102233                                       OOOR77103A
1977v. 2
                               APPENDIX  !
                          REPORT OF SUB-GROUP A
                                 OF THE
                             APRIL 29, 1977
                       Environmental Protection Agency
                       Office of  International

                   .APPENDIX  I


              REPORT OF SUB-GROUP A

                  IX RtVIEW  OF


                APRIL  29,  1977
   U S. Environmental Protection Agency
   GLNPO Library Collection (PL-12J)
   77 West Jackson Boulevard,
   Chicago, IL  60604-3590



This Appendix contains the Position Papers listed in the Table of

Contents of the Report of Sub-Group A and are reiterated here and

appear in the following order in the Appendix:

             Water Quality Objectives Work Group

             Surveillance Work Group

             Phosphorus Work Group

             Point Source Discharges Work Group

             Non-Point Sources Work Group

             Hazardous Substances Work Group

             Nuclear Wastes (Rad:';, activity) Work Group-

             Research Work Group

These Position Papers fonr. the basis for the Sub-Group  A Report,   Each

of the Papers were prepared independently by the Work Croups listed in

the Attachment to the main Report.  They are published  in this separate

document for ease in reference since the main Report makes frequent

reference to these- Papers.

As stateo in the main Report,  these Position Papers reflect the separate

views of the Work Groups which may not necessarily be the views of Sub-

Group A as a whole.  in most cases any differing views  are discussed in

the main Report.  However, where written differences of views were expressed

within the Work Group, they have  been included  following each Position Paper,

                    Minnesota  Pollution  Control Agency
                                                            April 27' 1977
SUBJECT:   Position Paper on Water Quality

   FROM:   Lovell E. Richie, Water Quality
          Task Leader Sub-Group A

     TO:   George R. Alexander,  Jr.,
          Chairman, Sub-Group A
          Great Lakes Water Quality  Review

Attached  is  the final Position Paper on Water Quality.  This  Paper  is the same
as the draft discussed at the Sub-Group A meeting on April 15 because no comments
have been received.

As I indicated in my memorandum transmitting the draft paper, I  also favor the
inclusion of the Water Quality Objectives as recommended by the  Water Quality
Board as  was proposed in the draft report of Sub-Group A.                      /

It was a  pleasure to participate in  this Review.

Lovell E.  Richie

                 1935 West County Road B2, Rocevillo, Minnesota 55113
         Regional Offices • Dulu'h/ c'cmerd / Fergus Fahc; r/iarsnail / Rocnestor/ Roseville
                             :C,uai Opportunity Lmpioyer

                          V»ater Quality


The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is a recognition and an

expression of determination by the Government of the United States

and the Government of Canaca to restore and enhance the water

quality of the Great Lakes System.

The Governmenrs in their wisdom have defined the Great Lakes System

to mean "all of the streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of wate:

that are within the drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River...."

Article I  (d/.

The Governments further expressed thtir conviction that...."The

best means to achieve improved water quality in the Great Lakes

System is through a system of common objectives, the development

and implementation of cooperation programs and other measures,

and the assignments of special responsibilities and functions to

the International Joint Co:;jnission."

With that purpose and policy in mind, the Governments agreed to

undertake a cooperative program.

The Agreement having been ^n existence now for five years, brings

us an opportunity and obligation to review what has been accom-

plished under the Agreement and to suggest changes that might

improve its content and thereby better accomplish its primary

goal of restoration and enhancement of water quality.


Great success has been achieved institutionally whereby the

International Joint Commission  (IJC), under Article VI, has

performed its role well in reporting to governments on present

conditions, status of programs, and has tendered advice to govern-


This has been accomplished by means of annual reports prepared

for the IJC by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board and from those

reports from IJC has prepared reports to governments.   The attention

given to the Water Quality Board by federal, state and provincial

agencies, and the dedication of various jurisdictions to the work

of IJC, the Board and the various work groups and committees is

admirable, and the participants are to be commended.

Special reports have been prepared under the auspices of IJC on

Lakes Huron and Superior, pollution from land use will be addressed

in a report presently in preparation and recommendations have been

offered on specific problems noted by the Water Quality Board.

Considerable time has been spent by the Water Quality Board and

IJC on refined objectives for water quality as envisaged in the

Agreement.  The Board has taken the position that water quality

objectives should protect the most sensitive use and most such

objectives are based on scientific evidence relating to biologi-

cal effects.

While the need for numerical objectives  (or in the U.S., criteria

for standards) of water quality has been well established, the

purpose for which such numbers are used under the Agreement has

                                   — 3—
nox. been of iruch value.

Considerable  time has  been devotee to discussion  and creation a:

an array of ''pigeon holes11 su.::.  a-  r. •• .-• i: ,;•  Junes,  zone.:, of  iniiu-

The U.S. can take very little pride in the delays that have been

encountered in several major projects under the U.S. system, but

on the other hand, it should be noted that what has been criti-

cized are the time delays and never has it been the quality or

requirements of the basic program.

What has been disheartening is that we have allowed a comparison

to be made of the relative effectiveness of the U.S. and Canadian

programs using general water quality "objectives" of open water

and leaving it up to the jurisdictions to decide if their pro-

grams will meet such general objectives.

That was about where the U.S. program stood in the period 1965-1972

under the 1965 Federal Water Quality Act, which mandated a national

water quality standard program.  Public Law 92-500 changed that and

the program now relies on effluent standards and best treatment

technology.  That program is assured under a rigid permitting pro--

gram shared by the state and federal government.

It is against this program that the U.S. has judged its progress

and not against the Water Quality Agreement, since there currently

exists very little if any direct evidence that would allow compar:.-

son of existing programs against Water Quality Objectives of the

Agreement.  Even if there were, one could escape the whole issue

by classifying such areas as a mixing zone or zone of influence

or some other term and such comparisons then become nothing more

than a game of semantics.

What is a fair treatment requirement on one side of the lakes

should be fair for the other as well, and whether that turns out

to be the U.S. minimum treatment requirements  (secondary,BPT, BAT)

or something different, the important point is that an agreed upon

minimum effluent requirement is needed in order to maxe any mean-

ingful comparison of the effectiveness of control programs which

can be the only measure of joint progress under the Agreement,

There is strong disagreement on this question between the U.S. and

Canadian members of the Water Quality Board who make up the essence

of the control programs from all jurisdictions and it will not be an

easy item to negotiate into the .Agreement.

If, however, this one change were made to add a minimum effluent

requirement into the Agreement, it would accomplish more from the

viewpoint of control of po'..lui:icn than has all other activity to

date under tne Agreement a.ia allow for meaningful review of progress

Certainly there has been much accomplished under the Agreement in

terms of studies, surveillance, reporting of existing water quality

and, for what, it's worth under present constraints, remedial pro-

grams, but until we are prepared to agree to hard and fast control:-;

in the form of effluent standards, we have not committed anybody  ho

anything other than the business of more study and an exercise of

comparing apples and oranges.

One test of the value of the Agreement would be to ask, "what have

we dene differently because of the Agreement that we would not

have done anyway." The answer is clearly that we have conducted

several worthwhile studies of the system, we have sharpened our

surveillance, refined our interagency and interjurisdictional com-
munications, proposed refined water quality objectives, based upcn
joint scientific evidence all of which are valuable accomplishments
and perhaps the best we could expect from a first cut at a very
complex problem.

The Agreement has not, however, changed in any significant way, the
control programs in the U.S. which does not mean that its intent
and purposes have been ignored.  To the contrary, the U.S. program
is now guided by PL 92-500, which became operative after the Agree-
ment was signed and long after it was first envisaged.

PL 92-500 and its attendant requirements in the judgement of the
U.S. participants is adequate without exception to meet the terms
of the Agreement.  If that is not true, we are aware of no instance
where Canada has pointed out its inadequacy.

The single area where Canada has been critical of the U.S., and
justifiably so, is in the U.S. failure to keep major pollution
control works construction on its own self-imposed schedule.   It
is a legitimate and worthwhile role of the parties to review and
criticize each other, but until there is a comparable program of
legally enforceable formal minimum treatment in Canada and pre-
ferably a joint commitment under the Agreement, such criticism under
the Agreement, however, is improper.  It then becomes simply a criti-
cism of an internal U.S. program based only on U.S. law and not on
any international commitment.

The Agreement can be modified to incorporate provisions  for minimum

treatment requirement or effluent standards by modifying:

Article III as follows:


1.  The specific water quality ob~ ..-ot^/es and minimum treatir.fcr.::

requirements for the boundary waters of the Great Lakes  System

set forth in Annex 1 are adopted.

2.  The minimum treatment requirements and. specific water quality

objectives may be modified and additional specific water quality

objectives for the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System or

for particular sections thereof nay ta adopted by rhe Parties in

accordance with the provisions of Articles IX and XII of this


3.  The minimum treatment requirements and the specific  water

quality objectives adopted pursuant to this Article represent

the minimum effort of treatment and the minimum desired  levels of

water quality in the teetrnda^y- waters of the Great Lakes  System and

are not intended to preclude the establishment of more stringent


4.  Notwithstanding the adoption of minimum treatment requirements

and specific water qualitv objectives, all reasonable and practi-

cable measures shall be taken to maintain the levels of water

quality existing at the date of entry into force of this Agreement

in those areas of the beaneta^y waters of the Great Lakes Svsten

where such water quality is better than that prescribed  by the

leveis exeeee the specific water quality objectives.

5.  In areas designated by the appropriate jurisdictions  as_ having

outstanding natural resource value and which have  existing  water

quality better than that prescribed by the specific water quality

objectives that water quality should be_ maintained or  enhanced.

Annex JL as follows:


1.  (a) through (h) remains the same

Add a new paragraph #2 as follows:

2.  To accomplish these objectives, the parties  shall  require

municipal sources to provide a_ minimum level of  treatment which

shall produce an effluent of no more than

                  3Q_ mg/1     B0d_5

                  3£ mg/1     TSS

                  200/100 milliliters fecal coliform
                           (seasonal depending on use)

                   1^ mg/1     total phos

Where such treatment is inadequate to protect water quality

standards or to meet the objectives of this Agreement  additional

treatment will be required.

To accomplish these objectives the parties shall require  industrial

sources to provide a_ minimum level of treatment  that shall  produce

an effluent consistent with the best practicable technology for  that


Where such treatment is inadequate to protect water quality standards

or to meet the objectives of this Agreement additional treatment will

be required.

              i on choii 1 r? nnt- Vio ncor^ in 1 ion r\f  ^r?orrna4-o  -l--rc

Article V as follows:


1. remains the same

(a) first paragraph remains the same

(i) construction and operation in ail i?.unicipalities  having  sewer

    systems of secondary waste treatment facilities providing

    levels of treatment consistent with the achievement e£ the

    water qaaiity eb-eetives,-taking into aeeeant the-effects

    ef waste €y&m ethei? aeajfeesr those specified in Annex 1.

(ii) remains the same

(iii)  remains the same

(iv) remains the same

(v)  remains the same

(b) first paragraph remains the same

(i) establishment of waste treatment or control requirements for

    all industrial plants discharging waste into the  Great Lakes

    System, to provide levels of treatment that incorporate  the

    best practicable technology. ea? jfeduetien ef inptits ef sub-

    stances end ef£eets consistent with the achievement ef the

    effects e€ waste frem ether setaafees;

(ii) remains the same

(iii)  remains the same

(iv)  remains the same

(v) remains the same

(vi) remains the same

The remainder of Article V is unchanged.

                                     Region V
SUBJECT:   Review Paper - Surveillance
                                                    DATE:  -April  25,  1977
Chris Timm
Director, S§A Division
R. J. Schneider
Great Lakes Coordinator

Attached is the review paper for surveillance  including proposed language
for Article V 5 X of the Agreement.   Please circulate  this  to  all the
other work Groups and participants.

Attachment :
As Stated
               G. Alexander
               W. Wilford
               W. McCracken
               R. Grim
               T. Saylor
 EPA Form 1320-4 
                          REVIEW PnPER -  SURVEILLANCE
I.  Introduction
            The existing Agreement mandates the following specific surveillance
    requirements to both Parties.
         Article V,l/a),(v).   "monitoring surveillance and enforcement  activities
         necessary to ensure  compliance with (control of pollution from municipal
         Article V, (b),C"i),  "monitoring, surveillance and enforcement  activities
         necessary to ensure  compliance with (control of pollution from industrial
         Article V, (c),(v).   "...establishment of a coordinated system for surveil-
         lance and enforcement of regualtions dealing with the abatement and control
         of pollution from shipping activil 1 ;>:>."
         Article VI, 1. (a),   "collection, anar'sis end dissemination of data	re-
         lating to the quality of the bounoary waters."
         Annex 1, Item 4.  "Sampling Data.    The Parties agree that she determination
         of compliance with specific objectives shall be based en statistically
         valid sampling data.61
         Annex 2, Item ID.    'frtoritoring.   "Die Parties.,w**.  shall continue tOijaonitor
         the extent of eutrophication in  the Great Lakes systeai and the progress aade
         in reducing or preventing it."
         Amex 2, Item 11.    "Sufcau.ssj.gn of Information.   The IJC will be given in-
         formation at least annually....concerning
                 a)  Total reduction in gross inputs of phosphorus achieved as & result
                     of the progrsas iflpienented..."
    but does not call for an internationally coordinated program nor is it adequate
    for assessment of fish stocks or the  iapacts of atmospheric sources or toxic
                                      -  i  •

         The  present  status of surveillance activities under the Great Lakes Water
     Quality  Agreement  (Agreement) are accurately summarized in the August 27, 1976
     letter from William Bullard, Secretary, U. S.   Section, IJC to Mr. Vine, U.S.
     Department  of  State and in the Fourth Annual Report on Great Lakes Water  *
     Quality  presented  to the U. S. and Canadian governments by the IJC on September
     16,  1976.   Copies  of both are attached.
II   Jurisdictional Program Status
     a.   Canadian Programs
             Overall,the Canadians had a larger surveillance program than the U.S.
        until 1977  in all  areas  - water quality, fish stock assessment, etc.  The
        1977  programs are  in balance and indications are that the Canadian Govern-
        ment  has reduced the FY  1978  level of funding for surveillance, especially
        for the  nearshore programs which are already underfunded on  both sides.   The
        Canadian program for evaluation of the effects of toxic substances on fish
        is larger  in that more  fish are collected and analyzed, especially on Lake
        Oitario, but  its scientific basis and long term objectives are poorly defined.
     b.  U. S. Programs
                 The U.S.  EPA programs are judged to be barely adequate with re-
         spect to main lake programs, both in terms of field and lab capabilities.
         Fish stock assessment  programs  of the  States and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife
         Service (as coordinated by the  Great Lakes Fisheries Commission) have
         grown and improved greatly in the past years; however, stock assessment
         programs still do not  adequately address the major species in all of the
         Great Lakes.  Surveillance of contaminants in fish stocks and evaluations of
         the potential effects  of contaminants  and other stresses on fish by the F£WS,
         EPA and the States, are generally considered inadequate and will remain so
         without increased Federal funding.
       * Fourth Annual  Report  of the  IJC  on  Great  Lakes Water  Quality
         included  as  Attachment 1 of Sub-Group A  Report

            The  state programs  wnicr. cover the nearshore areas are all inadequate
       due to the  low priority  for state funds and a  lack of Federal funds
       Tributary and point  source  r,onitcr:u'.fc ^/i judgea to be adequate at preset, c,
       Since  the  Federal Water Pollution Cc,.trol Act, Sec. 106 water pollution
       control grants do not  allocate extra funds or priority for support oi
       the Agreement it  is  unrealistic to attempt to use normal Sec, 106 fuuLUug  ,
       improve the Great Lakes  surveillance program.  The need is for a specific
       section of  the  EVPCA  thut  sets forth an annual appropriation to .suppOj/l
       all activities including surveillance that are necessary for the Gi^ci
       Lakes Water Quality  Agreement.
Ill    Great Lakes Water Quality
            Articles V and VI and Annexes 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the Agreement adequately
       identifies most of the surveillance programs required  to assess  the
       of the Great Lakes except t-iore mentioned in I aht//*_
       is that 'the present agreement does net coraam any req^ircaients  for ^
       minimuin program level of effort or resources for .siirveillance.
       it is reconsnendeci that articles that endorse trie  general
       plan as outlined in Apperuix B to the 1975 'WQB report  be added to Ai
       V of the Agreement.
            It is further recoinrr.^nded that a new section  (c)  be  added to Arcade X
       of the revised Agreement to stipulate the mini,riuni  level of funding tiiat v/iiJ
       be provided annually for .surveillance activities.  Unless the resource needs
       for surveillance are specifically  addressed in  amendments to both the Agree -
       ment and the FWPCA, we will continue to  suffer   from fragmented funcmig levels
       that play havoc with long term planning  and staffing by both Federal and State
       agencies .

IV.   Recommended Additions

    l.(j)  Surveillance.  Notwithstanding the surveillance requirements stated
       above, a coordinated,  bilateral program that will meet the following
         (i)   Objective Violations

              Surveillance to detect violations  of water quality objectives
              for parameters  with numerical  limits.

         (ii)  Trends
              Surveillance to determine water  quality  trends  for the purpose

              of evaluating compliance with  the  non-degradation requirement
              and determining long-term effects  of remedial programs.

        (iii)  Cause and Effect

              Surveillance, to describe and  quantify cause  (loads)  and effect
              (water  quality) relationships  to understand how the Great Lakes
              physical, biological  and chemical  system operates.  Together
              with mathematical modeling, this forms the basis for  determining
              whole lake  response to remedial  programs,  the need for new re-
              medial  programs such  as the phosphorus control  program,  alter-
              ing or  establishing new water  quality objectives,  and a means
              to detect new and emerging problems.

    As  a minimum the  program  will include sufficient sample collection,  analysis
    and evaluation including  quality assurance to allow  assessments of the

        (iv)   INPUTS    including  tributaries,  points sources, atmosphere, and
                       connecting channels

        (v)    WHOLE LAKE   including nearshore  areas such as harbors and embay-
                       ments, general shoreline, and cladophora growth areas';
                       main lake, fish contaminants, and wildlife contaminants.

        (vi)   OUTFLOWS  including  connecting  channels,  water intakes and outlets.

                                 ARTICLE  X

2.  The Parties commit themselves to seek:
    (c) Appropriation of at least S year advance funding of the surveillance
        program stipulated in Article v i. (3)  above beginning with  FY 1978.
        The minimum funding levels to be requested will  be  $9,800,000 per
        annum for the USA and  $6,100,000 per  annum for  Canada.   The funding
        level will be reviewed and adjusted as needed annually.

                                                    £   ,
                 August 27, 1976 !
                                   r iL»w ^^^j^,
Mr. Richard D. Vine
Deputy Assistant Secretary of
 State for Canadian Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D. C.  20520

Dear Mr. Vine

    The International Joint Commission  wishes  to  bring  to  the attention
of the Governments the urgent need to provide  adequate  funding  for
water quality surveillance in the Great Lakes.

    Each year since the signing of the1  Agreement, the Cora; i;si on, on
the advice of the Water Quality Board,  has  informed  the Governments
that it could not report adequately on  progress,  or  lack of it,
toward achieving the goals of the Agreement since existing
surveillance programs were inadequate.   The following are  some  of
the reasons:

    -  the lack of sampling in nearshore areas, particularly
       problem areas;

    -  the lack of systematic quality control  programs  in  the
       eleven jurisdictions concerned in the Great Lakes Basin;

    - • the non-comparability of data and the absence of sampling
       data that is statistically valid;

    -  the lack of adequate staffing at all levels to carry out
       water quality assessment;

    -  the lack of specific objectives  for  many water pollutants; and

    -  the variable conditions, unpredictable  natural processes
       and vast size of the Great Lakes System.

    On July 21, 1976, at its Annual Meeting on Great Lakes Water  Quality,
the Coranission's principal advisor, the Great  Lakes  Water  Quality Board,
presented an International Surveillance Program  for  the Great Lakes


 ,nich in tie view of tne Board and the Com-nission represent Ui-,
rin-;.'-iu:n effort the Parties should consider in fulfilling tr-eir n,c,si
impcrt-ji-" obligation for surveillance under the 1972 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.  The following table" summarizes the funds required
for this program during eacn of the next ten years.

                 FUNDING REQbiKF,\L.MS FOx AN ADEQUATE
                  (Millions or 1(;7- •?.••'-  ;  - ?er Year)

                          Present        Additional          Iota'!
                       jExp&iJi tun;"     s^g

UNITED STATE:              4.2

CANADA                     4.3
            TOTAL                  3.5

            The surveillance progra.-n described in the enclosed report, Chapter 4
        Appendix B of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board's 1975 Fourth Annual
        Report, if fully funded anc implemented, will provide the data and
        information needed for the assessment c  Sreat Lakes water quality's
|i       progress tov/arcs achievement of tiv •:;>;.••.ctives of the 1972 Agreement,
if  f Aand the need for ne* or revised re^E;!:d', pro;ra;.is to ensure that this
          luable resource will be adequate'!;.' frc-tectec for the full use and
        enjoyment by the citizens cf both countries.  Tne costs for the 1^75
        proposal have increased over those of the 1974 proposal due to
        (1) a more ccr-.?n.-v;'3ive assessment of the ongoing programs and,
        (2) a mere finite estimate of the detailed components of the refined
        anc upgraded 1975 proposal.

            in view of the :mport«ir:CO of tns Sr&at liK£-s d., an -,oc^'.'.ationc'i
        water resource, comprising about SC" of tne .'lurcr, American supply of
        fresn surface wacers, and the fact tnat over $7 Dill ion are currently
        being expended to restore end protect the quality of this resource,
        the importance of an adequate internationally coordinated surveillance
        program tc monitor the quality of the lakes cannot be overstated.

            Tne CciT-jission in its "'974 Third Anr.ua'i Report to Governments
        reconvnendeu the adoption or an integrated utnational basin wide
        surveillarce program and presented preliminary cost estimates which
        did not include those for she monitoring cf persistent toxic
        contaminants in fish.

            The Canadian response to the Consnission's recommendation stated
        that Canada and Ontario wi"l continue to support an IJC coordinated
        surveillar^e program and tr,at additionally both governments have
        institutec a coordinated program of monitoring persistent contaminants
        |in cannercial fishery stocks.

         *Not  attached.   Available upon request  from  the International
          Joint  Commission.                                  l


    The Comniis:ion is gratified by the Canadian response and requests
that funds for  :he ten year detailed surveillance program be made
av-liable at the projected level on an ongoing basis.

    The Corliss ion has net received a response from the United States
t~ its surveillance recommendations contained In the Third Annual
Report.  The Commission urges the United States Federal and State
Governments to  increase the level of present expenditures to meet the
coordinated surveillance program requirements and to commit to the ten
year program funds to ensure that both levels of government meet the
obligations of  this activity of the Agreement.

    The CotMinission also urges the Parties to ensure that future fiscal
programs provide ongoing funds at the level  proposed,  for the
Agencies of Federal,  State and Provincial Governments  having
responsibility  for water quality surveillance and monitoring
activities in the Great Lakes.  The Commission further believes that
the level  of expenditures proposed, an increase over the 1974
preliminary estimate, should meet the surveillance program.
requirements over the next ten years.

    A similar letter  is being sent to the Secretary of State- for
    rnal  Affairs by the Secretary of the Canadian Section of the
                                   William A.  Bullard
                                   Secretary,  U.  S.  Section

cc:  D.  Charce
     Mr- Fitzhuoh Green
   -—tir. Ken Oakley
     Mr. G.  Alexander


SUBJECT:  Position Paper on Phosphorus

   FROM.  Nelson Thomas
         Phosphorus Work Group Leader

     T0:  George R. Alexander, Jr.
         Chairman, Sub-Group A

         Attached is the subject Review ir'aper including a  proposed revised  Annex  2

         to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

t PA For,,, 1320 6 'Rev 37-


The phosphorus control program in the present Agreement for the Great
Lakes has four basic objectives:

     a.  Restoration of year-round aerobic conditions in the bottom
         waters of the central basin of Lake Erie;

     b.  Reduction in present levels of algal growth in Lake Erie;

     c.  Reduction in present levels of algal growth in Lake Ontario,
         including the International Section of the St. Lawrence River,-

     d.  Stabilization of Lake Superior and Lake Huron in their present
         oligotrophic state.

To meet the objectives there are three parts of the phosphorus- control

     a)  Construction and operation of municipal waste treatment facil-
         ities to achieve 1 mg/1 in plants in excess of 1 mg d,

     b)  Regulation of phosphorus inputs from industrial dischargers to
         the maximum practical amount, and

     c)  Control of phosphorus inputs from animal husbandry operations.

In addition, programs could include the elimination of phosphorus from

A schedule of expected phosphorus reductions was prepared based on the
above programs.


     Three problems now exist with the control of phosphorus section of
the agreement.  These include the inability of the countries to achieve
the desired reductions in loading, and the general philosophy under which
eutrophication was to be controlled.   Loading reductions were projected
on what was believed attainable through current phosphorus control tech-
nology, rather than what loads are required to meet the objectives.
Finally, in the agreement it is not possible to determine how the load
reductions were to be achieved on a jurisdictional basis.

     Recent studies by the Corp of Engineers indicate that a 1 mg/1 efflu-
ent requirement on municipal inputs to Lake Erie will not be sufficient
to restore desired water quality conditions to Lake Erie.  EPA, through
one of its grants, has developed a phytoplankton-dissolved oxygen model

of Lake Erie.   Currently,  this rnoael is being used to estimate  the load
reduction required  to  maintain dissolved oxygen in the dypolirnnion of
Lake Erie.   If  phosphorus  reductions greater than can oe obtained from
municipal a.nd industrial cor.tr. 1 ,-re required, then information on con-
trol from non-point Sources will re required.

     The control  of eutrophicat: on 1.1 -:hr Agreement is based  entirely on
phosphorus loadings.   Experi^nc^ wiv..\ -,, . ,-. ;.-.jer,t agreement has indicated
a problem with  protecting  :.'":^. Idj-c-b .iy rjlyir.y on loadings alone.   Two
large problems  arise with  t: 2 appro-. - ,   : .  first is tne problem of esti-
mating tributary  and non-point sou:-,:-  .  _.... _o.  There have oeen  significant
errors in estimating these et the present tiir.e.  The second problem arises
from the form cf  the phosphorus  r-eing inputed.  Only certain  forms are
available .tor phytopLankton growth arid t.iese are contained in different
proportions  in  the  various inputs,   Reduction in one type of  input by a
specified amount  might nor have  tr.t ^ame effect as reduction  in another
type of input by  the sarr.e  ar.cunt.  A oonu-ir a'lion of loadings, lake phos-
phorus and chlorophyll contc.nt for both present and expected  conditions
would provJ.de for sounder  iu£.nage:."er.t cf -he Great Lakes.  The use  cf three
measurements .will permit evaluation of compliance to agreed upon water
quality improvements.

     In all  the lakes,  except for L<_. ; ,-r '.-r.igan,  sufficient data exists to
permit the inclusion of all tnree f :.•„.-:  of aata.   For Lake Michigan,  it
will be possible  to include values   ':.- r,<- cstnorus and chlorophyll  concen-
trations, nowever,  yr.csphorus loadi .; information can only be estimated at
this time.  The target load provided in  Appendix I of the Agreement cannot
be evaluated at this tine.   Studies ire  new in progress inac will  provide
for this analysis,  which snould  oe  complete in two to three years.

The use of a detergent phou -norci bar, j^ L. means  of cc.'. ;r../.llrig  phosphorus
inputs to tne Great Lakes  s.'.ou^v. ~e roe'.r.-i_-iatfcc; o-ibe^. ci two conditions
that now exist that did not ir: -.972.
     1.  Tne main re^^cn  fc,.'  net  ir<.__udi.'.c; ^ v^r^uaj.   .^...   o
         ban in the  . . J.  part of  the  Agreement was the r_s.< to public health.
         Tnere now exists m^r.y pr.osp.iate  s^cstitut-is lor both phosphorus  and
         NTA if a determinat_or, is  .-ic.de  cr^t the lact^r is still not accept-

     2.  Phosphorus  reductions that were  thought achievable from municipal
         waste treatments a :e not beir:g  realized.   Many operational prob-
         lems make it probable tnat it will be many years before satisfac-
         tory phosphorus  reduction  can be maintained at all waste treatment
         plants.  Removal of  phosphorus before they reach the treatment
         plants wcuj-u. reduc j  the  pnosphorus lead..;-.'; from the treatment plants
         with unsatisfactory  removal.


     It new appears  that  the  basic  objectives of the phosphorus control pro-
gram are still valid and  are  achievable.   However, phosphorus control may
have to include other types of inputs.  The basic  objectives still address
the key issues of eutrophication  and  would either  restore or protect the

lakes from further degradation.

     One of the major problems in preparing eutrophication remedial pro-
grams"is in estimating the inputs of phosphorus to the Great Lakes.   In
drawing up the agreement, phosphorus loadings were based on land area.
Only direct input measurements were made for Lake Ontario.  During the
last five years, direct measurements of phosphorus inputs have been made
for all of the lakes, except Lake Michigan.

     There appears to be substantial variations in the loads presented in
the annex, as compared to recently published loads through the International
Joint Commission.  The Upper Lakes Reference group and Corps of Engineers
have prepared detailed phosphorus input data.  These data have been used
in mathematical simulations and appear to be more reasonable than some of
the. 1972 estimates.  The estimates of tributary inputs appears to have been
one of the areas where the largest difference appears.

     The reductions called for through the Agreement are not being realized;
therefore, the residual loads are much larger than called for through the
Agreement.  The phosphorus reductions specified in the Agreement are of a
larger magnitude than can be obtained with present technology.   Many of the
larger industrial sources were under control before the 1972 agreement went
into effect.  The only major reductions that could be achieved were from
municipal sources.  As indicated in the 1975 Remedial Programs Subcommittee
report, many of the major municipalities were not meeting the 1 mg/1 total
phosphorus (?) effluent requirement.  Either the amount of phosphorus reduc-
tions was overestimated or the amount of phosphorus being discharged has
increased.  Even with all the treatment plants that have been completed in
the Lake Erie drainage, the quantity of phosphorus in Lake Erie has not
decreased and even may be on the increase.

     In recent studies on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, it appears that the
target loads are too high to meet objectives a)  and c).   The 1975 Surveil-
lance Subcommittee report presented an analysis of the phosphorus loadings
to Lake Ontario.   In addition, the report presented results on  recent mathe-
matical modeling of Lake Ontario phytoplankton.   Results of these efforts
will be used in formulating the total phosphorus (?)  loading limit for Lakes
Erie and Ontario.
 Note:  The  rest  of this  Position  Paper  appears  as  the proposed  revised
       Annex  2.


      .  April  IS,  1977                  REGION V

SUBJECT:  p0-jnt  Source Discharges Work Group Recommendations
      :  Dale  S.  Bryson,  Chairman

    To:  Point Source  Discharges k;rk ': :\.

        I  transmitted to you ".no ;,a-,n •>/, :: our task group  report.   When  we
        last  iret3  we agreed I would v'crv,o'. ,->ome recommendations  at  the appro-
        priate time.

        On April  I.-?,  tt'\ Alexancer neld a full Sub-Group A meeting to review
        the various  task grojp reports and recommendations.

        There were no adverse cor, -Herts to ou>- task group report.   For that
        meeting,  1 developed attcc.hr.2Pt 1, w.v,ch were draft recommendations of
        specific  *. d'-.euage changes  in the Great Lakes Agreement.  There were
        some  r:nr/r suggested charges ;r, tnat r'raft.  I have made those changes
        already 2nc,  vherefcr??, ct";ac,^r:ert 1 reflects the final document as will
        be subfrntta-:  tc  '".he full S^i-<>r) ^ A rr.o nercticting  team.  The plan now
        calls fcr c-acn t^Sr; group repd1- ;\   e submitted in toto.   From there,
        the negotiating  tea.r •',•-;"'  fasr/ -^ •:••£•.r negotiating stance.   Therefore,
        the language  anc our pos".ricn c^r. :.^ iccept^c or reviewed  as  a final
        pos i ti or. „

        If you rave  any  questions  en tne above, or violently  disagree with any
        of the recommendations, please let me know immediately.
                                            Dale S. Brysor,

        cc:   R.  Schneicer
EPA Fot.r. 13?0 « (Rev 3-74^

                                               ATTACHMENT   ONE

                               ARTICLE V
                      PROGRAMS  AND OTHER  MEASURES

1.  The achievement of the water quality  objectives  will only be
accomplished if appropriate pollution  control  measures  are  fully in-
stituted on all point and non-point sources  of pollution in the  entire
Great Lakes Basin.   Pollution control  programs and measures in both
Counties should be  fully compatible in all  respects  including minimum
levels of treatment, maximum schedules of compliance, breadth of pro-
gram implementation and public  accountability.  These pollution  control
programs and other  measures shall  be implemented and completed in the
shortest possible time but no later that  July  1, 1983.  (This date will be
negotiated.)  The programs and  measures shall  include the  following:
    a)  Pollution from Municipal Sources.  Programs  for the abate-
    ment and control of discharges of  municipal  sewage  into the
    Great Lakes System including:
        (i)  construction and operation in all municipalities
             having sewer systems  of waste treatment facilities
             providing at least secondary treatment  defined
             numerically elsewhere, including  phosphorus re-
             moval  with additional treatment if water quality
             standards so requires; (Language  from another  task
             group  was found to be more acceptable and  will be
             used including the specific  definition  of  seaway
       (ii)  provision of financial resources  to assist prompt
             construction of needed facilities;

                             - 2 -
  (i1i)  establishment of requirements for construction and
         operating  standards for facilities;
   (iv)  measures to find practical solutions for reducing
         pollution from overt";ows of combined storm and
         sanitary sewers;
    (v)  requirements for the control of the discharge of
         toxic pollutants into the Great Lakes Basin through
         comprehensive programs;
   (vi)  embodiment of all pollution abatement requirements
         including schedules, monitoring and effluent re-
         strictions in a L'l-gle cocument that is periodically
         reviewed anc placed before the public;
  (vii)  monitoring and surveillance activities  necessary to
         ensure compliance with the foregoing programs and
 (viii)  establisnme.it of effective enforcement  programs to
         ensure tne aoove pollution abatement requirements
         are fully met.
b)  Pollution from Industrial Sources.  Programs for the abatement
and control  of pollution from industrial sources, including:
    (i)  establishment of waste treatment requirements for
         all industrial plants discharging waste into the
         waters of the Great Lakes Basin, to provide levels
         of  treatment at least as restrictive as best avail-
         able control technology economically achievable;

                           -  3  -
 (11)  establishment of pre-treatment  requirements  for
       all  Industrial  plants  discharging waste  Into pub-
       Hcally owned treatment  works;
(111)  requirements  for the control  of the discharge of
       toxic  pollutants into  the  Great Lakes  Basin  through
       comprehensive programs;
 (iv)  embodiment of all  pollution  abatement  requirements
       including schedules, monitoring and effluent restric-
       tions  in a single  document that is periodically re-
       viewed and placed  before the  public;
  (v)  establishment of effective enforcement programs to
       ensure the above pollution abatement requirements
       are  fully met.

SUBJECT:   Position Paper on Non-Point Sources
  FROM:   Ralph G. Christensen, Leader
         Non-Point Sources Work Group

    TO:   George R. Alexander, Jr.
         Chairman, Sub-Group A

         Attached is the subject review paper which includes appropriate review
         comments and additional review comments which are attached for Senior
         Review Group consideration.   The Department of Commerce, the Non-Point
         Source Branch of the EPA, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
         Conservation indicated no comment on the Non-Point Source Work Group
         Position Paper.

      1320-6 'Rev 3 74'

         League  of Women  Voters
Ralph G. Christensen, Leader
Non-point Sources Work Group
Office of Great Lakes Coordinator
OSEPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, 111. 60604

League of Women Voters Lake Erie Basin Committee
Janet B. Hutchison for Mary Lewis, Coordinator
Edith Chase, past coordinator
                                      1224 Quilliams Hoad
                                      Cleveland Heights, OH 1*4121
                                      April 21, 1977
  SUBJECT*  Review Paperi Non-point Sources
  Page 5'  Please define 'hydromedification.1

  Page 6-9»  Shouldn't the Coastal Zone Management Act be included in the listing of
  U.S. legislation?  Implementation and funding of these laws vary; in some states
  little has been done.  What do you see as the role of the IJC?

  Page 12i  We agree that consideration only of structural solutions to urban
  drainage problems is inadequate and that management approaches should be emphasized.

  Page 13»  We support the expansion of Article V (l) (d).

  Page 14i  A strong education program is essential for public officials and citizens
  as well as landowners.
  The final report of the PLUARG study, due in July 1978, should be valuable.  It is
  important to place greater emphasis on controlling nonpoint source pollution in
  order to meet water quality objectives. Equity demands that both point sources and
  nonpoint sources carry their fair share of the burden of cleanup. Funding of
  nonstructural solutions to stormwater runoff and other  nonpoint source problems
  should be considered.

  Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments.

            *  '', i \

   V-r\,-o,,-'  "-V
  cc Alexander
     MacDonald - LWVUS
     Strang - LMILG
     Carlson - LWYO
                t **•* *
                               ft JU t ft
                                                       tn n et

                                                Stephen M.  Yaksich
                                                U.S.  Corps  of Engineers
              Article V l.(d) for Non-Point Sourdes Work Group
The following measures for the abatement and control of pollution from
agricultural, forestry and other land use activities, could be included in
Article V l.(d) of the Great Lakes 'Water Quality Agreement.

     1.  The appropriate sta ;e agency v.i.e. Cooperative Extension Service
of the State University) shall review soil test results and recommended
fertilizer applicationrates uo determine if the recommended fertilizer applicatio:
rates can be decreased.  In the 1960 's an annual-plus-soil buildup
recommendation was maae for many soils in the Great Lakes basin.  Data now
      .••-.-- •>•"*>!' a i rorom-mr->nr< ir io" will oijff-ir-f. on tnanv of these soils.
       .   *-kt* ««t*->._kk - -- t. -. .._ . -- * --- *     -   -— -- - -
      2.   Daily monitoring  stations  for sediment,  chemistry  and flow should
 be established at  key agricultural  basins.   These stations  should be
 maintained a  minimum of  20 years.

      3.   Funding and staffing  of  L..--SI. ^^encies which  will  be  involved
 in the identification and  control of  no ."-point sources of pollution should
 begin immediately.

      4.   Land use  decisions which will have  a large  impact  on  Great Lakes
 should be reviewed (made)  by the International Joint Commission.

      5.   Deeding of  large  traits of underwater land  for landfill  operations
 should be reviewed (made)  by the International Joint Commission.

      6.   A series  of demonstration  programs  (educational and implementation)
 should be made in  select watersheds in the Great  Lakes basins.  These  sites
 •shall be  so situated so  visits can  be easily made to one of them  by everyone
 in the Great  Lakes basin.

                      DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                          536 SOUTH CLARK STREET
                          CHICAGO, ILLINOIS  60605
6 April 1977
TO:       Ralph Orristensen, EPA, Chairman, Non-Point Sources
          Work Group
FRCM:     Jan Rasgus, Corps of Engineers    (fe^

SUBJECT:  Comments on Section V-l-d, Great Lakes Water Quality
1.  It might be more inclusive  (but perhaps not specific enough) to
change the title of paragraph 5(d) to "Pollution from Non-Point Sources."
Reference should also be made in this paragraph to the control of non-
point pollution from sources such as road construction, mining and urban
development.  For example:

     (d) Pollution from Non-Point Sources.  Measures for the abatement
and control of pollution from agriculture, forestry practices, road
construction, mining, urban development and other land use activities.

2.  Suggest that the following be added to item (iv):

     "...forestry and other land use activities including encouragement
to appropriate agencies to adopt regulations governing the implementation
of Best Management Practices."

3.  If this Section (V-l-d) is expanded to address non-point pollution
from urban run-off, another item (v) may have to be added.  It could be
similar to item (iv).

4.  Suggest changing the wording in item (i) from "pest control products"
to "pesticides."

5.  The Corps of Engineers will probably not be directly impacted by
most of the proposed measures, but they could indirectly benefit.  In
particular, water quality could be improved at or near Corps of Engineers'
proj ects.

                    NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION
                            WORK GROUP
                           REVIEW PAPER

          In 1972 the Governments of the Un.it.fJ States and Canada entered
into an Agreement on the Great Lakes to develop and implement cooperative
programs and measures to restore and enhance the water quality of the Great
Lakes System.  Article IX of the U.S./Can.ida Water Quality Agreement requires
that, "The Parties shall conduct a comprehensive review of the operation and
effectiveness of this Agreement during the fifth year after its coming into

          One of the important pollution impacts on the water quality of
the lakes comes from agriculture, forestry, and other land use activities
within the Great Lakes Basin,  The purpose of this paper is to review the
U.S./Canada Water Quality Agreement to see if the goals, objectives, terms,
and deadlines of Article V, 1, (d) and the Pollution from Land Use Activities
Reference have been met.  Measures for the abatement and control of non-point
source pollution from agriculture, forestry and other land use activities
include animal husbandry operations, cc.r.struction, disposal of liquid and
solid wastes, hazardous materials, nutrients, sediment and in general all
rural and urban drainage,


          During the preparation of the Water Quality Agreement it was
recognized that pollution from non-point sources was a contributing factor
to the water quality of the lakes and its associated tributary streams.   In
order to better understand the extent of the non-point source pollution  problem
a text of reference was proposed to the International Joint Commission to study
pollution in the Great Lakes System from agriculture, forestry and other land
use activities and was then written and incorporated intc the U.S./Canada
Agreement.  This reference was developed as a result of Article VI of the
Agreement wherein the two Governments requested the IJC to conduct a study
of pollution of the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System from agriculture,
forestry, and other land use activities.  Article IV of the Boundary Water
Treaty of 1909 provides that the boundary waters and waters flowing across the
boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health and
property on the other side, and is also referenced in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.

          The IJC is requested to enquire into and report to the two Governments
upon the following questions:

               "(1)  Are the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System
                     being polluted by land drainage (including ground and
                     surface runoff and sediments) from agriculture, forestry,
                     urban and industrial land development, recreational and
                     park land development, utility and transportation systems
                     and natural sources?

                (2)   If the answer to the foregoing question is in the
                     affirmative,  to what extent,  by what cause,  and in
                     what localities is the pollution taking place?

                (3)   If the Commission should find that  pollution of the
                     character just referred to is taking place,  what
                     remedial measures would, in its judgment,  be most
                     practicable and what would be the probable cost

The Commission is requested to consider the adequacy of  existing  programs  and
control measures, and the need for improvements thereto, relating to:

                     (a)  inputs of nutrients,  pest control  products,
                          sediment, and other pollutants from the sources
                          referred to above;

                     (b)  land use;

                     (c)  land fills, land dumping, and  deep well disposal

                     (d)  confined livestock feeding operations and other  animal
                          husbandry operations; and

                     Ce)  pollution from other agricultural, forestry and  land
                          use sources.

          In carrying out its study the Commission should identify deficiencies
in technology and recommend actions for their correction.

          The Commission should submit its report  and recommendations to the
two Governments as soon as possible and should submit reports from time to time
on the progress of its investigation."

          The Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group  (PLUARG)  is the
vehicle for the Commission to carry out these studies.  PLUARG described four
major tasks to accomplish its charge:

               "(1)   Assess problems, management programs and research and
                     to attempt to set priorities  in relation to  the best
                     information now available on the effects of land use
                     activities on water quality in boundary waters of the
                     Great Lakes System.

                (2)   Inventory of land use and land use  practices, with
                     emphasis on certain trends and projections to 1980 and,
                     if possible to 2020.

                (3)   Intensive studies of a small  number of representative
                     watersheds, selected and conducted  to permit some extra-
                     polation of data to the entire Great Lakes Basin and  to
                     relate contamination of water quality,  which may be found

                     at river mouths on the Great Lakes, to specific land
                     uses and practices.

                (4)  Diagnosi, of degree of impairment of water quality  in
                     the Great Lanes, including assessment of concentrations
                     of contaminant;: of concern in sediments, fish and other
                     aquatic resource. "

          The schedule for the final reporting of tne PLUARG studies to  the two
governments is July 1978.  This repr j', •„xii provide the best information that
the Federal, Provincial, State and the academic community can provide.   Rec-
ommendations for control measures and remedial programs will be presented.

Ill  Analysis of Arti:.le V 1. (d)

          Article v' I. (c'j states that the two Governments shall develop and
implement programs an,- otr.er measures directed toward the achievement of the
water quality objectives as ^oon as practicable ir. accordance with legislation
in the two countries.

          Following tr.e signing of "-_   * ./Canada Agreement the U.S. Congress
enacted PL i-2-SGG - the Federal /-'.it..,. .V. ration Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Major programs under this Act hav3 be ,  ^tiHzed as the cnief mechanism of
meeting the goals of the Agreement   /, 02-500 preserves the constitutional
rights of the States, expands the J^-cral role i" water pollution control, in-
creased the level ana. amount of funding for construction of municipal sewage
treatment facilities,, elevate-a warer quality management planning to a higher
level of significance, and crer.ee new means of public participation.  The
objective of tr.e Act ;s to "•. estore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity cf tne Cation's waters'".

          The Act provides f'r achieving :ts goals anc objectives in phases,
with accompanying recuxrer. cr,\ s ar.c de^alines.   Ultimately, aK point source
controls are. directed coward achieving .; national goal of ".ne elimination of
the discharge of pollutants ! y 19S5   Th-: Ac~. also requires the development of
comprehensive programs for p: eventing, rec^cing ar.u eliminating  pollution.

          Section ZOc prcvic,,.3 for ':he development of comprehensive plans by
the States and area wide water quality management agencies to control pollution
from all point and non-point sources.

                1.   EPA has issued guidance to these agencies with regard
                     to planning, program development, public participation
                     activities, outputs expected, management agencies,
                     regulatory programs,  best management practices for non-
                     point sources such as agriculture, silviculture, mining,
                     urban runoff, and hydromodification.  (Hydromodification
                     meaas any changes in natural water courses or drainage
                     Drought about by the activities of people.)

                2.    Seven Statewide and 25 area wide  agencies  have  assumed
                     water pollution control responsibilities  in  the Great
                     Lakes Basin.

                3.    Grant awards  to State and local area wide  water quality
                     management agencies in the Great  Lakes Basin  total  approx-
                     imately $30,000,000.

                4.    Plans are being prepared by all of the  agencies to  prevent
                     or control the runoff of non-point sources of pollution
                     through the use of best management practices and to name
                     management agencies to implement  programs.

                5.    EPA is conducting National Conferences  for 208  agencies
                     to present information on regulatory programs and best
                     management practices for control  of non-point sources.
                     In addition to Section 208 of PL  92-500,  Sections 104,
                     105, 106, 108(a), 108(d), 201,  303,  304,  and 305 are all
                     supportive to the development of  non-point source pollution
                     control guidelines and control measures.

          Other U.S.  legislation enacted since April of 1972 to support  the
Agreement water quality objectives and address non-point  sources  of  pollution

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act - as amended by  PL
94-140, November 1975.

          Objectives  of this Act are to provide for the effective and safe
use of pesticides.   It:

                1.    Requires Federal registration of  all pesticides sold
                     or distributed interstate as well as intrastate;

                2.    Prohibits the use of any pesticide in a manner  not
                     prescribed on the label;

                3.    Restricts the use of certain very hazardous  pesticides
                     to certified  applicators.

Funds totaling $71,468,000 were authorized for carrying out  provisions of PL
94-140 up to March 31,  1977.

Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 95-525)

          A.   This Act became law in December of 1974, it provides  for:

               1.     Establishment of primary regulations for  the protection
                     of public health;

               2.     Establishment of secondary regulations  relating to  the
                     taste, odor and appearance of drinking  water;

               3.     Measures to protect underground drinking  water  sources;

                 4.    Research and studies regarding health,  economic and
                      technological problems of drinking water supplies.
                      Specifically required are studies  of viruses in
                      drinking water and contamination by cancer-causing

                 5.    A survey of the quality ana availability of rural
                      water supplies; and etc.

           B.    The Act provioes  for protection of underground sources of
                drinking water by means of a regulatory  program.   Primary
                responsibility for carrying out these requirements falls
                to the States,  If they fail, EPA will prescribe  control
                programs for them.

           C.    Proposed regulations have been issued for State underground
                inspection control programs and for grants to aid programs
                for underground water source protection  at State,  Interstate
                and local level.

           D.    A manual of water well construction practices to  protect  ground
                water resources from pollution has been  developed, by contract,
                and provided to State and local agencies.

Authorization of appropriations totaling $156 million for fiscal  years 1975,  1976,
and 1977 are associated with the  Safe Drinking Water Act.

Toxic Substances Control Act  CPL  94-469)

           A.    This Act becane law on October of 1976.   It provides  for  the
                development of adequate data on the effect of chemical substances
                and mixtures on health and the environment and the regulation of
                those substances  which prevent an unreasonable risk of injury to
                the health and environment.

           B.    A task force .ias  been organized in EPA to develop procedures
                for implementing  the Act.

           C.    Regulations for the labeling and disposal of  Polychlorinated
                Biphenyls (PCB's)  are being prepared.

           D.    Regulations have  been issued regarding:

                 1.   General provisions and inventory reporting requirements
                     for toxic substances.

                 2.   Clarification of basic definitions  of toxic  substances.

Resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 94-580)

           This Act became law in October, 1976.  It was built on the foundation
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and the Resource Recovery Act of 1970.

           The Act statutorily establishes the Office of Solid Waste within EPA
to guide the implementation of the law and establishes a Federal/State/local
government partnership to share the implementation.  The major thrusts of the
efforts that will be required by this partnership are:

                 1.     Land protection through regulation  and control  of  wastes
                       and waste  disposal  operations.

                 2.     Regulations and control of  the  hazardous waste  stream
                       "cradle to grave."

                 3.     Improvements  in all aspects of  waste management at the
                       State,  regional and local levels.

                 4.     Reduction  of  the waste  stream through increased resources
                       recovery and  waste  reduction  efforts.

                 5.     Broad  public  education  programs  with rapid dissemination
                       of all types  of solid waste management information materials.

                 6.     Broad  public  participation  in the development and  improve-
                       ment of solid waste management  throughout  the Nation.

           A review of other  federal agency non-point  source activity  shows  that
several U.S.  Department of Agriculture agencies provide educational information,
research,  technical  services  and  cost-sharing  programs  for farmers and landowners  to
control soil  erosion.   The agencies  of USDA are:

                 (1)   Agricultural Research Service  (ARS)  --Research

                 (2)   Soil Conservation Service (SCS)--Technical  assistance

                 (3)   Forest  Service  (FS)  —Forested lands

                 (4)   Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

                      (ASCS)--cost-sharing on  practices

                 (5)   Economic Research Service (ERS)--Economic and sociologic

                      costs and benefits associated NFS pollution control.

           The U.S.  Soil Conservation Service (SCS)  gives  technical  assistance  to
fanners and other citizens for the application of soil  conservation  practices.
Many of these practices reduce pollution to streams  and lakes  by preventing  the
loss of soil, nutrients, and pesticides from farm fields.   Assistance  is  provided
through 190 local county soil and water conservation districts in the  United States
portion of the Great Lakes basin.  Progress of the application of pollution  reducing
soil and water conservation practices may be demonstrated  by the following table
which shows the current status of these practices:

                          GREAT LAKES
                           UNITED STATfS
Practice Item
Contour Farming
Crop Residue Management
Field Windbreak
Grade Stabiliz. Structure
Minimum Tillage
Pasture § Hayland Planting
Streambank Protection
Terrace, basin
Terrace, gradient
Terrace, level
Terrace, parallel
Total terraces
Tree Planting
Grassed waterway or Outlet
Land Adequately Protected
Cropland to Grassland
Cropland to Woodland
Ag. Waste Mgt, System
;7t .
1,783 ,030

           The U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS),
through the Agricultural Conservation Program, provides  cost-sharing assistance  to
farmers to help offset the application costs of conservation practices,  many of
which directly benefit water quality.  Since the signing of the Great Lakes  Water
Quality Agreement ASCS has provided $18,000,000 of cost-sharing assistance for
these practices, in the Basin.

            The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, administered by the
Housing and Urban Development Administration (HUD),  the  Coastal Zone Management
Act (PL 92-583), administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ-
ration (NOAA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  (COE) ,  Lake Erie Wastewater
Management Study will all impact on the non-point source pollution control measures.

           A summary of legislative authority for Canada dealing with water quality
measures and controls is contained in Appendix-C to the  1975 Annual Report on Great
Lakes Water Quality.  Rather than list Canadian water quality legislation in this
review we will reference the 1975 Great Lakes Water Quality Appendix-C Report.

           A comparison of non-point sources of controls on agriculture is difficult
since Canada does not have an Agency equivalent to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
to manage a sediment control program,  Canada has no system for tracking land use
practices as does USDA-SCS.  Canada does not have the technical assistance program
available at the local level of government to work one on one with the farmer or
landowner in planning and applying conservation practices.

           In Ontario there are Conservancy Districts which have responsibility for
flood control programs and provide for some sediment and pollutant reduction.

           The general analysis of the U.S. legislation  for non-point source pollution
control shows that there are sufficient programs and controls when fully implemented
to meet the U,S,/Canada Water Quality Agreement objectives.  Canada does not have
comparable programs for implementing non-point source pollution control measures.

IV  What Needs to be Done

           The Agreement, as related to PLUARG's charges, requires no change.  How-
ever, for the benefit of future references relating to the Great Lakes, the  Agree-
ment should"be more specific regarding water quality criteria according to water
use.  Consideration should be given to continuing the pilot watershed monitoring
work after PLUARG has completed its work so that effectiveness of remedial measures
may be evaluated and refinements made as required.  If there is to be an acceleration
of remedial measures applied to land in the Great Lakes  Basin to reduce pollution
levels in the lakes, the appropriate action agencies will require additional funding
and personnel resources.

           Legislative changes at the State level and the U.S. will be required.
Hopefully Section 208 Planning will provide the impetus  for these changes.  PLUARG
activities and Section 108(a) projects will also provide inputs for guiding  these

           Rural non-point source pollution control measures might best be
implemented by strengthening local area management institutions.  These institu-
tions should have the ability to educate the landowner in the use of Best Management
Practices, provide technical back-up on practices which  will best achieve water
quality objectives, provide cost-sharing incentives and  have enforcement support
to accomplish water quality objectives where education and cost-sharing incentives
fail to achieve desired objectives.

           Urban drainage contains a variety of wastes.  Combined sewer overflows
have been addressed to some degree on the U.S. side through the municipal con-
struction grant program where funds have been available for conveyance and treatmen'
approachs.  Cuiada has also provided some support to several municipalities  for
addressing combined sewer overrlows through a conveyance and treatment approach.
The U.S. has accepted the premise that an approach to the problem which looks only
on the structurally intensive solutions which are inherent in conveyance/treatment
systems is inadequate.  Application of Best Management Practices  (BMP) for both
source and conveyance/treatment offer jpportimities for ultimate solutions which
indicate the following advantages:

                 (1)  Address poliut.-rt reduction at the source

                 (2)  Provide for opportunities to develop maximum cost effectiver.e:

                 (3j  Introduce opportunities for greater reliability

                 (4)  Involve less intensive allocation of resources

                 (5)  Emphasize optimum use of existing systems

                 (6)  Lead to nore facility in solutions

                 (7)  Tend to avoid. ~n.3 cevelopment of secondary problems

           Information collected frc—. J.S. demonstration projects on combined
and storm water overflow control measures strongly suggests that iJ.S. policy, when
fully developed for control of the problem, will include non-point source consid-
erations in combination with point source considerations.

           It is suggested tha-_ changes be made in Article V 1, (d) of the Ivater
Quality Agreement.   The proposed changes are shown in italics as follows:

                      (d)  Pol'ution from Agricultural, Forestry, and Other  Land
                           Us~e Activities^  y.3-asures~~fi3r the abaVement ar.d control
                           oT"~-pollution from agricultures forestry pract^zS; read
                           aanjtrtnctionj  rrrln-lrjj ,  urban development,  urban drainage,
                           and other land use activities, including:

                      (i)  Measures for the control of pesticides with a view to
                           limiting inputs into the Great Lakes System, including
                           regilations to ensure that pest control products  judged
                           to .iave long term deleterious effects on the quality of
                           wat^r or its biotic components shall be used only as
                           authorized by the responsible regulatory agencies and
                           that pest control products shall not be applied directly
                           to water except in accordance with the requirements of
                           the responsible regulatory agencies;

                     (iij  Measures for the abatement and control of pollution from
                           ani-nal husbandry operations, including encouragement to
                           appropriate regulatory agencies to adopt regulations gov-
                           erning site selection and disposal of liquid and  solid
                           wastes in order to minimize the loss of pollutants to
                           receiving waters;

                   (iii)  Measures governing the disposal of solid wastes and
                          contributing to the achievement of the water quality
                          objectives,  including encouragement to appropriate
                          regulatory agencies to ensure proper location of land
                          fill and land dumping sites and regulations governing
                          the disposal on land of hazardous polluting substances.

                    (iv)  Advisory programs and measures that serve to abate and
                          control inputs of nutrients,  sediments, and other
                          pollutants into receiving waters from agriculture3
                          forestry practices,  road construction, m-Lning,  urban
                          development, urban drainage,  and other land use activities
                          including encouragement to appropriate agencies to adopt
                          and implement Best Management Practices.

V   Summary of Conclusions and Recommended Actions.

To summarize:

           (1}   PLUARG reference needs no change.

           (2)   It is suggested that  Article V, l.(d)  be changed as proposed in
                 the text of this Position Paper.

           (3)   Monitoring of PLUARG  pilot watersheds  should be continued beyond
                 July 1978 to evaluate an up-date recommendations in PLUARG final
                 report and also evaluate the recommended remedial measures.

           (4)   Consider a strong education and technical assistance program
                 for landowners on non-point source pollution controls and best
                 management practices  for preserving water quality in streams
                 and lakes.

                 Consider a cost-sharing program for best management practices
                 implementation for water quality improvement.

           (6)   Consider enforcement  alternatives should education, technical
                 assistance and cost-sharing programs for implementing best
                 management practices  for achieving water quality fail.

           (7)   Urban stormwater runoff (drainage) needs to be brought into
                 focus as a major source of pollution during wet weather and
                 control measures should be developed for its management.

           (8)   Non-point source pollution controls should be implemented at
                 the local level of government.

           (9)   A progress reporting  system for tracking implementation of Best
                 Management Practices  should be established for both the U.S. and

          (10)   A program for long term maintenance of Best Management Practices
                 should be developed whereby changes in landowners will not destroy
                 established control measures.


   3ATE:   April 28, 1977

SUBJECT:   Hazardous Substances Work Group Review
   'ROM.    Karl E. Bremer
          Toxic Substances Coordinator

    TO:    Robert Schneider
          Great Lakes Coordinator
          I have attached the final draft of the Hazardous  Substances Work Group

          All comments received from my work group have been  incorporated.
EPA Form 132P-6 'Rev 1 76i



     During the past decade more and more emphasis has been placed on the

area of hazardous substances.   This has been acknowledged by the recent

enactment of the Environmental Contaminants Act in Canada and the imple-

mentation of the Toxic Substances Control Act in the U.S.

     In 1972 a Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was entered into by

Canada and the United States,  providing for greater cooperation and team-

work between the two countries in cleaning up and maintaining the Great

Lakes Basin.

     As a result of the 1972 Agreement, huge sums of money have been

granted to control discharges affecting the water quality of the Great

Lakes.  Both countries have been and currently are directing increasing

resources towards surveillance and monitoring activities to determine

what impacts and changes result from these remedial programs.  The main

focus of activity within the framework of the Water Quality Agreement has

been one of abatement and now monitoring by both sides,  a priority that

is as it should be.

     The general concept in the Agreement provides for agreement on specific

water quality objectives for the boundary waters, with each country committed

to developing and implementing the programs.

     While the high hopes of 1972 for quick results in cleaning up existing

pollution and preventing further deterioration of water quality have not all

been realized and there have been public expressions of disappointment, muc'i

has been achieved and the stage is set for continued progress towards the

goals of the Agreement.  Both countries are committed to, and have major

programs underway for, municipal sewage treatment and phosphorus removal

facilities.  Both short-term and long-term problems lie ahead.  For now and

the forseeable future, the International Joint Commission (IJC) believes the

basis of the Agreement should continue to be the fundamental principles of

non-degradation and enhancement of water quality.

     The most serious problem we face in terms of the Great Lakes and their

use is the accumulation of toxic substances.  Heavy metals and persistent

organic contaminants may wall be the most serious problem governments face

in ensuring future beneficial uses of the Great Lakes.  They pose serious

threats to water quality, the fishery, human health, and the ecosystem in

general.  Too little is known of the identity of these substances, their

sources, amounts present, characteristic forms and behavior, and their

effects on human health and the environment.  Control and monitoring programs

(to establish baseline data) are imperative, but research is urgently required

to permit both the early identification of such substances and the establish-

ment of appropriate water quality objectives.

     The Corn-mission recommends that the Governments make it a matter of the

highest priority to undertake jointly, with the assistance of the Great

Lakes Water Quality Board and the Great Lakes Research Advisory Board, a

special program to assess the problem of toxic contaminants in the Great

Lakes with a view to developing and implementing programs for their control.

It is especially urgent that early warning mechanisms be developed to

identify new chemical substances that might present risks to health and the

environment if discharged into the waters of the Great Lakes Basin.

Statement of Problems

Spills of Hazardous Substances

     During 1972-1975 a number of spill contingency plans were developed to

deal with spills of major proportions to the Great Lakes.  In general, these

contingency plans emphasize the administrative structure necessary for the

countermeasure response to major spills.  They do not include detailed

response procedures for dealing effectively with oils and, in particular,

hazardous substances.  Spill contingency plans rely on the ingenuity and

experience of the responding agency for the effective countermeasures to a

given disaster.  The Joint Canada-United States Marine Pollution Contingency

Plan for Spills of Oil and Other Noxious Substances is one contingency plan.

     At this time, development of response procedures is needed to deal

safely and effectively with spills of chemicals.

Delay in Adoption of Annex 9

     Annex 9 was prepared pursuant to Article V (1)(i) of the Agreement,

which calls for the development of an Annex that identifies hazardous

polluting substances.  An introduction to Annex 9 and a part of the Annex

are attached.  The list in Appendix I of Annex 9 was developed to facilitate

the following:

     1.  Prompt joint spill reporting and response action (Annex 8) and

     2.  Development of compatible regulations or programs for the
         prevention of discharges of such substances from vessels
         (Annex 3), from shipping activities  (Annex 5), from dredge
         spoil disposal (Annex 6), and from onshore-offshore facilities
         (Annex 7).

     Appendix II of Annex 9 was prepared as a guide for indicating other

potentially hazardous polluting substances.  Provision was made that

substances could be added to this list if such substances were considered

a potential hazard (based on data on toxicity, persistence, mutagenicity,


     The final technical draft of Annex 9 has been reviewed by the U.S. and

Canada, but has not been adopted.  The U.S. cannot take action on this

Annex until the proposed regulation on designation of hazardous substances

under Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of

1972 are final.

Toxic Contaminants

     During the past five years, the area of toxic contaminants has been

approached by a number of sub-groups within the IJC.  Contaminants of major

concern in the Great Lakes have included organic compounds, specifically

polychlorinated biphenyls, dieldrin, Mirex, and toxaphene and other sub-

stances such as phthalates, petroleum-related hydrocarbons (polynuclear

aromatics), and heavy metals including arsenic, zinc, cadmium, mercury, and

lead.  Although no major effects on human health have been directly related

to any particular contaminantin Great Lakes fish or water, many contami-

nants have exceeded temporary tolerance levels for human consumption.

     The following problems have been associated with toxic contaminants

in the Great Lakes:

     1.  In setting Water Quality Objectives, the IJC has not made
         adequate use of public health specialists  (in particular,
         those qualified experts in the field of environmental

     2.  Laboratories obtaining Great Lakes data on toxic substances
         have not used adequate standarization and/or quality control
         among laboratories;

     3.  The real significance of data obtained on toxic contaminants
         is often not known (quite often inferences have to be made);

     4.   Often the sources of toxic contaminants within the Great Lakes
         are unknown;

     5.   Data on the partitioning of toxic substances between air, water,
         sediment, fish, wildlife,  and man is incomplete;

     6.   The prediction of future toxic substances accumulation in the
         Great Lakes has not been approached by any current IJC programs;

     7.   Without the addition of Annex 9 to the Agreement, the area of
         hazardous substances is not adequately addressed in the Agreement,
         particularly with respect to definition and designation of
         hazardous substances;

     8.   Current IJC reports on toxic substances often state the probleri
         but fail to put the data in proper perspective;

     9.   The ecological implications of exposure to toxic substances,
         particularly those that are highly persistent or induce
         pathological and behavior effects in man are not understood.
Recommendat ions

     1.   The IJC should consider the participation of environmental
         health agencies in further deliberations on toxic substances.
         It has been suggested by the Implementation Committee that
         environmental health agencies in both countries should
         consider establishing required action levels for current
         toxic substances of concern and other toxic substances that
         may be identified in the future;

     2.   Further surveillance and monitoring work associated with IJC
         programs should incorporate improved data quality control
         programs and, when appropriate, standard methods in quanti-
         fication and identification of toxic substances;

     3-   Research should be intensified to determine fate and effects
         (human and ecological) of toxic substances.  Other data from
         the chemical and medical literature should also be integrated;

     4.   Using current legislation, including the Environmental Contami-
         nants Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, a current
         inventory should be established on the types and amounts of
         chemicals manufactured, discharged and used in the Great Lakes
         Basin, their transport, fate, and ultimate disposal;

     5.   Further research should be conducted on partitioning and exchange
         of toxic substances between air, water, sediment, fish and

     6.  An "early warning system" should  be  established to predict future
         toxic substance problems.   The  recommendation of the Implementa-
         tion Committee adopted at the February  1-2,  1977, meeting is a
         possible approach;

     7.  Annex 9 of the Agreement should be adopted;

     8.  The collection, analysis  and dissemination  of past and current
         data on sources and environmental distribution of persistent
         toxic substances should be performed for  the Great Lakes Basin.
         This analysis should be put in  perspective,  using available
         health effects data and related toxicology data;

     9.  A joint program for disposal of hazardous materials should be
         developed to insure that these  materials  such as pesticides,
         contaminated petroleum products,  contaminated sludge and dredge
         spoils are properly transported and  disposed.
Note:   Annex 9  as  recommended for  adoption is  included  in  the
        Sub-Group  A Report.

SUBJECT:  Five-Year Review
FROM:    William A. Mills, Ph.D.  J ^ '
         Director, Criteria 6 Standards  Division (AW-460)

TO:      Robert Schneider
         Coordinator for Great Lakes
              Enclosed is the Five-Year Review Paper on Nuclear Wastes
         (Radioactivity) prepared primarily by me and Dr.  William H.  Ellett
         in the Office of Radiation Programs,  EPA.   The Work Group Members
         had only a brief period to review the draft dated April 14,  and
         comments were received primarily by telephone. Also enclosed  is a
         listing of these comments.  Written comments by NRC will be
         forwarded to you later.  However, most of these comments were
         accommodated by telephone communication.

              Dr. Ellett and I have incorporated into the  final review  paper
         almost all of the comments offered.  The comment  of ERDA on  the
         inappropriateness of our recommendation on the Refined Objectives  in
         view of the June 1 period for public  comment has  not been implemented
         and should be noted.  Also to be noted are the comments offered by
         Minnesota, some of which have not been reflected  in the final  report.

              Dr. Ellett called on April 27, regarding the language in
         Subgroup B's report.  Our only substantive comment is on page  1-9
         "Radioactivity," where the Radioactivity Objective is incompletely
         stated.  It should read, "The specific water quality objective for
         radioactivity in the Great Lakes is that level of radioactivity which
         results in a whole-body dose commitment not exceeding one millirem
         due to the ingestion of water in any  one year. Source investigation
         and corrective action if releases are not as low  as reasonably
         achievable are recommended for dose commitments between 1 and  5
         millirem.  For dose commitments greater than 5 millirem corrective
         action by the responsible regulatory  authorities  is recommended."

         2 Enclosures
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)

Enrico Conte, Environmental Surveillance Coordinator, L'SNPC - Mr. Conte
approved the recommendations made in the report and proposed that
additional data on strontium-90 concentrations in the Lakes be included.
Unfortunately, we did not have enough time to include these data in the
final report.  Mr. Conte had a number of other suggestions to improve
the discussion of NE.C authority and prorrams vis-a-vis EPA.  These
suggestions were accommodated exce-: for a request that the EPA ERAMS
monitoring program be discussed more fully.

Paul Giardina, Radiation Representative, USEPA, Region II - Mr. Giardina
suggested that the section on the NSF fuel reprocessing site include a
discussion of current problems at the NFS low-level burial area.  The
final report has been amended to include this information.

Mr. Tom Cashman, Director Bureau of Radiation, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation - Mr. Cashman had several comments cor.ceming
the scope of monitoring, MRS, and the quality assurance program.  He agreed
with the recommendations made in the report.

Peter Tedeschi, Air and Hazardous Mate-rials Division, USEPA, Region V -
Mr. Tedeschi had several comments which indicated where the language in
the final report could be clarified.   All of his helpful comments have
been accommodated.

Ms. Sandra Gardebring, Executive Director, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency - Ms. Gardebring commented that she believed fror. the statement
on page 4 of the draft concerning a prohibition of electric power
generation or. the Great l_akes was too strong and that the Minnesota
position did not necessarily require a prohibition but rather more
stringent controls on liquid effluent pathways.  However, she was unable
to ascertain how the aerial deposition of radioactive materials into the
Lakes could be prevented,  Ms. Gardebring suggested also that the report
should mention the burial problems at the NSF facility, (see comments on
NFS above by Paul Giardina).  She felt the statement that the radiological
quality is expected to inprove was a rnisstatement in that it could
improve faster if there ^ere no radiation discharges into the Lakes.  She
also suggested that the first sentence in the discussion on PL 92-50C
was misleading in that it did not indicate the narrow scope of EPA permit
controls.  The sentence has been redrafted.

Ms. Margaret Reilly, Chief, Division of Reactor Review, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania - Ms. Reilly had no suggestions and agreed with the recommen-
dations made in the report.

Mr. Earl Richards, Ohio EPA - Mr. Richards suggested that the words
"prevent harmful effects" rather than "minimizing health effects" be used
in the discussion of the current objective.  The wording has been changed
as suggested.  He stated that the Ohio EPA approved of the report and its

CMDR Corbett, Ninth Coast Guard District, Cleveland, Ohio - had no
comments and approved the report.

Mr. Wilczynski, Office of Environmental Affairs, Department of Commerce -
They have no comments.

Dr. Nat Barr, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration - ERDA
objected to including as a recommendation the adoption of the refined
objectives.  They consider this inappropriate in view of the fact that
the objectives are now out for public comments.   Written comments will
be sent as soon as possible.  ERDA also objected to the short turnaround

See additional comments from Mr.  Walter G.  Belter, U.S.  Energy Research
and Development Administration, attached.

                                 UNITED STATES
                              WASHINGTON, D.C.  20545

                                     April 29,  1977
Mr. George R. Alexander
Chairman, Sub-Group A
Great Lakes Water Quality
  Agreement Review
U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency (Region V)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604

Dear George:

Reference is made to your memorandum of April 20 requesting comments from
the Federal Advisory Group on the final draft of Sub-Group A Report.  As
I discussed with you on the phone on April 27, it appears to ERDA staff that
continuing, major differences between U.S. and Canadian approaches to water
pollution control will provide continuing inequitable effluent requirements,
especially for industry in the two countries.  In fact, it seems that water
quality objectives as adopted under the agreement will have the force and
effect in the U.S. of legally enforceable Water Quality Standards (under
92-500) , whereas they would be little more than "unenforceable criteria"
in one Canadian province (Ontario).

Another shortcoming—when the objectives do become Water Quality Standards
under the FWPCA (92-500), then all U.S. tributary streams would have to
have the same water quality as the Great Lakes, and all EPA or State permits
for discharges to the Great Lakes System would have to contain limitations
that assure compliance with the "standards."  However, in Canada the
"unenforceable criteria" apply only to the Lakes themselves and any "program
orders" have been admittedly ineffective with industry.  It certainly appears
that the objectives could, therefore, result in a substantially greater
effluent treatment, control and monitoring (and economic) burden on the
U.S. discharges only.  The Sub-Group A Report should address this impact.

In view of the above, it seems totally inappropriate for the U.S. to encourage
the adoption of objectives without a clear agreement that they will have the
sane force and effect on both sides of the international boundary.  This
should not only be stated in an Article of the agreement, but we believe
should be supported by enabling Canadian legislation before the agreement
becomes binding.  While you seemed to have faith in the Canadian govern-
mental system effectively implementing this point after the agreement is
renegotiated, it would appear to us that too much is at stake to leave this
point to chance.

George R. Alexander                - 2 -
April 29, 1977
Another related point is noted on page 8 under the "General Summary and
Recommendations."  One of the proposed changes to the agreement states
that "the principle of unenforceable objectives" must be replaced by a
recognition that objectives are, in effect, "standards."  If this was
accepted, it would reenforce our earlier concern regarding the refined
radioactivity objective.  In our previous discussions with EPA staff,
it was never indicated that this objective might be regarded as a Water
Quality Standard, enforceable under 92-500.  However, with this possible
change in the agreement being considered by the U.S., we believe that it
is all the more important to delay adoption of the refined radioactivity
objective until technical justification and cost/effectiveness studies
are completed.

We also note under Article III, Water Quality Objectives, that certain specific
objectives, when compared to the EPA Drinking Water Standards and the Quality
Criteria for Water, present some problems.  In some cases, the values given
are more restrictive than in either of the EPA documents; i.e., lead, mercury,
fluoride, and certain pesticides.  In other cases, they are higher and in
most cases the material presented is different enough to make meaningful
comparison or understanding very difficult.  Clarification or explanation
of these differences should be provided.

I hope that the above comments can be accommodated in the final Sub-Group A

                                   Walter G.  Belter
                                   Assistant  Director
                                     for Technology Liaison
                                   Division of Technology Overview

              REVIEW PAPER
             April 27, 1977

                              REVIEW PAPER



     A.  Agreement

         The Agreement between the United States and Canada on Great

Lakes Water Quality was signed and entered into force April 15, 1972.

This Agreement makes specific reference to radioactivity in the

following manner:

         Annex 1 - Specific Water Quality Objectives

             1.  Specific Objectives.  The specific water quality

objectives for the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System are as


                 (h)  Radioactivity.   Radioactivity should be kept at

the lowest practicable levels and in any event should be controlled to

prevent harmful effects on health.

             7.  Consultation.  The Parties agree to consult within one

year from the date of entry into force of the Agreement, for the purpose

of considering:

                 (b)  Refined objectives for radioactivity...; for

radioactivity the objective shall be considered in the light of the

recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection.

         Relevant to radioactivity are, also, the following Annex 1


             3.  Nondegradation.   Notwithstanding the adoption of

specific water quality objectives, all reasonable and practicable

measures shall be taken in accordance with paragraph u of Article III of

the Agreement to maintain the levels of water quality existing at the

date-of-entry into force of the Agreement in those areas of the boundary

waters of the Great Lakes System where quantity of the water exceeds

specific water quality objectives.

             5.  Mixing Zones.  The responsible regulatory agencies may

designate restricted r.ixing zones ir. the vicinity of outfalls within

which the specific water quality objectives shall not apply.  Mixing

zones shall  not be considered a substitute for adequate treatment or

control of discharges at their source.

     B.  Ad Hoc Radioactivity Advisory Group

         In accord witn A.~nex 1 7(h) an ad hoc U.S./Canada Radioactivity

Advisory Group was established by the two Parties to consider refined

objectives for radioactivity.  The initial meeting of this Group was

held on April 12, 1973, followed by subsequent meetings and discussions.

Dr. Adrian H. Booth (Canada) and Dr. William A. Kills (U.S.) served as

Co-Chairmen for the development of the refined objectives.  U.S. members

of the Advisory Group were from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(earlier representing AEC), the Environmental Protection Agency, the

States of New York and Minnesota, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The joint recommendations of the Advisory Group were submitted for

consideration by the separate Parties in late 1975.  A minority position

by Minnesota was included in the submission.

         The Minnesota position focused on the Annex 1 requirement

"...controlled to prevent harmful effects on health'1 therefore

advocating "...no additional discharge of radioactivity into the Great

Lakes."  By letter dated March 21, 1977, the Energy Research and

Development Administration notified EPA that it does not endorse the

refined radioactivity objectives.  ERDA's position is to focus solely en

the Annex language of "...radioactivity should be kept at the lowest

practicable level...."

         At present, the U.S. has not taken an official position on the

refined radioactivity objectives for the Agreement.  On April 5, 1S77,

the Department of State published (42 F.R. 18171 - copy enclosed) the ^d

hoc^ Advisory Group's report, including the Minnesota position, for

review and comment.   Comments are to be sent to EPA on or before June 1,


         Although no official position by the Canadian Government on the

recommendations for the refined objectives has been announced, there

appears to be no dissenting opinion.  Concerns expressed by some

segments of the Canadian Government on the inclusion of existing levels

of "fallout," mainly as strontium-90, in the dose limits have been

resolved.  The amount of strontium-90 in lake waters is decreasing and,

with time, this radionuclide will become a smaller contributor to the

dose received by users of the Great Lakes System.

         In developing the recommendations, the ad, hoc Advisory Group

considered the relevant iitaten-.er.ts in the Agreement with respect to

keeping the levels as low as practicable, preventing any health impact,

the intent of nondegrada-.ion, and recommendations of ICRP.  Because of

the widespread acceptance of the scientific assumption that there is no

threshold for radiation damage, the prevention of any harmful effects on

health, in an absolute sense, would require zero discharge and no

deposition of any radioactivity into the Great Lakes.  This could mean

the prohibition in the Great Lakes Region of such benefits as the

generation of electric power by means of fossil or nuclear fuels and the

use of radioactivity in medical vr^a'anent and research.  For this reason

a zero discharge objective was vitwed by the majority cf the Advisory

Group as impractical and therefore a specific dose limit objective was

established.  This objective calls for control by specified actions at

defined dose levels so that radioactivity in the Lakes is as low as

reasonably achievable.

         The recommended objective for the general water quality in the

Great Lakes is that level of radioactivity which results in a whole-body

dose commi-cment not exceeding one millirem from the intake in any year

of waters outside the source control zone.  Source investigation and

corrective action if releases are not as low as reasonably achievable

are recommended for dose commitments between 1 and 5 millirem.  For dose

commitments greater than 5 millirem corrective action by the responsible

regulatory authorities is recommended.

     C.  Water Quality Board Radioactivity Subcommittee

         The Water Quality Board established a Radioactivity Work Group

in 1973 to review Objectives for Radioactivity in the Great Lakes, to

recommend any needed revisions, and to assist in the review and evalu-

ation of radioactivity monitoring data.  This working group was expanded

in 1975 to include Federal nuclear regulatory and radiological health

agencies, as well as Federal, State, and provincial environmental

agencies and made a permanent subcommittee to the Implementation

Committee of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board (WQB).

         Pending acceptance of refined objectives for radioactivity, the

subcommittee has concentrated on developing efficient monitoring

programs for the Great Lakes.  The terms of reference for this

subcommittee, approved by the WQB in March 1976 are:

         1.  Review radioactivity objectives and recommend necessary


         2.  Develop a radioactivity surveillance plan for both land

based and atmospheric inputs to be incorporated into the overall

surveillance planning.

         3.  Annually assess the surveillance data supplied by the

agencies carrying out the surveillance program, indicating the degree of

compliance with the radioactivity objective and any local trends

developing in radionuclide levels.

         4.  Advise on potential transboundary environmental effects of

the siting of nuclear facilities in the Great Lakes Basin.  Nuclear

facilities include, but are not limited to nuclear power stations.

         5.  Comment on public safety and health and the socio-economic

impact of nuclear development at the request of the Water Quality Board

and the Research Advisory Board.

         Current U.S. membership on the subcommittee includes represen-

tatives from U.S. EPA, NRC, New York, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and

Pennsylvania.  Seven representatives, including the Chairman, Dr. R.W.

Durham, Environment Canada, are Canadian.

     D.  Scope of Five-Year Review

         The 5-year review was conducted by examining current sources of

radioactivity contributing to the Great Lakes System, current levels of

radioactivity, projection of future sources and levels, and the impact

of existing U.S. standards and regulations.  Some discussion is provided

relative to defining the responsibilities of the various Federal and

State agencies as it pertains to U.S. control of radioactivity in the

Great Lakes System.  In conducting this review heavy reliance has been

placed on information collected and generated by the IJC's Subcommittee

on Radioactivity and no attempt has been made to gc beyond this source

in acquiring information from Canada.

         On the basis of this U.S. review, the Work Group has proposed

recommendations for consideration by Sub Group A of the Review Committee

addressing the Refined Objective, the IJC Radioactivity Subcommittee

role, and the extent of radioactivity surveillance programs in imple-

menting the Agreement.


     Present levels of radioactivity in the Great Lakes are due to three

kinds of sources:  1. fallout, 2. intentional discharge from nuclear

facilities, and 3. naturally-occurring radioactive materials.  The

current concentrations of man-made radionuclides are almost wholly from

weapons testing carried out in the period between 1950 and 1965.

However, recent atmospheric weapon tests, in the autumn of 1976,

indicate that atmospheric fallout is a continuing potential source of

contamination.  A smaller and more controllable source of man-made

radionuclides is liquid and atmospheric discharges from licensed nuclear

facilities.  Some of these facilities such as nuclear electric power

stations are strictly controlled, in the U.S. by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC).  Others such as hospitals and research laboratories

discharge limited amounts of radioactivity via conventional sewage

systems.  Municipal waste treatment plants are not licensed dischargers

of radioactive materials and the impact of their discharges on the

radiological quality of lake waters has not been quantified, as yet.

     The largest U.S. licensed source of radioactivity discharge into

the Lakes has been the Nuclear Fuel Services fuel reprocessing plant on

Cattaraugus Creek at West Valley, New York.  Discharges from this plant

enter Lake Erie 25 miles away.  The facility closed in 1972, and its

decommission is being planned.  However, leakage from the low-level

burial area at the site has necessitated the controlled release of

tritium into Cattaraugus Creek.  Corrective action at the site is being

developed.  Provided the wastes stored at this plant are properly

contained, it should not be an important source of future contamination.

     A third source of radioactivity is not man-made but technical

enhanced levels of naturally-occurring radioactive material, such as

radium-226.  In their natural state, the Great Lakes are almost free of

radioactivity because of a favorable geology.  In Canada, a few rivers

flowing into the Lakes have been identified as containing an enhanced

radium content due to waste discharges from uranium mining operations.

No U.S. sources of natural radioactivity have been identified as yet.

     Eleven U.S. Nuclear Power Plants were discharging effluents into

the Great Lakes in 1976,  Table I lists the quantity of materials

discharged from each site.  From "able I it is seen that most of the

current U.S. plants are on Lake Michigan and that Lake Cntario is the

only other Lake receiving direct discharges.  Except for a single plant

on Lake Huron, Canadian nuclear power stations are concentrated or. Lake

Ontario.  This pattern is expected to continue until around 1980 when

U.S. nuclear power plants sited on Lake Erie become operational.

                                Table I

               Liquid Discharges into the Great Lakes by
                   U.S. Nuclear Power Plants in 1976
Station              Location           Annual Aqueous Release in Curies
                                        Fission £ Activation   Tritium
Big Rock Point       Charlevoux Co, MI         0.77               2.4
Cook I               Benton Harbor, MI         0.26             190
Palisades            Covert Township, MI       0.005              9.0
Zion I and II        Zion, IL                  0.0*
Kewaunee             Carlton, WI               2.8              210
Point Beach I £ II   Monitowoc Co., WI         3.6              690
Fitzpatrick          Oswego, NY                6.0                4.2
Ginna                Ontario, NY               0.69             240
Nine Mile Pt.        Oswego, NY                2.2                2.5

*No liquid waste discharge.

REF: Draft Fifth Annual Report, Great Lakes Water Quality Board
     Radioactivity Subcommittee, April 1977.
     Table II provides a limited assessment of the radioactivity in Lake

waters near the discharge streams from nuclear power plants.  The data

is exceptionally incomplete.  However, it is believed that increased

monitoring and reporting requirements by the NRC (and Canadian

authorities) will increase the amount of data available in the future.

     It should be noted that Lake Superior has no nuclear facilities at

present, the levels in Table II indicating fallout contamination.  Lake

Michigan has the most nuclear facilities of any Great Lakes.  Only

tritium and strontium-90 from fallout have been quantifiable on the

basis of their average annual concentration.  On a short term basis,

cesium-137 and cesium-134 have been identified in the vicinity of

nuclear facilities.  On an annual basis these radionuclides are not


found at detection levels currently utilized.  Canadian nuclear

facilities discharge into Lake Huron.  No meaningful data on tritium,

the major Canadian effluent, is available for this Lake; nor is data in

the discharge area available for other radionuclides.

     Because the State of New Ycr'.- '.-.as an active surveillance program,

data for Lake Ontario is more complete.  However, these data are not for

samples taken within the one kilometer source control zone of the

discharging facilities.

     Currently, surveillance of the open waters of the Lakes is minima1.

While numerous special studies have been performed as part of research

projects, periodic monitoring of the open Lake waters as par~c of a

planned surveillance program is not carried out by any governmental

agency.  Some information en near shore radioactivity is available from

the tritium data provided as part of the USEFA Environmental Radiation

Ambient Monitoring Syster. (ERAMS).  The concentration of tritium in

Lakes Michigan, Erie, an<_ Ontario since 1972 is shown in Table III.

These measurements were not made using open lake waters but samples were

taken at distances greater than 1 kilometer from a discharge point so as

to exceed the maximum source control area specified in the draft refined

objectives.  Comparison with Table II indicates that the Lakes are

remarkably uniform in tritium content, an indication that fallout is a

chief source of radioactivity.

     Current levels of radioactivity in the Lakes are below the 50-year

dose commitment level in the draft Radioactivity Objective of 1 mrem,

                               -. 11
                              Table II
        Radioactivity Concentrations Near Nuclear Facilities
Average Annual Concentrations (pCi/1)
Tritium      Cesium-137        Sr-90
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
  1974. Big Rock
  1974 Palisades
  1974 Cook
  1974 Zion
Lake Huron
  1974 Douglas Point
Lake Erie
  1974 near NFS outlet
Lake Ontario
  1974 Pickering
  1974 Ginna

<1700 (BDL)









BDL (Below Detection Limit)
NA (Not Available)

*Drinking water intake near nuclear facility.
Ref: Fourth Annual Report, Appendix D, Great Lakes Water Quality,
     WQB Radioactivity Subcommittee, June 1976.

                            Table III

                Ambient Tritium Levels in Great Lakes
  Two Creeks
   Average Annual Concentration (pCi/l)~

1972      1973      1974      1975      1976
South Haven
New York

, 450














  t_ 200 pCi/1

 BDL (Below Detection Limit)
 NA (Not Available)
REF:  1972-1974 Radiation Data and Reports, Reports of the Tritium
                Surveillance System, U.S. Environmental Protection
                Agency, Washington, D.C.

      1975-1976 Environmental Radiation Data, Quality Report on the
                Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System,
                U.S. EPA, Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility,
                Montgomery, Alabama.


total body dose.A  Strontium-90 from weapons fallout, the only important

constituent, is not a source of total body exposure but rather bone

marrow dose for which the 50-year (TED-50) dose commitment limit is

likely to be between 5-10 millirem depending on final risk limits for

bone marrow irradiation now being considered by the ICRP.  Lake Ontario

has the highest Sr-90 concentration, about 0.9 pCi/1.  An annual intake

at this concentration would cause a TED-50 of 0.5 mrem.  It is expected

that Sr-90 in the Lakes will decrease with time as fallout activity is

removed from the water column by sedimentation and decay, as well as by

fresh water dilution.

     In 1976 EPA completed a study of projected radioactivity in Great

Lake Waters due to planned nuclear power operations, "Radicnuclide

Transport in the Great Lakes," EPA 600/9-76-016.   According to the

results of this study, Lake Ontario will be the most highly contaminated

Lake and tritium and strontium-90 will be the major sources of dose, the

former predominating.  By the year 2050 it is estimated that the annual

dose from ingesting tritium in Lake waters will be about 0.2 mraci; from

strontium-90, about 0.005 mrem.  It is seen that the dose rate due to

strontium-90 from nuclear power facilities is much less than that due to

fallout and that the radiological quality of Lake waters is expected to

improve even though nuclear facilities are located on the Lakes.
*Permitted levels are in the range of 1 to 5 mrem provided that
discharges are as low as practicable.



     Since entering into force in April 1972, several standard and

regulatory actions have been taken by the U.S. Government which impact

directly on levels of radioactivity in the Great Lakes System.  All

actions taken have been more restrictive in terms of radioactivity

emissions and upper limits on individual and population dose.  Thus

their impact has been to control radioactivity toward decreasing pollu-

tion of the Great Lakes System.

     A.  EPA

         1.  40 CFR 141

             Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (41 P.P.. 28^02,

July 9, 1976).  The Agency promulgated the following maximum contaminant


              5 pCi/1    radium-226 plus radium-228.

             15 pCi/1    gross alpha particle activity (including

                         radium-226 but excluding radon and uranium).

             4 millirem/yr  average annual concentration of beta

                            particle and photon radioactivity from man-

                            made radionuclides.   Dose equivalent rate

                            applies to total body or any internal organ

                            and to the sum of radionuclides present in

                            drinking water.


         Application of the drinking water limits to the Great Lakes

System would meet the Agreement criteria of ICRP dose equivalent limits

but would not necessarily result in as low as reasonably achievable

doses.  The drinking water limits are, however, consistent with the

proposed refined objective when a determination has been made that

controllable sources discharging into the Great Lakes System have been

judged by the regulatory authorities to be as low as reasonably

achievable.  Only if the food intake (as well as drinking water) were a

significant source of radioactivity, would the proposed refined

objectives be more restrictive.

         2.  40 CFR 190

             Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear

Power Operations (42 F.R. 2858, January 13, 1977).   The Agency

promulgated these standards for normal operation of the uranium fuel

cycle, excluding mining, transportation, and waste disposal activities.

For planned releases the standard establishes 75 millirems annual dose

equivalent for thyroid, and 25 millirems annual dose equivalent for the

whole body and all other organs.  The standards also limit the discharge

of long-lived materials into the environment based on power generation,

including a limit of 0.5 millicuries per gigawatt year combined of

plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitting radionuclides with half-lives

greater than one year.

             These standards are not specified in terms of a single

pathway but rather for the total exposures to persons.   It is not

expected that the proposed refined objectives would be exceeded by the


actions controlled under these standards, since the primary pathway for

exposure from the fuel cycle is not by the ingestion of water.

Implementation of these standards would be by the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

         3.  FWPCA (PL 92-500, 10/1S/72)

             Under this legislative authority, EPA can control the

discharge of naturally-occurring radioactivity into waters of the Great

Lakes System, as well as certain man-made radior.uclides.  Under PL 92-

500 effluent guidelines for the phosphate industry have been proposed to

control their discharge of radioactive effluents.  This control is

obtained by maintaining a near neutral or basic pH for stored liquid

wastes so that radium is precipitated before discharge.  A decision by

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled out materials covered by the Atomic Energy

Act as being subject to the FWPCA permit program and EPA has not

included radioactivity in its water quality criteria.

         4.  Ocean Dumping Act (40 F.R. 2462, 1/11/77)

             This Act administered by EPA prohibits the dumping of high-

level radioactive wastes in "oceans."  The Great Lakes System appears to

not be included by definition.  However, neither the U.S. or Canada

dispose of packaged radioactive wastes into the Great Lakes System and a

no dumping provision is a part of the Refined Objective for



     B.  NRC

         NRC in addition to regulating the nuclear industry under EPA's

Uraniura Fuel Cycle Standards has also promulgated Appendix I (10 CFR 50,

40 F.R. 19439, 5/5/75) which has established design specifications for

light-water reactors so that the most likely exposed persons will not

receive more than 5-10 mrem annually from a single pathway.  This

regulation is based on reactors meeting the design criteria of being "as

low as reasonably achievable."

         NRC also has licensing responsibilities for certain radio-

nuclides covered under the Atomic Energy Act,   This includes the

licensing of radionuclides for use in hospitals, industry, and

educational institutions.  Such licensing is regulated to the limits

specified in 1C CFR 20 for maximum concentration of radioactivity in

discharges.  These limits are substantially higher than either the

limits in the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act or the proposed Refined

Objectives and therefore would not be considered as the controlling

limits for the Great Lakes System.

     C.  ERDA

         ERDA has no regulatory responsibilities in the control of

radioactivity in the Great Lakes System.  Only in those instances of

Federal operations under their administration does ERDA have control

over the release of radioactive materials.  In those operations, of

which none discharge into the Great Lakes System, ERDA utilizes


10 CFR 20 limits which allow a dose limit of 170 mrem/yr to individual

members of an exposed population group.

     D.  States

         Some States bordering the Great Lakes have contracts with NEC

to perform radiological quality analyses of Lake water in the vicinity

of nuclear effluent outfalls.  These analyses are for comparison to data

reported by NF.C contractors.  In addition, under their residual

authority to protect health and safety, States have an authority and

obligation to monitor for environmental pollutants.  States provide

these data to the Great Lakes Water Quality Board via the Radioactivity

Subcommittee discussed above.  In addition, all States accepting primary

authority for drinking water purity under the Safe Drinking Water Act, of

1974, must provide for the surveillance of radioactivity in community

water systems at least once every four years.  Currently, all Great

Lakes States except Pennsylvania and Indiana are expected to accept

primacy for implementation of this Act and by 1978 should be reporting

on levels of natural and aan-made radioactivity in community water

systems.  Because most of the larger systems utilize Lake waters, these

data should provide good coverage of ambient radioactivity levels in

near shore waters on a periodic basis.


     A.  While the requirements of the EPA Drinking Water Regulations

will provide near shore data and NRC collects source monitoring data,


responsibility for monitoring the open waters of the Great Lakes System

is lacking.  Surveillance of Lake Superior is particularly poor.  Since

this lake can provide valuable base line data not influenced by nuclear

plant discharges, its inclusion in a long-term surveillance plan is

highly desirable.  Arrangements should be made to increase surveillance

data on the concentration of radioactivity in the Great Lakes System,

including "open waters," and particularly the systematic reporting of

such information to the International Joint Commission through the Water

Quality Board.

     B.  Intercomparison of reported data is not very practicable at

present, because no common quality assurance program exists for sampling

and analysis.  A quality assurance program under the direction of IJC

should be developed with cooperation from the various institutions of

the two Parties in the Agreement.

     C.  Every effort should be made by the two Parties to encourage

adoption of the proposed Refined Objectives for Radioactivity and

appropriate language amended to the Agreement to include these


   For  tne Commission, by  the Division
of  Corporation  Unanee.  pursuant  to
delegated  authority.
         •'  •  Groxcc A. FTTZSIUMONS.
   I FRDoc.77-10039 Filed *-4-77;8H3 am)

             (Pusllc Notice  533]
Availability of  Report  of th« international
   Working Group on  RBGioactmty  Objec-
   tive  for the Great Lari.es  Water Quanty
-  TTie  Department  of  '3;aie he.~v.b-/ give,-.,
notice   that  tie   report of  the  join!,
Canada-United States Working  G.-oup
on Radioactivity Objective :or the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement is avail-
able for review and coalmen c.  This  re-
port, which  is presently under rev.ew  -jv
both governmenta.  was  prepared  -inder
the  terms of  the  Agreement on  Great
Lakes  Water  Quality, signed April  15,
   Tke  next  of  the report., together witit
the  ieit of  a  aisseaun*  opinion  on the
report's recommendation  by the State of
Minnesota, follows bei-os?.
   Interested persons  rcay  submit  their
comments in writing to the OrEce of In-
ternational  Activities,   Eavtromr.emal
Protection Ageacy.  401  M Street.  SW..
Washington, D.C.   20460. on or  oefjre
June 1, 1977. A3 comments received will
b« considered prior to completion of the
review by the IT.S. Government.
   Dated: March 25, 1977.
                   DONALD  R. KING,
                   Director, Office of
                                 '. Affairs.
              io.«crnrnT Gwscrm TOI rms
         I.»KIS WATTS QciUTT Ac
  TJua document represeaa the joint recoca-
m«naaUona  of,  CJS.  acd  Canadian  advisory
group* on a rad.oacriir.ty objec',lvt>  to  pre-
rervt- the water  quails? o; tie  Great Lsuiea.
Tho abjective Ls la terms of a dose equivalent
to  1CRP Reference  Man Jrom  a standard
annual Inuute of tne- Grem: Laies wati-r. The
recommended oo|»cave for Ui« general water
4001117  in- the G.-eiu, L*ios i« ttiU level  oi
radioactivity wLicn result »a  & whole body
dose equivalent  :>ot  eJcetcUns; one mi jirem.
Release  ol radioacUve nu tenant sh_all oe  as
low aa reaaonEd;- achieTaole and controlled.
by  speckled  actions  at defined. levois
  TE» Canada -United  S'-itea  C-reac  L-i^a
Wavtr Quality Ai-reemen'. specified  racUc&c-
Uvlt",'-  aj a  constituent ci «.&;« for  i-hlcn
thej\ should be- a_i agreed Watur Quality Cb-
Jectrfe. Ta« reie-i-nt atatsrnautj la tee Agree-
ment: art; as folio*? :
  Ar,aeji  1,  Section  !(lx.  atatea.  "Radio-
actmty  itioriid  b* Kent -.o tii  lc*fst jra.:-
tlcatus lt«l_ la »ny fv«ni dLjcnarres snouid
be controUed to  tu» «Tt«cit uec^'isiiry us  p re-
Tent harmful affects  on heaita, '
  Aiziex J. Section 7(6)  "urt£.?-f jtaws-  "Jnr
tadmictlvttT. tU«  ob}«et vrs  iflall  b« con-
sidered !n tae !!i;at o£ :&s -ecomiaenclatlotia
of t»m latrrnar.onal Commtsslon oa Ridla-
   Further,  tils Motion requires the  parties   ane-J  iu kov •.,<.'Tf^ni'x, 'lla^>^I of pivcicn^ed
 to  consult for the  purpo-vs  of considering   or un;-a-:t..»':''I vits.^a r-f otner matv-r from
 "rellned objectives for rod loactt 7117".          re  tli>e  byir«ca V7^-^m.  iiit dumper;
 In Canaca and. 'Ji Use United 3ia'.<.i to coc-   does act include  tho release of  «Cuenta that
 sider Uie tcclit;uj»i  a^f^cts  involved  :u ;le-   are ^rraltzed oy  t2ie re-ypoiisUSIe  regulatory
 vcloplng  sucli  'reined   o&.'ejtiTes"  Tis   boa.c-3.
 present report  was  -.s. 'eiop-;Cl foP-T.-.-ct; ex-     Eur."  tie  cv.ici;rtr-»t!ons and  q-jan-.itl**
 tenslTO consuitat.oa  ietwrec. tl,e tro croups    of ra'-ilcacnve,  ma:«r:ala rc;eased  la to  the
   To reitoro  and *nhaac-a tK-?.:*r quality lu   Oreat Ijx^ifij ovstem  shall  ^e  co'.;roh'--cl  tc
 the  Great Laica S/«wa\ .-  .-.    '^r 'n -J-.-j   tic ex tec:  nwnsary to  on:t«:t  p^j.ic heo.iii
 Agreement. It 13 recessi^-;1  V- .   -;i  ; .   - ---   a-"d .r.e en^i.'orjr.^ni: ilelenses of rr-dlcac'.^^
 tlty of rc-l:o.tctlve rsa f.u.-. -i  o.;	,  :-,j    nia,.eru_   ',-^r--.  eiu-a oueratiori c-  t-pe  or
 1o activ  104 of the Uni"-;.! Sc. 'i  cf .'.'ri.,.i.   c-o#ri' :r, iL ' .o  •   y>D.r'   .'-i  v;  ^ •-> .•
 and Cir,.ili. An nccepcac.*1 ' i.u,^ • .c." wale;   form  vii";  -i • 1C-,.? .-•" -~: -,rr.--:_..c,™ t..i.
 In the s-,-stem can. best ie  -_::.'-a^-,-»a oy fc   Jaa dc-s.^-  re s.cp; a.; !- v  a.,  u  -;:,,.,.2,  .?
 vigorous  appjcailon oi i.-.  ':""-.-'  '   control   acclevah.e  «;.*-om3C  ij^  jocial  -' - r_».d^rB-
 measurc!. These corr.roli     -.a  je app.le: ,'u,;:-.r-r  red.  '-..Hj
                                                                                             t~l_ 11.;" O* f, "'-.  ',t  ^ »-^tl ^"Jl".. C1,.."";  ...
                                                                                                              of ai-.ci..i .ot  trie."  .,•..•:.•!-
                                                                                                             J la ':np,! i.-"a «c jaos^ en
   12)  T,'e c.'ncentratlor.  of  riUioact: >\ty in
the S?"5tt?m "^'at^rs antl 1^.- rjlc-ta aliO'Xd no'
coastlruts an u.oa.;tepta.o»e  tettlrj  nsi  OCL
either a ion^-terra or alior^-terrr bs.^'^.

lilioactiTlty  toay l;ivo;v« goir.a ':-«. a^a:-
t.onal  ..jntroU  sC-itJa 1~. -  '.r,.rt".tx'Wa  a^-M
tielr  Ci s* ;s  .^c^i-rr".''   ••      -   .1   «':}'
f!rrt.isr redtictlo.-i  a pxr     ,   --L     'i.--'-

r*-.cttirc tuidtxns Lam b..   - •  - ••	>• "

C^u^lity O-Ji^ctiv*.', t.^ff Ci,   ,."- *  .   -A...C
re,e&sth> * duflned ij-ersLr^  i', c' -• ' --— .'.^ jatcrijrettd  is ^ece1?-
                                                                                                            . rea. Ir. accr rd,ir ;•-  w. L.-,  ,-e
                                                                                                            us sirfi bclvc ui " 3 '.f  I.
                                                    »U ty oi  «.-•  ci>»*  .eve, cepeudft  < ii
                                              wcathet  '-ho  tir^a crlterm given aoove. art1
                                              beuig ritt in. a-  res-ponsiole  mai:i;i"r  I'.  ,s
                                              further  p'oposeil  that th2if  c^jecti-,-.•!  t-e
                                              .•evlewe-..  s,t leiat  ^-rt^r/ gv? ye'tra t-c cors.-^'.^er
                                              :*t:y r-^y  rsaary ccis.i.i.'i and to  deuftrT^jca  j;
                                              t.l«y «>  .unua t<3 reueci "at low  ia .-iiUx.r. -
                                              MYbU :z° 'vra'^xi ^v^;: ou /- i,:?  ''~^'u^-. It L,
                                              proper   ^~^ «  wjicsr nual! :v ^u^s.-a ji  ic:y
                                              oource-  'oairol A.-«a>. as. ccr.rtu : ;re-a  i^ai;
                                              not  raa ^:  In  a. TZD.^ _-,e.%uj  -^ai/  one
                                              inlllirer:  to tie wbule ocxly ,"rjm diUr !i»ges-
                                              tloa of  l-2~  liters of  Laxe-  w-it*r  ^cr  o:.a
                                              y?ir Tl~ -"e'cre. e^tri far ''.TtUrrK' (^0 yea.-s i
                                              Ingcsdt >, the  kniitul  cios* rate  wi_J  not,
                                              eiceed i  miUlrem p»r yea,-  ~-,p  u-tal equiv-
                                              a-eiit cU-^« i*> a' iir.vlff ar,,ArL or  tia^u*  br.a..
                                              be In p;oporUoB  to th» rto.ie limit  re'.^m-
                                              Eiended br "lie ICP.i" for tn.ii liss-jc  tecaiiie
                                              level.--! '•  il\e  la^res T'ay  fluifa^te as « nt^a-*
                                              c.*  one. ,i!_-o»-aol«- .-eijase*,  iucb a*  'a:ij>,i
                                              ^•cii w:e-:on(  tescinif^  It ^ ''jLrtier  --^Ci.j-,-
                                              cr.cndeo  '.-at  thr-
                                              trr.il.^a;    reie^jv^s ao«i ."-„•;  C(jc_:^^:*s  ,m
                                              u_.i'?r^o,\:.i)ii: pror/.'iT,oa :f ir.e clone

                                              C7 1J^T(O. Cf ftJlfJLA^jr. or SAIHOACVlVi iS4TrSlL'^,"J

                                                3v-.^;  ri^  cf r-aloactive  v^'i^-te-5 cr c'ter
                                              rtaiioac.;re matert.il Into watTm of th<5 Gr^s*.
                                              Lake« s,ntem la oroniblteil.  Dumping 'j> d»-
                                                    i.->:  •.s'^.er»tse, v'-.-rec:.v« art. on -ihall
                                                    i wacr^t.oa^,  s^  i A.i,u^uclUUs  In  tne
                                                    corrv*,;H't; iajt,; tc  Cor.^.ttloii C piob-
                                                    etl^tri »  fa-aura of e.rVitnt controls and
                                                    ju:c«pULUJe ou & ci-nttnuln^ baii3  Tha
                                                    ui.al^ re^xilator1/  a-utiicj/iues  sluili de-
                                                    "s  anon: oti£kL«j  corrective  Li^'.icns to
                                                    j«- tr:» publ
                                                                             ;.i.a be pro-
                                                                     acli.dt'3  Ll-iel
                                              :i_.d i^.
                                              us* I
                                              .--u.L. )^:
                                                       ^  i-.* '-~ virabie  voncentrj.iou^. Sucn
                                                       ^ shooed oe- ^onclurteu under tii»
                                                       asT  tr.-*- ^6r»oua3hiet  ^ed-rroi.  "jtatA,
                                                       ini-i-ii   ur^dl^Ll^srs luati rx*tx>rt*
             and sampling locations and frequency should
             take Into account tat known effluent aourcoa
             met particular nuclido* roleMed.
               Th«  monitoring  reports  should  Lnclud*
             calculations of the TEDM to ICRP Reference
             Man from itandard  annual  Intake of  the
             water since this is tho parameter to be used
             In determining the applicable Action Condi-
             tion. At present It la not necessary to deter-
             mine explicitly the dose equivalents due to
             the Intake of food harvested from the Lakes
             ai the; are relatively insignificant.


               1. Total Equivalent Dose {TED.,).  For  the
             purpose  of this  report, the total equivalent
             dose to a particular organ,  tissue or  the
             whole body Is the cumulated dose equivalent
             over 50  years resulting from the dally  In-
             gestlon of 2.2 liters  of lake water  for one
             year. -
                    Z./>ii.4"V> ttm.
                />M«lotal absorbed do« Inttgnt^  over a
                  .  -of 50 yean after intact* of the radiomichde
                Pp,»(iualit)- (actor.
                2l',- product ofallotlier motiUyiup rectors.
            report  No.  10'-lists the doslmetrtc
*•""*  data, including the TEDw, for a number of
 GO  raxlionuclldes.
 ^^   ST.' K&ference Man: For the purpose of this
 ^^ repwtrileferenoe Man refers to the deani-
  Q£.tlon»> wxl parameters for  adult  males out-
  Q^llned. iif-lCUP Report 23.'.
   ^f  3. J&igke Control  Area: K is proposed that
     the 'jStxftre control  area" be defined as fol-
     lows rUJ'Iie  source control area shall  be
     bounietl'^7 a distance of 1 km radius from
     the rxiint of release or. in those cases where
     the release point U to  a narrow channel or
     river, the boundary shall  be a point i km
     downstream from the source."
       U Is  further  proposed taat the operator
     of a facility can request a larger source con-
     trol area subject to  the approval of the reg-
     ulatory authorities  and similarly these  au-
     thorities may require a more restrictive area
     from an operator.
       4. Afntnent Water: The water in the Great
     Lakes  System outside the  source control
             Mnrerrsor/i PosmoH AS PS£SEN-ITD TO TKZ
                 AD Hoc GROUT of SUTZMSES, 1974
            \An ad  hoc  Radioactivity Objective Com-
            mittee has been formed to reflne the radio-
            activity objectivei of the Great Lakes Water
            Quality  Agreement pursuant  to Annex I.
              Annex I  to the agreement requires  that
            "Radioactivity  should  be controlled  to  the
            extent necessary  to preven; harmful  affects
            on be&ith." It is universally accepted by re-
            sponsible bodies teat radiaclon  damage la a
            linear effect, that \a,  that r&dlation produces
            detrimental effects down to the lowest levels.
            The State of Minnesota  believes  that  the
            linear theory of radiation dama« and  the
            Annex I requirement ot  preventing "harm-
            ful effects on health"  require that any re-
            finement  of objectives for radioactivity In
            the  Great Lake* allow nc additional  dis-
            charge of radioactivity  to the Great Lakes.
              Annax I. f "J(b) also require*  that the re.
            fined objective for radioactivity •  • • shall
            be considered  la th«  light or  the recom-
            mendations of the International Commission
            or Radiation  Protection." Tc« ICRP  dose
            llmita are recommended u upper limits. Al-
            lowing no additional  discharge of radioactive
              »ICRP Pub. 10. 19«8 Report of Committee
            IV, Pergamon Prea*.
            * • ICRP Pub. 33. 1*73 Report or the Tart
            Oroup on Reference Mao. Pergamon Press.
 waste to the Great Lakes will meet tho ICP.P
 1! nil Is. Consequently, our position ha« prop-
 erly taken Into account the position  of tiie>
 icnp.     '
   Minnesota further bolleve* ttiat  uny re-
 nnementa  of  the  radioactivity  oo;«ttv«
 should be consistent with  the 1972 federal
 Water  Pollution  Control Act  Amendments.
 This would  require that  eiLstlrig facilities
 provide the  best  practicable  treatment  by
 1977, the best  available treatment by 1383,
 and s goal of zero discharge by 1985.
    [FRDoc.77-10076 Filed 4-4-77:3:45 am|
 *                 «-^_
    Agency for International Development
              FOREIGN AID
               .  Meeting
   Pursuant to  Executive  Order  11769
 and the provisions of section  I0fa)<2),
 Pub. L. 92-463, Federal Advisory Com-
 mittee Act, notice Is hereby  given of the
 meeting of  the  Advisory Committee  on
 Voluntary Foreign Aid which will be held
 on April 25, 1977, from 9 a.m. to 5  p.m.,
 in  Room 1107, New State BuLding, 21st
 and Virginia Avenue  NW.. Wjshington,
   The  purpose of the  meeting  is to for-
 mulate recommendations for  the Ad-
 ministrator concerning'  (1)   the  size,
 composition  and  membership  of  the
 Committee, and (2) to review the status
 of  plans for the  expanded registry and
 to  consider  such  other maters related..
 to  the  foreign assistance  advisory  con-
 cerns of the Committee as  miy be ap-
  The  meeting jnll be open  :c  the  pub-
 lic.  Any interested person m&y attend,
 appear before, or file statements with the
 Committee in  accordance  with proce-
 dures established by the Committee and
 to  the  extent time  available  for the
 meeting  permits.  Written  statements
 may be filed before or  after the  meeting.
  Mr. Allan Purman  will be :he A.I.D.
 representative at the meeting. Informa-
 tion concerning the meeting iray be ob-
 tained  from  Mr.  Robert  S.  McClusky,
 Telephone: AC202-632-1892.  Persons de-
sinng to attend  the meeting saould en-
 ter the New State Building through the
 Diplomauc  Entrance,  22nd   and  C
  Dated: March 29, 1977.
                 ALLEN R. PtJAMAN,
      Acting Assistant Administrator
         'or Population and,  Hu.mani-
         Uirtan Assistance.
   [PR Dcc.77-10038 Piled 4-4-77;6 :4S arnf


            Customs Service
           Antidumping Duties
 AGENCY: United States-Custom Serv-
ice, Treasury.

ACTION:  Notice  of   petition   flled by
American  manufacturer,  producer or
  3UMMAP.Y- This notice is to advise the
  public that a petition has been filed by
  an  American  manufacturer  recuestj:?
  that antidumping duties be a^sefsed -z-.tn.
  regard to wrencnea, pliers, screw drivers.
  and meta.-cuttuTjg snips and shears from
  Japan. Intere-.tea persons are muted to
  comment on the action.

  EFFECTIVE DATE: This notice  is ef-
  fective on April 5, 1977.

    Michael  LubUnski. C'-ass'-ficatisn  ar.d
    Valve Division, U.S. Customs  ;5erv:oe.
    1301 Constitution Avenue NW.. Wash-
    ington, DC. 20229  (202--566-2S38J.

    On March  15, 1977. a petition  vas re-
 ceived 111 proper form, pursuant to sec-
 tion 516'a> o: the Tariff Act of  J920. as
 amended 05-  the Trade Act  of l')74 '19
 U.S.C. 1516'a;>. from counsel ac:ir.g or.
 behalf  of certain American  manufac-
 turers  and   wholesalers   of   wrsnones.
 pliers,  screv.-dnvers  and  metal-:utt_£g
 snips  and  shears  (including  boit  cut-
 ters) . amons other things, asserting that
 a finding of dumping be issued and anti-
 dumping duties be assessed on th>3se en-
 tries o: the above-mentioned  hand tools
 from Japan where it has been deter-
 mined that  sales were being made at
 prices less than the  foreign  market 'or
 constructed) value, within the meaning
 of  the Antidumping Act  of H'21. as
 amenaed '19 Tj-S.C. 160  et  seq.).  As a
 result  of a  negative determination of
 injury  rendered  by  the  Intern iuonal
 Trade Commission on Octooer 21.  1374
 '39 FR 33133), a finding of dumping ya^
 not made in this matter, and therefore
 merchandise  of tne  class or kind in
 question v.-os not subject to  appraise-
 ment under the Ar.uciumping Act.
   The petition  requested  the  following
   1. The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury or hjs
 d*!eeat« should  conclude  tiiat  tht  Tar:J
 Commission   mow  "International   Trade
 Commis£>.on,"  i;ereiE.a?ter   "Commission" >
 erred, 03 a m:ti:er o' \3,v, when It concluded
 that an. iOcuitry La  :he United  Sta -es •arii
 nol.  b

                        G201 CONGDON BOULEVARD
                        Oi.'LUTi-t. MINNESOTA 55804
April 22, 1977
To the Research Group  Committee  ior ,-,'ater Quality Agreement Review:

Subject:  Transmittal  of Research Work Group Report

Attached you will  find the  third draft of the Researen Group's review of
the Water Quality  Agreement.   I  have received comments from three people
on the second draft and have  tried to include them as rauch as I can.
There was an important point  on  which two of the three people who
commented agreed and where  I  have not included their suggestion in  this
third draft, and I want to  highlight that point for yoj.  Both of these
comments came from Directors  of  major research laboratories on the  Great
Lakes and they objected to  the report's suggestion that research, managers
of programs on the Great Lake;.   ^ r «;^ired to adhere to tne research
needs identified by the Intdrua.^i.d.c.l Join" Coirmissi:,-,- . As a Laboratory
Director in EPA, I would nou  _.ik^ tnit, either.  however, the fact,  tnat
all of three of us as  Laboratory 2 rectors do not like it simply convince.-
me that what the report says  is  right — that L.KI:S is wnere on- of our
major problems lie.  We have  a situation nou unlike tne one which tne
country faces in trying- to  decide whether to joii.t the L'nitec Nations.
If the United Nations  ;s really  going to wor<, the co'ir.tri :-.i have tj
give up their soveraigr.ty.  The same is crue or r^sc/ro^ latror.ttorit:.? en
the Great Lakes.   If we are going to have a ccoic a^tea program ar.c get
on with the job,, then  ve've got  to coop<_ • .~c fir rnor^"; t-iar we are
presently doing.   (1 au, tryin^ to wear -y IJC '.-. ; :L,_;rr r.ov and not my
Laboratory Director's  hat.  I  aori't like it as _ L-aboratory director any
more than they do . )

Seconc,, I want to  point out chat w.iile Jco i..-'c.\.v ~ a* £ comments are
thorough and probably  correct in many instances, caey  -.r--- cnos abouc
which I can't do much  ,_s 'ieade-r  of tnis Work Group.  They are ir.ore  a
"baring of his soul" at out  what  is wrong with tne Great Lakes and the
world than they are specific  suggestions for revising the Work Group
report, so 1 have  included  them  for your use as you see fit.  Let me
restate that th.2 Work  Croup did  not meet dud I did not receive comments
from everyone or. any one of tha  drafts, but I don't think that there is
enough disagreement among the group to nick 2 it worth trying co have a
meeting at this late dcte even if time permitted.

Donald I. Mount,  Ph.D.


        OPTIONAL rONW NO. 1O
        JULY 1B73I COITION
        OSA FPMN 141 Ci*ftl .01.1


TO     : Leader, Research Task  Group, GLWQA Review           DATE:  April 15, 1977

FROM   : J. H. Kutkuhn,  Member

SUBJECT: Draft of Task Group  Position Paper {4/7/77}

        First let me apologize for not having responded more quickly to your
        earlier communication, the one dated 3/17 enclosing the draft position
        paper of 3/7.   I'd been out of the country for a month and, upon my
        return in late  March,  simply wasn't able to review the draft in time
        to meet your first deadline.  Moreover, I hadn't been made: aware pre-
        viously that I  was being named a member of your group, and, frankly,
        am still a little uncertain as to how it happened and why.

        Further, it's been difficult for me to grasp the substance of the
        charge to this  task  group  (#7) as outlined in the Task Description.
        I feel the (3)  interest "areas" listed thera are described so simplistic^.1/
        and in such abstract fashion that doing justice tc them in the time allotted
        is impossible.   Also,  the suggestion that tie scientific community has not
        provided knowledge good enough for "...an accurate assessment arid prediction
        of all water quality conditions..." in the Great Lakes strikes me as being
        frivolous and platitudinous, if not completaly unrealistic.  As I try to
        point out in the comments that follow, the indictment by implication of
        research as being unresponsive, fragmented, disoriented, arid unproductive
        seems grossly unfair,  and masks what many feel is the real, issue, viz.,
        our general ineffectiveness to date in mounting and enforcing measures to
        halt the degradation of Great Lakes water quality by agents; we already
        know are doing  significant harm.

        I very much appreciate the difficulties yoj, face as leader of this group,
        and don't wish  to add  to your misery by appearing to be obstructionist.
        But I did want  to take the opportunity to offer some thoughts of my own
        about this complicated matter, speaking as a research administrator who
        agonizes daily  over  whether or not the costly research we administer is
        truly relevant.   Please understand that I car, live with the draft report
        as it stands, and am not suggesting you subject it at this late hour to
        the major surgery these comments may otherwise imply is necessary.

        1.) P. 1, para.  1:   The last sentence is mechanically awkward, unclear
            as to meaning, and, as & result,  ambiguous (or at least misleading).
            I'm not sure that  the "vast and diversified data base...(developed)
            over the past decade..." has provided (is providing) to any
                    Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on tht Payroll Savings Plan

    signifleant extent  for  : well-organized,  integrated,  and effective—
    i.e., "successful"—abatement/monitoring  strategy.   What seems to
    have evolved instead is a  loose,  not-too-well-coordinated approach—i.e., ;
    relatively unsuccessful abatement  ;-.xrram—resting  largely on intuition
    as derived from qualitative assessment: of this fragmented oase.  [In
    the second sentence, what  is moar.t z^  the terrr "...these remedial
    programs?"  It's antecedent af_-j-n-j  "co be "...surveillance ana monitor-
    ing activities...," which  by themselves certainly aren't "remedial."]

2.) P. 1, para, 2:  Similarly  unclear;  the first sentence implies effec-
    tiveness of controls a^ mounted  from the  available  data case, 'the
    last two decry the  inadequacy and  outmodedness cf the same oase.  If
    not contradictory,  the argument  is confusing.

3-) P. _!_,__ para. 3:  The ideas  expressed  here  (first 4 sentences)  seem to
    tumble over one another, without conveying  a sense  of conviction that
    they really have merit.  ilt is difficult to build  a  case on (or get
    support for)  rationale charac - •'.*.:•„.-.i by conjecture, marginal  proba-
    bility, abstraction, and preco. d_.fion. 3

4.) P. 2, para. 1;  I have difficile;/  %.vch sevaial i^plic^t^cr...- apparent
    in the last half of the. paragraph, where  the narrative co-.tinues with
    "It is probable that.. ." (i) Exclusive concern ai,out  toxic pollutants,
    equivalent attention m^st  be given other  factors  ^r,a~ iioo directly or
    indirectly threaten Grt.at  Lakes water  quality, sura a;; Lack of effective
    water-level controls/policy, indiscriminant ere doing  mri falling, in-
    determinate status of radioactive  materials,  laigeiy  uncontrolled influx
    of suspended solids, s-ting/operation  of  power olar.to, ana r multitude
    of proposed land-use activities in une "cc^i,;.^i zcn-i" sp-i :ifically as
    well i.s in -the basin at large,    di) Unreuii.st.lc  r :,.-•/-,,  ...01 t.-at
    "research" is an absolute  prerequisite for  solving  wr ,.; -cuaii _•_. ;: rc,;lcno ;
    there seens to be some uneasiness  ^.n u'.e.  rrnkr ,i^c;ur  LT . ^ ^1  fu:-ictior.aiy
    utility of vaguely perceived, yet-to-be-^tr.^:.r.,.r  reso.ircr* findings  in
    setting water-quality L,ta-ndaras, planning iibate.T.cnt st:rcitc-jy, and
    establishing evaluation (monitoring) programs.   Some  folks are asking:
    Why can't we exercise simple common  sense £_nci collective good judgment
    in identifying, preventing, or mitigating what wo already know is bad,
    or is very likely to be, and get on  with  the business of physically
    doing something about it?  Why should  the Lakes suffer further degradation
    while increasingly costly,  time-cor.samj.ng,  misdirected,  and frequently
    abstract research is pursued?  In  other worrj, wny  continue to put the
    burden on, to rhetorically emphasize -the  need to  do more,  "research?"
    Why can't tighter and better-coordinated  enforcement  of  abatement
    measures be applied now, where we  all  agree it's  needed?

5.) P. 2, para. 2:  With reference to  the  immediately preceding statement
    (4), I feel the arguments  expressed  here  are largely  academic,  if not
    unsupportable and highly conjectural.   It's one thing to offer a blanket

    criticism of the U.S.  research community for failing to match the
    pace set by someone else,  it's another to state clearly and precisely
    what the research community at large should have been doing to begin
    with, and whether or to what extent the research performed by anyone
    to date has been truly effective in facilitating the solution of
    water-quality problems.  I feel we need to have a better understanding
    of what the term "research" connotes, and not use either its promise
    or failure as a crutch in excusing the fact that efforts to improve/res tors
    water quality have been no more than marginally effective to date.  Could
    we provide examples of research whose results, by design, were or
    would be absolutely basic to a well-conceived abatement or monitoring
    program?  [I often have the feeling that much of our research is under-
    taken more in response to platitudinous, stream-of-consciousness, and
    abstract expressions of need than in the context of practical, carefully
    wrought management schemes lacking only in certain information clearly
    derivable via applied research.  This feeling is sustained by the
    frequent observation that individuals expressing such (research) needs
    either refuse to consider or simply have no conception of (i)  what it
    would cost in time, labor, and money to address them; (ii)  how compli-
    cated logistically the work involved will be; and (iii)  whether indeed
    their pursuit will likely produce anything relevant.]

6.) P. 3, para.  1:  In the second complete sentence at the top of p. 3, it
    sounds as though we're second-guessing ourselves—which is the risk
    one takes when using the "if-then" approach to explaining why something
    failed, or at least doesn't seem to be working too well.

7.) P. 3, para.  2;  Well-stated; relates nicely to what I tried to say in
    (4) and (5)  above about applied research in the water-quality context.

8.) P. 4, para.  2:  The problem of the agreement's overstressing the
    health-hazard aspect of contaminants in the Great Lakes has indeed
    complicated the RAB's  task of offering well-balanced recommendations
    regarding bonafide "research needs"—when in fact the human-health
    dimension lacks expert representation on trie Board itself.   I agree
    that this deficiency must be eliminated one way or another.

9.) P. 5, para.  2;  I question the usefulness of relating the alleged
    ineffectiveness of the RAB to the character of its composition,  i.e.,
    to the dearth of "clout" among its members in influencing the direction,,
    funding, etc.  of research programs under their control.   I revert again
    to my observations in  (4)  and (5)  above, wherein I question whether
    most if not all water-quality "research needs" heretofore identified
    by the Board have been conceived,  in terms of expected results of the
    work involved, as truly relevant as well as logistically feasible.
    The opinion that needs enunciated by the RAB have not been addressed
    with greater vigor may be  more an indication of their lack of intrinsic
    merit than of some research manager's unwillingness to apply the

     necessary resources in pursuing them.  Regardless  of  who makes up
     the RAB, the research it specifies as being necessary must have
     irrefutable merit.

10.) P. 6 and 7, Recommend, tions .   (1; Re::. ring back to  (9), I doubt
     that this provision would result i'-, the desired effect,   (2)  OK.
     (3) OK. (4) Offhand, this sourias naive and unrealistic.   (5>  OK.

11 •) P. 7 and 8, Terms of Reference:  Concur.

In summary, 1'ir not sure the paper adequately addresses the main elements
of the charge made to the group at the outset.  But, as suggested earlier,
I don't think it would have been possible to do more or better in the short
time available.  Closing points I would like to make , however,  relate to
what appear to be the three main concerns expressed in  the draft document.
(i)  toxic substances ; (ii) composition of the IJC/RA3;  and ,'iii)  human
health v. resource well-being.

   — Toxic substances.  The draft a..'et-j; coo much if r.or. exclusively on
     this topic.  It should strike a. ^oticr balar.ee ry  recognizing other,
     equally important aspects of cr.t total -,:a tar-quai.it/  problem.
     Composition of RAB.  '.'. agree that the effectiveness of  -..his
     would likely be enhanced by the addition of more  ''inf la^nce . "   But
     this kind of restructuring implies also that such representation
     (mainly of the federal establishment) would fully comprehend—and
     could be counted, on to intelligently assess — ail research  needs,
     strategies, and applications as to their relevance.  Even  if the body
     did prove to be omniscient, which is hi~:-,L'/ .in: - k c. i / , its  effectiveness
     could quickly be impaired if, -co "get the joo ro'-j, ' i". dictated more
     than it coordinated.  I feel the document cou_d ccrruf._t ."rorr, in attempt
     to better reflect the notion of true coordination througnout the Great
     Lakes communi ty .
           health v. resource well-being.  I agree witn the n=;ed  to  get
     better representation in the IJC from the human-health sector of  the
     community.  It seems fair to say, however, that the IJC  is making
     good headway in recognizing that many ether living resources are  at
     least as sensitive as man to the requirene.it of good-quality water.
     To set criteria strictly from the standpoint of human health would
     appear to be as much .; mistake as setting thea from that of  the biota
     at large.  What I feel, we need is a good ba^a^ce  in protecting  both,
     while (and perhaps more importantly) protecting the integrity of  the
     lakes themselves .

Many thanks for the chance tc express some thoughts I've harbored for  a
long time.

                         NATIONAL PROGRAM STAFF
                       Beltsville, Maryland  20705

                                                      April 15, 1977

Subject:   Research Work Group Draft Report

To:        D. I. Mount
           Director, Environmental Research
             Laboratory - Duluth
           6201 Congdon Boulevard
           Duluth, MN  55804
I have read the revised draft report.  I believe you have done an excel-
lent job of addressing some of the weak spots in the program.  As I
indicated in my last memorandum, the introduction is especially well

Regarding the problem areas, you mention the need for developing a set
of research priorities.  They have developed a long list of research
needs with some broad indication of degree of urgency, but this needs to
be more selective and definitive.  There also needs to be some mechanism
for directing high priority research to those locations having the best
competence.  I think that this is what you are trying to say in
Recommendation No. 4.

Your statement about the composition of the RAB is good.  It is somewhat
strong, but apparently valid.

You address the funding of the RAB to the extent that  adequate funds
be available for administrative functions.  Our experience has been that
a coordinated program can best be developed if research funds are made
available to the administering group.  I don't know what funds are avail-
able for this purpose, but one recommendation might be that funding
sources for the RAB be explored.

I note a strong emphasis on human health.  Mention should also be on
conservation of natural resources.

In general, I think your report is very good, and there are no major
changes I can suggest.
J. Lunin
Staff Scientist
Soil, Water, and Air Sciences

                               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                               IMationai Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration
                               ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES
                               Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
                               2300 Washtenaw Avenue
                               A:.u Arbor, Michigan 48104
April 18, 1977

Donald I.  Mount
Director,  Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth
Eugene J. Hubert
Director, GLSRL
SUBJECT:  Conments on Research Task Group Position Paper, April 7, 1977 Draft
I am pleased to have the opportunity to review and comment on the subject
draft paper.  In overview, I concur with your recommendation to change the
mission/objective (Terms of Reference) of Che Research Advisory Board from
that of coordinating Great Lakes water quality research in the U.S. and
Canada to that of the Commission'; ptir.oipal scientific advisor on all water
quality matters.  It is undesirable to leave the RAB Terms of Reference
unchanged.  The RAB accomplishment oJ tne last five years is not commensurate
with the effort and vet science s..ouia play a larger role in che activities
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

I do have detailed comments on your paper and suggestions for change which  I ,
trust are constructive.

   1.  Page 1 - Title.   Since several agencies have neraners on the Research
       Task Group, I suggest that "EPA" be aeletec from the title and i_
       should read "Research Task Group Position Paper - rive Year Review
       of the Great Lakes /Jater Quality Agreement.1'

   2.  Page 2, last paragraph, second sentence.   Tnis sentence is confusing
       to me and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.  If you're
       talking about the fact that there is no single U.o. research program
       addressing Great Laxes water quality at tne same level of effort as
       at CCIW, this xs true, but so what.  The U.S. has a raulti-federal
       agency program whici addresses a set of Great Lakes water-related
       activities.  Each activity has its own mission/objective.  That's
       the way the U.S. i£ organized.  I don't believe we should copy the
       Canadians on this one.

   3.  Page 3, last paragraph.  Under the circumstances, I believe we have
       as much U.S.-Canadian cooperation in research as could be expected.
       The RAB has fostered workshops and symposia.  U.S.-Canadian joint
       research program will only be pursued if it is clearly advantageous
       (cost effective) tc do so to both the U.S. and to Canada.  The RAB
       has not identified specific research programs for which international
       cooperation would be productive.


 4.  Page 4, second paragraph (fourth problem).   The Water Quality Board
     has been productive due to several reasons:   (1) it has a clearly
     defined and achievable mission and objectives;   (2) it is organized
     to utilize the U.S. and Canadian agency resources to achieve both
     agency and Water Quality Board objectives.   The RAB Terms of Reference
     are weak and poorly defined objectives.   We  have certainly coordinated
     research and while there are many conference proceedings and a
     Directory of Great Lakes Research, it is not clear that this research
     advisory role has been productive, except for the WQOS/SBWQC relation-
     ship.  The problem is that the RAB mission needs to be changed so that
     we too have a clearly defined and achievable mission and objectives,
     and a mechanism for tapping agency resources.  The RAB Committees and
     Task Forces rely upon IJC funds.  If mutually acceptable research
     objectives could be developed, a multi-agency (U.S. and Canadian)
     joint program could be planned to utilize multi-agency resources.

 5.  Page 5, second paragraph (fifth problem), sixth sentence.  I recommend
     the following rewording:  ?h»9-9heal4-be The role of the Research
     Advisory Board should be that of scientific  advice and scientific
     services, whteh-ean-be free of such constraints. . . .

 6.  Page 6, recommendation 2.  I don't believe that this sentence as
     written is feasible.  I recommend that the remainder of the sentence
     starting with aneJ-meehaftiSHia-wifch-ift. . . be  deleted and substitute
     the following: . . . and to develop proposals and plans for in-
     clusion in the programs and the budget process  of the respective
     agencies, as appropriate.

 7.  Page 6, recommendation 3.  There is an interesting NOAA Technical
     Memo which points out that bridges between operational and research
     programs and between research programs cannot be achieved by direction
     from the top; bridges can be built by $  $ $  $,  however.  How do you
     plan to carry out recommendation 3?

 8.  Page 6, recommendation 5.  While the impact  of  water quality on human
     health is important, singling out human health  seems to give it greater
     emphasis than the ecosystem.  I recommend in first sentence .  . .
     but especially the impact of water quality on human health and the
     ecosystem and should ....

 9.  Page 7, recommendation 7.  I agree.

10.  Page 7, Definitions.  I recommend a rewording.   As used herein, "science"
     refers to the use of factual data, knowledge and theory to arrive at
     objective sound advice that is free of political ef-eeeRem±e constraints
     of any jurisdictions or bias from organizational association.   Acceptable
     criteria for water resource planning include economic, environmental,
     and social considerations.

11.  Page 7, 2(b).  Suggest insert.   . . .research  programs and to seek
     budget initiatives as required to fit .  . .


12.  Page 7, 3(b).  Suggest sentence be deleted and replaced by the
     following:  The Science Advisory Board shall investigate such
     subjects and questions which require research, shall participate
     in the development of proposals and plans and snail oversee the
     conduct of research related to Great Lakes Water Quality as may be
     referred to it by the IJC under Article VI l(f)  of this Agreement.

13.  Page 8, 3(d).  Recommend the sentence be modified as follows .  .  .
     should be directed and to ivcnraruend references, through both IJC and
     Agency channels, for those critical subjects and questions which
     can be more cost effectively pursued by joint U.S.-Canadian

                                                       April  22,  1977

                      WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

I.   Introduction
     As a result of the 1972 Water Quality Agreement both the United
States and Canada have directed huge sums of money toward the control of
discharges affecting the water quality of the Great Lakes.   More recently,
both countries have been and currently are directing increasing resources
towards surveillance and monitoring activities to determine what impacts
and changes result from these remedial programs.   Clearly the principal
focus of activity within the framework of the Water Quality Agreement
has been one of abatement and now monitoring by both sides and this
priority certainly is proper and in order.  To the extent that these
programs are successful, is in part a result of relying on a vast and
diversified data base that has been generated by many agencies and
organizations through their research programs, especially over the past
     As the effectiveness of these control programs administered by
various agencies within both countries becomes apparent through the
monitoring programs initiated within the framework of the Water Quality
Agreement, it goes without saying that some problem or geographical
areas will be identified which require further remedial programs involv-
ing even more expensive control measures and more expensive monitoring
programs.   It is clearly unwise management from any point of view to
continue to rely on an increasingly more outdated data base to devise
control programs and monitoring activities for the lakes.  Just as we
need to refine control programs and monitoring programs,  so we need to
expand the data base upon which such programs must be developed.
     Against this background of activity through the first five years of
the Agreement, it seems safe to conclude that the monitoring and remedial
programs that will happen in the coming few years are going to be of a

different nature.  Perhaps programs will deal with more specific problems
as opposed to more general problems such as treatment of municipal
wastes.  Limitations on industrial effluents will be more specific than
the general ones such as BOD and suspended solids now used.  If one can
accept this conclusion, then it seems equally obvious that the role of
research and the Research Advisory Beard will take on new dimensions and
play a significantly more important role in support of the remedial
programs as well as the monitoring activities on the lakes.  Up to this
point, research has not played a major role in the Water Quality Agreement
nor has the Research Advisory Board been serving as a scientific advisor
to the Commission and the Water Quality Board in an effective and continuous
fashion.  It is probable that both remedial programs and monitoring
activities will concentrate on more specific pollutants, especially
highly toxic ones, and it is here mat the expertise and experience of
the members of the Research Advisory Board and the research community as
a whole should be tapped to provide more effective monitoring programs
as well as treatment schemes for removing specific problem materials.
Furthermore, having taken a giant step forward in dealing with the more
common and recognized problem pollutants in the Great Lakes, greater
emphasis should be given to the search for and identification of pollutants
before they become problems or emerge into crises.  To do so will again
involve close and frequent contact with the entire Great Lakes research
community in order to profit immediately from new findings that will
not appear in the open literature for some months or years.  In short,
it seems that there must be much closer and more frequent cooperation
between the Water Quality Board and the Research Advisory Board as the
countries tackle these new and more difficult problems.

II.  Problem Areas During the First Five Years
     During the first five years of the Water Quality Agreement a number
of problem areas have developed or have been identified which deserve
special comment.  The research program of the U. S. agencies is not
located in a single center as is the Canadian one and so is less conspicuous.

Part of this problem may be more real than apparent.  If the total
resources expended by the U.S. research community including industry,
universities and public agencies both federal and state are summed
together the collective resources expended are probably far in excess of
what has been presently identified as Great Lakes research activity.  It
is almost certain that, as far as achieving the goals of the Water
Quality Agreement are concerned, these resources could have been more
effective if they had been directed toward those questions which have
arisen as a result of agreement activities.
      In reality, each organizational entity has pursued research which
seemed to it to be most important, based on the priorities and needs of
its funding agency. Since each of the federal agencies have more specific
and usually more defined responsibilities than those contained within
the Water Quality Agreement, the approach has been less than an efficient
one from the standpoint of the agreement needs.  The Research Advisory
Board—probably the only entity within the agreement, who could have
effectively coordinated these activities, has not by-and-large focused
its attention on that aspect of the problem and as a result has been
ineffectual in bringing about coordination of research within the Great
Lakes research community beyond some very specific and relatively small
areas.  A well defined set of research priorities is yet to be developed
by the Research Advisory Board, but lacking the structure with which to
influence the direction of the research comraunity toward such as yet
unidentified priorities, it is difficult to seriously tackle the problem
of setting research priorities with no expectation that they will be

     A second problem area is that the Research Advisory Board and other
entities within the Water Quality Agreement have not adequately brought
about international cooperation between the two countries in the fields
of research.  To be sure, there have been many cooperative research
efforts undertaken.  But by-and-large these have been informal arrangements
between various organizational entities within the Great Lakes research

community, who initiated cooperation on their own outside the framework
of the agreement.  Some better mechanism of sharing the research responsi-
bilities on various problems would indeed result in much more efficient
use of resources and probably more timely answers to the problems being
     A third problem area has been the near absence of activity and
concern for matters of public health as they relate to water quality
conditions in the Great Lakes.  Perhaps this inadequacy stems more from
the nature of the problem than from the inactivity of the Research
Advisory Board.  It is safe to conclude that while one can find experts
on water quality0 •-'ec  lve^for aquatic life for many types of pollutants,
it is difficult to find experts in the area of human health who are
expert for more than a few types of pollutants.  If this assumption is
correct, then it would be very difficult if not impossible to select a
small committee or task force to provide the advice to the Commission
which is needed for health concerns.  It would seem that advice will
have to be sought from hand picked individuals within the research
community after the priority problems have been established.  Then and
only then can the best experts be identified.
     A  fourth problem area has developed as a result of the structuring
of the Research Advisory Board, the method by which representation on
the Board has been established, and the unclear terms of reference.
The Water Quality Board has been a much more active organization and has
accomplished many tangible results because the membership of the Board
is made up of representatives from agencies which have resources that
can be expended to accomplish monitoring programs and institute and fund
waste treatment facilities.  The Water Quality Board has not had a
significantly larger budget than the Research Advisory Board, and yet
when one looks at the accomplishments of the Water Quality Board, they
are gigantic compared to the output of the Research Advisory Board.
Furthermore, all those who have functioned within the research community
realize that one does not declare himself a coordinator of research

activites and thereby automatically become the coordinator.
     There are two ways in which research coordination can be accomplished.
One is by such high respect for the work that has been done that various
members in the research community look to that organization or body out
of respect and therefore accept their guidance.  Second an organization
or committee can achieve coordination of research because it has sufficient
control of research resources so that they are able to influence the
direction of research and the selection of projects by the research
community.  Only the latter is a practical approach for the Research
Advisory Board.
     Until recently few members of the Research Advisory Board were
research managers, within the Great Lakes community, who had substantial
resources under their control.  During the last year this situation has
improved but there still remain a number of research institutions on the
Great Lakes which have no representation on the Board.  When one looks
at the present and past members of the Research Advisory Board, it is
also clear that membership has been picked on a basis other than control
of research resources, knowledge of the Great Lakes, or affiliation with
a major research institution within the Great Lakes research community.
Given this situation, it is little wonder that the Research Advisory
Board has not exercised research leadership and coordination within the
Great Lakes research community.
     Equally important is the need for a well defined and important role
spelled out in the Board's terms of reference.
     A fifth problem area concerns the composition of the Water Quality
Board.  Since each member in practice speaks for his jurisdiction, he is
bound by that jurisdiction's politics, economics and idiosyncrasies.  In
effect, the Water Quality Board's "maximum" equals, at best, the "minimum"
of any of its members.  Money, politics, turf and other considerations
are bound to influence actions of the Board and well they should.  But
the Commission, of necessity, must have an objective viewpoint as well,
free of these constraints, before it reaches a decision.  The role of
the Research Advisory Board, should be that of scientific advice and

services free of such constraints and based on objectivity, fact and
expert opinion.
     Therefore, the Research Advisory Board should be renamed to identify
this principle role and should be the scientific adviser to the Commission
on all matters where unbiased interpretation of fact or situation is

III.   Recommendations
     1.    The membership of the Research Advisory Board should consist
fully of members of the research community who command control of the
major research programs of the Great Lakes research community.    The
only other consideration should be that there be equal membership from
each country and that each of the members be a well recognized scientist
knowledgeable about Great Lakes problems and the Great Lakes research
     2.   The  Research Advisory Board should be charged with the responsibility
of identifying the most important problems on which research effort
should be directed on an annual basis and mechanisms within both countries
should be established to see that the principal research funding agencies
have a responsibility to abide by those decisions and orient their
programs in the directions indicated by the Board.
     3.    The Research Advisory Board cochairmen should be given the
responsibility to assure that proper international cooperation in the
research community is accomplished by giving them the responsibility and
the mechanism through which to accomplish that cooperation.
     4.    The research managers who are members of the Research Advisory
Board whould be instructed by their government that their membership on
the Board carries with it the responsibility to orient the research
programs of their organizations as much as possible to fit the research
priority that is identified by the RAB.
     5.    The Research Advisory Board should be the Commission's principal
scientific advisor on all water quality matters but especially the
impact of water quality on human health and on the ecosystem,  and should be

given sufficient resources for consultants, travel and committee meetings
to tap the vast research community that is knowledgeable about the
effects of various pollutants on public health.  Annually, the RAB
should submit to the Commission a briefing document advising them of the
most important problem areas including human health.
      6.  The two co-chairmen of the RAB and the two co-chairmen of the
WQB should be instructed to meet formally on a quarterly basis to coordinate
activities and resolve differences of the two Boards.
      7.  The Research Advisory Board should be named the Science Advisory
Board and should be the Commission's principal science advisor.

IV.  Proposed Terms of Reference for the Research Advisory Board renamed
the Science Advisory Board.
     1.   Definitions:   As used herein, "science" refers to the use of
factual data knowledge and theory to arrive at sound advice that is free
of political constraints of any jurisdictions or bias from organizational
association. Acceptable criteria for the water resource planning include
economic, environmental and social considerations.
     2.   Membership:     The International Joint Commission shall determine
the size and composition of the Science Advisory Board under the following
          (a)  The voting membership of the Science Advisory Board will
consist of members of  the research community who command control of the
major research funds being expended on water quality related Great Lakes
          (b)  The research managers who are members of the Science
Advisory Board will have the authority from their respective agency to
orient that Agency's water quality related research programs and to seek
budget initiatives as required to fit the research priority that is
identified by the Science Advisory Board.
     3.   Functions and Responsibility;  The functions and responsibilities
of the Science Advisory Board concerning the quality of waters of the
Great Lakes System shall be as follows:

          (a)  The Science Advisory Board as the Commission's principal
scientific advisory on all water quality matters, has the responsibility
to promptly assess emerging problems and recommend practical solutions.
          (b)  The Science Advisory Board shall investigate such subjects
and questions which require research, shall participate in the development
of proposals and plans and shall oversee the conduct of research related
to Great Lakes Water Quality as may be referred to it by the IJC under
Article VI (f) of this Agreement.
          (c)  The Science Advisory Board has the responsibility to
identify the most critical problems on which research effort should be
directed and to recommend references, through both IJC and Agency channels,
for those critical subjects and questions which can be more cost-effectively
pursued by joint U.S.-Canadian initiative.
     4.   Authority:      The Science Advisory Board on its own authority
may seek analyses, assessments and recommendations from other professional
academic, governmental or intergovernmental groups about the problems of
The Great Lakes water quality, and related research activities, and
shall advise the International Joint Commission on the application of
their findings to Great Lakes problems.
     5.   Coordination;The cochairman of the Science Advisory Board and
the cochairmen of the Water Quality Board will meet formally on a quarterly
basis for the purpose of coordinating the activities of the two Boards.
     6.   Reporting:      Annually, the Science Advisory Board will
submit to the Commission a summary report of activities, accomplishments,
and an analysis of the critical problem areas (including human health)
with recommendations..

           PATE *V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Library Collection (PL-12J)  _-
77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL  60604-3590