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.)
------- |