areas presently being served by the



Minneapolis and Saint Paul water plants.  The standards



proposed for the section between St. Anthony Falls and



the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District plant "will



when adopted and enforced be of great benefit to the resi-



dents of the Metropolitan Area."  This stand by the City of



Minneapolis in favor of the classification and regulation



of these two sections of the Mississippi River was taken



with full knowledge and understanding of the obligations



it was assuming.



          In summary, the City of Minneapolis believes



that its record of past accomplishments, its policy of



continuing as rapidly as possible its storm sewer program,



its cooperation with the State Legislature, the State



Board of Health, and the Water Pollution Control Commission

-------
                                                       25



and suburban communities Is a commendable one and Indicates



clearly Its determination to improve the quality of the



water in the river.



                     CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS



                  By (Signed)  Thomas A. Thompson



                               Thomas A. Thompson,



                               Director of Public Works




                  By (Signed)  Keith M. Stidd,



                               Keith M. Stidd,



                               City Attorney







                       # # # # *








          STATEMENT BY HOPKINS DEMOCRACTIC-



             FARMER-LABOR CLUB




FOR:  Federal Water Pollution Control Administration



      Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the



      Interstate and Intrastate Waters of the Upper



      Mississippi River and Tributaries.  Convened



      February 28, 1967, Minneapolis, Minnesota








          The Hopkins,  Minnesota, Democratic-Farmer-Labor



Club appreciates the opportunity to express its satisfac-




tion with the Upper Mississippi River Project Study Summary

-------
                                                       26



and Pollution Abatement Recommendations.



          We are gravely concerned with the serious degra-



dation of the waters represented by the Project Study, and



we support the efforts being made by the Federal Water Pol-



lution Control Administration to lead the way to clean,



healthy, and enjoyable water resources.



          In order to increase the effectiveness of the



Recommendations, we respectfully request the following



modifications to be Included;



          A.  Cooling facilities of adequate capacity to



              lower high-temperature discharges to levels



              compatible with maintenance of aquatic life



          B.  All waters to be monitored for the pesticide



              levels existing, as a protection to the public



              health.



          C.  Establishment of a radioactive level monitoring



              program and prohibition of radioactive waste



              discharge to these rivers.



          C.  Inclusion of the following sections of rivers



              as a Group I fish habitat:



              l)  Minnesota River from Chaska to confluence



                  of the Mississippi River.



              2)  Mississippi River from Minneapolis-St. Paul



                  Sanitary District outfall to Lock and Dam



                  Number 2.

-------
                                                     27



          In their deliberations following the Conference,



the Conferees are respeotfully requested to adopt the



Recommendations, with the preceding modifications.



                (Signed)  Paul W. Lohmann, Chairman



                          Paul W. Lohraann, Chairman



                          Hopkins, Minnesota, DFL Club







                      *****








STATEMENT BY TWIN CITY PIPE TRADES COUNCIL (Minneapolls-St.Paul)







For the Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the



Interstate and Intrastate Waters of the Upper Mississippi



River and Tributaries (Minnesota - Wisconsin).  Convened



February 28, 1967, Minneapolis, Minnesota.







          The Twin City Pipe A fades Council (Minneapolis -



St. Paul) is appreciative of an opportunity to present its



views on the Summary and Pollution Abatement Recommendations



for the Upper Mississippi River and major tributaries.



          The more than three thousand members of the Twin



City Pipe Trades Council, and their families, are directly



concerned with the efforts to clean up the three river



basins Involved in the Summary and Pollution Abatement

-------
                                                        28



Recommendations.  As residents of the project study area,



and users of the area water resources, we wish to commend



the persons responsible for the generally high quality of



the Recommendations and the Remedial Program.



          We urge adoption of the Recommendations by the



Conferees, with the addition of the following modifications:



          &.  In view of the great recreational advantages



              of the river basins of the project study area



              and as a preparation for the predicted doubling



              of the area population by the year 2,000, we



              respectfully request the Conferees to upgrade



              the following sections of the project study



              rivers:



              1)  Minnesota River:  Mankato to confluence of



                  the Mississippi River to be included as a



                  whole body contact recreational activity



                  area.



              2)  Minnesota River:  Chaska to confluence of



                  the Mississippi River to be included as a



                  habitat ror Group I fish.



              3)  Mississippi River:  Minneapolis - St. Paul



                  Sanitary District to Lock: and Dam Number 2



                  to be included as a habitat for Group I fish.



              4)  Mississippi River:  Minnesota River Junction

-------
                                             29
        to Lock and Dam Number 2 to be included as
        a whole body contact recreational activity
        area.
B.  In order to make effective inroads into the
    present high fertilization rates of the project
    study rivers, we urge the Conferees to include
    high-efficiency phosphate and nitrate removal
    treatment requirements for wastes discharged to
    these water courses.
C.  We request the inclusion by the Conferees of a
    first-quality mandatory training and certifica-
    tion program for sewage treatment plant person-
    nel operating the plants discharging wastes to
    the project study waters.
D.  As a public health and welfare protection, we
    respectfully request the establishment of a
    pesticide monitoring program in all waters In-
    cluded in the Recommendations.
E.  In order to enhance the receiving waters for
    fish and to protect the public health of the
    area residents, we request the inclusion of
    cooling water discharge facilities of sufficient
    capacity to lower the temperatures to 83
    degrees Fahrenheit at point of discharge.
During their deliberations following the Conference,

-------
                                                       30



she honorable Conferees are respectfully requested to adopt



the Project Study Recommendations, subject to the modifica-



tions enumerated above, In order that the residents of the



area may enjoy the unique recreational and aesthetic



characteristics of these three river basins.



                       (Signed)  George C. Moore



                                 George C. Moore, President



                       Twin City Pipe Trades Council



                       February 27, 1967







                       * * * * *








          PLUMBERS UNION NO. 15 - 708 South Tenth Street



                    Minneapolis, Minnesota



To be presented at the Conference in the Matter of Pollution



of the Interstate and Intrastate Waters of the Upper



Mississippi River and Tributaries (Minneapolis - Wisconsin).



Convened February 28, 1967, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.







          Plumber's Local Union No. 15, Minneapolis,



Minnesota, appreciates the opportunity to review the



Summary and Pollution Abatement Recommendations for the



Upper Mississippi River and major tributaries.  We also



appreciate the opportunity to make our views known to the

-------
                                                      31



distinguished Conferees in the matter of enhancement of the



rivers included in the project study.



          We wish to commend the study group for their



objective analysis of these rivers, and for their evident



desire to delineate the serious problems to be corrected



before these unique rivers are lost for the full enjoyment



and benefit of the residents in this and surrounding areas.



          The more than one thousand members of Plumber's



Local Union No. 15 and their families are interested in



promoting the general health and welfare of all citizens.



We are concerned about the evident and unnecessary degra-



dation of our environment and consequently wish to urge



adoption by the Conferees of the following modifications



to the Recommendations:



          I   In order to halt the serious degradation of



              the project study waters by present, as well



              as future thermal pollution sources, we respect-



              fully request the inclusion of cooling water



              facilities of sufficient capacity to maintain



              discharge condenser wastes at 8l degrees or



              less at all times.



         II   Because of the severe genetic and carcinogenic



              effects of radioactive pollution for which



              science has found no known levels, we urgently

-------
                                           32



      request the total prohibition of the disposal



      of all radioactive wastes in the three rivers



      included in the project study.



Ill   In keeping with the preceding recommendation



      for protection of the public health, we



      strongly urge the adoption of a background



      radiation monitoring program as «. protection



      against the potential hazards of radioactive



      pollution by nuclear fueled power generating



      facilities.



 IV   We request the Conferees to include a high



      quality, effective mandatory training and



      certification plan under the surveillance of



      the Minnesota State Board of Health for all



      sewage treatment plant operators employed in



      facilities discharging effluents to the project



      study rivers.



  V   In order to check the excess fertilization of



      the study rivers, we respectfully request the



      inclusion of high-efficiency phosphate and



      nitrate removal treatment requirements for all



      phosphate and nitrate-containing waters dis-



      charged to the project study rivers.



 VI   In view of the substantial recreational poten-

-------
                                                         33



              tial and the anticipated population growth in



              the study area, combined with the proximity



              to a major metropolitan population center, we



              urge the Conferees to enhance the project



              study rivers in three sections:



              a)  Minnesota River:  Chaska to confluence of




                  the Mississippi River to be included as a



                  habitat for Group I fish.



              b)  Minnesota River:  Mankato to confluence of



                  the Mississippi River to be designated as



                  a whole body contact recreational activity



                  area.



              c)  Mississippi River:  Minneapolis-St. Paul



                  Sanitary District to Lock and Dam 2 to be



                  designated a habitat for Group I fish.



              c)  Mississippi River:  Minnesota River to Lock



                  and Dam 2 to be designated a whole body



                  contact recreational activity area.



          In their deliberations following the Conference,



the Conferees are respectfully requested to include the



above recommendations in order that the citizens of the area



may fully enjoy the benefits of these three river basins for



refreshment from the stresses of urban living.



                       (Signed)  Reuben S. Porter



                                 R. S. Porter, President.

-------
                       *****




                     HUSKIES, INC.



                  1708 University Ave.



                  St. Paul, Minnesota



                              February 28, 196?



          Muskies, Incorporated, is a recently founded non-



profit organization devoted to the improvement of Minnesota's



sport fishery.  We have at present more than 50 members.



          Our members wish to go on record as being in



support of standards for the Mississippi River from Anoka



to Lake Pepln which would be adequate for high quality game



fish suoh as the Muskellunge.  This means that an effective



program of pollution abatement must be instituted which



would reverse the abysmal degradation of this great river.



The recently proposed Federal standards represent a move-



ment towards achievement of this goal.



          As a separate but equally important issue we wish



to emphasize that there should be no further degradation of



Lake St. Croix from Its present high quality.  This is



presently excellent water for game fish.  The standards



for the St. Croix must include prevention of thermal



pollution.



              (Signed)  Arnold W. Lindall



                        Arnold W. Lindall, M. D., Ph.D.



                        Board of Directors



                        Muskles, Inc.

-------
                                                      35
                       * # # * #
Memo to:  Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Prom:     K. L. Mick, Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District
Re:       July  1966 "Report on Pollution of the Upper
          Mississippi River and Major Tributaries" - PWPCA
Date:     March 15, 1967

          The recent availability of the above-titled report,
permits us to make certain additional comments to supplement
our February 27, 1967, and March 6, 1967, statements.  The
three points we would like to emphasize and reiterate in
this memorandum relate to (l) the collform levels, (2) the
minimum dissolved oxygen level, and (3) the maximum phenol
concentration, in the section of the Mississippi River from
the outfall of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District
sewage treatment plant to Lock and Dam No. 2 near Hastings.
          (l)  Coliform Levels.  The requirement of a maximum
              collform count in any one sample of the plant
              effluent of 5*000 per 100 ml. is unreasonable
              and arbitrary in view of the practicalities
              of the situation and the likely potential use
              of this river stretch.  The February 27 state-
              ment points out the negating effect of combined
              sewer overflows and even of discharges of storm

-------
                                      36



water from a completely separated sewer system



on bacteriological quality.



    The above requirement is even more rigid



than that recommended for a municipal water



source.  The report states on Page VI-10 that



as a source of municipal water, the "water



may be considered acceptable if the coliform



concentration (at the intake) averages^ not



more than 4,000/100 ml."  The section of th.



Mississippi River from Anoka to St. Anthony



Falls is stated in the report (Page V-59) tc



be "suitable for all uses considered in this



report."  But even in this stretch the coliform



indices frequently exceed 5,000 per 100 ml, as



shown by the fact that of 26l samples collected



in the eleven year period (1955-65) from



Stations near the Intake to the Pridley water



plant and analyzed by MSSD, 5^ or approximately



20 percent had coliform counts greater than



5,000 per 100 ml and several were greater than



50,000.  Acceptable bacteriological standards



for raw waters allow for such a variance.



    The point we are making is, that if a



maximum limit is to be set, either of the river

-------
                                           37



    or of the effluent (and preferably the former),



    it should not be based on a single sample (grab



    or composite), but rather on an average or on



    a geometric mean density in a stated time inter-



    val such as one month and even then some varia-



    tion for stated percentages of samples should



    be permitted.  Otherwise the best designed and



    operated plants would be in technical violation



    on the first day a sample showed a count greater



    than 5,000 per 100 ml.  This is a distinct like-



    likhood when consideration is given to the fact



    that with raw sewage conform concentrations of



    100,000,000 per 100 ml or greater, a continuous



    and never failing overall destruction of 99.995



    percent would be required.  The likelihood is



    further increased when it is realized that



    equipment falls, people fail, and power fails,



    even though the frequency and duration is low



    under the best controlled situations.



(2) Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Level.  The report



    recommends the maintenance of a minimum of 3.0



    mg/1 of D.O. during flows equal to or greater



    than the 7-consecutive-day, once in 10-year



    summer and winter low flows.   As presented in

-------
                                        38



the February 27 statement, the District endorses



the prevailing standards adopted by the Minnesota



Water Pollution Control Commission in March 1963



in this regard, and opposes the more restrictive



PWPCA recommendations.



    In addition to this objection, however, the



District cannot agree with the rigidity of the



proposed level.  Here again the requirement is



based on a minimum concentration for any one



sample.  It is generally recognized that oxygen



levels in a river vary with horizontal and



vertical location of the sampling point, and



with the time of the day as affecting solar



radiation and photo-synthetic action.  At a



given horizontal location, D.O. samples can



vary from zero percent saturation to super-



saturation depending on distance from the shore,



depth, time of the day, and other factors.  The



sampling conditions and what constitutes a



single sample must be stated.  It is our ad-



ditional recommendation that if the 3.0 mg/1



limit is allowed to stand, it permit some vari-



ance, such as allowing lesser concentrations



for a stated number of hours per day somewhat

-------
                                                  39



              as suggested by Aquatic Life Advisory Committee



              of ORSANCO in its September 1, 195^* report.



          (3) Maximum Phenol Concentration.  The report



              recommends a maximum concentration of 0.01 mg/1



              at the 7-consecutlve day, once in 10-year low



              winter flow.  This will require a removal of



              about 90 percent of this pollutant.  The March



              1963 Standards of the MWPCC permitted a maximum



              of 0.10 mg/1 in this streuch.  This ten-fold



              decrease in permissible levels, without allowing



              any variance for influencing factors, will re-



              quire additional treatment facilities beyond



              those now in progress.



SUMMARY.  The District recommends, if the requirements are to



remain at the present levels, that their severity and rigidity



be altered by permitting variance for stated percentages of



samples to stated upper or lower limits.  Otherwise the



standards would be impractical to comply with and therefore



unreasonable.




          The District continues to feel after reviewing the



report of the PWPCA that the existing use classifications and



standards for this river section, adopted by the Minnesota



Water Pollution Control Commission on March 28, 1963, are as



stated in our February 27,  1967, statement,  "reasonable,

-------
                                                   40



adequate, and consistent with present and possible future



downstream water uses."







                      * * * * *








           SAINT PAUL UNION STOCKYARDS



      Division of United Stockyards Corp.



           South St. Paul, Minn. 55076








   STATEMENT OP SAINT PAUL UNION STOCKYARDS








          This statement is submitted on behalf of the



Saint Paul Union Stockyards to the Conference in the



matter of pollution of the Interstate and intrastate waters



of the Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries, held



February 28, 196?



          At the outset it should be noted that we have



actively cooperated since 1940 with the City of South St.



Paul in the treatment of waste -water.  The significant



sources of degrading waste water do now and have regularly



been channeled to the interceptor sewer of the City for



eventual treatment at the waste water treatment plant of



the City of South St. Paul.



          Specifically, it should be noted that our controls

-------
                                                  41



have never permitted truck washing wastes to be discharged



to the Mississippi River as a regular practice.  Since



October 3, 1966 there have not been any truck washing



waste waters entering our sewer system.



          Presently the interceptor sewer is surcharged so



that it will not accommodate additional flows at certain



times.  This will be remedied when the construction of the



supplemental interceptor by the City is completed.  It is



anticipated that this will eliminate the existing surcharg-



ing conditions, as well as receive the low strength flow



presently being discharged directly Into the Mississippi



River.



          We are in the process of having Installed a water



programming system whereby the flow and use of water can



be effectively controlled.



          We have and will continue to cooperate in the



eventual elimination of unreasonable water pollution.



February 28, 196?







                    Swift & Company



     Union Stock Yards        South St. Paul, Minnesota



                                            March 15, 196?

-------
                                                        42
Mr. John Badalich
City Engineer
City of South St.. Paul
South St. Paul, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Badalich:
          In reference to your request of February 23:
          Prior to January, 1965, and specifically before
the Bannister report, only minor emphasis was given gener-
ally to water conservation and reduction of effluent and
strength.  Conversely much action has generated since
that time.  Our three quarterly reports to you beginning
in March, 1966 Indicated—
                          Gals per day      Gals per year
      Water savings          271,154        64,460,000
      Sewage savings         385,154        99,600,000
In January and February  196? further improvements amounted
to:
       Water savings          11,400         2,740,000
       Sewage savings         17,600         4,230,000
          Our savings in 1965 were only modest by rerouting
lines and tightening up the use of water.  Accurate records
were kept only for the final three months, October, November,
December  1965.  Those savings projected to an annual figure
of 12,257,000 gallons annually.

-------
           Accordingly,  our recap October   1965 to date



 accrues  to an  annual  sewage  savings of  116,087,000 gallons,



 or  about 2,232,000 gallons weekly.



           In addition to the foregoing, we have three major



 in-plant improvements in progress:




       1.  Experimentation with the use  of citric acid



           in the Jet  Blood Dryer to further reduce the



           congealing  of blood on equipment and in lines




           which now finds its way into  sewers during



           oleanup.



       2.   Parts have  begun to arrive for Pacific



           Separators, which operation will recover



           grease and  solids from our effluent.



           Target date is 7/1/6?.




       3.   Construction underway and contract being



           negotiated for the removal of Beef paunch



           contents from processing which will eliminate



           fibers, solids and protein that will reduce



           the B.O.D. strength considerably.




                                     Yours very truly,



                                     SWIFT & COMPANY




                                      /B/



HPM:bb                               H.  F. Morris



                                     General Manager

-------
                                                        44
             SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF THE



          NORTH SUBURBAN SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT




                        March 20,. 1967








          This statement Is offered for two purposes.



          It will be recalled at the outset that at the



March 1, 1967 session of the Conference, the North Sub-



urban Sanitary Sewer District requested an opportunity to



submit a detailed report of its activities directed toward



Improvement of the state water pollution control program.



Part I of this statement deals with that subject.



          In addition, Mr. Stein requested that the Dis-



trict clarify its position relative to the boundaries of



the zones suggested for "whole body contact" recreation.



Part II of this statement is directed to that question.








                         PART I








          Chester Wilson, Esq., as spokesman for the State



Water Pollution Control .Commission, made an unwarranted



attack on the North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District, in the



course of the Conference, characterizing the District as an

-------
                                                        45



"enemy of water pollution control".  This Is the same per-



son who has constantly defended the operation of the Pig's



Eye plant by the Mlnneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District and



urged the expansion of that District to embrace all drainage



areas In the vicinity of the Twin Cities, throughout his



tenure as spokesman for the commission.



          The North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District has,



since its creations, been critical of the minimum effort



of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District In controlling



pollution of the segment of the Mississippi River affected



by its sewage treatment plant effluent and its bypassed



wastes.  This criticism has been offered with full knowledge



of Mr. Wilson's role as one of the most influential leaders



In the state's water pollution control program.



          Although the North Suburban Sanitary Sewer Dis-



trict has supported every principle of sound water pollution



control and thus respects Mr. Wilson's support of those



principles, the District has continued to disagree with the



results of the ineffective methods by which those principles



have been pursued by the Minnesota Water Pollution Control



Commission.



          The North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District



(NSSSD) was formed on October 23, 1961, pursuant to a



special law passed by the Minnesota Legislature at its 1961

-------
                                                        46



Extra Session.  It Is the outgrowth of the North Suburban



Sewerage Committee (NSSC), which was a voluntary organization



of the same municipalities which ultimately comprised the



NSSSD.



          The records show that the first post-World War II



efforts of the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission



(WPCC) to develop any kind of a program for control of water



pollution in the Twin Cities metropolitan area were precipi-



tated by the North Suburban Sewerage Committee.  On June 8,



I960 the NSSC sent.a letter to the WPCC raising questions re-



lative to the quality of the Mississippi River and the ob-



jectives sought by the Commission.  The response to that



letter was a hearing called jointly by the State Board of



Health and the WPCC "for the purpose of receiving informa-



tion bearing upon the condition of the (Mississippi) river,



sources of pollution, and existing and potential uses of the



river, with particular reference to the Inquiry of the North



Suburban Sewerage Committee concerning the discharge of



treated sewage effluent to the river in the vicinity of



42nd Avenue North (Camden Bridge) in Minneapolis."  (Chair-



man's Report af Hearing, 1960 Concurrent Hearing of Minne-



sota Water Pollution Control Commission and State Board of



Health, October 20, 1960, p. l).



          It can be seen, then, that even from the earliest

-------
                                                       47



beginnings of the NSSSD It has been more of a "burr under



the saddle" of the WPCC than a "thorn in its side".



          Of significance also is the fact that as early



as July  I960 (Preliminary Engineering Study, Progress



Report No. 1, July, I960, pp. 3 and 4) the North Suburban



Sewerage Committee proposed design of its collection system



based upon the ultimate development of the entire area



draining to the Mississippi between Anoka and the Minnea-



polis water intake (the "Northwest Region"), thus precluding



any future discharge of sewage effluent into this stretch of



the Mississippi River.



          The Commission, on the other hand, actively sup-



ported an engineering plan during this era involving inter-



ceptors to Pig's Eye and expansion of that plant which would



have provided for less than one-half of the capacity re-



quired for this same area.  This appears clearly from the



following history:  In I960 the Mlnneapolis-St. Paul Sani-



tary District (MSSD) issued a report which contained a



recommendation regarding service of the "Northwest Region".



(Volume III, Report on Expansion of Sewage Works in Minne-



apolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area, Mlnneapolis-St. Paul



Sanitary District, September  I960)  The WPCC actively sup-



ported this recommendation in 1961, yet in 1964 the engineer-



ing data on which this recommendation was based were

-------
                                                  48

drastically revised.  (Report on Comprehensive Sewage Works

Plan for Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area, May  1964.)

The following tabulation of factors Influencing sanitary

sewer design compares the I960 and the 1964 reports.  The

figures illustrate the gross miscalculation made in I960.
Estimated total Service

Area (acres)

Estimated Total Population

(Year 2000) Northwest Region

Estimated Sewered Population

(Year 2000) Northwest Region

Estimated Sewered Area

(Year 2000) Northwest Region

Estimated Sewage Flow

(Year 2000) MGD

Annual Ave. Basis

Population Density Per

Sewered Acre (Year 2000)
                                I960       1964     Percent
                               Report     Report    Increase
146,573    147,170    0.4

467,500    702,000   50.2
424,000    700,000   65.1
 66,485
  45.1
   7.03
97,245   46.3
 94.37  109.2
  7.22    2.7
          As can be seen by the above tabulation, the

estimated sewage flow in the 1964 report (and thus the

estimated Interceptor sewer size) was more than double the

-------
                                                     49



~ouimate made by the same persons In I960.  The engineering



plan espoused by the WPCC In 1961, based on uncritical ac-



ceptance of the I960 report, required all sewage to be



treated at the MSSD Pig's Eye plant and the building of



massive interceptor sewers to transport the sewage to that



plant.  If that plan had been effectuated, the Interceptor



sewers would have been capable of transporting only one-



half of the anticipated sewage flow and, before the year



2,000, a duplication of the nearly thirty miles of inter-



ceptor sewers would have been required.



          It was the study by the North Suburban Sanitary



Sewer District and the NSSSD criticism of the original



engineering proposal that caused a revision of the proposal



that appeared as the 1964 report.  Thus, the North Suburban



Sanitary Sewer District averted a multimillion dollar error



which the WPCC would have committed for the sake of pursuing



its experiment in governmental organization.



          The most distressing example of the Water Pollu-



tion Control Commission's willingness to abandon accepted



water pollution control principle in order to pursue its



goal of a single agency metropolitan sanitary district will



be found on Page 3 of a letter dated August 2, 1961, over



the signature of Dr. R. N. Barr as Secretary and Executive



Officer of the State Board of Health and as Secretary 0,"* the

-------
                                                   50
State Water Pollution Control Commission.   The letter was
addressed to both the Minneapolis City Council and the
St. Paul City Council.  As one of the alternatives for
resolving the North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District's
problem, Dr. Barr suggested:  "Permit the  northern suburbs
to discharge untreated sewage into the Mississippi River,
probably below the St. Anthony Falls Dam,  with a definite
time limitation and with a specific requirement that such
discharge be discontinued at the earliest  possible time
that a connection to a metropolitan system became available.
Although this would re-pollute the section of the river
below the outlet for a period of years, it would be prefer-
able, on a long-range basis, to permitting the installation
of the proposed plant above Minneapolis.  It would also
commit the northern suburbs and the Twin Cities to a
metropolitan solution to the overall problem."
          The NSSSD has always supported high water quality
standards and it has always supported the  principle that the
adoption and enforcement of such standards should be the
fundamental function of the State water pollution control
agency.  This District rejects the idea, however, that a
State water pollution control agency can or should use
differing or preferential water quality standards to
control costs of sewage collection and treatment, for the

-------
                                                       51



purpose of making it possible for the agency to dictate:



(l) a specific engineering plan; (2) a specific governmental



structure; (3) the employment of a specific administrative



staff; and (4) the employment of specific engineering



consultants, all under the guise of performing its fundamental



function of adopting and enforcing water quality standards.



          In pursuit of its rejection of such dictation, the



NSSSD has constantly criticized the WPCC, In public meetings



and before legislative committee hearings, for the incredibly



low standards it has adopted for the portion of the Missi-



ssippi River affected by the discharges (both bypassed and



treated) from the Minneapolls-St. Paul Sanitary District



plant, and affected by the overflow discharges from combined



storm and sanitary sewers of the Twin Cities.  The North



Suburban Sanitary Sewer District's observations have since



been corroborated by the Federal Water Pollution Control



AdmlnistratIon.



          The NSSSD has been critical of the WPCC too for



its detached attitude toward the inadequate flood protection



available at the Mlnneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District plant.



Whenever the level of the Mississippi River is higher than



the elevation of the lowest part of the Pig's Eye plant



(even if dikes prevent inundation of the plant) river water



backs up into the plant and forces it to shut down.  Raw

-------
                                                       52



sewage is then bypassed directly Into the river.  In the



spring of 1965 the Pig's Eye plant was required to shut



down for roughly six weeks.  Dikes had been erected prior



to 1965* but they were not high enough to prevent the river



from overflowing into the plant.  The dikes have since



been raised to prevent the river from overflowing, but the



NSSSD is unaware of any plans or studies by the MSSD to



provide any method of keeping the plant in operation when



its outfall line permits river water to back up into the



plant.



          The WPCC has not required any efforts by the MSSD



to alleviate this flood control problem, yet it supports the



requirement that all sewage in the entire metropolitan area



be treated at the Pig's Eye plant.  This is done despite



the constant problem at Pig's Eye, and despite the fact



that the treatment plant advocated by the NSSSD would be



located in an area that is absolutely safe from any flooding



danger.



          There can be little question that having more



than one sanitary district yields benefits.  The example



of the NSSSD Illustrates this fact.  The North Suburban



Sanitary Sewer District has been in a position to offer



enlightened criticism of the area's major polluter and



its control agency, and has been instrumental in precipitating

-------
                                                       53



whatever progress has been made since World War II in



controlling water pollution in this metropolitan area.



The most effective tool in the control of water pollution



is the pressure of public opinion.  Prior to the creation



of the North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District the loudest



voice expressing opinion was that supporting the interests



of the State's greatest water polluter, the Minneapolis-



St. Paul Sanitary District.



          Even though the North Suburban Sanitary Sewer



District has precipitated a new pressure of public opinion



supporting the interests which have been harmed by pollu-



tion, a position that should be supportad by any enlightened



and objective water pollution control agency, the Minnesota



Water Pollution Control Commission has committed all of its



resources to increase the voice of the polluter and to



destroy the voice that has supported interests that by all



logic would ordinarily be those of the Commission.



          The WPCC supports the creation of a new agency,



with the Mlnneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District as a



nucleus, and the present Pig's Eye plant as a basis.   This



new polluter would dispose of the sewage of the majority



of the population of the State of Minnesota.  The Commission



that would prefer to make its task or the task of Its



probable successor Impossible is the same Commission that

-------
has, by administrative action, declared that the Hastings



Pool may be a cesspool and thus has brought about these



proceedings.



          This is the same Commission that saw the dissolved



oxygen content in the Hastings Pool completely exhausted



on 10 days in 1961 without requiring the Minneapolls-St.



Paul Sanitary District to utilize chemical treatment faci-



lities that should be available for such occasions.



          This is the same commission that required out-



State municipalities to make treatment plant Improvements



before it would approve sewer extensions, while it applied



a different standard to the Mlnneapolls-St. Paul Sanitary



District.



          This is the same Commission that has permitted



the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District to compile this



record without issuing an order objecting to its activities:



          1.  In 1952 the Pig's Eye plant reached its



              design capacity.



          2.  In 1956 the Minneapolls-St. Paul Sanitary



              District began a five-year study to determine



              what Improvements it should have had in



              operation by 1952-



          3.  In 1966 the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary



              District completed its expansion.  It dis-

-------
                                                        55



              covered that it had neglected to provide



              adequate sludge disposal facilities.  As a



              result, only one-third of the sewage received



              at that plant receives intermediate treatment,



              the remalndf  receives only primary treatment



              and the total effluent still contains 60 per-



              cent of the raw sewage BOD.



          4.  During this period the Commission demanded



              that metropolitan area suburbs discharge their



              wastes into the overloaded Pig's Eye plant



              without requiring expansion of the plant.



          In the event that there Is any question of the



dedication of the North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District to



the principles of effective water pollution control measures,



the District respectfully requests that each conferee read



the complete text of the District's written statement to this



Conference on February 7* 1964, and review the transcript



of the proceedings In Anoka County District Court covering



the District's appeal from a "prohibition" in the guise  of a



standard.



          There has been litigation between the NSSSD and



the WPCC.   The complaint that this litigation is a delaying



factor in the efforts at a solution to the problem of pollu-



tion Is simply not true.  While the NSSSD has been engaged

-------
                                                     56



in litigation it has, during that same time, provided sewers



to the residents of its area, and taken all measures that



can be taken to avert pollution.  These efforts by the



NSSSD and its component municipalities have involved an



expenditure In excess of 20 million dollars.



          The litigation engaged in by the NSSSD has been



aimed at preventing unlawful efforts in controlling pollu-



tion.  Specifically, this District (and the other communi-



ties also engaged in litigation 'with the Commission) has



contended that the WPCC has no power or authority to



absolutely prohibit the discharge of treated sewage effluent



which does not affect the receiving waters in excess of



established standards and, In addition, that even if they



did have that authority, It has been exercised in a way



that does not further the objectives of clean water.



          The Anoka County District Court has rendered a



decision upholding the position of the NSSSD.  At the same



time, the Court affirmed the remaining standards of quality



and purity.  Any delay occasioned by the litigation can be,



and always could be, averted by the WPCC if it would rely



on its standards as affirmed by the Court.



          The NSSSD is currently discharging the sewage



collected in its system to the MSSD system, by contract

-------
                                                        57
with the City of Minneapolis.  The outlet capacity available
to the NSSSD will have been exhausted shortly after 1970,
according to population projections, and the sewage from
the NSSSD area must then either be discharged through its
own treatment plant or massive interceptors must be built
to transport the sewage some 20 miles to Pig's Eye.  The NSSSD
is anxious to commence its engineering plans for treatment
facilities to meet the crisis which will develop.  It is
not Interested in delay.  It is the WPCC, not the NSSSD,
which is prolonging the litigation and thus delaying plans
for pollution control.
          It has never been the position of the NSSSD that
it should be permitted to operate without regard to legi-
timate standards.  The declaratory judgment action commenced
by the District was brought for the purpose of clarifying
the law and to insure that the WPCC did not succeed in un-
lawfully prohibiting any c /.iuge treatment plant which could
conform to water quality standards.  It was not Intended,
nor did It result, in any delay of any kind.  A delay may
occur shortly If the NSSSD is prevented, by the WPCC's
appeal.from commencing the engineering plans for the treat-
ment facilities which will be needed by the time the limited
outlet capacity available to NSSSD through Minneapolis
sewers is exhausted.

-------
                                                  58



          The NSSSD has always been a champion of clean



water and pollution control.  It has always proposed that



it construct a treatment plant employing an activated



sludge process.  The District holds itself to the highest



standard of engineering design and water quality.  If its



Insistence that these same high standards be applied to



others has incurred the wrath of the WPCC, it has, at the



same time, produced results in terms of pollution control.



          It is hoped that the foregoing memorandum makes



it clear that the North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District



has been, and continues to be, genuinely Interested in



clean water.  It pledges its cooperation in working toward



achieving that objective.








                      PAJRT II







          The North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District, in



its written statement submitted to this Conference on March



1, 1967, raised a question as to the practical effects of



applying "whole body contact" bacteriological standards to



the navigation channel of the segment of the Mississippi



River designed as Zone I in existing State standards.  The



question involves the lower 3.6 miles of the Zone and has



been referred to as the Upper Harbor Navigation Channel.



(River miles 854.0 to 857.6)

-------
                                                       59



          At the outset, we find support for this position



not only in our own observations, but in this  "Finding of



Fact" from Page 3 of the aforementioned Chairman's Report



on Hearing.



          "The River is not considered suitable for bathing



or swimming at present.  Nor is it considered  to have such



potential use in the future because of hazards associated



with the nature of the river."



          Essentially the District's position  is that if



there is any logic in removing the Hastings Pool from



"whole body contact" recreation uses and the restriction



of fishing uses in that area, that same logic  should be



applied throughout the study area and particularly to the



Upper Harbor Navigation Channel.  Conversely,  if whole body



contact is to be permitted in the areas presently contem-



plated, logic compels that whole body contact  should be



permitted in the Missis"3noi River below the Pig's Eye



plant.



          The basis for the exclusion of that part of the



river from whole body contact cannot have been based on



logic.  It must be based on the expedient of permitting



the MSSD Pig's Eye plant to continue to treat  sewage at a



level considerably below the level that is feasible.



          The Hastings Pool (River miles 847.0 to 815.0,



and specifically that portion downstream from the Pig's Eye

-------
                                                    60



outfall,) represents one of the largest unobstructed water



surfaces in this metropolitan area.  Marinas have already



been developed within the pool.  Within the Hastings Pool



the river current is lower than at any other point in the



metropolitan area.  The banks of the Hastings Pool are



sparsely developed and access to the water could be readily



developed anywhere along more than 40 miles of shoreline.



The Pool has numerous islands, bays and sand bars that make



it particularly suitable for recreational uses.



          By way of contrast, the Upper Harbor Navigation



Channel represents a narrow stretch of the river approximate-



ly 3.6 miles in length, the entire bottom of which has been



disrupted by dredging operations to develop a barge terminal



area.  Its banks slope too steeply for safe access for swim-



ming.  It is flanked by Industrial establishments and this



stretch is crossed by five bridges.



          The silting of the channel bottom itself, the



dredging of the silt to maintain optimum navigation water



depth and the commercial navigation uses to which this



stretch has been committed will continue to make this



stretch of the river unsuitable for fish propagation.



          Just as the Hastings Pool has been continually



subject to pollution from inadequate and bypassed sewage



treatment facilities, the lower 3.6 miles of the Upper



Harbor Navigation Channel have been continually subjected

-------
                                                        61



to discharges of raw sewage from Minneapolis combined sewer



overflows.



          The foregoing Is offered to support the District's



position that there is no technical reason for anything



other than uniform dissolved oxygen and bacteriological



standards for the entire stretch of the Mississippi River



included in this study.  The Upper Harbor Navigation Channel



can be maintained for whole body contact so far as any



discharge by the NSSSD is concerned, if there is any purpose



in so doing which would justify the relatively small increase



In operating cost which would be Involved, and if dredging



and barging will not preclude this use in any case.



          The North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District is



less concerned with changing the bacteriological standard



applicable to the Upper Harbor Navigation Channel than it



is with the need for elevating the standards for the down-



stream segments of the river.



          While the NSSSD has noted practical drawbacks to



the actual use of the Upper Harbor Navigation Channel for



whole body contact activity, it does not object to the



suggested water quality standards which would permit that



use, provided that the standards applicable to such use are



applied uniformly to the Mississippi River in the entire



stretch of that river from the upstream end of the Upp*r

-------
                                                      62



Harbor Navigation Channel (River Mile 857.6) to the con-



fluence of the St. Crolx River (River Mile 812).







                       * * * * *








          TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON



           AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED



            ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS



                       1408 Pioneer Building



                       Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101



                       March 3, 196?



Federal Water Pollution Control Administration



Department of the Interior



Great Lakes Region



33 East Congress Parkway, Room 4lO



Chicago, Illinois 60605



Attention:  Mr. James 0. McDonald



            Chief, Construction Grant Activities



            Re:  Sewage Treatment Plant and Sewage Pumping



                 Station - Commission 5015-5013



                 Hastings, Minnesota.  Project WPC-Minn.-475



Gentlemen:



          We are writing you with reference to the receiving



of bids for the sewage treatment plant remodeling and



additions and construction of the sewage pumping station.

-------
                                                       63



The bids for the treatment plant and pumping station were



scheduled to be received at 2:00 P.M., Thursday, March l6,




1967.



          A conference was held at the Leamington Hotel in



Minneapolis on Tuesday and Wednesday, February 28 and March



1, which was conducted by Mr. Murray Stein of the Federal



Water Pollution Control Administration, to discuss the



Summary and Pollution Abatement Recommendations prepared




by the Federal agency for the Upper Mississippi River and



major tributaries.



          The City of Hastings was represented at the



conference by the writer, who is the City Engineer of



Hastings, and after the hearing we discussed the design of



the Hastings sewage treatment plant with Mr. Lyle Smith and



Mr. Don Thimsen of the Minnesota Water Pollution Control



Commission.  It was decided that the design criteria which



was furnished us by the State of Minnesota for the design



of the treatment plant should be reconsidered in light of



the findings and recommended water quality standards of the



Federal agency.



          The engineers of the Minnesota Water Pollution



Control Commission recommended that the plant be redesigned



to provide for an 80 percent or better reduction of BOD,



and on the basis of utilizing the step aeration process



with a BOD loading of 40 to 50 pounds per 1000 cubic feet

-------
                                                       64




of aeration capacity.



          The opinion was expressed that a plant designed



on this basis would exceed the 80 percent minimum treatment



efficiency recommended In the report presented by the



Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.



          We ask approval of postponing the receiving of



bids for the sewage treatment plant and the sewage pumping



station, scheduled for 2:00 P.M., March 16, 196?, to 2:00



P.M., May 4, 196?, and Issuance of a new Wage Schedule to



provide for taking of bids on May 4, 1967.



          Bids for the interceptor sewer will not be post-



poned and will be received on Thursday, March 16, 1967*



2:00 P.M., as scheduled.  The Interceptor sewer Is not




affected by the recommendations contained In the report of



the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration for the



Upper Mississippi River and major tributaries.



                          Yours very truly,



                          TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON



                          AND ASSOCIATES, INC.



                (Signed)  Arnold M. Steffes



AMS:f                     Arnold M. Steffes P.E. City Engineer



cc Mr. W. Erlckson, City Clerk)
                      # # #

-------
                                                          65

           MR. STEIN:  We are happy to welcome Mayor Jelatls
and Mr. Wilson.  We recognize the anow conditions outside,
and we are very glad to have you.  We were Just getting
through the preliminaries, and I think nothing has been lost.
           As you people know, this is the second session of
the conference.  The conferees unanimously agreed to the
conclusions and recommendations of the first session.  Two
of these are required by statute and are pertinent to this
discussion, and unless anyone wants to reopen them, there
will be no reason to modify these conclusions we arrived at
earlier on February 7th and 8th, 1964.
           The first is that pollution in these waters —
that is, the waters from industries, municipalities and
stormwater overflow sources — have created a health hazard
to persons engaged in water contact activities, causes visual
nuisances, interferes with fish and fishing, causes sludge
banks which give off noxious odors and floating sludge, and
interferes with bottom aquatic life and with feeding and
spawning grounds for fish propagation, and this pollution
must be abated.
           The second point was the Wisconsin and Minnesota
Water Pollution Control Agencies have active water pollution
control programs.  The delays, if any, in abating the pollu-
tion are those which may be expected to occur in the

-------
                                                         66
execution of the pollution abatement program of a large
metropolitan area.

           Now, with that, if we can use this report of

the Technical Committee as a basis of discussion and recom-

mendations, plus the recommendations that were made in the

report that was issued here and discussed a few weeks ago

at the second session of the conference, I believe we can

proceed.

           Again, while all the conferees have copies of

this, I believe several people in the audience do not.  I

have not discussed this with anyone before, but to expedite

matters, could we possibly have Mr. Printz, who has worked

on the Technical Committee, come up here and read these

item by item, and see if we can get agreement, going down

these one at a time?

           Mr. Printz, it is suggested, and again let us
see if we can get the conferees to agree with this, that if
we can just refer by reference to the no-change items, unless

you want them read, we can save some time.
           How do the conferees feel about that?

           DR. HARORAVES:  i-iight it not be well if he refers

to the pages too in the summary so that we can follow him?
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.

           MR. SMITH:  It should be noted that we haven't
had an opportunity to review these summary changes.

-------
                                                        67
           MR. PRINTZ:  For the record, my name Is Albert
Printz, Sanitary Engineer of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration.
           As directed by the last session of the conference
a technical session was held in Madison on the 13th of this
month.  The conferees present at that meeting were Mr. Lyle
Smith and Mr. Theodore Wisniewski.  I was one of the two
representatives of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration.
           The purpose of r.hat meeting was to go over these
items in the recommendations in the report entitled "Summary
and Pollution Abatement Recommendations for the Upper
Mississippi River and Major Tributaries/' which would be
difficult to implement under the existing State legislation.
           Concurrence on several recommendations was ob-
tained at that meeting.  We have reproduced the recommenda-
tions on which there was concurrence, and the Federal con-
feree has other recommendations to make in lieu of those
for which there was no concurrence.
           These have been put in a numerical sequence.
They follow the same sequence, however, as contained in the
Summary Report.
           For the record, concurrence was obtained on those
items numbered, and I will Just read these numbers, Mr.
Chairman, and these are all marked as "no change":  4, 5*

-------
                                                       68
7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18,  19,  21,  25,  27 through 32,  and  33
through 37.  There are minor changes in other recommenda-
tions, on which there  will probably be  concurrence.
           I would like to go  through those  on which  there
had been changes, reading  the  recommendation of the Federal
conferee.  Would this  be in order?
           MR. STEIN:   Yes.  However, let  me say  this:
I think the fact that  the  Technical Committee has agreed
that there is no change does not necessarily mean that  the
conferees have accepted that.
           MR. PRINTZ:  That is  correct, sir.
           MR. STEIN:   We  are  going to  have  to give the
conferees a chance to  read this  over, and  if the  conferees
have any point or any  question on  any one  of these, we  will
take it up.
           MR. PRINTZ:  All right.
           MR. SMITH:   Mr. Chairman, are we  assuming  that
the general statement  made prior to the specific  recommenda-
tions is to be included as part  of the  recommendations?
           MR. STEIN:   What page is that?
           MR. SMITH:   The top of  page  26.
           MR. STEIN:   What does the Federal conferee think?
           MR. POSTON:  I  think  that is a  good statement.
I would like to see it included.
           MR. SMITH:   We  would  like to make some

-------
                                                      69




suggestions.



           DR. JELATIS:  Mr. Chairman,  I think in the



interests of some continuity and clarity,  it might be well



to read all of the recommendations.   I  don't think it would



take too long.



           Is this agreeable?




           MR. STEIN:  Is there any  objection to that?



           Why don't you read that general statement?



           MR. PRINTZ:  The general  statement,  not included




in the result of the Technical Session,  but read as contained



on Page 26 of the Summary Report,  reads  as follows:



           "River water quality shall be preserved or



     upgraded, as required, to permit maximum use and




     full recreational enjoyment of  the  waters.   Remedial



     measures necessary to attain this  goal are  given in



     the recommendations.  The recommendations are given



     in two groups:  General and specific.  General



     recommendations cover the broad objectives  of



     pollution abatement in the Project  area. Specific



     recommendations are given for the  solution  of par-



     ticular problems and are offered in addition to,



     not in place of, the general recommendations.



           "These recommendations  represent the  initial




     phase of a long-range and more  comprehensive water

-------
                                                    70





     "resource development program for the entire Upper



     Mississippi River Basin.   They apply to  problems



     needing immediate correction.



           "Although fertilization of the rivers  and



     backwater areas is undesirable,  no recommendations



     are made at this time concerning the installation



     of specialized treatment  facilities designed to



     reduce nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in  the



     waste effluents.  Operation of treatment facili-



     ties so as to optimize nutrient  removal  will reduce



     the problem."



           MR. STEIN:  Mr. Smith?



           MR. SMITH:  In the  third paragraph,  we would



like to reword this as follows:



           "Although fertilization of the rivers  and



      backwater areas is undesirable  at this  time," —



crossing out the words "no recommendations are made,"  but



including "at this time," and  crossing out the word "con-



cerning" and leaving the remainder of that sentence,  "the



installation of specialized treatment facilities  designed to



reduce nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in the waste  efflu-



ents," removing the period, and including "will be recom-



mended when satisfactory methods are feasible," and crossing



out the last sentence entirely.

-------
                                                       71




           May I read that?




           MR. STEIN:  Read the sentence as amended,  then,



           MR. SMITH:  "Although fertilization of the



rivers and backwater areas is undesirable at this time,  the



installation of specialized treatment facilities designed to



reduce nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in the effluents



will be recommended when satisfactory methods are feasible."




           I think this is a little more positive statement.



           MR. STEIN:  All right.  We have an addition at the



end.



           la there any objection to that modification?



           By the way, we are not going to move anything by



too fast.  In other words, if you have a second thought, we



are not going to foreclose you from this.  We will reopen it.




           If there is no objection to that, we will  —



           DR. ODEGARD:  I have a question on it.



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.



           DR. ODEGARD:  Is there going to be another con-



ference when this will be recommended?



           MR. STEIN:  No.  As I understand this situation



dealing with nitrogen and phosphate removals, this is not a



question of a conference, but a question of having some  tech-



nical facilities and equipment or methodology that is going




to work.

-------
                                                     72




           I think what Mr. Smith is getting at is that



as soon as this is developed and we all can agree that we



have  something that is going to work,  this will be recom-



mended to be put into operation.



           DR. ODEGARD:  By whom?




           MR. STEIN:  By the States.



           DR. ODEGARD:  By the States?



           MR. STEIN:  By the States.



           Again, I think on a lot of this we just have  to



rely on good judgments of the State and Federal people,  and



the local people and the industries.  This is a question of



something that works or does not work,  and I do not visualize



a difference between the States, us, industries and cities



on whether something is going to work or not; but as soon as




there is a feasible method that can be put into operation,



the State will recommend that that be put in, where feasible.



           The problem that I think Mr. Smith has is the one



that I know I have.  If anyone were to press me right now,



Minnesota or Wisconsin, as to what they should do for phos-




phate removal, I am not sure that we can come up with a



definitive answer.



           MR. WILSON:  Mr. Chairman,  I should like to



emphasize what Mr. Smith said.  His proposed revision



embraces a more positive and optimistic approach to this



difficult problem than is indicated by the present wording

-------
                                                        73
of the proposed recommendation.
           MR. STEIN:  If there is no objection, that will
be accepted.
           May we go on?
           DR. JELATIS:  Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of
clarification, I think the wording could be changed a little
further.
           The first word, "although," refers to the part
that no recommendations are made.
           MR. STEIN:  Do you want to strike that?
           DR. JEIATIS:  I think if this is changed to say,
"Since fertilization of the rivers and backwater areas is
undesirable," and then eliminate "at this time," and say,
"the Installation of specialized treatment facilities will
be recommended," doesn't that read a little more sensibly?
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  Is that agreeable?
           DR. HARGRAVES:  Yes.
           MR. STEIN:  Change "Although" to "Since" and
strike "at this time."
           MR. MUEGGE:  You will make two sentences out of
it.  You would have to.
           MR. STEIN:  Now, as I have it, it reads this
way:
           "Fertilization of the rivers and backwater
     areas is undesirable.  The installation of specialized

-------
                                                      74
     "treatment facilities designed to reduce nitrogen
     and phosphorus compounds in the waste effluents
     will be recommended when satisfactory methods  are
     feasible."
           DR. JELATIS:   Right.
           MR. STEIN:   Pine.
           Will you go on?
           MR. PRINTZ:  Yes.
           MR. SMITH:   Just a minute,  Mr.  Stein.
           MR. STEIN:   Yes?
           MR. SMITH:   I have another addition I  would like
to have your consideration on.  This would be a separate
paragraph at this point, worded  as  follows:
           "The allocation of permissible  loadings  of
      the streams shall be made  by  the States within
      the context of their established laws and policies."
           MR. STEIN:   Is there  any question on that?
           Do you want to take that up now, or do you  want
to include this as a matter of policy?
           How does the  Federal  conferee feel about that?
           MR. DAMON:   Would  you repeat that statement,
please?
           MR. SMITH:   "The allocation of  the permissible
     loadings of the streams  shall  be made by the States
     within the context of their established laws and

-------
      policies."
           MR. POSTON:  It seems to me that where we have
adjacent waters, such as in the St. Croix, I have no objec-
tion to the States allocating within their laws,  but I think
there might be difficulty in making one State law fit with
the other, and I would prefer to hold this off until we have
gone further in the conference.
           MR. STEIN:  I think Mr.  Smith has a point.
           As I understand his point, it is this, and I am
just trying to clarify this for consideration:
           You may get into a matter of loadings, say, in
terms of phenols or pounds per day  of BOD.  It may be a
Federal interest, perhaps, to assign a total figure, say,
to Minnesota and Wisconsin, but within the figure agreed to,
each one of the States should have  the freedom to assign the
loadings to the installations or the outfalls that they
think appropriate.
           MR. POSTON:  I would agree to that concept.
           MR. STEIN:  I think, unless I am mistaken, that
is what Mr. Smith was driving at.
           MR. SMITH:  This is correct.
           MR. WILSON:  Mr. Chairman, might I add to that?
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.
           MR. WILSON:  I think that Mr. Poston's apprehen-
sions indicate a somewhat undue concern with a matter which

-------
                                                         76
I think is obviously within the State Jurisdiction,  As long
as the total loading is limited by the recommendations here,
neither State could do anything which would in any way in-
crease that loading to the prejudice of the other, and what
each State does within its own jurisdiction, as long as the
overall limits are observed, is obviously of no concern to
anyone else.
           That has always been recognized as a matter for
the determination of the State authorities.
           MR. STEIN:  Do you want to hold that, or do you
want to let it go in?
           MR. BOSTON:  I would withdraw any objection.
           MR. STEIN:  I have one technical suggestion, anc?
maybe as a lawyer I say this to you State people:  I think
you are being unduly restricted by the word "established."
That may hold you back to what exists at the present time.
If I were working for the States, I would suggest you might
want to strike that.
           MR. SMITH:  The word "established"?
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  Why do you need that?
           MR, SMITH:  Yes.
           MR. STEIN:  Because you do not want to raise the
spectre that you have frozen this at any one time.  You may
be changing your laws and regulations.
           MR. SMITH:  This is a point well taken.

-------
                                                       77





           MR. STEIN:   If that Is accepted,  we  can  proceed.



           Do you want to read that sentence again,  just



for the record?



           MR. SMITH:  "The allocation of the permissible



loadings of the streams shall be made by the States  within



the context of their laws and policies."




           MR. STEIN:   Right.  Now, that will appear at the



end of the last statement?




           MR. SMITH:   This is correct.



           MR. STEIN:   All right.  Is there  any objection,



or do we agree?



           If agreed,  and if there are no further comments,



let's go on to the next item.



           Mr. Printz?



           MR. PRINTZ:  The Recommendation No.  1 of  the



Federal conferee would read then:



           "Waters of  high quality within the study  area



      and of a quality suitable for all  present and



      potential water  uses, be maintained and protected



      so as to ensure  their suitability  for  all future
      uses."
           MR. STEIN:   Any comment or question on this?



           MR. MUEGGE:   Does this  bar all future  development?



           MR. STEIN:   I would hope not.



           Mr. Printz,  the question was:   Will this bar  all

-------
                                                            78



future development?



           MR. PRINTZ:  No, sir, to the contrary.  This would -



           MR. POSTON:  Promote future development.



           MR. PRINTZ:  This would promote future development.



           DR. ODEGARD:  How does it change it from what it



was before?




           MR. PRINTZ:  It does not. It gives a different



interpretation of that wording.



           MR. STEIN:  Mr. Prints, why don't you indicate,



as you read these, where there might have been a change or



where there was substantial agreement among the technical




people, so that we can flag these?




           MR. PRINTZ:  Yes.  There was substantial agreement



on this item among the technical people.



           DR. JELATIS:  Mr. Chairman, I think it would be



clearer if we point out that this seems to be an addition to



the original recommendation.



           MR. PRINTZ:  No.  This would be a substitute for




the original recommendation.



           DR. JELATIS:  I see.



           MR. WILSON:  Which paragraph?




           MR. PRINTZ:  For Recommendation No. 1.



           DR. JELATIS:  This is on Page 27.  Is that




correct?

-------
                                                       79
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  This is a rewrite of Recom-
mendation No. 1.  Is that correct?
           MR. PRINTZ:  That is right.
           MR. STEIN:  Is there any objection to this?
           (No response. )
           MR. STEIN:  If not, let's go on.   Again,  you are
not foreclosed.  If you have any second thoughts or  you want
to come back to any item at any time, we will be happy to
do it.
           Mr. Printz?
           MR. PRINTZ:  There was also general agreement  on
Recommendation No. 2 of the Federal conferee, which  would
replace Recommendation No. 2 found on Page 27 of the Summary
Report.  This will then read as follows:
           "2.  All waters presently unsuitable for
       present and potential water uses be upgraded
       and enhanced as stipulated in the remaining
       recommendations, so as to ensure suitability
       for present and potential water uses  as deter-
       mined in part by the following dissolved oxygen
       and bacteriological levels in the given segments:"
           This is followed then by the table listed on Page
26 of the Summary Report.  This table is to  be maintained in
its entirety, with the exception that on the river reach  of
the St. Croix River between Taylors Palls and the mouth,  the

-------
                                                       80
coliform guide shall contain only Guide No.  A.   Guide C has
been deleted.  Other than that, the table stands as repro-
duced in the Summary Report.
           MR. STEIN:  Are there any suggestions?
           Again, you are dealing with technicians here.
Why do you use the word "remaining" instead  of  "following"
recommendations ?
           MR. PRINTZ:  Because in No. 2 it  could be either
"following" or "remaining," but we were relating it to the
additional recommendations.
           MR. STEIN:  I know.  That word is kind of an
unusual word of art.  If that word doesn't bother you people,
it is all right with me.
           DR. ODEGARD:  Mr. Chairman, another  point.
           I have a feeling, having thought  about this now
for two weeks, that there is need for another category for a
particular stretch of the river.
           I understand the Minnesota River  is  too turbulent
to be considered for swimming.  However, this is an area
that is extensively used by some people for  water skiing
at the present time.
           I wonder if there isn't a point in which you refer
to the turbidity in having a coliform guide  standard?
           MR. STEIN:  Is there any comment  or question on
that?

-------
                                                        81
           It is your proposal that the Minnesota River be
listed and that we strike the "B's" and make them "A's"?
           DR. ODEGARD:  Yes, with the exception of the
turbidity.
           MR. STEIN:  With the exception of the turbidity.
It would be the "A" standard except for turbidity.
           Are there any comments or questions on that?
           MR. SMITH:  Actually, the requirements for the
whole body contact uses with turbidity be at a lower level.
It does not qualify under natural circumstances for whole
body contact.
           DR. ODEGARD:  My point is that people do use it
and get into it, and turbidity is not a health standard,
so this should be a case for a separate standard, or is this
wrong?
           MR. STEIN:  I am not sure.  Again, I am trying
to clarify the situation here.
           Generally speaking, we have submitted turbidity
as a safety matter.  That is, if a man goes under in
turbulent waters, anyone who is going to try to save him is
going to have some difficulty in locating his body when it
goes down.  Generally speaking,  when waters are that
turbulent and inhibit vision — and again, as you know, I
have worked in the health field with a lot of these people
for many years — as a safety factor, and not from a
bacteriological point of view, we have said those waters

-------
                                                          82
were unsafe for swimming, because it wouldn't permit



recovery of a man or a woman in distress.



           DR. ODEGARD:  Do you prohibit water skiing now?



           MR. STEIN:  Now, what you are doing is raising



the question, and this is the issue.  I am just raising the



issue with you people.




           The point is, if you have water skiing on those



waters, you have to recognize that given the nature of the



activity, someone is going to be immersed in that water with



his whole body from time to time.  The question here is, it



seems to me, with that limited kind of activity, would that



create a health hazard to someone getting in the waters of



the Minnesota River, other than the safety factor or lack




of vision?



           I don't know.  This is the issue.  I wonder if



the technical people could speak to this.



           MR. SMITH:  Well, of course, the point I believe



that we have to determine here is whether we want to maintain



this water at a collform number of 5,000 or 1,000.  Five



thousand is for partial or limited body contact, and 1,000



for swimming and water skiing.



           At the time the Water Pollution Control Commission



held its hearings, it was proposed that the lower area be



maintained for whole body contact, and there was no testimony

-------
                                                       83
taken to support this.
           MR. STEIN:  All right.
           MR. SMITH:  This was the hearing back at the time
the lower section of the Minnesota River was classified and
standards were set.
           MR. STEIN:  I would like to get a view on that.
Again, let me try to narrow the issue.
           As I understand this, you are proposing that the
coliform count in the Minnesota River be 1,000 instead of
5,000?
           DR. ODEGARD:  Yes, sir.
           MR. STEIN:  All right.   If you want to think about
this and pass this and come back to it, we can, or if you
want to make a judgment now we can poll the conferees.
           DR. HARGRAVES:  I think, Mr. Stein, we have gone
through this for days and days of hearings on the Minnesota
River.  A lot of it is barge territory where barges come up
and down.  There are snags in the river.  There are mud banks.
           I have felt I was a lone fighter for the Minnesota
River of keeping it for its potential wildlife and possible
park use in the future, but at the moment, with all of the
runoff from the soils, from the various natural contaminations
of the river, unless you are going to use enteric coll or
staph as a criterion, then I don't think that it would be
feasible to try to get to 1,000, with the long stretches

-------
                                                       84
there are between communities.

           MR. STEIN:  I would say,  sir,  as I see this,  in

looking at the map, this is essentially a Minnesota problem,

and I think,both the Wisconsin and Federal conferees would
like to have Minnesota recommend on this.

           I take it that you people would prefer that this

remain in the "B" classification.  Is that correct?

           MR. SMITH:  Yes, sir.

           DR. HARGRAVES:  For the time being,  yes.

           MR. HOIMER:  Having raised the question, Wisconsin
is willing to abide by Minnesota's decision about Minnesota's

water.
           MR. STEIN:  How does the Federal conferee feel

about that?

           MR. POSTON:  I agree.

           MR. STEIN:  All right.  We can go on.
           MR. PRINTZ:  Mr. Chairman, there is  one additional

sentence which was inadvertently left off of the  mimeographed
sheets which would follow the table reproduced  on Page 26,

and this is simply putting back into this statement some of

that which was contained in the original No. 2.  It would

read as follows:
           "These levels shall be maintained during flows

      equal to or greater than the seven-consecutive-day,
      once in ten-year summer and winter low flows."

-------
                                                           85



           MR. STEIN:  Is there any question on that?




           MR. JOHN MASON:  Mr. Chairman, are comments from



the floor permitted?




           MR. STEIN:  No. I'm sorry.  We announced last time



that this is Just for the conferees.



           We are going to have to have a couple of technical




changes here, and these are very small.



           Relating to that footnote you have, you will issue



the coliform guides as an appendix?



           MR. PRINTZ:  That is correct.



           MR0 STEIN:  Rather than as a reference to the



Summary, you will issue the coliform guides as an appendix?




           MR. PRINTZ:  Yes.



           MR. STEIN:  So it will be self-contained in one



document.



           DR. HARGRAVES: One question arises in my mind,



Mr. Stein:



           If we accept this seven-day one in ten years, can



we sort of feel this may be universally accepted by other



States?  Does Wisconsin feel that it will accept it, and



other States the same, so we all talk the same language?




           Mr. Stein:  Does Wisconsin want to comment on that?



           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  Yes.  Actually, we are -choosing



the seven-day consecutive minimum flow in the most recent




ten years rather than any ten years.

-------
                                                          86
           DR. HARGRAVES:  The most recent ten years?




           MR. WISNIEWSKI: Yes.




           DR. HARGRAVES:  We have no objection to it in this



particular conference, setting our sights for the rest of our




^4,000 miles of stream, plus other inland waters.




           MR. STEIN:  I think this is emerging as the require-




ment in other parts of the country.




           By the way, I would agree with you, Dr. Hargraves.




I certainly sympathize with you on that question raised on the




Minnesota River, and I agree with the way you put that in for




the time being.




           DR. HARGRAVES:  Right.




           MR. STEIN:  I think in the same sense, we are finding




our way with the seven-day once in ten-year summer and winter



minimum flow.  I think this is what the theoretical people have



zeroed in on.  I suspect, like in any other field such as law



or medicine, once we put this into practice — and we have not



had this in really universal practice up until now — that there




might come a time when we modify it.




           Our best thinking now is that almost all the States



are coming up with this kind of a protection, and I suspect




that this will be the test in most of the standards which are




adopted.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  All right.  Thank you.




           MR. STEIN:  May we proceed?

-------
                                                         87
           MR. SMITH:  Just a moment.

           Mr. Wlsniewski, I think in our discussions in

Madison, wasn't there a question in the deleting of the words

"for any one sample" at the heading for the dissolved oxygen
and coliform guide?

           It now reads, "maximum or minimum concentrations
for any one sample."  We would prefer to strike "for any one

sample."

           MR. STEIN:  Why?

           MR. SMITH:  Because we think this is unduly

restrictive.  Any sample at any time that was in excess of

these figures could put an industry or municipality in viola-
tion, and there must be some interpretation of these values.

           DR. HARGRAVES:  Scientifically, it isn't very

sound to take only one single grab sample without having

variable samples and taking a mean.

           MR. WILSON:  Mr. Chairman, might I add, you cer-
tainly will appreciate as a lawyer that that would be a
very difficult basis for evidence in court, to depend on a
single sample, in case you got into enforcement proceedings.
           It would be highly desirable to have all these

recommendations framed, as far as possible, so that the

findings thereunder will lend themselves to providing evi-
dence in court, if that should become necessary.

           MR. STEIN:  I appreciate your point of view.

-------
                                                         88





Whatever the law says, Mr. Wilson, I don't think either



of us have ever gone into court with one sample.




           What is the feeling on this?  Do you want to



strike that and say "maximum and minimum concentrations"?




           MR. SMITH:  This is correct.



           MR. POSTON:  Wouldn't that still apply to the



single sample there, unless you had some other defining




wording in there?



           MR. SMITH:  Not necessarily.



           DR. JELATIS:  You have to take more than one




sample to be sure you have a case.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Couldn't you just say "multiple




samples"?



           MR. STEIN:  I think once you get into specifics




on this, you may be in more trouble than you want to be.



If you are going to strike, strike it.  That is  my suggestion,



either way.



           MR. HOLMER:  I would prefer that we strike.



           MR. STEIN:  Is that agreeable to you?



           MR. POSTON:  Yes.




           MR. STEIN:  All right.  With that, may we go on,



please?



           MR. SMITH:  Not quite.



           MR. STEIN:  All right.

-------
                                                        89
           MR. SMITH:  I would also like a discussion on
the DO levels.  The statement as written is, "no deteriora-
tion in present level."
           Now, I think we need an interpretation of this.
In our previous statement, we had indicated that, "Waters
of high quality within the study area and of a quality
suitable for all present and potential water uses,  be main-
tained and protected so as to ensure their suitability for
all future uses."
           Now, in this table we are indicating "no
deterioration in present level."
           I think this has to be clarified.  I would prefer
that the "no deterioration in present level" again be
stricken.
           DR. HARGRAVES:  And the oxygen levels left as
they are?
           MR. SMITH:  As they are.
           DR. HARGRAVES:  Just leave the oxygen levels as
they ar<=>.
           MR. STEIN:  Don't you have a greater than 5 level
now?
           MR. PRINTZ:  Considerably,
           MR. STEIN:  You don't want to get down to 5?
           MR. SMITH:  Not at all times.

-------
                                                          90
           MR. PRINTZ:  In many areas,  I do believe you have
considerably higher than 5 at all times.
           MR. SMITH:  At all times during your survey work.
Not at all times.
           DR. HARORAVES:  Doesn't it come down to a point
that if you put "no deterioration in present level," you are
shutting the door on development?
           MR. STEIN:  Let's see if we  can arrive at an
accommodation.
           MR. SMITH:  Can we, and be consistent with the
first recommendation?
           MR. STEIN:  I am trying at this stage to get an
agreement.
           Isn't that really covered in what you agreed to
in the first sentence?
           "River water quality shall be preserved or
      upgraded, as required, to permit  maximum use and
      full recreational enjoyment of the waters."
           MR. SMITH:  Right.
           MR. STEIN:  Now, wouldn't that take care of that,
if we acceded to Mr. Smith's suggestion?
           MR, HOLMER:  We don't see that it makes any par-
ticular difference whether it is in or  out.
           MR. POSTON:  In the first paragraph or here?
           MR. HOIMER:  Right.

-------
                                                         91
           DR. MARGRAVES:  But It is redundant.
           MR. STEIN:  Are we agreeable to striking it here?
           MR. POSTON:  Yes.
           MR. STEIN:  All right.  Let's move on.
           Are there any more comments on No. 2  before we
move on?
           (No response. )
           MR. STEIN:  If not, let's go to No. 3.
           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 3 did not receive unanimous agree-
ment at the technical session.  However, it is the  Federal
conferee's recommendation that:
           "3.  All municipalities and institutions
      discharging sewage to the waters within the con-
      ference area, provide at least secondary biological
      treatment facilities consisting of at least 90#
      removal of organic material in terms of BOD,  plus
      continuous disinfection producing an effluent con-
      taining no more than the following constituents:
                a.  30 mg/1 5-Day (20°c) BOD
                b.  30 mg/1 suspended solids
                c.  5000 coliform/100 ml (except where "d"
                    applies.)
                d.  1000 coliform/100 ml between May and
                    October,  inclusive, where receiving

-------
                                                          92
                 "waters are used for whole body contact
                  activities.
           "These limits are to be followed except where
      more stringent ones are given in the specific recom-
      mendations or are required by State Water Pollution
      Control agencies."
           MR. MUEGGE:  This appears to be a shift from water
quality to effluent quality standards, and I think we should
stick with water quality criteria.
           MR. SMITH:  I would object too.  I see no reason
for going to 90$ BOD removal.  It has no bearing directly on
the protection of the water uses.
           If a statement like this is contained in the recom-
mendations, I see no reason for the investigation in the first
place.
           MR. STEIN:  What would you suggest that we modify
it to and say?
           MR. SMITH:  I prefer that it be left as it was
originally, with an addition that in no case should the five-
day BOD or the suspended solids exceed 50 milligrams per liter.
I will put a limitation on it, but not as restrictive as the
90 percent removal, or the 30 milligrams.
           MR. POSTON:  In your presentation at our last con-
vening of this present conference, you indicated a desire for
30 milligrams per liter.

-------
                                                          93





           MR. SMITH:  No.  We were questioning the method



on which the 50 milligrams was calculated and said nothing



about 30 milligrams, as far as 5-day BOD was concerned.



           We would not support the 90 percent BOD removal.



We are talking about the minor sources.  We see no justifica-



tion for this.



           MR. MUEGGE:  I think the decision has to be made



here whether we want water quality or effluent standards.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Well, the two are rather insepara-



ble and you get into problems.



           The point in question here is that there are



some very small communities on a great, big river where,  even



if they have primary treatment, it doesn't affect us.  I  am



all for as high treatment as we can get, but one gets  up  into



the Twin Cities complex and it becomes an altogether different



story.



           I think on the Wisconsin side of the Minnesota



you have primary treatment, haven't you, in some of these



smaller towns, just as we have, and their study has shown



nothing, as far as I can tell, in the way of contamination,



dissolved oxygen loss, and this would be a tremendous  cost to



small villages and towns on a big stream.



           MR. STEIN:  I can well understand that, sir.



           Again, I have not been in the discussions,  but  I

-------
                                                         94



think that in dealing with this — and this is the nub of the



problem we have in many, many of the areas — that when you



have a situation like this you can't possibly deal with this



by a hard and fast rule without giving the States some inter-



pretation on this.




           By the way, if you get a city like St. Louis or



Omaha, where they are all coming out and you have one big




source, then you decide how much to have.




           However, as I understand it, it is agreeable that



the major sources put this in?



           DR. MARGRAVES:  Yes, while we are upgrading smaller




cities, such as Lake City, Hastings, etc., down the river,




and they are going to secondary.  Yet, as I say, there are



times you feel a little guilty when the city fathers come



after you for spending their money for something that they



say has not affected the river anyway.



           I am for as clean a Minnesota River as we can get,



but there are times when some of these little places can have



primary treatment that doesn't affect BOD at all.



           MR. STEIN:  Well, one of the ways of handling this



— and I don't know if you want to do that — is "among all



the municipalities."  If you put "all major municipalities



and institutions" and let this be a judgment of the State




agency, would this be agreeable?



           MR. MUEGGE:  Well, there is even a possibility

-------
                                                         95




that you may want a lower concentration In the effluent.




           MR. STEIN:  No.  It says "at least 90 percent."



           MR. MUEGGE:  At least 90, but you have a 30



milligram per liter.



           MR. STEIN:  Yes, but it says, "These limits are



to be followed except where more stringent" --




           MR. MUEGGE:  You may want 95.



           MR. STEIN:  Pardon me, Mr.  Muegge.




           Again, my function here is  just to try to get



agreement, but look at the last sentence.  It says:



           "These limits are to be followed except where



     more stringent ones are given in the specific recom-



     mendations or are required by State Water Pollution



     Control agencies."



           So I think the recommendation does come up and



allows the State for a more stringent  one.



           I think what Mr. Smith and  Dr. Hargraves are



looking for — and I would at least try to arrive at a




formulation — is that you want an escape hatch at the



bottom for some small community that might be putting in




primary treatment, or may have a trickling filter that gets



a reduction to, say, 75 or 80 percent.  When their wastes



get in the river you can't really see  it a hundred yards  away




from the outfall, and this might be an undue burden.  This

-------
                                                          96
is what I think is the thrust of this argument.
           What I am trying to do is see if we can come up
with a word or a phrase which would be agreeable to you people
to give you this discretion.
           MR. POSTON:  Mr. Chairman, I find that when we talk
to one community, it looks to see whether it is being done in
another community, and one of the objections is, "Wen, why
don't you require it over here?"
           In order to be fair and to be equitable and to
avoid double standards, I would like to see one figure here
so that everybody is being treated alike.  It seems to me
that this is the best way to get along with all these
communities.
           MR. STEIN:  Mr. Holmer?
           MR. HOIMER: Yes.  I would like to avoid double stand-
ards too, and I am curious to know whether 80 percent or 90
percent is now the national standard.  I recognize that over
a time we are going to have to move as population expands
upward, but the original Recommendation No. 3 seems to be
generally in accord with the'generally applied current standards,
and we had no problem with it particularly.
           This 90 percent, is this now a national standard
that has to be applied at every conference on every interstate
stream?
           MR. POSTON:  I might talk to that a little bit.

-------
                                                         97



           I think 90 percent is readily achievable by



secondary treatment in well designed plants, and the feeling



is that where secondary treatment is required we should go



and get this maximum efficiency in the treatment plant.



           MR. SMITH:  This is the point, where it is re-



quired.  Are you going to require Kansas City, St. Joe,



Omaha, to provide 90 percent?



           I think this is the consistency that I am concerned



with.



           MR. MUEGGE:  I am also concerned with Mr. Holmer's



last statement.  I would like to see secondary plants all



producing the 90 percent effluent.



           MR. WILSON:  Mr. Chairman?



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.



           MR. WILSON: Prom the basis, as you know, of rather



long experience in court battles and in enforcement in this



water pollution control field, I should like to say that I



certainly agree with Mr. Poston's ambition to have here some



kind of a positive statement of the desired goal if it were



possible to devise one that would apply fairly in all cases.



But I think that anyone who has dealt with this problem of



percentages has learned the hard way, if he did not learn



earlier, that absolute fixed percentages are a very unde-



pendable way'to set a standard which has to apply to a great




variety of cases where the conditions and circumstances are

-------
                                                           98
vastly different.  It is obvious that the condition of a large
community with a well designed sewage treatment  plant  that  can
be operated and maintained up to rather specific standards  is
quite different from that of a small community,  where  the per
capita expense of operating plants is much greater,  and where
the actual effect of the effluents on the receiving stream  is
comparatively small.
           The result of that situation is that  if you get  into
a situation where the cost of meeting this 90 percent  removal
would be unduly oppressive on a small community  and utterly
unnecessary from the standpoint of the total condition of the
receiving water, any court passing on that question would have
to say that your water pollution control commission was im-
posing an unreasonable requirement.  Therefore,  it seems to
me that the attempt to express an exact percentage in  a situa-
tion of this kind where the circumstances to which it  applies
will be very variable, would be just the opposite of the idea
that Mr. Poston is expressing here, that we should have some
uniform rule.
           The only uniform rule that you can apply in a
case of this kind is a rule that can be applied  as a general
objective, but can be adjusted to different conditions in
the judgment of the enforcing agency.
           This is the very sort of thing where  the enforcing
agencies and the administrative agencies of government have

-------
                                                        99




to have considerable latitude of judgment in applying the



standards and requirements to different cases.  So that I



don't see how you can express the idea that we  all endorsed



here — that is, as Dr.  Hargraves says, we are  all interested



in trying to get our lakes and streams as clean as possible,



but I don't see how you can express this degree of removal of



organic material for general purposes any better than to simply



say that the removal as high a degree as feasible under the



circumstances of each case shall be required for the organic



removal.



           I don't see how you can put in any positive per-



centage that will apply fairly and stand up against an attack



in all cases.



           DR. JELATIS:   Mr. Chairman.



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.



           DR. JELATIS:   I think we all appreciate that it is



desirable to do the best possible job in ensuring the water



quality, but I think also it has been amply pointed out that



90 percent removal in an area where there is very little



current to the stream, even with no treatment,  imposes an



undue burden.  I think also that most of us feel, I think  with



general agreement, that secondary treatment should be desir-



able in all cases.



           Can we modify this statement by saying that where



necessary to maintain the water quality objectives, secondary

-------
                                                      100
treatment shall be required, and perhaps modify the percentage
removals, or leave them out?
           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  Mr. Chairman, wouldn't this all
be resolved if we simply recommend to the Congress to appro-
priate sufficient funds, so that when the community does 90
percent removal it get a 90 percent grant, and when it does
30 percent removal, it get a 30 percent grant?
           (Laughter.)
           MR. STEIN:  I will tell you, Milt Adams of Michigan
once had an analogous recommendation to Congress that he put
forward, and he said that the grant funds should go only to
those cities and those Congressional Districts whose Congress-
men voted for the appropriation.  Obviously, the men who voted
against it didn't want it.
           Well, we were involved in a storm for about six
months.  I always enjoy those storms, but I don't know that I
would care to Join in that recommendation.
           (Laughter.)
           MR. WILSON:  Mr. Chairman, I don't see how you can
express any rule here that will express our desire and at the
same time be fair in application In any broader terms, or
any stricter terms than what I suggested, consisting of as
high as feasible removal, and so far as necessary to protect
the quality of the stream.
           You can put it into language of that kind, if you

-------
                                                        101
want to, and, of course, if Uncle Sam were going to dish out
Federal aid so that these smaller communities would get a
higher degree of aid and enable them to put in 90 percent
treatment even if they didn't need it, why, they would be
perfectly willing to go along, but I think that every tax-
payer would have to say that that is a waste of public funds.
In view of the acute financial condition of both the Federal
and State treasuries, it does not seem to me that we here
ought to make any recommendations that are going to require
unnecessary expenditure of public funds for any purpose.
           MR. STEIN:  Are there any more comments or
questions?
           Mr. Poston?
           MR. POSTON:  I think we are looking for something
here that everybody who lives in this area can look for as
the requirement that they are going to want to meet and need
to meet, and there is an opportunity in the last page of our
recommendations where modifications are required, t
conferees can make modifications as they deem necess
Have the feeUng that thla ^m ^ ^ ^
=o»e into pamcuuny knotty

-------
                                                        102
of the last page, which merely provides that the conference
will take disagreements under advisement, is not very satis-
factory.
           May I inquire on what basis the Federal staff or
the Federal conferee arrived at a change in the original
recommendation made in the Summary Report?
           MR, POSTON:  I don't know that I can answer all
that.  The original recommendation read; "20 percent of the
mass of 5-day BOD," which meant 80 percent, and on this we
felt that it is possible — in fact, I called one of the
treatment plants and found out that the local treatment plant
had an effluent of 12 parts per million BOD, and I felt that
to have a limit of 50 there was excessive.
           I think the operation and maintenance of treatment
plants has a lot to do with this 30 milligrams, or 50 milli-
grams .
           It is more difficult to get a good operation, I
           " 
-------
                                                        101
want to, and, of course, If Uncle Sara were going to dish out
Federal aid so that these smaller communities would get a
higher degree of aid and enable them to put in 90 percent
treatment even if they didn't need it, why, they would be
perfectly willing to go along, but I think that every tax-
payer would have to say that that is a waste of public funds.
In view of the acute financial condition of both the Federal
and State treasuries, it does not seem to me that we here
ought to make any recommendations that are going to require
unnecessary expenditure of public funds for any purpose.
           MR. STEIN:  Are there any more comments or
questions?
           Mr. Poston?
           MR. POSTON:  I think we are looking for something
here that everybody who lives in this area can look for as
the requirement that they are going to want to meet and need
to meet, and there is an opportunity in the last page of our
recommendations where mociiilcations are required, that the
conferees can make modifications as they deem necessary.  I
have the feeling that this should be able to cover when we
come into particularly knotty areas for resolution.
           MR. HODffiR:  I find that very soft consolation.
           MR. SMITH:  I do too.
           MR. HOLMER:  And I would think for us to pass by
this recommendation without reaching agreement on the promise

-------
                                                        102
of the last page, which merely provides that fche conference
will take disagreements under advisement,  is not very satis-
factory.
           May I inquire on what basis the Federal staff or
the Federal conferee arrived at a change in the original
recommendation made in the Summary Report?
           MR, POSTON:  I don't know that  I can answer all
that.  The original recommendation read; "20 percent of the
mass of 5-day BOD," which meant 80 percent, and on this we
felt that it is possible — in fact, I called one of the
treatment plants and found out that the local treatment plant
had an effluent of 12 parts per million BOD, and I felt that
to have a limit of 50 there was excessive.
           I think the operation and maintenance of treatment
plants has a lot to do with this 30 milligrams, or 50 milli-
grams .
           It is more difficult to get a good operation, I
will admit, in a small unit.  It is difficult to get good
maintenance in these, but it can be achieved, and this is
what I think we are shooting for.
           MR. SMITH:  Actually, the 50 percent is more
restrictive than what you have, because 20 percent of the BOD
remaining in an effluent that may be 1,000 parts per million
to start with is pretty high, and this is what we are trying

to get at.

-------
                                                         103
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.
           As I understand the discussion that we had last
time, Mr. Holmer, it was this:  Assume that the technical
staff is agreed on the original statement.  The notion that
we had given the water quality requirements that we Just passed
on the first page would indicate, and I think Mr. Smith has
indicated here, that the large sources of pollutants in this
area would have to provide the kind of treatment which would
get a 90 percent removal, or above.
           The notion that I got here was that possibly putting
the 80 percent removal as a general rule might be misleading,
since your major sources in this area were going to have to
put in 90 that we all agreed to, so they decided to adjust this
to this figure, and that is why it is done.
           Mr. Smith, do you have a recommendation here on
wording?
           MR. MUEGGE:  I have one.
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.
           MR. MUEOGE:  I would recommend No. 3 be reworded
that, "All municipalities and institutions discharging sewage
to the waters within the conference area, provide at least" —
           DR. HARGRAVES:  Would you speak into the microphone?
We can't hear.
           MR. MUEGGE:  — "provide at least well designed
and operated secondary biological treatment facilities plus

-------
                                                          104
continuous disinfection."
           MR. STEIN:  What do you think of that,  Mr.  Smith?
           MR. SMITH:  I am not sure that I heard  the  first
part of it.
           Mr. Muegge, what does that do with the  high strength
influent?
           DR. HARQRAVES:  And what are the criteria for a
high quality plant?
           MR. MUEGGE:  Well,  the best that can be produced
at the time under the scientific knowledge that is available.
           DR. MARGRAVES:  Not to be smart, but I  just mean
will the parts per million be  taken into this,  or  is it a
percentage?
           MR. MUEGGE:  No percentage, and there are no parts
per million.  There is no effluent standard.
           MR. SMITH:  I would prefer an effluent  limitation.
           I realize why you don't want this, but  I am
thinking of the stronger wastes.
           MR. STEIN:  May we  have your proposal,  Mr,  Smith?
           By the way, I think the people should recognize
that Mr. Muegge's position is  a very valid and sound
philosophic one.  What we are  trying to do is get  these to-
gether and see if we can arrive at a Judgment,  because this
Is one way that I think we can go.
           Mr. Smith?

-------
                                                         105
           MR. SMITH:  I agree with Mr.  Muegge's statement
wholeheartedly, with one exception.  I would like to have
some limitation on the strong 4fflu*ftts,
           My original suggestion was that 'we take the state-
ment as it was contained in the recommendation and add to
that, "and in no case shall it exceed 50 milligrams per liter."
           MR. STEIN:  Which one, in the printed recommenda-
tion?
           MR. SMITH:  In the printed recommendation.
           MR. STEIN:  Where would you add that statement?
           MR. SMITH:  It would read under Paragraph "a,"
"20 percent of the mass of 5-day BOD originally contained in
the effluent, and in no case shall it exceed 50 milligrams  per
liter."
           I would add this same statement under both "a"
and "b."
           MR. STEIN:  Just "a" and "b."  Yes.
           MR. SMITH:  Just "a" and "b."
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.
           MR. MUEGGE:  I think that would be acceptable if
you left out the 20 percent figure.
           MR. SMITH:  I have no objection to this.
           MR. STEIN: What do you think of that, Mr. Poston?
           DR. HARGRAVES:  Mr. Poston, if we are taken into
court, which we are on everything we have classified so far,

-------
                                                          106
and, as I remember, Chester, and you have to check on me,
we were in part disqualified because we did not have figures
and standards set so that the court could interpret them --
so many parts per million or so much in the effluent condi-
tions of the stream taken into account.  Am I right?
           MR. WILSON:  Yes, that is right.  You have to have
a measurable standard and you also have to have one that is
reasonable.
           MR. POSTON:  My thinking is if they operate a
primary treatment plant, and if they maintain it well, I
think you can get it down to 30.  This is my logic behind
this.
           MR. WILSON:  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that Mr.
Smith's suggestion of going back to the original printed
statement in Paragraph 3 at the top of Page 29, with his
suggestions under "a" and "b," would certainly serve the pur-
pose and leave the recommendations in a better situation than
to go for this unqualified proposal for at least 90 percent
removal.
           I don't see how you can go forward with that un-
qualified percentage.  It would have to be, as he suggested,
to simply strike out the "90 percent," and say "as high as
feasible," or else say, "90 percent as far as feasible."
           MR. STEIN:  Let's try to stay with Mr. Smith's

proposal.

-------
                                                         107
           As I understand, Mr.  Smith is proposing that  we
use No. 3 as we have it in the printed document,  with the
addition, after "a" and Mb," "and in no case shall it exceed
50 milligrams per liter."
           In other words "a" would read,  "20 percent of the
mass 5-day (20°c) BOD originally contained in the influent,
and in no case shall exceed 50 milligrams  per liter."
           MR. SMITH:  Mr. Muegge would like to  leave off,
I believe, the 20 percent.
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.
           MR. SMITH:  Which is  agreeable  to me.
           MR. STEIN:  Well, what do you think?
           In other words, "a" and "b" would say, "an effluent
containing no more than 50 milligrams per  liter  of BOD and
suspended solids."
           MR. POSTON:  And then you would leave  out  No. 2?
           MR. STEIN:  You can combine "a" and "b" or you can
leave them separate, if you want.
           DR. JELATIS:  Eliminating the percentage?
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.
           MR. POSTON:  In both cases you  leave  out the
percentage?
           MR. STEIN:  Leave out the percentage.   Is  this
agreeable?
           MR. SMITH:  This is agreeable to me.

-------
                                                          108
           MR. STEIN:  All right.
           MR. MUEGGE:  What has been the practice,  Mr.
Chairman, at other conferences?  Have you established effluent
standards or water quality standards?
           MR. STEIN:  Yes, effluent standards largely,  and
water quality standards in some cases.
           I think we are getting more and more to what  Dr.
Hargraves said.  They are inextricably interrelated, and more
and more we are doing both.
           Now, I think that both of these buttress each
other.  This has been the case in other conferences.  What has
come up here -- and, by the way, I think this is going to be
possibly the most difficult point we have today — is really
the pattern that is emerging in the other States, not much
difference one way or the other, but each one goes a little
further.  I think it is as good as any I have seen.
           In Chicago they came up with more detail, but again
we did not have small points of discharge there.  You have,
in a sense, a more complicated and a bigger variety to deal
with here, and while the pollution problem is serious, we
could come out with a 90 percent disinfection for all, because
we couldn't find any small places where it did not apply.
           So, I don't know.  If this is agreeable, let us
try it again.
           Would you read  "a" as you would want it to read

-------
                                                        109
now, Mr. Smith?
           MR. SMITH:  "An effluent containing no more
than 50 milligrams per liter,  5-day BOD and  suspended  solids."

           MR. STEIN:  Well,  may I make a suggestion?   Since
this is not a novel, let's repeat to make it clear.
           "This treatment is  to produce an  effluent con-
taining no more than 50 milligrams per liter of"  -- do you
want "mass"?

           MR. SMITH:  "5-day."
           MR. STEIN: "Of 5-day (20°c) BOD."

           You don't want the  percentage?
           MR. SMITH:  That is right.
           MR. STEIN: "And 50 milligrams per day  of suspended

solids."  Right?
           MR. POSTON:  "No more than 50."
           MR. STEIN:  "No more than 50."
           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  You have the "no more than" in
the beginning.
           MR. STEIN:  All right.  I think we are set  on this.
           DR. JELATIS:  Are we going to leave "a" and "b,"
but Just call out specifically 50 milligrams per  liter in  each

case?
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.
           MR. HOIMER:  In each case?
           MR. STEIN:  In each case.  That is what I tried to

-------
                                                        110
get to.  It modifies each one.



           MR. SMITH:  Yes.



           MR. STEIN:  All right.   If this  is  agreeable, I


want to be sure we have the  wording.   I  think  we  do.


           Does anyone have  any doubt about that?  Do you


want it re-read?


           MR. MUEGGE:  Mr.  Stein,  there is still a question



about the continuous disinfection.



           MR. STEIN:  Let's see if I can simplify this.



           Is there any objection to  this formulation on "a"


and "b"?  Let's get that out of the way. Are  we  in agreement


on that?



           MR. SMITH:  Yes.


           MR. STEIN:  Pine.  All right, we are in agreement



on that.


           Now, Mr. Muegge raises the question of "plus con-


tinuous disinfection of the effluent."


           As I read that statement,  that means year- round.


If you want that open, we w±ll be glad to discuss it.


           MR. MUEGGE:  May I call attention to Item  "d"?



           DR. ODEGARD:  Why is it year- round?


           MR. STEIN:  Didn't your proposal say "continuous



disinfection," Mr. Muegge?


           MR. MUEGOE:  Yes.


           MR. STEIN:  If you don't mean year- round  and  this

-------
                                                        Ill
is the proposal, let's bring this up,  because that  means
year- round to me.
           Let me try this.  I think we are almost  over the
hump on this item.
           However, let's take a ten-minute recess  and  try to
come up with a proposal on the disinfection.
           (Whereupon a recess was had.)
           MR. STEIN:  May we reconvene?
           Have we gotten at this disinfection business?
Minnesota, do you have any views on that disinfection problem?
           MR. SMITH:  The only question is the desirability
or the necessity for chlorination during the winter months.
           I would like to ask Mr. Printz the uses  that he
feels are made during the wintertime.
           MR. PRINTZ:  The year- round disinfection was
inserted, Mr. Smith, because of the year- round times,  except
for limited body contact.
           MR. POSTON:  There are also water supplies
concerned?
           MR. PRINTZ:  Very definitely.  If we exclude it,
we have to change our wording, because Minnesota,  I believe,
under State regulations is required to have year-  round dis-
infection to protect the water supply  in Minneapolis.
           MR. SMITH:  We have no quarrel with that.  We are
questioning some of the uses in the lower sections.

-------
                                                    112




           MR.  PRINTZ:  We have indicated why we were



 interested in it, and I know that in the Minnesota presenta-




 tion you agreed wholeheartedly, and the Commission had adopted



 this as a standard operating practice of year-round disin-



 fection, in your prepared statement.




           MR.  SMITH:  Where applicable.  I am not sure that




 the statement wholeheartedly did.



           MR0.STEIN:  Do we have any views on this?




           Again, do we want to let this stand, or do we have



 any suggested changes in the wording?  How do you want to do



 that?



           MR.  POSTON:  I like the way Mr. Muegge stated it.



 It seemed pretty clear to me, that statement that he wanted



 continuous disinfection.



           MR.  STEIN:  All right.  Again, as I said, this



 means all year  round to me, and I think it is going to mean



 that to anyone  who reads it.



           Is there any further comment?



           DR.  HARGRAVES:  Well, the question about constant




iChlorination, particularly in the one stretch of the river



 that at the present time we are not able to use very much,




 raises a question.



           It may sound odd coming from a physician, but I




 really don't think that chlorination from South St. Paul and




 from the Twin Cities  — when the ice is on the river there is

-------
                                                          113
only one area there where there is some barging done by a
gravel company, and the rest of it is under ice until you
get down perhaps to Red Wing.  Prom that time there is a con-
siderable loss of bacteria, and the exposure there might be
to fishermen and to commercial fishermen.
           Now, the cost estimate of the Sanitary District
is that it would cost $1,000 a day to chlorinate under the
ice, and it would cost South St. Paul I don't know how much.
That is a considerable amount of money when the water is
practically not being used.
           My feeling — and I think most bacteriologists
would agree -- is that most of these bacteria are not going
to present much of a hazard when one gets down to Lake City
and below Red Wing, where most of the ice fishing is done, and
where most of the commercial fishing is done.
           These commercial fishermen have been exposed to
these bacteria most of their lives, and I think we all forget
that we develop immunity or we would all have been dead a long
time ago, so that what contact one gets with some of these
bacteria I don't think amounts to very much.  Even the ice
fishermen for a large part have contributed their own pollution
through the holes in the ice, more than may be coming from a
good many miles upstream.
           I would be all in favor of chlorination during
the recreational season, or even during the boating season,

-------
                                                          114




when the river is open, but it seems to me one could certainly



question whether industry should be penalized that amount,



say, $300,000 a year, for chlorlnation for water that is ice-



covered and not much of a hazard.



           MR. STEIN:  Dr. Margraves, as I understand your



statement, we probably could meet what you are saying by



saying "plus continuous disinfection of the effluent from at



least May through October."




           DR. HARGRAVES:  That is correct.  I am much more



worried about the youngsters and the young people who have not




had the years to develop immunity getting into the water



entirely and being exposed.  I don't think this happens in



the wintertime.



           MR. STEIN:  How does Wisconsin feel about it?



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



Dr. Hargraves whether there isn't more resistance to destruc-



tion of the bacteria in the wintertime than there is in the



summertime?



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Well, I am not a bacteriologist,



but under these temperature conditions these bacteria, many



of them I admit go into spore forms, or else they don't



divide.  They are quite inactive at that time.  I don't think



they present much of a hazard.



           MR. MUEGGE:  Does the survey give us any data on



that?

-------
                                                     115



           MR. STEIN:  What do you think?



           MR. PRINTZ:  On the resistance?



           MR. MUEGGE:  On the relative numbers in the summer



as compared to under ice conditions.




           MR. PRINTZ:  Yes, I believe it gives us information



on the relative numbers.  I don't know that it is looked



upon as interpreting it in the light in which you are




suggesting, however,,



           MR. STEIN:  Mr. Muegge, we don't have the experts



here, and if you want to get into this, this may be a contro-



versial proposition.  As I recall, our bacteriologists, in-



cluding the late Harold Clark, have contended that the




bacteria have a longer period of virulent life during cold



weather and they are carried farther in the stream.  If you



come into contact with them, they are apt to present a danger.



           I know the Doctor has some points, and I think his



points are well taken.  I can appreciate this from a personal



point of view.



           When you talk in terms of Immunity, I know I grew



up in New York City and the kids used to swim in rivers like



the East River, the Gowanus Canal, and Jamaica Bay, that no



self-respecting adult would go near.  I didn't seem to get



ill, and I still don't get ill when I go up and fool around




in those waters.   Yet, when I have been in other places



like the Missouri River and get into the waters, I

-------
                                                       116





get what the Mexicans call "la tourista."  This is a hazard




of the business.



           I am not sure that this immunity isn't just



related to the bugs of your youth rather than any place you



go around, so this can be rather complicated.



           Now let me read this and see if it is something



we can all agree on.



           "All municipalities and other institutions




      discharging sewage into the rivers under investiga-



      tion provide at least secondary biological treatment,



      plus effective continuous disinfection of the



      effluent from at least May through October."



           We understand this in connection with the last



phrase in this recommendation, that "These limits are to be



followed except where more stringent ones are given in the



specific recommendations or are required by State Water Pollu-



tion Control agencies."



           What I am trying to do is get a formulation that



we all can agree to.  Can we all agree to that recommendation?




           Mr. Poston?



           MR. POSTON:  I would like to make a couple of



comments.



           As to the first one, with regard to what Mr. Muegge



said, nobody knows any better than the people in Minnesota

-------
                                                       117




how the life of the organism persists to a greater extent in



cold water than it does in hot water.



           Back in 1936, there was a school here at the



University, and they were making elaborate studies of their



water system, where typhoid organisms persisted through



chlorination and caused cases of typhoid.  Extensive investiga-



tions were made at that time to follow these particular cases



and the cause, and I think it is very clear that in cold



water pathogenic organisms -- some of them at least -- will



persist much longer.



           Relative to the timing here, I think probably in-



stead of May through October, I would like that consideration



be given to this boating season or navigation season.  There



are some times when we use this stretch of the river beyond



October for navigation.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  How about "ice-covered" then?  I



mean, limit it to ice cover.



           MR. WILSON:  Mr. Chairman, that was the suggestion



that I was about to make.



           I discussed this 'with Mr. Smith and Dr. Hargraves



about substituting the requirement for chlorination during



the season when the receiving waters are not ice-covered.



           From the standpoint of what Mr. Poston said, it



seems to me that the really controlling factor here is not



the survival of the bacteria in the water, but the danger of

-------
                                                         118




exposure to human beings.



           MR. STEIN:  Let me ask you:  What do you mean,



Mr. Wilson, by "ice cover"?  It can be ice-covered and have



a thin sheet of ice, and yet the boats can go through.




           I appreciate what you are getting at, but how



long does the contact season last in the waters we are dealing



with?



           MR. WILSON:  The pleasure boat season practically




stops as soon as the river is frozen over.  The only boats



that continue after that may be some lake commercial naviga-



tion boats that have a capacity for breaking the ice.  They



sometimes send an ice-breaker up to break the ice through the



channel to the docks to permit some lake boats to land their




loads.   By that time, the pleasure boating is at a complete



stand-still.



           I am sure that there would be adequate protection



if the chlorination were required at all times when the waters



are not ice-covered.  When it gets cold enough to freeze the



river, after that or before the melting of the ice in the




spring, there just simply won't be any pleasure boating.



           MR. STEIN:  Is this agreeable?



           MR. POSTON:  You are trying to protect a particular



use here, and the use that we are talking about is navigation




in addition to the swimming.



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  We are trying to get a formulation

-------
                                                         119



here.




           We have two proposals, one from May through



October, and the second when the waters are not ice-covered.




           Now, either one I think will come close to the




purpose.  I suggest we consider those and see if we can arrive



at a determination.  If you would prefer when the waters are




not ice-covered, this is all right, or from May through




October.




           What do you think?



           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  I think we should set a time




interval by naming the months.




           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  Is this agreeable with Minnesota?




           MR. SMITH:  Yes.




           MR. STEIN:  All right.  Prom at least May through




October.  Is this all right?



           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  I did not necessarily insist on




May through October.



           MR. STEIN:  I know.



           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  If they wanted to stretch it out,




they could do it.



           MR. POSTON:  How about April through November?




That is my recommendation.




           MR. STEIN: What do you think, Dr. Hargraves?



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Well, you have a point there.




There certainly is going to be limited contact with the water.

-------
                                                        120



Speaking as an old duck hunter and a fisherman,  the duck



hunters are going to be out until the season is  over,  and



they are going to be in their boats and sitting  on the tnuskrat



houses, and there is going to be limited contact.   In  the



spring, Wisconsin now has an open season all the year   round,



so they are going to be fishing over there,  and, I presume,



wherever there is open water.  Ours used to  be April 15th,  but




I don't know what it is at the moment.



           MR. STEIN:  Are we in agreement then  from April



through November?  If we are and there  is no objection, let



me try to read all of No. 3.  As I say, I think  this is



probably the most difficult one.



           "All municipalities and other institutions



      discharging sewage to the rivers" —




technically, shouldn't that be "waters"?



           MR. POSTON:  That would be good.



           MR. STEIN: That is Just a technical change.



"To the waters under investigation" -- that  should be  "covered



by the conference."



           "To the waters covered by the conference, provide



       at least secondary biological treatment,  plus



       effective continuous disinfection of the  effluents




       from at least April through November.  This treat-



       ment is to produce an effluent which shall not



       exceed:



           "a.  50 milligrams per liter of 5-<3ay  (20°C) BOD.

-------
                                                        121



                "b.  50 milligrams per liter of suspended



                     solids.



                 c.  5,000 coliform per 100 milliliters



                     (except where 'd1 applies.)




                 d.  1,000 coliform per 100 milliliters



                     between May and October,  inclusive,  where



                     receiving waters are used for whole  body



                     contact activities.



           "These limits are to be followed excepu where  more



      stringent ones are given in the specific recommendations



      or are required by State water pollution control



      agencies."



           MR. MUEGGE:   Chairman Stein, although I still



object to the use of effluent standards,  we have been asked



to develop water quality standards by the Federal Water Pollu-



tion Control Administration and by the laws of the United



States, and I will pass that up.



           However, I would like to change the opening para-




graph and put a period  after "biological  treatment,"  and  also



"continuous disinfection," etc.




           MR. STEIN:  How would you like to start the second



one, "and also"?



           MR. MUEGGE:   Instead of "plus," "also."



           MR. STEIN:  All right.



           MR. MUEOGE:   I think they ought to  operate the

-------
                                                        122




secondary plants in the wintertime.




           MR. STEIN:  Is that change agreeable?



           MR. SMITH:  Yes.




           MR.. STEIN:  All right, we will do that.   We will



put a period there and an "also" instead of the "plus."



           MR. HOIMER:  You don't have a verb in there.



Make it "also continuous disinfection of the effluent shall



be provided."




           MR. STEIN:  "Shall be provided," yes.  All right.



Does that clear this up?  Are we past that?



           (No response. )




           MR. STEIN:  May we go on to No. 4?



           MR, PRINTZ:  There was an agreement on No. 4 as it



was reported in the Summary Report, and it reads as follows:



           "4.  It is recommended that municipal waste



      treatment plants maintain at least the minimum



      laboratory control and records as recommended by



      the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers at their



      38th Annual Meeting in 1963  (See Appendix).  In




      addition, all plants should maintain a record of



      chlorine feed rates and those plants of 2 million




      gallons/day capacity, or greater, should provide



      analyses for total and fecal coliforms on a once



      per week basis.  Results of laboratory tests and



      other pertinent records should be summarized monthly

-------
                                                   123



     "and submitted to the appropriate State agency for




     review and evaluation.  These records are to be main-



     tained in open files of the State agency for use by




     all persons with a legitimate interest."



           MR. STEIN:  Are there any comments on No. 4?  Does




this apply just to municipal waste treatment plants?



           MR. SMITH:  There is another one similar to this.



No. 12 is comparable.




           MR. MUEGGE:  That called for fecal collform at the



last session as an indicator of pollution.  I wonder whether



we require it here.



           MR. STEIN:  What about this fecal coliform?




           DR. HARGRAVES:  Could I ask a question of the



Federal men as to how reliable now our study is that identi-



fies fecal coliform from the multiplicity of coliforms that




wash off the fields and trees?



           MR. STEIN:  Let me, as a non-expert, answer what



I have heard from our people.



           We are supposed to have a discriminatory test




which will distinguish fecal coliform coming out of a



recently killed animal in a packing plant or human coliforms.



As a matter of fact,  the tests now can distinguish between




human fecal coliforms and the usual warm-blooded animal fecal



coliforms.




           In addition to this, I do know — and this is

-------
                                                      124




the definltiveness of the discrimination in the test  -- and



this experience I can attest to as a lawyer — that the




laboratories in checking fecal coliforms,  if you split a



sample, can more nearly come up with results that fit in




with each other than they can with the usual collform tests,



where they have the dilution, look at the  size of the colony,



make an estimate and begin multiplying.  Sometimes we get  a



wide disparity there, much wider than we have had in  checking



different laboratories in fecal coliform tests.



           Again, our scientists tell us that they are pretty




discriminatory.  As a matter of fact, the  fecal coliform



tests, as far as I know, have moved so far along that they



have been proposed in the Standard Methods and are being



carried in there as a tentative test until they check out.




           By the time something gets into the Standard



Methods, it is pretty well worked over.



           DR0 HARGRAVES:  I Just asked, because the  last



time the bacteriologist who was working on it appeared before



our Commission, he was not quite sure and  he would not say




that he could positively do it.  That was  a couple of years



ago in, I think it was, the Mississippi hearings; but if it is




done, why, I am satisfied.



           MR. STEIN:  If I am wrong on this, you can




correct me.

-------
                                                          125
           DR. MARGRAVES:  I am just trying to catch up.
That's all.
           MR. STEIN:  I am asking the scientists.
           MR. PRINTZ:  I think you are right.
           There is one other reason too for which  this  is
included, and this is in connection with what is  anticipated
out of the recreation ^and the aquatic technical group.   Recom-
mendations will be coming out for water quality concerning
these uses, and I think they will be recommending that we  go
to something' besides total coliform, which will be  fecal
coliform.
           MR. STEIN:  Doctor, I would like to give you  the
reason I went into this, which was because, like  Mr. Wilson,
I never liked to put anything out that we can't put on the
stand and have withstand the most vigorous cross  examination.
Otherwise, the tests, at least to us lawyers, are not much
good.
           I have been through this very carefully  on the
fecal coliform, and I have been assured that this is so.   We
have had the experts up and it has withstood cross  examina-
tion several times.
           Are there any questions on No. 4?
           (No response. )
           MR. STEIN:  If Paragraph 4 is acceptable and  there
are no objections, we will adopt it and proceed to  No. 5.

-------
                                                        126
           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 5 also received no objections
from the technical session.  It reads as follows:
           "5.  It is recommended that new waste treat-
      ment facilities be designed to provide adequate
      capacity of individual units and components as well
      as maximum flexibility in order to permit later
      modification in operating procedures so as to effect
      the greatest amount of phosphate removal.  Existing
      plant facilities should be operated so as to
      optimize phosphate removal."
           MR. STEIN:  Any questions?
           DR. ODEGARD:  I am posing a chemical question.
What about adding nitrates in there in this comment about  the
future?
           MR. STEIN:  Mr. Printz, do you want to talk about
that?
           MR. PRINTZ:  We feel that the phosphates are the
more important problem, and if we can take care of the phos-
phates, in all likelihood we will take care of the nitrates
as well.
           Mr. Hall might like to add to that, being more
well versed after working with the criteria.
           MR. STEIN:  Do you want to do that?
           As I understand it, the problem is this:  We are
dealing largely here with a weed or an algal growth.  We are

-------
                                                        127






dealing with phosphates and nitrates being essential to



life.  The theory that these biologists have is if we take



away one of those essential elements, you are going to cut



down the obnoxious algal or weed growth.



           Again, as I understand this, nitrates are



ubiquitous.  Try to keep them out.  If you keep them out of



the sewers, they are going to get in from the air, and so



forth, so they feel the critical key element of control is to



eliminate the phosphates and keep them out, because their



notion is, supposing you do eliminate the nitrates from the



sewers.  If you put enough of the other essential elements in,



there is going to be enough of the nitrates generally around




the environment to stimulate and kick off the growth anyway,




so that is why they concentrate, as I understand it, on



phosphates.



           Let me go off the record.



           (Discussion off the record.)



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



           Do we have any information on the percentage of



phosphates which come from treatment plants in the area under



consideration here, and the percentage of phosphates which



come from land runoff?



           MR. PRINTZ:  I believe we do, sir.  However, it



was not introduced or made in connection with these recom-



mendations, since there are no specific recommendations being

-------
                                                       128
made for phosphate removal at this time.
           MR. STEIN:  Do you have a chart?  Why don't you
refresh your memory on that?
           MR. POSTON:  That is on Table  3.
           MR. PRINTZ:  As an example of  the type of data
collected by the Project, on Roman Numeral V-42 of the
record on Findings, you will find a predicted nutrient
profile for the summer low flow of the Minnesota River.  This
is taking into account it coming from natural areas as well
as others.
           MR. STEIN:  Do you have an estimated figure?
           MR. PRINTZ:  Percentagewise, Such as you were
speaRing of?
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.
           MR. PRINTZ:  I don't believe so.
           MR. STEIN:  All right.  What do you want to do
about this Recommendation No. 5?  Do you  want to accept it
or modify it in any way?
           MR. MUEGGE:  I think we need further information.
           MR. STEIN:  What is your proposal on that, Mr.
Muegge?
           The Technical Committee, as I  understand it,
representing Wisconsin, Minnesota and the Federal people,
have recommended that we accept this, and it is your move
from Wisconsin to strike this or modify it in any way.

-------
                                                        129
           MR. PRINTZ:  Mr. Chairman, this was further
modified, I believe, at the beginning of this session by
Minnesota by inclusion of the additional statement in the
general discussion, was it not?
           MR. STEIN:  I recognize all the problems you have
with this.  I have the same problems.
           These are physical facts.  If anyone feels they
don't have these problems, I think they are overstating the
case, but the question here before us is whether we should
make any modifications to Proposal No. 5* or adopt it for the
conferees.
           How do you feel about it?
           MR. MUEGGE:  If we put anything in, I think we
should say "nutrients" rather than "phosphates."
           DR. JELATIS:  Mr. Chairman, I think this is
covered adequately, as far as the general recommendation goes,,
by the proposal of Mr. Smith earlier in the general recommenda-
tions .
           I will read this sentence:
           "The installation of specialized treatment
      facilities designed to reduce nitrogen and phos-
      phorus compounds in the waste effluents will be
      recommended when satisfactory methods are feasible
      or available."
           MR. STEIN:  In other words, you think that takes

-------
                                                       130

care of this and we can eliminate this?

           MR. BOSTON:   No.   I think we can just  leave  it


as it is.


           DR. JELATIS:  Just leave it as  it is.


           MR. STEIN:   What  do you want to do with No.  5


that is before us?  Do  you want to leave it in or strike  it?


           MR. POSTON:   I propose we just  leave it there.


           MR. MUEGGE:   I think we should  make it "nutrients,"


though.


           MR. STEIN:   I would like to get a consensus  here
                                          i
and move on.  How do you feel about No. 5?


           MR. HOLMER:   Why don't you just leave  it out?


           MR. MUEGGE:   Either leave it out or put in the


word "nutrients" instead of "phosphates."


           MR. STEIN:  Do you want to put in "nutrients"

instead of "phosphates," because you said  "phosphorus and


nitrogen"?  How about  that for No. 5?  Let's strike phosphate

and make it "nutrient"  in the places where it appears in  that


paragraph.  All right.


           May we move  on to No. 6 then?


           MR. MUEGGE:   One further question with regard  to


No. 5.  Does that apply to municipal plants only, or to both


municipal and industrial waste plants?


           MR. STEIN:   Both, I understand.

           Are there any further questions or objections  on

-------
                                                       131
No. 5?
           (No response.)
           MR. STEIN:  If not, can we move to No.  6?
           Mr. Printz?
           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 6 has a minor modification to
conform with what I indicated in the last session  of the
record would be done.  It reads as follows:
           "6.  It is recommended that the States  of
      Minnesota and Wisconsin establish a program  of
      monitoring and surveillance in area waters for
      evaluating progress in improvement of stream
      quality resulting from implementation of actions
      recommended by the Conferees.  The FWPCA should
      establish monitoring stations where appropriate
      within the study area to aid in the evaluation.
      Water quality surveillance activities should be
      coordinated and all information made available to
      the States, the FWPCA, and other parties with a
      legitimate interest."
           The only change made here is so that monitoring
stations put in by the Federal Government would not be
restricted to Minnesota waters or to the State of  Minnesota.
It would give them equal recognition in the two States.
           MR. STEIN:  Do you want to take a technical change
and make that "water quality" instead of "stream quality"?

-------
                                                       132
           DR. HARGRAVES:   Would it be more specific  to
say "the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration

should establish monitoring stations where appropriate on

portions of the Mississippi,  Minnesota and St,  Croix"?

           MR. PRINTZ:  We are staying within the study

area,  and that is included.

           MR. STEIN:   Is  there agreement with that?

           (No response.)

           MR. STEIN:   If  there is no disagreement,  let's go

on to  No. 7.

           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 7 received no change by  the

Technical Committee,  and it reads as follows:

           "7.  It is  recommended that all present and

      future sewerage  and  sewage treatment facilities

      be modified or designed and operated to eliminate

      bypassing of untreated wastes during normal main-
      tenance and renovation operations.  The appropri-

      ate State agency  (Minnesota Water Pollution Control
      Commission or Wisconsin Department of Resource

      Development) is  to be contacted for approval prior

      to any expected bypassing of waste.  All accidental

      or emergency bypassing or spillage should be

      reported immediately."

           DR. JELATIS:  Mr. Chairman?

           MR. STEIN:   Yes.

-------
                                                          133
           DR. JELATIS:  I think there is an inconsistency

in this.  The first sentence states the plants shall be

designed and operated to eliminate bypassing of untreated

wastes.  The next sentence says that the appropriate State

agency is to be contacted for approval prior to any expected

bypassing of waste.

           Can we correct this by just saying, instead of

"eliminate," "minimize," because I think it is understood

that there are times when bypassing of wastes has to be per-

formed in order to do some maintenance in plants in which

there is a complete parallel plant?

           MR. STEIN:  Let's see what these people say.

           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  Mr. Chairman, it is conceivable

that a plant can be built with a bypass, but there is no

reason why somebody can't stick a hose in the pump and pump

it up.

           MR. STEIN:  But let's take this:  Do you want

to leave this "eliminate-",

           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  I don't think the State agency

should be in the position of approving bypassing.  It is

placed in a position of being contacted for review and advice

with reference to bypassing.

           MR. STEIN:  Let me get off the record.

           (Discussion off the record.)

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

-------
                                                        134
           Do you want to leave this this way,  or change it?
           MR. SMITH:  Also, aren't we talking  about inter-
ceptor sewers as well as treatment plants, Mr.  Wisniewski?
           DR. JELATIS:  It mentions sewerage and sewage
treatment facilities.
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.
           MR. SMITH:  In which case I would tend to go
along with the Mayor, that this be made "minimize" Instead of
"eliminate."
           MR. STEIN:  Let's take "minimize."  Is this all
right?  Do you have any problem with this, Mr.  Poston?
           MR. POSTON:  Unless it is very desirable to have
"eliminate," I will go along with "minimize."
           MR. STEIN:  We have changed "eliminate" to
"minimize."
           MR.. HOIMER:  I think Mr. Prlntz is making a point
that we perhaps ought to consider.
           The elimination refers to normal maintenance of
renovation operations.  I wonder if that weakens it enough
here, "eliminate"?
           MR. PRINTZ:  Mr. Chairman, that was  specifically
written in,
           MR. MUEGOE:  I think you should just make it
"minimize bypassing of untreated wastes," period, and that
would cover the renovation period and all other periods.

-------
                                                        135




           MR. STEiN:  Is that all right?  "Minimize by-



passing of untreated wastes," and strike the rest of the



sentence.  Is that all right?



           DR. ODEGARD:  That would weaken it.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  No.  This completely changes the



whole substance.



           My question would be:  Can you run a plant




indefinitely 365 days out of the year without either bypassing



or providing some storage area?



           MR. STEIN:  Maybe you can, but I don't know any



plant that has done it.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  I say if you leave that out, then



during normal —



           MR. STEIN:  He wants to change that  to "minimize,"



"minimize bypassing of untreated wastes," period.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  They just said period, "bypassing



of untreated wastes," perl_ '.



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.



           MR. MUEGGE:  Dr. Hargraves, in my estimation that



would include normal maintenance and renovation operations.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  That is for you lawyers to say.




Will that stand up in court?



           MR. WILSON:  Mr. chairman, I concur  with Dr.




Hargraves1 suggestion.



           Prom a legal standpoint, I think you are on safer

-------
                                                      136



ground to rest with that proposal to "minimize bypassing



of untreated wastes," period.




           MR. STEIN:  All right.  If that is agreeable  and



there is no objection,  let's go on to No.  8.




           MR. PRINTZ:   Are you ready for  No. 8?



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.




           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  I would like to offer a suggestion



on the next sentence, that "the appropriate State agency is




to be contacted for review and advice prior to any expected




bypa'ssing of waste."  We know of situations where it may be




possible to avoid bypassing through certain practices without



interfering with an operation.




           MR. STEIN:  Do you want to change that to "is to




be contacted for review and advice," instead of "for approval"?




           MR. HODffiR:   That is what we are worrying about,




what the penalties would be.



           MR. STEIN:  To strike "be contacted for approval"



and make it "for review and advice."




           MR. WILSON:   Well, I think that should be the




more desirable practice.



           MR. STEIN:  Is that agreeable?



           DR. MARGRAVES:  Yes.




           MR. STEIN:  All right.  Are there any other



comments on this?



           Can we change that "should" in  the last sentence

-------
                                                        137
to "are to be"?  Is that agreeable?  Do you want to buy
"shall"?
           MR. SMITH:  "Shall."
           MR. STEIN:  "Shall."  All right.  That will read,
"All accidental or emergency bypassing or spillage shall be
reported Immediately."
           May we go on to No. 8?
           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 8 received a minimum change with
the addition of two words to satisfy the Minnesota agency,
and it now reads as follows:
           "8.  Wastes ( such as sludge from the St.
      Paul water treatment plant) which discharge into
      a municipal sewerage system be pretreated where
      necessary to avoid any detrimental effect on waste
      treatment operation."
           The words "where necessary" were added.
           MR. STEIN:  If there is no objection, we will move
on to No. 9.
           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 9 also received no  changes.   It
reads as follows:
           "9.  Programs be developed by those  responsible
       for the facilities to prevent or minimize the
       adverse effect of accidental spills of oils, gases,
       fuels, and other material capable of causing
       pollution.  The elements of such programs should

-------
                                                        138
       "include:

           "a.  Engineering works such as catchment areas,

                relief vessels, and dikes to trap spillage.

            b.  Removal of all spilled materials in a

                manner accpetable to the regulatory agencies.

            c.  Immediate reporting (by those responsible

                for the facilities) of any spills to the

                appropriate State agency.

            d.  In-plant surveys and programs to prevent

                accidental spills."

           MR. STEIN:  Is there any question on No. 9 one way

or the other?

           MR. SMITH:  We should like to comment on the fact

that the Commission does not have the explicit authority to

comply with all of these recommendations.

           However, legislation has been supported or at least

recommended for this.

           MR. STEIN:  That will be noted.

           If there is no objection to anything in No. 9, we

will proceed to No. 10.

           DR. HARGRAVES:  What about this matter of "removal

of all spilled materials in a manner acceptable to the

regulatory agencies"?  Just above it, of course, it says

"engineering works," and then goes on to say "relief vessels."

           We are, of course, quite self-conscious of the oil

-------
                                                        139
spillage of a few years ago that precipitated all this.
Now, this was no doing of ours, and we had no right to get
into it because it wasn't a menace to public health.  Tmis
was another department of government.
           But who is going to supply the relief vessels and
the other equipment to retrieve this once it gets into the
water, which is our premise?
           MR. PRINTZ:  The wording was written in, Dr.
Margraves, "be developed by those responsible for the facili-
ties."
           DR. HARGRAVES:  You mean the oil distilleries, and
so on, should have vessels and other things ready to do this?
Is this your intent?
           We already have them diked, of course.  We have
our laws and we have our regulations, that all of these are
diked, and the chances of spillage, I hope, have been mini-
mized to a point where it won't happen.
           If it does happen, one would have to be supplied
with a good many thousand dollars worth of equipment that is
almost never used.
           MR. BOSTON:  My understanding of this was to
reenforce your law.
           DR. HARQRAVES:  Well, we are pleased to have it
reenforced,  It is being enforced, I know, but you are
thinking along the lines of the removal of all spilled

-------
                                                     140



material, and this would be within the dikes or would be on




the land or on the road.  We hope we have some control there,



because we have all the transportation and other things in



which there are accidents, but it raises what would be a very



sticky question, if we had another oil spill from some




accident at 30 below zero, as it happened unhappily here.



           MR. STEIN:  Well, I think that it is modified'




by "those responsible for the facilities."  It has to be pre-



sumably on their land.




           Now, the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 -- I don't



know how good it is now because of various amendments, but




they have grappled with this problem for many years.  This



was under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, so we



can take no credit for its development, but I think they have



met this problem, Doctor, and have come up with what seems to



me a fairly workable solution.



           That is, if you get an oil spill over which we



have no jurisdiction, then you ask those responsible to correct



the spill.  The likelihood is if it gets in -the waters, they




are not going to have the equipment nor the facilities to do



it.  If they don't have it, then we are supposed to make




arrangements to correct that spill, and then we present the



offender with a bill.  If he does-not pay the bill we go to




court to collect.



           However, I think in the Corps of Engineers, in

-------
                                                         141
dealing with the oil Pollution Control Act since 1924,  this
has evolved as the most reasonable and sensible method  of
dealing with the problem.
           What it really boils down to is,  except where you
have a ship contributing to oil pollution because it sank,
and you have a large shipping concern that can throw a  tow
line and pull it away and do it itself, the  Federal Government
has to step in and use its own facilities, and then try and
collect.
           DR. HARGRAVES:  So the moral is to build far
enough back from the banks so that you catch it in the
entrapment.
           MR. STEIN:  Yes, sir.
           Are there any further comments or questions  on
No. 9?
           (No response. )
           MR. STEIN:  If not, may we move to No. 10?
           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 10 received no suggested changes
from the Technical Committee, and it reads as follows:
           "10.  It is recommended that combined storm
       and sanitary sewers be prohibited in all newly
       developed areas and be eliminated in existing areas
       wherever opportunity to do so is afforded by rede-
       velopment.  Present combined sewers should be con-
       tinuously patrolled and operated so as to convey

-------
                                                        142
       "the maximum amount of combined flows  to  and
       through the waste treatment  plant.   In addition,
       studies to develop effective control of wastes
       from this source should be continued by the MSSD
       and should be initiated by the City of South  St.
       Paul.  Although the immediate problem  is  a bac-
       terial one, both studies should also consider the
       discharge of BOD and solids.   Methods  to  be used
       to control wastes from combined sewers and a  time
       schedule for their accomplishment should  be reported
       to the Conference within two years  after  issuance  of
       the Conference Summary."
           MR. STEIN:  There was no significance to  your
eliminating the word "possible" after "maximum"  in the fourth
line, when you read it, was there?
           MR. PRINTZ:  No, sir. That was an error, if it  was
eliminated.
           MR. STEIN:  All right.  Are there  any comments or
questions?
           DR. ODEGARD:  Mr. Chairman, I have a  question  about
the redevelopment.  This could be interpreted to mean merely
when an area had been cleared of all buildings in a  real
clearance project and then rebuilt, and I  wonder if  there
isn't some in-between area where there should be an  urging  of
communities to consider investing in --

-------
                                                         143
           MR. STEIN:  I will tell you what we did in
Washington, D. C. I don't hold that up as a model, but I
think we are proceeding with the separation problem.

           We separate the sewers whenever there is a rede-
velopment area, and they also have a plan whereby, whenever
they rip up a street for a variety of purposes -- that is,
electrical work or repaving or taking up tracks — and they
get down there and separate and try to put in a separation
in that area of the city, the program is broader than the
redevelopment program there.
           I don't know whether you people want to adopt that
or not, but that may be a suggestion.  Wmt do you think?
           MR. MUEGGE:  I think in addition to "afforded by

redevelopment" we should add "or as otherwise reasonably
feasible."

           MR. STEIN:  All right, "or as otherwise reasonably
feasible."
           With that amendment and modification, is No.  10
acceptable?
           DR. ODEGARD:  In addition, further below,  where  it
recommends local study, I think it could be recommended  that
the localities should study setting up a program for con-
version.
           MR. STEIN:  Where is that?
           DR. ODEGARD:  That is the third sentence down there

-------
                                                         144
"In addition, studies to develop effective control of wastes
from this source," and so forth.
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.   How would you suggest changing
this?
           DR. ODEGARD:  "Studies to develop effective control
of wastes from this source and to eliminate combined  sewers."
           MR. STEIN:  "Prom this source and to  eliminate
combined sewers," after the  word "source"?
           DR. ODEGARD:  Yes.
           MR. STEIN:  Is that agreeable?
           MR. MUEGGE:  Chairman Stein,  can't we follow the
practice of requiring separation or treatment of all  the
wastes that are tributary to the sewage system,  and in case
they decide to separate the  rain water from the  combined
sewers, we require that they submit the program.  I think
that probably should be incorporated.
           MR. POSTON:  It seems to me what we have asked
for here is a study to develop effective control of wastes
from combined sewers, and whether we do this by  separation  or
by treatment of the total waste or some new method, I think
is more or less immaterial,  as long as we solve  the problem,
           I think that the  expense involved with separation
of sewers in a metropolitan area has been questioned  consider-
ably, and it is felt that perhaps we will do this with some
ocher procedure than separation, because there is a need to

-------
                                                          145
treat the wastes from separate sewers, or storm sewers, as
well as there Is the need to treat the wastes from combined
sewers.
           MR. MUEGGE:  I assume, Mr. Poston, from your
statement that the only communities Involved in the study
area are the Minneapolis Sanitary District and the City of
South St. Paul.
           MR. STEIN:  Do you have any specific language
to suggest to do that?
           MR. MUEGGE:  Yes.  "In addition, studies to develop,"
which is your third sentence --
           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  The proposal that I have now is,
"In addition, studies to develop effective control of wastes
from this source and to eliminate combined sewers should be
continued."
           Do you want that phrase added, "and to eliminate
combined sewers" in there?
           MR. WILSON:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point
out, in the first place, that such studies have been going on
for quite a while, and very substantial progress has been made
under the existing programs, in the actual elimination of
combined sewers in both cities, but this is a situation where
the proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof, or, I
might say that this program is related to the ultimate capacity
of this Twin Cities sewage system.  If the same result in

-------
actual effect on the receiving waters,  let us say,  could be



accomplished more cheaply by some other method,  then certainly



there should be no limitation of activity for the elimination



of combined sewers.




           Now, under this proposed language, that  would not



result, because I thought that was a reasonable  suggestion of




Mr. Muegge's, to insert "or as otherwise reasonably feasible,"




after the word "redevelopment," and then this other proposal



that studies to develop these matters should be  continued,



I don't see any objection to that either.



           The only objection could be, as I said,  the implica-



tion that this is the only method of accomplishing  a desired



result, and the effect on the receiving waters,  and certainly



the door should be left open for getting at other methods for



getting the same results.



           MR. MUEGQE:  My recommendation is that we approve



Recommendation No. 10, provided that the Sanitary District



and the City of South St. Paul are the only ones that have



combined sewers.



           MR. STEIN:  Is that correct?



           MR. SMITH:  No, this is not correct.   Minneapolis




and St. Paul also have.



           MR. MUEOGE:  Aren't they part of the Sanitary




District?



           MR. SMITH:  No.

-------
                                                       147





           MR, STEIN:   Does this cover them all?




           MR. SMITH:   This probably should be  broadened  out.



Some of the sewers in  Red Wing are combined.



           MR. MUEGGE:  Couldn't we do that by  just  using



"the City of Red Wing"?



           MR. SMITH:   I think it should be broadened.



           MR. STEIN:   Can we say, "In addition,  studies  to



develop control of wastes from this source should be con-



tinued or initiated by the localities involved"?



           MR. SMITH:   Yes.




           DR. JELATIS:  Yes.



           MR. STEIN:   All right.



           MR. POSTON:  Read that once more, please.



           MR. STEIN:   "In addition, studies to develop



effective control of wastes from this source should  be  con-



tinued or initiated by the localities involved."



           I don't want to eliminate the amendment down there,



Do you want that phrase, "from this source and  to eliminate



combined sewers" in there, or don't you want it?



           MR. SMITH:   Leave it in.



           MR. STEIN:   All right.  It reads:



           "In addition, studies to develop effective control



      of wastes from this source and to eliminate combined



      sewers should be continued or initiated by  the locali-




      ties involved."

-------
                                                         148



           With that,  if there are no further objections



or questions on that point,  we will go to  No. 11.



           Mr. Printz?



           MR. PRINTZ:  The  Federal conferee  recommends that



No. 11 read as follows:



           "11.  It is recommended that all industries



      discharging wastes to  the waters within the




      conference area  provide treatment at least equivalent



      to that recommended for municipalities.  In  no  case



      shall the settleable solids concentration exceed 5



      ml/1.  Limits on coliform densities  in  the effluent



      will be the same as for municipalities  unless  it



      can be demonstrated thdt pathogens are  absent  from



      the treated effluent.   The selection of the  industries



      which may be subject to this variance and the  per-



      formance of the  investigation to determine such vari-



      ance will be a joint effort between  the PWPCA  and the



      appropriate State agency."



           MR. STEIN:   Are there any questions or  comments?




I guess you did not get agreement on this  one?



           MR. SMITH:   We would like to suggest that the third



word be changed from "discharging" to "contributing/1 since,



in the case of river water use for cooling purposes,  that




would be covered.



           MR. STEIN:   Do you agree with that change to

-------
                                                      149
"contributing"?  if there is no objection to that, let's
change that.
           MR. MUEGGE:  I would like to go back to No.  5,  in
view of that, and have inserted the word "municipal," so that
it will read "new municipal waste treatment plants."
           MR. SMITH:  No. 5?
           MR. MUEGGE:  No. 5.
           MR. STEIN:  Do you want that?  Is there any  objec-
tion?
           MR. POSTON:  What would that do?
           MR. MUEGGE:  Well, it puts new systems under  the
same control as you probably are exercising for municipal
treatment systems.
           MR. STEIN:  Let me get this.  You prefer this to
be at least equivalent to that recommended for municipalities,
and he wants to refer back to No. 5 to make that new municipal
waste treatment facilities, so that you have something  to  refer
back to?
           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  Right.
           DR. JELATIS:  No. 5 refers to nutrient removal.
Is that the intent?
           MR. SMITH:  I think what No. 11 refers to is  No. 5.
           MR. MUEGGE:  No.  You have No. 4, in which you
talk about municipal waste treatment plants, and then I  asked
a question earlier whether No. 5 applied to industrial wastes

-------
                                                       150



and municipal plants, and you said you had another section.




           I don't think No. 11 is all-inclusive.   I think




you need the word "municipal."




           MR. PRINTZ:  I believe at that time we  were




referring to the reporting of the information,



           MR. STEIN:  No.  Here is the point:  I  think Mr.




Muegge is looking for a self-contained document.   If we




put "municipal" where he suggests under Paragraph  5 and we




refer back to it in Paragraph 11, wouldn't this tighten it




up?  What have you lost?




           MR. PRINTZ:  Well, by inserting the word "municipal"




in No. 5> you are losing the building-in of adequate capacity




in industrial waste treatment plants necessary for future




operational changes required for nutrient removal.




           MR. STEIN:  No.  You say "all industries contribut-




ing wastes to the waters within the conference area provide




treatment at least equivalent to that recommended  for munici-



palities."  This is what he is getting at.




           All right.  We will put "municipal" in  No. 5* and




let's go back.




           MR. MUEGGE:  I would like to make another change




in No. 5 now to make it "optimize phosphate removal."



           MR. STEIN:  We have done that.




           MR. MUEGGE:  Have you done that?




           MR. STEIN:  Yes, we have done It.




           All  right.   Let's  get  back to  No.  11.

-------
                                                        151
           MR. MUEOGE:  It should be in both places.

           MR. STEIN:  We have got it, and it is taken care

of.

           Do we have any problems on No. 11?

           (No response.)

           MR. STEIN:  If we do not have any problems there,

we have had a request from Minnesota.  They have an arrange-

ment made for lunch.

           We will recess for lunch and reconvene at half

past one.

           (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., a luncheon recess was

taken.)

-------
                                                        152





                    AFTERNOON SESSION



                                     (1:30 p.m.)



           MR. STEIN:  May we reconvene?



           I believe Mr. Smith may have a couple of points



he wants to bring up.



           MR. SMITH:  I would like to go back to No.  10,



to the second sentence, where the sentence states:  "Present



combined sewers should be continuously patrolled and operated."



           I wonder if the word "monitored" would not  be



better?



           MR. STEIN:  Any objection to that?   in Paragraph




10, fourth line, first word,  strike "patrolled" and sub-



stitute in lieu thereof "monitored."




           Without objection, that will be done.



           MR. SMITH:  Then,  in No. 11, the one that was Just



discussed, in the second line it states, "conference area



provide treatment."  We would like to change that to "provide



effluent," so that it would read, "All industries contribut-



ing wastes to the waters within the conference area provide



effluent at least equivalent to that recommended for munici-



palities."



           MR. STEIN:  Is that agreeable?



           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  You had better check that  with




No. 5 then.

-------
                                                        153






           MR. SMITH:  We are not talking about No.  5.   We



are talking more about No. 3 than we are No.  5.



           MR. STEIN:  Well, I don't know that there is any



real problem.



           MR. HOIMER:  "Provide effluent standards"?



           MR. STEIN:  No, "effluents."



           MR. SMITH:  I am thinking more of  No.  3 than I  am




No. 5.



           MR. STEIN:  "Provide effluents."  They are think-



ing in terms of a discharge.



           MR. SMITH:  Right.



           MR. STEIN:  If there is no objection,  that will




be done.



           Now, we have had an inquiry or two about  people



other than the conferees making statements.  It was  announced



a week or two ago, when we had the conference, that  this



session of the conference would be limited to statements by



the conferees and the technical staff and members of the



panel.



           I believe in order to change that  kind of thing,



we would have to have unanimous consent from  among the



conferees.  I have polled the conferees and I have not  found



unanimous consent.   The conferees believe they have the



points of view of all the people here.

-------
           My recommendation to any other than the  con-



ferees who want to get something brought up here  is that



they use their persuasiveness with one of the conferees to



bring this up at a particular point,  but we are not opening



this session of the conference to people other than the



conferees.




           With that, Mr.  printz, will you continue,  please?



           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  Before you go ahead,  back on  Page



2, the suggestion has been made that  instead of merely



"review and advice" under No. J, this be changed  to read



"is to be contacted for review, advice and its conditional



approval."



           MR. STEIN:  Why do they want "conditional"? Why



don't we say review, advice and approval?   Is that all right?



           That "conditional approval" seems to me, at least,



from the Federal point of view, to get into the detail of a



State kind of operation.  If you want to break your approval



into a conditional approval, this is  a State privilege, but



I think for the Federal Government to talk in terms of that




kind of detail in State administration would go beyond what




we should do.



           MR. HOIMER:  I would concur with that, but I would



suggest that the word "authorization" while it results in



the same action, avoids the business  of approving bypassing.




In other words, it constitutes approval, we concede.

-------
                                                         155




           MR. STEIN:  Do you want to say "review,  advice



and authorization?  How about that?




           MR. HOLMER:  Yes.




           MR. MUEGGE:  That  is better.




           MR. SMITH:  All right.




           MR. WILSON:  What  change was  suggested  there?




           MR. STEIN:  That is No. 7.  Where we have "review




and advice" we have changed it to  "review,  advice  and




authorization."




           MR. WILSON:  You have added the  word "authoriza-



tion"?




           MR. STEIN:  "And authorization."  Right.




           MR. MUEGGE:  Chairman Stein,  may someone  read  No.




3 and find out how it reads at the present  time?




           MR. STEIN:  No. 3  reads as follows:




           "All municipalities and other institutions



       discharging sewage into the waters covered  by




       the conference shall provide at least secondary




       biological treatment.   Also, continuous  disinfection




       of the effluent shall  be provided from at least



       April through November.  This treatment  is  to




       produce an effluent which will not exceed:




           a.  50 mg/1 5-Day  (20°C) BOD.




           b.  50 mg/l of suspended solids.




           c.  5,000 coliform/100  ml (except where  'd1

-------
                                                         156



                applies.)




           d.  1,000 coliform/100 ml between May and



               October, inclusive, where receiving waters



               are used for whole body contact activities.



           "These limits are to be followed except where



more stringent ones are given in the specific recommendations



or are required by State Water Pollution Control agencies."



           MR. MUEGGE:  Back to after "secondary biological




treatment," wouldn't it read better if we just added "and



also continuous disinfection"?




           I did want separate sentences, but it must provide



the initial secondary treatment and chlorination during the



period indicated.   Editorially, I think this could be done



by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.



           MR. STEIN:  If you want to do that, I think you



have a point.  We could say, "and also continuous disinfec-



tion to handle the effluent from May through November,



inclusive,"to coincide with Subparagraph "d" below in the



format, if you want to, but I think this is largely an




editorial change, Mr. Muegge, and I don't think we are



changing the meaning.



           Anything you want, I am sure would be agreeable.




Does this disturb you the way it is?



           MR. MUEGGE:  Well, I Just wanted to make sure that



we are going to have disinfection during that specific

-------
                                                         157

period, but in all cases are going to have good secondary


treatment.


           MR. STEIN:  All right.   Let's tr> it this way to


get this settled, because I think  this is an important point.


           Let's say, "at least secondary treatment and also


continuous disinfection of the effluent between April and


November, inclusive."  All right?   Does that satisfy you


from a literary point of view?


           MR. MUEGGE:  I think maybe we should go  back to

splitting it.


           MR. STEIN:  All right.   You proposed that in the


first place.


           MR. MUEGGE:  Yes.


           MR. STEIN:  We were happy the way it was.  You are
                                   *•
raising the point.


           MR. MUEGGE:  I think your Paragraph a and your


Paragraph b,  though, should be under the secondary  treatment,


and that the "c" and "d" should preferably be after the

disinfection.


           MR. HOLMER:  Why don't  you just say "these


treatments are to produce an effluent"?


           MR. STEIN:  I think, sir, what we are doing is


perfecting a draft.


           Has anyone any doubt of what this means, or what


this says?  If we don't, perhaps we have had so much trouble

-------
                                                        158




with this and we can put this at rest and go on,  because I



am sure we can perfect this.



           MR. MUEOGE:  I think the staff should  be able to



come up with some good language.




           MR. STEIN:  The problem that we have on this is



that we have a lot of conferees, and it is like a statute.




When the conferees are together, you never can produce a



draft as good as the staff can do, and the staff  can never



produce a draft as good as one man can do, but this is a



composite.



           Now, unless there  is a specific amendment to



change it, I think what we are doing is dealing with drafts-



manship and not meaning.




           MR. MUEGGE:  Well, I think that is right.




           MR. STEIN:  And I  think the meaning is clear.



If anyone has any doubt, I would like him to raise it.



           MR. POSTON:  Mr. Chairman, while we are on No.  3*



I have a lot of feeling about this particular recommendation,



in that it seems to me that we have made it possible to get



along with less than some of these plants are able to produce,



and I would like to put in a sentence preliminary to or right



after Paragraph d here, which would say that, "All plants



will be maintained and operated to obtain maximum possible



efficiency from the plant as it is designed and constructed."

-------
                                                        159





            I see some of these possibilities for some of



 the  plants  to get by with a lot less than they possibly will



 if they are not operated and maintained in good manner, and



 I think 50  parts of BOD and 50 parts of suspended solids will



 be much higher than ordinarily we would like to see out of



 these  plants.



            This has been my concern here, and I think this




 would  help  in some small way.



            MR. STEIN:  Read the sentence again.



            MR. POSTON:  "All plants will be maintained and



 operated  to obtain the maximum possible efficiency from the



 plant  as  designed and constructed."



            MR. MUEGGE:  Wouldn't that be better after the



 paragraph below, a, b, c, d, or part of that paragraph?



            MR. POSTON:  All right.  That is where I intended




 it to  be, after Paragraph d.



            MR. MUEGGE:  After Paragraph d, or after the



 paragraph following "d"?



            MR. STEIN:  That would be all right, I think.



            MR. POSTON:  Yes.



            MR. STEIN:  I think it might be better as another




 paragraph after that paragraph if you are going to do it.



            Again, we are speaking of draftsmanship.  This



 doesn't follow anything,  but it is Just another paragraph at




the  end.

-------
                                                        i6o



           Is that agreeable?



           (No response.)




           MR. STEIN:  If that is agreeable,  that will be



done.



           MR. WILSON:  Where are you putting that in?



           MR. STEIN:  The paragraph right after this one



at the end (indicating).



           MR. WILSON:  Oh, yes.




           MR. STEIN:  If that is agreeable and if there are



no other situations to bring up,  Mr. Printz,  may we go on?



           MR. PRINTZ:  Before we begin,  Mr.  Chairman, I



have one point of clarification.



           In No. 10, there were  some changes in that this



was to be applied to all municipalities,  and  I think the



word "localities" is used.



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.



           MR. PRINTZ:  In the next sentence, which now



reads, "Although the immediate problem is a bacterial one,



both studies" remains, and that word "both" should then be



edited to read "these studies."



           MR. STEIN:  Yes, that  should be done witnout



objection.  I don't think that changes the meaning.  All




right.



           Will you continue, Mr. Printz?



           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 12 contained no disagreement at

-------
                                                       161
the time of the technical discussion.  It reads as follows:
           "12.  It is recommended that industries dis-
       charging wastes to the waters maintain operating
       records containing information on waste discharge
       rates and concentrations of constituents found in
       significant quantities in their wastes.
           "This information should be summarized and
       submitted to the appropriate State agency at monthly
       intervals for review and evaluation.   These records
       are to be maintained in open files of the State
       agency for use by all persons with a  legitimate
       interest."
           MR. STEIN:  Is there any objection, comment or
question on this?  If not, let's go on.
           MR. MUEOGE:  There may be a legal question, but
let's not go into it.
           MR. STEIN:  We're ahead.  Let's go on to 13.
           MR. PRINTZ: "13.  It is recommended that all
     watercraft provide treatment for disposal satis-
     factory to the water pollution control  agencies of
     the respective States.  Federally licensed watercraft
     are to provide treatment satisfactory to the Federal
     Government."
           MR. POSTON:  Do you want me to comment?
           MR. STEIN:  There is a legal question there too.

-------
                                                         162
           MR. POSTON:  I think we will have difficulty
living with this particular statement.
           Personally, I like the requirement that they have
in Wisconsin.  I think we must have uniformity between the
two States, particularly on the St. Croix River,  where boats
are licensed on both sides of the river.  It would not be
equitable to have a different standard  for those  registered
on one side versus the other side.
           In fact, I would question whether we would have
any boats registered on the side of the river that had the
most demanding treatment requirements for their watercraft.
           MR. STEIN:  What would you suggest?
           MR. HOI/ffiR:  Mr. Chairman, I think before the
changing of the language, we need to recognize that we are
not an interstate compact commission here and we  are dealing
with the statutes which are not yet adopted in Wisconsin,
but are under consideration, and with Minnesota legislation.
           About all we can do at this point, it  seems to
me, is to agree to a recommendation like this in  No. 13,
and trust to duly authorized agencies,  like the Minnesota-
Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, to provide the needed
pressures on the respective States to secure uniform legis-
lation.
           We recognize this is desirable, but there is
nothing this conference can do to achieve that uniformity.

-------
                                                        163



           MR. SMITH:  I think this is true.  Not only that,




but I believe the Federal Government has the responsibility



where Federally registered craft are concerned.   They should



control these themselves.




           MR. POSTON:  According to what standard?



           MR. SMITH:  This is up to you.  If we have




standards, there is no reason why the Federal Government



can't establish standards.




           MR. STEIN:  Do you prefer this Paragraph 13 to  the



original 13?



           MR. SMITH:  Yes.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  There was a very good reason for



this too, Mr. Stein.




           At the present time, disposal systems for boats



are of very questionable worth.  Many are already purchased



and &is in boats.  This was legislation that was rather



hurried, I think, before the industry was ready to supply



equipment.  There was a scramble to get into the field, and



I have many associates who own boats that are most unhappy



with the facilities that they have had to pay good money to




install.



           If we went to holding tanks, which probably is  as



good as any, we still have to arrange with marinas and towns



and other places to dispose of it, so it still may be disposed



around the bend into the river again after it has been

-------
                                                       164
consolidated.

           MR. STEIN:  I am sure you are right,  Doctor.
           Speaking for myself,  we have many thousands of
dollars invested in trying to perfect these marine facili-
ties, and, as a matter of fact,  the enforcement  operation paid

for a demonstration on all the Coast Guard boats in the Great
Lakes in the New York area, trying to get them to work.

           I am not sure that if I knew the technical prob-
lems  I would have gotten into when we authorized enforcement
to pick up this contract that it would not have  stimulated
our research men to take it up instead.
           However, I think you are right.  We are still
feeling our way in this area.
           Do you have any objection to this No. 13, or do
you have any amendments to it?
           MR. POSTON:  I think I agree with Dr. Hargraves
that they may do some of these things, but I think until
somebody lays out some proposed ground rules or  shows leader-
ship in ways that this can be handled in a suitable manner,
we are not going to make any progress.
           DR. HARGRAVES:  We have a law.  We have five types
of equipment that have been approved, if they haven't been

recommended.
           There is a study going on, as I have  been told,
at the University of Michigan, to try to resolve this problem

-------
                                                        165
and come up with the best equipment possible,  and I would
anticipate this will then become a standard for most States.
           I think we are just ahead of ourselves to try to
change it, because we would change thousands of dollars
worth of equipment that men have already put in,  and they
won't have much better to turn to if they are  not able to
empty their tanks in marinas.
           MR. POSTON:  Does this mean then that  we would
have three sets of criteria for the boats to comply with,
depending upon the location of their registry?
           DR. MARGRAVES:  You are not talking particularly
about criteria.  You are talking here about the type of
treatment.
           MR. POSTON:  Three  different types  of  treatment,
depending on where the boat is registered?
           DR. HARGRAVES:  Yes, until we all know better.
           MR. STEIN:  I am not sure that that would not be
a wise thing, Mr. Poston, to try to experiment with. This is
not the easiest kind of operation.
           You know we have been in this up to our ears.
I am not sure that we have right now any satisfactory on-board
treatment for wastes.
           Assuming that we did, what would be the effect on
landlocked waters if we had, for example, a macerator and a
chlorinator that put this stuff out in a satisfactory way?

-------
                                                       166



Talking about nutrients, you get a small lake, and what



would happen?




           On the other hand, the other solution is the



holding tank operation, and the holding tank operation



assumes an adequate shore facility and the kind of shore



facility that does not get dumped, as the doctor pointed out,



around the bend, or the guy does not dump his tank around



the bend before he gets to shore.



           In other words, I think what happened in this



field is that the States and we both recognize we have a




pretty tough problem, and I am not sure that a diversity of



regulation and equipment might not be in order until we know



something a little more definite about this problem.  I don't



think that this is a detriment, considering the present



stage of the art.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Well, this arose because of one



of our larger small inland lakes, because they were concerned



about pollution, but it did not take out the nutrients, as



you can see, though it may have helped some with the



chlorination, aii/lvugh I have a friend who has shown me that



he macerates, drops in a little chlorine, and it is out in



the water in 30 seconds.  There is no holding time and it is



not satisfactory.



           MR. STEIN:  There are devices o.i the market now,



Doctor, that provide a holding time on a small boat for about

-------
                                                     16?





three or four flushes, and this provides a sufficient time.



           The difficulty is that you run this around and



you try this and put this on a bigger boat, and you try to



put them on the Coast Guard boats, and all the boys hit the



deck on a watch at about the same time, and those things are



being flushed constantly.  You don't have the holding time.



Or, people will go on a larger boat and have a party, or some-



thing, and you know what happens.




           DR. HARGRAVES:  That's right.



           MR. STEIN:  So I think by just a few of these



points, you recognize that we have not solved this problem.




This is really a difficult one.



           I think that Wisconsin and Minnesota,  because of



all your waters and your lakes, are among the leaders in the



country, and, goodness knows, we hope one of you is going to



come up with a solution that we can adopt.



           We are trying to experiment and do this, and I am



sure that if we come up with something that works, you will



adopt it, but I would hesitate for the conferees to put out



a program that tends to be definitive in an area which is still



very tentative.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Well, I would feel that we ought



to leave it as is, with each State in which the boat is



registered having its own.




           DR. ODEGARD:  We have been working on this problem,

-------
                                                      168




as you know, in the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Com-



mission, and we have come up with a solution which we are



presenting to both States.




           We are not organized as a lobbying group and we



are not very persuasive, so there is no telling what will



happen to it, but this has been attempted and I think that



they feel this is as good an answer as is written here.



           MR. STEIN:  If there is no objection,  could we



move on to No. 14?



           MR. MUEGGE:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to see  the



second sentence stricken in its entirety.



           MR. STEIN:  The second sentence?




           MR. MUEGGE:  The second sentence completely




eliminated.



           MR. SMITH:  What happens to the Federally licensed



craft?



           MR. MUEGGE:  That license does not regulate the



toilets.



           MR. SMITH:  It does, as far as we are concerned.




           MR. MUEGGE:  Well, you allow it.



           MR. SMITH:  We have no control over Federally




documented craft.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  There are many friends of mine



who have large enough craft that are Federally registered,



and they do not fall under our jurisdiction.  They have

-------
                                                       169





complied, but they tell me that they did not have to.



           MR. SMITH:  I can't see why the Federal Government



shouldn't have to take some responsibility.  In fact, they



should be the leaders in this field.



           MR. STEIN:  Are we in agreement the way it stands,



or do you want it out?



           The Federal conferee I think would have no objec-



tion either way.



           MR. MUEQGE:  Well, I don't think they can operate.



           MR. STEIN:  You know, in this field we have been



promoting, as far as we can, State regulations.



           I want to put this to you, because this is always



what the lawyer's Job is.  What we are dealing with is with



the facts, as I have stated, and we are dealing with the art.



I think we have to recognize -- and I would recognize -- that




if Minnesota had the belief that they didn't control Federal



craft and wanted to make a charge on the Federal Government



to do that, I don't know in the long run that you would be



satisfied with that.



           I would like and hope that we would try,  for the



time being, to put this under State regulation rather than



Federal regulation, but if Minnesota wants us to take a whack



at this, we will be delighted to.




           MR. HOLMER:  Why don't we at the end of that



sentence add a phrase which says, "as well as to the State

-------
                                                       170

agencies."

           "Federally licensed water-craft are to provide

treatment satisfactory to the Federal Government as well  as

to the State agencies."

           MR. STEIN:  How about that?

           MR. POSTON:  I just indicated to Dr.  Hargraves

that I felt that we would require,  as far as we  are able  to,

and I think we have a lot of teeth  in our Executive Order,
                  t
treatment at least equivalent to the treatment required by

the State.

           MR. SMITH:  This is Just what the statement says,

"as well as to the State agencies."

           MR. STEIN:  You know, let roe tell you,  fellows,

you are kidding yourselves here.

           We may be able to require that kind of treatment

on the Federally owned boat.  The notion that an Executive

Order or the Federal Government is  going to require that  on

a Federally licensed boat is a horse of a different color.

           I think the whole thrust of this has  been that

the States will regulate these facilities on the boats and

not us.

           Of course, when the things get beyond the kind of

a pleasure craft and you get into a big ship, that is a

different story, but in the kind of boats that you are talking

about here, I think that the notion is that the  States are

-------
                                                      171
going to have the chance to do this.



           Now, I very much suspect If the States fall down



on this job, there will be a movement to Federal regulation,



but that time has not come yet, and I would hope the States




would take up the slack and we would not have to do it.



           MR. POSTON:  Do you mean, Mr. Chairman, that if



the State has a requirement for certain treatment on the



pleasure craft and this particular pleasure craft decides to



go to the Federal Government for its license, that you would



not require equivalent to what the State has?



           MR. STEIN:  I don't know that we would or we



wouldn't, but I don't see that the Executive Order requires




us to do that, because they are dealing with Federal installa-



tions and Federally-owned operations, not private boats that



are licensed by the Federal government,



           We do not handle the licensing.  This is outside



our jurisdiction, and we would be speaking for another Federal



Agency.  I can't speak for them, but I don't see anything in



our order which will give us jurisdiction over that, and I




don't want to leave a false impression that we are going to



take up a job when we don't have it.



           Aa a matter of fact, the whole theory, again as



was pointed out, is that this should be, we hope, a State



regulation.  I think a boat, whether it is licensed by the

-------
                                                      172




Federal Government or by a State, If it operates In a



particular State's waters, should be subjected to the sanitary



requirements of that State.



           MR. POSTON:  I'll buy that.



           MR. STEIN:  If we can go on, let's go on to 14.



           MR. PRINTZ:  "l4.  It is recommended that garbage



     or refuse not be dumped along the banks of the rivers




     and no open dumps be allowed on the flood plain.



     River banks now used as dump sites should be restored



     to an esthetically acceptable condition."



           MR. STEIN:  Any comment or question?  If not,  let's



move to 15.



           DR. ODEGARD:  There is another place in here where



you request somebody to report after two years to this



conference.



           I wonder if there is ^ iy sense in having proper



authority report through investigation of these refuse dumps,



and if nothing happens, that there be a follow-up?



           DR. MARGRAVES:  Our experience is that the general



public reports these faster than anybody can investigate them




in our State.



           As a matter of fact, they have circulated what was



a four-page memorandum to all municipalities and different



groups, and I think we are getting very good cooperation.  It



is new, but I think we will get rid of the dumps along the

-------
                                                       173




shores or edges of the river before long.



           MR. STEIN:  I think,  as a lot of the States have



agreed, that at the conclusion of the conference you may



want to have a series of progress meetings at six-month



intervals to see what has happened.  Then you can pick this



up, and, of course, you pick up various other things.



           But this is something that you have to determine,



and the Secretary of the Interior may decide to do that anyway



if he wants to keep checking on progress.



           I think this applies to many things here, such as



the reporting that you indicated on that two-year basis,



which was on stormwater, and that is because there was an



unresolved kind of operation where someone had to come up



with a plan.



           I think Paragraph 14 comes pretty much as a



resolution, and it seems to me that if we put our minds to



it, we might come back in six months or a year and be able



to have that under control as something that has been done.



           For example, our experience on the Missouri River,



where we had all these open dumps, where garbage and refuse



was collected in the city and dumped in the river, and dumps



put on the side of the river, with bulldozers pushing the



material into the river, is that when it got too high this



was corrected, long before the cities and industries had



waste treatment.

-------
           This is something the people can see and they



push to get it corrected.




           MR. MUEQGE:  Chairman Stein, Wisconsin law would



not permit dumping on the flood plain.



           MR. STEIN:  Right.



           Well, what do you think of that?  How is Minnesota



on that?



           MR. SMITH:  We will permit sanitary land fills



on the flood plain under certain conditions.



           We feel the way it is worded now,  that this is



satisfactory to Minnesota.



           MR. MUEGQE:  Why shouldn't this be the same as



the others we have had, which would conform with the State



requirements?



           MR. SMITH:  You would qualify this by stating




the State requirements?



           MR. MUEGGE:  Yes.



           MR. STEIN:  Do you want to do that?



           DR. JELATIS:  What is the change in that now?



           MR. STEIN:  Do you have open dumps on the flood




plain now, Mr. Smith?



           MR. SMITH:  We may have, but we are correcting



these and we will not permit any more,  so this part of it



there is no question about.



           Apparently, it is the sanitary land fill.  We.

-------
                                                       175





will permit sanitary land fills on the flood plains under



certain conditions.  Actually, that last sentence --




           MR. STEIN.'  Why do we need the last sentence?



           MR. POSTON:  You mean "river banks now used as



dump sites should be restored to an esthetically acceptable



condition"?



           MR. STEIN:  Are we using some river banks as



dumps right now?




           DR. JELATIS:  Mr. Chairman, it seems there is a



little confusion.  We are talking, I believe, about the last



sentence in the original Summary Report, that says, "present



open dumps on the flood plain should be converted to sanitary



land fills operated acceptably to the appropriate State




agencies."



           That language has been eliminated from the proposed



new draft.  Was that intentional?




           MR. MUEGGE:  Well, any dumping on the flood



plains should be compatible to State requirements, would be



a better way of putting that.



           MR. SMITH:  All right.



           MR. STEIN:  The difficulty that I see with that,



gentlemen, is that the State requirements in Minnesota now



have allowed open dumps.  You may not permit any.



           I don't think we are achieving anything.  I think




we are further ahead here when we say there are no open

-------
                                                       176




dumps on the flood plain.




           This is satisfactory to Mr.  Holmer,  and it is



to Wisconsin, so we will move on to No.  15.




           MR. POSTON:   We will leave it as  it  is?



           MR. STEIN:  As it is.  Yes.



           Would you go on to 15?



           MR. PRINTS:   "15.  It is recommended that



     municipalities, industries, and miscellaneous waste



     sources upstream from and outside  of the conference




     area on the Mississippi, Minnesota  and  St. Croix



     Rivers, and their  tributaries be sufficiently



     controlled so that waters entering  the  conference



     area conform to Recommendation No.  2."



           MR. SMITH:  I have a question, Mr. Chairman, as



to what is meant by "miscellaneous waste sources."



           MR. STEIN:  I'm with you.



           MR. POSTON:   How about a cattle feeding yard?



           MR. STEIN:  I don't think that is miscellaneous.




If you want to put "other" —



           MR. POSTON:   It isn't a municipality.



           MR. STEIN:  You can put "other."



           MR. SMITH:  Our question is,  how  are you going to



control some of these?   Are these controllable?



           MR. STEIN:  A cattle feedin&  operation?  Mr. Smith,



we have gotten that at  other conferences.

-------
                                                       177



           MR. SMITH:  Would you change the word "sources"



to "discharges"?



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  How about "other"?



           MR..PRINTZ:  Mr. Chairman, there we were thinking




of isolated homes that may be discharging to the rivers,



which are neither municipal nor industrial, but are a



miscellaneous waste discharge.



           MR. STEIN:  If you mean to say domestic and



industrial waste discharges, that would make sense and that



would cover it.




           I think a cattle feeding lot is an industry.



           You always raise a question when you have the



word "miscellaneous."  You know, again, whenever someone  sets



up a file or a procedure in our agency and they put down



"miscellaneous," I know they have failed and they have not



categorized it.



           Instead of "municipalities  and industries,"



why don't you say "domestic and industrial waste discharges"?



All right?



           MR. DAMON:  Would you repeat that, Mr. Chairman?



           MR. STEIN:  "Domestic and industrial waste dis-



charges. "



           MR. SMITH:  "Domestic and industrial"?



           MR. STEIN:  "Waste discharges."



           DR. ODEGARD:  Mr. Chairman, is this provision

-------
                                                      178






applied to outside of the area?  Is there a comparable



provision applied to, say, a house within the area?



           MR. PRINTZ:  I don't think so.



           DR. ODEGARD:   Maybe we could insert a word then.



           MR. STEIN:  It is covered, isn't it,  "from and




outside"?



           DR. ODEGARD:   "Upstream from and outside," but



not within.



           In other words, if a feedlot for cattle were  with-



in the area, it is not covered by this unless it is  covered



some place else.



           MR. SMITH:  It is industry and would  be covered



under"industry."



           MR. STEIN:  We could strike out "upstream," "from



and outside."  Do you want to strike out "upstream"?



           DR. HARGRAVES:  The whole thing is to keep from



contaminating this with upstream effluents.



           MR. STEIN:  Let me ask you this:  Haven't we  got



all the significant houses in this area covered  by this?   I



don't know that we are not straining at something here.  After




all, you are in a metropolitan area.



           MR. HOLMER:  That is true for Minnesota.



           MR. STEIN:  How about Wisconsin?



           MR. HOLMER:  Do we have a lot of cottages isolated?

-------
                                                     179
           DR. ODEGARD:  Oh, yes,  and also in Minnesota.



There are whole communities in Minnesota.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Would you go along and just add



"municipal, Industrial or domicile"?



           MR. POSTON:  If you put "domestic" in, "domestic"



would take care of the domiciles.




           DR. HARGRAVES:  Fine.  We are talking about in




this area, you see, and this relates to outside of the area.



This will prevent tributaries to the Minnesota and to the



Mississippi from bringing in a higher contamination than  we



permit in the rivers.




           DR. JELATIS: This section is headed "Upstream



Bacterial Control" in the report.



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  Dr. Odegard brings up the point




that we have inside the territory that we are talking about



a single domicile.



           MR. STEIN:  All right.   Again, let's try it.



           "Domestic and industrial waste discharges



upstream from and outside of the conference area, as well as



those inside the area, on the Mississippi, Minnesota and




St. Croix Rivers," and so on, and that will cover that by



putting in "as well as those inside the area.1'



           MR. HOUMER:  Why don't we add a second sentence

-------
                                                     180



there?  "Similar standards shall be applied to single



domiciles within the area."




           DR. MARGRAVES:  This would be way back on Page



29 under "Treatment of Municipal Wastes," though.



           "All municipalities," and so on, and then you



could put "single domiciles with its own little plant."



           MR. STEIN:  All right.  Can we try this?  Let's



go back to Paragraph 3.



           "All municipalities, institutions, and other



sources discharging," and then we will have the Industries



referring back to Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 11, and we will



be set.  Right?



           MR. POSTON:  Yes.



           MR. STEIN:  "3.  All municipalities, institutions



and other sources."



           MR. HOIMER:  But that does not affect single



residences.



           DR. MARGRAVES:  How about installation?  Is that



a house or a workshop or a poultry yard?



           MR. STEIN:  I think we are straining at something




here.



           DR. MARGRAVES:  I know we are.



           MR. STEIN:  We are straining at something here



that isn't going to be much different and create much of a



problem.  I think Paragraph 15 deals with the cumulative

-------
                                                       181






problem of outside sources.




           DR. HARGRAVES:  Correct.



           MR. STEIN:  And I think if we are dealing with



individual sources within the area, we are kind of straining,



so we are not going to do it.



           If there was any credence to the argument that



we put forward before when we talked about 90 percent treat-



ment, but it is not going to make a big difference to the



small community that is putting out its wastes untreated,



why should you fool around with a single house?



           If that is the case, with that amendment, with




that "domestic and industrial," we will go on to Paragraph 16.



           MR. PRINT?:  Mr. Chairman, then you have deleted



the "miscellaneous waste discharges"?




           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  Here is how this reads:



           "Domestic and industrial waste discharges," and



then follow with the rest  ,f it.



           All right.  Go on.



           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 16, there was no disagreement



   at the time of the technical session, and it reads as




follows:



           "16.  It is recommended that maximum waste



      loadings from all sources between and including



      the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District and

-------
                                                     182




      "the South St.  Paul Sewage Treatment  Plants  be



      such that a minimum dissolved oxygen  content of



      3.0 mg/1 can be maintained during the 7-consecu-



      tive day, once  in 10-year low summer  flow  in the



      reach of river  between Mississippi River miles



      836.4 and 815.2.  To attain this, combined wastes



      loads from these sources  should  not exceed 68,500



      pounds/day of 5-<3ay (20°C) BOD,  exclusive  of com-




      bined sewer overflows. Suspended solids loadings



      discharged to this reach  (exclusive of combined



      sewer overflows) should not exceed 85,500  pounds/




      day in order to minimize  sludge  deposits."



           MR. STEIN:  Any comments?



           MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr.  Printz




might review briefly  how the 68,500 pounds  was obtained  as



far as the 5-day BOD  was concerned?



           MR. PRINTZ:  Yes. The 68,500 was obtained based



on the studies, the assimilative capacities of the waters



during our study, projecting the dissolved  oxygen  requirements



to those flow conditions of 7-consecutlve day once in 10-



year, and determining the maximum allowable loading from that




reach of the river.



           This maximum allowable loading from that reach



of the river would be such that the required dissolved  oxygen



content would be maintained in  the critical reaches of  the

-------
                                                      183




Mississippi River.



           MR. SMITH:  In doing this, certain assumptions



had to be made concerning the dissolved oxygen and the



effluents from these treatment plants.  Is that correct?



           MR. PRINTZ:  Yes, that is correct, and these are



all indicated in the report on findings, what these were,



and in the supplemental report furnished to you at the last



session.




           MR. SMITH:  And it is possible, as more treatment



facilities are provided, that we may find that the 68,500



pounds may be too restrictive, and, on the other hand, it may



not be restrictive enough.  Is that right?



           MR. PRINTZ:  I would like to think of the 68,500



as being a guide to the State in determining what the maximum



allowable contribution can be to that reach of the river,



and it would be up to the State then to apportion this out



and take into consideration new treatment plants.



           This is more of a guide indicating what we con-



sider to be in the maximum amounts of loadings which can be



put into that river and still maintain these oxygen condi-



tions at the critical period during this flow.



           MR. SMITH:  You don't feel then that this is an



arbitrary figure?




           MR. PRINTZ:  No, sir, we do not.



           MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments or

-------
                                                       184






questions on this?  Can we accept Paragraph 16?



           (No response. )




           MR. STEIN:   Without objection,  we will go to 17.



           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 17 reads as follows:



           "17.  The loadings to the waters of the




      conference area  of substances which  impart  un-



      palatable flavor to food fish or result in



      noticeable offensive odors in the vicinity  of the



      waters, be restricted and controlled so as  to en-



      hance the quality of the waters above that  which




      will result when abatement works currently  under



      construction and presently inoperative are  completed



      and bo prevent such conditions from  occurring.  If



      such conditions  continue to exist following installa-



      tion of the abatement works recommended by  the



      Conferees, further reductions in phenolic loadings



      will be required."



           MR. STEIN:   Any comments?



           MR. MUEGGE:  Chairman Stein, I  wonder  why they



went from "offensive odors" to "phenolic loadings" in the



last sentence?



           MR. STEIN:   I get your point.  Why did you do




that?



           MR. PRINTZ:  We did use "phenolic" in  the last




sentence, but not in the first.

-------
                                                       185




           MR. STEIN:  Why did you switch in midstream?



           MR. PRINTZ:  We recognize, sir, that there may



be other substances besides phenolics, either individually



or in combination with them, which would impart unpalatable




flavor to food fish.



           We have stated that if the conditions continue



to exist after abatement, the only way in which we can



attempt to correct this is to put in specialized treatment.



This specialized treatment would have to be, in our estimate,



applied toward a phenolic reduction.



           MR. STEIN:  But Mr. Muegge has pointed out that




if we couch this in general terms, such as"further reduc-



tions in taste-producing substances will be required," what




is wrong with that?



           MR. PRINTZ:  Nothing.  "Further reductions in



taste-producing substances will be required."



           MR. STEIN:  Let's try that.



           Are there any other changes or modifications




suggested in Paragraph 17?



           (No response. )



           MR. STEIN:  If not, let's go on to 18.



           MR. PRINTZ:  On 18 there were no changes.  It



reads as follows:



           "18.  It is recommended that an engineering



      study of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District

-------
                                                      186



      "sewerage system be undertaken to determine what



      changes are required to make unnecessary the



      practice of bypassing wastes periodically for the



      purpose of cleaning the inverted siphon under the



      Mississippi River."




           MR. MUEGOE:  Hasn't that previously been covered




somewhere?



           MR. PRINTZ:  No, sir.




           MR. SMITH:  These are  under specific recommenda-



tions.



           MR. STEIN:  When do they do this?  When do they




report?



           I have a little trouble with this recommendation.




           MR. PRINTZ:  I am trying to recall if this was



changed slightly at the time of the last session.  I believe



we included the old wording.  I think there was new wording.



           May I re-read that? At the time of the last



session, that last sentence was reworded, so that it reads



as follows:



           "An engineering study  of the Minneapolis-St.




Paul Sanitary District sewerage system be undertaken to



determine what changes are required to make unnecessary the



practice of bypassing wastes periodically for the purpose of



cleaning an interceptor line to the plant."



           There is a misunderstanding, I believe.

-------
                                                         187
            MR.  STEIN:   This  is  so  involved  to a  third



 person.   Again,  I  am  just  speaking here  for the  purpose of



 clarity.



            Who  is  to  undertake  the engineering study?



            MR.  PRINTZ:   The  Sanitary  District.




            MR.  STEIN:   When  are they  to  do  it, and when are




 they  to  prepare the report?



            I think we have to clarify that.  If  you want the



 Sanitary District  to  do it,  let's  say it.



            MR.  POSTON:   Mr.  Chairman,  I  recommend that we add



 one sentence on to the  end of this paragraph that says the



 study would be  undertaken  and a report made to the conferees




 within one  year's  time.




            MR.  HOD1ER:   Isn't that covered  under the remedial



program on Page  6?



            MR.  STEIN:   Have  you got that covered anywhere



 else, Mr.  prlntz?



            MR.  PRINTZ:  Nowhere  else,



            MR.  STEIN:   In  order to make  this meaningful, I



 would say that  the suggestion that the Minneapolis-St. Paul



 Sanitary District  undertake  this study and  that  a report be



 made  to  the conferees a year from  this date, might do it.



 It is suggested that  we can  even simplify the language, and



 I think  it  would be better from a  literary  standpoint.

-------
                                                       188





           "An engineering study of the Minneapolis-St.



Paul Sanitary District sewerage system be undertaken by  the



District to determine what changes are required to make



unnecessary the practice of bypassing wastes periodically



for the purpose of cleaning the interceptor under the



Mississippi River, and a report made to the conferees a  year



from this date."




           MR. SMITH:  Should it be this date or --



           MR. STEIN:  A year from the issuance of the



summary.



           DR. JELATIS:  Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Printz



suggested that it be "Interceptor" and not necessarily



"under the Mississippi River."



           MR. STEIN:  All right, "cleaning the interceptor."



           Is it clear what we mean by "interceptor"? Which



interceptor?



           MR. PRINTZ:  I believe the State and the Sanitary



District each are aware of it.



           MR. STEIN:  No.  Our document has to speak for



itself.



           MR. PRINTZ:  Yes.



           MR. STEIN:  Again, it has to be self-contained.



You are going to have to ask the Secretary to sign it, and




a lot of other people to look at it.




           Is "interceptor" enough, or do we have to identify

-------
                                                       189




the interceptor?



           MR. PRINTZ:   I think it is sufficient.



           MR. STEIN:  By terming it "the interceptor"?



           DR. HARGRAVES:  It is the interceptor to the



plant.



           MR. PRINTZ:   It is the interceptor to the plant.



           MR. STEIN:  To the plant.  All right.



           If there are no further changes,  may we go on to



19, Mr. Printz?




           MR. PRINTZ:  "19.  It is recommended that the



      BOD removal efficiency at the Hastings, Minnesota



      primary sewage treatment plant be increased  from



      the 5 percent figure found during the  survey to



      minimum of 30 percent until secondary  biological




      treatment facilities are in operation."



           MR. STEIN:  Any question or comment?



           MR. SMITH:  I think, if you will  recall, Mr.



Chairman, the representative for Hastings questioned whether



he could actually obtain 30 percent.



           MR. POSTON:   I thought the Hastings representative



indicated that he was dissatisfied with our  5 percent figure,



and that he could get as high as 30 percent.



           MR. SMITH:  I would question whether he can




actually obtain the 30 percent.



           MR. STEIN:  What would be your suggestion?

-------
                                                     190



           By the way,  I distinctly recall that he objected



to the 5 percent figure, and maybe we can drop that out,



because if they are going to increase it, I think the report



calls enough attention to that,  and we are on our way to  a



clean-up.



           What do you think they should do, if anything?



           MR. SMITH:  Well, certainly the 30 percent or



the maximum obtainable under the present facilities.   I am




not sure that this will be the 30 percent.



           MR. PRINTZ:   I think this is the intent of the



investigators, that it be increased to as high as possible



under the conditions.




           MR. STEIN:  Can we say this?



           "The BOD removal efficiency at the Hastings,



Minnesota primary sewage treatment plant be increased to  the



maximum feasible under the present facilities until secondary



biological treatment facilities are in operation."



           How about that?



           MR. SMITH:  This is fine.  Actually, those



secondary facilities should be in operation within a year or



so anyway.



           MR. STEIN:  Is that all right?



           (No response. )



           MR. STEIN:  All right.  Let's go on to Paragraph




20 now.

-------
                                                     191





           MR. PRINT?:  "20.  It is recommended that the



      Water Treatment Plants" --



this needs to be reworded, sir, so that it is in context




with the recommendation.  It refers to the water treatment



plants of the City of Minneapolis.  It would read:




           "It is recommended that the treatment facili-




      ties at the water treatment plants of the City of




      Minneapolis be provided capable of producing an



      effluent with a suspended solids concentration not



      exceeding that found in other treated effluents




      being discharged to the same reach .of river.  At



      no time should the daily average suspended solids




      concentration exceed 50 mg/1."




           MR. STEIN:  Is this agreeable?




           MR. SMITH:  This is agreeable as far as it goes.




We would like to add one statement.



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.



           MR. SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, we would like to add to



this :




           "The present lime disposal facilities for the




City of Minneapolis will not be adequate for more than several




more years.  Therefore, a study should be conducted immediately




to determine the procedures for the city to follow in disposal




of their lime.11



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  I have one suggestion to make:

-------
                                                        192






           "A study shall be conducted by the city."



           MR. SMITH:  "By the city."



           MR. STEIN:  Right.  I think we nave to  put  the



responsibility there.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  They should start  it now.



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.




           DR. HARGRAVES:  Because time is running short.



           MR. STEIN:  Right.  It should be started immedi-



ately.



           Why don't you put that down?  All  right? Is  that



agreeable?



           DR. HARGRAVES:  That is for disposal or recovery



facilities necessary.




           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  May we go on to  Paragraph 21?



           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 21 received no changes, and  it



reads:



           "21.  It is recommended that the industries



     in the South St. Paul area (Swift Company, Armour



     & Company, and the St. Paul Union Stockyards) provide



     an effective method of control and correction of



     direct discharges to the Mississippi River.  These



     include so-called clean waste waters, watering



     through overflows, truck washing wastes, surface



     drainage, and hog pen flushings.  The coliform

-------
                                                     193






     "densities of any of these discharges should not



     exceed 5*000/100 ml once the control devices are in



     operation."



           MR. STEIN:  Any comment or question?



           (No response. )



           MR. STEIN:  If not, may we go on to 22?




           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 22 is changed, I believe, by



deleting the last bit of clarifying information.   It will now



read:




           "22.  It is recommended that additional treat-



      ment be provided at the Northwest Cooperative Mills



      to reduce the suspended solids concentrations of



      the compositing pond effluent to substantially the



      same levels found in other effluents being  discharged



      to the same reach of river after satisfactory treat-




      ment.  In no instance should the daily average



      suspended solids concentration exceed 50 mg/1."



           MR. STEIN:  Are there any comments or  questions?



           You know, if you fellows will pardon me an aside



at this point, since we are hitting 50 milligrams per liter



so much here, what was all the fuss about before?



           MR. POSTON:  The question was, I think, that  it




was conceded early in the game here that we shouldn't go as



low as 30.



           MR. STEIN:  All right, but evidently we let this

-------
in the back door.

           Let's go on with 23.


           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 23 was  changed only for

grammatical purposes,  and it will read:


           "23.  It is recommended  that  any additional

      facilities constructed for the Foot  Tanning Com-

      pany's waste produce an effluent of  a quality


      acceptable to the Minnesota Water  Pollution Control

      Commission (MWPCC) and in  conformity with recom-

      mendations in this report. The possibility of

      discharging the  settled waste to the Red Wing

      sewerage system  in lieu of additional treatment

      should be considered and a report  on the con-

      clusions of such questions submitted to the MWPCC."

           MR. STEIN:   Submitted by whom?

           MR. PRINTZ:  By the tanners.

           MR. STEIN:   All right.  Let's say that, "submitted

by the tannery."
  I
           May we go to 24?

           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 24 received  a  minor change  to

accommodate the suggested change by the  State of Minnesota.


It reads as follows:

           "24.  All sanitary wastes of  the Green Giant

     Company be discharged to the municipal sewer system

-------
                                                        195



       "and the miscellaneous process wastes be handled



       as specified in Recommendation No. 11.  An addi-




       tional pump for the handling of process wastes be



       provided for standby purposes at the waste water




       sump for use when the main pump fails."




           MR. STEIN:  Can we strike that "miscellaneous"



and make it "other process wastes"?  All right?



           MR. SMITH:  I don't know whether the last



sentence has any particular place in this type of recommenda-



tion.  There is nothing wrong with it, but I don't know that



we need it.




           MR. STEIN:  Yes.  How about that?



           MR. PRINTZ:  Well, this was the source of some



difficulty due to pump failure before with no standby pump.



           We felt that rather than have this occur, it



might be amended and corrected in this manner.



           MR. STEIN: Do you have any objection to that?



           MR. SMITH:  No.



           MR. STEIN:  All right.  We will let it go.



           Go ahead with No. 25.



           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 25 received no changes, and it




reads as follows:



           "25.  It is recommended that maximum waste



       loadings from all sources between and including



       the American Crystal Sugar Co. and the Rahr

-------
                                                       196



       "Malting Co.  be such that a minimum dissolved



       oxygen content of 3.0 mg/1 can be  maintained



       during the 7-consecutive-day,  once in 10-year



       low winter flow in the reach of river between



       Minnesota River miles 29 and 0. To attain this,



       combined waste loads from these sources  should



       not exceed 12,000 pounds/day of 5-day 20°c BOD




       during winter when there is no ice cover in the



       vicinity of the Blackdog power plant. At times



       of complete ice cover, the maximum waste loading




       of 5-day (20°C) BOD from these sources should not




       exceed 6,500 pounds/day.  In no case, however,



       should treatment efficiency be less than that



       specified in the General Recommendations."



           MR. STEIN:  If there is no objection and no




comment,  that is accepted, and we will move to  Paragraph  26.



           MR. PRINTZ:  No. 26 is changed only  to include a



time period as opposed to a river flow, and it  will now read



as follows :



           "26.  It is recommended that a water temperature




       of not greater than 90°F be maintained in the




       lower Minnesota River.  To attain  this,  the exist-



       ing cooling pond of the Northern States  Power



       Company Blackdog Plant should be utilized to  its



       fullest extent between May and October,  inclusive.

-------
                                                        197





       "During this period the thermal addition to the



       Minnesota River should not exceed 13.5 billion



       BTU/day.



           MR. STEIN:  Thank you.




           It has been suggested that the conferees might



want to consider waiving the reading of Nos.  27 through 37>




which deal with Nike site bases and lock and  dam sites, and



so forth and so on.



           Is there any objection from the conferees that



this be eliminated?  If there is anyone who has any comment



on any of these, we will be glad to take it up, but if not,



will you proceed?  We will consider those as  acceptable and



we will move on to Paragraph 38.



           MR. MUEGGE:  Chairman Stein, I assume they all



have secondary treatment?



           MR. PRINTZ:  I did not understand  the question.



           MR. STEIN:  ?Tc- assumes they all have secondary



treatment now?



           MR. PRINTZ:  They will all have treatment as



called for by the recommendations.




           MR. STEIN:  They will.



           (Laughter.)



           MR. PRINTZ:  That is a very positive statement.



           MR. HOIMER:  And the effluents will meet the




requirements?

-------
                                                      198





           MR. PRINTZ:   Yes.



           MR, STEIN:   All right.    The record  will contain



the paragraphs we have  deleted.



        "27. u. S. Army  Nike Missile Installations.   A



       minimum of one hour per day be devoted to  proper



       treatment plant  operation and maintenance.



           "28.  U.  S.  Army Nike Missile Installations.



       The treatment facilities  be operated  such  that



       removal efficiencies approach those for  which the



       plants were designed.



           "29.  U.S. Army Nike  Missile Installations.



       Laboratory analyses and records maintenance  con-



       sistent with recommendations of the Conference of



       State Sanitary Engineers  for plants of  .25 mgd



       capacity be carried out.  A report of these  func-



       tions, including results  of analyses, are  to be



       furnished to  the Federal  Water Pollution Control



       Administration upon request.



           "30.  U.  S.  Army Nike Missile Installation,



       Nike Site No. UO, Farmington, Minnesota.  Discharge



       of effluent to the roadside ditch be  terminated



       as soon as possible.  The present outfall  sewer



       line should be extended so  as to discharge the



       effluent into the unnamed creek which at present




       ultimately receives the waste.

-------
                                                199



    "31.  U. S. Army Nike Missile Installation,



Nike Site No. 40, Farmington, Minnesota.  Con-



tinuous chlorination facilities be activated




immediately with disinfection sufficient to pro-



duce a free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/1 after a



15 minute contact at peak flow rates.




    "32.  U. S. Army Nike Missile Installation,



Nike Site No. 90, Bethel, Minnesota.  It is recom-




mended that continuous chlorination facilities be



activated immediately with disinfection sufficient




to produce a free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/1



after a 15 minute contact at peak flow rates.



    "33.  U. S. Air Force Air Defense Command,



Osceola, Wisconsin Station.  It is recommended that



a schedule of maintenance practices be instituted



consistent with accepted procedures for operation



of oxidation pon !s so as to insure satisfactory



treatment.



    "34.  U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Locks and



Dams.   Present plans be continued concerning im-



provement or replacement of inadequately sized



treatment facilities.



    "35.  U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Locks and



Dams.   At stream flows of 7,000 cubic feet per



second (cfs) or less (as measured at the St. Paul

-------
                                                     200



       "gauge), as much water as possible be  passed  over



       bulkheads before the Taintor gates at  Lock &  Dam




       No. 2.  At flows of 3,000 cfs or less,  the equi-



       valent of the Inflow to Pool No. 2 should  be



       passed over the bulkheads.



           "36.  U. S. Army Corps  of Engineers, Floating



       Dredge Thompson.  It Is recommended that a planned



       schedule of analyses be continued on effluent from




       the waste treatment facilities so as to insure



       adequate removals prior to  overboard discharge of




       effluent.



           "37.  U. S. Air Force 934th Troop  Carrier Group,




       Officers Club.   It is recommended that  the present



       single compartment septic tank be changed  to  a two-



       compartment tank.  A subsurface tile field of



       adequate size should be installed to supplement the



       present field."



           MR. STEIN:   Will you go ahead, Mr.  Printz?



           MR. PRINTZ:  Yes.  No.  38 is recommended  by the



Federal conferee and it reads as follows:



           "38.  It is recommended that the action taken



       by the State agencies will be reported to  the



       conferees at six-month intervals at public meetings



       to be called by the Chairman of the Conference."




       MR. STEIN:  Any questions or comments?

-------
                                                    201





           MR. HOLMER:  I wonder if the action taken by



the Federal agencies should also be reported?



           MR. PRINTZ:  It would be.



           MR. STEIN:  Let's amend it to state "taken by



State and Federal agencies."  All right.



           MR. MUEGOE:  How about the industries?




           MR. STEIN:  Presumably you will report for the



industries, or you can have them called on.



           Now, again, here is the situation:  What we



prefer to do is, as you know, let the State agency be in



control and handle the meeting as they wish.  They can manage



their own time.  They can make a report for them all, or call




on them individually, and sometimes they use a combination.



           Mr. Printz, I think we can push on.



           MR. PRINTZ:  There are no changes made in the



schedule for remedial program.



           Would you like me to read this, Mr. Chairman?



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.



           MR. PRINTZ:  "Schedule for Remedial Program



      "MUNICIPALITIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND INDUSTRIES



           "In light of the excellent progress the MWPCC




      has made in making various industrial firms and



      municipalities aware of the need for abatement



      facilities, the following time schedule for the



      foregoing remedial program is recommended.  The time

-------
                                                      202




      "periods given commence with the  issuance  of  the



      Conference Summary by the Secretary  of the Interior




           "a.   Submission of preliminary plans for



                 remedial facilities  within 6 months.



            b.   Submission of final  design for  remedial




                 facilities within 12 months.



            c.   Financing arrangements  for municipalities



                 completed and construction started within



                 18 months.




            d.   Construction completed  and plants  placed



                 into operation within  36  months.



            e.   Existing schedules of  the State agencies



                 calling for earlier  completion  dates  are



                 to be met."




           MR. STEIN:  All right.   Let's stop there.



           Are there any comments?



           MR. POSTON:  In the first  sentence, do we  limit



this to the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Agency?




           MR. SMITH:  They are the ones who are making the



progress.



           (Laughter. )



           MR. KOLMER:  Although I am pleased, Mr.  Chairman,




that the recommendations of the Summary Report cast great



credit on the work that has already been achieved in



Wisconsin, I would suggest that the first  sentence  be  amended

-------
                                                        203




as follows:



           "In light of the excellent progress that the




States of Minnesota and Wisconsin have made in making vari-



ous industrial firms," etc.



           MR. POSTON:  We are unanimous in this.



           MR. STEIN: That seems to be one of the most



popular suggestions made today.




           All right.  I think that is appropriate.



           Are there any other comments or suggestions?



           DR. MARGRAVES:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.



           This particular schedule for remedial programs



seems to us to be too short-lived.  Minnesota has a lot of



cold weather.  It has a lot of periods when it can't do work



as they can in the South.  They have periods when contracts



have to be let, and so on, because depending upon the weather,




not only that, but I feel as a scientist that there are still



a number of things to be found out about sewage disposal.




           There are new ideas being tried out in Minnesota.



We gave Wilson and Company a couple of extra years to come



through with an anaerobic plant, which has turned out, I



think, to be a contribution.



           I think at the present time the people in South



St. Paul, as well as in Minneapolis in the Sanitary District,



also have things which they have built and are trying out,




and they may need modification.

-------
                                                        204



           In our experience, we have issued many,  many



orders and called communities in to get them to correct their



frailties during this period of time.




           These times are too short for large operations,



we feel, and I would say that we ought to loosen up the



first three, and we ought to shoot for about five years for




a bargaining point for time to get the entire thing into



operation.



           This does not mean that we are going to  condone



industries or municipalities dragging their feet.  I firmly



believe that they need more time, enough time to do the job



right, and I think I can say that the Minnesota Water Pollu-



tion Control Commission will ride herd on them and  see that



they are not dragging their feet, and that they will come



through, if it is all right with the conferees to extend



this time for the type of thing I suggested.



           I think this is rather unreaslistic.



           MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments or



questions?




           MR. WILSON:  Mr. Chairman, might I add to what



Dr. Hargraves said?



           As I mentioned at the earlier session of the



conference, the Water Pollution Control Commission is already



involved in one appeal with the State Supreme Court which



raises some very Important questions that will bear on the

-------
                                                      205



solution of some of the problems.



           I won't say that all of these problems are In-



volved in litigation,  but some of  the important problems are



involved in litigation, and it will be impossible to make




the final settlement of them until that litigation is con-



cluded.



           There are also other cases on the way into




District Court, and nobody knows how long those will take,



or whether they will be appealed to the Supreme Court or not.



           Those are simply additional reasons.  I think more



time, as proposed by Dr. Hargraves, ought to be given, and



certainly the Minnesota Commission can be depended on to do



its utmost to expedite the program, but there is no use of



imposing a limit that is probably  practically unattainable.




           DR. JELATIS:  Mr. Chairman?



           MR. STEIN:   Yes.



           DR. JELATIS:  I recognize that there are problems



of litigation that would stretch out some of these things



an indeterminate amount of time, but it would seem desirable



to establish some sort of guideline as to what is expected,



and perhaps the Water Pollution Control Commission, who are



the ones involved in this, could be given some leeway by




setting ranges of periods for each of the single time limits



specified, which they could apply  in their discretion to




plants that might be simple plants.  They could request

-------
                                                      206



preliminary plans almost in six months.



           I would suggest, as a talking point,  that on



Item "a," preliminary plans, instead of  six months it read



"six to eighteen months."



           For Item "b," final design,  instead of twelve



months, make it twelve to twenty-four.



           For financing arrangements,  instead of eighteen




months, make it, say eighteen to thirty.



           For final completion and operation, instead of



thirty-six months, say thirty-six to sixty.  This would seem



to give them some flexibility.  Some plans could be in at



an earlier time.




           MR. STEIN:  Mr. Holmer?



           MR. HOLMER:  Can you go forty-eight on that last



one?



           DR. JELATIS:  Well, Dr. Hargraves suggested the



sixty as the final one, and I Just tried to fit these in with



that.



           MR. SMITH:  Let's compromise  on fifty-four.




           (Laughter.)



           MR. STEIN:  It is between three and five years.



I think you have a good proposal, if you come up with forty-



eight.  Four years is a long time.



           MR. POSTON:  You know, Mr. Chairman, we have been



at this for three years already, and we gave a lot of credit

-------
                                                      20?



here a little earlier to the States of Wisconsin and



Minnesota for their progress that they have made, and I feel



that these three years that have gone so far,  there has been



a lot of work done towards planning and getting ready.



           This should be very definitely taken into con-



sideration here, and maybe you can even cut this a little



bit.



           (Laughter.)



           DR. HARGRAVES:  You forget you took three years



to do the study.




           MR. POSTON:  In the meantime, you were working



on it.



           MR. STEIN:  Let me put it to you this way:  This



is a little longer than I thought about this problem.  Let's




look at this individually.



           As a matter of fact, on that eighteen months for



preliminary planning, I think if we made it six to twelve



months, we could know they are on the road, because we should



know in a year whether they mean business.



           Now, on the second one, final design, it would



seem to me twelve to twenty-four months is all right, and on



the other, financing arrangements, making it eighteen to




what?



           DR. JELATIS:  Thirty.



           MR. STEIN:  How long is that?

-------
                                                       208





           DR. JELATIS:  Two and a half years.



           MR. STEIN:  That adds twelve months.



           MR. POSTON:  How about two years for  financing?



Prom now for two years is quite a bit of time for financing.



           MR. HOIMER:  Not after you have had your plans.



           DR. JELATIS:  Mr. Chairman, I think it was pointed



out that some of these plants may require some preliminary



studies of treatment methods that may take a year before they



determine what the final plant is going to look  like, at



which time they will start making preliminary designs.



           MR. STEIN:  I understand that, but I  am trying




to get a consensus here and hit a balance.



           I think the basic thing is that if we come around



at six-month intervals, we can really see if someone is



moving.  That is why I think that six to twelve  months is



all right.  If anyone is moving on a pilot study and they



need a little more time, we can consider that at the first



or second progress meeting.



           The second, submission of final design, twelve



to twenty-four months, is all right.  We have given them




two years.



           The next is financing, eighteen to thirty months,



but I think in the light of what we are doing and where we



go, that  construction completed and plants placed into




operation within thirty-six to forty-eight months will give

-------
                                                      209






us enough leeway.



           Considering the slippage we have on these and



the notion that we are going to reconsider these every six



months, I think that is, compared to other cities,  a median



time schedule.



           When you get beyond that four-year operation, you




are dealing with a long-range, large program, and I don't



think you have that problem in this area.   Some of the cities



don't have Pipe 1 and have to go farther,  but that is a long



time in four years.  That is a Presidential term, or gover-



nor's term, four years.



           (Laughter.)



           DR. HARGRAVES:  May I ask about this conferees'



study or checking on progress every six months?  Would this



mean that we all get together again, or is it just somebody



coming in?



           MR. STEIN:  No.  We all get together.



           Here is what happens;  For example, we just



finished one of these in Chicago, and all  these places are



the same.  St. Louis and East St. Louis is the same.  We are



going into one of these in Buffalo next week.



           Obviously, in dealing with a complex situation



like this, with the best of intentions, we cannot get everyone



moving at the same pace, so what we do is  meet every six

-------
                                                    210





months.




           If there are variances here for good reasons,  we



arrive at these in a matter of judgment,  and we go  ahead  and



we give these variances.



           DR. MARGRAVES:  Do we arrive at that judgment



with this group?



           MR. STEIN:  Yes.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  It doesn't have to go back to



Washington and then back again?



           MR. STEIN:  No.   If we have a progress meeting,




we just put our progress meeting report in and we will con-



sider that as substantial compliance with us.



           To give you some ideas — and I don't want to  give



you notions on extensions,  for example, in Chicago  we arrived



at the conclusion that the  Chicago Sanitary District should



have, as the other communities there, year- round chlorina-



tlon.  To develop, as you talked about, a pilot plant to



develop an approved method  of chlorination would save them,



as it is working out, about a quarter of a million  dollars  a



year, which is how much they use.



           What we recognized was that it would be  foolish



to go ahead, once they began grappling with the engineering



problem, and we have given them an extension of about a year.



           Now, for example, all the major oil companies  —

-------
                                                        211
and I mean big oil — have complied with the recommendations



on schedule now.  Three of the big steel companies,  the  top



steel companies, are going over and they asked for an exten-



sion of about eighteen months, and this is very much involved,



since it is an extension of a complete program,  but  I think



they are doing pieces of this and going along with the con-



tinuation.



           The conferees at the last session did not give



the steel companies that extension, but they said we would



meet again on September 6th, review it, and if their progress



was such that they were really making bona fide progress,



that they would consider the extension again.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  I think Minnesota can live with



forty-eight months.



           MR. STEIN:  All right.



           DR. HARGRAVES:  But this is the kind of thing that



we have when it isn't down tight, and we have to make adjust-



ments .



           MR. STEIN:  As a matter of fact, I wonder if  I can




say one thing:  I think I was more disposed at the Chicago



meeting to give the steel companies the extension than the



States were.



           MR. HOUMER:  Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether



it would be appropriate or feasible for the Federal  member  of




the conference to vote with respect to the inclusion of  a

-------
                                                       212



proposed amendment I am about to make to this section of



the report, but I think it is pertinent and germane.  It also




conforms with the comment which was read into the record from



Governor Knowles at our first meeting.




           He suggests it might well be appropriate for the



conference to record its recommendation that the Congress



make available local assistance funds for the construction of




waste treatment facilities at not less than the level



authorized by the 89th Congress, and that it augment the



funds available for expediting mapping of flood plains in



both Minnesota and Wisconsin.



           In order to give effect to this and to relate it



as it is to the procedures suggested here, I would suggest



adding under "municipalities, institutions and industries,"




following Subparagraph e, a new paragraph to read:  "These



time intervals are subject, of course, to the appropriation



of Federal funds for assistance in meeting the costs of



construction at a rate at least as great as that authorized



by the 89th Congress. "



           Now, I submit that as a formal proposal for amend-



ment to this Federal-State conference, and will leave the




voting on it to your judgment.



           MR. STEIN:  We can't.  This has come up before,



and the Congress, as I guess with your Legislature, when we




do that we always get the protest — and maybe they are right-

-------
                                                      213






As Federal people, we can't go around holding a gun up to



their heads.




           We have had this in several of the other



conferences. We would have no objection if you made this a



recommendation to the conferees representing Minnesota and




Wisconsin.



           Let me add to that:  The reason we do not join



is not because we are out of sympathy with this, but because



we are prohibited by law from doing this, and that is beyond



our powers.



           MR. HOLMER:  Well, I so move then, with the



permission of the Federal representative to abstain.



           MR. STEIN:  All right.  Then we can say both



States, if that is agreeable.



           MR. SMITH:  Yes.



           MR. STEIN:  Then we have the six to twelve months



for preliminary plans, twelve to twenty-four months for



final design, financing eighteen to thirty, and construction



completed and plants in operation thirty-six to forty-eight



months.



           "Existing schedules of the State agencies



calling for earlier completion dates are to be met."




           Both State agencies, the States of Wisconsin and



Minnesota, make the following recommendation —



           MR. HOLMER:  That "these time intervals be subject,

-------
                                                        214



of course, to the appropriation of Federal funds for



assistance in meeting the costs of construction at a rate



at least as great as that authorized by the 89th Congress."



           MR. WILSON:  Was that actually authorized,  or



only proposed?



           MR. HOLMER:  It was authorized, but not appro-



priated.



           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  It was authorized, but not



appropriated.  I see.



           MR. STEIN:  This is not an unusual state of events.



           MR. WILSON:  It is a promissory note.



           MR. STEIN:  You would do better collecting a



promissory note, Chester.



           If we are in agreement with that, may we go on to



the next point?



           MR. PRINTZ:  There were no changes on Federal



installations.



           "Schedules for Federal installations requiring



       only operational and maintenance changes shall be



       Initiated immediately.  Changes required at Nike




       Site No. 40 and the Ft. Snelling Officers Club



       should be completed and made operational within



       6 months."



           MR. STEIN:  How about changing "should" to "shall"?




           MR. PRINTZ:  All right.

-------
                                                        215



           MR. STEIN:  Thank you.   Let's go on with the



next one.



           MR. PRINTZ:   Modifications.



           "It is recognized that  modifications may be



      necessary.   These may include:



          "a.  A  lesser time where the  control agency



               having jurisdiction considers that  a prac-



               tical method of control  can be in operation



               prior to the time stated.




           b.  In a few industries and  municipalities some



               variation from this schedule may be sought



               from the appropriate State and local pollu-



               tion control agencies.   In such cases after



               review the Conferees may make appropriate



               recommendations to  the Secretary of the



               Interior.



           c.  Any modifications of these recommendations



               requested by those  persons or agencies cited



               herein shall be taken under advisement by the



               Conferees.  In such cases, after review,  the



               Conferees may make  appropriate recommendations



               to the Secretary of the  Department  of the



               Interior."



           MR. STEIN:  Is there any comment or question?



           (No response.)

-------
                                                        216



           MR. STEIN:  If not, this stands approved.



           Are there any other suggestions or comments?



           MR. DAMON:  Mr. Chairman, let me take a crack at



one here.  This Is a minor one,  but how does the first



sentence in Paragraph 11 on Page 3 now read?



           MR. STEIN:  "All industries contributing wastes



to the waters within the conference area provide effluents



at least equivalent to that recommended for municipalities."



           MR. DAMON:  It reads  to me that if industries can



produce more effluents than municipalities, they are ahead



of the ball game, or am I wrong?



           MR. HOLMER:  They dirty these up before they put




it out.



           (Laughter.)



           MR. SMITH:  No.



           MR. STEIN:  I think he has a point.  How about



"effluent quality"?



           MR'. SMITH:  This is fine.



           MR. STEIN:  "Effluent quality."  All right.  That




is a point.  Thank you.  This was not abundantly clear.



           DR. ODEGARD:  Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the



end of the conference at this point, and I have a feeling




that there is a big hole left in it, and I don't know how



to tell you this except to sort of start in the middle some




place.

-------
                                                       217



           It has been covered concerning the intent, but



I get the impression that now presumably a solution to



problems has been pointed to if the solutions aren't there



already, but this specific problem of algal growth in the



lakes has not been resolved.



           I came from the upper Mississippi River Basin in



Chicago last week, and they had some rather surprising



comments there about the number of domestic animals in the



area.  I think if you interpolate from their figures, you



would have something like domestic animals producing wastes



in this area equivalent to about 20 million people, which is



really a tremendous source of waste to be spread all over



the ground.  You add to this the fertilizers that were




produced to fertilize the forests, and I think we have lost



a very major aspect of the problem.



           MR. STEIN:  You have.  Let's go on with this.



Anyone who comes here and tl inks we are going to come up



with the mlllenium is wrong.



           First of all, we are not dealing with the lakes.



The lakes are a harder problem, and here, fortunately, we are



dealing with a bunch of rivers.



           DR. ODEGARD:  I was referring to Lake Pepin.




           MR0 STEIN:  Lake Pepin may be a lake.



           Now, I think Mr. Muegge pointed this out.  If



anyone is going to come to you today and tell you that we have

-------
                                                        218




an answer to that algae problem, or weed problem,  he is



kidding you.  The only thing we can do is deal with the art



and the science of waste treatment as we know it.



           We are not asking anyone to do the impossible.



We recognize that the question of enrichment in nutrients  in



those lakes is a vital one.  This has a tremendous priority



by our investigatory staff, and our other staff, in trying



to get this out.



           In dealing with the problem here, sometimes  we



wear other hats.  I know these people do too in trying  to



cope with this problem.



           The problem that we are faced with here is working



under a regulatory Act.  When we are going out and we are



asking people to spend millions of dollars, and sometimes




tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on a problem,  we



are surely not going to ask them to start putting  in equipment



to try to tackle a problem when we are not sure that we know



the answer.  This removal of phosphates or control of algae



in the lakes in the waters is one.



           However, we do know, given the kind of gross



pollution that we have in the Twin Cities area, that a  con-



siderable, a tremendous improvement, can be made,  even  if  we



don't attack the algae problem at this time.



           You can be assured that this problem is so wide-



spread that as soon as we get something that shows the  least

-------
                                                       219






bit of progress, that is going to be put forward.




           I don't think this is leaving a hole in the



conference.  As a regulatory arm, we have to deal  with what



we know how to do, and what we reasonably can ask  these



people out here to do.



           Now, the next point:  I agree we do have a problem



on land run-off and agricultural run-off.  I think the



effects of that are largely — I wouldn't say conjectural



now, but they are not amenable to the kind of precise testing



that we have in the other fields.



           Again, all of us are working on that, and on this



problem I don't want to hold any hope out, necessarily,  of



an easy solution.



           I would suspect that rte have so many sources,  and



this is such a complex problem of land run-off and agricultural



run-off, that we very well may have our phosphate  removal



problem settled before we come to a resolution on  that.



           What you are doing, though, sir,  is raising some



very vital long-range problems in pollution control and in



environmental control that we know we have.



           The reason we did not get to these is,  although I



think the people at this table are as well equipped as any-



one, I don't think anyone In this country is prepared to



come up with a reasonable program that can meet these prob-




lems at the present time.  I think the hardest thing for

-------
                                                          220



anyone to aay is, "I don't know," and the answer to these



questions is, "I don't know."  If we don't,  we have to do



without it.




           MR. WILSON:  Mr. Chairman, might  I Just add a



comment by way of endorsement to the Chairman's remarks?



           It happens that I am a sort of jack of all trades,



and besides messing around with water pollution control, I



have had quite extensive experience, both administrative and



legal, in the soil and water conservation field, right up



until now, and have been engaged in drawing  some bills for



the Minnesota Legislature on that subject.  I want to assure



Dr. Odegard and everyone else concerned that the leaders in



the field of the effects of agricultural run-off are very



keenly aware of it.  They are not ignoring the problem,  and,



in fact, they are trying to do all they can  to secure better



attention to it.



           Obviously, it is within the scope of the responsi-



bility of the Federal Department of Agriculture, rather than



the Department of the Interior, under which  we are working in



this effort here.  Certainly everyone conversant with that



problem is doing everything possible to secure action on it,



and I think we are going to see some much more effective



action on it than has been devoted to it in  the past.



           MR. WISNIEWSKI:  Mr. Chairman, I  will second Mr.




Muegge's motion to adjourn.

-------
                                                      221



           MR. STEIN:  I did not hear the motion,  but it



Is a welcome one.



           MR. POSTON:  What is the motion?



           MR. STEIN:  To adjourn.



           MR. POSTON:  I have one  comment.



           MR. STEIN:  Go ahead.  I am not cutting anyone off.



           MR. POSTON:  This is a kind of a self-serving



statement, but I would like to commend the staff of our Twin



Cities Project for the work that they have done, and Mr.



Bert Printz and their staff for the work that they have done



in gathering together first the staff and then the facility,



and carrying out these studies cooperatively with the State



agencies.



           I am very appreciative of what has been done here.



           MR. SMITH:  We are in agreement, certainly, with



that statement.



           MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments from



this side of the table before we recognize that motion to



adjourn?



           (No response.)



           MR. STEIN:  I do think we have made tremendous



progress here.  What you have seen is a Federal-State program



in operation, and I think also you have recognized that the



game isn't as simple as you would like to think, but it works,



           I do think we have demonstrated that with hard

-------
                                                        222



work and appliance to the facts,  we can,  if we put our minds



to it, communicate with each other and achieve results and



an agreement.



           This is the key to our system  of government,



where divergent interests such as are represented here and out



in the audience have been able to put all their views together



and have come up with unanimous recommendations and conclu-



sions.  You have to recognize that there  are seven pages of



closely worded material that the  conferees here have come



up with agreement and conclusions on, and I dare say -- I



speak for myself, but I would bet no one  up here could have



come to as closely a worded and lengthy an agreement with hi?



wife and come up with unanimous agreemer^c



           (Laughte?e}




           With that, I want to thank you all for comf.ng,



           We stand a d j o i ir n a d.



           (Whereupon, at 3-35 p.m., the  conference



adjourned,}

-------
                                                      221



           MR. STEIN:  I did not hear the motion,  but it



is a welcome one.



           MR. POSTON:  What is the motion?



           MR. STEIN:  To adjourn.



           MR. POSTON:  I have one  comment.



           MR. STEIN:  Go ahead.  I am not cutting anyone off.



           MR. POSTON:  This is a kind of a self-serving



statement, but I would like to commend the staff of our Twin



Cities Project for the work that they have done, and Mr.



Bert Printz and their staff for the work that they have done



in gathering together first the staff and then the facility,



and carrying out these studies cooperatively with the State



agencies.




           I am very appreciative of what has been done here.



           MR. SMITH:  We are in agreement, certainly, with



that statement.



           MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments from



this side of the table before we recognize that motion to



adjourn?



           (No response. )



           MR. STEIN:  I do think we have made tremendous



progress here.  What you have seen is a Federal-State program



in operation, and I think also you have recognized that the



game isn't as simple as you would like to think, but it works.



           I do think we have demonstrated that with hard

-------
                                                        222



work and appliance to the facts,  we can,  if we put our minds



to it, communicate with each other and achieve results and



an agreement.



           This is the key to our system  of government.,



where divergent interests such as are represented here and out



in the audience have been able to put all their views  together




and have come up with unanimous recommendations and conclu-



sions.  You have to recognize that there  are seven pages of



closely worded material that the  conferees here have come



up with agreement and conclusions on, and I dare say ~- I



speak for myself, but I would bet no one  up here could have



come to as closely a worded and lengthy an agreement with his



wife and come up with unanimous agreement,



           (Laughter,)



           With that., I want to thank you all for coming.



           We stand adjourned.



           (Whereupon, at 3:35 P»m.* the  conference was



adjourned.)

-------