905R77111
APPENDIX I
TO
REPORT OF SUB-GROUP A
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENIOR REVIEW GROUP
ON
REVIEW OF THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
APRIL 29, 1977
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of International
Activities
-------
APPENDIX I
TO
REPORT OF SUB-GROUP A
IN REVIEW OF
THE GRE^T LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT REVIEW
APRIL 29, 1977
-------
INTRODUCTION
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 Wcrk Group
Point Source Discharges Work Group
Non-Point Sources Work Group
Hazardous Substances Work Group
Nuclear Wastes (Radioactivity Work Group•
Research Work Group
These Position Papers form the basis for the Sub-Group A Report, Each
of the Papers were prepared independently by the Work Groups listed in
the Attachment to the main Report, They are published in this separate
document for ease in reference since the main Repoir makes frequent
reference to these Papers.
As stated 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.
APPENDIX I
-------
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.
Sincerely,
Lovell E. Richie
Attachment
1935 West County Road B2. Rosevilie, Minnesota 55113
Regional Offices • Duluih / B-ainord / Fergus Fails; Marshall / Rochester / Roseviile
Equal Opportunity impioyer
-------
Water Quality
BACKGROUND
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 Canada to restore and enhance the water
quality of the Great Lakes System.
The Governments in their wisdom have defined the Great Lakes System
to mean "all of the streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water
that are within the drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River...."
Article I (d) .
The Governments further expressed their 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 Coronission."
With that purpose and policy in mind, the Governments agreed to
undertake a cooperative program.
The Agreement having been i.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.
-------
-2-
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND DEFICIENCIES UNDER THE AGREEMENT
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-
ments .
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 xvork
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-
not been of much value.
Considerable time has been devoted to discussion and creation of
an array of "pigeon holes" such as mixing zones, zones of influ-
ence, source control zones, areas of non-compliance, biological
sensitive areas, environmental value mapping, near-shore zones,
open-water zones, etc.
Whether intentional or not, this has lead to a diversion from the
real issues and the essence of the program in the United States,
i.e., the implementation and enforcement of policy. The real
issues should be: what requirements are imposed by the parties
and jurisdictions to control the addition c_f pollutants; .
how are they enforced and how effective have such programs been.
The latter question, i.e., how effective have such programs been,
should not be a judgement call by jurisdiction, but rather by
complete disclosure of all discharges; whether or not they
have a legally enforceable permit; whether or not they have
legally enforceable effluent standards, whether or not they have
legally enforceable construction schedules to attain compliance/-
whether they are at present in compliance and if not, when they
will be.
In order to make any such comparison meaningful, there must be an
agreed upon minimum treatment requirement that incorporates an
effluent quality standard. This is the heart and soul of the U.S.
program and comparisons of progress against any lesser requirements
should be rejected.
-------
-4-
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 compari-
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.
-------
-5-
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 make 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 pollution than has all other activity to
date under the Agreement arid 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 controls
in the form of effluent standards, we have not committed anybody hn
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 done 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
-------
-6-
surveillance, refined our interagency and interjurisdictional com*
munications, proposed refined water quality objectives, based upon
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.
-------
-7-
The Agreement can be modified to incorporate provisions for minimum
treatment requirement or effluent standards by modifying:
Article III as follows:
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
1. The specific water quality obj-r-r ~:_ves and minimum treatment
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 boandary waters of the Great Lakes System or
for particular sections thereof may be adopted by the Parties in
accordance with the provisions of Articles IX and XII of this
Agreement.
3. The minimum treatment requirements and the specific water
quality objectives adopted pursuant to this Article represent
the minimum effort o_f treatment and the minimum desired levels of
water quality in the feeuHelasy waters of the Great Lakes System and
are not intended to preclude the establishment of more stringent
requirements.
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 w^tpr
quality existing at the date of entry into force of this Agreement
in those areas of the boundary waters of the Ireat Lakes Svstem
where such water qualitv i_s better than that prescribed by_ the
ieveis exceed the specific water quality objectives.
-------
-8-
5. In areas designated by the appropriate jurisdictions a_£ 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 1^ as follows:
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
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
_3£ mg/1 B0d5
3J3 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
industry.
Where such treatment is inadequate to protect water quality standards
or to meet the objectives of this Agreement additional treatment will
be required.
Flow augmentation should not be used in lieu of adequate treatment.
-------
Article V as follows:
PROGRAMS AND OTHER MEASURES
1. remains the same
(a) first paragraph remains the same
(i) construction and operation in all municipalities having sewer
systems of secondary waste treatment facilities providing
levels of treatment consistent with the achievement ©f the
wate? qaaiitv objectives,-taking int© aeeeast the-effects
e€ waste £}?em etheif setufeest 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, e? reduction ef inpats ©f sub-
stances and effects consistent with the achievement ef the
effects ef waste frem ethejf seurees;
(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.
-------
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region V
SUBJECT: Review Paper - Surveillance
DATE: April 25, 1977
Chris Timm ,
Director, S§A Division/ //'
LX
R. J. Schneider
Great Lakes Coordinator
Attached is the review paper for surveillance including proposed language
for Article V § X of the Agreement. Please circulate this to all the
other work Groups and participants.
Attachment:
As Stated
cc:
G. Alexander
W. Wilford
W. McCracken
R. Crim
T. Saylor
EPA Farm 1320-4 (B... 6-72)
-------
REVIEW PAPER - SURVEILLANCE
I. Introduction
The existing Agreement mandates the following specific surveillance
requirements to both Parties.
Article V,l.!» , (v). "monitoring surveillance and enforcement activities
necessary to ensure compliance with (control of pollution from municipal
sources)."
Article V,(b) >C"1). "monitoring, surveillance and enforcement activities
necessary' to ensure compliance with (control of pollution from industrial
source)."
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 activities."
Article VI, 1.(a), "collection, analysis and dissemination of data....re-
lating to the quality of the boundary waters."
Annex 1, Item 4. "Sampling Data. The Parties agree that the determination
of compliance with specific objectives shall be based on statistically
valid sampling data."
Annex 2, Item 10. 'Itordtoring. The Parties.,-w**, shall continue tojwiitor
the extent of eutrophication in the Great Lakes system and the progress Bade
in reducing or preventing it."
Annex 2, Item 11. "Submission of Information. The IJC will be given in-
formation at least annually....concerning
a) Total reduction in gross inputs of phosphorus achieved as a result
of the programs isspleoented..."
but does not call for an intentionally coordinated program nor is it adequate
for assessment of fish stocks or the inpacts of atmospheric sources or toxic
substances.
- 1 -
-------
2
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 *
tyiality 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
Chtario, 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 which 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 monitoring &re judged to be adequate at present.
Since the Federal Water Pollution Ccr.trol Act, Sec. 106 water pollution
control grants do not allocate extra funds or priority for support of
the Agreement it is unrealistic to attempt to use normal Sec. 106 funding to
improve the Great Lakes surveillance program. The need is for a specific
section of the FsVPCA that sets forth an annual appropriation to support
all activities including surveillance that are necessary for the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Ill Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Articles V and VT and Annexes 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the Agreement adequately
identifies most of the surveillance programs required to assess the state
of the Great Lakes except those mentioned in I above. The major weakness
is that the present agreement does not contain any requirements for a
minimum program level of effort or resources for surveillance. Therefore,
it is recommended that articles that endorse the general surveillance
plan as outlined in Appendix B to the 1975 WQB report be added to Article
V of the Agreement.
It is further recommended that a new section (c) be added to Article X
of the revised Agreement to stipulate the minimum level of funding that will
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 funding levels
that play havoc with long term planning and staffing by both Federal and State
agencies.
-------
TV. Recommended Additions
ARTICLE
l.(j) Surveillance. Notwithstanding the surveillance requirements stated
above, a coordinated, bilateral program that will meet the following
objectives:
(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
following:
(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 consult themselves to seek:
(c) Appropriation of at least S year advance funding of the surveillance
program stipulated in Article V 3. (j) 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.
-------
. • • * ,y.»,„
I •'' ' '' ;V-,
i?
Ajgust 27, 1976 !
,AUG
DIR-L
•&D\P
A.0._
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 reed to provide adequate funding for
water quality surveillance in the Great Lakes.
Each year since the signing of the Agreement, the Commi:s'iori, 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 Coiriiiission's principal advisor, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board,
presented an International Surveillance Program for the Great Lakes
..2
-------
c a
™,hich in the view of tha Board and the Commission represents the
rininu:n effcrt the Parties should consider in fulfilling their most
import^' obligation for surveillance under the 1972 Great Lakes Water
.'Quality Agreement. The following table summarizes the funds required
for this pro gran; during each of the next ten years.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADEQUATE
INTERNATIONAL CHEAT LAKES SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
(Millions of 1975 :•-•'.;;•: , per Year)
Present Additional Total
Expenditure: Acquirements Requiregents
UNITED STATES 4.2 5.6 9.8
CANADA ' 4.3 1.9 _
TOTAL 3.5 7.5 16.0
The surveillance program described in the enclosed report, Chapter 4 -
Appendix B of tho 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 -:•" Great Lakes water quality,
progress towards achievement of th3 ccrect-ives of the 1972 Agreement,
d the need for ne^ or revised reuedia", programs to ensure that this
luable resource will be adequately protected for the full use and
eijoyirent by the citizens of both countries. Tne costs for the 1975
proposal have increased over those of the 1974 proposal due to
(1) a more cor.orc^rnsive assessment of the ongoing programs and,
(2) a mere finite estimate of the detailed components of the refined
and upgraded 1975 proposal.
Jn view of the importd.ice of the Great taxes as an international
water resource, ccmprising about 80* of tna north American supply of
fresh surface waters, and the fact that over $7 billion are currently
being expended to restore and protect the quality of this resource,
tne importance of an adequate internationally coordinated surveillance
program tc monitor the quality of the lakes cannot be overstated.
Tne Cc;:.jission ir- its 1974 Third Annual Report to Governments
recomnendeci the adoption of" an integrated In'national basin wide
surveillance program and presented preliminary cost estimates which
did not include those for the monitoring of persistent toxic
contaminants in fish.
The Canadian response to the Conmission's recommendation stated
that Canada and Ontario will continue to support an IJC coordinated
surveillance program and that additionally both governments have
instituted a coordinated program of monitoring persistent contaminants
|in commercial fishery stocks.
*Not attached. Available upon request from the International
Joint Commission. ^3
-------
-3-
The Co™iis:.ion is gratified by the Canadian response and requests
tr-at funds for :he ten year detailed surveillance program be made
av liable at the projected level on an ongoing basis.
The Cc:rv:iis3ion has net received a response from the United States
tJ 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 Coiui.-nssion also urges the Parties to ensure that fut-jre fiscal
programs provide ongoing funds at the level proposed, for the
Agencies of Federal, Stare and Provincial Governments having
responsibility for water quality surveillanc-3 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
External Affairs by the Secretary of the Canadian Section of the
Sincerely,
'.iCL - .1 "^- t v •
William A. Bullard
Secretary, U. S. Section
enclosure
cc: D. Chance
Mr- Fitzhugh Green
'—Mr. Ken Oakley
Mr. G. Alexander
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE:
SUBJECT; Position Paper on Phosphorus
FROM: Nelson Thomas
Phosphorus Work Group Leader
TO; George R. Alexander, Jr.
Chairman, Sub-Group A
Attached is the subject Review ^aper including a proposed revised Annex 2
to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Attachment
EPA Form 1320 6 i Rev. 3 76)
-------
POSITION PAPER-PHOSPHORUS
REVIEW OF ANNEX II TO "CONTROL OF PHOSPHORUS"
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
Background
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;
and
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
program:
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
detergents.
A schedule of expected phosphorus reductions was prepared based on the
above programs.
Problems
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
en 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 model is being used to estimate the load
reduction required to maintain dissolved oxygen in the Hypolimnion of
Lake Erie. If phosphorus reductions greater than can be obtained from
municipal and industrial control are required, then information on con-
trol from non-point sources will be required.
The control of eutrophication j.r. the Agreement is based entirely on
phosphorus loadings. Experience with t...-. r-r^ent agreement has indicated
a problem with protecting the lakes by relying on loadings alone. Two
large problems arise with the approach, tns first is the problem of esti-
mating tributary and non-point sourc-; ....^.-ts. There have been significant.
errors in estimating these at the present time. The second problem arises
from the form of the phosphorus being inputed. Only certain forms are
available for phytoplankton growth and these are contained in different
proportions in the various inputs. Reduction in one type of input by a
specified amount might not have the same effect as reduction in another
type of input by the same amount. A como-nation of loadings, lake phos-
phorus and chlorophyll content for both present and expected conditions
would provide for sounder management of the Great Lakes. The use of three
measurements -will permit, evaluation of compliance to agreed upon water
quality improvements.
In all the lakes, except for Lc~<~ ^:,'nigan, sufficient data exists to
permit the inclusion of all three types of data. For Lake Michigan, it
will be possible to include values ..'or pr.osphorus and chlorophyll concen-
trations, however, phosphorus ioadir.g information can only be estimated at
this time. The target load provided in Appendix I of the Agreement cannot
be evaluated at this time. Studies are new in progress that will provide
for this analysis, which should be complete in two to three years.
The use of a detergent phosphorus ban as a means of controlling phosphorus
inputs to the Great Lakes s.ioula be reevaluated based on two conditions
that now exist that did not in 1912.
1. The main reason for not including a virtual phosphorus detergent
ban in the U.S. part of the Agreement was the risk to public health.
There now exists many phosphate substitutes for both phosphorus and
NTA if a determination is made that the latter is still not accept-
able.
2. Phosphorus reductions that were thought achievable from municipal
waste treatments are not being realized. Many operational prob-
lems make it probable that it will be rr.any years before satisfac-
tory phosphorus reduction can be maintained at all waste treatment
plants. Removal of phosphorus before they reach the treatment
plants would reduc^ the phosphorus loading from the treatment plants
with unsatisfactory removal.
Issues
It now 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.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
, Aprn 19, 1977 RE6ICN V
SUBJECT: p0.jnt source Discharges Work Group Recommendations
FROM: Da-|e Sf gryson> chairman
TO: Point Source Discharges Work G,-cu:
I transmitted to you -;ne nain tcx1: of our task group report. When we
last met, we agreed I would fcs.r.'on some recommendations at the appro-
priate time.
On April 15, Mr. Alexander held a full Sub-Group A meeting to review
the various task group reports and recommendations.
There were no adverse consents to our task group report. For that
meetings I developed attachment I, which were draft recommendations of
specific language changes in the Great Lakes Agreement. There were
some minor suggested charges in that draft. I have made those changes
already and, therefore, attachment 1 reflects the final document as will
be submitted to the full Sub-Groi-p A and negotiating team. The plan now
calls for each task group repor' to :-e submitted in toto. From there,
the negotiating tear, wil" fashion v.r.cir negotiating stance. Therefore,
the language and our position can oe accepted or reviewed as a final
position.
If you have any questions en the above, or violently disagree with any
of the recommendations, please let me know immediately.
Dale S. Bryson
Attachment
cc: R. Schneider
£ PA Form 1320 A (Rev- 3-76)
-------
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
treatment.
(11) provision of financial resources to assist prompt
construction of needed facilities;
-------
- 2 -
(Hi) establishment of requirements for construction and
operating standards for facilities;
(iv) measures to find practical solutions for reducing
pollution from overflows 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 single document that is periodically
reviewed and placed before the public;
(vii) monitoring and surveillance activities necessary to
ensure compliance with the foregoing programs and
measures;
(viii) establishment of effective enforcement programs to
ensure the above pollution abatement requirements
are fully mat.
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-
Heal ly 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.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE:
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.
Attachment
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-741
-------
I
League of Women Voters
LAKE ERIE BASIN COMMITTEE
I
TO i Ralph G. Christensen, Leader
Non-point Sources Work Group
Office of Great Lakes Coordinator
USEPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, 111. 60604
FROM i League of Women Voters Lake Erie Basin Committee
Janet B. Hutchison for Mary Lewis, Coordinator
Edith Chase, past coordinator
SUBJECT* Review Papert Non-point Sources
1224 Quilliams Road
Cleveland Heights, OH 44121
April 21, 197?
Page 5» Please define 'hydrom edification.'
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 12 i We agree that consideration only of structural solutions to urban
drainage problems is inadequate and that management approaches should be emphasized.
Page 13 i We support the expansion of Article V (l) (d).
Page 14: A strong education program is essential for public officials and citizens
as well as landowners.
The final report of the PLDARG 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.
,
""_., <:<.- ^---C *-^^ *~^ <
cc Alexander
MacDonald - LWVDS
Strang - LMILG
Carlson - LWVO
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
OHIO
NSW
-------
Stephen M. Yaksich
U.S. Corps of Engineers
REVIEW OF GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT,
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 1.(d) of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
1. The appropriate state agency (i.e. Cooperative Extension Service
of the State University) shall review soil test results and recommended
fertilizer applicationrates co determine if the recommended fertilizer applicatio:
rates can be decreased. In the 1960's an annual-plus-soil buildup
recommendation was made for many soils in the Great Lakes basin. Data now
~au£££oC& "J"t* "MYT.Y-J-. rf\rr?.™:?r.?-.!"-..9.'ny. will suf.fj.f?. on manv of these soils.
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 tnese agencies which will be involved
in the identification and control of non-point sources of pollution should
begin immediately.
4. Land use decisions which will have a large impact on Great Lakes
should he 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
'jhall be so situated so visits can be easily made to one of them by everyone
in the Great Lakes basin.
-------
NCDED-W
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
536 SOUTH CLARK STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6O605
6 April 1977
TO: Ralph Christensen, EPA, Chairman, Non-Point Sources
Work Group
/?
FRCM: Jan Rasgus, Corps of Engineers (4^
SUBJECT: Cotimsnts on Section V-l-d, Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
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'
projects.
-------
NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION
WORK GROUP
REVIEW PAPER
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1972 the Governments of the 'Jni-ed 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./Canada 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
force".
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, Cd) 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, construction, disposal of liquid and
solid wastes, hazardous materials, nutrients, sediment and in general all
rural and urban drainage.
II BACKGROUND
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 into 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
thereof?
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
practices;
(d) confined livestock feeding operations and other animal
husbandry operations; and
(e) pollution from other agricultural, forestry and land
use sources.
In carrying out its dtudy 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.
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 Lakes, including assessment of concentrations
of contaminants of concern in sediments, fish and other
aquatic resource^."
The schedule for the final reporting of the PLUARG studies to the two
governments is July 1978. This rep^j': will 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 Article VI. (d)
Article VI. (d) states that the two Governments shall develop and
implement programs and ctner measures directed toward the achievement of the
water quality objectives as soon as practicable in accordance with legislation
in the two countries.
Following the signing of tV. o.S./Canada Agreement the U.S. Congress
enacted PL 92-500 - the Federal Water Tcilution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Major programs under this Act have been atilized as the chief mechanism of
meeting the goals of the Agreement, t'i 92-500 preserves the constitutional
rights of the States, expandb the .federal role in water pollution control, in-
creased the level and amount of funding for construction of municipal sewage
treatment facilities, elevated water quality management planning to a higher
level of significance, and opened new means of public participation. The
objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Xation's waters".
The Act provides fcr achieving its goals and objectives in phases,
with accompanying requirements and deadlines. Ultimately, all point source
controls are directed toward achieving a national goal of the elimination of
the discharge of pollutants v.y 19S5 The Act also requires the development of
comprehensive programs fcr preventing, reducing and eliminating pollution.
Section 208 provides for the 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
activit_es, outputs expected, management agencies,
regulatory programs, best management practices for non-
point sources such as agriculture, silviculture, mining,
urban runoff, and hydromodification. (Hydromodification
means any changes in natural water courses or drainage
brought 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
include:
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 93-523)
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
chemicals;
5. A survey of the quality and availability of rural
water supplies; and etc.
B. The Act provides 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 (PL 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 has 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
C3) 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
farmers 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 a.id 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:
GREA": LAKES 3AS IN
UNITED STAT£S
Practice Item
Contour Farming
Crop Residue Management
Diversion
Roads
Field Windbreak
Grade Stabiliz. Structure
Minimum Tillage
Pasture § Hayland Planting
Streambank Protection
Stripcropping
Terrace, basin
Terrace, gradient
Terrace , 1 evel
Terrace, parallel
Total terraces
Tree Planting
Grassed waterway or Outlet
Land Adequately Protected
Cropland to Grassland
Cropland to Woodland
Ag. Waste Mgt. System
Unit
Ac.
Ac,
Ft.
No.
Fi .
No.
Ac.
Ac,
Ft.
Ac,
Ft.
Ft.
Ft,
Ft.
Ft.
Ac.
Ac.
Ac.
Ac.
Ac.
No.
Number
706,009
5,695,409
21,718,765
59,700
19,245,123
8,407
3,300,860
2,330,617
7,058,674
675,766
900
2,942,197
54,986
2,085,471
5,083,554
1,783,030
109,162
48,522,799
767,463
339,618
526
-------
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 CNOAA), 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 should1be 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
changes.
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 treatment
approachs. Canada has also provided some support to several municipalities for
addressing combined sewer overflows 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 intensi\j solutions which are inherent in conveyance/treatment
systems is inadequate. Application cf Best Management Practices (BMP) for both
source and conveyance/treatment offer opportunities for ultimate solutions which
indicate the following advantages:
(1) Address pollutant reduction at the source
(2) Provide for opportunities to develop maximum cost effectiveness
(3) Introduce opportunities for greater reliability
(4) Involve less intensive allocation of resources
(5) Emphasize optimum use of existing systems
(6j Lead to more facility in solutions
(7) Tend to avoid the development of secondary problems
Information collected from U.S. demonstration projects on combined
and storm water overflow control measures strongly suggests that U.S. policy, when
fully developed for control of the problem, will include non-point source consid-
erations in combination with pcint source considerations.
It is suggested that changes be made in Article V 1,(d) of the Water
Quality Agreement. The proposed changes are shown in italics as follows:
(d) Pollution from Agricultural, Forestry, and Other Land
Use Activities, Measures for the abatement and control
cTfpollution from agriculture, forestry practices, road
construction3 mining3 urban development, urban drainage s
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
regulations to ensure that pest control products judged
to ?.ave long term deleterious effects on the quality of
water 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;
Cii) Measures for the abatement and control of pollution from
aninal 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 agriculture,
forestry practices, road construction, mining, urban
development3 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.
(5) 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
Canada.
(10) A program for long term maintenance of Best Management Practices
should be developed whereby changes in landowners will not destroy
established control measures.
10
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE; April 28, 1977
SUBJECT: Hazardous Substances Work Group Review
FROM: Karl E. Bremer
Toxic Substances Coordinator
TO: Robert Schneider
Great Lakes Coordinator
I have attached the final draft of the Hazardous Substances Work Group
paper.
All comments received from my work group have been incorporated.
EPA Form 1320-6 iRev 3-76)
-------
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES WORK GROUP REVIEW PAPER
Introduction
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, much
-------
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 well 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 Commission 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
countenneasure 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,
etc.)
The final technical draft of Annex 9 has been reviewed by the U.S. and
Canada, but has not been adopted. The G.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, thd 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
medicine);
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 problem
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.
Recommendations
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
wildlife;
-------
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.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT: Five-Year Review
FROM: William A. Mills, Ph.D. (/
-------
COMMENTS
Enrico Conte, Environmental Surveillance Coordinator, USNPC - 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 NRC authority and programs vis-a-vis EPA. These
suggestions were accommodated except 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 concerning
the scope of monitoring, MRS, and tho quality assurance program. He agreed
with the recommendations made in the report.
Peter Tedeschi, Air and Hazardous Materials 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 from the statement
on page 4 of the draft concerning a prohibition of electric power
generation on the Great Lakes 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 improve was a siisstatement in that it could
improve faster if there were no radiation discharges into the Lakes. She
also suggested that the first sentence in the discussion on PL 92-500
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
recommendations.
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
time.
See additional comments from Mr. Walter G. Belter, U.S. Energy Research
and Development Administration, attached.
-------
UNITED STATES
ENERGY RESEARCH AIMO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
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 continaing 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
same 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
Report.
Sincerely,
Walter G. Belter
Assistant Director
for Technology Liaison
Division of Technology Overview
-------
REVIEW PAPER
NUCLEAR WASTES (RADIOACTIVITY) WORK GROUP
April 27, 1977
-------
REVIEW PAPER
NUCLEAR WASTES (RADIOACTIVITY) WORK GROUP
I. INTRODUCTION
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
follows:
(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
references:
3. Nondegradation. Notwithstanding the adoption of
specific water quality objectives, all reasonable and practicable
measures shall be taken in accordance with paragraph 4- 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 nay
designate restricted mixing zones in 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 with Annex 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. Mills (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 health1' 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 on
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, 1977,
the Department of State published (42 F.R. 18171 - copy enclosed) the ad_
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,
1977.
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 a_d hoc Advisory Group
considered the relevant statements in the Agreement with respect to
keeping the levels as low as practicable, preventing any health impact,
the intent of nondegradation, 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 trearaent and research. For this reason
a zero discharge objective was viewed by the majority of 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 commitment 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
revisions.
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 go 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.
-------
II. RADIOACTIVITY IN THE GREAT LAKES
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
-------
8
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 Table I it is seen that most of the
current U.S. plants are on Lake Michigan and that Lake Ontario is the
only other Lake receiving direct discharges. Except for a single plant
on Lake Huron, Canadian nuclear power stations are concentrated en 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
Products
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 strontiuir.-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
-------
10
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 York has 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 minimal.
While numerous special studies have been performed as part of research
projects, periodic monitoring of the open Lake waters as part of a
planned surveillance program is not carried cut by any governmental
agency. Some information on near shore radioactivity is available from
the tritium data provided as part of the USEPA Environmental Radiation
Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS). The concentration of tritium in
Lakes Michigan, Erie, and 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)
Location Tritium Cesium-137 Sr-90
Lake Superior
1974 .076
1973 — 0.53
Lake Michigan
1974 Big Rock 350 BDL NA
1974 Palisades 300 BDL NA
1974 Cook 300 BDL NA
1974 Zion 370 BDL NA
Lake Huron
1974 Douglas Point <1700 (BDL) .059 0.77*
Lake Erie
1974 near NFS outlet 320 <.07 0.93
Lake Ontario
1974 Pickering 1500 .07* .87*
1974 Ginna 460 .06* 1.0*
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.
-------
12
Table III
Ambient Tritium Levels in Great Lakes
Location
Wisconsin
Two Creeks
Average Annual Concentration (pCi/1)
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
Illinois
Zion
Michigan
Bridgeman
Charlevoix
Monroe
South Haven
New York
Oswego
Ohio
Toledo
NA
NA
j 450
350
500
400
NA
NA
NA
200
350
400
45C
NA
BDL
350
300
300
BDL
500
NA
300
350
250
400
300
350
NA
400
300
250
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
500
300
_+ 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.
-------
13
total body dose.* 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 mrad; from
strontium-90, about 0.005 mrem. It is seen that the dose rate due to
strontiun-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.
-------
14
III. U.S. STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS
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 F.R. 28^02,
July 9, 1976). The Agency promulgated the following maximum contaminant
levels:
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.
-------
15
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
-------
16
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, 10/1P/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 radionuclides. 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
Radioactivity.
-------
17
B. NRC
NRC in addition to regulating the nuclear industry under EPA's
Uranium 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
-------
18
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 NRC 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
197*1, must provide for the surveillance of radioactivity in ccirmunity
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 man-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.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. While the requirements of the EPA Drinking Water Regulations
will provide near shore data and NRC collects source monitoring data,
-------
19
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
objectives.
-------
Nonas
18171
For the Commission, by the Division
of Corporation finance, pursuant to
delegated authority.
•" T GEcmcr A. Fnzsirruo.vs.
Secretary.
IFB Doc.TT-10039 Filed 4-4-TT;8r43 am)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE „
(Public Notice 533]
BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNA-
TIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIEN-
TIFIC AFFAIRS
Availability of Report of the international
Working Group on Radioactivity Objec-
tive for the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
- The Department of 3;ate hereby gives
notice that the report of the joint
Canada-United States Working Group
on Radioactivity Objective Jor the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement is avail-
able for review and comment. This re-
port, which Is presently under review by
both govennrjents. was prepared under
the terms of the Agreement on Great
Lakes Water Quality, signed April 15,
1972.
The next of the report, together with
the text of a dissenting opinion on the
report's recommendation by the State of
Minnesota, follows below.
Interested persons may submit their
comments in writing to the Office of In-
ternational Activities, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW..
Washington, D.C. 20460, on or before
June 1, 1977. AH comments received will
be considered prior to completion of the
review by the TT.S. Government.
Dated: March 25,1977.
Doiuta R. Kmc,
Director, Office of
• '- STajiranmmtal Affairs.
RUINED RAOIOACIIVII'I OBJZCTTVT TOR TKZ
• GOXAT t.»ift« Wirm QCALZTT AcRriirrjrr
Tfcia document represent the joint recom-
mendations of. U3. and Canadian advisory
group* on a radioactivity objective to pre-
•crr» the water quality of tie Great La^ea.
The) objective 12 in terms at a dose equivalent
to ICRP Reference Man from a standard
annual Intake of the Gree; Lakes water. The
recommended objective for the generu water
quality u» the Great Lai-aa la teat level at
radioactivity which results ia a whole body
dose equivalent not exceeding one miliirern.
Releasa ot radioactive nu teriala shall oe as
low as reasonably achievable aad controlled
by specified actions at dt fined levoia
Tfca Canada-United S-jktea Great T.J.-:»T
Water Quality Agreement speculed radioac-
tivity- u a constituent oi water for which
thejc should be- an agreed Water Quality Ob-
Jectrre. Tin relevant sta-Wmenu ia the Agree-
ment are as follows:
Annex 1. Section Hb.1 states: "Radlo-
actmty should b* keqt to th» lowest prac-
ticable leieL la any event, discharges inould
b» eontroUed to the- extant necessary to pro-
Tent harmful effect* on beaiLn."
Anne* 1, Section 7(b) further states: "for
radioactivity. tft« objective* shaii b« eon-
•Idered La the Mijtit of lh« recommendatlona
of to» International Commission on Radia-
tion Protection.-
Further, tils section require* tne p«rtle«
to consult for tn« purposo of constricting
"leaned objectives for radioactivity".
Subsequently, advisory (croups were formed
In Canada and in the United States to con-
- aider the technical aspects involved in de-
veloping such "re£nen *Jie
Agreement, It Is necessiu-y to ,- -;•. • ,. "ian-
' ttty of radioactive material;} i; .rir.-;,_ i'ja
to actlv:'.:es of the United Str.tr;, of .-ircerica
and Car.'.da. An acceptance cur-Uf. icr water
in the system can. best be ;i«ir »-~,?d by &
vigorous application, oi ap -cprV c control
measures. These controls -..j-m oe applied
to radioactive effluents from point source as
weil as run-off, drainage, and seepage from
non-point- sources, including aerial deposi-
tion.
The Kadioactivity Objective for the Great-
Lw:es Baata is- based principally on tfcree
criwr.a,: (1) Introduction of radioactive ma-
terials imo Systes: Waters should be'- per-
rcuttsd, only waen it results from social:?
b*ne£cu.'.l activities.
(2) Tie concentration cf radioactivity in
the System Waters and ia olota abound not
coastlxute an unacceptable i:!.*^!'.'^ n5i oa
either a long-term or short-te.Trs basis.
(SV Since the Lagestion of az.y in.ount of
radioactivity mar tnvolvo some rlis. addi-
tional controls snouid be icstltrted autli
their cfst is It-annae"; • ~ .. «r..ls say
fartier reduction ia poti., ",_. . .fa o r-sis.
Ia fcsplnff with Thoe u-iv.- sevrai
necornmendatlon-s tare Deer: , . r re. vo, Zie*»
recommendations refer to as _-, ,- .*. ; rsxr
Quair.y Oojecti^e, the c.;r. '.rot ji . .t^:-. <,t.~*
releases, a denned hierarc i'/ o.' .•:o,i ^-svej
and the surveillance cf ,'.^i& "Aatars. None
ot the proposed levels, including particularly
tie lowest, should be intet-orsttd is reccs-
saniy defining an acceptaola dcse to ti.e
population. UBing System Waters. The ac-
ctptabillty- ol aoy dos, ^uch as fallout
from weaoaa testing^ it la further recom-
mended '.hat tiia one- rnilllre-n vaiua be
revlewec it '.east every Cvo years ;o ensure
that tMe contribution fronj ties* uncon-
tr&LliibU1 reieaAes do«& not coi^niute an
unreasonable proportion of the do^e.
;-:odc aiciuirjuiK Is r^q-u-'f^l ia coriL.-m ti-i» regulatory authorities shall de-
termlna anprcpvlata corrective- actions to
•nnjninuce cb« puitilc health risk,
CO.VTSOL or nn.r^sr ov HABIO^CTTVX
Dump^n^j of radioactive wAdtea or cfher
radioactive material- into waters of tha &r»"«li
Lake* system la prohibited. Dumping la de-
Ad*quat» penodic monitoring of Sj-btem
Witsrs. jedunenc. and. tha appropriate food
or^anlfcma coatained therein, sooted be pro-
vicied ior. tiicsa raoionuclldes Uieiy to b«
present, in measurable concentrations. Such.
monitoring ahouid be conducted under ^>»*
direction or thw responsible Fedwral. SUite,
and Provincial jur^sdlction»- and moorted to
ui» tnr«nutlon>lu JoloO. Commission. T£*
fEOEKAl HECISTEK, VOL 47, HO. 65—TUESDAY, APHIt 5, 1977
-------
mi::
NOTICES
tod sampling locations and frequency should
take Into account the known effluent jourcoa
and particular nuclido* roleiuied.
Th« monitoring reports should Include
calculation! of the TED,, to ICRP Reference
Man from itandard annual intake or the
water since this Is tho parameter to be used
tn determining the applicable Action Condi-
tion. At present it is not necessary to deter-
mine explicitly the dose equivalent* due to
the Intake of food harvested from the Lakes
ai the; are relatively Insignificant.
UCf LN111ON3
1. Total Equivalent Dose (TEDX). For the
purpose of this report, the total equivalent
doae to a particular organ, tissue or the
whole body Is the cumulated dose equivalent
over SO years resulting from the dally in-
gest Ion of 2.2 liters of lake water for one
year.
___ Z»»-tolaJ absorbed do« int<(rrst"—4 "f.
>—» THB,—quality (actor.
"™~ £2l',-pro '^tcSzP report No. 10 l- lists the doslmetrlc
«•** da'tji. including the TED». for a number of
CO rMUpjzQclldes.
_i IT. If&ffrence .Von: For the purpose of this
^ repjatrileferenoe Man refers to the dennl-
QitionV £od par&meten for adult males out-
Qjlnedii^iCRP Report 23*,
^r 3. pbwae Control Area: It Is proposed that
the '{s&ifiie control area" be defined as fol-
lows.V-'T&e source control area shall be
boundstl^y a distance of 1 km radius from
the po^nt'of release or. in those cases where
the release point is to a narrow channel or
river, the boundary shall be a point 1 km
downstream from the source."
It is further proposed that 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. Afnbient Water: The water In the Great
Lakes System outside the source control
areas.
MUfNISOTA POSmON AS PasSEJJTTD TO THE
AD Hoc GROUT m SEITZMBEB, 1974
\An ad hoc Radioactivity Objective Com-
mittee has been formed to redne the radio-
1 activity objective! 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 prevent harmful affects
on health." It Is universally accepted by re-
sponsible bodies that radla;lon damage Is a
linear effect, that is. that radiation produces
detrimental effects down to the lowest levels.
The State of Minnesota believes that the
linear theory of radiation damage and the
Annex I requirement of preventing "harm-
ful effects on health" require that any re-
— flnement of objectives lor radioactivity in
the Great Lakes allow no additional dis-
charge of radioactivity to the Great LaJcea.
Annex I. I 7 ICRP Pub. 10, 1968 Report of Committee
TV, Pergamon Prea«.
'•ICRP Pub. 33. 1773 Report of the Taok
Group on Reference U*o. Fergamoa Press.
WMt« to the Great Lalcca wtll meet tho ICRP
limits. Consequently, our position has prop-
erly taken Into account tb« position of the
ICUP. '
Minnesota further bolleve* that any re-
finements of the radioactivity objectives
should be consistent with the 1072 Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments.
This would require that existing facilities
provide the best practicable treatment by
1977. the best available treatment by 1383.
and a goal at zero discharge by 1985.
(PR Doc.77-10076 Piled 4-4-77:8:45 am|
Agency for International Development
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON VOLUNTARY
FOREIGN AID
. Meeting
Pursuant to Executive Order 11769
and the provisions of section 10(a>(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 Building, 21st
and Virginia Avenue NW.. Waihington,
D.C.
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 matters related_
to the foreign assistance advisory con-
cerns of the Committee as may be ap-
propriate.
The meeting will be open to the pub-
lic. Any interested person may 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 Funnan will be the A.I.D.
representative at the meeting. Informa-
tion concerning the meeting may be ob-
tained from Mr. Robert 3. McClusicy,
Telephone: AC202-632-1892. Persons de-
sinng to attend the meeting should en-
ter the New State Building through the
Diplomatic Entrance, 22nd and C
Streets.
Dated: March 29, 1977.
ALLEN R. FCRMAN.
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Population and Humani-
tarian Assistance.
[FS Dcc.77-10033 Piled 4-4-77;8:45 ami
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
WRENCHES, PUERS. SCREWDRIVERS.
AND METAL-CUTTING SNIPS ANO
SHEARS FROM JAPAN
Antidumping Duties
AGENCY: United States-Custom Serv-
ice, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of petition filed by
American manufacturer, producer or
wholesaler.
SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the
public that a petition has been filed by
an American manufacturer requests?
that antidumping duties be assessed -x-.tn
regard to wrencnea. pliers, screwdrivers.
and metal-cutting snips and shears from
Japan. Interested persons are invited to
comment on this action.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This notice is ef-
fective on April 5, 1977,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
Michael Lublinski, Classification ar.d
Valve Division, U.S. Customs Service.
1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
ington, D.C. 20229 (202--566-
On March 15, 1977, a petition was re-
ceived in proper form, pursuant to sec-
tion 516'ai of the Tariff Act of 1930. as
amended by the Trade Act of 1974 '19
U.S.C. 1516( a)). from counsel acting or.
behalf of certain American manufac-
turers and wholesalers of wrencr.es.
pliers, screv/dnvers and metal-cutting
snips and shears (including boit cut-
ters) . among other things, asserting ihat
a finding of dumping be issued and anti-
dumping duties be assessed on those er.-
tries of 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 1921. as
amended (19 U.S.C. 160 et seq.). As a
result of a negative determination oi
injury rendered by the Intemsuonal
Trade Commission on October 21. 137*
(39 FR 38133), a finding of dumping was
not made in tha matter, and therefore
raercnandise of the class or kind in
question was not subject to appr? ise-
ment under the Antidumping Act.
The petition requested the following
relief:
1. The Secretary of the Treasury or his
delegate should conclude that the TariS
Commission (cow "International Trade
Commission," hereinafter "Commission")
erred. 03 a matter of law, when it concluded
that an indJatry in the United States -ras
not beu:? injured or '.nzelv to Be tnjiu-ed
or prevented from belr.g established by rea-
son oC import of -.Trenches, pliers, screw-
drivers and metal-cutting snipa and shears
from Japan sold at leaa than fair vaiue
(-LTFV);
2. The Secretary of the Treasury or his
delegate should publish a flndlns; of dump-
Ing with respect to wrenches, pliers, screw-
drivers, and metal-cutting snips and shears
from Japan forthwith;
3. Appropriate Customs officers should
make Antidumping Act appraisements (for-
eign marset (or constructed) value and pur-
chase (or exporter's sales) price) for evtrr
entry of wrenches, pliers, screwdrivers, and
metal-cutting sntpa and shears from Japan
where it has b^en determined that the for-
eigri market (or constructed) value exceeds
the purchase (or exporter's sales) price.
4. Appropriate Customs offlcers should as-
sesa antidumping dutiea on those entries of
wrenchoa. pliers, screwdrivers, and metal-
cutting snips and shears from Japan where
It has been determined that the foreign m»j-
fcet (or constructed) value exceeds the pur-
chase (or exporters ealea) price.
In accordance with the provisions of
i 175.21 (a) of the Customs Regulations
RDEKAl «eCISTEt, VOL 42. NO. 6S—TUESDAY, APKIL 5, 1977
-------
SSB^v 3
j
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
s ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - DULUTH
6201 CONGDON BOULEVARD
DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55804
April 22, 1977
To the Research Group Committee for !,-.rater Quality Agreement Review:
Subject: Transtnittal of Research Work Group Report
Attached you will find the third draft of the Research 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 much 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 you. 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 Lakes oe required to adhere to the research
needs identified by the InternaLional Joint Commission. As a Laboratory
Director in EPA, I would not like tnat, either. However, the fact that
all of three of us as Laboratory Directors do not like it sinply convinces
me that what the report says is right — that this is where one of our
major problems lie. We have a situation not unlike the one which the
country faces in trying to decide whether to joint the United Nations.
If the United Nations is really going to work, the countries have to
give up their sovereignty. The same is true of research laboratories on
the Great Lakes. If we. are going to have a coordinated program and get
on with the job, then we've got to cooperate far more than we are
presently doing. (I am trying to wear my IJC hat right now and not my
Laboratory Director's hat. I don't like it as a Laboratory Director any
more than they do . )
Second, I want to point out that while Joe Kutkuhn's comments are
thorough and probably correct in many instances, they are ones about
which I can't do much as leader of this Work Group. They are more a
"baring of his soul" about what is wrong with the Great Lakes and the
world than they are specific suggestions for revising the Work Group
report, so I have included them for your use as you see fit. Let me
restate that the Work Group did not meet and I did not receive comments
from everyone on any one of the drafts, but I don't think that there is
enough disagreement among the group to make it worth trying to have a -
meeting at this late date even if time permitted.
Sincerely,
-" v~^
Donald I. Mount, Ph.D.
Director
Enclosure
-------
OPTIONAL rOHM NO. IO
JULY 1*73 COITION
i4i CFRI ioi.ii.e
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
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 there are described so simplisticly
and in such abstract fashion that doing justice to them in the time allotted
is impossible. Also, the suggestion that the scientific community has not
provided knowledge good enough for "...an accurate assessment and prediction
of all water quality conditions..." in the Great Lakes strikes me as being
frivolous and platitudinous, if not completely unrealistic. As I try to
point out in the comments that follow, the indictment by implication of
research as being unresponsive, fragmented, disoriented, and 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 you 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 can 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 a 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
• 010-110
Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on tbt Payroll Savings Plan
-------
-2-
significant extent for a 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., a
relatively unsuccessful abatement j*;:cgram—resting largely on intuition
as derived from qualitative assessment; of this fragmented base. [In
the second sentence, what is meant by the term "...these remedial
programs?" It's antecedent a^cs-rs to be "...surveillance and monitor-
ing activities...," whxch by themselves certainly aren't "remedial."]
2.) P. 1, para. 2; Similarly unclear; the first sentence implies effec-
tiveness of controls as mounted from the available data base, the
last two decry the inadequacy and outmodedness of the same base. If
not contradictory, the argument is confusing.
3-) P. 1, para. 3: The ideas expressed here (first 4 sentences) seem to
tumble over one another, without conveying a sense of conviction chat
they really have merit. [It is difficult to build a case on (or get
support for) rationale charact^x...i^a by conjecture, marginal proba-
bility, abstraction, and precondition.]
4.) P. 2, para. 1: I have difficulty with several implications apparent
in the last half of the paragraph, where the narrative continues with
"It is probable that..." (i) Exclusive concern about toxic pollutants;
equivalent attention must be given other factors that also directly or
indirectly threaten Great Lakes water quality, such as lack of effective
water-level controls/policy, indiscriminant dredging and filling, in-
determinate status of radioactive materials, largely uncontrolled influx
of suspended solids, Siting/operation of power plants, and a multitude
of proposed land-use activities in the "coastal zone" specifically as
well as in the basin at large. (ii) Unrealistic conviction that
"research" is an absolute prerequisite for solving water-quality problems;
there seems to be some uneasiness in the ranks about the real (functional)
utility of vaguely perceived, yet-to-be-attained research findings in
setting water-quality standards, planning abatement strategy, and
establishing evaluation (monitoring) programs. Some folks are asking:
Why can't we exercise simple common sense and collective good judgment
in identifying, preventing, or mitigating what we 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-consuming, misdirected, and frequently
abstract research is pursued? In other words, why 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
insupportable and highly conjectural. It's one thing to offer a blanket
-------
-3-
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/restore
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 the 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
-------
-4-
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, Recommendations: (1, Referring back to (9), I doubt
that this provision would result in the desired effect. (2) OK.
(3) OK. (4) Offhand, this sounds naive and unrealistic. (5) OK.
11-) P* 7 and 8, Terms of Reference: Concur.
In summary, I'm 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/RAB; and (iii) human
health v. resource well-being.
—Toxic substances. The draft c\:eilj too much if not exclusively on
this topic. It should strike a bearer balance by recognizing other,
equally important aspects of -che total water-quality problem.
—Composition of RAB. I agree chat the effectiveness cf this body
would likely be enhanced by the addition of more "influence." 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—all research needs,
strategies, and applications as to their relevance. Even if the body
did prove to be omniscient, which is highly unlikely, its effectiveness
could quickly be impaired if, to "get the job done," it dictated more
than it coordinated. I feel the document could benefit from an attempt
to better reflect the notion of true coordination throughout the Great
Lakes community.
—Human health v. resource well-being. I agree with the need 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 other living resources are at
least as sensitive as man to the requirement of good-quality water.
To set criteria strictly from the standpoint of human health would
appear to be as much a mistake as setting them from that of the biota
at large. What I feel we need is a good balrtnce in protecting both,
while (and perhaps more importantly) protecting the integrity of the
lakes themselves.
Many thanks for the chance to express some thoughts I've harbored for a
long time.
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
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
written.
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
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES
Great Lakes Environmental Research
2300 Washtenaw Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Laboratory
April 18, 1977
TO
FROM
Donald I. Mount
Director, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth
EPA
Eugene j. A'ubert
Director, GLERL
SUBJECT: Comments 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 the Research Advisory Board from
that of coordinating Great Lakes water quality research in the U.S. and
Canada to that of the Commission'o principal scientific advisor on all water
quality matters. It is undesirable to leave the RAB Terms of Reference
unchanged. The RAB accomplishment cr cue last five years is not commensurate
with the effort and yet science should play a larger role in the 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 members on the Research
Task Group, I suggest that "EPA" be deleted from the title and it
should read "Research Task Group Position Paper - Five Year Review
of the Great Lakes v/ater Quality Agreement."
2. Page 2, last paragraph, second sentence. This 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.S. research program
addressing Great Lakes water quality at the same level of effort as
at CCIW, this is true, but so what. The U.S. has a multi-federal
agency program which addresses a set of Great Lakes water-related
activities. Each activity has its own mission/objective. That's
the way the U.S. is 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) to 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.
-------
-2-
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: S-his-s-hetild-be The role of the Research
Advisory Board should be that of scientific advice and scientific
services, whieh-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 aad-raeehaais-ms—wifehiR. . . 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
ebjeetive sound advice that is free of political ef-eeenemie 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 . . .
-------
-3-
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 shall 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 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.
-------
April 22, 1977
RESEARCH TASK GROUP POSITION PAPER—FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE
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
decade.
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 that 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 community 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
followed.
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
studied.
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 Jectlvesf0r 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 terras 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
needed.
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
community.
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
X
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
criteria:
(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
Research.
(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..
------- |