905R77114
REPORT OF SUB-GROUP A
REVIEW OF GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
April 29, 1977
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION v
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 50604
PRO^"
APR 2 9 1977
Ms. Barbara Blum, Chairperson
United States Senior Review Group
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Review
Dear Ms. Blum:
The accompanying Report of Sub-Group A of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement Review is submitted in fulfillment of the Sub-Group A assign-
ment to review the operation and effectiveness of the Canada-U.S. Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement and to make recommendations as appropriate.
This review exercise was carried out within a period of three months.
Because of this time constraint the Report includes informal contribu-
tions from many Federal and State experts who participated in preparation
of the Report through telephone calls and informal meetings and discussions,
which supplement documentation in the Position Papers and other written
commentary accompanying the Report.
A debt of gratitude is owed to the many persons who contributed to this
Report, particularly the 72 members of Sub-Group A and the Advisory Groups
listed in the attachment to the Report. Their contributions are all the
more notable when it is realized that this review was accomplished outside
of the normal scope of duties of most of the participants,
A draft of this Report was sent to the Public Interest Groups listed in
the Report for review and comment, and a copy of this final Report is also
being sent to them. The Canadian representatives who will be meeting with
the Sub-Group Chairmen on May 16, 1977, have also been provided with a copy
of the Report.
We have appreciated "the opportunity to participate in the review and trust
that this Report provides the desired information.
Sincerely yours,
George R. Alexander, Jr. /r
Chairman, Sub-Group A
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Review
Attachment
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Report of Sub-Group A As a Whole
Introduction 1
Background 2
Problems under the Agreement 6
General Summary and Recommendations 9
Detailed Discussions § Recommendations 10
Preface (Preamble) 12
Article I - Definitions 14
Article II - General Objectives § Goals 17
Article III - Water Quality Objectives 20
Annex 1. Specific W.Q. Objectives 23
Article IV - Standards £ Other Regulatory Requirements 37
Article V - Programs § Other Measures 39
Annex 2. Control of Phosphorus 47
Annex 3. Vessel Design, Construction § Operation 51
Annex 4. Vessel Wastes 52
Annex 5. Studies of Pollution from Shipping Sources. ... 53
Annex 6. Identification § Disposal of Polluted Dredge
Spoil 54
Annex 7. Discharges from Onshore § Offshore Facilities. .. 55
Annex 8. Joint Contingency Plan 58
Annex 9. Hazardous Polluting Substances 59
Article VI - Powers, Functions § Responsibilities of the IJC .. 67
Article VII - Joint Institutions 70
Article VIII - Submission £ Exchange of Information 72
Article IX - Consultation $ Review
Article X - Implementation
Article XI - Existing Rights § Obligations
Article XII - Amendment
Article XIII - Entry Into Force § Termination
Article XIV - Supersession 77
Attachments:
1. Fourth Annual Report of IJC on Great Lakes Water Quality
2. 1975 Annual Report of Water Quality Board fSummary")
3. Draft Position Papers of Sub-Groups B, C § D
A. Sub-Group A Functional Chart and Membership
5. Comments from Public Interest Groups and Others
Appendix I - Position Papers (Bound Separately)
Water Quality Objectives Work Group
Surveillance Work Group
Phosphorus Work Group
Point Source Discharges Work Group
Non-Point Sources Work Group
Hazardous Substances Work Group
Nuclear Wastes (Radioactivity) Work Group
Research Work Group
-------
REPORT OF SUB-GROUP A AS-A-WHOLE
IN REVIEW OF
THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
INTRODUCTION
In connection with the Fifth Year Review the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1972, Sub-Group A was organized during February
1977 as part of the U.S. Government's Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Review Structure, Sub-Group A was charged with reviewing the principal
environmental issues involved in the Agreement and was requested to prepare
specific position papers on the following eight topics; water quality, surveillance
(in broad general terms in addition to water quality surveillance and monitoring)
phosphorus, point source discharges, non-point sources, hazardous substances,
nuclear wastes (radioactivity), and research.
As was further requested by the Senior Review Group, this report of Sub-
Group A discusses the general aspects of the Agreement in'addition to the
topics mentioned above. It presents a general summary and recommendations and
addresses, in greater specificity, each Article and Annex of the Agreement in a
separate prefacing discussion and presents conclusions and recommendations in
the form of recommended changes in the wording of each of the parts of the
Agreement. The specific discussions highlight any minority views where appro-
priate which do not appear in the separate Position Papers included with this
report.
The separate Position Papers from the Work Groups for each of the
subjects listed in the first paragraph are also appended to provide the Senior
Review Group with background information on each topic and with the full
-------
range of issues and views considered in this review, some of which may not
be reflected in the recommendations of the Sub-Group as a whole. Each Position
Paper is designed to stand alone and contains an introduction and discussion
of the issues involved and its own summary, conclusions and recommendations.
Because the topics assigned to Sub-Group A cover the entire environmental
spectrum a brief general background for the Agreement is also provided to
supplement the background statements in each of the separate Work Group
Position Papers.
BACKGROUND
The Great Lakes are a major and unique international water resource which
we share with Canada, The Lakes constitute 80% of the fresh water surface
area of the United States arid over 97% of the nations fresh surface water
\
storage. Within the Basin lives 15% of the nation's population, most of
whom depend on teh Great Lakes for their drinking water. The Lakes are
heavily used for swimming, sports fishing, and pleasure boating. Approximately
20% of the nation's manufacturing activity, and 17% of the nation's income
derives from the Great Lakes Basin. Fifty percent of the nation's steel is
produced in the Basin and 100 billion ton-miles of shipping is carried on the
Great Lakes annually. The Lakes still support what is now a declining commer-
cial fishing industry, which will probably disappear unless a method is found
for controlling toxic materials and other people-induced stresses.
The attached map shows the Great Lakes and the drainage basin which
constitute the "Great Lakes System" as defined in the Water Quality Agreement.
-------
Great Lakes Basin
-------
The system drains in a generally easterly direction, via the five lakes?their
inter-connecting channels and the St. Lawrence River, into the Atlantic Ocean.
The Basin encompasses portions of eight States and the Province of Ontario,
and the map vividly illustrates the need for a basin-wide approach to water
quality management of the Great Lakes as recognized in the Agreement.
Early pollution control philosophy regarded the Great Lakes as an in-
exhaustible pollution sink. The fallacies of such assumptions became
obvious in a rather dramatic way several years ago when stories (albeit not
completely accurate ones) on the "Death of Lake Erie" were prevalent in the
press. Although the volumes of water contained in the Great Lakes is enormous,
the cummulative consequence of continued pollution is far more serious and
long lasting in these large lakes than in a river. When pollution abatement
has been implemented on a stream segment, the improvement of water quality
is usually noted in a relatively short time. This is not so in the Great
Lakes. In Lake Michigan, for example, which has a flush out time on the order
of 100 years, it is obvious that we are yet to see the consequence of current
pollution loads. The worldwide PCB problem, particularly acute in Lake
Michigan, is dramatic evidence of the unknowns we face in attempting to
design pollution control programs in these large bodies of water. Mirex (de-
chlorane) and uncounted other organic persistent contaminants have caused most
Lake Ontario fish to be unsuitable for human consumption. While it is expected
that adequate control programs and sufficient time will restore most of the
beneficial uses of the lakes, there is no guarantee that all of the changes
that have occurred can be reversed. Five years of intensive surveillance of
-------
pollution control programs by the institutions of the Agreement, particularly
the Water Quality Board of the International Joint Commission have shown that
much now needs to be done if we are to achieve the objectives of the Agreement,
The attached copies of the International Joint Commission's Fourth Annual
Report of Great Lakes Oater Quality and the summary of the 1975 Great Lakes
Water Quality Board Report give an accurate picture of the progress made
and actions needed. For the reasons mentioned above special attention has
been focused both in Canada and in the U.S. on the water quality problems of
the Great Lakes.
The U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a Federal Executive
'Agreement signed on April 15, 1972, provided a special cooperative mechanism
under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 for focusing pollution control efforts
of the two nations on clean-up of the Great Lakes through the adoption of
common objectives and development and implementation of remedial programs and
other measures. The lead Federal role in water quality matters has been given
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environment Canada has the lead
Federal role in that country. Full cooperation of the eight Great Lakes States
and the Province of Ontario has been effected through the Agreement.
The two countries separately have focused attention on the Great Lakes.
In the U.S. Public Law 92-500 recognizes the special nature of the Great Lakes
since it makes special provisions for research and technical development
activities- under Section 104Cf), for a Great Lakes Pollution Control Demonstration
Grant Program under Section 108Ca) and for a special study of Lake Erie under
•5
-------
Section 108(d). Similar attention has been focused on the Great Lakes by Canada
by special agreements between the Canadian Federal government and the Province
of Ontario. These Federal-Provincial agreements use the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement as a basis for their programs.
In summary, the uniqueness of the Great Lakes as an important international
fresh water resource, the preservation of present areas of excellent water
quality, present areas of degradation, and the continued pressure from man-
made activities are the principal reasons for the special national and inter-
national attention given to protecting and improving water quality in the
lakes and their tributaries.
PROBLEMS UNDER THE AGREEMENT
The Water Quality Agreement was signed on April 15, 1972. The U.S.
negotiators attempted to anticipate the then pending legislation to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, However, the full signifiance of
the amendment in the form of PL 92-500 which was enacted on October 18,
1972, was not fully realized until long after the law was enacted and in
some instances has not even yet been fully realized. Such far-reaching
changes in pollution control in this country have created very signif-
icant differences in the actual approach of the two countries to pollution
control. The Canadian approach, which is essentially that of the Province
of Ontario because it is the only Province bordering the Great Lakes, is
similar to the pre-PL 92-500 approach by the U.S. which is reflected in the
Agreement and which was found to be ineffective. At the same time it must
-------
be recognized that progress was made under the Agreement and particularly by
Ontario with respect to the phosphorus effluent limitation on Lakes Erie and
Ontario,, and even more so in their establishment of phosphorus limitations for
detergents. But there is a need to look forward, not backward, and to do so,
a comparison of the Canadian and U.S. approaches to pollution control is necessary.
Sub-Group A believes that, despite the many recognized deficiencies in
PL 92-500,it is the most progressive water pollution control law ever enacted
and that the Agreement must be brought into compatibility with it, and to do
so will require significant changes in the Agreement and in Canada's
participation in the Agreement. Some comparisions of U.S. and Canadian
approaches follow:
— The Canadians do not have water quality standards as the U. S. does.
They adopt objectives which are little more than criteria as defined
in the U.S.
— The Canadians have no universally applicable effluent requirements
as the U.S. does. (The principle of universal applicability of
uniform effluent limits was recently affirmed in the U.S. law by
the U.S. Supreme Court). Instead the Canadians attempt to tailor
the discharge to the assimilative capacity of the receiving water
without having any legally mandated mimimum effluent requirement.
This results in primary treatment for some municipalities and
generally a maximum of primary equivalent for industry, as opposed
to the minimum of BPT in the U.S.
— Canada has no effluent discharge permit system. Instead they
(Ontario) have "program orders" which are not legally enforceable.
While their program has been comparatively more effective for
municipalities, it has been much less so for industrial dischargers.
7 _
-------
— The Canadians have interpreted the Water Quality Agreement to apply
only to boundary waters (i.e., the Great Lakes and interconnecting
channels) contending that the "internal waters of Canada" are not
subject to the Agreement; e.g., the Canadian Chairman of the Great
Lakes Water Board at the last IJC meeting in July 1976 extended this
interpretation even to dischargers to the Weiland Canal,an artificial
interconnecting channel between Lakes Erie and Ontario paralleling
the Niagara River and wholly within Canada.
-- Canada unlike the U.S., has no system for tracking land use practices
nor does it provide local technical assistance to the landowner in
planning agricultural conservation practices.
This is a rather bleak picture on the industrial side and belies the
frequently voiced position that Canada is ahead of the U.S. in pollution control
efforts.
As mentioned previously, the Agreement has been interpreted by the
Canadians to imply a distinction between the waters of the system and the
boundary waters and this distinction must be ended for purposes of pollution
control because we cannot address the problems in the Great Lakes by
interpreting the provisions of the Agreement to apply just to the boundary
waters when it is convenient to do so. Article V, para 3, specifically states
that remedial programs are applicable to the tributary waters.' This provision
•*
should be literally interpreted. All of the discharges to surface waters
of the entire basin are of mutual concern to both the U.S. and Canada. This
poses problems for the Canadians, especially with regard to industrial dis-
charges, since they do not have the same requirements for public disclosure
8
-------
as we do. Their "in camera" approach to pollution control is perhaps more
ingrained than in any other aspect of their society. However, on the more
positive side^ there have he^n recent discussions in the Canadian parliament
to open up the system by a Freedom of Information type approach - this should
be strongly encouraged.
Not only must the basin as a whole be looked at from the standpoint of
pollution control, but eventually a basin-wide approach to water and related
land resources planning must be addressed,
GENERAL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
" •"•"••• •• •• I" ' •• • • - l-l I' - ' •'• I • •"••! "• •"•' '• " J
To summarize, significant changes in pdllution control laws in the U.S.
require significant changes in the Agreement if the U.S. is to continue to
be a party to the Agreement. Broadly these are:
— A system-wide approach must be made to water pollution control.
The distinction between "boundary waters" and "tributary waters" must
be ended.
— The principle of "objectives" merely as goals must be replaced by a
recognition that objectives are to be translated into enforceable 'standards
— The basic thrust of the Agreement must be changed to require the
application of system-wide legally enforceable minimum treatment
requirements for each and every point source dishcarge,
— Some common system-wide planning criteria must eventually be agreed
upon for the Great Lakes System.
— In order to control toxic pollutants the general ongoing surveillance
program must be supplemented with detailed process evaluations for
those industries which are most likely to be sources of persistent
toxicants (coke plants, pharmaceuticals, electroplating, mining, organic
and inorganic chemicals, etc.
-------
Notwithstanding all of these problems the Agreement itself has served
a useful purpose and can continue, in a changed form, to serve a useful
purpose in the future. It provides both countries with an opportunity to
focus attention at the highest levels on the unique needs of the Great Lakes
and it provides for an independent expression of opinion through a binational
organization. Furthermore, we have a mutual need with the Canadians to deal
not just with the boundary waters but with the waters of the entire system.
DETAILED DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The rest of this paper will be based on the premise that we should attempt
to renegotiate the Agreement to bring it into line with water quality and pol-
lution control programs in this country. The preface to the Agreement and each of
the Articles and Annexes will be dealt with separately in the following dis-
cussion. The existing text of the Agreement is reproduced in regular type,
deletion of wording is shown by dash line-out, and new wording has been
inserted in script.
10
-------
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
2
Revised Ottawa,
In Force AB?ii-iST-49r2
11
-------
DISCUSSION OF PREFACE
The Sub-Group believes that the preface is essentially as appropriate
today as it was when the Agreement was first signed. Accordingly, only minor
word changes have been proposed in the attached draft of the revised preface.
The original Agreement did not include a title for the prefacing
statement and it is suggested that the word "Preamble" be used. The revised
Preamble and Agreement will be based upon the Fourth Annual Report of the
International Joint Commission, because that report is the latest that has
been accepted and includes some of the conclusions and recommendations of
the report of the Upper Lakes Reference Group which has not, as yet, been
acted upon by the Commission. Another change in wording is the suggestion
that the words "adoption of common objectives" be deleted and that the phrase
"agreement on common goals and objectives" be used instead. While Canada
actually adopts objectives as part of their Federal-Provincial"Agreement the
United States has never formally adopted objectives although the Federal
government does encourage their use in the adoption of Federal-State Water
Quality Standards; therefore, the term "agreement on" rather than "adoption
of" is more appropriate terminology.
The revised preface follows:
12
-------
• . PREFACE
. \ ~~
The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of
America having previously entered into Agreement en Great Lakes Water Quality
now are -
* determined Reaffirming their determination to restore and enhance water
quality in the Great Lakes System.
* Continuing to be seriously concerned about the grave deterioration of
water quality on each side of the boundary to an extent that is causing injury
to health and property on the other side, as described in the 19?8-?epe3?t-e£
Fourth Annual Report on Water Quality of the Great Lakes "by the International
Joint Commission, en-Pel lH£ien-e£-kake-Ej?ieT -take-Out asio-and-the-lRt e
*•'-• Reaffirming their intent upon preventing further pollution of the Great
Lakes System owing to continuing population growth, resource development and
increasing use of water;
* ' Reaffirming in a spirit of friendship and cooperation the rights and
obligations of both countries under the Boundary Waters- Treaty signed on
January 11, 1909, and in particular their obligation not to pollute boundary
waters;
* ReeegHising Continuing to recognize the rights of each country in the use
of its Great .Lakes- waters;
*? . Satisfied that the 1979-rep9Ft Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
April *15t 19^2- and the Fourth Annual Report of the International Joint Commission
provide a sound basis for new and more effective cooperative actions to restore and
enhance water quality in 'the Great Lakes System;
** Convinced that the best means to achieve improved water quality in the
Great Lakes System is through the adeptien-e-f agreement on common goals and
objectives, the development and implementation of-eeeperative conrnon remedial programs
and other measures, and the assignment of special responsibilities and functions to
the International Joint Commission:
* Have-agreed Entering into a new Agreement as follows:
13
-------
DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS
In general the definitions as existing are satisfactory except
that it is proposed to define the term "agreement" in order to distin-
guish this document from the original. It is also proposed that a de-
finition of the word "parties" be included since the term is used through-
out the Agreement without having been defined.
It is proposed that the definitions of "research" be added in
this part of the Agreement. The definition of research has been changed
to include reference to air quality. The existing Reference on the
Research Advisory Board is proposed to be deleted and its provisions
included under Article VII of the Agreement.
It is suggested that two additional new terms be added to the
list of definitions to accommodate proposed changes or additions to
Article V. The terms are "Best Practicable Treatment (BPT)" and
"Best Management Practices (BMP)", The rationale for these defini-
tions are given in the Position Papers on Water Quality and Point and
Non-Point Sources attached to this Report.
The revised definitions and the added terms and their defini-
tions follow:
14
-------
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
As used in this Agreement:
(a) "Agreement" mear.s this revised Agreement as distinguished from
the oriainal Agreement of Avril "is, 1972.
00 "Parties" means the Federal government of the U.S. and the
Federal government of Canada,
(cl "State and Provincial Governments" means the Governments
of the States of Illinois,. Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and the
Government of the Province of Ontario;
(d) "International Joint Commission" or "Commission" means
the International Joint Commission established by the
Boundary Waters Treaty;
(e) "Boundary Waters Treaty" means the Treaty between
the United States and Great Britain Relating to
Boundary Waters, and Questions Arising Between the
United States and Canada, signed at Washington on
January' 11, 1909;
tf) "Boundary waters of the Great Lakes System" or
"boundary waters" moans boundary waters, as defined
in the Boundary Waters Treaty, that are within the
Great Lakes System;
(„} "Tributary waters of the Great Lakes System" or "tributary
waters" means all the water of the Great Lakes System that
are not boundary waters;
00 "Compatible regulations" means regulations- no less
restrictive than agreed principles;
(i) "Great Lakes System" means all of the streams, rivers,
lakes and other bodies of water that are within the
drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River at or up-
stream from the point at which this river becomes the
international boundary between Canada and the United
States;
(j) "Harmful quantity" means any quantity of a substance
that if discharged into receiving waters would be
inconsistent with the achievement of the water quality
objectives;
-------
00 "Hazardous polluting substance" means any element or
compound identified by the Parties which, when dis-
charged in any quantity into or upon receiving waters
or adjoining shorelines, presents an imminent and
substantial danger to public health or welfare; for
this purpose, "public health or welfare" encompasses
all factors affecting the health and-welfare of man
including but not limited to human health, and the
conservation and protection of fish, shellfish,
wildlife, public and private property, shorelines and
beaches;
(1) "Phosphorus" means the element phosphorus present as a
constituent of various organic and inorganic complexes
and compounds;
(m) "Specific water quality objective" means the level concentration
of a substance or physieal level of effect that the Parties agree,
after investigation, to recognize as a maximum or minimum desired
limit for a defined body of water or portion thereof, taking into
account the beneficial uses of the water that the Parties desire to
secure and protect;
(n) "Water quality objectives" are broad descriptions of water
quality conditions which will protect the boundary waters
of the Great Lakes System for the beneficial uses that the
Parties desire to secure and which will provide overall wa-
ter management guidance and a framework for the development
of the specific water quality objectives. "
C°) "Research" means development, demonstration and other research
activities but does not include regular- monitoring and sur-
veillance of water or air quality.
(p) "Best Practicable Treatment (BPT)" means the level of treat-
ment for wastewaters from municipal and industrial sources
aa defined in Article III and Annex J»
(q) "Best Management Practices (BMP)" means the most practical
and effective measure or combination of measures, which
when applied to agriculture, forestry practices, road
construction, mining, urban development, urban drainage and
other land use activities, will prevent or reduce the gen-
eration of pollutants to a level compatible with the water
quality goals and objectives of this Agreement.
16
-------
DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE II
The Sub-Group believes that the general water quality objectives, now
under Article II should be combined with the Specific Water Quality Objectives
under Article III and that Article II should become a statement of goals and
policy.
This new Article is considered necessary to emphasize the new
approach of "minimum treatment requirements" and a basin wide approach to
pollution control and water quality management for the restoration and
preservation of the Great Lakes. The rationale for this new Article is
given in the introductory paragraphs and in the appended Position Papers.
The Pennsylvania representative on the State Advisory Group (See
letter included in attachment 5) has objected to what he considers an
attempt to force the Canadians into a PL 92-500 type law. The Sub-Group, how-
ever, did not agree that this is the thrust of the Report. The intent of the
report is to bring the Agreement into conformance with pollution control
programs in the U.S,
The proposed revised Article II follows:
17
-------
ARTICLE II
GENERAL WATER-QUAim GOALS AHD OBJECTIVES
-r^^
rw3=«^_-^,tcr±al^jin±jGJii2r--=h^^^
"
-iiis._urai.c rs-a s- ^-_r sisnl fe-o-f -
i^xic_-fxc^^u^^-^.=4:^-s?vta^ir^_tJr^_u^-^
t _, — tT r---t-_-_-^ -.'-•• ^ *^ •*•'•*• 11^7^*— •2.iii"'jx4^.\.'
27ze objective of this Agreement is to restore and maintain
the chemical physical and biological integrity of the waters of the
Great Lakes System. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby
agreed that consistent with the provisions of this Agreement: -
(a) It is the goal that minimum treatment requirements for
discJiargcrs of pollutants into boundary waters and tributary
waters of the Great Lakes System be met no later than
(b) It is the policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts
be prohibited and that as an ongoing goal, the discharge of any or all
persistent toxicants be reduced to the maximum feasible extent.
IS
-------
(a) Financial assistance to construct publicly owned waste treat-
ment works be provided by a combination of localj state and
federal participation.
(d) Great Lakes Systemuide planning processes and best management
practices be developed and implemented to assure adequate
control of all sources of pollutants.
(e) A major research and demonstration effort be mads to develop
technology necessary for an understanding of the Great Lakes
and to eliminate the discharge of pollutants to the boundary
waters and the, tributary waters of the Great Lakes System,
19
-------
DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE III
As discussed in Article II, The General Water Quality Objectives are
proposed to be included in Article III along with the Specific Water Quality
Objectives.
Revised General Water Quality Objectives as recommended by the Great Lakes
Water Quality Board are proposed.
Revised Specific Water Quality Objectives essentially as recommended by
the Great Lakes Water Quality Board are proposed.
Revisions to Annex 1 are related to the Specific Water Quality Objectives
of this Article. Annex 1 (as are the other Annexes) is discussed separately
and follows the corresponding revised Article for convenience of the reader,
rather than as an attachment at the end of the Agreement.
Significant change is proposed in the specific Water Quality Objectives
to bring the concept of a minimum level of treatment into the Agreement. The
rationale for this is discussed in the Position Paper on Water Quality Objectives
which is attached to this Report.
The Revised Article III and a discussion of Annex 1 and revisions thereto
follow:
20
-------
ARTICLE III
- WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
1. The following general water quality objectives for the
waters of the Great Lakes System are adapted agreed upon. These waters
should be:
(a) Free from substances that enter the waters as a result of
human activity and that will settle to form putrescent or
otherwise objectionable sludge deposits, or that will ad-
versely affect aquatic life or waterfowl;
(b) Free from flotsam fieafeing-debris and other floating mate-
rials such as oil, scum, and immiscible substances entering
fehe-watep-as-a-j?esttlfc-©£ resulting from human aefcivity activities in
amounts stiff ieienfe—fee-be that are unsightly or deleterious.
(c) Free from materials andjheat entering the waters as a result
of human activity pseeaeing that atone, or in combination with
other materials, will produce colour, odour, taste, or other
•
conditions in such a degree as to effeate-a-mjiaanee interfere
with any beneficial uses;
(d) Free from substances materials and heat entering the waters
as a result of human activity in eeneenfe*a-feiens—fehafe-are that
alone, or in combination with other materials, will produce
conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal or
aquatic life.
(e) Free from nutrients entering the waters as a result of human
activity in eeneentsetiens amounts that create Rttisaaee growths
of aquatic wee^s-ane-aigae plants that interfere with beneficial
uses.
-------
2. The specific water quality objectives for the boundary waters of the
Great Lakes System and minimum treatment requirements for the boundary-
waters of the Great Lakes System set forth below and in Annex I are adopted
agreed upon:
(a) The minimum treatment requirements and specific water quality
objectives may be modified and additional specific water qual-
ity objectives -fo-g- feke benndasy wates-ef -tfee -Gr-eat -Lakes -S-y-s-
-tem -or -&av partieirta-r a-eefriens fchese©£ may be adepted agreed
upon by the Parties in accordance with the provisions of
Articles IX and XII of this Agreement.
(b) The minimum treatment requirements and the specific water
quality objectives adopted pursuant to this Article repre-
sent the minimum levels of treatment and the minimum desired
l-water quality-in .fche feeundeey- wa*e*s- of- t-he- 0&&a£-
•System* and are not' intended to preclude the establishment
of more stringent requirements.
•
(c) Notwithstanding the adeptien-ef- agreement onminimum treat-
ment requirements and specific water quality objectives, all
reasonable and practicable measures shall be taken to maintain
the ±evels-e€ water quality existing at the date of entry into
force of this Agreement in those areas •&£ -t-he betjtt£aj?y -watjw*
-of the- Croafe- Lakes- S-y-s-fcea where such leveis-eseeed-the water
quality is better than that prescribed by the specific water
quality objectives.
(d) In areas designated by the appropriate jurisdiction as having
outstanding natural resource value and which have existing
water quality better than that prescribed by the specific water
quality objectives, that water quality should be enhanced.
22
-------
DISCUSSION OF ANNEX I
The Great Lakes Water Quality Board in their Annual Report for 1975 made
certain recommendations for the adoption of new objectives to the International
Joint Commission. The Commission has already held hearings on the objectives but
has not made a recommendation to the Parties. In view of this and in view of the
fact that the Senior Review Group proposes to hold hearings on the revisions to
the Agreement it appears that it would be an appropriate time to act upon the
recommendations of the Board. Accordingly it is proposed that Annex I be re-
organized substantially as recommended in the 1975 Annual Report of the Water
Quality Board. The contents of Tables 17 and 18 of the Water Quality Board Report
have been incorporated into the proposed revision to the Annex. The original
Annex I is not reproduced since this is a complete revision and reorganization of
the existing Annex and the Tables from the Board Report and reflects both the new
and old material. New material is done in script and existing material brought
forward is done in regular type. The asterisk items are proposed for further study.
Existing criteria for iron and temperature are continued in the revised Annex and are
shown in regular tyge.
The specifics of the "minimum treatment" concept are proposed in paragraph 3
and as previously indicated, the rationale for this is discussed in the Position Paper
on Water Quality Objectives attached to this report.
The majority of Sub-Group A recommends that the radioactivity objective be included
in this Annex as had previously been recommended to the Parties by the U.S. and Canadian
Advisory Groups onuRadioactivity. The rationale for this recommendation is contained
in the Position Paper on Radioactivity attached to this Report. Controversy still
surrounds this matter .and the various views are discussed in the Position Paper on
Radioactivity appended to this Report.
23
-------
ANNEX 1
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
1, Specific Objectives, The Specific Water Quality Objectives for the boundary
waters of the Great Lakes System are classified as follows and defined in para-
graph 2 of this Annex.
(a) Chemical Characterint ics
(1) Persistent Toxic Substances
a. Organic
(i) Pesticides
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT and Metabolites
Endrin
Heptachlqr
Lindane
Methoxychior -
Toxaphene
(ii) Other Compounds -
Phthalic Acid Esters
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Other Organic Contaminants
b. Inorganic
(i) Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium i
Chromium
Copper J[_
Iron
. Lead " ^
Mercury"
' Nickel *
Selenium
Zinc
(ii) Others
Fluoride
Total Dissolved Solids
(.2) Non-persistent Toxic Substances
t
''_~ a. Organic
(i) Pesticides
General Objective
Diazinou
Guthion *
P.ir.ithior, *
24
-------
(ii) Other Compounds
Cyanide *-
Oil and Petrochemicals
Unspecified Non-Persistent Toxic
Substances and Complex Effluents
i
b. . Inorganic
Ammonia *
Chlorine *
• Hydrogen Sulfide*
(3) Other Substances
a. Dissolved Oxygen
b." PH
c. Nutrients , •
(i) Phosphorus *
d. Tainting Substances
(b) Physical Characteristics
(1) Settleable and Suspended Solids and Light Transaission
(2) Temperature *
(3) Asbestos
(4) Radioactivity
(c) Microbiological Characteristics
*Speci£ic water quality objective for further immediate consideration by
the International Joint Commission for recommendations of definitions to
* the-Parties
25
-------
2. Definition of Specific Objectives. The specific water quality objectives
for the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System, listed in paragraph 1 are
defined as follows:
PESTICIDES (PERSISTENT)
A Idrin/Die Idrin
The sum of the concentrations of aldrin and dieldrin in
water should not exceed the recommended quantifi-
cation limit of 0.001 micrograms per litre. The sum of
concentrations of aldrin and dieldrin in the edible
portion of fish should not exceed 0.5 micrograms per
gram for the protection of human consumers of fish.
Note I Based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines.
Chlordane
The concentration of chlordane in water should not
exceed 0.06 microgrcms per litre for the protection
of aquatic life.
DDT and Metabolites
The sum of the concentrations of DDT and its metabolites
in water should not exceed the recommended quantifi-
cation limit of 0.003 micrograms per litre. The sum of
the concentration of DDT and its metabolites in whole
fish (wet weight basis) should not exceed 1.0 micro-
grams per gram for the protection of fish consuming
aquatic birds.
Endrin
The concentration of endrin in water should not exceed
the recommended quantification limit of 0.002 micrograms
per litre. The concentration of endrin in the edible
portion of fish should not exceed 0.3 micrograms per
gram for the protection of human consumers of fish.
Note: Based on U.S. Food and Drug Adminiscration guidelines.
Heptachlor
The sum of the concentrations of heptachlor and hepta-
chlor epoxide in water should not exceed the
recotnmended quantification limit of 0.001 micrograms
per litre. The sum of the concentrations of heptachlor
and heptachlor epoxide in edible portions of fish
should not exceed 0.3 micrograms per gram for the
protection of human consumers of 'fish.
Note: Based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines.
26
-------
PESTICIDES ((Tont'd)
Lindane , , •» . j
The concentration of Undone in water should not exceed.
0.01 micrograms per litre for the protection of aquatic
life. The concentration of lindane in edible portions
of fish should not exceed 0.3 micrograms per gram for
the protection of human, consumers of fish.
Note: Based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines,
Methoxuchlor ,
The concentration of methoxychlor in water shou^a not
exceed 0.04 micrograms per litre for the protection of
aquatic life.
Toxaphene ^
The concentration of toxaphene in water should no*
exceed 0.008 microgrcms per litre for the protection
of aquatic life t
OTHER PERSISTENT TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Phthalic Acid Esters •
The concentrations of dibutyl phthalate and di(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate in water should not exceed 4.0
micrograms per litre and 0.8 microgrcms per litref
respectively, for the protection of aquatic life.
Other phthalic acid esters should not exceed the
recommended quantification limit of 0.2 micrograms per
litre in waters for the protection of aquatic life.
j L_ _ _.. !_-„_,_- _ - _ --_... ."_-- .—- *-- .— - —- — .-- -j-.._m._i -i_-»-_.-^
Polychlorinated Bipheny Is (.PCBs}
The concentration of total poly chlorinated biphenyls
in fish tissues (whole fish3 calculated on a wet
weight basis•), should not exceed 0.1 micrograms per
gram for the protection of fish consuming birds and
animals.
Note;
The detection limit for PCBs in water samples is not low enough
to permit setting a water quality objective for concentrations
in water. Therefore the proposed objective is based on levels
detectable in fish tissue. It is believed that water concen-
trations less than 0.001 micrograms per litre would be required
to preclude significant bioaccuinulation of PCBs.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has set an administrative
guideline of 5 micrograms per gram of PCB as the maximum levels
acceptable in the edible portion of fish for human consumption.
The Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare has set
a sjLcrilar guideline at 2 micrograms per gram,.of PCB. The above
defined limitation is a more stringent objective for the Great Lakes to
protect birds and animals whose main diet consist of fish from the
lakes.
27
-------
OTHER PERSISTENT TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Note: ^Continued}
Under Sec 307Ca) of PL 92-500, US EPA has recently promulgated
regulations to control PCB, in the transformer/capacitor industry.
The FDA has proposed that the administrative guideline of five
micrograms per gram of PCB in fish flesh Be lowered to two micrograms
per gram.
Other Organic Contamln
-------
METALS (Cont'd)
Lead
Concentrations of total lead in an unfiltered water
sample should not exceed 10 micrograms per litre in
Lake Superior, 20 micrograms per litre in Lake Huron
and 25 micrograms per litre in all remaining Great
Lakes to protect aquatic life.
Mercury ~ ~ ' • ~~
Concentrations of total mercury in a filtered water sample
should not exceed 0.2 micrograms per litre nor should the
concentration of total mercury in whole fish exceed 0.5
micrograms per gram (wet weight basis) to protect
aquatic life as well as fish-consuming birds.
Selenium
Concentrations of total selenium in an unfiltered water
sample should not exceed 10 micrograms per litre to
protect raw water for public water supplies.
Zina
Concentrations of total zinc in an unfiltered water
sample should not exceed 30 micrograms per litre to
protect aquatic life.
OTHER PERSISTENT TOXIC INORGANICS
Fluoride
Concentrations of total fluoride in an unfiltered water
sample should not exceed 1.2 milligrams per litre to
protect raw waters for public water supplies.
Total Dissolved Solids. In Lake Erie, Lake Ontario
and the International Section of the St. Lawrence
River, the level of total dissolved solids should not
exceed 200 milligrams per litre. In the St. Clair
River, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River and the
Niagara River, the level should be consistent with
maintaining the levels of total dissolved solids in
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario at net to exceed 20-0 milli-
grams per litre. In the remaining boundary waters,
pending further s'tudy, the. level of total dissolved
solids should not exceed present levels.
29
-------
.ORGANIC PESTICIDES (NON-PERSISTENT)
General Objective _ ...
Concentrations of unspecifiedf non-persistent organic pesticides
should not exceed 0.05 of the median lethal concentration
in a 96-hour test for any sensitive local species.
Diazinon
The concentration of Diazinon in an unfiltered water
sample should not exceed 0.08 micrograms per litre.
OTHER NON-PERSISTENT TOXIC ORGANIC SUBSTANCES
-/
Oil and Petrochemicals
Oil and petrochemicals should not be present in concen-
trations that:
1) can be detected as visible film, sheen or dis-
colouration on the surface;
2) can be detected by odour;
3) can cause tainting of fish or edible
invertebrates;
4) can form deposits on shorelines and bottom
sediments • that are detectable by sight or odour, or
deleterious to resident aquatic organisms.
Unspecified Non-Persis tent Toxic Substances and Complex
Effluents
Unspecified non-persistent toxic substances and complex
effluents of municipal3 industrial or other origin should
not be present in concentrations which exceed 0.05 of the
median lethal concentration (96-hour LCSO) for any
sensitive local species to protect aquatic life.
OTHER SUBSTANCES
Dissolved Oxygen. In the Connecting Channels and in
the upper waters of the Lakes, the dissolved oxygen
level should be not less than 6.0 milligrams per litre
at any time; in hypolimnetic waters, it should be not
less than necessary for the support of fishlife,
particularly cold water species.
Values of pH should not be outside the range of 6.5 to
9.0, nor should discharges change, the pH at the boundary
of the designated mixing zone more than 0.5 units from
the ambient.
30
-------
OTHER SUBSTANCES (Cont'd)
Phosphorus (P). Concentrations should be limited to
the extent necessary to prevent nuisance growths of
algae, weeds and slimes that are or may become injurious
to any beneficial water use.
Tainting Substances
1) Raw public water supply sources should be essentially
free from objectionable taste and odour for aesthetic
reasons.
27 Substances entering the waters as a result of human
activity that cause tainting of edible aquatic organisms
should not be present in concentrations which will lower
the acceptability of these organisms as determined
by organoleptic tests.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Settleable and Suspended Solids and Light Transmission
for the protection of aquatic life, waters should be free
from substances attributable to municipal, industrial or
other discharges resulting from activity that will
settle to form putrescent or otherwise objection-
able sludge deposits or that will 'alter the value
of the Secchi disk depth by more than 10 percent.
Temperature .
Asbestos
Asbestos should be kept at the lowest practicable
levels and in any event should be controlled to the
extent necessary to prevent harmful effects on health.
Radioactivity .
The specific water quality objective for radioactivity in the
Great Lakes is that level of radioactivity which results in a wholebody
dose commitment not exceeding one millirem due to the ingestion of water
in any one year. Source investigation and corrective action if releases are
not as low as reasonably achievable are recommended for dose commitments between
1 and 5 millirem. For dose commitments greater than S millirem corrective action
by the responsible regulatory authorities is recommended.
31
-------
MICROBIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Microbiology. The geometric mean of not less than
five samples taken over not nore than a thirty-day
period should not exceed 1,000/100 millilitres total
co.liforms, nor 200/100 millilitres fecal coliforms.
VJaters used for body contact recreation activities
should be substantially free from bacteria, fungi, or
viruses that may produce enteric disorders or eye, ear,
nose, throat and skin infections or other human
diseases and infections.
32
-------
3. Minimum Levels of Treatment. To accomplish these objectives, the Parties
shall require the following:
a. municipal sources shall be provided a minimum level of
treatment which shall produce an effluent described as
follows:
—BODs 30 day arithmetic mean, 30 mg/l
7 day. arithmetic mean, 45 mg/l
plus not less-, than 85% removal (30 day period)
--TSS 30 day arithmetic mean, 30 mg/l
7 day arithmetic mean, 45 mg/l
plus not less than 85% removal (30 day period)
~PH 6.0 to 9.0 '
—Total Phosphorus (P) I mg/l maximum
—Disinfection, as required to:
1) protect potable water supplies
2? protect aquatic life
3) protect irrigation and agricultural waters
4) protect waters where human contact is likely
Where such treatment is inadequate to meet water quality standards
or to meet the objectives of this Agreement, additional treatment shall
be required. .__
b. Industrial sources shall be provided a minimum level
of treatment that shall produce an effluent consistent
with the best practicable control technology currently
available for that industry. Where such treatment is
inadequate to meet water quality standards or to
meet the objectives of this Agreement, additional
- M treatment shall be required.
33
-------
- 6. Sa mp 1 i ng Pat a . The Parties agree that the determination of
compliance with specific objectives shall be based on statistically
valid sampling data.
7 . Mixing Zones
The responsible regulatory agencies may designate
restricted mixing zones in the viciniuj 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.
The following guidelines should be used in. the
designation of mixing zones.
A mixing zone is an area, contiguous to a point
suurcs, where exceptions to water quality objectives and
conditions otherwise applicable to the receiving water-.
body may be granted.
Specific water quality objectives and conditions
applicable to -he receiving waterbody should be met at
the boundary of mixing zones.
{<•)' Limitations on mixing zones should be established by
trie responsible regulatory agency on a case-by-case basis3
where "case" refers to both local considerations and the
waterbody as a whole, or segment of the waterbody.
(d) Mixing zones, by definition, represent a loss of -
value.
(e) Many of the general water quality objectives should
apply to discharge-related materials within mixing zones.
The zones should be free of:
(1) objectionable deposits;
^jj unsightly or deleterious amounts of flotsam3
debris, oil, scion and other floating matter;
(3) substances producing objectionable colour, odour,
" taste, or turbidity; and
(4} substances and conditions or combinations thereof
at levels which produce aquatic life in nuisance
quantities that interfere with other uses.
34
-------
(f) No conditions within the mixing zone should be permitted
which are either (a) rapidly lethal to important aquatic
life (conditions which result in sudden fish kills arid mortality
or organisms -passing through the mixing zone) ; or Cb) which cause
irreversible responses which could result in detrimental post-
exposure effects; or (c) which result in bio concentration of
toxic materials which are f armful to the organism or its
consumers .
Concentrations of toxic materials at any point in the
mixing zone where important species are physically capable
of residing should not exceed the 24 to 96-hour LC50.
(h) When designing conditions to protect specific organisms
it is necessary to know that the organisms would normally
inhabit the area within the mixing zone. Zones of passage
should be assured either by location or design of conditions
within mixing zones. Mixing zones should not form a barrier
to migratory routes of aqua'ic cyjcies or interfere with
biological communities or populations of irrrportant species,
to a degree which is damaging to the ecosystem, or diminish
other beneficial uses disproportionately.
(.i) Mixing zones may overlap unless the combined effects
exceed the conditions set forth in other guidelines.
(j) Municipal and other water supply intakes and
recreational areas should not be in mixing zones as a
general condition, but local knowledge of the effluent
characteristics and the type of discharge associated
with the zone could allow such a mixture of uses.
(k) Areas of extraordinary value may be designated off-
limits for mixing zones.
(I) Tne size, shape and exact location of a mixing zone
snould be specified so that both the discliarger and the
regulatory agency know the bounds.
(m) Existing biological, chemical, physical and hydro-
' logical conditions should be known when considering location
of a new mixing zcne or limitations on an existing one.
35
-------
s-r -- There
— axea r-trivg-h -a-s
-wkore existing cQadafca^n-s^s-aeJ^^as—±a**4-
*yp\yant—the—objectives—£rom -being me-fe
«-»* >^i>\ __-f\ +i-^ -* r- V^^\T.Tr!% ^r^i *^ v«»
-a-s- possib.le by the
and, uco wi-U. -p
aec9*d-aflee-wi-th—Ar-ticie V'SIIr
5. Special Areas. In addition to mixing zones there will be other areas
where objectives will not be met as follows:
(a) NATURAL AREAS - Areas that do not meet water quality objectives
due to natural conditions.
(b) PROBLEM AREAS - General geographical locations where water
quality objectives and/or standards are not being
met. The water quality in these locations can be
improved through remedial measures.
7. Flow Augmentation.
The responsible regulatory agencies shall not consider flow augmentation
as a substitute for the use of adequate treatment to meet water quality
standards.
8. Amendment.
(a) The objectives adopted agreed to herein shall be kept under
review and may be amended by mutual agreement of
the Parties.
(b) Whenever the International Joint Commission, acting
pursuant to Article VI of the Agreement, shall
recommend the establishment of new or modified
specific water quality objectives, this Annex shall
be amended in accordance with such: recommendation
on the receipt by the Commission of a letter from
each Party indicating its agreement with the
recommendation.
-------
DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE IV
The changes proposed in this Article relating to standards and other
regulatory requirements are made to be consistent with the proposed changes
in Articles II and III. . . •+ . ...
The revised Article IV follows:
37
-------
ARTICLE IV
STANDARDS AND OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Water quality standards and other regulatory requirements of the
Parties shall be consistent with the achievement of the wate?-quality-efejeetives
objectives and goals of this Agreement. The Parties shall use their best efforts
to ensure that water quality standards and other regulatory requirements of the
State and Provincial Governments shall similarly be consistent with the achieve-
ment of the water-qnality-ebjeefeivesT objectives and goals of this Agreement.
38
-------
DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE V
This Article on programs and other measures is really the heart of the
Agreement. It is here in addition to the revised Article II and III that the
philosophical difference between the U.S. and Canadian programs must be also
dealt with if we are to get an effective control program for the entire
Great Lakes System..
Significant changes are proposed in the wording of Article V to conform
,to the philosophy of "minimum treatment requirements" conforming to the
recommendation in the Position Papers on Water Quality and Point Source Dis-
charges appended to .this Report.
No change is necessary in the paragraph on, "Phosphorus", but a completely new
Annex 2 is proposed dealing with this subject as recommended in the Position
Paper on Phosphorus appended to this Report.
.
Changes in wording are proposed in the paragraph dealing with non-point
source pollution conforming to the recommendations in the Position Paper on
Non-Point Sources appended to this Report.
Several wording changes have also been proposed conforming to recommendations
by Sub-Group B related to pollution from shipping activities.
.. No change is proposed, in the paragraph on dredging but further comments
are presented in the discussion of Annex 6.
No change is proposed in the paragraph on Pollution from Onshore and
Offshore Facilities but additional commentary is provided in the discussion
of Annex 7.
39
-------
Comments related to the paragraphs on Contingency Plans are presented
in the discussion of Annex 8.
Changes are suggested in the paragraph on Hazardous Polluting Substances.
It is further proposed that the Annex 9 developed by the Work Groups under the
original Agreement be included in the new Agreement. Further discussion
is provided in the Position Paper on Hazardous Substances appended to
this report.
Article V appears to be where the question of pollution of the lakes from
atmospheric fall-out should be dealt with. (Parts of the Agreement dealing with
research have also been revised to include air pollution.)
A section on Surveillance has been added based on the recommendations
in the 'Position Paper on Surveillance appended this Report.
Other self-explanatory changes are also proposed,
•
Although responsibility for Position Papers dealing with Annexes 3,
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 was given to other Sub-Groups, Sub-Group A was asked to
comment on these . Annexes and the Position Papers of Subgroups B, C, and D and
accordingly these comments are provided in separate discussions.
The revised Article V and separate discussions and revisions to Annexes
3 through 9 follow:
40
-------
ARTICLE V
PROGRAMS AND OTHER MEASURES
1. Programs and other measures directed toward the achievement of the
wates quality goals and objectives shall be developed and implemented as soon
as practicable iH-aeeei?danee-witk-legisla€ieB-iH-feke--fewe-eeHHtriesT--UHiess-
fallowing* on all point and non-point sources of pollution in the Great Lakes
System. Polluti.cn control programs and measures in both Countries should be
fully compatible in all respects -including mimimum levels of treatment 3 maximum
schedules of compliance, breadth 'of program implementation and public account-
ability. These pollution control programs and other measures shall be imple-
mented and completed in the shortest possible time but no later (date to be
negotiated) . The programs and measures shall include the following:
(a) Pollution from municipal Sources. Programs for the abatement
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
levels of treatment consistent with the achievement of the
watea? quality objectives, including minimum prescribed levels
of treatment and phosphorus removal, taking into account the
effects of waste from. other sources with additional treatment
if the achievement of prescribed water quality so requires.
(ii) provision of financial resources to assist prompt construction
of needed facilities;
(iii) establishment of requirements for construction and operating
standards for facilities;
(iv) requirements for the control of the discharge of toxic
pollutants into the Great Lakes Basin thru comprehensive
programs;
(v) measures to find practical solutions for reducing pollution
from overflows of combined storm and sanitary sewers;
Cvi} embodiment of all pollution abatement requirements including
schedules, monitoring and effluent restrictions 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 met.
41
-------
b. Pollution from Industrial Sources. Programs for the abatement and
confirol of pollution from industrial sources, including:
(i) establishment of waste treatment or control requirements for
all industrial plants discharging waste into the Great Lakes
System, to provide levels of treatment ---
©f -wast e-f sen -efches-seuseesfr at least as restrictive as best
practicable control technology currently available.
establishment of pre-treatment requirements for all industrial
plants discharging waste into publically owned treatment works;
(iii)
requirements for the control of the discharge of toxic
pollutants into the Great Lakes Basin thru comprehensive
programs;
(iv) embodiment of all pollution abatement requirements including
schedules, monitoring and effluent restrictions in a single
document that is periodically reviewed and placed before the
the public;
Cv) establishment of effective, enforcement programs to ensure the
abdve pollution abatement requirements are fully met.
c.
(vi) measures to control the hauling and disposal of toxicants by
_ _ contract disposal services.
(vii) requirement: that intake and discharge structures be designed
to avoi,d any adverse environmental effects.
Eutrophication Measures for the control of inputs of phosphorus
and other nutrients including programs to reduce phosphorus inwts
in accordance with the provisions of Annex 2 u*P™rus inputs,
42
-------
(d] Pollution from Agricultural, Forestry and Other Land Use Activities.
Measures for the abatement and control of pollution from agricultural,
£e£es-&£y-aR4-&tke-£-laRd-usa-aetivi£iesT-iH6ludiHg* agriculture,
forestry practices, road construction, mining, urban development,
urban drainage, and other land use act-i-VL.ti.es.
Ci) measures for the control of pest control products (pesticides)
with a 'view to limiting inputs into the Great Lakes System,
including regulations to ensure that pest control products
judged to have 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
animal husbandry operations, including encouragement to
appropriate regulatory agencies to adopt regulations governing
site selection and disposal of liquid and solid wastes in order
to minimize the loss of pollutants to reseiving waters;
liii) measures governing the disposal of solid wastes and
contributing to the achievement of the water quality
objectives, including encouragement to appropriate regu-
llatory agencies to ensure proper location of land fill/- arid
land dumping sites and regulations governing the disposal on
land of hazardous polluting substances;
advise3?y-p3?eg5a»s-aHd-HeasH3?es-£hafc-sea?ve-fce-abate-aHd
aetivities.
advisory programs and measures that serve to abate and control
inputs of nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants into
receiving water from agriculture, forestry practices, road
construction, mining, urban development, urban drainage and
other land use activities including encouragement to appro-
priate agencies to adopt and implement Best Management
Practices .
(e) Polluti o^ from Shipping Activities.. Measures for the
abatement and .control of pollution from shipping sources,
including:
(i)' programs and compatible regulations for vessel
design, construction and operation, to prevent
discharges of harmful quantities of oil and
hazardous polluting substances, in accordance with
the principles set forth in Annex 3;
-------
(ii) compatible regulations for the control of vessel
waste discharges in accordance with the principles
set forth in Annex 4 ;
(iii) such compatible regulations to abate and control
pollution from shipping sources as may be deemed
desirable in the light of studies to be undertaken
in accordance with the terms of references set
forth in Annex 5;
^^- ^j shove
(iv) programsTfor the saTe and ef f icient "handling" ~6i:
shipboard generated wastes, including oil,
hazardous polluting substances, garbage, waste
water and sewage, and their subsequent disposal,
including any necessary compatible regulations
relating to the type, quantity and capacitv^gf
shore reception facilities -in aannrdanGejJi-th. the
;set for tn' in 'Annexes 3 and ^f - -
(v) establishment of a coordinated system for the
surveillance and enforcement of regulations
dealing with the abatement and control of pollution
from shippinq activities.
(f) Pollution from Dredging Activities. Measures for the
abatement and control of pollution from dredging
activities, including the development of criteria for
the identification of polluted drc'dged spoil and com-
patible programs for disposal of -polluted dredged spoil,
which shall be considered in the light of the review
provided for in Annex 6; pending the development of
compatible criteria and programs, dredging operations
shall be conducted in a manner that will minimize
adverse effects on the environment.
(g) Pollution from Onr.horo and Offshore Facilities.
Measures for the abatement and control of pollution from
onshore and offshore facilities, including programs and
compatible regulations for the prevention of discharges
of harmful quantities of oil and hazardous polluting
substances, in accordance with the principles set forth
in Annex 7.
(h) Contingency Plan. Maintenance of a joint contingency
plan lor use in the event of a discharge or the
imminent threat of a discharge of oil or hazardous
polluting substances, in accordance with the provisions
of Annex 8.
44
-------
Hazardous Polluting Substances.
2.
purp9se-e£-devel9piHg KpTementatitrrvf -ZK- Annex If identifying,
hazardous polluting subs tances~7 'Tire Parties shall" further con-
sult from time to time for the purpose of revising the list of
hazardous substances, of identifying harmful quantities of these
substances and of reviewing the definition of "harmful quantity
of oil" set forth in Annexes 3 and 7.
a ->
(j) Pollution from Atmospheric Fallout. Programs and measures from the
identification ana control of water pollution caused by transfer of
pollution from the atmosphere.
t Notwithstandir^! the proceeding surveillance monitoring and analysis re-
quirements a coordinated," bilateral program that will meet the following oojectives:
(a) 'Surveillance. Programs to detect excursions from objectives to
determine water quality trends and to describe and quantify cause and
effect relationships, specifically;
(i) Surveillance to detect excursions from water quality objectives for
parameters with numerical limits.
(ii) Surveillance to determine water quality and biological trends for the
purpose of evaluating compliance with the non-degradation requirement
and determining long-term effects of remedial programs.
(Hi) 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.
(iv) Surveillance to include quality assurance programs to provide for
sampling and analytical methodology, inter-laboratory comparisons, and
compatible date, management.
(I) Sample Collection, Analysis., Evaluation and Quality Assurance. As a minimum
the program will include sufficient sample collection, analysis and evaluation in-
cluding quality assurance to allow assessments of the following:
(i) Inputs from tributaries, point source discharges, atmosphere, and
connecting cliannels.
(ii) Whole Lake including nearshore areas, such as harbors and embayments,
general shoreline and cladophora growth area, open waters of the Lakes,
fish contaminants, and wildlife contaminants.
(Hi) Outflows including connecting channels water intakes and outlets.
(iv) Point source discharges including detailed process evaluation for
critical industries.
-------
3. The Parties shall develop and implement such additional programs
as they jointly decide are necessary and desirable for the achievement of the
water quality goals and objectives.
4. The programs and other measures provided for in this Article shall
be designed to abate and control pollution of tributary waters where neeessary-
er desirable f-er the achievement ef the water quality ebj-eetives f-er the boundary
waters of the Great Lakes System.
46
-------
DISCUSSION OF ANNEX 2
A completely revised Annex on control of phosphorus is proposed, as
recommended in the Position Paper on Phosphorus appended to this Report.
The Sub-Group recognizes the difficulties that have been experienced
in attempting to control phosphorus and agrees with the Position Paper that a
phosphorus control program is still valid. The Sub-Group particularly takes
note of and concurs with the recommendation for:
— a phosphorus limit in household detergents
— a phosphorus effluent limitation
— development of phosphorus load allocations
The proposed new Annex 2 follows:
47
-------
ANNEX 2
CONTROL OF PHOSPHORUS
1. Objectives. The objective of the following programs is to minimize
eutrophication problems in the boundary waters Great Lakes system. It is
anticipated that successful implementation of these programs will accomplish
the following results, which are of critical importance to the success of the
joint undertaking to preserve and enhance the quality of the boundary waters
of the Great Lakes system:
(a) Restoration of year-round aerobic conditions in the bottom
waters of the Central Basin of Lake Erie.
(b) Substantial reduction in the present levels of algal biomass to
a level below that of a nuisance condition in Lake Erie.
(a) Reduction in present levels of algal biomass to below that of •
a nuisance condition in Lake Ontario including the International
Section of the St. Lawrence River.
Cd) Maintenance of the oligotrophic state and relative algal bio-
mass of Lakes Superior and Huron;
(e) Substantial elimination of algal nuisance growths in Lake Michigan
to restore it to an oligotrophic state,
(f) The elimination of algal nuisances in bays and in other areas
wherever they occur.
2. Program shall be developed and implemented to reduce inputs of phes-
phorus to achieve the objectives. These programs shall include:
(a) Construction and operation of municipal waste treatment facil-
ities to achieve an effluent concentration of 1 mg/1 total
phosphorus (P) maximum in the Great Lakes system or such lower
levels as may otherwise be required.
(b) Regulation of phosphorus introduction from industrial discharges
to the maximum practicable extent.
to) Reduction of phosphorus introduced from non-point sources to
the maximum extent practical.
(d) Reduction of phosphorus to at least 0.5 percent by weight in
household detergents to' control phosphorus introductions from raw
or inadequately treated sewage.
48
-------
(e) Maintenance of a viable research program to seek maximum effi-
ciency and effectiveness -in the control, of phosphorus introduc-
tions into the Great Lakes.
3. Reductions for the Great Lakes. In additions the above stated
programs are designed to control input of phosphorus to the Great Lakes
system, which will, or are, projected to maintain ollgotrophlc conditions
and reduce eutrophic conditions in other areas. To meet all of the objectives
of the phosphorus control program accurate phosphorus loadings and lake load
limits must be estimated:
(a) The Parties, in cooperation with the State and Provincial
government and with, the International Joint Commission, shall
within one year through the joint scientific effort of the
applicable jurisdictions, estimate the phosphorus loading,
lake load limits and reductions required to meet the above
stated objectives. In-Lake phosphorus and chlorophyll con-
centrations necessary to achieve the objectives are to be
determined and included in Ar*nex 1.
(b) The Parties, In consultation with the State and Provincial
Governments and with the International Joint Commission, shall
within one year after establishing the phosphorus loading,
determine the allocation of phosphorus on a jurlsdlctional
basis through a joint scientific effort of the applicable
jurisdiction. The jurisdiction shall also furnish phosphorus
load allocations to eliminate nuisance plant growths In bays
and other areas. The jurisdictions will provide compliance
schedules within one year after the establishment of the
allocations. In some cases, this will Include controls on
non-point sources.
4. Refinement of Data. '^ie loads shall be based upon best available
data. The Parties, ^n cooperation with the State and Provincial Governments
and with the International Joint Commission, shall continue to refine these
estimates to ensure a comparable data base. These estimates are subject to
revision upon agreement by the Parties to reflect future refinement of the
data.
5. The Parties shall consider recommendations of the International Joint
Corrmls&ion made as the result of the studies of the pollution from agricultural,
forestry and other land use activities, In order to develop and implement
appropriate programs for control of Inputs of phosphorus from these sources.
6. Monitoring. The Parties, In cooperation with the State and Provincial
Governments and wi-tn the International Joint Commission, shall continue to
monitor the extent of cultural eutrophic atlon In boundary waters in the Great
Lakes System and the progress being made in reducing or preventing it. Thdy
49
-------
shall consult periodically to exchange the results of research and to pursue
proposals for additional programs to control cultural eutrophication.
7. Submission of Information. The International Joint Commission shall
be given information at least annually3 in accordance with procedures estab-
lished by the Commission in consultation with the Parties and with the State
and Provincial Governments3 concerning:
(a) Total reductions in gross inputs of phosphorus achieved.
(b) Anticipated reductions in gross inputs of phosphorus for the
succeeding twelve months.
50
-------
DISCUSSION OF ANNEX 5
This discussion of Annex 3, which deals with vessel design, is based
on the Position Paper of Sub-Group B. The revision of par. 4 proposed by
Sub-Group B should include specific dates by which the various programs are
to be completed. Rather than calling for measures "to be adopted," these
wordings should be changed to say that measures "shall be adopted by
(specify date) ". The lack of time tables for these programs was a
deficiency in the original Annex and should not be repeated in the new
Agreement.
For reference purposes, a copy of the draft Position Paper of Sub-Group
B which was referred to this Sub-Group for comment is included in attachment 3,
51
-------
DISCUSSION OF ANNEX 4
This discussion of Annex 4 dealing with vessel wastes is based on the
Position Paper of Sub-Group B. The 4th Annual Report of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Board summarizes the problem with vessel wastes most succinctly and
reflects the views of the majority of Sub-Group A on this matter. A copy of
the Board Report Summary is attached to this Report. Apparently the only level
afwhich the conflict can be resolved is in direct negotiation with the Canadians.
The States of Wisconsin and Michigan already prohibit discharge under PL 92-500
and other states may follow suit. Minnesota has a request pending for authority
to prohibit discharge.
The Senior Review Group should be aware of a recent communication and
Resolution by the Michigan Wastes Resources Commission on this subject, a copy
of which is included in Attachment 5. This issue is one of the most controversial
on the Great Lakes. Since some and possibly all eight Great Lakes States intend
to prohibit discharges under PL 92-500, the only way compatibility can be achieved
is if the Canadians prohibit discharge from commercial vessels.
For reference purposes, a copy of the draft Position Paper of Sub-Group
B which was referred to this Sub-Group for comment is included in Attachment 3.
52
-------
DISCUSSION OF ANNEX 5
This discussion of Annex 5, dealing with Studies of Pollution from Shipping
Sources is based on the Position Paper of Sub-Group B.
Sub-Group A defers to Sub-Group B on para l.(a) through l.Ce) since these
are subjects not within the expertise of this Sub-Group.
The Sub-Group B Position Paper was completely silent on paragraphs l.(f),
l.(g) and l.(e) which are of primary concern to this Sub-Group. These three
sub-paragraphs should be included in the Sub-Group B Position Paper. The Paper
should tell what has been done regarding study of these items and what further
needs to be done.
Sub-Group A suggests that the Coast Guard be required to address a full
reporting and any necessary re-writing of this Annex. If this Annex is continued,
it should include required studies of vessel hold cleaning practices and the
disposal of washings therefrom and also include a study of the need for shore
facilities for the reception of such vessel washings and other vessel waste
discharges.
For reference purposes, a copy of the draft Position Paper of Sub-Group
B which was referred to this Sub-Group for comment is included in Attachment 3.
53
s.
-------
DISCUSSION OF ANNEX 6
This discussion of Annex 6, dealing with dredged spoil, is based upon the
Position Paper of Sub-Group D.
A majority of Sub-Group A agrees with the position taken by the Great
Lakes Water Quality Board as stated in ' the Board's Summary Report attached
with this Report.
Sub-Group A took additional note of commentary previously provided by the
Regional Administrator of EPA Region V on the 1975 Report of the International
Dredging Work Group and a copy of the Region V commentary is included in
Attachment 5.
In summary, Sub-Group A recommends that dredging activities be brought
under the purview" of a standing committee of the Water Quality Board of the
International Joint Commission, and a further study should be required for
the development of general criteria which was called for in the original
Agreement.
For reference purposes a copy of the draft Position Paper of Sub-Group D
which was referred to this Sub-Group for comment is included in Attachment 3.
54
-------
DISCUSSION OF ANNEX 7
Annex 7 "fell through the cracks" in administration of the original
Agreement. The broad comprehensive nature of this Annex and the lack of
any defined responsibility resulted in this lack of attention.
The Annex still appears to be needed and should be continued without
change in the revised Agreement. To remedy the lack of defined responsibility
changes have been proposed in Article VI. A new par l.(d) is proposed and re-
porting on Annex 7 as well as other Annexes by the International Joint Commission
is proposed in a change to Par 3. Furthermore Sub-Group A concurs in a recommen-
dation by the Water Quality Board to establish a standing committee under its
purview to deal with Annex 7 as well as all other Annexes. Sub-Group A
further believes that with the above mentioned changes in Article VI, the
establishment of such a committee could be handled administratively and need
not be specified in the Agreement.
For reference, a copy of the original Annex 7 is reproduced on the following
pages.
55
-------
DISCHARGES FROM ONSHOUE AND OFFSHORE 'FACILITIES
1. Def in it ions_.' As used in this Annex:
(a) "Discharge" means the introduction of oil or
hazardous polluting substances into receiving
waters and includes, but is not limited to, any
spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting or
clumping; it does not include continuous effluent
discharges from municipal or industrial treatment
facilities; . :
(b) "Harmful quantity of oil" means any quantity of oil
that, if discharged into receiving waters, would
• produce a film or sheen upon, or discoloration of
the surface or the water or adjoining shoreline, or
that would cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited
beneath the surface of the water or upon adjo.ining
shoreline;
(c) "Offshore facility" means any facility of any kind
located in, on or under any water;
(d)" "Onshore facility" means any facility of any kind
located in, on or under, any land other than sub-
merged land. '
2. Facilities. The term "facility" includes motor vehicles,
rolling stock, pipelines, and any other facility that is used
or capable of being used for the purpose of processing, pro-
ducing, storing, transferring or transporting oil or hazardous
polluting substances, but excludes vessels.
3. Oil. As used in this Annex, "oil" refers to oil of any :
kind or in any form, including, but not limited to petroleum,
fuel oil, oil sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes,
but does not include constituents of dredged spoil.
4. Principles. ' Regulations shall be adopted for the preven-
tion of discharges' into the Great Lakes System of harmful
quantities of oil and hazardous polluting substances from on-
shore and offshore facilities in accordance with the following
principles:
(a) Discharges of harmful quantities of oil or
hazardous polluting substances shall be prohibited
and made subject to appropriate penalties;
(b) As soon as any person in charge has knowledge of
any discharge of harmful quantities of oil or
hazardous polluting substances, immediate notice of
such discharge shall be given.to the appropriate
agency in the jurisdiction whore the discharge occurs;
. failure to give this notice shall be made subject to
appropriate penalties. .
56 _
-------
5' Programs anrl Measures. The programs and measures to be
adopted shall include the following:
f'r
(a) Programs to. review .the design, construction, and
location of both existing and new facilities for
their adequacy to prevent the discharge of oil or
hazardous polluting substances;
(b) Prog^jms to review the operation, maintenance and
inspection procedures of facilities for their
adequacy to prevent the discharge of oil or
hazardous polluting substances;
(c) Programs to train personnel to perform all functions
involving the use and handling of oil and hazardous
polluting substances;
(d) Programs to ensure that at each facility plans and
provisions are made for appropriate equipment for
the containment and clean up of spills of oil or
hazardous polluting substances;
(e) Programs including compatible regulations for the
identification and placarding of containers and
vehicles carrying oil or hazardous polluting
substances.
57
-------
DISCUSSION OF ANNEX 8
This discussion of Annex 8 dealing with shipping regulations and contingency
plans is based on the Position Paper of Sub-Group C.
Sub-group A has no objections to the thrust of the recommendations on
Article V.l.(e)v., but recommends the following language to give better focus
to the ongoing activities of the agency involved:
(v) establishment by the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard of a coordinated
system of aerial and surface surveillance and enforcement of regula-
tions directed toward the early identification, abatement and clean-
up of any spills of oil or any other hazardous polluting substances.
The revised Annex 8 proposed by Sub-Group C is acceptable with the foilowing
replacement of the second sentence of Par 1.:
The Parties further agree that.the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard shall3
in cooperation with all other affected •oarties, identify and provide
detailed contingency plans for areas of high risk and of particular
concern in augmentation of the CANUSLAK.
For reference purposes, a copy of the draft Position Paper of Sub-Group 'C
which was referred to this Sub-Group for comment is included in Attachment 3.
58
-------
DISCUSSION OF ANNEX 9 (New)
The original Agreement, by Article V l.(i)> called for the development
of a hazardous materials Annex to the Agreement. A proposed Annex 9 with
the list of hazardous materials as appendixes was developed by a Joint U.S.-
Canadian Work Group and submitted to the Parties in 1976 for inclusion in
the Agreement,
Sub-Group A understands that since that time, there have been differences
of opinion related to Section 311 of PL 92-500. This apparent conflict must
be resolved at EPA Headquarters, but in the interim Sub-Group A is not aware
of any other reason why the Joint Work Group recommendations should not be
incorporated in the new Agreement,
The proposed Annex 9, which is the latest version of the Joint Work
Group recommendation available to Sub-Group A, follows this discussion. The
appendixes to Annex 9 comprising the lists are not reproduced since the
lists seem to be a large part of the apparent conflict.
59
-------
ANNEX 9
HAZARDOUS POLLUTING SUBSTANCES
i. pcmr-onr-:
This Aimcx v/ns prepared pursuant io Article V(l)(i) of the
Canada-D. S. Great Lakes Wai. or Quality Agreement \vhich calls
for the development of an Annex identifying hazardous polluting
substances. The list in Appendix I of this Annex will facilitate
the development of other related programs such as the prompt
joint spill reporting and response action (Annex 8), compatible
regulations or programs for the prevention and control of dis-
charges of such substaiices from vessels (Annex 3), from shipping
activities (Annex 5), from dredge spoil disposal (Annex 6) and
from onsJLiore-offshore facilities^(Annex 7).
The list in Appendix II will serve as a guide for indicating
other potentially hazardous polluting substances, and will be sub-
ject to review and revision as described below under Section 4.
Consideration will be given to the eventual development of
Appendix III which will designate harmful quantities of hazardous
polluting substances. This is further described in section 5.
2. PRINCIPLES OF LISTING AND REVISION FOR HAZARDOUS
POLLUTING SLJBST^CES (APPENDIX lj
S
.t The Parties recognize that any list of hazardous polluting
substances should not be regarded as complete, all-encompassing,
or final. Any such li<;t will require revision since discharges of
noil-listed substances threatening human health, human welfare,
or the living resources of tlie Great Lakes could occur at any time.
Inclusion of ihe elements and compounds listed in Appendix I will
be bnsod upon the folio\vm.ft principles:
60
-------
- Selection of all havsardci/> substance::; idcnlif.'t.d in
this Appendix v/j'U bo bur;ed upon documented ioxi-
cologica!. and discharge potential data which have
been ovaliu-i.od by the parties and doomed to bo
mutually acceptable.
- Revisions to Appendix I v/ill be initiated and reified
through the jo::U action of the parties. Using rhe agreed
to sc.lect.iou criteria, cilhor party may recommend at
any time a substance^} 10 be added 10 the list in Appen-
dix I. Such a ?ub£laricc(s) may or may not be listed in
Appendix II. The party receiving ihe recomxnrndation
has 60 days Lo review the associated documentation for
purposes of acceptance or rejection. Cause for rejection
must be documented and .submitted to the initiating party
as the basis for any further negotiations if deemed
necessary. Acceptance of the initiating party's recom-
mendation automatically affirms the substancc(c) as a
candidate for the list of Appendix I, pending the completion
of nny requisite modification of national implementing
regulations or alternative administrative procedures per-
taining to the designation of new hazardous polluting
substances. . S*. oh requirements from either party may be
necessary before programs and measures (Annexes 3
and 7) to prevent discharges of the newly added substances
can be legally implemenred. However, any such adminis-
trative delray in confirming the candidate substance(s) for
Appendix I listing will not apply to the carrying out of the
provisions of Annex 8, Joint Contingency Plan, in event of
a pollution incident involving the candidate substance(s).
3. HAZARDOUS POLLUTING SUBSTANCES SELECTION CRITERIA
Rationale
The criteria for determining relative hazards posed by
chemicals to the environment fall within three general areas.
These are toxicological data, information relating to the pro-
bability of a dischof gc -occurring (discharge potential), and
data on the chemical and physical properties of the material
which affect its dispersal and persistence in n given body of
wator.
61
-------
From :: 1o?-jco3
-------
- one-half oT ;i tc.:;i. ponulrti'jn. oT animal:", in 1-1 clay:": or less v.'avn
dcrrnally c:;Tic.s"fi 10 aa cm'.,-i.ril equal to 01^ loss than L'OO m:;/;..g
body weight for l-I-i hours; or
- one-h:-ilf of a test population of aaimrJ^ in 14 days or less v/hcn
exposed to a varur concenlra'i :on equal to or lesn li'uin 20 cubic
coiii.irnolers per cubj.c meler (volume/ volume) in ait* for one
hour; or
- aquatic flora as measured by a 50 percent decrease in eell con at.,
biomass, or pbovosynthelic ability in 14 days or less at concen-
trations equal to or less 11: an 100 ing/1;
k) Discharge Potential
Substances must pose a reasonable potential to be dis-
charged into the Great Lakes which is determined by:
- establishing information on history of discharges or accidents;
• ' "*•
- assessing the modal risks during transport and determining
the use and distribution patterns;
- identifying quantities manufactured or imported.
Those substances which have the toxicologies! properties and
reasonable potential to be discharged as specified above are
identified as hazardous polluting substances in Appendix I to this
Annex.
4. PRN CIPI.ES OF LISTING AND REVISION FOR POTENTIAL
Substances listed in Appendix II will sei'vc as a guide for
indicating other potentially hazardous polluting substances which,
due to insufficient data or /or .. r.ny one of a vqricty of reasons, are
not presently listed in Appendix I. These substances will be
given priority attention for examination and possible future
63
-------
inclusion ;n Appendix I. Appendix II sho aid not be reg,:iiucd as
complete, all encompassing or.final. Inclusion of the elements
or compound.-; listed irt Appendix II will be based upon the following
principles:
Either party rnr.y add new substances to .Appendix II by
notifying ihc other h\ wit in 5 thvi: ihc substr^cc is consiriercd
to be Q potential hazard because of documented information
concerning aquatic to::icjty, mammalian and other vertebrate
toxicity, phytotoxicity, persistence, bio-accumulation, muta-
genicity, teratogenJcJty, carcino^enieity, environmental
ti'anslo cation or because of'documented information on the
potential for relatively high discharge to the environment. The
documentation of the potential hazard and the selected criteria
upon which it is based v,rill also be submitted. Such an inter-
change could usefully serve as a basis for any necessary
revisions or additions i^he selection criteria for Appendix I.
Removal of substances from the list shall be by mutual
consent.
5< HARMFUL QUANTITY DSTSRIMINATIOM
It is recognized that harmful quantities of hazardous polluting
substances could be useful to clarify notification requirements for
pollution incidents, alert levels, contingency planning coiicerns,
and hazards of transportation. These quantities are to be specified
in Appendix III of this Annex. Until that Appendix is completed,
the parties recognize that any quantity of substance listed in this
Annex may be harmful and that in Canadian waters appropriate
steps will, therefore, be 1.:«J?un fear.-any discharge.
In the XT. S. waters appropriate notification and enforcement
actions will be undertaken for discharges in excess of harmful
quantities specified in -!0 Ci-Tv, Piu-L 110.
64
-------
In con;-r^r--i5u:o v.'ith /-.niio: '<•> bolli parties v/ill take appiopriale
joint response option Cur u spill of ray subsUm.cc of any magnitude
judged to bo a pollution incident as claimed therein.
6- CQ]Vi iv/nnij': :mpGT?jni r?T:\rcT,Qp^:r.^T STEPS v
The parlies agx-co to implonieut programs in keeping with
the requirements of the Agreement and this Annex using appropriate
federal, state, or provincial legislation.
Canada
The Canadian program of control of discharge of hazardous
polluting substances is to be implemented through Federal and
Provincial authorities using legislation such as:
Ontario Petroleum Resources Act.
Ontario Water Resources (OV/R) Act.
Environmental Protection Act. (Ontario)
The Canada Shipping Act (R. S. C. S-9,
C. 381 [1st Supplement]; S. 65)
Fisheries Act (R. S. C. 1970, C.F-14)
Environmental Contaminants Act /
It should be noted that Canada can implement the spill control
program for all materials discharged into Great Lakes areas under
Canadian jurisdiction and, therefore, materials listed in this Annex
are noted as priority substances and do not limit Canadian authorities
for discharges of unlisted subrlances.
65
-------
UniLecl States;
The United Slates program of control of discharge of hazardous
polluting substances is to be implemented through Federal and State
Authorities using legislation such as:
The Federal. \Yater Pollution Control Act as
amended 1972 (P. L. 92-500)
The Ports cud Waterways Safety Act
.(P. L. 92-342)
The Water Pollution Control Act is to be recognized as the
primary instrument to allow the United States to implement the spill
control program which is thereby limited to materials specif ior..'ly
listed as Hazardous Substances (40 CFR Part 116).
7. ANNEX RE"V raw
The parties shall conduct a comprehensive review of the
effectiveness of this annex during the fifth year of the agree-
ment for this Annex. Thereafter, further comprehensive review
shall be conducted upon the request of cither party.
8. ' ENTRY INTO FORCE & TERMINATION
. /
This Annex shall enter into force upon signature by the
duly authorized representatives of the parties and shall r cm air.
in force for the period of the agreement unless terminated by
twelve months notice given in writing by ono of the parties to
the other.
66
-------
DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE VI
A new sub-paragraph l.(d) is proposed to bring the matters under Annexes
3, 4, 6, 1 and 9 under the purview of the International Joint Commission. The
Commission appears to be the only practical mechanism to provide a continuing
overview of these matters, a deficiency which has been previously called to
the attention of the Parties in reports by the IJC. The intent is to bring
the shipping and dredging related activities under the purview of the IJC
and its Water Quality Board. •
Par l.(g) is revised to reiterate the land use reference and to delete
mention of the Upper Lakes reference since the latter should be completed
before this Agreement is firmed up.
Changed wording is proposed for the newly numbered par 1.(f) to conform
to changes proposed in Article VII and to conform to the Position Paper on
Research appended to this Report.
Changes in wording are proposed for paragraph 3 to require a full report
by the IJC only biennially instead of annually and to extend the reporting
responsibilities to shipping and dredging matters. This also corresponds to
a recommendation of the Water Quality Board. The reporting requirement has
'also been enlarged to conform to the changes proposed in par_l.(d).
A new paragraph 6 is proposed to conform to changes proposed in the
administrative support for Agreement-related work.
The proposed revised Article VI follows:
67
-------
i.
s
ARTICLE VI
„••; 'POWERS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF
T1IL INTHRNATJONAL JOINT COMMISSION
1. The International Joint Commission shall assist in
the implementation of this Agreement. Accordingly, the
Commission is hereby given., pursuant to Article IX of the
Boundary Waters Treaty, the following responsibilities:
(a) Collation, analysis and dissemination of data and
information supplied by the Parties and State and
Provincial Governments relating to the quality of
the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System and to
pollution that enters the boundary waters from
tributary waters;
t
(b) Collection, analysis and dissemination of data and
information concerning the water quality objectives
and the operation and effectiveness of the programs
and other measures established pursuant to this
Agreement;
(c) Tendering of advice and recommendations to the Parties
•and to the' State and Provincial Governments on problems
of the- quali-ty of the boundary waters of- the Great
Lake.*; System, including specific recommendations con-
cerning the water quality objectives, legislation,
. ^ standards and other regulatory requirements, programs
and other measures, and intergovernmental agreements
relating to the quality of thes.e waters; fr
" "
. . . . . ,. .
(_dj Tendering of advice end recormendsticns to tha Fartiks an
in connection with mat-tars covered under Annexes S} 4j £.
(a) Provision of assistance in the coordination of the
joint activities envisaged by this Agreement, including
cuch matters as contingency planning and consultation
on special situations;
(f ) Provision of assistance in tKe-eGesdiHatieH-sf and advice on matters
related to Great Lakes 'Water quality research, including identification
of objectives for research activities, tendering of advise and recommen-
dations concerning research to the Parties and to the State and Provincial
Governments and dissemination of information concerning research to in-
terested persons and agencies;
(g) Investigations of such subjects related to Great Lakes water quality
as the Parties may from time to time refer to it. At the time of
signature of this Agreement, the Parties are 3-equestiHg- reiterating
their request to the Commission to enquire into and report to them upon
68
-------
pollution of the boundary waters of the Great Lakes System
from agricultural, forestry and other land use activities, in
accordance with the terms of reference to this Agreement.
terras-ef-r-efeFenee-attaehed-te-t his -Agreement .
2. In the discharge of its responsibilities under this Agreement, the
Commission may exercise all of the powers conferred upon it by the Boundary
Waters Treaty and by any legislation passed pursuant thereto, including the
power to conduct public hearings and to compel the testimony of witnesses and
the production of documents.
3. The Commission shall make a full report to the Parties and to the
State and Provincial Governments no less frequently than annually biennially
concerning progress toward the achievement of the water quality objectives,
including matters related to Annexes l> 2,, Z, 43 6t 7, and 9. This report shall
include an assessment of the effectiveness of the programs and other measures
undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, and advice and recommendations. In
alternate years the Commission may submit a summary report. The Commission may
at any time make special reports to the Parties, to the State and Provincial
Governments and to the public concerning any problem of water quality in the
Great Lakes System.
4. The Commission may in its discretion publish any report, statement
or other document prepared by it in the discharge of its functions under this
Agreement.
5. The Commission shall have authority to verify independently the
data and other information submitted by the Parties and by the State and
Provincial Governments through such tests or other means as appear appropriate
to it, consistent with the Boundary Waters Treaty and with applicable legislation.
6. The Commission shall carry out the provisions of this Article utilizing
principally the services of the Water Quality Board and the Science Advisory Board
established under Article VII.
69
-------
DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE VII
This Article has been rearranged to incorporate the concept of the Reference
on the Research Advisory Board into the Article itself. The Research Advisory
Board, re-named the Science Advisory Board_,needs to become a permanent institution
of the Agreement and this is the mechanism proposed for accomplishing it. The
purview of the Science Advisory Board has for obvious reasons, been extended
to "related fields" which is intended to include the problems of atmospheric
fall-out as they affect water quality. The rationale for the changes are
contained in the Position Paper on Research attached to this report,
A change is proposed in the wording, regarding the Water Quality Board to
establish what, already exists; i.e., the Water Quality Board as the principal
Advisor to the International Joint Commission on Great Lakes Water Quality
matters.
This Article proposes to abolish the Great Lakes Regional Office and
distribute these duties to the Parties. The Sub-Group A believes
that this would make for a more efficient utilization of manpower and other
services, and would simplify administration of the programs under the Agreement.
Two members of the State Advisory Group and one member of the Federal
Advisory Group disagreed with the proposed abolition of the Regional Office.
(See Attachment 5 for their comments),
The revised Article follows: (Since the proposed revisions are a complete
change in the sense of the Article the existing Article has not been reproduced;
i.e., the line-out is not used here):
70
-------
ARTICLE VII
JOINT INSTITUTIONS
I. The International Joint Commission shall establish the following:
Two Boards to serve as its principal advisors to assist in the exercise of
the powers and responsibilities assigned to the Commission under this Agreement:
(a) One board shall be the Water Quality Board to be the principal
Advisor on all policy matters. The Board shall be composed of an
equal number of members from Canada and United States, including
representatives from the Parties and from each of the State and
Provincial governments.
(b) A second Board shall be the Science Advisory 'Board to advise on all
scientific matters. The Board shall consist of recognized experts
on Great Lakes Water Quality problems and related fields.
2. The members of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board and the-Resea?eR
Science Advisory Board shall be appointed by the Commission and their duties
determined after consultation with the appropriate government or governments
concerned. In addition, the Commission shall have the authority to establish
as it may deem appropriate such subordinate bodies as may be required to under-
take specific tasks, as-weil-as-a-?0gieHal-effi€e7-whieh-may-be-J:e6a€ed-iH-the-
- She-Past ies-abeut- the-
3. The Commission shall dis-establish the Great Lakes Regional Office and in •
lieu thereof the functions of the Regional Office shall be performed by the
lead agencies of the Parties. The lead Agency for the U.S. shall be the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the lead agency for Canada shall be Environment
Canada. The personnel and resources of the Regional Office shall be reassigned
to the respective lead agencies of their governments.
4. The GeHffitissieH-shall-SHbmit-an lead agencies of the Parties, as designated
in Par Zt shall include in their annual budget, ef anticipated expenses to be
incurred in carrying out its their responsibilities under this Agreement, te-the-
Parties-fer-appseval. Each Party shall seek funds to pay eRe-half-ef-the-aRRual-
b«dget-se-apprsve47-but-Heifchei?-PaF&y-shall-be-HHde3?-aR-obligatieR-te-pay-a- larger
aaeHHt-thaH-^he-etheF-teward-this-budget. thsc.portion of the annual expenses as
agreed upon by the too Boards and as approved by the lead agencies.
71
-------
DISCUSSION OF ARTICLES VIII THROUGH XIV
Changes in wording are proposed for Articles VIII through XII which
are self-explanatory.
A new Article XIV has been added and is self-explanatory.
With regard to Article X, Implementation, it should be pointed out
that one member of the State Advisory Group felt very strongly that the
Agreement should call for specific identification of costs associated with
meeting its terms. However, the Sub-Group believes that pollution control
program costs for the Great Lakes are simply an increment of our State
and national pollution control programs which are already required under
our own State and federal laws, and that it would be misleading to attribute
costs to the Agreement other than those costs over and above what would be
considered normal program costs. These latter costs will be identified in
agency budget proposals as required by Article X. Furthermore, the specific
costs for administering the Agreement are identified separately in the annual
cost estimates required under Para 3 of Article VII.
The rational for the proposed Article X, 2Cc) is contained in the .Position
Paper on Surveillance appended to this report.
One member of the Sub-Group felt that a further in-depth look should be
made of the proposed surveillance program by means of a systems analysis
before committing to long-range funding. The majority of Sub-Group A in
endorsing the surveillance proposals of the Water Quality Board was aware
that a continuing review would be required of the program but was also
cognizant of the extensive efforts by a wide range of experts that went
72
-------
into its preparation and believes that it is a valid program and further
that there is sufficient flexibility in the program to enable changes to be
made if further study so indicates.
The revised Articles follow:
73
-------
ARTICLE VIII
SUBMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
1, The international Joint Commission shall be given at it request
any data or other information relating to the quality of the feetmdayy waters
of the Great Lakes System including quality of discharges thereto, in accord-
ance with procedures fee-be established by the Commission^ witk-i
•^i? -»hO" -entry— Mit-e-fe¥«e-e-f -tkis— Aggeeaeftt-er as-soon-thogfraftier
*» co&&ul'&a£iofi-wi;frh the Pagtiea as4 wtfch tho Stato an-d-
2, The Commission shall make available to the Parties and to the
State and Provincial Governments upon request all data or. other information
furnished to it in accordance with this Article.
3, Each Party shall make available to the other at its request any
data or other information in its control relating to the quality of the
waters of the Great Lakes System, including quality of discharges thereto.
4, Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the
Commission shall not release without the consent of the owner any information
identified as proprietary information under the law of the place where such
information has been acquired.
ARTICLE IX
CONSULTATION AND REVIEW
1. Following the receipt of each report submitted to the Parties by
the International Joint Commission in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article
VI of this Agreement, the Parties shall consult on the recommendations con-
tained in such report and shall consider such action as may be appropriate,
including:
Ca) The modification of existing water quality objectives and the
addp€i«H agreement on new objectives;
(JO The modification or improvement of programs and joint measures;
Cc) The amendment of this Agreement or any annex thereto.
Additional consultations may be held at the request of either Party on any
matter arising out of the implementation of this Agreement.
2, When a Party becomes aware of a special pollution problem .that is
of joint concern and requires an immediate response, it shall notify and consult
the other Party forthwith about appropriate remedial action.
74
-------
3. ' The Parties shall conduct a comprehensive review of the operation
and effectiveness of this Agreement during the fifth year after its coming
into force, The3?eai%e3Fj-§HBtheB-esmp56heHsive-3?eviews-shall-'be-eeHdueted
75
-------
ARTICLE X
IMPLEMENTATION
1. The obligations undertaken in this Agreement shall be subject
to the appropriation of funds in accordance with the constitutional
procedures of the Parties.
2. The Parties commit themselves to seek:
(a) The appropriation of the funds required to implement this
Agreement, including the funds needed to develop and
implement the programs and o'ther measures provided for
in Article V, and the funds required by-the International
Joint Commission to carry out its responsibilities effectively;
(b) The enactment of any additional legislation that may be
necessary in order to implement the programs and other
measures provided for in Article V;
Co) Appropriation of not less than five years advance funding of
the Surveillance Program specified in Article, V3 Par 23
beginning with U.S. Fiscal Year 1978. Funding levels will
be reviewed and adjusted annually as necessary,
Cd) The cooperation of the State and Provincial Governments in
all matters relating to this Agreement.
ARTICLE XI
EXISTING RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to diminish the rights
and obligations of the Parties as set forth in the Boundary Waters Treaty.
ARTICLE XII
AMENDMENT
This Agreement and the Annexes thereto may be amended by agreement
of the Parties. The Annexes may also be amended as provided therein, subject
to the requirement that such amendments shall be within the scope of this
Agreement.
76
-------
ARTICLE XIII
ENTRY INTO FORCE AND TERMINATION
This Agreement shall enter into force upon signature by the
duly authorized representatives of the Parties, and shall remain in force
for a period of five years and thereafter until terminated upon twelve
months' notice given in writing by one of the Parties to the other.
ARTICLE XIV
SUPERSESSION
This Agreement supersedes the original Agreement of April 15,
19723 and should be referred to as the "Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement".
77
-------
SEE SEPARATELY BOUND VOLUME FOR
APPENDIX NUMBER I
-------
FOURTH ANNUAL
REPORT
GREAT LAKES
WATER QUALITY
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
UNITED STATES / CANADA
WASHINGTON OTTAWA
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
To the Government of Canada
Government of the United States
Government of the State of Illinois
Government of the State of Indiana
Government of the State of Michigan
Government of the State of Minnesota
Government of the State of New York
Government of the State of Ohio
Government of the State of Pennsylvania
Government of the State of Wisconsin
Government of the Province of Ontario
The International Joint Commission is pleased to transmit, with its endorse-
ment, the 1975 Annual Report of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, including its
assessment of the progress made in the United States and Canada during the year
1975 in implementing the terms of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1972. This progress, according to the Board, was "generally slow, uneven, and in
certain cases disappointing." Also included in the Board's report is an evaluation of
the water quality condition of the lakes at the end of 1975.
The Commission wishes to first make note of this departure in form of
reporting to the various governments and the public from its previous three reports.
It is the Commission's view that the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, and its several
subgroups and committees have presented an excellent report on the effectiveness
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and efforts of the Parties to improve
the water quality of the lakes. Jts assessment is forthright everywhere and critical
where necessary. Its findings and recommendations are well documented with
substantive data contained in the four appendices. Therefore, the Commission
believes that it is not necessary for it to summarize and comment on all aspects of
the Board's report.
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
The Commission endorses, in general, all recommendations contained in the
report and offers the following special comments on several important matters as a
means of identifying those issues to which it believes the governments should give
substantial priority consideration:
Municipal Treatment
While the Commission recognizes that sizable programs for the construction of water pollution control
facilities in the Great Lakes Basin are currently in progress in the United States and Canada, it nevertheless
perceives that these efforts must be strengthened and in fact accelerated if the water quality objectives of the
Agreement are to be achieved by the end of this century.
The cities of Detroit and Cleveland continue to be the two largest sources of municipal pollution in the
Basin. The Commission cannot emphasize too strongly, the need to complete these two major municipal
projects on the highest priority basis.
Surveillance
Each year since the signing of the Agreement, the Commission has advised governments that it could
not report accurately on progress, or lack of it, toward achieving the goals of the Agreement because existing
surveillance programs were inadequate. The Water Quality Board has now developed a comprehensive surveil-
lance program which when implemented would overcome the shortcomings of the present programs. The
Commission fully endorses this program which is described in Appendix B of the Board's report.
Because of the critical need to launch the program as soon as possible and recognizing time constraints
of the budgetary cycle in the United States and Canada, the Commission has already taken action on this matter.
In a separate communication, dated August 27,1976, to the Parties, the Commission has urged them to ensure
that fiscal programs over the next 10 years provide ongoing funds at the level proposed ($16 million annually),
for the Agencies of federal, state and provincial governments having responsibility for water quality surveillance
and monitoring activities in the Great Lakes. The Commission now reiterates its concern and urges once more
the recommended actions.
Combined Sewers
The Commission is concerned that programs to control pollution from the overflow of combined
.stormwater and sanitary sewers are fragmented and obviously inadequate. The Commission is aware that any
solution to this problem will be extremely costly, but it also recognizes that strong efforts by appropriate
authorities to find adequate solutions must be continued. It is imperative that this significant source of pollution
from major metropolitan areas of the Great Lakes be brought under control at the earliest practicable time. The
Commission, therefore, recommends that the governments continue both research and demonstration
programs at least at present levels, including programs for reducing the amount of pollutants reaching storm
sewers and for treating the stormwater itself. The Commission also recommends that site-specific studies be
initiated or strengthened in the major metropolitan areas of the Basin.
Industrial Pollution
In spite of the progress of governments in instituting remedial programs in industrial pollution control by
the end of 1975 as provided m the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Commission notes with concern
that a number of major polluting industries are not expected to have adequate controls in place by the end of
1977. In view of the substantial increase in data available on the discharge of pollutants from point sources, the
Commission urges the vigorous enforcement of the industrial pollution control laws in both countries without
delay.
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
Toxic Substances
Toxic substances, e.g., heavy metals and persistent organic contaminants, may well be the most serious
and long term problem governments face in ensuring future beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. They pose threats
to water quality, the fishery, human health and ecology in general. Too little is known about these substances,
their identity, sources, amounts present, characteristic forms and behavior, and their effects. Control and moni-
toring programs are imperative. Research is required to enable the establishment of objectives and the evalua-
tion of potential hazards. Effective control laws must be enacted and implemented to the fullest extent possible
in both countries as quickly as possible.
Radioactivity
A new, refined Great Lakes radioactivity water quality objective has been proposed by Task Forces
established by the two Governments and is now undergoing review by appropriate federal, state and provincial
agencies. The Commission believes that the Governments should reach agreement on a refined radioactivity
objective as soon as possible. Public hearings on these objectives should be held in the Basin.
Because of the growing number of nuclear facilities in the Great Lakes Basin, including power reactors,
mining and raw materials processing, as well as waste materials processing, storage and disposal, the Great
Lakes Water Quality Board has developed a special Radioactivity Surveillance Plan as part of the proposed IJC-
Coordinated Surveillance Plan described in Appendix B of the Board's report.
Non-Point Pollution
As controllable discharges from municipal and industrial point sources are reduced to established limits,
the significance of non-point sources of pollution, especially atmospheric fallout and sediment transport, is
becoming more apparent. Research activities must provide improved methods of identifying such sources and
indicate mechanisms to accelerate the design and implementation of control measures.
\
While recognizing that some investigatory programs are under way to address these problems, an interim
strategy is required pending the outcome of these studies. Accordingly, the Commission urges all governments
to strengthen their support of programs to identify loadings from diffuse sources, determine their relative signifi-
cance, and implement measures to control further increases in pollutional loadings from these sources.
Phosphorus
The Commission believes that the United States policy of constructing phosphorus removal facilites has
not been an effective means of reducing phosphorus reaching the lower lakes. The targets for phosphorus
loadings contained in the Agreement are not being met.
Though completion and proper operation of facilities at Detroit and Cleveland, as well as other
municipalities, will produce an early and measurable effect on Lake Erie and in turn Lake Ontario, more must be
done to accelerate the recovery of the Lakes, including solutions to the problem of phosphorus input from the
non-sewered population. Further, action must be taken to reduce loadings and thus prevent degradation of the
Upper Lakes.
Since 1970 the Commission has recommended the limitation of phosphates in detergents. Recent studies
and short-term results where limitations have been implemented have not only supported this recommendation,
but suggest even greater limitations are in order. Therefore, the Commission believes that the Board's recom-
mendation that a uniform 0.5% phosphorus by weight limit be placed on all detergents manufactured for use in
the Great Lakes Basin, including dishwashing materials, should be implemented by the appropriate authorities
as quickly as procedures will permit.
This action, however, will still not provide sufficient controls on phosphorus loading to the lakes. There-
fore, the Commission supports the Board's recommendations to extend a 1 mg/l effluent limitation on all point
source discharges of phosphorus throughout the entire Great Lakes System. In addition, there is an urgent need
to define the pathways and design regulatory schemes to control the phosphorus contributions from the
atmosphere, sediments and land drainage, and all other non-point sources.
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
Water Quality Objectives
The water quality objectives in the Great Lakes Agreement have been adopted by several governments as
water quality standards for boundary waters within their jurisdictions. New and revised water qualfty objectives
have now been developed by the Commissions's Water Quality Board and its subcommittees for adoption in the
Agreement.
The Commission intends to hold public hearings on these new and revised objectives to assist it in making
a firm recommendation to the Governments at an early date. The Commission suggests that until its final
recommendations on all the objectives recommended in the Board's report are submitted, all the objectives be
accepted as guidelines for the development of water quality standards by the various jurisdictions and for
planning future uses of the Great Lakes.
Special Studies
In July 1976 the Commission received the report of the International Reference Group on Upper Lakes
Pollution. The Commission will hold public hearings and submit its final report to the two Governments in 1977.
The progress of studies being conducted under the Reference Group on Pollution from Land Use Activities is
reported in the attached 1976 report of the Group. A major public consultation program is planned by the study
group for implementation in 1977. this program is expected to increase public understanding of the objectives
of the study and the complexities of the problems of pollution from land use. The final study report is expected
in 1978.
The Great Lakes Research Advisory Board has again compiled an extensive Directory of Great Lakes
Research and Related Activities, and is continuing its efforts to coordinate as closely as possible the Great Lakes
related research programs in both countries. These efforts are reported in the attached Annual Report of the
Board. Several effective seminars were held during the year under Commission auspices and others are planned
for the current year. Ail are designed to focus on problems related to Great Lakes water quality.
The Commission wishes to commend the individual and collective efforts of a significantly large number
of persons, including skilled scientists, effective administrators and dedicated public servants who have worked
hard during recent months to collect large amounts of data, assess and evaluate it, and prepare these excellent
documents. It reflects great credit on the cooperative efforts of both countries to correct the very complex
problems of Great Lakes water quality which have resulted from human neglect over many years.
Finally, the Commission notes that the Agreement calls for the Parties to "conduct a comprehensive
review of the operation and effectiveness of this Agreement during the fifth year after its coming into force." It is
the Commission's intention to prepare a special report within the next few months which will set forth the
Commission's views on various provisions of the Agreement for consideration by the Governments during the
aforementioned review process.
Respectfully submitted
Henry P. Smith III
Chairman, United States Section
Charles R. Ross
Victor L. Smith
Maxwell Cohen
Chairman, Canadian Section
Bernard Beaupre
Keith A. Henry
September 16,1976
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
EIUIMIS
mil IDIIIIY B01BB
Copies of the complete Report and
the Appendices are available from:
INTERNATIONAL
JOINT
COMMISSION
100 Ou«H«t* Av»
Windsor, Ont. N9A 6T3
ATTACHMENT 2
-------
U 01
SO j= to
«J JJ 0)
h CJ
O Of O f»
b • .w -o
a) a co c
5 a £ "2 a
oi c a a
IM ft 41 O <
o w > as
U -H 00
b CO 4J X (S
eg fe y jj «H •
0) « ft JJ 3
x^2-3 S45
£ ««£g;S
SS^M S "
IM f* 4 0 CD
j= w
« O 0) ffl
T3 E 0) U B 0
b M 01 O B **••
to oo > o. o e
S •< fl 01 CJ fl
CO Qfi
sO X E JJ 0)
r-. *j u fi e .c
0* -H JS Q ft U
ft tH OJ 3 0
q b fi ""3 »M
• a CL. c o
«n c5" S -5 ft
ft o * j=
n u js e t»
fl 0) JJ O 3
U (B 3 •>>
0.7 *J 0 « 01
< U U. C T)
CD 3 W ft
0> "O CO 0* >
.* a ft jj o
a o .c e b
.J U H M D.
B «H Ot *J «
0) O «C J= 3 >-
C W -H 3 4J *-H M
•H CU SO C fl O
a 3 to q c c >-
x -H -3 a &. a.
• 4J X 8 0>
•O'rt'OH'OSl.'*
O) *H 3 O G «hl .£ M
3eg4JUoo)<*Jcq
G 3 W U J *-
•H CT 41 41 b «J
Scy jc CA 0) oi ....
u a *J 3 •« 0)
M U C 01 00 £ CQ
*J OI -O J= O 3
« (tt h C W *-4 Q
M 3 0) d) q C0
01 **-» O -a>4ico « e
00 b •-* 0> O > O
••C-OWMbMCO
2 Q, 3 O> "-»
o) ca a. o* x 8 o.
j: 3 -H -3 a
JJ CO H f! • O
C 41 41 03 ffl 0) b
tMOJ=4JS -^ S C
^tOW4-JiJ-itUl-l
jj U CO C > OI
CJ C 0 01 73 O «-•
a>uaf-iw^coooi
••-i o -a 2 to ae.
J3 C B M B
04i-HO4>eaifflT3
•O>W^H>O>OIOI
X« 4JO-.-(C*^HUi
jjBflJnJOO-H-uaj
i-t .c u co v -H a
t-4S4JBOI*H > 41
SO 01 £ 6 01 •* U
^•noDue^jJOj
CT JJ C 41 O 4J U
fl eg u M cj < B
M 3 o. n -a oi
OJt-t " Oi 4* C 41 4J
JJ « O b XJ= « CO j3
R) > -H 0 *-• 3
3 4) b at
C X 41 -H
0) 0 « b M
a jj i ai-
co C 0 19
to v 41 h b 01
•H IM w aj « b
« 0) O WO.
u b a co
ai i-t O O. 41 O
0 JS b *
u jj o. ot eg on
B. -H £ *J M
O b T3 -Ft Q
a. cu 41 u B
41 4J e x e «o
DC: g 01 JJ 41
3 b ^* B C
n *H co ta
*N X 01 (5 05
JS b J3 3 41 -3
.j « H o* « £
•o to 13
«u s b a
03 jj 13
JS 8 O 0) B
' U B 3 b -O O
•H 1-4 Q. U
JJ J3 8 «
CO X O -H X
U JJ b * 4J
i-t ^ a. o B -H
§01 -H tg
b *B *J 3
j= o- o a -H cr
H JS M -0
Oi u 3 q 0)
jj ta a* u
ra oi o> e n
3 S b M 3
Q
•H CO
aj e 3
•0 -H 0
4) AJ J=
BOO.
5 3 CD
b b 0 -
jj jz ta
b to a s
OB eg
S"^1 o o oo
3 0
01 -0 b
01 X V CL
JS « *-
W 4J
•«^2S
03 B
3 B b «
jj -H 3 b
oj CO JJ
jj 41 eg
co ea eu a>
4) S JJ
41 .e co
J3 H * «
jj co 3
3 • C ft
oi u q rg
•H C f" -H
> 4) Q. b
U fi JJ
0) C 3
CO l-i 41 t3
b 00 S C
41 < JJ fi
*•> a
a 41 41 -a
q JS b E
_e j_i j_» m
next three cl
outlined In '
wastewater i
the lakes, i
^•4 O
41 0) (0 JJ
J= E O.
H OJ -H (B
b (J JJ
00 -H 3
O C Q.
b 3 B
0. i -H
O TJ *
« a M
41 a j: M 4>
£ Si's £
60 «M b Ot
S£e'.S
. °-° 5-
8S5-?&
-i Ot b 41 q
*O B fl ** 01
b b 3 O H
a. oi u ft
« S2"S5
g°S "5
o a. eo 0
S ft 41
ea > j-i eo to
-H -H fl) M JJ
CO JJ _] 01 b
a M o
x eg w a.tM •
b o eg a tw x
01 ft 01 JC 0) JJ
> T3 b CJ ^t
q u *o ^H
§b - C q
01 X q 3
j-» TJ £ -* tr
C JJ b CO
jT «J 0 41 b
-H CO O *^ W JJ
3 oi S -< eg
U M ft > 3
i~i e 4 irt -4
0) JJ 3 U O
•O co • q
s0 3 o a) ca >
co j3 B eg
•a *j ft ft js
CUOMO.
« -H q O O. X
X o. co ft q
*rt o s a) js a
JJ ft -O CO
co at
b •• b 0> TJ CO
a) co ft b e a>
jj 5; 41 q q jj
ed tg «j o) at
jS _1 tjj ca co
cj a) fi 3 jj
jj y ^i u
(0 3 TJ -0 0)
at T; ft c fi
Oi q
-e J b
P 41
4J JJ
q a
oi a
b j=
CJ U
-------
WATER QUALITY AND SURVEILLANCE
e
1
§
i
e
e
c^
e
i
General Improvements in water quality were obaerved in aome local
areas of Lake Ontario and parts of Lake Erie where remedial programs
have been put In place. However, there are major municipal and Industr
remedial programs still to be completed and it will be several years
before significant improvements are likely to be observed in the open
waters due to the long response time.
©
3
3
=)
i
3
S
•jsaj
^3
3
1
I
BB V O • O O 4» 1M«M « IS B
3 jj OO B 4J M fci *•> *H O 3 4* * M B O
a. B —j s •-: B u a 41 Q B oo*a a o c to a «03OO a it j: c B
4) -0 « 4) ft. O Q C .0 a Ji U -O 4» 4J » C 4J "O CO O -H *4 4> ^4 B '•s Q) *M ft}
V .C 4J > B > *•• B **4 O 0WB9*H*H* OOJ5B4J.C 4> JS
MB MOB -H 44 0 B O O 3 E -H h B B «UBU4JB*OB
W o3uar.l4JV.Bv4 BsOOSBBOl-HH B -M 3 -S 3 0
« o -H a Em E « t> *-* O.*H B .fi ** -HI-IB 0 o> a *o d *-i
.d .C l-l a O O 4t ft. B „ 4J 9 «H .C X •-< « 41 *->.BBO*HBUiM
73 o ««-Hj=w'.-a«wEj= 5 J= B o y o 0o x P « u pado
o *J -c a 9 «w 5 o o 5 *J d -H E I -H B c a. a u -H
B -0 B *J T3 » O 41 U 41 U O W £ 0 5 C 01 B O 8 CU CD
OB O 4) Q B d*QM 00 B f4 fl 3 -H t* .C • U W M BE
-H I* *J .£ 4) - O C 3 «H *J 3 »w d »w 3 B B .C d h O
W U «4IUQ.4)^B-H00 .ca 0*4^3 OBBBSO
•Go*-t *-> 3 «0 0004) UUVU-HbHua) i-i.B**kMtt4»4J.£:
B ^ dOBB «)>^iJf K*->cj 00^4 U K W 0 B -H 00
B3 -H C £ rfl 0 > S^IS -OB -4000 O rH*O*MO "^
W.BC*, B O JJ • B X 4-1 • >*O4>C.COCO 4J"w3BOM«J!
BV H X-H 41 4J S *J rt ffl « 41 41 > ^O U 0,-H OgB 3h
£0*0 «Sa^U3hh»4BB 0 "H O*lt**BB,C 4J W 4) -H 4) gj U • » 14 UJJO-Sf^W-H
« ^4 3 PH>j3fl4JBO.B 41 > o K t-i •«-> *e*MB EW BB O H *M
X B B BgJJlSB^g^^-OO ^g^g'Jj'^*4* u -SJ^wSM^
**«IB **-* *^«aJo «M*° §«BooEmd'0 s a*4*-BdMB5
WtM B *w « j: 3 Q. Bf>**4 — 0 -J -H 0 r- 0 ^ B ^ ^ a " ° '
>°* *OBX*O?*B^W64l OrSing-HW^Bj a OO, 0 X-H M 3 4J
BVB U**4^>«BB9o>4J34)*O U r- *J O J3 fi 3 B U • O ^ h M UB
• •s 1. "5 .UlSS'g*' 5«'5'ss^I I siasl.aS*
1 « 4) O*-t0W60t-BOUy«H ta >H B B -U 4) O -H 0 *J U 41 5 Ut £
8«|*4 M U B 0 0 3 0 B S WO-H-H41CM-O4J CD C -H X 0 41 -O 4J
.ABtH B B^-IO O3 41 4) 41 P -H 3 y 41 Jtf 410 • B 0 3
O -H 0 CttfJW 0 l-l OOT3 CL U 01 ^ -^ -H B S ° 3 | W 4J*H4t'B««MO •*•*.
PMCUU S^S^-oE-5ai^Jfl 2dU>0-Ho'v> Uh'tQ0MOUaB
.£41 -HUJS O W O -H D. 4J 4> B> 41 Cu O Bl-iArHCO^-) ^
B E
U OB
41 E -H O C G
b E0 *J C «H O O
B OB 41 B O 4J a 00 *J -H -H
-rt 41^4) ^ 0 ^* ^ "O i-H -H 0UW
(M 4J 41 U. ^ X 0 O- B *H0 OBE4)
r- (- .£0 O *n E B OiiH SoHQ 60 OO » .H C a* -H > 4>
»4i u4ia4Jrx2oo **-• w e E £ j= oo E -^ o o. 3
4)0 «*O 00 4) 0 41 0 O 41 0 O 41 *J - ••-» »-l 41 4* D. Q O
J5 -H -O4)a>EB<-(>-('J*JU B-^ - B 01 Ofl 0 • *-t BUOtS
U 04J-O-HB^fHh *4 ki0E3S XkiOO *O 4J O 00 41 O
B> VOWb4)*-4XB « B MOV Q. (3 -H Q C -H O U l-
•H4I 41 WOM-rt-H-HE^ -Q *O 0) B CO O0OB-------
AJ TJ
o e
B -q 8
q
a B w
Jto ft 00
ft q O
B Z>
c a o o.
O fl O
q 3«-
hi U *O
AJ • TJ 00 4t
CO r*. c TJ
fi f* q E fl
BO 0 >
•H tH O ft O
E fl AJ hi
u a
0) fi * AJ fl
JS ft q «
AJ AJ E r-
E 0 0 r*
01 q a u a\
u hi at ft
C DO B 01
ft 0 B A X-
* B, X W
ao at u
r*. n «-i hi O
O\ ft O ftt **
^5 »3 00
X 4) B
(JL, hi AJ ffl fl
o q ai TJ
iH IM AJ AJ E
ft n q 3
AJ 00 AJ U*
C e u tn
3 fl JS OJ
TJ AJ W O
a B at at
fH 3 B JS ft
tO O 3
o >H a
O. q 3 E AJ
hi O ft q
a. fi M S JS
AJ 01 V
fl TJ X"0 0
2 ^ 5 * W
AJ oi i-i q B
co AJ 3 o
ft CO CJ Ot U
E CU fi JS
•H 3 AJ — 1
E 0- u X-
3 £ S.1S
oo n
TJ e
3 AJ OJ
fH q tH
OD J3
—1 O
01 Q W
eo > o.
q O
u
U- CO fl
O 3 >*-t
25?
c a
3 to at
§0 .E
J2 AJ
CO Q.
00 TJ O
C C
en E
to AJ o
ai e
S S =
S S5
-81
at h> at
£ AJ hi
(w «
U-l 0 AJ
0 E
to q
CJ 1-4 ^H
o oi a.
AJ OJ AJ
q fH E
14 Ot
•H TJ e •
•H > q hi
AJ O 01 O
3 2 u u
ll«S
a oc ex
6 q' O
0 **"* * q
to E to a.
ft fl O.
O AJ fi 00
3 fl fi
to E CJ
41 3 (0
u
O •
V O
q >->
u
a
Si's
f?fj
tO IH
41 AJ
J3 E
AJ ft
01 =
3 0}
fl 01
S s
u §
§2
a> o
« j a
3 o s
o •*
•H a at
*M JS
h) ht AJ
at a>
g S3
ID
hi *J
« eg
CA AJ hi
CO -H
S TJ i
° C -H
to
TJ 41 AJ
.n "i
TJ E 3
5 oo-
E U
•§ £
U 3
hi at AJ
u n « o —
hi -H O
3 « § o S £ *"
S C T3 JS O* E
•H C A- 41 01
4) 00 ft *-
W i-l O 41 CO 01
oo aft hi AJ a hi
O AJ OO E CJ
hi Q.TJ AJ fl
> o a) * S "2 q
fl fl B u E co h<
o u o > q ca
at 3 ai E -
M *J E 0 fl *0 fl
U B CO q Ot TJ
o w -a «
00 u CO • AJ 01
CL V « 0 E *•- E
515 ''S °-2
01 3 E TJ *H AJ
> TJ O < 0> fl
at 01 ai ft > TJ
E * "S £ X ~"
f< CO S AJ O TJ
AV ffl D. 41 •
CO B Ot B O U CO
ID 41 JS 0 i* 3 E
00 > C TJ X M .fl
hi hi TJ q hi
D. O. TJ E TJ P*
E C q ot B
- fl q hi fi t-
x oo a oi
•H 41 - c C. AJ 3
AJ J3 ai E ffl 3 X
E u AJ re 41 TJ
•£
U
u
ft
01
X
q
01
E
•*
2
E
i
^
CU
1
"a
£ •
"* §
«2
E O.
C E
3 f
U4 C °
B B
E 1 0
ai oo O
"So w
J3 U
co a
Clu 2
h 5 E
01 O O.
.* • to
q oi TJ o
»J -H O JS
3 O O.
1-S5,
q js fi 41
CJ 0> fH
O Eft ^ 3
2 eS'S
q o js
AJ 01 U
C A-l JS »
0 e w «
at at E
j "° S £
O ft 3
0 AJ TJ U
AJ E
X ft O
CD fH AJ
00 01 O
fl fl hi CO
TJ f* « C
q AJ o
~* i ° cu
to at h)
h> h» q S
o « J fi
JS
a. AJ *w at
CO C O *t
00) *
a 41 to
E h> O JS
<: a
(0 01 *«
•25 x
o C *J ot
1*0 S
hi 0) 0)
4) cfl 01
j= e. AJ TJ
-4 ft q
c » cy
ej 41 f;
00
E CO
£ §
£0 fl 3
AJ 3 JS fl X
C h> u «M TJ
•H O « *M «
O JS 0) CO 01 01 •
fi. C. hi JS hi ht CO
i tn Q AJ o> at fi *j
C C AJ TJ 00 q E
o jz <** E f" q 41
EO.qoto3AJoo
h> S 01 O 1-
iMOO)fiai
O ft "H CJ AJ
41 » ft .* T> q >TJ
u E co q w a. n
C O « f- QflJSB
ffl fl O O U ft
W AJ 0. Ot 03 fl JS
hi U JS E U CO
O30IWOI3-H3
•H h. E S JS
ffl f ft co a
oi i- at hi • at tn
jsaiuaiaitoAJO
AJ js hi w ooco ca js
AJ 3 B <8 01 AJ a
<*- hi O 01 E fl to
fi ot q hi to o
E fi v* v o at
O »H q q TJ J< «
ft q fl ft q B
•H ft AJ AJ *E O« ft
B oo q E q w AJ
oOh>33fHOOqq
0 q TJ 0 E * £
01 f< q E fH U E
h< X q ft
fH TJ AJ VW * tH
00 E E C Ot O U
E O Q q AJ 0> W
ft u B AJ J= 41
3 ^1 -H Ol 01 AJ TJ
00 3 f* CTJ V Ut G
hi U 00 41 AJ O
JS JS E CO « • 41
AJ a. 3 at js cu hi
n e u * *J >
TJ O fH q fl TJ
q a o JS o a 3
CO it* IA* 01 AJ 41 JS
O to ftT 0) Q) E
ft tn 00 JS B ft O
zwTJDCoajaat
TJ 3 fl E £ " E
i) C 0 AJ AJ 0 0
h, Wf*i"i« «AJTJ
OI
hi
OI
a
0 TJ
01 J=
CO U
3 fj
AJ n *H
0) U °
> Oi C
o a o
a a AJ
E to
-H hi hi
01 4)
0 JS TJ
hi m
USE
TJ **H O
s • y
o at
•H O f-t
at a u
J3 I- E
« a"*
w a
flj 41 AJ
a ft at
AJ AJ g
hi CJ B
O ft U
U- TJ 4)
W ft) >
at u o
a oo
Si °
* "1
B 01 AJ
O TJ B
fi o a>
TJ O
E u- ;-
•-* 41 m
41
Jtf 41
q JS
to
at
AJ
CO
01
hi
1
B
•H
•s
CO
3
CO
AJ
B
4)
DO
hi
at
01
•o
B
0)
at
AJ
5
a.
1
0
E
£>
Ot
AJ
01
1-S
u en
q m
n
01
q W
OI >
hi ft
u
01 01 u-
JS M- O
01 0)
«H AJ 00
CO hi
ca o q
V U JS
ft O
f-i q TJ
•H
0 X 41
q AJ CJ
ft 3
fl ft O
ft ja to
to AJ
u q E
O 01 ft
iw *w 0
a
fl Ot
Sri 1
W
Q E C
• O O
ft ft ft
at q u
J= ^00 3
•w CO M
> h
AJ E 41
B fl JS
111
W S 00
AJ at B
q AJ ft
CO hi
f< CA 3
tw co at
01 .*
*J J O
(N
«c
a
3
hi
0
"a.
o
C-
CV]
S^
g
ts.
v)
•S
»•*
^*
^.
O> V JS » O B
oi hi • o ft o.
* , S 2 f± I "
01 at B 3 fl AJ
fi j: ft q oo B ^
q w fi 00 01
AJ O hi AJ AJ T3
SO ft O fH M fi
WO 3 3 q
U AJ TJ O
AJ AJ « 0 00 *
41 hi
3g,
1 S3
if1.
,38
i ja h
I AJ
i g:
ffl O
xoiu
*-t o O.
B
.
Ajajstflxcoax
-H 0) CA 4J*HUW
I Bj H .
i o e
i E o
O-H E X
AJOTjqU-HMfflO
O hi B fi. X f<
VM Q. CD OI BJ5AJTJ
01 O Ot hi -H «
5g-
ft hi
a o g js o
TJ U E AJ hi
hi O fi.
•m « q hi M u o
ai.ae.cc'o js tu i-*
^ o o » o) m a ^ 3 e
- AJ hi
q
SI _
41 P '
W*HCU 'S.JSJS ~CJ
C3 O « U —i -H >UAJ
> 4i c fl 1*4 e AJ e
U ft C. 41 fia-HB
9O TJ »M fl O tfl to
at * o 4
= M^1_
2°»53
01 O hi
91 B Si -n 3
|
• O
w w a
»j
°=-i
is •
ft S
.
fi O ft *O
q u a>
.0
oi AJ
a e
< -H
f I
E a; fi §
TJ -^ t*
4) -rt i-H U
« ai a o
3 AJ 0 00
o* ot
at fi ca ai
ai q
hi
41
U
X
AJ
4J
B
41
3
cr
hi
AJ
e
of
hi
00
<
at
P
v
w
o
ft
w
9
•H
o
Ck.
AJ
q
o
AJ
X
u
0)
•s
3
O
TJ
01
AJ
at
ft
u
at
J3
n
i
3
a
3
hi
I
a.
n
3
a.
E
v
AJ
01
1
1
01
u
I
f*
ft
hi
AJ
to
3 .H
1 2
fl AJ
1 1
q
0)
fl AJ
q 9
ft* a
1 s
B ft
u
00 S -H
00 B
b hi 3
&fi S
3 J=
hi ft
ss
E O
o a
01
« «
•H JS
a. AJ
AJ •
fi 01
at oo
U h
- g
a £
00
a «
«•-) U
S3
fi a
fi
•ai
0) q
hi
SI
u a
y fi
O 41
41 4)
|3
tO AJ
q o
ft U
at AJ
'»
41 AJ
X q
AJ
M a
3 AJ
"*£
"o1
hi
AJ
fl
q
AJ
£
at
01
a.
u
h>
M
U
>
1
O
AJ
a
01
u
E
00
q
q
g
1
(0
Ot
AJ
a
AJ
«
hi
01
2
1
fi
8
41
hi
3
O
"8
q
u
o
hi
«
o
AJ
o
e
o
q
AJ
fl
«
a.
u
E
3
B
hi
OI
0
B
•H
CO
CO
a*
I
a
TJ
C
q
to
i
M
00
2
a
i
s
1
a
!
AJ
3
fl
^-|
O
O.
*H
q
a.
u
"E
3
B
o
0)
4J
q
AJ
TJ
a
AJ
•H
.§
at
£
AJ
6
s
o
AJ
q
00
fl
J3
o
1
s
v«4
S
en tun
i
J3
q
hi
01
TJ
CD
E
O
U
TJ
at
ot
AJ
q
00
00
.5
1
3
AJ
hi
O
fi
a
-°
«>
«A4
0
tM
0
AJ
q
O
AJ
at
|
o
AJ
01
u
41
(X
01
01
hi
r-*
a\
o
«
B
a.
at
Q.M
a.
3 X
E
a
8
u
e
1
§
hi
j3
>M
O
AJ
99
O
CO
AJ
u
0)
1
ai
g£
ft at
U M
b
* 3
AJ U
•H
2 S
11
00 TJ
e at
fl TJ
TJ B
3 3
S«
f< — »
0) AJ
AJ O
SB
f)fH
O r-t
hi fl
Q. »
hi tO
at AJ
00 U
hi 01
CO 1-1
fl O
ai a.
AJ hi
41
hi iH
0 fl
*-i q
s
2-S8
CXft 0)
q
3
q
41
u
U
O
-------
O Ol
h 4J IM 01
W fl VM O .C
E ft O w
o o to
U E f> •W Ot O
iH O ft U
OJ ta ta w
y -a -w 0) ta fl
B (U E 00 (9 (9
tO CO O B CM ft
u co y to u
CO fl TJ 0) E
J3 O, 41 .CO)
3 TJ « *-• CO
w a -H fl 01
CO > X Ot
« » P TJ X _
w 3 co o y
•H E *•* E U
TJ CO
01 -H
, S-o
J C
3 O
a y
ca fl
fl W
. s
si
ta O
00 ta
B ft
5I
CO
01 W
(0 U
« «
TJ
•o o
4J fl
fi tJ
= fi
Ot ft
1 S-
= £5
TJ ta E
oi -H 2
Q.-D O
O ta •
ft TJ fl
0) C >
> fl C
.
C 4J
O •
y ff> js 3 e a)
O 3 OO-H -H
•D fl
m E ta c fl
0) O 01 -H 3
.* ta 3 cr
fl «-t O CO
•J fi.fl ta
00 01
551 3S
u co ot 3
O (0 U
O 0) O
) X IS
y -H
^ E AJ
01 03 E
3 rt a -
(M f-l 4J >«
i-l O i*
b 01 O. iJ
fl> > CO
0) P 0> 3
^1 3 J= T3
B 00 £
E u
fj iH f)
B 3 3
.
00 J-i 0)
B E B U
14 O l-i CO
E O W Ol
•H O —4
M U B
00
E CO
•H ft
O..C
O 4-1
O ta
5.2
"° X
B *•»
ft -H
ta
E O
o _:
5 i
E OJ
I*5
J!«
w a
3
.C
*J TJ
-H B
* ^j
00
5 0
ffl **
o.
•H e
U 0
*J TJ
(8 fl
at a
fO B
u w
Ot O
§0.
0»
ta ta
£ «
35
4J
01 fl
H ft
01
TJ
fl
4J
E
0)
U
^
0)
.G
"<
O
CO
CO
1
01
.c
0
4J
ot
s
01
ta
0)
ta
J
5
«
E
a
u
E
o
u
CO
3
b
O
£
ta
01
0)
06
CO
Ol
u
1-1
>
y
01
•s
J
B
O
o
o
01
H
1
2
ft
B
TJ
1
ai
-H
>
•H
4)
0)
"S
cfl
fl
U
UN
U
V
C.
CD
c
-H
to
**
U
1
E
3
O
O.
ta
OJ
N
£
Ol
1
Q)
(0
01
CO
ft
I
"E
*
n
TJ
•H
y
ft
*J
%
1
CO
urban
00
3
O
ft
O
kW
CO
u
E T*
TJ fl
to
TJ
B B
o a
ta
»4 TJ
B fl
0 0
w
51
•3 "
a»
* c
E ft
«H fl
U fi
CV
y B
* •.
00 B
E CO
W
X J*
co .a
V
ta ta
•H
B
O TJ
•H E
W (0
a
w ot
O-fl
n v
B ta
CO O
ta JZ
41 CO
Ol
n
0)
E
CO
E
00
o
fi.
fl
ft
•s
1
TJ
a
00
B
•H
01
CO
OJ
h
00
o
fi.
0)
£
ft
fl
CO
0
a.
CO
ot
CO
fl
3
3
01
Ol
£
B.
CO
,u
O)
1
00
eg
y
ffl
*M
fl
B
«
ta
ca
3
v4
ta
CO
0
2
ft
1*
CO
ffl
0)
ta
ffl
w
fl
a.
u
ft
n
CO
00
*l
10
Tt
fi
01
OJ
ta
B
1
B
to
O.
B
CO
ta
Jj
01
ta
U
.C
01
CO
01
ta
y
C
00
E
CO
CO
V
y
c
0)
**
•§
f
0)
>
Ol
01
ta
o
0)
ta
.C
I
00
E
jj
CO
a
0
a.
00 •
B ta
ft O)
3 ^
B fl
•* 3
E M -H
U'O'MS o1? «w3
1 2 ?5
3 o a o
i •« e
c ai
'3Jwusz3.Su ^
•Sou
IM S oo
ta (0 X fl 0
a J •*-» s .n co
01 O. fl -
ta JJ CO O fl
a fl a. co TJ
CO 0) ft «
fl 1- ft OJ 01 S
(D U — * £ > CO
-H CU *J 01 U
OJ J= * fi ^ C*
-J TJ « O J-i M
cj eg a to
O « ta 0) fi
CO 41 fl CQ 41
3 X^ C.CJ 3
O ta fl &
•o oi ^1 ot -o
ta J2 00 B B
fl ca ta ta -H fl
N ft O) Q ffl
a iw o.fi u ,e
J O. E W
01 5 ctf O fl
TJ u; y «
B u 01 Ot Ol
a ^ ta ft as •
•O -W 41 41 B
y s JT 01 TJ o
.0
01 E *J ^
j: y s n -3
*J £ 41 J QJ
T3 5 U 0
ta > ta 0> O
U O -H ta ta
W E > CJ 0"
S3 c
ta U 01 00
.c •**»
eg o S f oo
> *j C a
Q V B
.e ot -u -H fi
E
U O (0 u
a. o> ft -H o
•O B
ot a ffl ot
U B 00 >
fi ffl V ta ft
o y x» o —
y
M fl W 01
ce *H ca — i
5?g«
-------
SHIPPING ACTIVITIES
•8
5 a .SiS
B •* 0 £ 3
Sg 41 4) V B G A
•o i ~i .s • i-a «
D *»4 V W «fi W 0)
S S»5S -. 551 5.-a :.2.B-0S
Tl • O w • U U w J • 41 4J ** O B 3 "* w
M S 4> .D IB O •nBakiBM O.COO'Q^'H
SS -o .5 S 5 <« c S S a « « a • u j= e
M B • 01 • H *H K -H TJ 41 S W K H
a 4J O tg M « « « « *» ^ B •£ * G. CU O
0* IH C M *J O B a " .O « O -H 3 > S .CO.
•So! Co. -rt K «J 00. 4I04IUB.
3 H TJ « use • o w h B •o » n »i j: o
rt e a • « .e BMP uiu«ovfce> u & « u ai
UO MCw «H O* B B ••* fi « « • d 4 CD 41
C -H n a »> •• OMh-5f 0 D.W.M Ban
*] u o -< u 13 cavv cjva.cobfB'* *4 o « o a> u
• ••e 3 ,2 .e EoB»» B tc E • u
aJI-.0-0^ 88-4 8S«8o. o>, ^..Ji^SSg
lll^g* 1S1 IPaSl^s I5l5ss!
ji «-S -S "a ° "• ^ « • a»*iH*ea.aiS -a w S "M * >
73 BJ 41 « w « « t* * • i) « »-i S ^ . cD^o
93« -T3 • A* U Si«OJ*He.OW O4JOVQQX
s • -o • x « tt«bu I>H« « •« e i u i -H .a
5 c « S *3 a uEoS B 5 « B »*- • -i a«3u
S S 0 -H «3 5 Q.^, ShO-«0»« -H *> 0 d « B -0
d H bo h o. • a w w^ •Map-Hoiki ah « M «o«
S " ™ 5 0 • -3 0 H 0 W ^ B 4) 4J • 3 » -H -H 0 3 •* W
^ W « O *-4 ft) *B4t • 5 ^-t « *d J)l>U Q^-HU C^rt-t-^^MftlBS O O « ,O > O. O.
C IM 01 0 5 O J3 -H U tl O.^ P 2 « O 3 5 -H a
06 C Tl -O -rt 0 W rH U O 4J 5 fl • b U 3
B S fl ffl K g 4t«MMD.««-dO W CD 41 M -H 8)
W4M«Zo* ««709 T *M 00 I T3 ffl w &0«fl«*HB'O B U «
O. V iH U 4J hi > tr O. -W --^ tj S 1- O «H O « 3 « W -5 ^ -O
«ea.«os« o oa iuw*4«3hwh i oi -M fl c 01
JJ B, • *M 3 4J £ M ^ > OU3^H«W«0. • I U 4J « « -H
• o • 3 *** 6 » a. «» # «t «e G. * a -^ * S o ^ IM
fS3'«S5 *•?* •*-|l*OM'5 JOOMfll-H
^S*Hb«'Sfj * U4J«3(>M •HQ4Jbie.4)«
4J *Q *-4 ftl ^ O £ hi « d tw O ^ -H B • O i-t O f 3 -O
^ *t -O 4J J W «J«O BU^«»>^fc-* ^ M«M 0. 0 ^ -H
e^*ou -otS* o-Halx*-*^** aooo.u'w
aQ4)H»4)Bt VCO«« 1-
£ -o Z ^ u-e a -H « H (S9>ai4)a«'HB. ,B a •* o> *j - «
bfi9Q«B41 M>j:l} P «>*44»MO H ^H W -O — C 0*
« 4J fl hi 3 d & B W V ki»HH a 3 ^t O O -H
h. •! W O -H -rt B -H 41 T3 -0 W 0. 3 01 ^ > -H U
J hi a. o « J;««M *j 5 «r •> * -^ o 41 *^
h. 41 O H U hi 0~4V (B » q -C «*M V 41 £ O W. M fl 4)
0 hi •*- -3 • TI * 0- hi >3^HOt*'0 4J0.0.4SA
•o
01
1 J= U 01
C 03 E 00
01 *H 01 hi -U
§t-l B S to 41 4J
— t 0. -H 5 O ^ • U U
•O — t O • B - -w-HU^W E 01
c o, hi to o e co • o m c h. a *j • oito IM oo <-<
OOICOSUO)UOOAJ(0 ^JUflta-Ht-IS t) £ h. >M C 4J --t
*j j: I-IEUU-<-IE<-I c -^ 4-» -a -H uEuootoqatE*^ ^ n
*> - OBQ030IOI tOOttfi •H>.tQCQ u Ob O
CO M -O O CO 0) E CO CUO)OOJ3JLO1 ^ B -rt T3 Ot »M O. C. E
"OOOOIB UB-OOICO O E BCD hii-4<-tOI 01 X «-• -rt Q. O
C0i-t3 B^O>iHO> MWU_4t4>(aE -H J 01 C 010) ffl »M
3uQJ->Q3.a4)hi « a» <»-* 01 41
o 3 hi c -H to co a co '-i ,OOJBC01^-v4JO 4101
>,iu i-ioiuoi*aco o o) ^ooi-Hoi^y-flj-" 30}
•aav4)*j B u M u o w o> stoot '^oiu E
OJ 01 13 US O *H M 03 hi -O 4J 01 > (0 U » O fc. U « JS ^4 3 C
-H*4U *J c..-t a. 3 u co -H -c 01 -H B o> ^ « flj rt QI oo 001
"O W B Ol E E4tr»«— t 3 »M O 3 89 ^ ^ CO £4) UOO
S'^'H.CJ-BJs-S'Oh* W <8 B -i-t W CT U 3 U C JJ W ki
> N W O 3 P WO O U -rt -H C «-• Ol O £ COO - 0>
uw^*a -3 > *j o T3 «-* 01 M c -H e 3 c « 01 u o -- mo
•O«l«En)*wa-a OS 3 fl S O cn^oo OBUco^-t Q. -H
B hi 0) N (N U -^ 1-i O O 3 E {a*H4JCOt3EU*HCAEu -Q
OJOOOCBhiar^Ol^flJ O. -^ 41 O • M 3 Ol O 05 S O OJ 4)
•v^ -HO 1-40} d hi « Eb o co C •*-* Dt 01 4-1 E w^
en a j: aj h. u cy **- d a. •QQOIOICO a u * -^ »-( o u
•D.OO Q. O> C W O 4-* •OluE>(Q x^t wj M ^H MCOU B
» -H 3 f-4 j- ^4 0) 13W*J EOIj:rFtOOOtS«O3a.E -H4J
£O««-4*J * i-t COI(0>»h.3 -^ MC-H ^( ^H
oiahicaio-uuooo cauoif-ioio x-^ aid-HRihiuhi m ^
£ ^ O C B-HhiC tQMB>K^tMOOO)hiCOOIOO^* CQ-H
hioaoh, * wwAJC-un^e-^^-H^-^M-Htac ox-
(fl — -H E JJ IM OOC "O 4> 3 •Qo'u— BE^BJaitngO 01 4J
EMU Cooihi-Hca a>>er~HQ Qwura-«q ^ u u u^jf
0)OOI>>rHiMCOlr-ioi *•> u H
w TJ IM « u 3 « on oi^y&oc>M3ft*o)hicot«a*j*J 3 n eo <
MB 1 hi^B OtnOfOI 00 4J U Ol b 01 ^ i-H 4J BBC C&
OOa]iHOOtMB4IO)*-lO iQ.i-lMHOIOIhitfl *j tj c B> s -a < ^: 01 cu B -H a s -H 0003 P
OOOiaiEi-iEOQ OMO)>,iMCeu«^U B-HU-iOX 4)4) 3
uah>«J(OV)-HUB UO>*-J30 — W«C.Uq-HBJOUOi hi> Ch
: C *J O
•-4 a * ^ ai 41
O. M f 0! i
PCJOIEJCJE *J
•H£j:oi^ hio-H
As remedial programs are being
"repair past damage" to the lakes,
focussed on measures to prevent furt
population growth, resource developn
implications these factors hold for
for planning future use of the Great
has been accepted by the eleven gov<
policy Initiatives have been taken t
the many problems affecting the qual
S ^
n
ff«
-------
j
O
CO
p*
M
i
5
O
N
CJ^3
S*SP^
•^R^"TB1
.J=
^1 fH
1 1 "
l.-g
44 «4
44 B 44
SV -H
u a
b* Q
•* *4 a
a w -H 44
o-o a
ta u x
a o 44
0 h
.* 44 Id «
« B « J=
J 01 TJ 44
" § S,3
« 0 S
kl U -Q
0 « B
rlsdlctlons In the
in on the phosphoru
inla and Wisconsin,
is In detergents, a
"HI
4t 4J 0 C.
lill
•
— ^— —
.
•
i
l
1
1
01
•9 B
C 3
«
<8 O
B 0
B *J
U B
0)
X H
0) 0)
S -U
i-s
.-§
C h
JS
H
3
OB .
•H >-
£
iH J
CO 4
O.
•rt
U "
B *
i«
« J
JS i
u C
V i
fl T
»ectlve st
? r-1 A»Ai Bn
s <
h i
ii
X C
J3 a
*
B •"
O -
ss
Si
is
pending e
•
H
z
£
s
s
OS
H
U
H
(A
<
2
U
t B
S 0
£ I
4 0
X
5 S"
O
•4 O.
3
t S
1 M
; g
'= .
9 44 a
Lderatlon
rladlctlon
) • 9
. §**
: °z
• 2J
344
i"SS
1.
5 •
!•• 3
•*8
00 *H
C 0
Erie Baal
detergent
u
y
fl
a.
3
•H
M
0
41
(Q
CU
hi
V
JS
JS
s
s
u
c
4)
U
C
o
*H
fl
i.
O
*
0
c
<•>
3
O
0)
4J
fl
fl
CO
aj
1
O
4) 0
51
- §
0 &
« u
1 g
3 J3
b a.
44 O
4 0.
W HI
.e -o
** -2
kl U
1 8
a o
rnments meet to con
Lon of detergents t
the Covet
formulate
•
o> n
a o
0) 0)
Q. U
o
a
1 I «
iH 0 0
tj P. O
2j=a
W ** 0
1 * =
U 0 O
41 O
at -H 0
a -rt 0
B.-H
§o *
fl 0
c- > >
cu
14 CU «-»
3 0- w
B -0 0
O fl *•<
iUBSTANCES
WJ
i
M
CO
u
f*>
o
4J
•o
.-»
a*
(0
•a
3
O
u -
O
U-( .
>,
C
o
kd
cu
UJ
CU
fl
b
1
*§ -0 ii B
« a — * -a co o
B co
B 0 B B H B W
ai -H o « id a a
13 fl W 1 J3
•p* U fl 3 * «i4j 01 a.
o. h •a IH a v
"5*2 j: ^ ^ W"B
•H • O U 1*4 X O
JS g-^^^J O<-t£
oca* * tr-2 t^ u
UO>M'Xctt4JB0
0> M h B -3 -H
44 • 10
U O U *J 0) • 3
U O O C t« 55 I"
30 JS 0 0
CU H 41 * JS
in o H 5 ^ 0
« . J= - .. -± S
^ Oi E *•* O J3
SB a to u. a.
> fi *J
d O -H -H E B 01 •
gootH o i- i- -o
41 O -H B 41 CU
> u jaa.'tJQOjs^
u o ra fl 3 c
-l CO O 1- ^ •* U
J 3 4JW«Z0g
U 41 fi. U §
W O •UZOW4IO
[Q JS 0) fl *J U
O. -H X CU B 4)
DO -s k* 3 e u
H JZ 0) « CO <0 O
ui a, j ^ en ui P co
-t 0 3 « 00 0 -H
HO) 0 U O -^i fl
ufl tn jj .— i &. E to
rf o" TH ca c 41 w
M -e -H en w js a
j > i S; £ ^ ^
iy -^ -j J5 c t s-
ai 1-1301-3'
500 t-icsacouu
3 *J fl CD ^H T O
a w -j tj cu i- B
01-3 B E U X
to e oxflutn0
fl • J3 < Ti
V 41 4) E "
UO-H Ji^o O«-t
WOOJi tBfl4-> • .H «
HCTi-H J>—t^HB>
T n u E s > w e
I
B «
HI
** s
0
O 01
•u u
B
•a a
•j 0
0 J5
4t 0
Q| U
U M
« 0
4J
at
§J5
u
a o
?"§
h a
a.
^ x
3 3
i
&..
s.° .
•8 IS
:i»
u u o
B B 4J
*J
« _o -5 ^
01 IM 4J
E <8 w "H
n c cu co
£ 5 •&
U -M U
*w CO O E
O (O 3
B U fl
O V i-t
515"
l^C °
O ^ 41 -B
u a -a oi
fl E T3
X 41 C
« 0 O X •
41 W U CJ E
CU V Q
n c ja »
ra 3
~ » u U CO
*J tj ~ J£
C 3 - C. S
issJJ.
u a. co
U 4J kri U
60 O.
:c -H t- s a
•H 3 i-t
u t, cr a
i
x at
J3 JS B
CU h E 0
tJ 0) O 0»
£•§^2
B 3 « -H
§ h >
o -o « •*
u QJ CL w
CU JS O U
h * O *
« i-t X
m .D 01 AJ
CB V
-------
SI
o o -o
01 r-l O
£°l
X tO bl
41 CU
s §1
§,«
u o u
" B S
25 g.
«S5
3:39
CO O cr
u -a OJ
B •Q B bi
Oi OJ (0
§03 X
a B oo
fl A (0 bl
a .a 41
E 4) bi B
•5 fl 3 OJ
co a)
je
3£
B
st
bl -H
0) 3
£ £
4) a.
s •
bi 60
Q. 3
?s
£ §
a o u
e »< u
u *J a
U U 3
> o» -o
o V4 e
M u -.
c S
01
22
.* §
•8 ?
1 S5
CO £
I
0) bi ^*
A O CJ
4J O. f<
a. e
•41 *O 3
CO B fl
U « tu
i-^
O bi B
w Q a
S55
IP -
I O X
S " *
• T*
a b b
, -o 01
0 U U
u c C
S 3g'
S15
01 -O O JZ
3 01 U U
B U 01
•O bi
E 3
•° S:
^!3
3 O b>
I 4J >W
E 01
« CO
O OJ -O 44
t OJ -O
o
•o
B
3
01
i
B
O
CJ
0
•o
0)
to
OJ
3
cr
OJ
bt
z
OJ
1
B
0)
BO
4>t
V)
•o
0)
4J
E
J!
41
O
in
i
B.
bi
0)
S
3
CO
B
«
bi
00
i
u
bi
u
O
U
4>
B
«
ft
O.
4-1
a
CO
4)
bi
41
0)
CO
s
iH
CO
Q.
U
E
3
E
0>
,E
1
a
e
•H
CQ
to
01
bl
£
a
•o
3
B
4J
e
OJ
bl
g
B
OJ
4J
S
•H
U
VM
3
CO
fl
OJ
>
01
41
CO
ca
OJ
4J
i-t
fi
a]
*M
01
OJ
01
£
rovislon of
a.
01
41
o
B
01
01
>
o
00
CB
X
•°
B
OJ
00
OJ
.0
1
e
a
1
01
E
01
bi
the Identlf:
0 .
00
B
•H
J*
CO
47
s
01
(0
01
bl
1
0) t
•H T
J
* !
^ i
b. e
OJ
*j
00 i
•H U.
I.
01 4
(0 1
3 C.
u-
^1
0} 0
•e
E
CO
» 5
i U
B
3
144
O
00
B
bi
O
•H
3
i bt
! O
i
I "8
' 3
3 >
1 O
D *-
! r
> XI
J
0 60
B
* 3
4
i 4>
: 41
CO
3
ST
} 01
•o
a
by federal ,
X
41
^
>
•i-i
bi
a
01
4J
S
01
§
a
bi
60
O
bt
a.
o
B
0
u
144
O
lie Internatlc
ort and Its
4V O,
01
bi 06
Q
U- tO
OCX
B 41
i-5
3
01
OJ J3
CD bi
3 U
cr co
01 41
13 -O
0
t) bl
•H 00
§0
bl
bi Cu
a
OJ
t) U
e B
CQ fl]
*J fl
O. >
a. bi
3 3
<0 M
0) (0
SJS
0) «
bl 41
41 4
> 0)
O bi
oou
adequate
de.
B -H
03 CO
a to
O OJ
41 R}
0) W
O 01
44 41
•H
•a B
01 3
bi
iH 0)
3 £
tr 41
0)
bi e
t- B
a a
bi
to oo
u 0
o a
iw 41
• g
^H «
a fi
•H r-4
U ^1
o. >
CA U
3
• CO
to
01
X bt
i!
41 bi
a. n
a. at
< c
8
II
i JB n
i *J C
u O
i « O
1 41
S.
-H a > e
O. £
O O —i
i
5> 4J
oi oi w
4J B -H 00
3 1
I
u • to
•«U5
I Q) 41 -H
» -H a 41
i js 3 o
U 41 0)
I bi —i
: c oo ja
4J JD
J3
60 bl
to the development of "lake effect
for eutrophicatlon and other pollution
01
a o
0> E
> -3
i* -o
60 -M
3
01 M
41 "O
bi fl
O >
o. o
0, bi
3 O.
(0
0
•S"
3 =
E CO
•H ft
4> OJ
B 13
O O
u e
it is recommended that Increased efforts
bi
Q
bi
CO
bl
60
O
bl
O
o
u
ates of phosphorus loadings from the
e, and determine the fraction available
e QO
4J C
U Q
u
0) -O
o!
s -3
0) B
bl OJ
O OJ
11
41 J=
•o a.
(D CO
41 44
.a a
ALITY
onoraic, social and physical development
feet the water quality of the lakes, the
3
o
bl
00
fi
(Ct
u
60
O
JO
bi
o
o
o
M
H
U
bu
i
i
5
fl
4)
j=
4J
bl
O
U-l
OS
u
-H
i-l
O
o.
o
01
3
CD 3 fl
a C-.C
S ^
QJ b.
X 41 4)
W-i (0 WZ
U bl
OJ CO 3
a- <4-t
10 41
e ts
CO 4) C
4> B CD
B 4>
V V 09
B M 41
3 00-1
bJ < U
01 -H
> 4) fl
O -C O
00 *J O.
3
F-t
O
a.
§
01
e
o
bl
a.
a
•H
•O
01
I
41
bl
O
1
03
X
0)
JJ
u
ca
CO
E
rnme
01
o
00
B
01
1
0)
0)
*4J
that
r quality objectives of the Agreement as
by embodying the objectives In relevant
Ion, control programs and by-laws.
bi
3)
bi
3
(4-1
1
OJ
CO
3
1
B
0
bi
*w
0)
a
41
4J
s-
u
CO
ernmen
g
00
00 4-1
c «
-H fl
E OJ
C -H
rg CO
~4 01
C -
i-t CD
OJ
0} -H
•D fl
3 O
00 Q.
4/ 00
M e
u fi
fl C
fl C
O. 09
M >~t
01 O.
-------
DRAFT POSITION PAPERS
SUB-GROUPS B, C AND D
A TTACS/M*?*/ T
-------
./N. '
/**
Great Lakes Water "Quality Agreement
Five Year Review
' 7
Report of the Work Group B on Annex 3
1. Vessel Design, Construction and Operation (reference Annex 3)
Title of annex should be changed to"""0il and Hazardous
Polluting Substances from Vessels" to bring it in line with other
annexes .
(A) Definitions (ref . annex 3 par. 1 & 2)
Definition of tanker changed to mean a vessel designed for the
carriage of liquid cargo in bulk.
Even with the change, the definitions as used in the laws and
regulations of both Parties are fully compatible with definitions in
the reference paragraphs.
Minor differences between the definition used by the two Parties
do existj for example, the term "tank vessel" is used in U.S.A. regula-
»
tions to designate both bulk oil and bulk chemical carriers, whereas
in Canadian regulations the differentiation is made. The expression
"harmful quantity of oil" is not employed in either the Canada Shipping
Act or Regulations. As the discharge of oil or oily mixtures from
ships is prohibited, the need to use this expression does not arise.
U. S.. A. regulations use the same definition for "harmful quantity of
oil" as the Agreement.
Depending on outcome of EPA/USCG disc Lons, discharge from
approved oil process equipment of 15 ppm o LI or less will not be
considered a harmful quantity even if a she^rt is present. If so,
there U.S. regulation wording will be changed which will, put it in
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
.**•"
'..i
GLWOA
conflict with the Agreement definition. Changing the Agreement _;.
definition will not be incompatible with the Canadian Shipping Act
or Regulations as they prohibit the discharge of oil. There may be
incompatibility with Canada's intentions^, however.
(B) General Principles (Annex 3 para. 3)
Editorial change in paragraph 3b to add "of the vessel" after ' ' '
"person in charge".
Both Parties have addressed themselves to the principles con-
tained in the reference paragraph. Both Parties have regulations
prohibiting the.discharge of oil, oily mixtures and hazardous
polluting substances from ships. . In accordance with the Canada
Shipping Act, the term pollutant is used in place of hazardous
polluting substances. , Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
the term hazardous substance is employed.
At such time as the Annex required by Article V, l(i) of the
Agreement is complete and a list of hazardous polluting substances
identified, both Parties will take the appropriate action to apply
the principles of this paragraph of the Agreement to the substances
so listed.
With regard to the reporting of discharges to designated officials
as reference in sufaparagraph 3(b) of Annex 3 both Parties have fully
implemented this provision through legisls -n and regulations.
(C) Programs (ref. annex 3 para. 4)
Paragraph 4 has been rewritten to take _nto account substantive
changes proposed by the working group which was worked into the
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
GLWQA ,
basic format of the agreement. It is as follows:
4. Programs.
(a) The^programs and measures to be adopted for the prevention
\
of discharges of harmful quantities of oil~shall include the following:
(i) Compatible regulations for design and construction
of vessels based on the following principles:
(1) each tanker shall have a suitable means
of containing on board cargo oil spills
caused by loading or transfer operations;
(2) each vessel shall have a suitable means of
containing on board fuel oil spills caused
by loading or transfer operations, including
those from tank vents and overflow pipes;
(3) each vessel shall have a capability of
retaining on board oily wastes accumulated
during vessel operation;
(4) each vessel shall be capable of off-loading
contained oily wastes to a shore facility.
(ii) 'Compatible regulations for vessel operating procedures
based on the following principles:
(1) tankers shall be provided with a means for
rapidly and safely stooping the flow of cargo
oil during transfer operations in the event of
an emergency;
(2) suitable deck lighting shall be provided to
illuminate all cargo and fuel handling areas
if the transfer occurs at night;
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3.. •
-------
GLWOA
^*
(3). hose assemblies used aboard vessels for oil
transfer shall be suitably designed, marked
and inspected to minimize the possibility of
failure.
(A) oil transfer, loading and off-loading systems
shall be designed to minimize the possibility
of failure.
(iii) Programs to train merchant vessel personnel in all
functions involved in the use, handling and stowage
'**
of oil and in procedures for abatement of oil
pollution.
(b) The programs and measures to ^^. adopted for the prevention of
discharges of hazardous polluting substances shall include the
following:
(i) Compatible regulations for design and construction of
of vessels based on the following principles:
(1) each tanker shall have a suitable means of
containing on board cargo hazardous polluting
substances spills caused by loading or transfer
operations; __ ^
(2) each vessel shall have a capability of retaining
on board hazardous polluting substances wastes
accumulated during vessel operation;
(3) each vessel shall be capable .of off-loading con-
tained hazardous polluting substances wastes to
a shore facility.
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
GLWQA
(ii) Compatible regulations for vessel operating
procedures based on the following principles:
(1) tankers shall be provided with a means of
rapidly and safely stopping the flow of
cargo hazardous polluting substances during
transfer operations in the event of an
emergency;
(2) suitable deck lighting-shall be provided to
Illuminate all cargo and hazardous polluting
••>.
substances handling areas if the transfer
occurs at night;
(3) hose assemblies used aboard vessels for
hazardous polluting substances transfer
shall be suitably designed, marked and
inspected to minimize the possibility of
failure;
(4) hazardous polluting substances transfer,
loading and off-loading systems shall be
designed to minimize the possibility of
failure.
(ill) Programs to train merchant vessel personnel in all
functions involved in the use, handling and stowage
of hazardous polluting substances and in procedures
for abatement of hazardous polluting substances
pollution.
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
GLWOA
(iv) The programs and measures to be adopted for the
prevention of discharges of hazardous polluting
substances shall use as a guide the Code for the
Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying
Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk of the Inter-
governmental Maritime Consultative Organization
(IMCO). Such programs and measures shall in-
clude design and construction features,
operating procedures, and merchant vessel
personnel qualification standards with respect
to handling hazardous polluting substances and"
pollution abatement. In addition, the programs
shall establish compatible regulations for:
(1) Identification and placarding of vessels
carrying hazardous polluting substances as
well as containers and packages containing
hazardous polluting substances when carried
by vessels; .
(2) Identification in vessel manifests of all
hazardous polluting substances carried;
(3) Procedures for notification to responsible
authorities of all hazardous polluting
substances carried.
The United States Pollution Prevention Vessel and Oil Transfer
Facilities regulations are fully compatible with the programs and
measures under the reference paragraph.
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
GLWQA
The Canadian Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations are presently
compatible with the programs and measures regarding oil transfer,
loading and off-loading systems, hose assemblies and the means for
rapidly and safely stopping the flow of oil during transfer operations.
Regarding the provisions of subparagraph 4(c) dealing with the
training of merchant vessel personnel, pollution prevention procedures
and regulations are now being incorporated into the syllabuses for
certificates of comoetency as master and mate. A knowledge of the
handling procedures for oil cargoes has been included in these
syllabuses for many years. A proposed amendment to the Canadian Oil
Pollution Prevention Regulations has been drafted in order to cover
the items contained in clauses 4(a)(i) to (iv) and clauses 4(b)(1) to
(iv) of Annex 3.
A further amendment to these Regulations is now being prepared
in order to require that a licensed operator be in attendance on
unmanned oil barges when oil transfer operations are in progress.
Although knowledge of cargo Handling procedures has been a part of
U. S. Merchant Officer License requirements for years, the Coast Guard
is currently drafting new standards for the qualifications of Tankerman.
These new Tankerman regulations will require specific qualifications
(including Firefighting training) and examinations for all persons who
serve as the person in charge of a transfer or tank cleaning, including
those licensed officers who are now consic ->.d qualified on the basis
of holding a license. Additionally, they .1 provide for
recertification at 5 year intervals. The ndards are expected to
be published as a proposed rule in 1 April 'ill.
SUB-GROUP B
' ATTACHMENT 3
-------
GLWQA
Since July 1973 all applicants for U. S. Merchant Marine License
and certificates have been required to demonstrate their knowledge
of pollution laws and regulations, procedures for discharge contain-
ment and cleanup and methods for disposal of sludge and waste material
from cargo and fueling operations.
Additionally, a manual for Safe Handling of inflammable and
combustible liquids and other Hazardous Products has recently been
revised for use as a guide for those persons involved in the transport
or transfer of these products.
At such time as the Annex required by Article V, l(i) of the
Agreement is complete and a list of hazardous polluting substances is
identified, both Parties will take appropriate action to apply the
programs listed in paragraph 4b.
(reference Annex 3, paragraph 5)
Title 46, United States Code of Federal Regulations, applies
requirements which, with the exception of the provisions contained
in svibparagraph 5(a) of Annex 3, are fully compatible with the
reference paragraph.
In Canada, the proposed Chemical Carrier (Steamship) Regulations
were drafted and circulated to the industry and other interested_
agencies for comment. A second draft of the proposed Regulations has
now been drafted and is now being examined for legal form and
draughtmanship. This second draft will eventually be circulated for
further comment. In addition to the provisions of the IMCO Code for
the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals
in Bulk, the proposed Regulations would also specify the procedures to
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
GLWQA
be followed when dangerous chemical cargoes are being loaded and &:
unloaded. All dangerous chemical cargoes carried would have to
be identified on the ship's manifest and information on the nature
of the cargo would also have to be carried on board.
All ships passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway are now
required to notify the Seaway Authority in order to identify cargoes
>
carried, however no provision has been made with respect to the
placarding provisions in subparagraph 5(a) of Annex 3.
Definite pros and cons exist regarding the placarding of vessels
and both Parties feel that this subject warrants continuing study.
(D) Additional Measures (ref. annex 3 para.5)
Amended to read:
Additional Measures shall be taken as necessary by both Parties
to insure the provision of adequate shore facilities for the
reception and treatment of oil and hazardous polluting substances
waste from vessels.
(E) Article 5e (iv) should be amended to reference annex 3 and 4
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
PRELIMINARY REPORT OF SUBGROUPS B ON REVIEW OF
ANNEX- 4, G-LWQA
1. Definitions - It is recommended the definition of-"garbage" be
reviewed and that consideration be given to replacing it with the defi-
f
nition in Annex V of the 1973 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (i.e., "garbage" means all kinds of victual, domestic, and
"~~' ' ''
operational waste, excluding fresh fish and ports thereof, generated
L.'\
during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of
continuously or periodically, except those substances that are defined
or listed elsewhere in the Agreement). This meaning encompasses the in-
tent of the present one in the Agreement without becoming at all
restrictive. It would, appropriately, also bring the Agreement more
into concert with another international accord.
2. It is recommended that the phrase "within one year from the entry
into force of the Agreement" be deleted, as' it is no longer applicable.
(
0-' (b) This will also remedy the problem that regulations for waste
water do not exist on either side (vaste water has been and continue to
be a low priority item - not considered to be a pollution problem at
this time).
2_ (c) Question as to what constitutes an adequate degree of treatment
still exists. t States prefer no-discharge, and apparently would accept
C.f/£C.u^C "trt a ?"'£.•" 1" S~f '«-«cT -for- f~ ir/M'£. il V C1- j "> f
that they don't feel 150 tag/liter of suspended solids is adequate.
3. It was reaffirmed that critical use area designations may be made
involving only localized unilateral determination::.
4. No comments.
..SUB-GROUP B-
"- ""ATTACHMENT 3"
-------
5. It is recommended that a-new paragraph 5 be added:
The Parties shall take action as necessary to ensure
the provision of adequate shore facilities for the
reception and treatment of garbage, waste water, and
sewage from vessels.
SUB-GROUP B.
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
Report of Working Group 3 JL^U'^^"'** " 22 March 1977
Studies of Pollution from Shipping S&£yices
(reference Article V l(e) (ill) and Annex 5)
1. Navigational Equipment (Annex 5, paragraphs 1 (a))
Periodic comparisons have been made of the requirements of the several
Administrations respecting navigational equipment. It has been established
that while variations in specialized equipment fittings are unavoidable,
'the general equipment requirements are common with the regulations of the
U.S.C.G., C.C.G. and S.L.S.A./S.L.S.D.C.
The S.L.S.A./S.L.S.D.C. regulations are the result of a joint agree-
ment between the Administrations of the U.S.A. and Canada, and they reflect
compatibility with the intent of the Great- Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1972.
The following list of navigational equipment summarizes the actions
taken be each Administration in establishing minimum safe standards.
U.S.C.G.
S.L.S.A./S.L.S.D.C,
C.C.G.
Magnetic Compass
Gyro Compass
Sounding Equip-
ment
Radar
'Internal Com-
munications
VHF Radio
Radio Direction
Finder
Charts
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Not Mandatory
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
.*
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
• Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
SUB-GROUP B
'' A'TTACpENT'3'1
-------
.f
List of navigational equipment (CONTINUED)
U.S.C.G. S.L.S.A./S.L.S.D.C. C.C.G.
\
Course Recorder Not required Not Required Required
.*
Maneuvering System Required Required * Required
Indicators and
Appliances
This equipment must be maintained in operating condition and
periodically tested.
All mariners are required by the ordinary practice of seamen to make
proper use of all navigational equipment. Failure to do so may result in
proceedings directed toward revocation or suspension of the mariner's
license or certificate.
Consideration is being given to and a NPRM has been published reflecting
the possible requirement for all vessels of 1600 GT or more to be fitted with
LORAN C recieving equipment. This equipment will facilitate vessel navigatior
during both normal and ice operations.
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3.
-------
2. Manning of Vessels
(reference Annex 5, subparagraph, 1
A review of the United States Coast Guard Rules and Regulations for
the licensing and certificating of Merchant Marine personnel and the Canadian
Coast Guard standards under the Canada Shipping Act, including the Ship's
Deck Watch Regulations, shows a. similarity of snip-organization for larger
. •
vessels trading in Great Lakes waters. In U. S. and" Canadian vessels, all
officers in charge of a watch, must possess a certificate of competency. It
is also considered that the existing manning requirements provide an
acceptable minimum standard with regard to towing vessels and to all other
vessels navigating in high traffic density and in ice or in any adverse
-weather condition.
The training and examination systems administered in the U.S.A. and
in Canada reflect the intent of the agreement and both exceed acceptable cini-
mum standards. Both countries are revising their examinations from the
f» — --w
subjective type to the objective or multiple-choice answer form which will
•
serve to modernize the licensing programs. The standardization of the
licensing exam is considered to be a great step forward. Throughout the U. S.
*
every applicant for the same grade of Great Lakes engineer's license receives
«
the same examination which is administered crfi the same* days at a predesignated
schedule. The examinations are then graded at a "central control area. Al-
•
though the Great Lakes Masters and Pilots objective type examination has not
been fully developed, as yet, an effort is currently underway addressing this
area. Questions on tankship safety, pollution control, and engineering safety
are provided for in the new examinations and the sysyera permits continual
updating as new-areas of concern or^unsafe conditions are identified through
studies or casualty evaluations.
1
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3 - --
-------
*** ?**•, rv r31 TV
Although the written examination is a necessary tool for determining
basic skill qualification, greater emphasis is being placed on the methods
of training and retraining for shipboard personnel, particularly in the
critical skill areas such as the knowledge and comprehension to load and
* .»
. v
discharge oil tankers, liquefied gas carriers and hazardous chemical
carriers, radar piloting, ship maneuvering and firefighting. Simulator
type proficiency Testing and training facilities for radar observer, sponsored
t
by both government and private interests are presently available on all four
coasts of the U. S. for use in testing all applicants for original and
renewals of der.k officer licenr.es. .
Although not specifically required by regulation encouragement has
been given and labor/management sponsored facilities providing automated
engine room console simulator training and automated cargo control simulator
training have been established. In addition, government and private
sponsored firefighting schools have been established. -In this area the
Maritime Administration with the cooperation of the Coast Guard is developing
a firefight hand book and standard classroom curriculum. The government
sponsored firefighting field exercise tr?ining facilities will be expanded
f
in FY 78 with new facilities-being constructed one each in the Gulf of
*
Mexico and Great Lakes areas.
A study of casualties involving towing vessels led to the enactment
of the Uninspected Towing Vessel Licensing Act in 1972. This act and sub-
^
sequent regulations have established a minimum requirement for licensed
operators on all towing vessels of 26 feet or more in length engaged in
the service of towing.
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
In regard to foreign vessel competency standards, the Coast Guard
is active internationally, participating on the IMCO Sub-conraittee on
Standards of Tranining and Watchkeeping in an effort to establish the
highest international standard of qualifications and training for all
T
maritime personnel. A conference to consider the subcommittees draft
convention and recommendations is scheduled for the autumn of 1978. These
«
efforts.will be reflected in regulatory action which will impact on the
>
crews of foreign vessels navigating the Great Lakes and will meet the
objectives of this agreement.
The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 and implementing
regulations have provided the Coast Guard .additional authority to control
vessels in U. S. waters which includes control of vessels that do not meet
the minimum standards considered necessary for the existing circumstances.
Under this authority, Navigation Safety Regulations (33 CFR 164) have been
promulgated which vill becom^effective 1 June 1977. These regulations
impose standards of Performance _for the Navigation Watch and require
•
specific navigational equipment to be in operating condition, tested and
aboard all vessels entering U. S. navigable waters. The required navigational
f
procedures cover vessel operations underway general, in confined or congested
*
waters and at anchor and are considered substantially compatible with the
Canadian Coast Guard Code of Navigating.Practices, and Procedures (1972 edition)
The vessels-na-ttigating the Great Lakes are subject to compulsory
pilotage regulations administered under the terms of a separate joint agree-
ment. These regulations are the subject of continuing review to ensure,
among other things, their compatability with the objectives of the Water
Quality Agreement. The issuance of "Navigation Certificates C"B" Certificates)
by the Canadian Coast Guard has generated concern with respect to whether
3
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT -3
-------
or not this practice meets the objective of this agreement. Basically
certificate^ provides or permits Master of Foreign flag vessels to be
their own pilot while transiting the Great Lakes. The issuance of such
certificates should be reviewed.
In-a continuing effort to keep abreasterapid changes in technology,
numerous studies have been initiated that address the man/machine interface
and standards of Qualifications of Personnel responsible for the security
•
and transfer of LNG and Hazardous and Noxious cargoes. Undoubtedly as raore.
knowledge is acquired in the human factors area, additional regulatory
efforts to improve safety aboard vessels will be initiated.
SUB-GROUP B
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
3
- Great Lakes Water-Quality Agreement
Report of Sub_ Grpup_C_ "
Article V 1. (e) (v)/ *
r w j^
tVjWork S
Surveillance and EnforcementVjWork Shop)
And
Annex 8
Joint Contingency Plan (Work Group 6)
1. Sub Group C met, wfth not all members present, on 3 and k March 1977
to:
a. Review the terms of reference for completeness.
b. Review program activity and measures for the abatement and
control of pollution form shipping sources including the review of
the several joint stocktaking meetings, the Joint Report of Febru-
ary 1976, and the Annual Reports of both the International Joint Com-
mission and the V/ater Quality Board.
c. Analyze the specific language of the Agreement and measure ef- •
fectiveness towards achieving the objectives of the Agreement.
d. Make appropriate recommendations on language changes in the
Agreement.
e. Make appropriate recommendations on program, if necessary.
Surveillance and Enforcement
Discussion; Sub Group C endorses the Joint Progress Report of February
1976, pages 28 and 29, copies attached herewith as enclosure (1). However,
the formal surveillance mechanism does not extend to surface as well as
aerial surveillance. In making their recommendation, the Sub Group recog-
mized. and desired to emphasize, that the intent of Article V l.(e)(v) is to
provide for visual observation and prosecution of violators of both countries'
water quality statutes and not to provide for actual water quality monitoring
as a function of determining the quality of the water.
SUB-GROUP C
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
Recommsndat ion: That Article V 1.(e)(v) of the Agreement be revised as
follows:
(v) establishment of a coordinated system of aerial and surface
surveillance, including enforcement of regulations dealing
with the abatement and control of pollution from shippina
T "ft *
activities. - '*%?
Joint Contingency Plan
Discussion: Sub Group C endorses the Joint Progress Report of February
1976, page 30; attached herewith as enclosure (2). However, Annex 8 of
the Agreement does require revision to provide for:
a. reflecting the current title of the Joint Plan and custodians
of the Plan.
b. identification of and increased planning for high risk areas
and areas of particular concern;
c. elimination of a misleading term in paragraph 3.(a), i.e.: "or
any other substance"'as used within the text of this paragraph
is inclusive and when referring to paragraph k, the inference
can be drawn that a Party would bear the cost of operation, no
matter what the pollutant. If the term were changed to "or any
hazardous polluting substance" 'it would more clearly conform
.with the remainder of the Agreement and U. S. Lav;,'i.e. the Na-
tional Revolving Fund may pay for operations related to hazar-
dous (Polluting) Substance spills at such time as the substances
are designated.
ilimination of additional misleading terms in paragraph 3(b)(iii).
An objective of the Plan is not "to provide adequate equipment to
respond to pollution incidents" but to "provide adequate cleanup
response" including of course, adequate equipment.
Recommendation: That Annex 8 of the Agreement be revised as reflected in
enclosure (3)•
The Sub Group also recommends that the Custodians of the Plan submit a joint
semi-annual report to the IJC on Contingency Planning Acti"ities in addition
to the current practice of reporting on major pollution incidents. The Sub
Group agreed however, that such reports need not be directed by Annex 8.
SUB-GROUP C
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
! Report of Vork Group 5
Coordinated Systnn for Surveillance and Enforcement
(reference Article V l(e) (vj)
* _ In. July 1975» representatives of the Canadian Coast Guard and United
1 States Coast Guard signed a Memorandum of Understanding'Concerning Aerial
Surveillance Pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. This
Memorandum of Understanding established s. coordinated-Canadian/U.S. system
1 . for the aerial surveillance of Great Lakes Waters the purpose of vhich is
to abate and control pollution from shipping activities. Pollution noted
•i •
• ' from other sources is not, of coarse, exempt from the Agreement.
. Under this programme of aerial surveillance the waters of *i_1 five
Great Lakes- and their connecting waterways are patrolled, on a regular
'. "basis throughout the shipping season, by aircraft of the Canadian or United
* . •
States Coast Guard vhich are manned by persons experienced in the identifica-
/• tion of pollution from shipping activities..
•:j • Included in the Agreement is-a mechanics, for the expedient notification
1 : ' •
i • of cognizant enforcement officials, whether Canadian or U.S., vhich is
;. cosipatable with the rapid alerting'system established in the Joint Canada/U.S
j Marine Pollution Contingency Plan. • ' • '
*
j . Both the Canadian and U.S. Coast Guard have pr-e-designated specific
•!- officials, called Pollution Prevention-Of fie era and Captains of the Ports
•' l '
j - respectively, who are strategically located-throughout the Great Lakes. •
...
; • These officials are charged with, enforcement of pollution prevention regula-
tions, investigation of and renovsJ. action on R-i-t pollution incidents
reported frca any source and the initiation of .legal action for contro-.
ventioa of pertinent legislation or regulations. A close liaison and
- .28
' SUB-GROUP C
ATTACHMENT'S
-------
exchange of infcrnatioa is maintained betveen the Canadian and Unitd^ J
.States Coast Guard toward effective investigative and -en
activities.
The Agreement has "been formally presented to tha International Joint
T
Ccczaission. Copies of applicable legislation and regulations have also
been-deposited vith the Commission.
Ehile not included in the formal Agreement, incidents of pollution
- observed by Canadian and U.S. Coast Guard surface vessels are also reported
in consonance vith the Agreement. . • " . '
"SUB-GROUP C
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
Report of Vorl: Group 6
Contingency Plan
(reference Article V l(h) and Annex 8)
The Joint Canada - United States Marine Pollution Contingency Plan,
signed 20 June, 197^, provides for coordinated and integrated response to
pollution incidents by federal, state, provincial and regional contingents
of both Parties. The Plan provides for pre-designated Cn-Scene-Con^zanders
and Deputy On-Scene-Ccnnanders. who coordinate the response activities to •
spills and for a Joint Response Team to provide advice and assistance to
the On-Scene-Corsaanders. It establishes, alerting and notification prccc-
dures, -cozaand structure, post clean-up requirenents and arrangements for
assuming the responsibility for the cost of operations. The Plan replaced
the 1971 Joint U.S./Canadian Oil and Hazardous' Materials Pollution Contingency
Plan for the_Great Lakes Region. ' .'..''.
It is the riev of both the Canadian and U.S. Coast-Guard that emergencies
in recent years, for vhich provisions of the Plan vere invoked and the Joint
Resource Teaa activated, resulted" in prospt, direct and decisive action by
all concerned. The Canadian Coast Guard Emergency Office in the Central
Region and the Marine Environmental Protection Branch in the. office of
Coinaander, Hinth U.S. Coast Guard District -enjoy a close and hamonious
relationship vhich has resulted, not only in prompt invocation of -the Plan
Trect frequent revievs and recommendations for change, cocmunication exercises
and a frequently updated directory of cognisant personnel.
A copy of the Plan has -been deposited vita the International Joint
Comnicsion. ' •'..,.. . ••.-.'..'.•••..
SUBGROUP'C '••••-.
ATTACHMENT"-3 •
: '30
Ww
-------
<>
f'
SPECIMEN
ANNEX 8 . ' V
— : •¥
JOINT CONTINGENCY PLAN
A
^- The Plan. The Parties agree that the "Joint Canada - Jnited States
Marine Pollution Contingency Plan for the Great Lakes (CAMUSLAK)", adopted
on 20 June \31k, shall be maintained in force, as amended from time to time.
The Parties further agree that areas of high risk and of particular concern
shall be identified and provided with detai led' contingency plans which will
augment the'CA?4USLAK, It shall be the responsibility of the United States
Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard to coordinate and to maintain the
plan, as so amended, in written form. .
2.- Purpose. The purpose of the Plan is to provide for coordinated and
integrated response to pollution incidents in the Great Lakes System by re-
sponsible federal, state, provincial and local agencies. The Man supple-
ments the national, provincial and regional plans of the Parties.
3. Pollution Incidents.
(a) A pollution incident is a discharge, or an imminent threat of a
discharge, of oil or any hazardous polluting substance, of such
magnitude or significance as to require immediate response to
contain, clean up or dispose of the material.
(b) The objectives of the plan in pollution incidents are:
(i) to develop appropriate preparedness measures and effective -
systems for discovery and reporting the existence of a pol-
lution incident within the area covered by the plan;
(ii) to institute prompt measures to restrict the further spread
of the pollutant;
(iii) to provide adequate cleanup respon'se to" pollution incidents.
**• Fundi ng. Unless otherwise agreed, the costs of operations of both
Parties under the Plan shall be borne by the Party in whose waters the
pollution incident occurred.
5. Amendment. The United States Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard
are empowered to amend the Plan subject to the requirement that such amend-
ments shall be consistent with the purpose and objectives of this Annex.
SUB-GROUP C
ATTACHMENT 3
SPECIMEN
-------
DRAFT ' 15 March 1977
POSITION PAPER
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
SUBGROUP D, DREDGING SPOILS
BACKGROUND;
As a result of the concerns expressed in Article V, Section (f) of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a joint Canadian-United States Working
Group was formed on 15 November 1972. The Working Group was to look into
the environnental impacts of dredging activities on. the Great Lakes and
make recommendations for the compatible control of dredging so as to
protect environmental quality of the Lakes. In May 1975, the Working
Group completed its report to the Secretaries of State for the United
States and for Canada.
REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS:
The Working Group's Report provides the basis for developing a position to
be used by the Department of State in the upcoming review of the Agreement.
First, it was apparent from a review of dredging performed prior to the
1970 Ts that the choice of disposal method, usually open water, did not
impose rigorous requirements for precise definition, of the sediment character-
istics. Therefore, past experience provides a very limited basis for
evaluation of environmental factors involved in' dredging activities .
Second, the potential pollution hazards due to dredging are related to the
physical characteristics of the sediment as well as its biological and
chemical properties. Third, a number of the chemical analyses that are
SUB-GROUP D
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
used to assess the presence in sediments of heavy metals and organic
materials, provide a measure of total concentrations but "yields little
direct evidence of their availability for biochemical activity. Fourth, -
many locations have natural background levels higher than the criteria
concentrations that have been used in the past to classify dredged sediments
as polluted. Fifth, environmental protections will best be served by
site-specific evalutation. Sixth, the effective formulation and
evaluation of projects will require continuing coordination- of experience
and the application of sound judgment to achieve a consistent and
compatible approach. Seventh, the approach to evaluation of dredging
projects from an environmental standpoint must, of -necessity, proceed
with two fundamental objectives in view; the preservation of designated
water uses, including viable aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and the
optimization of net socio-economic benefits to society. 'Eighth,- to
accomplish dredging activates in an environmentally acceptable and
socially optimum manner will require evaluation of all practical alternatives
Nineth, confined terrestrial sites should make the best use of available
materials and engineering knowledge to achieve a facility which can be
of some future use to the community. Tenth, maintenance dredging projects
are more likely to give rise to adverse and intense short-term pollutional
effects than would be expected from new or capital works projects.
Eleventh, the choice'of dredging plant, generally, has little influence
upon long-term effects. However, plant and operating procedures should
be considered with respect to various short-term aspects of environmental
concern. Twelfth, the consideration of project alternatives, of the
beneficial utilization of dredged material and of permanent works to
reduce or eliminate maintenance dredging require more lead time than has
been provided. Working from a. five-year program forecasts, a reasonably
'-*
?
• • • • ~ ~- -SUB-GROUP"b '^~~r~~r- •"""*—'7~ p*~~r** .-*
-------
firm indication of programs should be established at lease two years
before execution which allow for detailed project formulation taking
fully into account considerations of environmental concerns. Thirteenth,
there appears to be no lack of legislation as nay be required to implement
the procedures in the report for programming, assessment, and control of
dredging activities. However, there may be a need to modify regulation
and improve administration procedures to implement the intent. Lastly,
the question of financing, and of continuing responsibility for disposal
facilities requires further consideration by the different jurisdications.
*
It will be essential to determine the basis for cost allocation between
purposes and to develop a workable basis for financing of multi-purpose
projects developed to meet environmental constraints. The complete text
of the conclusions can be found on pages 139-143 of the Report.
REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS:. • ' '
• •
With respect to recommendations the Working Group was directed to conduct
its studies and formulate its recommendations on the basis of the following
principles:
a. Dredging activities should be conducted in a manner that will
minimize harmful environmental effects.
b. All reasonable and -practicable measures shall be taken to
ensure that dredging activities do not cause a degradation of water
quality and bottom sediments. '.
c. As soon as practicable, the disposal of polluted dredged s^oir
in open water should be carried out in a manner consistent with the
achievement of the water quality objective, and should be phased out.
SUB-GROUP D
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
" With these principles in nHnd the Working Group recommended that the
basic criteria for all dredging activities should be the preservation of •
designated water uses, including viable aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
and the optimization of the net socio-economic benefits to society.
Accordingly, all future evaluations of dredging projects will be site-
specific in accordance with the guidelines developed to protect the
water quality objectives established in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement as well as any more strigent objectives imposed by other
authorities which are over-riding. Further, that the characteristics of
bottom sediments at proposed open water disposal sites, be determined so
as to provide indications of chemical and other constituents in terms of
their availability to the ecosystem. To accomplish the foregoing, the
Working Group recommended that:
a. Adoption of the recommended guidelines and criteria for the
evaluation of environmental and socio-economic considerations relating
to all dredging projects be accomplished by administrative action, and
that their application be evaluated in practice before any substantial
revision in legislation is contemplated.
b. Research be encouraged to investigate advances in dredging
technology and the availability of materials such a^nutrients and potentially
toxic substances as related to dredging procedures and to define specifically
the nature of such impacts.
c. Project proponents retain appropriate technical competence to
ensure the recognition of all potential environmental impacts and the
adjustment of proposals as well as to facilitate their audit by the
appropriate regulatory agencies.
d. Administrative procedures be adapted to provide a. forward
indication of dredging requirements on a running • five-year basis and a
par
-------
minimum of two years between commencing detailed project formulation and
actual execution.
e. Project financing policy for multipurpose dredging projects be
addressed by the relevant authorities. Finally, it is recommended,
that:
A standing committee be established:
To ensure the compatible implementation of the guidelines for
environmental assessment as presented herein,
To review the effectiveness of the guidelines in maintaining
water quality as a result of dredging operations,
To encourage the exchange of information from both experience and
research, and
To recommend, from time to time, changes in criteria and guidelines
in the light of advances in knowledge and the accumulation of reliable
•experience records. The complete text of the recommendations can be
found on pages 144-145 of the Report.
•
•
U.S. PERFORMANCE;
Section 123 of PL 91-611 authorizes the construction, operation, and
maintenance of contained disposal facilities of sufficient capacity for
a period not to exceed ten years for the containment of polluted materials
from dredging operations in the Great Lakes and connecting channels.
Construction of diked disposal facilities have been completed to date at
eight locations, namely: Milwaukee, Manitowoc and Kenosha, Wisconsin.;
Grand Haven and Lake St. Clair, Dickenson Island, Michigan; and Cleveland,
Huron and Toledo, Ohio. The facility at Buffalo, New York, is practically
completed and will be operational by summer.
5
._ r-r, ^ —....-..nCUD-SKGUm D < •.--..- .•- —rrr^-" • •. • • '—-••.
-------
Construction contracts are underway for five more diked disposal facilities,
namely: Saginaw River, Pointe Mouillee.or Detroit-Rouge-River site, and
Holland, Michigan; Lorain and a second site at Cleveland, Ohio. A
contract for Holies Harbor, Michigan, is being advertised for bidders ' •
now.
The $33,310,000 recommended in the FY 78 budget for the diked disposal
program will provide for the completion of-all of the above projects
with the exception of the facilities at Cleveland, Ohio, which will
continue in FT 79. It also provides for two new starts, Green Bay,
Wisconsin and Erie, Pennsylvania. Design will continue for the balance
of the projects for which diked disposal facilities are required.
We have monies to start the disposal^site at Duluth/Superior. This -
harbor, which has undergone major port expansion, must be provided a -
site this coming year. The lake levels of Lake Superior are in fact
declining and our ability to dredge this vital harbor must not be impaired.
In summary, we will provide 41 sites to accommodate 58 projects, which
have polluted materials to be dredged. The current estimated cost for
construction, is $265 Million; funding for this program prior to FY 77 .
was $102.3 Million; .'FY 77 funding is $36.7 Million; for a total.to date ..
of $34.0 Million.
The same River and Harbor Act of 1970 that authorized the Confined Disposal
Area Program, under Section 123 (i), authorized the Dredged Material Research
Program. This $30 Million, 5-year study, has been under the management
supervision of the U. S. Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
^ f 6
'SUB-Gpr>UP D * ; T"7""'"'
-------
The study is cd provide-through research-definitive information on the
environmental impact of dredging and dredged material disposal operations
and to develop technically satisfactory, environmentally compatible, and
economically feasibly dredging and disposal alternatives, including
condiseration's of dredged material as a manageable resource. This
program- is scheduled for completion in March 1978. The research output
should be useful in assessing the .environmental impacts of dredging and
dredge material ,dis_posal.
The U. S. has issued interim final guidelines persuant to Section 404
(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, PL 92-500.
These guidelines are to be applied in evaluating proposed discharge of
dredged or fill material in navigable waters. The pertient part of
these guidelines.deals with the tests to be used to evaluate the effects
of proposed discharges of dredged or fill material. To date, certain
physical and chemical biological effects have been identified and test
procedures established to assess the impact of discharges of dredged or
fill material. The development of additional tests is on going and it
is the intent of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U. S.
Army, Corps of Engineers, to issue final testing procedures in the very
near future.
RECOMMENDED U. S. POSITION;
The Subgroup conducted a public seminar on 11 March 1977 at Chicago,
Illinois, to assesss the progress made to date by the United States with
respect to the Agreement, in particular Article V, Section (f). The
concensus of those attending the Seminar was that the Working Group
7
__ ,—, . - .jOUD-6RQUr B = ' >•••"• • «——
-------
Report, while it represented a good background document on dredging
activity on the Great Lakes, it had not recommended "neasures for the
f
abatement and control of pollution froa dredging activities, including the
development of Criteria (emphasis added) for the identification of polluted
dredged, spoil and compatible Programs for disposal of polluted dredged spoil."
It was the feeling of the Seminar that the site-specific approach recommended
in the Working Group Report was valid, provided one did not have to
start from "ground zero" each tine in evaluating a project. The concensus
«
' of the Seminar that the United States position should be to press for
implementation of guidelines and criteria currently being formulated by
the U.S. EPA-COE Technical Comittee for Regulatory Criteria for Dredge
and Fill Activities. Another view of the attendees at the Seminar was
that additional effort, is needed to reduce sediment loading to our
waterways and thus reduce the need for. dredging in thes.e saaa waterways.
. Comments were made along the lines that guidelines and criteria similar
to that contained in the final Ocean Dumping regulations (Federal Register
11 January 1977) should be developed for inland waters, including the
Great. Lakes. The Subgroup accordingly, suggests .that the IT. S. position
be that guidelines and criteria be compatible with that being developed
for inland waters. Further, it is suggested that the Working Group's
recommendation that a Standing Corsaittee be established to provide a forun
for continual updating of guidelines and criteria be adopted.
SUB-GROUP D
ATTACHMENT^
-------
SUB-GROUP A
FUNCTIONAL CHART
AND
MEMBERSHIP
-------
MEMBERSHIP
SUB-GROUP A
George R. Alexander, Jr. (CHAIRMAN)
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region V
Gerald M. Hansler
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region II
Dr. Eugene Aubert
Director, GLERL, NOAA
Department of Commerce
Marvin Rubin
Office of the Secretary
Department of Commerce
Robert J. Schneider (SECRETARY)
Great Lakes Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region V
Gerald Welsh
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Nelson A. Thomas, Chief
Large Lakes Research Program
U.S. EPA, ORSD
Ms.. Janis Rasgus
North Central Div.
Corps of Engineers
Ralph Christensen
108a Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region V
Dale S. Bryson
Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA Region V
Dr. Albert Sherk
Fish & Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
Dr. William A. Mills
Radiation Criteria £ Stds.
U.S. EPA, Hdqtrs.
Dr. Donald I. Mount
Director, Duluth ERL
U.S. EPA, OR£D
Jack Hemphill
Regional Director
Fish £ Wildlife Service
Dept. of the Interior
Karl Bremer
ASHM Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
Div.
ATTACHMENT
-------
STATE ADVISORY GROUP
Eugene F. Seebald, Director
Division of Pure Waters
New York State DEC
Walter A. Lyon, Director
Bureau of Water Quality Management
Pennsylvania DER
Ms. Sandra Gardebring
Executive Director
Minnesota PCA
William G. Turney, Chief
Bureau of Water Management
Michigan DNR
Ned E. Williams, Director
Ohio EPA
Anthony S,
Wisconsin
Earl
DNR
Secretary
Leo M. Eisel, Director
Illionis EPA
Oral H. Hert, Tech. Sec.
Stream Pollution Control" Bd.
State of Indiana
FEDERAL ADVISORY GROUP
Dr. Eugene Aubert
Director, GLERL, NOAA
Department of Commerce
James S. Gracey, RADM
9th Coast Guard District
Department of Transportation
Walter G. Belter
Analysis £ Assessment Programs
Biomedical and Environ. Research
ERDA, Washington, D.C.
Gerald Welsh
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Dr. Morris Tepper
Office of Applications
NASA, Washington, D.C.
George Marienthal
Deputy Asst. SECDEF
DOD, Washington, D.C.
Ed Geismar
River Basins Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region III
ATTACHMENT 4
-------
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND SURVEILLANCE WORK GROUP
Water Quality
Surveillance
Lovell E. Richie, Jr. (LEADER)
Minnesota PCA
Gerald R. Lowry
Environmental Services Div.
Soil Conservation Service
Dept. of Agriculture
Dr. Andrew Robertson
GLERL, NOAA
Dept. of Commerce
Charles Walker
Fish £ Wildlife Service
Dept. of the Interior
(Alternate-Larry Sisk)
William Fox
Water Planning & Stds.
U.S. EPA, Hdqtrs.
Chris Potos
U.S. EPA, Region V
Tim Saylor
Erie Co. Health Dept.
Erie, PA
Christopher M. Timm (LEADER)
Director, SSA Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
Robert Crim
Monitoring Branch
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
William McCracken
Michigan DNR
Wayne A. Willford
U.S. Fish 6 Wildlife Service
Great Lakes Fishery Lab.
PHOSPHORUS WORK GROUP
Nelson A. Thomas (LEADER)
Large Lakes Research Program
U.S. EPA, OR£D
Dr. Andrew Robertson
GLERL, NOAA
Dept. of Commerce
Kenneth Mackenthun
Criteria £ Stds. Div.
U.S. EPA, Hdqtrs.
David Rockwell
SSA Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
Michael Stickler
Michigan DNR
Dr. Albert Sherk
Fish £ Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
Ray Hasse
Regional Office, BWQM
Dept. of the Interior
ATTACHMENT 4
-------
POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES WORK GROUP
Dale S. Bryson (LEADER)
Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA Region V
Charles E. Fogg
Soil Conservation Service
Dept. of Agriculture
Edwin C. Horn, Jr.
U.S. EPA, Region V
Mr. Barry S. Shanoff
Office of Enforcement
U.S. EPA, Hdqtrs.
Paul N. Guthrie
Wisconsin DNR
Wane A. Willford
U.S. Fish £ Wildlife Service
Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory
Joseph R. Tynsky
U.S. EPA, Region V
Tim Saylor
Erie Co. Health Dept.
Erie, PA
NON-POINT SOURCES WORK GROUP
Ralph Christensen (LEADER)
108a Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region V
Gerald Welsh
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Robert E. Thomson
Water Planning Div.
U.S. EPA, Hdqtrs.
Dr. Stephen Yaksich
Buffalo District
Corps of Engineers
Carl D. Wilson
Water Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
Merle Tellekson
S£A Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
Kenneth Schoener
Div. of Water Quality
Pennsylvania BMQM
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES WORK GROUP
Karl Bremer (LEADER)
A£HM Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
Dr. Jesse Lunin
National Program Staff
Dept. of Agriculture
(Alternate-Dr. Robert Holt)
Charles Walker
Fish £ Wildlife Service
Dept. of the Interior
Albert Bromberg
Div. of Pure Waters
New York DEC
Dr. Andrew Robertson
GLERL, NOAA.
Dept. of Commerce
ATTACHMENT 4
-------
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES WORK GROUP cent.
David C. Rockwell
SSA Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
Thomas Kopp
Office of Toxic Substance
U.S. EPA, Hdqtrs.
William Libri^zi
Director, SSA Division
U.S. EPA, Region II
Dr. Hugh Thompson
Materials Transport Bureau
Dept. of Transportation
Washington, D.C.
NUCLEAR WASTES (RADIOATIVITY) WORK GROUP
Dr. William A. Mills (LEADER)
Radiation Criterial S Stds. Div.
U.S. EPA, Hdqtrs.
Peter Tedeschi
ASHM Div.
U.S. EPA, Region V
Enrico Conti
Office of Stds. Development
NRC, Washington, D.C.
Paul Giardina
Radiation Rep.
U.S. EPA, Region II
Dr. Roger J. Mattson
Office of Stds. Development
NRC, Washington
Ms. Sandra Gardebring
Executive Director
Minnesota PCA
Margaret Reilly
Bureau of Rad. Health
PA Health Dept.
RESEARCH WORK GROUP
Dr. Donald I, Mount (LEADER)
Director, Duluth ERL
U.S. EPA, ORSD
Dr. Jesse Lunin
National Program Staff
Dept. of Agriculture
(Alternate-Dr. Robert Holt)
Robert Bowden
G.L. Surveillance Branch
U.S. EPA, Region V
Dr. Herman Mark
Lewis Research Center
NASA, Cleveland,.Ohio
Dr. Eugene Aubert
Director, GLERL, NOAA
Department o-f Commerce
John Carr
Great Lakes ERL, NOAA
Dept. of Commerce
Dr. J. Kutkuhn, Director
Great Lakes Fishery Lab.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Archie McDonnell
Land and Water Research
Penn State University
ATTACHMENT 4
-------
Comments from Public Interest Groups and Others
The attached memorandum requesting comments from selected public
interest groups is self-explanatory and contains a list of the
groups to whom copies of the draft material was sent. No comments
of substance were received form the public interest group because
of the short time frame in which comments were requested.
Also attached is a letter from one of the public interest groups,
Great Lakes Tomorrow, requesting copies of the original review
material. A copy of the complete report of Sub-Group A will be
provided as indicated in the attached reply.
Other pertinent written commentary is also included in this
attachment.
Attachment 5
-------
MAILGRAM SERVICE C
MIDOLETOWN, VA. 22645
western union
2-031163E103 04/13/77 ICS IPMHTZZ CSP CGAB
7177879639 M6M TOMT HARRIS8URG PA 272 04-13 12U6P EST
GEORGE H ALEXANDER JR
US £PA REGION 5
230 "SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO IL 60604
RECEIVED
APR 1 A 1977
EPA REGION 5
OFFICE OF REGIONAL
DEAR GEORGE,
WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE POSITION SUGGESTED IN DRAFT STATEMENT OF
SUB-GROUP A WORKING ON THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT REVIEW,
WE UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE POSITION TO BE THAT CANADA SHOULD
ADOPT A PROGRAM SIMJLIAR TO P.L. 92-500 AND THAT UNLESS THIS HAPPENS
THE GREAT LAKES POLLUTION PROBLEMS WILL NOT BE SOLVED. THE STATEMENT AS
DRAFTED EXPRESSES CONCERN ABOUT PROGRAM ELEMENTS AND NOT RESULTS
THF. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT IS TO PROTECT THE GREAT LAKES FROM
POLLUTION AND TO REMOVE THE CURRENT SOURCES OF POLLUTION, THE PROPOSED
POSITION STATEMENT THAT WAS SENT FOR COMMENT INDICATES THAT CANADA DOES
NOT HAVE AFFLUENT LIMITS SIMILIAR TO THOSE REQUIRED UNDER P.L. 92-500
AND THEREFORE, THEY HAVE AN INFERIOR PROGRAM, YET, THE ONE AFFLUENT
LIMIT THAT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE AGREEMENT* THAT IS THE PHOSPOROUS
LIMIT, HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN CANADA AND HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFULLY
IMPLEMENTED IN THE UNITED STATES EVtN WITH P,L. 92-500
WHILE WE DO NOT DISAGREE THAT THE PARTIES MIGHT CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT
ON APPROPRIATE MINIMUM AFFLUENT LIMITS, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE
RECOMMENDED POSITION WILL ENHANCE THE CLEAN-UP AND PROTECTION OF
QUALITY OF THE LAKES. OUR POSITION SHOULD EMPHASIZE RESULTS, RATHER
THAN FORMS
THE SPECIFIC CHANGES TO MAKE THE AMMENDED AGREEMENTS MATCH P.L. 92-500
WILL PROBABLY DO VERY LITTLE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE GREAT LAKES,
FORCING CANADA TO ADOPT THE CONCEPT OF P.L. 92-500 WILL BE
COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH RENEGOTIATION OF PROVISIONS
THAT ARE NEEDED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN
RECOGNIZED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, SINCERELY YOURS
WALTER A LYON, DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DEPT OP ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
12*46 EST
MGMCOMP MQM
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
POST OFFICE BOX 2O63
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
April 26, 1977
Mr. George R. Alexander, Jr.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear George:
I would like to reemphasize the point that was made in my April 13,
1977 mailgram to you concerning the United States position on the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement review.
The draft report of Subgroup A (with an April 29 date) would appear
to us to serve as an excellent stimulus for Canada to withdraw from a
Great Lakes agreement.
The assumption that P.L. 92-500 is the only sound basis for a water
pollution control program is not a valid position to take, especially in
international negotiations.
We have no objection to having the agreement consider all the
waters of the boundary waters system rather than just the boundary
waters themselves. We have no disagreement with the concept of system-
wide planning criteria for the entire Great Lakes system.
A rather significant recommendation, for which the need is not
documented in the report, is the recommendation to abolish the IJC Great
Lakes regional office. Although we have had some disagreements in the
past over the staffing and organization of the regional office, it seems
to serve as a good resource for negotiations and doing work that the
agencies might have a difficult time doing otherwise. As a matter of
fact, this is why the office was created. To abolish it now would be a
serious error. The discussion in the report provides no basis for this
decision.
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
-2-
We urge that the "adopt P.L. 92-500 or else" policy be dropped in
favor of a much harder look at the goals, objectives and standards that
are needed to protect the Great Lakes system.
Our quick review does not disclose any proposal to strengthen the
program planning and evaluation aspects of the agreement. No effort to
evaluate fiscal, legal and manpower resources and gaps on a year-to-year
basis appears to be proposed.
Sinoerely yours,
Walter A. Lyon, Director
Bureau of Water Quality Management
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
U,&
OF
Gre#t l«fc**
2!KX> \te#bt
Ana Arbor,
48104
•'.. 1977
R.
» Jr.
r. fcw-ger/e- J «
^^
\\\ 'vO\l"° ^J-
\ Z.M !> , * '-^ ~.
\ .\\ : ' --'' . r^~
\-\ • --'\\\V>!
A
Cofes?P»tu oa April 20, 197V ^
l»r»ft" of Sub-Group A
three c^8HKtot» v&ich I would l,tk* to «6S&e» co»»iBte»t *ith
I h*4 on the phone today with &ob Scbx»fri<5er» on ti>e
1* _LIC yiiribtoir Office. I sat i» f«v*r of retaittitsg the UC
Office, i believe it serves a useful function e# » tieutrdl Itti^
on cmiftifto gxoorjd fo?'U,&. *i»i«s* of
that there *T« dftficSeaties i» tbe presently
OJflce, both with respect to itg reepo%»ivim«^$ enrf staff c^ftbility. X
that the tJC {?1»49OT" Office b* iaprovefJ-^-that it b* T»a«J the Beferenee Cro»|s-s. The fcojtrd of
Directors chosld have reBpoasibility for spproval of persofiocl actiofts (hiring,
firtog, prossotiou^ «»«($») t«4 the piogrs* pl^ss.
I agree vith Don Kouat
to control poilotlo0
Thft water
HQ0S/S8UQC
of v«ter ^wility objectives i& not th*
Great Lakes • Oi«e B««d* to control pollutloa lo&dft»
cs, however » darveXoped ot>er th* li»t
Approved by the Hater Qu&lity Board apply to tbe b«mitary waterg of
the Cr<&t L$k&s, cot to the water* of the Greet Lake? system or to
Specifically, o* p«g« 6 of the tntrod\?etory r^sark* w« the report, the
point i» msd« th*£ it fly*tea~vide spprosd> tei*t be aside to water pollution
eoatroi «ad the distinction betwcea bovmdary waters an4 tributary waters
swst be ea4edr Tbi* fe Rot true with reftpect to the water quality
c-bjftctlv«MS which bsve b*w agreed to by the Water Quality &o*rd ftlthougb
it is true with respect to ttlttljttua creatcent r«QwlreK£-nt», M revised,
the Agreejae&t DW specifier th*t the specific water quality objectives apply
&}
ATTACHMENT 5
> .'-
! '"
f_ .
|i-;|i
-------
-2*
to all tb* waters of the Greet l^keo e^&terai I fe«l tV>ls i* oa*d«e be-
cause the objective*,- were devt-Toy^d epecifically for the vgtfer* of the
Lefees sod ere »ot applicable to ittlsrjii voters, fuxthet , the pol-
»fcer»»#U<*&al problem u»til the pollutants
the Gr&at Lsk^s sstS here the vr.iter quality objectives vilJ be
if they &?& tat. This teco/t u r*ded cbattgi' i» ef>j>e#j»t requires
parts of ttie Hffr»*l dssftn!
( B ) /- 1 f i r •» P 7J J - 1, I'si _c 5 1J,- ? J
r t
v be- ) v it
K-
objectives f&r the
3*
the
Articlfe X-2c)
I to re«ly good job uaadcr the eircwsstancee
in developing * gurveilloore progr«»r I belies*, bov^wr, tb*t thia study should
t»ot be jwreued by cossaittee bwt ehould be undertaken by * cotttt*etor i» Bfl*e
t depth (a cost «pprox;tasting $300 1 000, for o»e year)* Tne develop-
of «ueh * l*rge fturvfiillaAc« progr*a of « contin»ows rwitur* should h»v* em
y*t*m$ cngifier/sritig sfialysia coupled vith limnologioal arid ob*erva-
data sequi«itic»» systems k»ov-bov*
""*>
In liea of the text contained in Article X, gfriticm 2(c) > I recossearf that such
a study be
ATTACHMENT 5
vs£r^#
^'^jui'' '•• ".••-•1-
"
-------
RECORD OF
COMMUNICATION
TO:
Mr. Schneider
J^PHONECALL QDISCUSSION Q FIELD TRIP
Q OTHER (SPECIFY)
[^CONFERENCE
(Record of item checked above)
FROM: DATE
April 26, 1977
Oral Hert, Indiana Stream T1ME
Pollution Cont. Bd.
1
SUBJECT
Comments on Final Draft of Sub-Group A Report on Review of G.L.W.Q.A.
. ^u.HN,\ ' .' OF COMMUNICATION
Mr. Hert had the following comments:
Article II (b) - Disagrees with the prohibition of discharges of toxic
pollutants. Believe that objective is impractical and that paragraph
should be changed to conform with similar paragraph of PL-92-500.
Article II (c) - Questions whether the Agreement can tie the States
and local governments into an overall assistance program.
Article V 1 (j) - Questions how a Water Quality Board can get 5nvolved
with air pollution problems?
Article V 2 (a) CO - Questions appropriateness of "detection of vio-
lations of Water Quality objectives." Suggest that the word "Violation"
be changed to "Excursions" (deviations).
Article VII - Objects to abolishing Region Office. Believes that the
Regional Office provides the focal point for bi-lateral cooperative
efforts and that government agencies could not provide this focus.
Suggests that the functions' and direction of the Regional Office may
need to be changed and that the Boards need to exercise better control
of Regional Office.
CONCLUSIONS. ACTION TAKEN OR REQUIRED
Article II (b) Changes made as suggested.
Article II (c) Change not made. This is a goal to work toward.
Article V 1 (j) Boards' purview would be broaden by this change,
Article V 2 (a) CO Change made as suggested.
Article VII Change not made—see discussion of Article VII.
INFORMATION COPIES
TO:
ATTACHMENT 5
EPA Form 13004 (7-72) REPLACES EPA HQ FORM 5300.3 WHICH MAY BE USED UNTIL SUPPLY is EXHAUSTED.
-------
STATE OF MICHIGAN
. RESOURCES COMMISSION
T. JOHNSON
LMTALA
I PfllDGEON
1Y F. SHELL
IY H. WHITELEY
l_ WOLFE
ILES G, YOUNGLOVE
WILLIAM G. MILUKEN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING. BOX 30O28. LANSING. MICHIGAN 48909
HOWARD A. TANNER. Director
April lf 1977
081977
Mr. Colgate S. Prentice
Special Assistant for Liaison E?A REGION 5
with the Governors OI-FICE OF REGIQHAL
United States Department of State "ov'lv'sTftAro
-------
Mr. Colgate S. Prentice -2- April 1, 1977
under observation. When this same device is installed in a
vessel which may be subjected to only occasional inspection or
checking by the operator and when rough weather, lack of
maintenance equipment, etc., is the rule rather than the
exception, there is no assurance that it will continue to provide
adequate treatment. Even the most sophisticated and automated
municipal sewage treatment plant experiences breakdowns and
malfunctions and requires regular monitoring and maintenance,
conducted by trained and licensed personnel.
In this light, the Michigan Water Resources Commission was
disappointed over the promulgation of rules by the Canadian
Government allowing the discharge of partially treated sewage
from commercial vessels on the Great Lakes. While the Canadian
requirements are more stringent than those implemented by the
United States Coast Guard, they are substantially less than the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements for municipal
discharges.
The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
granted Michigan authority under Section 312 (f) (3), P.L. 92-500,
to enforce its statute prohibiting the overboard discharges of
sewage. It is our full intent to do so in a reasonable manner.
The concerns of the Michigan Water Resources Commission are
expressed in the enclosed Resolution.
Very truly yours,
WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
W. Gf. Turriey-essss=s=—s'
Acting Executive Secretary
cc: Mr. Henry Smith III
Mr. Karl Jonietz
Mr. Douglas Costle s
Mr. George Alexander >/
Premier William Davis
Governor Milliken
Governor Anderson
Governor Lucey
Governor Thompson
Governor Bowen
Governor Rhodes
Governor Carey
Governor Shapp
Michigan Natural Resources Commission
Canadian Department of the Environment
cc: S & A
Mr. Schneider
-------
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
RESOLUTION
COMMERCIAL WATERCRAPT POLLUTION CONTROL
WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the Michigan
Water Resources Commission that the Canadian
Government on February 4, 1977, promulgated
regulations allowing the discharge of partially
treated sewage from commercial vessels cruising
the Great Lakes and connecting channels; and
WHEREAS, the new Canadian regulations do not comply with
the no discharge requirements of the State of
Michigan covering all of Michigan's portion of '
the Great Lakes and connecting channels, and
the no discharge provisions of the states of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and
Indiana; and
WHEREAS, the new Canadian regulations contravene the
no discharge recommendation for all Great Lakes
water adopted by the Water Quality Board of the
International Joint Commission in consideration
of and in support of the 1972 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement between the United States and"
Canada.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Michigan Water
Resources Commission hereby records its extreme
disappointment in this action of the Canadian
Federal Government and implores the United
States Government to seek reconsideration of
this matter; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this Resolution
be .sent to Governor Milliken, Michigan Natural
Resources Commission, the International Joint
Commission, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Canadian Department of the Environment/
and to the Governors and Premiers of the other
Great Lake States and Provinces.
At the Water Resources Commission March 24, 1977, meeting,
Mr. Quackenbush made a motion, supported by Mr. Lay, that
the above resolution be adopted and transmitted as stated
therein. Motion unanimously carried.
-------
Review of Final R'-port - Intcrr.t.tlonal Working Group
on the Abatement and Control of Pollution fror.i - FPP 9 n 1f)7r
Dredging Activities re D ^ U iy, 0
Acting Regional Administrator
Region V
Office of i;ra-rr.;;tic,-.;i'J Activities (A-10C)
This is in rcspop.se to the letter ciutcd fccer-ber 23* 1S7C;5 fro-n
fir. lihdsey Grant, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environi^nuil
rolo ES the federal r.;&:;bcr of thy V^tar Q^lity Board
Let r;Q first c.ck;!owlc?d^ the ext^n?iv--i cn-j r.-^cellont
effort of th-2 Ucrkinq Group. It h^s ucv^i^r::d s t.r-c-.nlEa c-si thr-
subject clearly cx^rc^jrir.g t!;o p;\:'-)lun» ti.C' si'.^x= of i'^ art, thG
;.;yriwu of t^chnicil anU environ";;;! stil co;:ip]t::K!:a invoivod, and t'vi
challenges to any regulatory -K.cucy who v/oiud he;:-;; to coritrol this
activity in a uunrjar consistent vntu tha Uater Qjility GL-jcci/ivos.
In ti'.Ci HGCtion on Dsficlsnciss^ a iv:-;.c'..'r."cr;'S
and noc'io-*''::r-v:'r;ic concci-ns en C;\;f'c1nq activit:i-: via th- ap^ric^ I'h-n
* * " ' " '
rc-sp^ct to all. ! strongly r,u;xort "<;his cc-:---:-rr5 ;:nd tho r.:-c::,.--n:-v'-t-icr::;
n::^!^ wit!; r-'-3r-"-Ct to this d.*fici::acy. f-Mch :^u-,:.V^ G;:ojid 1-- tu;-^.' M -->;-:.
tfi >**"i '\ '{•;."", /*•'» { " '.' % f, c r^ * ". i" 't *i v%'t "fT*-V"* ' "-'v* '• *** " *"*"- * t" f. *,'' "•• ' * "^r> J" '•*,--. -^- » »-^ v> *' r -" .•* «*• *"*.•*» *,-"• _
•*^ t^. t _. i J, \*- t t > -.-.::,..\-,:si:
pi'uv;-:!.t5 f'"r t;,a nc-.'csr.ory prcl'-'riuiry pu;.'-)c c; "'si;', c- cv a project .^t
Iii !:ec"nn? with this p]eir.!iir/.i expect, t':c t :.;h:\1ccl c^;,;;^!:1: of the-
i.'s-,1 frr-; c:,.::]i;\;'^:; '.r! th '.i.'J'JS r-v ..»'•.;'•.•..: -^> -••-^ :' --a L'". -,-;•".-'"Lit; Y:.:
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
FEB201976
A r?o.jor thcio in the cor.crjsicnr* find rGccr^tm^itlons is tint all
fVt-re ev/>lLK:tun~ l.-o slt^r^iflc. S-jch a casf-hy-cr'
t'.';'.'!'?^r';i]lv {'.'if.'•".'• <''";;• co: C':;Y;. l!.~>.'evi :\ tMr ;.r;T;?':c^ i:-:'. L> r/";"'if!
any ;••..•' 'j~Mtc.r/ sr;-.;'-:;y's rc^>;:rco.> p;>nr.1i;'jy '-•>•-•}'•'•-a vU cc;:jLi11! .y •.;?
e"cr-':-::i i^tiinf^ul canlrcl, Ti.ar.: souis co >?. * r';;j to i-iora 'f:!• *. ' 'r. "N,^.t-» r. i -^ "s '•'.-» f i» - - -,*•* --_• • ^ -^- i '! •- ' '-^(* '•»-*
! i> l I ii.J i>Ut',:,urj ;.3 ;•. "._:<, '.. vi U.i'J '.....i..^i •. - » 1 -_; .- x. •- -.i:\-s i ^ ^,1 : \.. >.. -; ;, iv-^i
tl'^ ;".'.' '/!•;:" ccr..prc'%C'rVi*c1y ir; pulll;;] tC; ^c:<,j?'- J'"\-.rra 1;jTorvi-i•;..•,! c:>:f
csis'-,vi:;;;i;xa ?«•," rh:; firr.t t:::?. ^ id id Vr.,r,'3 ^f v'..;nu-;::t1ou v:; :^h c'; ;:;-/"ly
C'i-h:>:,ir:^ «.;«»-•|cf--..".:"ic:5 in the present prc-. r-v-;. ;-:n-n ts'^ c;r-::'it.c;L:'Iu
cffc: t u!u! on t!;'!:. b;:ses I r..s cere;!1?" tr"t tl.s i-;.ropri^;,^ ccr-i':::^ can
procc/4 to t»i\5 t';ii st'ps nc"-';;"s<;ry to i.i^vrQ uc... t i,. -« -•• i..-;c v;, ^-.tt, Ucs-.t,'^.
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
Review of CorjncntK by the National Wildlife Federation on the International
Working Group Report on Abatement and Control of Pollution frora Dredging
Activities
Vald.ns V. Adamkus ^"^
Deputy Regional Administrator/ (5) /
ph Green/ OT./. C/-106)
Attn: Conrad 0. ILlcvcno
In rcviev:inR the subject cctnaencs by the reparation, it wss note-1, that
their view's arc r>"hctruii:ialiy in accord rlth the co;rtt.enf.n submitted en
the (J'e->''r"- by this Il:i;iion on February 20,. 1976. The in-dcpth proposition
for developing usal-ld criteria for dredging projects vas particularly
Interesting. This preposition recognises the complexities and variables
inherent in dredging projects, takes finn exception to the TTbrkirr Group's
recommendation that univeraal criteria are not applicable, and ftoco on to
indicate the kind of criteria that could be developed for dredging projects s
criteria v'hich a Stand inp Comnittee could reasonably be expected to develop
in a relatively short ticie.
The Federr-tion's VICTIO stipport: this Reyion'o earlier coi'in^nts, copcsrnin^
the need ff-r a Stan din,1?; Cormiittrg to be ertal-lichcd un.'.cr the T'ntor Quality
Board. Sr.ch Cor.'iiit:l''"-i.i'£5 recponsibiiities ^/ould then foliovr to he principally
oriented to tbc devcilopment of a usable systei?. in-'oivins nu:;crical criteria.
We reiterate our recc:^:.C:nd.ition (arid the Federation's) thr.t thr St-tulip^
Conrrittce be esr.cb2ic:ied under the (.'re.-? t Ln-:pcI7at^rQv^litv;oar. The
__
reccrmandation by the Federation that the Standing Cor;nltrori's \--ori: be
completed in not more then 12 laonths appears to be a stiT>pcrt-:sblc 'c :^3 fr^./ci
and as nuch i.s fully e:;clurr,ed by this Region, and as I wa sure it vrould be
by the Water Quality Hoard.
cc: Kenneth A. Oaiaciy, director IJC, IvTlO
ATTACHMENT 5
------- -------
51
<:
UJ
t-
o
t— 1
H
»-j
fe
O
u-
2
.
;
in
IB
•H
O
tu u>
to u>
<: -H
o
-H a. c
rt so
!-< O fco
O C£. <
•a o
U -4
U. S: «
uj ^ ex
H M T3 U _
-T-, la < tu
aj C£ D. U.
OS W r-t
P a: -H o
rt i-< o en .-i c:
4J rt >-i 3 < i-l
w < z
UJ
en
c -• c ••
oj tn c!j in
S
rt B cii g
d=g 5i§
•
o
3
O
H
>
^
O
Ul
TJ
Federal />
c-
3
U
I
ca
3
§•
o
!H
O
X
e Advisor
t->
m
«j
co
o
^ o
0 «->
•o *->
O -H
u. a
u
IM o
Mercbcrs c
Support C
encies
u
o
4J
r)
n
CO
< •-«
a. rt
UJ V4
o
CO T)
=>£
§ U)
R S
•s-i
6^
.S? rt
O 4->
o «
(4 0
in J
a 4->
Is
4-4
O
a
U
d
41 a1
u S:
u _]
J. O
cu
a
f, 0
0 U
I-. 0
«> ^i
41 O
« SI
ui >
•^ t-i -S
Nuclear
CRadioac
Work Gro
in (X
in a 3
300
0 C ^
t) rt U
M +J
rt wi titf
N .O ^1
rt 3 0
X CO 3
e-
C 0
•*-t W J-*
O 1> O
0. .0
1 !-i X
C 3 !-4
O 0 O
2 CO 3=
^<
M
«£
O
3 o
o to
ws
^•g§^
•H U) O
O *H M
0. Q U
ll
s-^
5S
&. s
X
+J u? fi)
• H O
^4 in c Cu
Water Qu
Obj ectiv<
Surveill.
Work Gro;
ID 13
•< 4> U
ft. TJ G
WOO)
U In *-"
o 0} Kj
o ^
UJ
r-4
Cu JH U)
WOO
-O -H
c/) o o
3 u. e
•• v> y
M TH *£
00).
Ill
u!T
< 8 W
O.IUO
W T3 -H
U o
CO H-. CJ
Leader: U
Members ;
State Age
«-i
nj
< H W
C, ID 4)
uj 13 -H
CO U. C
3 0
Leader:
Members:
State Ag
ay
1-4'
•< d 1/1
eC fc o
W
CO U4
3 OS
W <
cy
KJ
u
•g
i
O
CO
p.
8
I
|