Duluth, Minnesota
May 13-14-15, 1969
Executive Session
Sept. 3O, Oct. 1, 1969
Pollution of Lake Superior
and its Tributary Basin
Minnesota--Wisconsin—Michigan
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
-------
905R69108
CONFERENCE
IN THE
MATTER OF POLLUTION OF
LAKE SUPERIOR AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN
IN THE STATES OF
MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN
held in
Duluth, Minnesota
September 30 - October 1, 1969
EXECUTIVE SESSION
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
-------
A
CONTENTS
PAGE
Opening Statement
by Murray Stein 5
Dr. D. I. Mount 14
(Continued) 49
(Continued) 79
(Continued) 118
Robert W. Andrew 15
Dr. Gary Glass 52
Dr. D. J. Baumgartner 6?
John Arthur 69
Dr. Alfred F. Bartsch 105
Summary and Conclusions:
1 122
2 122
3 122
4 129
5 130
6 130
7 142
8 143
9 148
153
10 148
-------
B
CONTENTS
( Continued)
Summary and Conclusions (Continued):
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Recommendations :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
^ 41
k
*•
PAGE
150
150
152
156
156
157
157
165
172
172
176
179
192
195
199
200
200
211
-------
CONTENTS_
(Continued)
PAGE
Recommendations (Continued):
10 216
11 222
12 225
13 226
14 229
15 230
16 233
17 237
18 239
19 241
20 243
-------
The Executive Session for the conference in
the matter of pollution of Lake Superior and its tribu-
tary basin in the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan, was held Tuesday, September 30, 1969, and
Wednesday, October 1, 1969, in the Ballroom of the
Duluth Hotel, Duluth, Minnesota.
PRESIDING:
Murray Stein
Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
CONFEREES:
H. W. Poston
Regional Director, Great Lakes Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior
Chicago, Illinois
Dale S. Bryson
Director, Lake Superior-Upper Mississippi
River Basin Office, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, U. S. Department of
the Interior, Minneapolis, Minnesota
John P. Badalich
Executive Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Robert C. Tuveson
Member
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Albert Lea, Minnesota
-------
CONFEREES (Continued):
Dr. Howard A. Andersen
Member
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Ralph W. Purdy
Executive Secretary
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Lansing, Michigan
Thomas G. Prangos
Administrator
Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
Donald J. Mackie
Executive Assistant
Department of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
-------
ATTENDEES:
Mary Abergson, DFL
3630 Crescent View Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota
Mrs. Mervin Balke
Angora, Minnesota
Petrich Bernard
Reserve Mining Company
726 E. Camp Street
Ely, Minnesota
E. R. Bingham
Director, Qual. Control
White Pine Copper Company
White Pine, Michigan 49971
John C. Blackburn
Plant Manager
E. I. duPont de Nemours
P. 0. Box 500, Route 3
Ashland, Wisconsin
Daniec S. Boos
Fiscal Solicitor
Room 686, Federal Bldg.
Fort Snelling
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mrs. William Brascugli
League of Women Voters
of Minnesota
1560 - 6th Avenue North
St. Cloud, Minnesota 56031
Bernard L. Brommer
Duluth Central Body - AFL-CIO
105 E. Toledo Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55811
Elizabeth Bussey
Students for Saving
Lake Superior
801 MacArthur Avenue
Ashland,.Wisconsin 54806
Waldemar Carlsen
Chief Engr. Water & Light
Two Harbors, Minnesota
Daniel R. Carlson
News Photographer
KDAL-TV
Duluth, Minnesota
James P. Clancy, Attorney
Michigan Iron Mining Assoc.
Clancey, Hansen & Vielmetti
Peninsula Bank Bldg.
Ishpeming, Michigan 48949
Howard P. Clarke
General Attorney
U.S. Steel
Wolvin Bldg.
Duluth, Minnesota
I. Cohen
Duluth Herald
Duluth, Minnesota
Charles R. Collier, District Chief
U.S. Geological Survey
1033 Post Office Bldg.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Mrs. James M. Contos
129 W. Anoka Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55803
Bill Cortes, Newsman
KDAL-TV
Duluth, Minnesota
James E. Coughlin
Managing Editor
The Duluth Labor World
Duluth, Minnesota
Paula Cramer
Students for Save Lake Superior
1300 Ellis Avenue
Ashland, Wisconsin
Quincy Dadisman, Reporter
Milwaukee Sentinel
918 N. 4th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
-------
-A
ATTENDEES (Continued);
""*S*
Theodore J. Dengler
Senior Mining Engineer
Dept. of Conservation
State of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota
Leo DuCharme
1112 East 3rd Street
Duluth, Minnesota
Jack Dudley
Middletown, Ohio
Don Ekstrom
Chairman - Twin Cities
Save Lake Superior Association
4740 Harriet Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409
Dr. Charles Elarson
Wisconsin State University
River Falls, Wisconsin 54022
Lloyd L. Falk
El I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
Wilmington, Delaware 19803
David Felske
Student - UMD
1712 East Second Street
Apt. 1
Duluth, Minnesota
Mrs. Janet Felske
1712 East Second Street
Duluth, Minnesota
E. T. Fridf
Reserve Mining Company
1200 Alworth Bldg.
Duluth, Minnesota
Mrs. Howard H. Friese
DFL Women's Chairman
4130 London Road
Duluth, Minnesota
Steve J. Gadler, P.E.
2120 Carter Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota
W. R. Gleason
Washington, D. C.
William D. Graborn
13 Banks Blvd.
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Mrs. William D. Grabow
13 Banks Blvd.
Silver BSy, Minnesota
Robert D. Grover
Land Operations Officer
Bureau of Indian Affairs
831 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mrs. W. W. Hagen
DFL Ladies Group
501 E. Skyline Parkway
Duluth, Minnesota 55805
K. M. Haley
Reserve Mining Company
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Chris Hambuck
Students for Saving Lake Superior
1315 Fourth Avenue West
Ashland, Wisconsin 54806
Louis Hanson, Home Secretary
U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson
137 Tyler Street
Mellen, Wisconsin 54546
Martin Hanson, Secretary
Wisconsin Resource Conservation
Council
Box 707
Mellen, Wisconsin 54546
Arlene I. Harvell
Executive Director
S.L.S.A., Inc.
1612 Waverly Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota 55803
Robert W. Holliday, Mining Engineer
U.S. Bureau of Mines
P. 0. Box 1660
Twin Cities Airport, Minnesota
-------
ATTENDEES (Continued);
Clayton B. Howk
Sport Troller
Lake Superior Lie. Guides
Box 116
Cornucopia, Wisconsin
Mary Hugo
Save Lake Superior Assn.
Duluth Bird Club
510 North 13th Avenue East
Duluth, Minnesota
Mrs. Charles L. Hunt
MECCA
5600 Hillside Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435
Dr. Charles W. Huver
Associate Professor
& Curator of Fisheries
Museum of Natural History
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Anne Hyuarinen
Students for Save Lake
Superior
330 North 16th Avenue East
Duluth, Minnesota
Oliver Isackson
SLSA
Larsmont, Minnesota
R. Dean Jarman
Manager - Program Development
3201 Old Glenview Road
Wilmette, Illinois 60091
Corrine A. Johnson
SLSA
5437 Dominick Drive
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Robert J. R. Johnson, Reporter
St. Paul Dispatch
55 East Fourth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Ted Kamps
The Northwest Paper Company
209 Park
Cloquet, Minnesota 55720
Justine Kerjoct
Member, Wise. Boundary Commission
Grand Marair, Minnesota
Richard Kienitz
Milwaukee Journal
2 West Miffin Street
Madison, Wisconsin
Mrs. John R. Kohlbry
League of Women Voters
2928 Greysolon Road
Duluth, Minnesota
Nancy Kreher
Save Lake Superior
1310 Vaughn
Ashland, Wisconsin
Ray Lagarde
Duluth Cathedral
Duluth, Minnesota
Kieth Larrivy
S. 0. C. Sociology Glass, East
4909 Vermilion Road
Duluth, Minnesota
Vernon L. Larson, President
Silver Bay Chamber of Commerce
Silver Bay, Minnesota
George Laycock
National Audubon Society
5944 Cre Heriden Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Eric G. Leerhuber, 1/St USAF
U.S. Air Force
Box 512, Calumet AFS
Calumet, Michigan 48913
Dr. A. R. LeFeurre
Environmental Quality Coordinator
Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Box 5050
Burlington, Ontario
Robert S. Lemire
Sr. ReseaEch Engineer
Reserve Mining Company
Silver Bay, Minnesota 55614
-------
4-C
ATTENDEES (Continued);
"w
Dean A. Lindberg, Chief Chemist
Continental Oil Company
Box 8
Wrenshall, Minnesota 55797
Sibyl C. Lonergan
Gen Del
Duluth, Minnesota 55801
Mr. & Mrs. C. E. Lovold
Reserve Mining Company
Silver Bay, Minnesota
Cliff Lovold
Kings Landing Marina
Star Route, Box 133
Two Harbors, Minnesota
Philip N. Lundberg
1311 Woodland Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota
Richard J. MacGarva, CDR
U.S. Coast Guard
Canal Park
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
George G. Mallinson, Dean
School of Graduate Studies
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Evelyn B. Mork
S . I.L. Women
1612 Waverly Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota 55803
Mr. & Mrs. W. B. Matter
3009 East 1st Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
Milton M. Mattson
Beaver Bay, Minnesota 55601
Mr. & Mrs. Samuel B. Mayo
Box 270, Route 6
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
Jerome R. McKersie, Acting Chief
Water Quality Evaluation
Wise. Dept. of Natural Resources
Div. of Environmental Protection
P. 0. Box 309
Madison, Wisconsin
Ginny McNaughton
Ashland H.S. Students for
Saving Lake Superior
Route 1, Box 364
Ashland, Wisconsin
Herb Meeby
Voyaguers Marina
Grand Portage, Minnesota
Mrs. F. Melby
Voyaguers Marina
Grand Portage, Minnesota
Alice L. Merritt
2035 Columbus Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota
Glen J. Merritt
2035 Columbus Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota
Grant J. Merritt, Attorney
MECCA
8124 - 40th Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Bruce J. Miller
Asst. to the Reg. Director
Northeast Region
U.S. National Park Service
318 Manly Miles Building
1405 S. Harrison Road
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
James R. Miller
Dond du Lack Community Club
13026 West 3rd Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55808
Dan Minette
Duluth Cathedral High School
8926 Beverly Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55808
-------
ATTENDEES (Continued) ;
W. K. Montague, Attorney
Reserve Mining Company
409 Alworth Bldg.
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
Sharon Moore
Cathedral High School Student
Cathedral High School
1321 - 93rd Avenue West
Duluth, Minnesota
John B. Moyle
Technical Asst. to Director
Minnesota Dept. of Conservation
Division of Game & Fish
390 Centennial Bldg.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Glenn C. Nelson
Michigan Chapter Ironwood SISA
100 S. West Street
Ironwood, Michigan 43358
Peggy Nelson
Students for Save Lake
Superior
519 N. 18th Avenue East
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
Phillip E. Nelson
Process Manager
Box 8
Wrenshall, Minnesota
Mrs. R. C. Nelson, Commissioner
MPCA
4109 Hermantown Road
Duluth, Minnesota 55811
Joseph M. Nies, Plant Chemist
Hoerner Waldorf Corp.
Ontonagon, Michigan
Ray Nordin
East Sociology Class
4627 Regent Street
Duluth, Minnesota
Dr. Dale W. Olsen
Duluth Chapter, Izaak Walton
League
4615 London Road
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
George Alfred Olson
B-112 Griggs Hall
U.M.D.
Duluth, Minnesota
Pan Olson
East Sociology Class
8203 East Superior Street
Duluth, Minnesota
Wallace W. Olson
Industrial Engineer
Reserve Mining Company
28 Astor Road
Babbitt, Minnesota
Jean Opland
S.O.C. Sociology Class
East High School
315 E. Wadena Street
Duluth, Minnesota
Judith Ozuck
101 Burntside Hall
U.M.D.
Duluth, Minnesota
James E. Parker, Sanitary Engr.
U.S. Air Force
1516 Cambridge Drive
Shreveport, Louisiana 71105
Byrd F. Parmelee, Sales Engr.
Technicon Corporation
411 Dorset Place
Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Richard N. Paull, Manager
Public & Government Relations
The Hanna Mining Company
Hibbing, Minnesota 55746
John Pegors
Clear Air, Clear Water, Unlimited
315 - 10th Avenue North
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Mrs. S. C. Pegors
Interested Housewives of Mpls.
1358 Kentucky Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
-------
4-E
ATTENDEES (Continued):
* Robert M. Peters
UAW Local #559
Leith Street
Flint, Michigan
Irene Perpich
4 Lakeside Drive South
Eveleth, Minnesota
Kenneth Pickering
Pulp Mill Supt.
Hoerner Waldorf Corp.
Ontonagon, Michigan
Edward Pryzina, Chief
Section of Special Services
Minn. Pollution Control Agency
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mrs. Harvey Putman
Duluth Bird Club-Audubon Branch
Save Lake Superior Assn.
1407 Woodland
Duluth, Minnesota 55803
J. W. Renshaw
Buick Local #559 UAW
Flint, Michigan
Kenneth R. Roberts
Asst. Water Resources
idiStudies Coordinator
U.S. Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries
5 Research Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
Mrs. Ronald Roubal
2414 Hughitt Avenue
Superior, Wisconsin
Floyd D. Rudy
Assistant Secretary
The Northwest Paper Company
Cloquet, Minnesota
Franklin J. Ryder, Civil Engr.
Corps of Engineers, St. Paul Dist.
1217 U.S. Post Office & Custom
House
St. Paul, Minnesota
Archie C. Salyards
Editorial Writer
Duluth News Tribune & Herald
424 W. 1st Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55801
A. H. Samuel
Assistant Manager
Reserve Mining Company
Silver Bay, Minnesota
C. W. Sandell
4605 Chatelain Terrace
Golden Valley, Minnesota
Mrs. C. W. Sandell
4605 Chatelain Terrace
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Diana Scharnott
East S.O.C.
405 Elk Street
Duluth, Minnesota
William Schneicen
Industrial Engineer
Reserve Mining Company
Babbit, Minnesota
R. Stephen Schneider
Executive Director
Great Lakes Foundation
2200 North Campus Blvd.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Marian Schaltus
Route #1, Box 242
Eveleth, Minnesota
F. H. Schraufnagel, Director
Bureau of Standards & Water Surveys
Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 309
Madison, Wisconsin
-------
4-F
ATTENDEES (Continued):
Helen L. Seymour
Duluth Bird Club - Audubon
1925 East 1st Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55812
Robert W. Sharp
Regional Supervisor
Fishery Services
Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife
Federal Building, Ft. Snelling
Twin Cities, Minnesota
Jack Shook, Chairman
Rec. Comm. Buick Local
Flint, Michigan
Vernon L. Simula
Associate Professor
University of Minnesota
3879 Midussy Road
Duluth, Minnesota 55810
Stanley Sivertson
2414 Livingston Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota
Mary Small
Duluth Cathedral High School
1096 - 85th Avenue West
Duluth, Minnesota 55808
Ted Smebohhen
Minneapolis Star
425 Portland Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Lyle H. Smith, Assistant Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Charles H. Stoddard
Resources Consultant
Wolf Springs Forest
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mrs. Hjalmar Stoalie
SLASA
1924 Drew Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
Philip N. Storrs, Vice President '
Engineering Science, Inc.
Suite 503, Watergate Office Bldg.
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Selma E. Swanstrom
Curriculum Chairman
Board of Education Member
Retired Teacher
1220 1/2 West 16th Street
Superior, Wisconsin 54880
Mrs. Frank C. Tenney
100 Elizabeth Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55803
George H. Todd
Assistant to Executive Vice Pres.
Armco Steel Corp.
815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
John H. Torqersen
Board Directors
Save Lake Association
Knife River, Minnesota
Kenneth VanEss
Environmental Health Director
St. Louis County Health Dept.
512 Courthouse
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
Don Vogtman, Supervisor
Minneapolis Area Office, R.B.S.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries &
Wildlife
Federal Building
Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
Ron Way, Reporter
Minneapolis Tribune
425 Portland Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
Mr. & Mrs. Julien Wierman
Accountant
Reserve Mining Company
Babbitt, Minnesota
-------
ATTENDEES (Continued):
o
Theodore F. Wisniewski
Assistant to Administrator
Environmental Protection
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 450
Madison, Wisconsin 53702
Mary Woods
Students for Save Lake Superior
1414 - 7th Avenue West
Ashland, Wisconsin
Don Wright
Assistant Director
Public Relations
Reserve Mining Company
Silver Bay, Minnesota
George C. Zeller
U.S. Steel Corp.
710 Wolvin Bldg.
Duluth, Minnesota
David F. Zentner
First Vice President
Minnesota Division
Izaak Walton League
810 Arlington Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota
Jan Zeszuten
News
WASM-TV
Duluth, Minnesota
-------
Opening Statement - Mi*. Stein
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. MURRAY STEIN
MR. STEIN: The conference is open..
This is a very unusual session of a conference,
because I have never seen an Executive Session having
this many people. The reason we took a little extra
time was to adjust the tables in front. The Executive
Session, as you know, will have the conferees talking to
each other, because we have to hopefully come to deter-
minations on where we are going to move.
The audience is, of course, welcome to observe
what the conferees are doing. But it was the unanimous
belief of all the conferees that while we were to have
an Executive Session-r-we like doing business in the open-
since we are all public agencies doing the public busi-
ness, we are doing this in a public manner. The
conference, of course, will be conducted in the form thai
we usually conduct the Executive Session — with the con-
ferees talking to each other.
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
We do have one request, though, from the audi-
ence. It would be helpful if you slanted your name
plates toward the audience so that they can get the
names of the "ballplayers if their eyesight is good.
Again, "because of the nature of the last con-
ference, we have had a request from a conferee or so to
make a fairly full statement of the purpose of the con-
ference .
This Executive Session for the conference in
the matter of pollution of Lake Superior and its tribu-
tary basin in the States of Wisconsin, Michigan and
Minnesota, is being held under the provisions of Section
10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
The conference first met on May 13 to 15, 1969. The con-
ference recessed on May 15, 1969, to allow the conferees
sufficient time for evaluation of the extensive data
developed by the conference. Under the provisions of
the Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
initiate a conference of this type when on the basis of
reports, surveys, or studies he has reason to believe
that pollution subject to abatement under the Federal
Act is occurring.
-------
7
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
r
As specified in Section 10 of the Act, the
Secretary of the Interior has notified the official
State water pollution control agencies of this conference
These agencies are the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the
Michigan Water Resources Commission,
Both the State and Federal Governments have
responsibilities in dealing with water pollution control
problems. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
declares that the States have primary responsibilities an
rights for taking action to abate and control water pol-
lution. Consistent with this, we are charged by law to
encourage the States in these activities.
At the same time, the Secretary of the Interior
is charged by law with specific responsibilities in the
field of water pollution control in connection with pol-
lution of interstate and navigable waters. The Federal
Water Pollution Control Act provides that pollution of
interstate or navigable waters which endangers the health
or welfare of any persons shall be subject to abatement.
This applies whether the matter causing or contributing
to the pollution is discharged directly into such waters
-------
8
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
v
or reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary.
In addition to this, the Secretary of the
Interior can initiate an action of this type on his own
initiative when on the basis of reports, surveys, or
studies he has reason to believe that pollution origi-
nating in one State is endangering the health or welfare
of persons in another State. In the case of intrastate
pollution that is endangering health or welfare of
persons in the same State, a conference of this type can
only be initiated on the request of the Governor of that
State. This conference was called by the Secretary of
the Interior on his own initiative, and that means what
we are going to concentrate on is pollution of one State
which may or may not endanger health or welfare of person
in another State.
The purpose of the conference is to bring
together the State water pollution control agencies,
representatives of the United States Department of the
Interior, and other interested parties to review the
existing situation, the progress which has been made,
to lay a basis for future action by all parties concerned
and to give the States, localities and industries an
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
opportunity to take any indicated remedial action under
State and local law.
Under the Federal law, the Secretary of the
Interior is required at the conclusion of the conference
to prepare a summary of it which will be sent to the
conferees. The summary, according to law, must include
the following points:
1. Occurrence of pollution of interstate
waters subject to abatement-under the Federal Act;
2. Adequacy of measures taken toward abate-
ment of pollution;
3. Nature of delays, if any, being encounterec
in abating the pollution.
The Secretary is also required to make recom-
mendations for remedial action if such recommendations
are indicated.
We will make copies of the transcript and the
summary available to the State agencies, and any persons
wishing to obtain them can obtain these from the State
agencies.
Now, I would like the conferees here, if they
would, to introduce themselves.
-------
10
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
First -we will call on Minnesota. Mr. Badalich,
would you and your colleagues stand up and introduce your
selves, please.
MR. BADALICH: My name is John Badalich, Executi
Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
MR. TUVESON: Robert Tuveson, member of the
Agency.
DR. ANDERSEN: Howard Andersen, member of the
Agency.
MR. STEIN: Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.
MR. MACKIE: I am Donald Maekie, an Executive
Assistant of the Department of Natural Resources.
MR. FRANCOS: Thomas Frangos, Administrator of
the Division of Environmental Protection.
MR. STEIN: Michigan Water Resource Commission.
MR. PURDY: Ralph Purdy, Executive Secretary,Mi(
Water Resources Commission.
MR. STEIN: The Federal conferees.
MR. POSTON: H. W. Poston, Regional Director,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
MR. BRYSON: Dale Bryson, Federal Water
higan
-------
11
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
Pollution Control Administration.
MR. STEIN: My name is Murray Stein. I am from
headquarters of the Department of the Interior and the
representative of Secretary Hickel.
And to my right—will you stand up--is Mrs.
Rheta Piere, who is the National Conference and Hearing
Coordinator for the Department.
Because of the large audience, if the press,
or any of you, would like any information to find out
what the procedure is or have a problem, I would suggest
that you get in contact with Mrs. Piere. She will either
answer your question or direct you, hopefully, to the
appropriate person who can provide that answer.
On the basis of the record last time, I think
we have several areas which need clarification, and any
other of the areas, of course, that the conferees may
wish to bring up for clarification will be considered.
By going over the record I think I have the areas identi-
fied as :
1, The distribution of taconite and where
it comes from and where it goes.
-------
12
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
The second area is whether the materials in
the taconite are soluble and leach out into the water.
And do these materials have an effect, bio-
logical or otherwise.
And the last one., water quality requirements
for the open waters of Lake Superior.
There very well may be other areas which
need clarification. I think there are many other issues
that the conferees will have to take up, but on the
basis of sitting through many of these cases, I think
the issues have been pretty fairly laid out in these othe
areas and we can enter directly into a discussion on that
Are there any problems or questions?
MR. PURDY: Mr. Stein, in the opening of the
conference you were designated as the Federal conferee.
Do I understand now that Mr. Poston has been designated
as the Federal conferee?
MR. STEIN: That is correct. Mr. Poston is the
Federal conferee and I have been shifted to Chairman.
I am working my way up. (Laughter.)
With that, let us see if possibly we can call
on Mr. Poston.
-------
13
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein.
Do you have any comments on the first question
or first area of distribution of taconite?
Mr, Poston.
MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman and conferees, we
have our technical people who have looked at the record,
reviewed the record, and are prepared to give their
interpretation of the transcript on the distribution of
taconite area.
MR. STEIN: I hope it is clarification, but
you proceed in your own way.
MR. POSTON: Well, I would like to ask Dr.
Mount and his staff to give us their presentation and
clarification of this matter of the distribution of
taconite.
MR. STEIN: Why don't you call on the staff.
MR. POSTON: Dr. Mount.
Dr. Mount is Director of our regional National
Quality Laboratory or the National Water Quality Labora-
tory.
MR. STEIN: It might be advisable,if you are
going to call on someone, to introduce him by his full
name for the record or let him identify himself.
Water
-------
14
Dr. D. Mount
Will anyone who is called on by the conferees
come to the lectern, if you please.
MR. POSTON: Would you introduce yourself,
then, Dr. Mount?
DR. DONALD I. MOUNT, DIRECTOR
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY LABORATORY
FWPCA, DULUTH, MINNESOTA
DR. MOUNT: My name is Donald I. Mount, Directc
of the National Water Quality Laboratory, FWPCA, Duluth,
Minnesota.
Mr. Chairman and conferees, because these ques
tions become highly technical and involved, I find that
it is pretty difficult to keep on top of all of them, so
with your permission I would like to call on Mr. Robert
Andrew to present the technical data on the distribution
of tailings and clarification of points raised in the
main conference.
MR. STEIN: Go right ahead.
DR. MOUNT: Particularly regarding the samples
that were reported at that time as preliminary.
>r
-------
15
R. W. Andrew
ROBERT W. ANDREW, RESEARCH CHEMIST
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY LABORATORY
FWPCA, DULUTH, MINNESOTA
MR. ANDREW: Thank you. I am Robert W. Andrew
I am a Research Chemist with the National Water Quality
Laboratory.
The information that I wish to present this
morning is the results of the bottom sediment core
sampling program that was carried out by the FWPCA in
July of this year.
This information is being introduced and is
pertinent at this time, I believe, as a confirmation of
the question that was raised in the earlier conference
with regard to the distribution in the bottom sediments,
both in Minnesota and in Wisconsin waters. We had pre-
liminary data that was introduced into the record at the
earlier conference, and the present data now, although
it is a different sampling, we believe confirms the earl:
results.
For the purposes of discussion here, I would
like for each of the conferees to refer to the handout
er
-------
16
R. W. Andrew
that was sent to you, including a map showing the dis-
tribution in the bottom sediments. It is titled "Results
of Minera logical Analysis o.f Bottom Sediment
Cores . "
MR. STEIN: Do you have extra copies available?
MR. ANDREW: There are extra copies here that
can be distributed.
MR. STEIN: Let's have the distribution to the
conferees now and not assume that they have one.
I think we should do that with all material
that you are going to refer to. Do not assume that any-
one has it with him, but make a distribution.
MR. ANDREW: Right.
To proceed with the discussion of this map,
the map is of the western basin of Lake Superior and
shows the core sediment stations on four transects and
an additional two samples collected in the western tip
of the lake. These were, as I said, collected in July
of this year, and the points that are plotted now are
the positive, in this case the presence of taconite
tailings using our cummingtonite mineral as a tracer as
we defined in the earlier conference, with a solid circle
-------
17
R. W. Andrew
on the map, and the negative, that is the absence of
taconite tailings, with an open circle on the map. I
think this is fairly clear.
(Which said map is as follows:)
-------
Results of Mineralogical Analysis
Cores Collected July 7-10, 1969.
18
No tailings found in layers of
Tailings present in upper layer
Samples not collected at static
10, 11, 12 and 33 because of ro
bottoms.
Sample from station 26 lost in
analysis, is being redone.
-------
19
R. W. Andrew
MR. ANDREW: These results are of the initial
part of the survey or the initial part of the studies tha
are described in the study outline that was also sent to
the conferees. I don't think we need to pass out addi-
tional copies of this. But these are initial x-ray scans
of the core sediments collected of the bottom sediments.
-------
20
m
c/)
>
-o
r~
m
i
m
m
T)
O)
m
-------
21
o
o
m
OD
-i>
m
im
ro
o
m
-------
22
R. ¥. Andrew
MP. ANDREW: The final results, that is a
rescanning of those showing the presence of cumming-
tonite, are in process at the present time and we have
completed approximately half of the cores on the final
analysis. You will note sample for station number 26
right on the Minnesota-Wisconsin line is blank on your
map at the present, and I wish to have you insert on
your own a positive there for taconite tailings, that
is you make it a solid circle on this point now. We
have finished that analysis.
In addition, in the final analysis station
number 25 is also now positive, whereas it shows nega-
tive on the map. The reason for this is that in the final
analysis we go through a rather detailed,rigorous chemi-
cal separation and procedure to identify the cummingtonil
and we have a much better or much clearer idea of present
or absence of the cummingtoni t.e in these samples, so
that there is a likelihood that some of the open circles
or the negatives that show on the map now could eventually,
in a detailed analysis, be positive. However, the
reverse is not true. Where we once find the cummingtonite
we will, of course, find even better definition of it and
-------
: 23
R. ¥. And rev;
be able to quantitate it more closely in the final
analysis.
The general feature of the deposition pattern
we believe follows the circular counterclockwise current
pattern in the lake. That is the current pattern circulates
westward along the north shore, across the western end
of the lake, and then eastward along the south shore of
the lake, depositing and distributing the taconite
tailings as it goes. The large area of negative findings
that is stations number 21 throuth 24 on the south shore,
the Wisconsin shore, in that particular area, we believe
is due to the large dilution of the sediments coming
from the taconite tailings by the red clay sediments
corning out of the south shore streams. That is, it is
actually diluted, the taconite tailings are more dis-
persed in this area; they are much more difficult to find
because they are at much lower concentrations,,
At this time I would like to help you just a
little bit understand what we did and see how we actually
defined these particular patterns. I would like to show
just a few slides of the x-ray diffraction patterns.
Could we have the slides at this time, please.
-------
24
R. W. Andrew
This first pattern is a repeat slide that was
shown at the earlier conference and is slide number 1 in
my earlier presentation, I believe. It shows the x-ray
diffraction pattern of a sample of taconite tailings col-
lected right from Reserve's deyLta and right below this
an x-ray diffraction pattern of solids from the green
water collected near the tailings delta.
Next slide, please.
This is a similar x-ray slide from the Beaver
Bay Water Treatment Plant, again showing the presence of
a large peak of taconite, the Two Harbors, Minnesota,
water treatment plant, a smaller amount of cummingtonite
decreasing as we go away from the taconite tailings delta
Next slide, please.
This is two typical river sediments, again,
in this case, showing the absence of cummingtonite,
and I show this just to refresh your memories as to what
the typical sediments from the streams look like in com-
i parison with the taconlte tailings x-ray patterns.
| The next slide, please.
This is fche x-ray patterns that we have obtained
from the core samole at station number 29, if you would
-------
CUMMINGTONITE
QUARTZ
CUMMINGTONITE
30 26
TACONITE
TAILINGS
SPLIT ROCK
GREEN WATER
SOLIDS
22 18 14 10
ANGLE 20, DEGREES
6 4
-------
-B
QUARTZ
CUMMINGTONITE
BEAVER BAY, MINN.
WATER PLANT
SEDIMENT
CUMMINGTONITE
»\t*r*jW
TWO HARBORS, MINN.
WATER PLANT
SEDIMENT
CUMMINGTONITE
30
\
22
18
14
10
ANGLE 2Q, DEGREES
-------
GOOSEBERRY R.
SEDIMENT
ST. LOUIS R.
SEDIMENT
CUMMINGTONITE
30
26
22 18 14
ANGLE 29, DEGREES
10
I I
6 4
-------
LAKE SUPERIOR
BOTTOM SEDIMENTS
CORE SAMPLE - STATION 29
CORE SURFACE TO
3mm DEPTH
2p. FRACTION (30%)
3 to 5mm DEPTH
2INFRACTION (55%)
5 to 9mm DEPTH
2/JL FRACTION (71%)
CUMMINGTONITE
30 26 22 18 14
ANGLE 29, DEGREES
10
-------
25
R. W. Andrew
*
like to refer to your maps now for the location on that
one. Now, these are arranged in their order as to
depth collected within the core, that is the upper
x-ray pattern is of the surface sediment layer from the
core samples taken at station number 29. And you will
notice the presence of the large cummingtonite peak
there and also this particular sample is from the sur-
face to three millimeters in depth. For those of you
who are probably not familiar with the three millimeter,
this is about an eighth of an inch thick.
The next layer, three to five millimeter depth
you will notice a grossly decreased presence of cumming-
tonite and the bottom curve there, the five to nine
millimeter depth, almost a total absence of cumming-
tonite. Now, this sharp stratification is probably one
of our best pieces of evidence that the cummingtonite
arises from the taconite tailings and not from a natural
source. If it were from a natural source, we would
expect to see it distributed rather uniformly throughout
the core and not be limited to the upper layers of depo-
sition only.
An additional point that we would like to make
-------
26
R. W. Andrew
on this curve is that station 29 is located within the
area of deposition as delineated by Mr. Kenneth Haley
in Reserve Mining Company's statement in the proceedings
of the original hearing on page 5^ of his written state-
ment, which is in the appendix of this statement. Now,
what I am saying is, this is in the westernmost end of
the tailings deposited as defined by Reserve, and the
thickness of the tailings deposit in this particular
core is in nearly excellent agreement with Reserve's
own data, and I think this is a strong point, that we do
agree with Reserve's definition of the deposit zone in
this particular area.
Could we have the next slide,please.
This is the x-ray patterns from core samples
at station number 18, which, if you will note on the
map, is in Wisconsin waters. I use this slide in
particular as representative of those samples collected
in Wisconsin waters. You will note a very, very small
cummingto ni te peak, a large peak for each of the clay
minerals on either side, but the cummingtonlte, as
•with the deposit immediately downlake of the delta, does
decrease with depth in the core, showing that it is a
-------
26-;
LAKE SUPERIOR
BOTTOM SEDIMENTS
CORE SAMPLE - STATION 18
CORE SURFACE TO
2mm DEPTH
2jL FRACTION (64%)
2 to 5mm DEPTH
FRACTION (69%)
5 to lOmin DEPTH
2u, FRACTION (68%)
CUMMINGTONITE
30 26 22 18 14 10
ANGLE Z8,DEGREES
-------
27
R. W. Andrev/
recent deposition. This particular cummingtonite peak,
by the way, would probably represent one or two percent
cummingtonibe or taconite tailings, they are defined
by, in the surface, the two millimeter depth in that
particular core. In other words, the taconite tailings
in circulating through the current pattern through the
western basin of the lake and reaching this particular
deposition spot have been grossly diluted, dispersed and
mixed with clay minerals from the south shore streams.
The layer as such is not 100 percent tailings by any
stretch of the imagination, but it is mixed with the
natural sediments.
At this particular point, before I go any
further, I would like to ask the conferees for questions,
since I realize this is a totally new presentation to
you and this conference, as I understand, is to clear up
questions of the record.
MR. STEIN: By the way, have you completed
your slides?
MR. ANDREW: Yes, that is all the slides.
MR. STEIN: Let's have the lights.
Mr. Prangos .
-------
_28
R. ¥. Andrew
MR. PRANGOS: Yes.
Mr. Andrew, I wonder if you would repeat for
me your statement as to the quantification of taconite
in the sample examined--the last one in Wisconsin waters.
MR. ANDREW: Yes, sir. The percentage taconite
tailings as defined here is based on a comparison I make
visually with a series of standard cummingtonite mix-
tures mixed with a mixture of the natural clay minerals.
Admittedly this visual comparison has its weaknesses and
its limitations, but it is the best that can be done with
x-ray diffractions at the present time. There are limita-
tions because of the crystallography of the various
minerals.
MR. PRANGOS: But would you repeat for me the
numbers that you come up with--
MR. ANDREW: The percentages?
MR. FRANCOS: Yes.
MR. ANDREW: Yes, sir. That was approximately
two percent, I believe I said, in that particular clay
mineral fraction, that is the less than two micron
fraction, from that core at the surface of the core.
Does that answer your question, sir?
-------
29
R. W. Andrew
MR. FRANCOS: Yes, thank you. I am wondering
if we could follow up on this a little bit.
Could you describe briefly your sampling
techniques? In other words, how do you get this core
and retrieve it?
MR. ANDREW: The actual core itself?
The core itself is collected with a Phleger
core sampler. It is lowered on cable from the boat
or vessel into the surface of the sediment, it is
lowered at a fairly fast rate so that the hollow tube
part of the core sampler penetrates into the bottom
sediment, there is a check valve in the core sampler
that prevents the sediment part of the core from dropping
out again as it is retrieved to the surface. Once it is
brought to the surface, the liner of the core sampler
is removed with the core in it and we froze it on board
with dry ice and then brought it back to the laboratory
in sections for the analysis.
MR. FRANCOS: So in essence this is an undis-
turbed sample?
3
MR. ANDREW: Yes, sir, as nearly as we can
possibly make it.
-------
30
R. W. Andrevf
MR. FRANGOS: I am wondering if you can tell
me, is there anything visually that you can observe from
these samples, particularly the surface area, that would
indicate the presence of &. powdery material or what would
strike you immediately without going through this analysi
MR. ANDREW: There is a visual indication of a
taconite layering or a taconite layer only in the imme-
diate deposition zone. It follows almost precisely, as
nearly as I can tell, Reserve's outline as shown in Mr.
Haley's map. Once you are outside of this area.) the
gray color of the taconite tailings are so diluted by
the brownish iron color of the natural sediments that it
is impossible to define visually.
MR. FRANGOS: Another question. I am wondering,
are you in a position at this time to make any kind of
an estimate to quantify the amount of tailings found in
the other positive samples in the Wisconsin waters?
MR. ANDREW: I didn't quite hear that question.
Would you repeat it?
MR. FRANGOS: I will put it to you another way.
Would it be correct to say that in all of the positive
samples in Wisconsin waters that the percentage of taconi
te
-------
31
R. W. Andrew
would be in the range of two percent?
MR. ANDREW: To answer that, I would say the
percentage varies fairly regularly with distance around
the perimeter of the lake in the western basin. That is,
we have a fairly high percentage in the sample in the
westernmost tip of the lake, that is at station 43, I
would estimate roughly ten percent in that area, and
decreasing in samples 40 to 42 and much, much less, of
course, at 18 and 20. It decreases in a fairly regular
way.
Now, the total thickness, in any cases, is not
more than about three millimeters or an eighth of an
inch or so, so that we are talking about a very small
percentage and a very thin veneer on the surface in the
Wisconsin waters.
Does that answer your question?
MR. FRANCOS: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Let me see if I understand this,
because it seems a little significant to me.
You mean that there is a fairly regular rate oi
decrease of the fragments of taconite in these core
samples as you get away from the discharge of Reserve
-------
32
R. ¥. Andrew
Mining?
MR. ANDREW: Yes, that is true, yes. I can't
give you precise quantitative numbers because the x-ray
method itself is not that precise. However, in just a
visual look at the x-ray patterns from these cores,
they decrease in a regular way in traveling around the
perimeter of the lake in a counterclockwise direction.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Mr. Purdy.
MR. PURDY: At the May meeting there was testi-
mony put into the record on the presence of cumming-
t o-nite in certain samples from Minnesota waters, and I
carried on a line of questioning with respect to sampling
in waters other than Minnesota waters and received the
reply that the information that was available only
represented data from preliminary studies.
Now, I noticed in this report that has been
furnished to the conferees that it states preliminary
studies. Can you describe to me how the data that you
have now presented differs from the preliminary studies
that were not presented at the last conference?
-------
33
R. W. Andrew
MR. ANDREW: Yes, sir. The initial samples
that we talked about in the May conference were collectec
with a dredge sampler rather than a core sampler and thej
were not in any sense of the word undisturbed samples.
The only way we had from the dredge samples of defining
the upper layer of deposition was to just scoop some out
of the top of the dredge and hope that that represented
the surface of the sediment deposited in that particular
area.
Now, we did separate those dredge samples into
two layers, an upper layer about a half an inch thick, a
rather gross separation, and a composite of the lower
material out of the dredge. Now, those results confirm--
let's say they don't disagree with the results that we
presented here at all. They gave us a clue as to where
to look for these samples and where to take these samples
and the dredge samples that were collected in the same
areas as these core samples agreed very closely, as closejly
as could be expected with dredge samples, let's put it
this way. They showed presence or absence, but they were
much less quantitative than the method we have now of
taking an undisturbed core sample and separating the
-------
34
R. W. Andrew
individual layers.
Does that answer your question?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Proceed.
MR. ANDREW: Before I quit up here, there might
be some question arise, I think, as to the map that was
also sent out with regard to the water samples that were
collected at the same time. Could we turn to the second
map, please, now? This has across the top of it "Results
of mineralogical analysis of water samples collected near
lake bottom, July 7-10, 1969." And there are extra copie
of this also.
(Which said map is as follows:)
-------
Ko.siiHs of fnineralogical faialys
collec!--d near lake bottom, Jul
© No tailings present in sample.
O Tailings present in sample.
-\- STA i
-------
36
R. W. Andrew
MR. ANDREW: The only points that I would like
to make at this time with regard to this map, these are
water samples that were collected at the exact same time
as the core samples presented in the other map, and the
water sampler was suspended from the same cable that was
used to lower the dredge sample and collected approxi-
mately 15 or 20 feet from the bottom of the lake. They
represent an instantaneous, you might say, sample of
what was suspended near the lake at that particular time
The general pattern is roughly the same. As you will
notice, the positives fall in about the same places,
with negatives on the Wisconsin shore in about the same
places that we had negatives with the bottom sediment
s amp1e s .
The one positive that we have in the Michigan
waters, located near station 4, has been reconfirmed as
having a very, very small cummingto nit e peak in that
sample. However, the total suspended solids in that
particular sample was on the order of a tenth of a
milligram per liter, which is an extremely small amount.
We have very, very little sample for x-ray analysis there
In general, the suspended solids found in
-------
37
R. W. Andrew
these water samples was on the order of one-tenth to
one-half milligram per liter with the exception of that
at station 31, which is within the area affected by the
heavy density current from the delta, and that one
measured eight milligrams per liter. That is at station
31.
That particular sample, with eight milligrams
per liter, gave an X'-ray diffraction pattern that was, foi
all intents and purposes, pure taconite tailings.
The one other point that I would like to make
now, with regard to the total possible deposition of
tailings over the bottom sediments of the lake, has to dc
with the estimates made by Mr. Kenneth Haley in his stat<=
ment of the total tonnage of taconite tailings going
into the lake.
Would you like some additional time or some
questions on the water samples?
MR. STEIN: Do I understand that you really car
make any firm conclusions on the basis of these water
samples?
MR. ANDREW: Well, the point that I am trying
to make is that the amounts that we are measuring there
-------
38
R. W. Andrew
at this time are so terribly small that it is really
difficult to make any type of a quantitative measure of
what is there. Qualitatively I think we are on solid
ground. That sample is positive and there is no way to
ch-ange it. But what it represents in the total picture
as circulation within the lake, and so forth, it would
be pure speculation at this time.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Any comments or questions?
Mr. Frangos.
MR. FRANGOS: Yes.
Mr. Andrew, on page 2 of the material that you
sent to us last week when you talk about methods of
identification, you say additional checks of Wisconsin
stream sediments are being made to be doubly certain that
there are no significant natural sources of cummingtonite
The particle shapes are being studied to further verify
the source as being from Reserve and not from natural
sediments.
Has that been done?
MR. ANDREW: Yes, sir. We have collected and
analyzed now samples from the Brule River, the Nemadji
-------
39
R. W. Andrew
has been resampled, the Iron River and the Bad River,
which I believe are the streams with the greatest water-
shed in those areas having the highest sediment load.
Those were negative. No cummingto n i te was found whatso
ever.
We have additional samples from the smaller
streams that haven't been analyzed at the present time,
but the major streams have shown negative with respect
to the cummingtonite.
MR. PRANGOS: Well, on the basis of these
investigations,what do you conclude?
MR. ANDREW: I conclude that Reserve's tailings
discharge is the only source of the cummingtonite that
we have found in the bottom sediments. There just seems
no alternative to me.
MR. FRANCOS: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
If not, does that conclude your--
MR. ANDREW: I have just one additional small
point that I would like to make here again and then I
will call it quits.
-------
40
R. W. Andrew
MR. STEIN: Go right ahead.
MR. ANDREW: And this has to do with the
possibility or the quantities necessary to show the
distribution that we have in the bottom sediments.
Mr. Haley estimates that there were 95-9
million long tons carried into the lake by the heavy
density currents as of November 19, 1968. This is taken
directly from his written statement. Now, estimating
conservatively, I say conservatively in the favor of
Reserve Mining, this is equivalent to l.?2 billion cubic
feet based on a packing density of 125 pounds per cubic
foot.
Now, if this figure is correct, it would be
sufficient to cover the entire bottom of the western basi
of the lake, that is between the Sand Island there and
Silver Bay, from there on west, to a depth of .7
of an inch. And I say this is conservative. Even if we
deduct the amount of sediment that is accumulated in the
immediate deposition area near the delta, this still allo
sufficient material to cover the western basin of the lak
to a depth of approximately 0.58 inches or .6 of an inch
roughly.
tos
-------
41
R. W. Andrew
Using our own more recent core data, that is
the data that we have shown here, the average thickness,
and I am using an average over the whole area that we
sampled, can be at most .1 of an inch thick. And the
total tailings volume that would be contained therein
is approximately 238 million cubic feet.
Now, adding this up, the deposit as we measure
it, plus the tailings deposited as measured by Mr. Haley
still accounts for only approximately one-third of the
total amount as estimated by Mr. Haley going into the la
From this, two obvious conclusions follow, I
think. Number one, Mr. Haley's engineering estimates of
the size of the delta underneath the water must be gross
underestimated, and I say grossly by & factor of two or
more possibly. That is, there are actually more tailing
deposited in the immediate delta area than what they hav
estimated.
The second conclusion, and I think the most
important one, is that there can be and there is most
likely being a tremendous quantity of the tailings going
into solution or going into suspension in the entire
body of the lake.
fce
iy
-------
42
R. W. Andrew
MR. STEIN: Mr. Mackie.
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Andrew, could you comment on
whether or not cummingtonite is susceptible to being
picked up and detected by magnetic means? We have had
reports of fishermen picking up taconite by the use of
suspended magnets. Could you comment on this, please?
MR. ANDREW: To my knowledge, cummingtonite
itself cannot be picked up by a magnet. If there are
large clumps or a rock with cummingtonite in it plus
magnetite, it is capable of being picked up by a magnet,
but not cummingtonite by itself. In other words, the
cummingtonite that is in the bottom sediments of this
area could not be picked up by magnet, especially in the
very fine particle sizes that we are talking about he
in the bottom sediments. The magnetic material that was
collected by the fishermen on the south shore, it is almost
pure magnetite, and it is also very, very coarse particle
sizes and couldn't possibly have been carried into the
Wisconsin waters by the currents. It is just too gross.
MR. MACKIE: Thank you.
MR. ANDREW: Does that answer your question,
sir?
se
re
-------
R. W. Andrew
MR. MACKIE: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Frangos.
MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if
we might have some kind of a summary of those figures
from the Federal conferee? We have had this report, but
I have not seen any of the data on the last portion of
Mr. Andrew's testimony here.
MR. POSTON: I would like to ask--
MR. STEIN: Let's handle one at a time.
Would you care to respond to that, Mr. Andrew?
MR. ANDREW: We will do this as soon as we
possibly can, yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: How soon is 'possibly cani;?
MR. ANDREW: Well, as I mentioned earlier, the
detailed analysis of the cores has been completed on
approximately half of the cores, and we estimate another
month and a half to two months to finish the other half.
MR. STEIN: But you have the figures--
MR. ANDREW: We do have the figures on those
that have been done. We also have the data that pertains
to the suspended solids in the water.
MR. STEIN: Where are those figures, Mr. Andrew*;
-------
44
R. W. Andrew
MR. ANDREW: The x-ray diffraction patterns?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. ANDREW: I have those that have been done
right here in a folder.
MR. STEIN: But you just have one or two
copies, don't you?
MR. ANDREW: I just have the original, yes,
sir.
MR. STEIN: Why don't you have pictures made
for the conferees? We probably could have it for them
by noon, couldn't we?
MR. ANDREW: Yes. We could have copies of the
x-ray diffraction patterns made, yes.
MR. STEIN: All right, let's do that.
MR. ANDREW: I am afraid they would be rather
difficult to interpret because of the fact that they hav<
sampling numbers only and this sort of thing.
MR. STEIN: Well, if they have questions on tha
you can do that. Can't you give them a key to the sample
number?
MR. ANDREW: Yes. Yes.
MR. STEIN: Why don't we try that?
-------
R. W. Andrew
MR. ANDREW: It might be better, I think, if
we could just copy these and send them out in the mail
in the next week or so with the complete designations
as to the station numbers.
MR. STEIN: Why don't we try both?
MR. ANDREW: O. K. I am willing.
MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Chairman, I was interested
not so much in the details of the sample results and
their interpretation, but I would like to see the mathe-
matics or calculations involved with Mr. Andrew's last
testimony which attempts to quantify where these tailing
are eventually ending up in the lake.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. ANDREW: Those quantities are quoted
directly in Mr. Haley's statement in the earlier record,
that is the gross quantities on the 95-9 million tons,
et cetera. I can show you how the calculations were made
if you wish that.
MR. FRANCOS: Well, your comment regarding the
amount that goes into solution, was that in fact part of
the testimony presented by Mr. Haley?
MR. ANDREW: No, no. I say this is an obvious
-------
46
R. W. Andrew
conclusion if you follow through on the calculations.
MR. STEIN: While we are not restricting the
statements of anyone, I think the next real big problem
we are going to take up, is to ask about the
solubility question. So let's just leave that.
Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: I think Mr. Andrew has given a
good technical discussion of this problem of distributior
of taconite in the core samples. I would like Dr. Mount
to summarize this in a capsule form to tell us in lay
terms some of their conclusions in a summary of this, as
suggested by Mr. Frangos.
MR. STEIN: Well, let's see if there are any
more questions of Mr. Andrew before we do that. But we
will take that up if there are no more questions.
Are there any more?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: To pursue the quantitative
analysis of the taconite tailings and the distribution
over the lake^to follow up what Mr. Frangos said, I
believe it is desirable to have this information at this
-------
R. W. Andrew
time. But he made an assumption, even though all of
these samples have not been analyzed. He said it will be
another month and a half or two months, and he is alread;
averaging out the samples that have already been taken
to a certain amount or a certain quantity being deposited
in the lake. I think these figures should be brought
forth now on the basis of this assumption. He is alread;
saying that the material that is not accounted for is in
solution and he has made his observation and stands behid
it. So I think these figures are very important to be
brought forth.
MR. STEIN: Again, I think this whole question
of solution will be handled in the next question when we
will call on Dr. Mount. Now, the only reason I didn't
stop this is because we are in Executive Session. I
did -not raise this question of the solution now.
The question that we are talking about now is
the distribution of taconite. I think your question is
very well taken and Mr. Frangos1 line is well taken* But
I think the question of:Is the material soluble?is such
an important question in itself that for the purposes of
the record let us .just, if you don't mind, forget that
-------
48
R. W. Andrew
and hold that discussion until we deal with that ques-
tion directly.
Would that be all right?
MR. ANDREW: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. BADALICH: Will this be verified by Dr.
Mount how these calculations were made and his reasoning
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: --to believe that these are in
solution, the so-called missing quantity of tailings?
MR. STEIN: I hope it will be clarified, but
we will give Dr. Mount an opportunity to talk to the
question. As I recall Mr. Andrew's statement, he said
he was just going to bring up one other small point,
and, of course, we backed our way into a major point.
Let's hold that and recognize that we are goin
to call on Dr. Mount for this question.
MR. ANDREW: Any other questions?
MR. STEIN: If not, thank you.
MR. POSTON: I would like to ask Dr. Mount
to summarize this.
MR. STEIN: All right.
(Applause.)
-------
49
Dr. D. Mount
DR. DONALD I. MOUNT
(CONTINUED)
DR. MOUNT: In layman's terms, Mr. Poston.
MR. STEIN: That is great? call on a scientist
to do something in layman's terms. You know, it always
amuses me the kind of testimony we get and the kind of
language we use when we call for a clarification.
(Laughter.)
DR. MOUNT: I think there is a point of con-
fusion about these calculations which Mr. Frangos asked
about and then Mr. Badalich, and I think that the con-
ferees may have missed one word which Mr. Andrew said.
He did not say this was all in solution. He said solu-
tion and suspension. It shook me at first too until he s
suspension as well.
So what he simply did was to take the informa-
tion which Dr. Baumgartner did present at the May confer
in which he too was unable to account for a large per-
centage of the tailings being in the
delta or on the pile at the bottom.
In regard to summarizing the presentation on
cummingt?oni t e, I think that essentially this is where
lid
snce
-------
50
Dr. D. Mount
we stood at the May conference. We had found cumming-
tonite in dredge samples in Wisconsin*. I believe
that I indicated to the record at that time that we were
not able to say whether or not this cummingtonite truly
represented tailings,because we had not checked the
sediments in the Wisconsin streams, as well as in other
areas,to make sure that there were no significant sources
of natural cummingtonite. And I think now we have
presented to the conferees these facts:
Number I, that the cummingtonite was strati-
fied and confined to the very topmost layer of the core
samples, suggesting that this material has not been
coming in over long periods of time but rather during a
recent period.
Secondly, we checked the important south shore
streams starting from east of Ashland and working west-
ward and we did not find any cummingtonite in these
sediments. We have not found it in the Minnesota stream
either and this was presented in the May conference.
Third, we have shown that the amount of
cummingtonite, and, therefore, indicating the amount of
tailings, decreases in the core samples as we proceed in) a
-------
51
Dr. D. Mount
counterclockwise fashion from the point of discharge and
following the current pattern that has been established
previously in the May conference.
I think that these are the key points which
establish in our own mind beyond a shadow of a doubt
that this cumraingt oni t e is representing tailings and
is a true tracer of them.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions'
By the way, I want to thank Mr. Andrew for his
presentation and thank you, Dr. Mount.
I wonder if we can proceed to the second
problem, Mr. Poston: Is the material soluble?
MR. POSTON: Dr. Gary Glass is prepared to
clarify the record as to solubility of taconite tailings
in the Lake Superior waters.
MR. STEIN: I can't think of a more poetic
name for a man to clarify the record than Dr. Glass.
(Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: Dr. Glass.
-------
52
Dr. G. Glass
DR. GARY GLASS, RESEARCH CHEMIST
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY LABORATORY
FWPCA, DULUTH, MINNESOTA
DR, GLASS: My name is Gary Glass. I am a
Research Chemist at the Water Laboratory.
I hatze been given the task of looking over the
transcript to determine whether the solubility of tailin
is indeed some subject which has ~to be discussed. The
particular subject is a very difficult one because there
is very little data in the transcript which pertained to
this subject.
The two bits of information"which were given
by Reserve Mining were presented by Dr. Bright and Dr.
Lee. Dr. Bright stated, and I will quote from his
transcript—
MR. STEIN: Can you people hear back there?
AUDIENCE: No.
MR. STEIN: Try to speak up just a little.
DR. GLASS: Yes, sir.
Dr. Bright stated in summary that data showed
that metal such as copper, zinc and nickel are not
rs
-------
53
Dr. G. Glass
leached from the tailings in Lake Superior water as to
become toxic to aquatic life. This is the statement he
made.
I presume this is the result of preliminary-
data because no data is given on this particular point.
I did indeed call Dr. Bright and ask him, and he said
that no tests were conducted on aquatic animals for
this solution which had been leached from the tailings.
So actually no aquatic life was tested. However, he
concluded that this material could not be leached from
tailings.
Dr. Lee also summarized these preliminary
studies, did not report any data, and he in fact said
that the sorption test showed that the taconite tailings
actually removed trace metals from the Lake Superior
water. But again no numbers -were given; no way for one
to analyze the data.
The only concrete data that one has is from
Mr. Haley's report, where, in Appendix D, he summarized
11 years of reports, which were submitted to the Minne-
sota Pollution Control Agency,from 1957 through 1968.
In this report he lists the parameters of the intake
-------
54
Dr. G. Glass
water and from the discharge water. From these paramete
one can see that various metals have increased in their
concentrations.
As an example, I will just run down a few.
Magnesium increases 25 percent from intake to discharge.
Sodium increases 43 percent, potassium 250 percent,
sulfate goes up 33 percent, chloride increases 31 percen
silica increases 48 percent, phosphorus 20 percent, iron
43 percent, manganese ],800 percent, copper remains the
same, nickel remains the same, lead increases a total
of 20 percent. These are mainly rather large increases
percentagewise from the intake to the discharge water.
Now, this particular information pertains to
the plant as the water comes in, mixes with the process
and is discharged. The time involved here represents a
mere instant in ecological time, so that with these
increases one would suggest that in, say, a period of
100 years this material is definitely soluble if these
percentage increases are constant throughout that period
That is, the only data that can be summarized that is
in the transcript pertaining to solubilities is the
data submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency over
-------
ze
Dr. G. Glass
the 11-year period showing the increase in all "but one
item and that is zinc. That decreases 75 percent as
listed in these tables.
Zinc is a particularly difficult metal to anal
especially when you are pumping from a lake and presumab .y
you have a galvanized pipe containing zinc and such.
Other places in the data they list the zinc in Lake
Superior water as 5 parts per million and the discharge
as 3. The zinc analysis should be in question because
of the fact that you are pumping through pipes which
are galvanized, containing zinc, to prevent leaching.
In the lab we have trouble using zinc analysis because
of the same facts. The piping is galvanized and anything
that comes througn the tap contains a higher point of
zinc than is in Lake Superior water.
But the other metals have increased to a
maximum—manganese, of 1,800 percent. To me it shows tha|t,
in this very short period of time that the material is
subjected to the lake water, some solubility has taken
place and the material is not inert sand. It does dis-
solve .
We have preliminary studies which we did not
3
-------
56
Dr. G. Glass
give data on which show the same thing. These studies
were indeed preliminary. We did not draw conclusions
from them, but it indicated the same thing that this
data from Haley's transcript does show.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions
MR. PURDY: Yes. Mr. Stein, I have one ques-
tion of Dr. Glass.
I don't happen to have Mr. Haley's report
here, but have you examined it to swear the report indi-
cates that these results represent soluble material in
the intake--
DR. GLASS: Yes.
MR. PURDY: Over this period of time and
do not include an increase due to a suspended solids
increase in the intake water?
DR. GLASS: The way I understand Reserve's
samples is an accepted way, by most water chemists.
Immediately after taking the sample, you filter it, in
all cases, and you analyze the filtrate.
MR. STEIN: But your answer is yes, isn't it?
DR. GLASS: Yes.
MR. STEIN: We want to do this as informally
-------
57
Dr. G. Glass
as possible, but I recommend that for the purposes of
the record, you wait until the question is completed
oefore giving an answer, because this won't show up.
MR. PURDY: I neert another answer, then,
DR. GLASS: About this table in Appendix D,
it said the samples were filtered through a 0.45 mem-
brane filter and analyzed.
MR. PURDY: Would you say that that filtering
process was such that it would take ouc the fines that
we are discussing in this conference or would they pass
through that filter?
DR. GLASS: Approximately, very approximately,
I would say that probably 99 percent plus are removed by
this filter.
MR. PURDY: Thank you.
DR. GLASS: Of the fines.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
Yes, Mr. Prangos.
MR. FRANCOS: Dr. Glass, as I gather the sub-
stance of your comments here this morning, it is that
indeed these materials are soluble. Can you tell us
-------
58
Dr. G. Glass
how soluble they are?
DR. GLASS: We have done a few experiments
indicating that the materials are not immediately soluble
I have not done rate studies on the particular material.
These have been planned. But the actual rate of solu-
bility, these studies, to my knowledge, have not been
done.
MR. PRANGOS: But over the long haul, at least,
there are some indications that these would go into
solution?
DR. GLASS: Yes, this is what this data indi-
cates. I an. sure that the turnover time in the plant,
which pumps approximately a billion gallons a day, is
that of a few hours, and probably the most soluble thing
are represented here in this increase in the discharge
over the intake. So these would certainly show up with
further tests.
MR. FRANCOS: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: Dr. Glass, you would probably get
-------
59
Dr. G. Glass
«
greater amounts of material going into solution when
the particles are finely divided and in intimate contact
throughout the water than if it were lying on the
bottom?
DR. GLASS: That is correct.
MR. POST'ON: And, therefore, the reason that
you would get apparently higher solution rates in the
plant in the process as compared to that material that
is lying on the bottom of the lake is because of its
greater contact surface with the water?
DR. GLASS: Yes. The fine fractions are our
greatest concern. Approximately three to five percent
of the tailings are less than two microns in size and
these are the materials which I would study to determine
the solution rates because of the fact; they are so finel
divided. And a rule of thumb in chemistry is that the
smaller the particle the more rapid the solution. If
you want to dissolve something, you grind it up.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments?
MR. PURDY: I am not sure, Dr. Glass, that you
Did you, Mr. Poston, in your question say that
the solution rate is greater, say, when this material is
-------
60
Dr.G. Glass
in transit through the process within the plant or is
the solubility taking place out in Lake Superior after
the fines have been deposited?
MR. POSTON: Well, I got the point that Dr.
Glass had indicated that there is more material dissolvea
while it is in this plant and in the process because of
the churning in the water and the intimate contact with
all particles of solids as compared to a pile that is
lying out on the bottom of the lake.
MR. PURDY: That is what I thought I heard.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
If not, again, Dr. Mount, do you want to
summarize this or not? I think this is pretty clear,
unless anyone feels the need for that.
If not, thank you very much, Dr. Glass.
You know, I was Interested in one thing you
said. You said that it is a rule of thumb in chemistry
that the smaller the particle the more rapid the solu-
tion. And I remember, oh, it must have been at least
over 30 years ago when I took chemistry, that wasn't it.
A guy like me, when you had a rule of thumb, I was all
-------
61
Dr.G. Glass
thumbs, and when you had a real small particle I just
couldn't find any solution. (Laughter.)
Let's stand recessed for ten minutes.
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston, do you want to proceed
with the next question?
MR. POSTON: There seems to be some question as
to--
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. POSTON: --the trend--
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: Is is possible to bring back
the last witness, Dr. Glass?
MR. STEIN: Yes. Dr. Glass., will you come back
I hope he is still here.
I have had repeated requests from the audience
for the conferees to speak up. They can hear some of
us, that is Mr. Prangos and me. Maybe that is because we
both grew up in the same area of the country where we ar
used to shouting. But they are having a little difficult
in hearing the conferees' questions and some of the
responses. I would ask that all the conferees make an
-------
62
Dr.Q. Glass
effort to speak slowly and with enough force so they can
be heard.
Dr. Glass?
MR. POSTON: Dr. Glass will be here in a minut
Here he is .
DR. GLASS: Yes, sir.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Glass, you spoke of these trace elements
between the intake water and the discharge water being
a certain percentage of certain trace elements.
DR. GLASS: Yes, sir.
MR. BADALICH: Could you equate this also in tie
figures, relating their significance in parts per billioi
or parts per million, and so on, and also how they affect
the water quality?
DR. GLASS: The percentage rates--
MR. STEIN: Dr. Glass, did you hear me while
I was talking?
DR. GLASS: No.
MR. STEIN: The people really can't hear in the
back.
DR. GLASS: They cannot?
-------
63
Dr.G. Glass
MR. STEIN: We would appreciate it if you spoke
slowly and spoke up.
DR. GLASS: All right.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
DR. GLASS: My judgment as to how this affects
the water quality would only be as a layman. I am a
chemist by training and not a public health person, so
that my observations are mainly chemical in nature. I
cannot relate this to aquatic life . This should be done
by a biologist.
The particular increases that I cited are
probably the maximum rates that one would expect to see
for these tailings. That is,the water is taken into the
plant; it is crushed; intimately ground with these
materials and is spewed out again probably anywhere
from three to ten minutes after taken in, depending
upon the plant volume. I have no idea what it would be.
If the intake is 300,000 gallons a minute, the plant
volume contains 300,000 gallons and every minute the
water is changed in the plant. 30 that if this repre-
sents 5 to 10 minutes of contact with those tailings,
this would indicate the maximum rate of solubility that
-------
64
Dr.G. Glass
one would see, because the most soluble materials would
dissolve first and the less soluble materials would take
more time to dissolve. It is a rate of solubility. When
we have a heterogeneous mixture, you see this type of
separation.
MR. BADALICH: Well, Dr. Glass, I understand
that. But when you speak in terms like, as an example,
potassium 250 percent, now, this is a voluminous or a
tremendous increase. What does this actually mean in
chemical terms insofar as in milligrams per liter, let
me say, or parts per billion, or so on?
DR. GLASS: The intake of water in this table
to your agency is .6 of a milligram per liter.
MR. BADALICH: Right.
DR. GLASS: And this increases to 1.5 milligra
per liter, which is approximately a 250 percent increase
MR. BADALIGH: I wanted that brought out so
that we could get an understanding how it relates to our
particular parameters that we have designated in the
water quality standards.
DR. GLASS: This is, I believe, far below the
water quality standards, yes. This rate of increase
ns
-------
65
Dr. G. Glass
represents approximately ten minutes or very approxi-
mately ten minutes of contact of the lake water in term
of tailings. Now, whether or not this is going to go
up tremendously as the tailings remain in contact with
the water remains to be seen. I can't say. I will have
to test it.
MR. BADALICH: Let's take another example like
copper, which is very important.
DR. GLASS: Copper, according to Mr. Lee, was
supposed to be removed from the water., absorbed in the
tailings removed, so that he states that, if it is
correct, "The sorption test showed that the taconite
tailings would tend to remove trace metals from Lake
Superior water and indicate that some of the toxic
metals such as copper present in the surface waters of
Lake Superior in areas of taconite tailings discharged
would be removed from the water and carried to the sedi-
ments by the tailings."
So this says that the copper in the water in
the area of the discharge would be removed from the
water. This is what his very preliminary experiments
show. However, the 11-year average you have indicates
that this is not the case. The copper comes in at .003,
-------
66
Dr. G. Glass
3 parts per billion, and is excreted at 3 parts per
billion, and if any was going to be absorbed this would
be its greatest chance because it is most concentrated
when it is coming out of the plant. As it goes out
of the plant into the lake water, it is diluted, so the
possibility of absorbing that copper already present,
certainly its chances will decrease.
And it is not absorbed; it remains the same.
Nickel also remains the same. I don't know what happens
out of the plant; I haven't made that study.
MR. BADALICH: All right.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions or
comments?
If not, thank you again, Dr. Glass.
Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: Thank you, Dr. Glass.
Mr. Badalich raised a question on the amount
of tailings that are in suspension and on the bottom of
the lake. Dr. Baumgartner, oceanographer from our North-
west Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, is here, and he
could discuss his calculations on the tailings that are
unaccounted for. I would like to ask Dr. Baumgartner to
-------
Dr. D. J. Baumgartner
review some of the presentations that he made and how
it was made which would clarify for the conferees the
dispersal of taconite tailings over the bottom.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Will Dr. Baumgartner come up.
I might indicate that Dr. Baumgartner may be
located in Corvallis, but he is our national oceanog-
rapher and our senior expert on this matter.
Dr. Baumgartner.
Look at him, a senior expert. I remember him
when he got out of engineers school. (Laughter.)
DR. D. J. BAUMGARTNER, OCEANOGRAPHER
NORTHWEST WATER QUALITY LABORATORY
FWPCA, CORVALLIS, OREGON
DR. BAUMGARTNER: My name is D. J. Baumgartner,
and I wish to review some of my testimony which I pre-
sented in May. At that time I discussed the possibility
of a stable density flow from Reserve's discharge down
to the bottom of the lake,and I think I showed that this
was highly unlikely--that there would be, certainly, a
density flow, but it would be with an unstable interface
-------
68_
Dr. D. J. Baumgartner
and there would be some mixing of the material with the
lake water and some transport of suspended material.
Then we looked at a report from Mr. Collier of
the U. S. Geological Survey, who also testified in May,
and that contained a diagram of the bottom sediments near
the Reserve discharge site which was prepared by Reserve
Mining Corporation.
We then calculated how much material was in the
area surveyed on the bottom^ which extended about 12 to 13
miles offshore and 20 miles along shore where the sediment
layer ranged from .1 of an inch to as much as 6 inches.
We calculated the volume in this deposit as *l45 million
cubic feet, which represented about 33 million long tons
of material, assuming that it was completely solid. If
we assume that the void ratio was about 40 percent, in
other words only 60 percent of this was solid material,
it would only represent 20 million long tons.
We calculated from Reserve's data that 71
million long tons of material were retained near shore
on the delta, which gave us a total of 91 million long
tons accounted for. Since the beginning of operations,
the reported figure for total tailings production was 156
-------
69
Dr. D. J. Baumgartner
million long tons, which to me meant that 65 million long
tons were not accounted for, either on the delta or the
immediate area of discharge.
This could mean that the material is deposited
elsewhere in the lake bottom, which we today have some
evidence of, or that some of it could be distributed in
the water mass of the lake as finely divided partictilates
which we also have some evidence of today from Dr. Andrew
testimony.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions
Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: Another clarification that we would
like, to make is on the adverse effect of the taconite
tailings on the lake, and I have Mr. Jack Arthur, who
can talk to this point.
JOHN ARTHUR, BIOLOGIST
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY LABORATORY
FWPCA, DULUTH, MINNESOTA
MR. ARTHUR: My name is John Arthur. I am a
biologist with the National Water Quality Laboratory here
in Duluth.
-------
7_0_
J. Arthur
There have been two recent biological bottom
surveys off Lake Superior's north shore in connection with
determining if taconite tailings have an effect on bettor.-
associated organisms. One of these studies was done by
the State of Minnesota during the summer of 1968 and the
other by Reserve Mining Company during the spring of 19&
In both of these reports, the collecting and biological
preparative procedures are very similar and warrant com-
ment and comparison.
It is known that Lake Superior has a comparati\fi
low fish productivity and the State of Minnesota reports
that water depths of between 100 to 40O feet are the
regions primarily inhabited by fish along the north shors
After sampling the presence of fish food organisms, or
animals, living at these depths, the State of Minnesota
in their report concluded, in part, that the numbers of
Pontoporeia, these are freshwater shrimp, per square met^r
were significantly lower at depths of 175 to 400 feet in
the lake reach below or southwest from Reserve Mining
Company than in the reach that they sampled northeast or
above the plant. However, the populations of Oligochaet^s
(these are aquatic earthworms), Chironomids (we call these
-------
71
J. Arthur
•
midges) and Sphaeriids (these are fingernail clams) were
the same or higher in this downshore reach. Of the four
groups of animals found,, the lake shrimp, or Pontoporeia,
were concluded by this State as being by far the most
important fish food animal. For comparison, the State in
their report referred to their 19^9 study where no sig-
nificant differences in lake shrimp were found in two
transect lines, one above and one below the plant site.
In Reserve Mining Company's report, the author,
Dr. David W. Anderson, did not make any real conclusions
as to the effect on lake shrimp within the zone of tailin
deposition. In addition, this report also failed to dis-
cuss and compare the State's report, although the State's
report was cited in their introduction and bibliography.
Some conclusions can be made from the excellent data pre-
sented in Reserve's report. Before proceeding to my con-
clusions, I would like to mention one important variable
and that is the nature of the bottom sediment where this
animal lives, that is the Pontoporeia.
Lake shrimp are known to be a burrowing type of
animal and they restrict themselves mainly to living on
the bottom of the lake rather than in the mass of water
-------
72_
J. Arthur
above the bottom. They are also common along the north
shore at depths of 100 to 400 feet, and this animal seem
to have a preference for an organic type of substrate.
With these known biological requirements and habits in
mind, I only evaluated two of the four transect lines in
which the substrate consisted of an organic or silty
sand or clay sediment. That is, only two of the first
four transect lines had this type of sediment that they
have been known to prefer. When I made this comparison,
I found a 40 percent decrease in Pontoporeia numbers,in
lake shrimp numbers.
Concerning Reserve's sampling line 5 at a uni-
form depth of 200 feet at 9 stations, I was only able to
compare 6 of these, 3 above and 3 below the plant, since
again only these 6 stations had an organic or silt natur
to their bottoms. This fifth sampling line revealed a
50 percent decrease in lake shrimp numbers.
Thus the data from both Reserve Mining and the
State of Minnesota show an approximate twofold or 50
percent decrease in lake shrimp numbers in zones where
tailing deposition is found. Both reports show that the
total biological productivity in reaches studied above a:
below the plant site are essentially the same, and this
is because of the increased numbers of aquatic earthworm
id
-------
73
J. Arthur
and midges.
The aquatic earthworms and midges have been
thought by many people in the biological field to play
very minor roles in the food of north shore commercial
and sport fish. It has been shown in Lake Michigan that
lake shrimp, together with aquatic earthworms, fingernail
clams and midges, completely dominate the bottom fauna,
the bottom animals, in Lake Michigan. In fact, in Lake
Michigan the lake shrimp are dominant of tnese four
animals and comprise 60 percent of the total mass.
I feel that the situation is also true for the
stations sampled northeast from Reserve Mining Company,
but at the stations sampled southwest by both Reserve and
the-State there has been a shift in species composition
and this is nicely shown in figure 2 of Reserve's repor
Reserve's report, incidentally, is found in the hearing
minutes during the main conference. It is found in
Appendix G.
The approximate twofold decrease in lake shrimp
numbers shown in both reports in those samples collected
southwest from Reserve Mining Company represent a sub-
stantial food loss to lake trout, smelt and whitefish
-------
74
BBB^^^^^^f^^^^'^^^^B^'II^^^BII^B^—^ll^^—^^B^^^-^^^miH^I^^^*—!-^**—^!*^^—!^^^**!—^^*****!^^*^^*,^^^^^^^^^^^*^^—^^*!^^^*^^*!^^^^^^^*!^—^^,*!,^^^^^*****^*^**^^^^^^,
J. Arthur
living in this north shore area.
Any questions?
MR. STEIN: Mr. Purdy.
MR. PURDY: To save my time in getting out the
reoorts, js all this biological data restricted to Minne
sota waters?
MR. ARTHUR: That is correct. Both of these
reports were pertaining to Minnesota waters and Lake
Superior.
MR. PURDY: What percent of the total lake are
would this represent?
MR. ARTHUR: All right. Now, with what I just
presented, I will just give you the mile reaches. This
represents approximately from 9 miles northeast of
Reserve Mining Company along the shore to 10 to 15 miles
southwest along the shore at depths of between 100 and
400 feet. I can't give you the square surface area, but
I did give you the mileage and the depths.
MR. PURDY: The detrimental effect, though, is
limited "fco southwest?
MR. ARTHUR: This is correct, this ia what bot!
-------
75.
J. Arthur
reports show. This is where the tailings deposition is
found, in these reaches.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Arthur, this so-called
changing in the biota of the bottom of the lake, and we
are talking about Lake Superior now, is this also preva-
lent in other lakes? Can this change in the type of
fish food organism occur in other lakes? It is not
just unique to Lake Superior?
MR. ARTHUR: This is correct. But you have to
realize that with these reports I am restricting this to
a definite type of bottom sediment. These animal num-
bers can change if the bottom sediment changes, if we are
talking about bottom animals, but in what I was just
talking about I was talking about a more or less uniform
type of bottom sediment. If you are talking about that
at a definite depth, then we are talking about that there
should be uniform numbers.
MR. BADALICH: What I am trying to say, this
also can happen in other lakes, not just unique to Lake
Superior, where the biota does change with time and other
-------
76
J. Arthur
elements, and so on?
MR. ARTHUR: This can happen, yes.
MR. BADALICH: And also can you state what per-
centage the freshwater shrimp are of the diet of the
trout or the fish fauna in Lake Superior?
MR. ARTHUR: I will take the State of Minnesota
what they have in their bibliography. They state that lak
trout within the size range of 4 to 10 inches, 50 percent
of their diet consists of lake shrimp, in that size range
of lake trout.
As far as smelt are concerned, they will sub-
sist to approximately l6 to 20 percent on lake shrimp,
evidently all size ranges of smelt.
Now, for whitefish, all I can say there is that
there are several reports stating that whitefish are
known to eat lake shrimp, but I can't give you any per-
centages .
MR. STEIN: Any other comment or question?
MR. Frangos.
MR. PRANGOS: Mr. Arthur, is there any correla-
tion in terms of the amount of taconite deposited in that
area to the reduction in shrimp population that you are
s--
-------
77
J. Arthur
talking about?
MR. ARTHUR: I have tried to make this calcu-
lation based on Reserve's data where they show the amount
of tailings deposited on the bottom and these animals,
but I was unable to do this because I lacked a good map
showing the depth distribution along the lake, an
accurate map. So, in other words, I can't tell you, for
example, if there are approximately four inches of
tailings on the bottom, how much this would affect the
lake shrimp. All I can tell you is that where the tail-
ings are found, both reports show that the lake shrimp,
numberwise, are reduced.
MR. PRANGOS: But these tailings have been
identified previously, prior to the use of this tracer
technique?
MR. ARTHUR: Yes. With both these reports, I
think Reserve Mining Company did the analysis and they
used the titanium method.
MR. PRANGOS: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions?
I think we have two basic problems here that
we may indicate, and possibly you may want to comment on
-------
J. Arthur
this, your opinion based on the material in the record,
Mr. Arthur.
One, is there a causal relationship between the
taconite discharges from Reserve Mining and the loss of
the biota which affects the food chain of the fish?
And the second question--
Well, do that first.
MR. ARTHUR: As far as the numbers of Pontoporei
or lake shrimp only, both reports show where there are
tailings--
MR. STEIN: Is the answer yes?
MR. ARTHUR: The answer is yes, yes.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Now, the next point I have to make is if a
fishery—and we have had the same problem in the other
if a fishery or a portion of a fishery is impaired in one
portion of the lake within a State boundary or possibly
a province's boundary, will that diminution affect the
fishlife in the lake as a whole or do those fish just
recognize the State and provincial boundaries and stay
there?
MR. ARTHUR: Here I'm afraid I am going to have
-------
79_
J. Arthur
to defer opinion. I am an invertebrate biologist, not a fish
biologist.
Dr. Mount, do you have any statement on that
question?
DR. MOUNT: I was coughing, Mr. Chairman.
Would you ask the question again?
MR. STEIN: Yes. The question is--I know we
have had this problem and we have raised the same ques-
tion in, say, Lake Michigan and Lake Erie, to be specific
on two—but if a fishery resource is depleted in an area
of a lake, such as a Great Lake and take Lake Superior,
which lies within the boundaries of either a State or a
province in Canada, will the affect of this depletion
have an effect on the fishery resource of that lake as a
whole?
DR. MOUNT: Well, I think that it is impossible
to divide an ecological situation like Lake Superior into
State boundaries. There is no question that fishing in
one State has produced--! mean the removal of fish by
fishing in one State has produced a serious depletion of
stock in the lake as a whole. I think the answer to your
question lies in how much reduction there is, and I don't
-------
8o
J. Arthur
think at this point we have any information telling us
how much of a reduction in terms of the total lake this
effect on the invertebrate organisms represents.
I think it is important to point out this, that
as near as I can tell--and Mr. Arthur can correct me if I
am wrong--the studies that were done were still showing a
reduction in bottom organisms at the limits of the study,-
and I think that it is very definitely an important point
as to how much further this reduction might occur.
Now, Mr. Arthur in his presentation tried to
remove the variables which were attributed by the company
to refute the conclusion that the State arrived at;
namely, they said that the decline was due to a change in
bottom type. Now, Mr. Arthur in his analysis has removed
water depth as a variable, he has removed bottom type as
a variable, and he has looked at the most valuable food
organism that we have in the lake for fish food supply;
and the only conclusion that we can come to is that there
is a reduction related to the distance from the plant.
I think furthermore it is important to recog-
nize that there could be, I think, two kinds of effects
on bottom organisms. One is a physical due to the
-------
81
J. Arthur
smothering effect, or whatever it might be, of the
particles and the second is a chemical effect. If we
are trying to measure the effect of a discharge in the
river, we don't look immediately opposite the discharge
on the other bank to find the effect, we look downstream.
And so it is in Lake Superior, we have got to look down-
stream with the prevailing current from the discharge in
order to find these effects. The data, both of
Reserve and the State, show that the decline of organisms
is greater downstream from the plant, where you have one
of two things happening, I believe ^--either it is the
physical effect of fine materials producing the change
that we see or it is the solution and leaching of tailing:!
I think these are the only two logical conclusions I can
see that would account for the decline in organisms.
MR. STEIN: Let me again pursue that. And just
stay there, Dr. Mount. I recognize the problem that we
always have when we deal with the experts in striving for
quantitative data. I recognize from Mr. Arthur's
statement and your own that on the basis of the material
in the record certainly we haven't been able to arrive
at definitive conclusions on quantitative data. But in
-------
82
Dr. .D. Mount
descriptive or qualitative terms, as I understand your
statement and Mr. Arthur's statement, is that there is
a causal relation, you believe, from the taconite
discharges and the interruption of the biota, the fish
food chain, near the plant and diminishing away from the
plant--that that affects the fish and affecting the fishe
in this way cannot be divorced from the ecology and the
fish population in the lake as a whole.
I just have one further question on this, and
I wonder if you can give us an opinion on this. In the
law we have something we call the minimals. Do you think
this is a significant effect or is it so minimal that we
shouldn't take account of it?
DR. MOUNT: I don't think that we can discount
this effect at all at this time. I don't think we can
put a percentage on it either as to how much it affects
it.
MR. STEI1N : I recognize that.
Are there any other comments?
Mr. Purely.
MR. PURDY: Yes. In this causal relationship
now, can you state at this point in time whether this is
-------
__ , 83
Dr. D. Mount
due to deposition of solids or by an increase in dis-
solved solids?
DR. MOUNT: No. I think there is another
possibility, too, and that is the suspended solids. 1
think there are three effects that may be important
here .
MR. STEIN: I don't want to confine this or
pursue it, but I think this might lead to some conclusions
I thought I heard you say that this may have had several
effects and one effect was the blanketing of the bottom.
Well, if we deal with the blanketing of the bottom, then
we are dealing with--come to the conclusion that at least
partially this is due to deposition of solids, or do I
misinterpret it?
DR. MOUNT: You will have to ask that question
again. I don't think I got the point.
MR. STEIN: 0. K. If we are not dealing with
material leaching out or in suspension,which may affect
it and which logically can do this, you make a definite
statement that the settling on the bottom of the solids
covers up certain areas necessary for the biota to grow
in a food chain. Now, if you have come to that conclusion,
-------
84
Dr. D. Mount
then the question here is not whether any of the three
are done, they may be all three, but you have made a
definite conclusion about one, that the settling and
deposition of solids on the bottom is affecting the food
chain and the biota of the lake.
DR. MOUNT: I don't think there is any ques-
tion that the blanketing by fine material on the bottom
has an adverse effect on the bottom organisms. I think
perhaps in this lake even more important is that the pri
mary species, commercially important species in the lake,
the lake trout and the lake herrin,g, are species which
disperse their eggs on the bottom, scatter them on the
bottom, and they lie there for a long period of time
before hatching, on the order of two to three months, I
believe, because of the cold temperatures, and these
eggs are not cared for by the adults at this time. I
think if I would have to check the most important effect
of the blanketing, I suspect it would be on fish eggs.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich.
-------
85
Dr. D. Mount
MR. BADALICH: Dr. Mount, to your knowledge or
has your laboratory undertaken any studies of this mag-
nitude in any other portion of the lake? The reason I
ask this, now, we do have sediments coming in from all of
the tributary rivers, and so on. Has there been any
study, do you know of any study that has been made, to
see what the effect of these sediments might have to the
bottom organisms and the fish food?
DR. MOUNT: I know of no specific studies;
we have not made any. I would not be surprised if there
are such studies in the lake, and I am certain that if
there is enough heavy natural sediment deposition there
will be adverse effect there too. I wouldn't make any
distinguishing effect in the terras of the blanketing.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
If not, thank you, Dr. Mount.
Do you have anything, Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: No.
MR. STEIN: Advance information indicates that
the next question will take a little time, so we will
recess for lunch now and reconvene at 1:30.
(NOON RECESS)
-------
86
AFTERNOON SESSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1969
1:30 o'clock
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
Mr. Poston. I think we are up to the last
question we had, water quality requirements for open
waters of Lake Superior.
MR. POSTON: One of the key issues facing the
conferees is the proposed water quality criteria, and Dr
Mount is prepared to discuss the specific criteria and
their application to Lake Superior waters.
Dr. Mount.
DR. DONALD I. MOUNT
(CONTINUED)
DR. MOUNT: This information that is being
passed around is nothing more than a summary of data
presented in the report that was presented by FWPCA at
the May conference.
As I see it, there are two major points to be
clarified about these criteria, and I think that I would
like to ask, if at all possible, that the conferees con-
sider my discussion of this and my comments about these
-------
87
Dr. D. Mount
criteria as relating to the requirements for the use as
separate and apart from standards, which, of course,
involve legal aspects as well.
The National Water Quality Laboratory was asked
by the Great Lakes Region to prepare a set of proposed
water quality criteria appropriate to Lake Superior,
taking into account the very low dissolved solids content
of the lake water, the rather unique organisms in the
lake, particularly lake trout and lake herring, and es-
pecially its deep cold characteristics.
One of the two considerations, I think, which
has to go into any final decision on water quality stand-
ards is, first of all, what is required for the particula:
use, be it drinking water, drinking water supplies, or be
it producing aquatic life or swimming.
And the second consideration which must be
looked at carefully is what are the existing conditions
in the lake and how do the proposed criteria relate to
the existing conditions.
I would like to take up the second question
first or the second consideration first, and that is the
existing conditions, because I think that there was a
-------
88
Dr. D. Mount
considerable amount of, I believe, misinterpretation of
what the situation really is in the presentations that
were made in May.
I would like to first refer you to the long
sheet that I passed out entitled "Table 3, Proposed Water
Quality Criteria for the Open Waters of Lake Michigan,"
and you will note that this is essentially the same —
MR. STEIN: Isn't that Lake Superior?
DR. MOUNT: Did I not say Lake Superior? Yes,
I meant Lake Superior.
And this is the same table that you will find
on page 44 of the FWPCA conference report.
What I have done is to list, first of all, the
proposed criteria in two columns, column 1, 90 percent of
the values not to be exceeded, and the second column, the
maximum values. These are the proposed criteria.
Then in the next six columns there are three
columns devoted to Lake Superior at Duluth, minimum,
maximum, and mean, and then St. Mary's River at Sault Ste
Marie, minimum, maximum, and mean. This is the informa-
tion that is contained in Appendix B, I believe it is, of
the conference report and this was prepared simply to
-------
89
Dr. D. Mount
help the conferees look at the proposed criteria as they
relate to the existing conditions in the lake. Most of the
information which is given here for existing conditions in
Lake Superior at Duluth and Sault Ste. Marie is found in
these appendices under the appropriate parameters, such
as detergents, phenols, or whatever it may be.
I have tried to add some additional data, which
we should have put into the appendix where it was avail-
able. We just failed to give the mean. We might have
given the range instead of the mean or something. And I
believe it was one of the Michigan representatives in
particular who asked about this at the conference, and
this is the reason for preparing it.
I think it is important to point out that we
believe that these two sampling stations—which, by the
way, are those of the National Water Quality Network; it
has had various names, now called the Pollution Surveil-
lance System, I believe, and represents data from 1958
until the present time, at least through 1968--we believe
that these stations reasonably well represent open lake
water. And I wish to emphasize again that they are pro-
posing these criteria for the open lake and recognize tha
-------
River at
. Marie
Parameter ax. Mean
Dissolved Oxygen 6.1+0 12.2
Turbidity Ju 9.0
Color
Wavelength A -absorbance units -
Wavelength B^-absorbance units
PT-CO - Color 0.0 1.31
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Coliform Bacteria No/100 ml 000 5
Fecal Coliform Bacteria No/100 ml -
Detergents (MBAS)
Phenol C. 002
Ammonia Nitrogen .100 .03U8
Phosphorus
Sol. PO U - T as PO U 0.5 0.0017
Phosphorus T as P
Iron
Cadmium S.D. -
Chromium .007 - -•
Copper .028 .005
Lead .012
Nickel .028
Zinc . 1;06 .OUl
Cyanide
Hydrogen Sulfide (as total sulfide
measured at bottom-water interface)
Taste and Odor - Chloroform Extracts
Threshold Odor
Temperature (Surface in top meter)
January, February, March 3,3 .j
April, May, June \^Q 5.5
July, August, September 3^ l6.0
October, November, December ^Q T- 0
pH- Should remain between 6.8 to 8.5 u8.50 7.76
1, 2, 3, U & 5 - See Page it't Original
-------
90
Dr. D. Mount
there will be areas around the shore, either from shore
erosion or tributary input, which will alter the appro-
priateness of these criteria in those areas.
I think also another point which is very often
not considered when establishing criteria or standards
is that very often different uses will have different
tolerance levels or permissible concentrations, and I
need not go into that any further. I think it is quite
obvious that this is true.
But what I do want to point out to you is some-
thing about the reasons for proposing different parameter
on this list.
MR. STEIN: For the record to make any sense,
I think we had better put all these three items, your
tables and your charts, in the record.
DR. MOUNT: There are only two tables that I
am talking about.
MR. STEIN: Yes. We had better put them in at
the beginning of your remarks.
(Which said tables are as follows:)
-------
92
RESERVE'S LAKE SUPERIOR DATA ("OPEN LAKE") -
APPROXIMATE MEAN VALUES OF 10 REPORTS:
Reserve's Data
Phosphorus ^.002
Iron .008
Copper .003
Zinc .005
Nickel .005
Ammonia ^.010
Lead <.001
Cadmium «^.001
Turbidity(JTU) 0.4-0.5
Dissolved Oxygen 13
pH 7.8
Dissolved Solids 57
Proposed Standards
^.010, maximum
<.030, 90% of time, max. 0.100
<.008, 90% of time, max. 0.012
<.010, 90% of time, max. 0.015
<.015, 90% of time, max.0.030
<.050, 90% of time, max. 0.10
<.030, 90% of time, max. 0.050
^.002, 90% of time, max. 0,005
<.50 (JTU), 90% of time, max. 5.0
. (at all times)
6.8-8.5 inclusive
<65, 90% of time
Concentrations shown above are in milligrams per liter
(parts per million, ppm) .
, less than
, greater than
, less than - or equal to
-------
93
Dr. D. Mount
DR. MOUNT: The dissolved oxygen recommended
criteria, the bacteria limits, the color—no, I am sorry,
not the color—the ammonia, and perhaps one or two others
which sulfide can be one of them, are presented at these
levels, principally because we believe that these are
very important indicators of the overall condition,
particularly in regard to the decomposition of organic
matter. The oxygen values, as you can see, at Lake
Superior—excuse me--at Duluth average 12.6 milligrams
per liter on an annual basis with a minimum value of 9«^-«
Now, we believe that if the oxygen were to be permitted
to go down to 7 or 5, numbers which are very often used
in standards, that this would represent a tremendous
amount of organic decomposition and oxygen demand, which
in turn would release a number of highly undesirable
materials into the water, such as ammonia if it were
aerobic in composition.
Bacterial numbers at 1,000 per 100 millileters
higher would also represent a substantial amount of
activity on organic matter which is not now in the lake,
and we believe that if these values were adopted as the
goals on the lake that we would be able to inhibit, stop,
-------
94
Dr. D. Mount
the development of organic decomposition situations
like we have, for example, in Lake Erie. I am not trying
to say that Lake Superior is soon going to be in that
stage, but I think this is a way to keep a handle on
what is happening in the lake.
There are other values, parameters, proposed
such as turbidity, color, and temperature I think we
should include in here too, which are sort of related to
the esthetic considerations in the lake. For example,
you will recall, perhaps, at the May conference I pre-
sented the slides showing the Lester River entering Lake
Superior with a turbidity of 25 Jackson Units, and it
looked like a muddy mess coming into a clean body of
water. The turbidity values here proposed we are not
suggesting have to exist in order to allow photosynthetic
activity, but rather to maintain the present appearance
of the lake.
And you will also recall that I showed slides
of green water and clear water where the suspended solids
content was about twice as high in the green water, it
was about a half, as I recallj or perhaps a quarter—
three-quarters of a part per million of solids in the
-------
95
Dr. D. Mount
clear water and perhaps one and a half parts per million
in the green water, quite obviously different and with
light penetrations reduced by at least 50 percent or more
I am simply using this to point out that a very
small change in suspended solids in the lake will show up
drastically because the lake is clear now. This change
would not even be partly measurable in a much more turbid
water. For example, in the St. Louis River I don't think
we would be able to see this change at all. My point is
simply that small changes in Lake Superior are going to
show up a great deal more than we customarily think about
them in other types of water.
Several of these, particularly phenol, iron,
and taste and odor are aimed principally at municipal
water supplies, the tainting problem. The chromium
values, for example, and the lead values are based on
PHS recommended criteria for drinking water supplies.
Now, PHS recommended a maximum permissible concentration,
which you will find under the maximum values,and our
position is that we should not and cannot allow the lake
to reach the very limit for drinking water most of the
time. We have not that good a control on it. And so that
-------
, 96
Dr. D. Mount
the most of the values should be less than that threshold
limit.
Several of these, such as zinc in particular anc
copper and cadmium, the recommended criteria are based
principally on the requirements of aquatic organisms. We
feel, as indicated in the appendix of the report, that
zinc is high enough now in the lower end of the lake, as
indicated by the Sault Ste. Marie data, to have an
inhibitory effect on fishery production, and we have
cited some of the evidence that we use for that. That,
by the way, has been published, I believe, since the
conference in May and is available now as reference.
Hydrogen sulfide again has been proposed to be
measured where it is ecologically important right at the
bottom water interface, and we have a very fine piece of
work at the University of Minnesota under Dr. Lloyd Smith
which shows that sulfide kills fish eggs and embryos
in concentrations only slightly higher than those given
in the proposed criteria. These are lethal exposures of
short-term duration, and so quite obviously, again, we
must hold the mean situation or mean conditions below
that.
-------
21
Dr. D. Mount
The temperature criteria I realize are quite
different than we are normally thinking of them, but we
believe that these are realistic numbers if we are to
maintain especially the lake herring and the lake trout
in the lake.
Now, if you would for a moment turn to--well
I am assuming that you can make your own comparisons
between what we find to be the existing conditions as
indicated in the network data, which is under the other
columns, and if you have any questions we can cover those
in a minute.
I wish now that you would turn to the other table
we passed out, which is entitled "Reserve's Lake Superior
Data - Approximate Mean Values of 10 Reports." This is
data contained in the conference report of May and has
been treated by their consultant to remove the values
which they believe are from the heavy density current areja,
and so we are suggesting and agreeing with Reserve that
the values they have reported do represent open lake
water. And I might add that we place complete reliance
on these analyses and we believe them to be very accurate
and consistent with the ones that we have made on open
-------
98
Dr. D. Mount
Lake Superior water.
I want to underline again the importance of the
statement I made that the sample values which were taken
out of the heavy density current, that is where the
turbidity or I believe the iron was high, have been
removed out of this table--that what we are looking at
are those values which Reserve believes and we believe
do represent open lake water. And you can see for the
parameters listed—phosphorus, iron, copper, zinc, nickel,
ammonia, lead, cadmium, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH,
dissolved solids--all are less in the samples measured by
Reserve than any of the proposed standards. And we
believe that this is additional evidence, along with the
first table; that tne criteria that we are proposing are
clearly not higher or of higher quality than existing
conditions in the lake,; that in fact in almost every case
the existing values are much lower than the proposed cri-
teria; and that this is the reason we feel that they are
realistic. And furthermore, we believe that they have
been proposed at levels which will not impose any undue
hardship on any known present discharge in terms of meet-
ing these. There is not attached with the adoption of
-------
99
Dr. D. Mount
these criteria and the standards any massive treatment
program required, and this is why we feel that these are
realistic values and should be used as guides in estab-
lishing our goals on Lake Superior.
I believe this pretty well summarizes the
salient points that I wanted to make. I don't know if
you have any questions or not.
MR. STEIN: Are there any questions?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Purdy.
MR. PURDY: Dr. Mount, how do you relate this
last statement now to the parameter zinc, your recommend-
ation of a maximum value of .015, to the mean value of
the St. Mary's River at Sault Ste. Marie of . 0^1? This
is about three times your recommended maximum value. Are
you saying now thai; this does not represent open lake
waters for Lake Superior?
DR. MOUNT: I think that this may be partially
true. There are, as you know, base metal deposits all
down the shore, and I think it is quite reasonable to
expect some leaching of these materials into the lake
water. It is my feeling from looking at the current
-------
100
Dr. D. Mount
patterns in the lake that that water does move on down the
south shore and out the end of the lake. I believe that
this is an undesirable condition where it exists. I am
not suggesting and I have no information as to the source
of this, but I think this is a logical place to look.
MR. PURDY: Well--
DR. MOUNT: I am sorry, I did not answer your
question. I think that this does not represent the open
water of the lake, and I think--yes, open water for zinc
is represented in the data presented by Reserve where you
see the concentrations for their values are around 5
micrograms per liter, 5 parts per billion.
MR. PURDY: Now, you think the zinc has been
contributed, you say, from leachings or from point source
and is it something that is controllable?
DR. MOUNT: I have no specific information on
its source, but I cannot believe that—well, I believe
that there is a substantial contribution from leaching
simply because there are mineral deposits on the shore.
MR. PURDY: Which would not be controllable?
DR. MOUNT: Right. I think what this says, then
in terms of any type of program is that we have to be
-------
101
Dr. D. Mount
especially careful about anything added from a controllable
source.
MR. PURDY: You also have to be careful when yo
set a standard. Why don't you take action now to meet
that standard?
DR. MOUNT: I don't think the problem is any
different with zinc than it is with temperature. Every
natural water has a temperature too and natural waters
in one place, due to no activity of man, may not be suit-
able for a particular fish or a type of use, and so we
have to recognize that.
MR. PURDY: I thought we recognized this when
we set the standards.
DR. MOUNT: Zinc is a tough problem. I am not
trying to say I have the answer to it. But neither can
we back away from what we believe to be the requirements
of these animals.
Now, I would like to also mention, by the way,
in addition that this is not one of the toxicants and
it is one of the few, by the way, that we have studied in
which there is a broad range of rate of response. You
don't suddenly get death or stoppage of reproduction or
-------
102
Dr. D. Mount
something like this with zinc. There is a broad range
where you just have less and less egg production when
you have these tons of concentrations.
And so we are not saying that lake trout cannot
reproduce under the existing conditions as represented by
the Sault Ste. Marie data, but we are saying they are
detrimental to reproduction and will reduce the amount.
MR. STEIN: Any other questions?
Yes, Mr. Frangos.
MR. FRANGOS: Dr. Mount, this chart that you
have just given us, is this just a recasting of the
recommended values that occur in Table 3 of the report
or are there some changes that have been made?
DR. MOUNT: The recommended criteria are
supposed to be the same as occur on page 44, and also
our page 44 has that table referred to in the recommenda-
tions .
MR. FRANGOS: But these numbers have not been
changed thereof?
DR. MOUNT: I don't think there have been any
changes. It is unintentional if there are. What has
changed is the data for existing conditions, and in some
-------
103
Dr. D. Mount
cases we failed to put it in the appendix and we have
tried to add it here. However, most of the data con-
tained in the last six columns is in Appendix B.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
Let me try to understand you. When you compare
Reserve's data in the open lake with the proposed stand-
ards, how come these standards are so much higher than
the existing conditions? Have all these States signed
the nondegradation clause? For example, phosphorus, how
many times have you gone up over that?
DR. MOUNT: Well, that would depend on--
MR. STEIN: Well, look at the maximum and what
you have now.
DR. MOUNT: As I indicated when I started out,
these recommendations were written based on the require-
ments of the use, and we believe our--
MR. STEIN: Well, for example, how many times
is that phosphorus maximum over the Reserve's data that
you agree with?
DR. MOUNT: Well, in this case it is five times
higher, but there are many other cases where it is probably
-------
Dr. D. Mount
five times lower than what has been measured too.
MR. STEIN: Well, I don't see any case that is
lower here .
DR. MOUNT: This is in Reserve's data, but, of
course--
MR. STEIN: What I am getting at, Dr. Mount, is
why do we want to set up a standard that is five times
more phosphorus than is in the lake now?
DR. MOUNT: Well, if you look at the Table 3,
the long page, you will see that the maximum values
measured in Duluth are .076, which is seven times higher
than the proposed standard. Phosphorus seems to vary
considerably, depending on who measures it and where they
measured it. Perhaps Dr. Bartsch would be better preparec
to-answer the question as to what we should accept as a
reasonable number. I think he should respond to that if
you have further questions on phosphorus.
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, I think phosphorus is a
critical point here.
Dr. Bartsch, would you come up, please. If we
are talking about a fivefold increase in phosphorus, we
might have a problem, I don't know.
-------
105
Dr. A. Bartsch
This is Dr. Alfred Bartsch,, our national expert
on the eutrophication of lakes. I have worked with Dr.
Bartsch ever since I have been in the program. I
suspect that you people who have been in the field know
that his reputation is international and he generally has
the experience not only in this country but throughout
the world.
What is the situation with phosphorus?
DR. ALFRED F. BARTSCH, DIRECTOR
PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATER LABORATORY
FWPCA, CORVALLIS, OREGON
DR. BARTSCH: Have you properly identified me,,
Murray, or do you want me to say my name is A. F. Bartsch;
I am Director of Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory of
the FWPCA in Corvallis, Oregon.
I want to call attention to the fact that on
page 93 of the FWPCA report, the page that deals with
phosphorus, and under IV let me read, for what I hope
will be some clarification, the recommended criteria
there, and it says:
"The total phosphorus levels should not be
-------
106
Dr. A. Bartsch
permitted to exceed existing values."
I interpret this to be overriding with respect
to the following sentence, which then says:
"Where background data are not available the
maximum value should not exceed 0.01 mg/1
total phosphorus."
MR. STEIN: That is quite a bit different than-
well, that is the same as they have here.
DR. BARTSCH: Yes. I presume that what I have
just read is the standard as it is still proposed, and it
removes the objection that I understood implying that
there would be an intent to permit phosphorus to go
higher than the current levels, as this statement now
says. This is not to be permitted under the standard
and that we will maintain the phosphorus levels as they
are now, the only proviso being that where there are no
data spacially in the lake, then the 0.01 becomes the
allowable limit.
MR. STEIN: We don't have data for most of the
lake, do we?
DR. BARTSCH: Well, then, this means that we
need to focus on the 0.01 as to whether or not it is
-------
107
Dr. A. Bartsch
reasonable, and if you wish for me to comment in this
vein, I will be glad to do that.
MR. STEIN: I will be glad to hear what you hav
to say.
DR. BARTSCH: I think there are several points
that might be made and I may have said these same points
in May. If I did or did not, let me repeat them.
In the first place, I think there is a funda-
mental point that ought to be made and that is that if
we go back to scientific logic, then we know that phos-
phorus is one of the key elements involved in the physio-
logical process. And I tell people that 100 years ago,
in fact 130 years ago, which was the time of the existence
of a scientist whose name was Leibig, he already pointed
out to us that the size of the crop of plants — and in
this case the plant is the algae we can grow in a given
lake — is determined by the required nutrient element
among some major 10 which is present in the least
amount in relation to its requirement. Now, it turns
out that in most lakes, and especially those lakes that
have not yet gone down the eutrophication path, phosphoru
is the element that occupies this critical position.
-------
108
Dr. A. Bartsch
The second point is that if we look at the
information that has come from the studies of lakes from
the point of view of what makes them become eutrophic--
and I am using the term here in the sense of the principa
symptom of the process — which is objectionable blooms of
algae,then we will find that phosphorus again as it
increases seems to be the element that triggers off these
objectionable blooms.
If we go back to the year 1942 or 1943, Glair
Sawyer, who worked in the State of Wisconsin, studied
some lakes and came to the conclusion that if at the
beginning of the growing season the amount of phosphorus
turned out to be, curiously enough, equal to the standard
that we are talking about, 0.01 milligrams per liter,
that this was enough in those lakes to produce blooms of
algae that people would find objectionable.
Well, subsequent to that, in fact just recently
there has been an appraisal of essentially all of the
world's literature that impinges on this point. And I
would like to call the document that grew out of it to
the attention of this group, because if you are really
seriously interested in this standard and in this problem
-------
109
Dr, A. Bartsch
this is the Bible that you had better look to. The title
of this, which I would like to read into the record, is
"Water Management Research, Scientific Fundamentals of
Eutrophicatlon of Lakes and Flowing Waters, with Particu-
lar Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as Factors in
Eutrophication." This document was not available in May
except in German and in French. It has now become avail-
able in this English version, and if any of you wish to
have a copy, you might also want to copy down that, it is
available from the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, which has its headquarters in Paris.
The reason I identified this that precisely
is because the critical examination of all of this
experience indicates that this number 0.01 is still a
fairly valid number. And if we are to think, as we
apply it to Lake Superior, of preserving this lake in
its present condition, then certainly this is the maximuir
that we should ever consider letting this lake go.
And as long as I have the floor, I want to
bring up another point, because someone is going to ask
this—in fact, it was asked the last time, I think, by
you, Mr. Frangos; correct me if I am wrong—would I be
-------
110
Dr. A. Bartsch
disturbed if we didn't get around to limiting the input
of phosphorus for seven years. And at the time I said
if I were absolutely certain in my own mind that we woulc
get around to that accomplishment in seven years I would
feel fairly comfortable, but we have seen many of these
good intentions come and go and sometimes we don't make
the deadline.
And so I brought with me the October issue of
Field and Stream, and with the permission of the Chairmar
I want to read two paragraphs in it which will help me
answer this question, and I turn to page 36. The title
of this,which is a popular subject now, "Man's Damage to
the Environment," is expressed here in the question,
which is also the title of the article, "From Here to
Oblivion?" and these opening two paragraphs say:
"The question before the House, and not only
the House but the Senate as well, and the President and
his Cabinet too,"--and I want to add to this, for those
of us who are assembled here—"is how to get the reins
on a headstrong, runaway national environment and turn
it in the right direction before it goes completely,
everlastingly, irreversibly haywire.
-------
111
Dr. A. Bartsch
"The answer may be difficult to come by, but
the facts of the case are now clearly known. I hear them
stated again and again in sundry Washington quarters.
The nation is always catching up with crises after the
damage is done, they say, whether from pesticides,
pollution, oil slicks, or other abuses of the once
beautiful earth God bestowed upon us. Unless we can get
out front, with long-range plans, including firm restrain
and disciplines over industrial production, resource use,
and human population growth, then the country will prove
unworthy of its natural blessings; it will pass the
point of no return on the course of ecological disaster
before we know it."
MR. PURDY: Who is the author?
MR. STEIN: Who wrote that?
DR. BARTSCH: Frome.
MR. PURDY: Who?
MR. STEIN: Frome.
DR. BARTSCH: The author's name is Michael
Frome, F-r-o-m-e.
MR. PURDY: Who is he with?
DR. BARTSCH: I didn't hear you.
-------
112
Dr. A. Bartsch
MR. PURDY: Who is he with?
DR. BARTSCH: He is one of the editors of Field
an d Stream.
MR. PURDY: Thank you.
DR. BARTSCH: If you would like to see this, I
will loan this copy to you. (Laughter.)
I think, Murray, that this expresses as best I
can the kind of urgency that I think we ought to have witii
respect to keeping the phosphorus out of Lake Superior.
MR. STEIN: Right. Thank you.
Are there any questions here?
Gentlemen, I really do think when we have
looked at the other Great Lakes, the critical point in
eutrophication that we found is phosphorus. We have a
chance now, a real chance, in Lake Superior to control
the phosphorus. I think this is evident. You don't need
a scientific study. And I don't mean this really as an
advertisement, because I stayed at the Edgewater at the
other end of town, but now I am at the Holiday Inn, and
you can just get on the balcony and look at that water anc
you can see the clarity of it.
The point is, if you are going to maintain it
-------
113
Dr. A. Bartsch
this way, the numbers that Dr. Bartsch has given—and in
my opinion there is no one better than Dr. Bartsch in
this field — if you are going to maintain this we have to
keep that magic number of the phosphorus in our minds.
By the way, not to disillusion you all, I don't
think that Reserve Mining is a significant contributor
of phosphorus. Is that right?
DR. BARTSCH: As nearly as I can tell from the
data that I have seen, I would say that is correct.
MR. STEIN: That is right. In other words,
this largely comes from organic wastes. But this is the
critical element that we have to look at. If you are
going to look at this lake and maintain it the way it is
and maintain the clarity, I think the essence is to
really try to have the conferees look at what Dr. Bartsch
has said about the limits we can keep the phosphates to
in Lake Superior. I think we have a tremendously good
opportunity to do it, because presumably the phosphates
are five times below this right now and you have a tre-
mendous amount of leeway and cushion, and this is obvious
But these things become insidious and creep up little by
little by little.
-------
114
Dr. A. Bartsch
While Dr. Bartsch is here I want to indicate
the problems we have had in the other Great Lakes. When we
began having problems on Lake Erie and Lake Michigan these
problems were not great lakewide problems at first. At
first they were these little niggling local problems that
were proliferating around the lake. Gradually these prob-
lems became so great in the aggregate that the lake began
to go.
If we are going to preserve a resource like
Lake Superior, the present state of our science and our
technical knowhow indicates that the level of phosphorus
is probably the most critical indicator we have and this
is the one we have to keep in mind. If anyone else has
a different view on that, I would like to hear it.
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. PURDY: Dr. Bartsch, we have heard dis-
cussions of the so-called natural rate of aging and
then how man's activities in the basin have added to the
natural rate. Now, when we say control input of nutrient£
from point sources to a lake, will we still continue to
have, say, some change in the characteristic of the lake
-------
115
Dr. A. Bartsch
due to a natural aging process?
DR. BARTSCH: I think the only way I can answer
that is to point out that there is no pat answer to it and
that every lake and its watershed are different from
every other one. If one were to raise this question
with respect to Lake Michigan—and I may not recall the
numbers exactly, but my recollection is that an estimate<
two-thirds, roughly, of the phosphorus comes from point
sources and the other third comes from diffused sources
off the land--I would say there that in the long run
once we control the point sources, if we are to preserve
this lake for the next 12,000 years, if we wish to occupy
this planet that long as human beings, I think we are
going to have to devise some means also of curtailing
the input from natural sources. This may be a heretical
thing to say and many people will disagree with it, but
I think that in those lands which are fertile we are
going to have to find some way to control that source of
input.
Now, if we think of this in relation to Lake
Superior—again I am in foreign territory here--but I do
recall something in this FWPCA report that says that the
land
-------
116
Dr. A. Bartsch
arouna here for the most part is not very fertile, and -
we have a rule of thumb here which is logical that the
drainage from fertile land is fertile water. One could
anticipate, then, that with respect to Lake Superior the
major source of input is going to be people, and as the
population grows then this sort of input potentially
will grow too.
MR. STEIN: Fritz, you know, the land may not
be fertile here, but if the major source of input is
going to be people, the people up here are surely fertile
(Laughter.)
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. FRANCOS: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Frangos.
MR. FRANGOS: Let me quickly say that we share
the sentiments of Dr. Bartsch'a statement and also yours,
Murray, and I think we will just get down to the matter
of whether we are selecting the right numbers. We have
some data that indicates that these phosphorus levels are
now being exceeded far out into the lake off the Apostle
Islands, and our assessment of those reports is that we
really can't see a causal effect and result why we are
-------
117
Dr. A. Bartsch
getting those numbers. And so we are just a bit concerned
that perhaps we are exceeding these numbers already and
can we really practically come back to the 0.01?
The other point, it seems to me where you are
talking about background data not available, well, that
means because you don't know you set a number, but you
may get out there and find the number higher.
MR. STEIN: That is right.
What have you got to say about that, Dr. Bartsc
DR. BARTSCH: I don't think there is any real
response except that this is a fact of life . I think
superimposed on it is the point that while we talk about
this so appearing magic number of 0.01, it is significant
in the sense that this is the level at which you begin to
have a definite factor on the part of people that we now
have this much algae that we find objectionable. If we
add more phosphorus we are going to have more frequent
occurrences of this objectionable type of growth. If we
drop below that number, all other things being equal,
which they aren't always, we will have less frequency of
such conditions or they may never reach the point that
people find them objectionable. This is a sort of slidinr
-------
118
Dr. A. Bartsch
scale sort of thing.
And so one might say, well, if we want to keep
this lake at roughly the level of production it now has,
let's stop it at this point in terms of concentration of
phosphorus.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Dr. Mount.
DR. DONALD I. MOUNT
(CONTINUED)
DR. MOUNT: Now that the Mighty Oak has spoken,
the clinging vine would like to say something too.
(Laughter.)
I think we have a tendency at times to close
our eyes to the multiple-use concept of water as well,
and I don't really think that we want a distilled water
basin in Lake Superior either. We have to have some
phosphorus in the water in order to provide nutrients
for the necessary amount of algal growth that must take
place in the lake in order to sustain a commercial fish
crop. I am thankful that I am not in the shoes of you
conferees of having to decide where you draw the line
-------
Dr. I>. Mount
between clarity in the water and good fish production^
but a line will have to be drawn and it is, I think,
just an inverse relationship to each other. There is
no question about it that in Lake Erie there are more
pounds of fish in a square mile than there are in quite
a few square miles in Lake Superior and this is not
coincidental.
The point I am making is that our goal is not
zero phosphorus but some appropriate value which will
permit sufficient plant growth and still maintain the
esthetic appearance of the lake. And we believe that
this value lies somewhere between what it is now and
0.01.
I don't know whether I have clarified the
issue at all or not, but what I am trying to say is
there is a tendency to think that anything in this water
is bad beyond HoO and this is clearly not the case. As
a matter of fact, many of the parameters that are listed
in this table are very necessary for growth and were they
not there we would not have a desirable condition either
So we must shoot for some compromise, and in th
case of phosphorus it is a particularly touchy one becaus
-------
120
Dr. D. Mount
it would appear that we are playing within the range of
10 parts per million.
MR. STEIN: Any other question^
If not, thank you.
Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: That is the extent of discussions
on some of the issues that I think are important. I
don't intend to portray the idea that these are the only
things that the conferees will have to discuss, but I
think at this time this is all we have to present.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Mr. Badalich, do you want to put in--
MR. BADALICH: No comments.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to put any presenta-
tion in or do you want a recess?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, at this time I
don't believe we have any witnesses or that there is any
additional testimony to be brought forth. We were going
under the pretense that we would evaluate the data as
presented. And I think this morning we were given a lot
of additional data, new testimony. I still maintain it is
new testimony, and I certainly would like to have time
-------
121
M. Stein
to evaluate this information with my experts and also
with possibly some of our consultants, I am referring to
the Conservation Department and others in State govern-
ment that have the expertise to make an evaluation.
So I am not prepared to make any rebuttal of
any of this information. But we certainly would like to
have time to study it and probably come up with some
conclusions or recommendations of our own,based upon the
testimony brought forth this morning.
MR. STEIN: Do any of the other conferees have
anything to add to this point?
Well, the point is we do have proposed con-
clusions and recommendations. Do you people think it
might be profitable to run through these and see how far
we can get with them?
It might be worthwhile to go through this and
see how far we can get in an agreement on this. Unless
you have another proposal it might be advantageous to
try to see how close together or how far apart you are
on these.
Who developed these, Mr. Bryson?
MR. BRYSON: Yes, sir.
-------
122
Summary and Conclusions
MR. STEIN: I wonder, Mr. Bryson, if you would
come up and read Summary and Conclusion No. 1 and let's
try to go through these and see how far we can move and
what the reaction is.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
MR. BRYSON: "Summary and Conclusion No. 1.
Lake Superior is a priceless natural heritage which the
present generation holds in trust for posterity, with an
obligation to pass it on in the best possible condition."
MR. FRANGOS: We have no objection to that
statement. (Laughter.)
MR. BRYSON: I have one on motherhood and apple
pie coming up soon. (Laughter.)
"2. The esthetic value of Lake Superior is of
major importance. The lake's deep blue appearance is a
significant tourist attraction."
MR. STEIN: All right, wait a minute. Are
there any comments there?
If not, let's go on to No. 3«
MR. BRYSON: "3. Because of the low mineral
content of Lake Superior's waters, increases in the rang*
of 2 to 50 parts per billion of heavy metals such as
copper, chromium, zinc, and cadmium will have lasting
-------
123
Summary and Conclusions
deleterious effects upon the lake."
MR. STEIN: Are there any objections to that?
MR. BADALICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, has it been
proven by all testimony that there will be a deleterious
effect from these metals, and so on? I suggest possibly
as a revision there, before the word "increases" put in t
"unnatural increases," eliminating that part"in the range
of 2 to 50,"I think you are being very specific there,
and in turn certain minerals or metals may have lasting
deleterious effects upon the lake. So then the paragraph
would read:
"Because of the low mineral content of Lake
Superior's waters, unnatural increases in minerals or
metals may have lasting deleterious effects upon the
lake."
MR. STEIN: I don't know, let's work on that.
What do you mean by this 'unnatural"?
MR. BADALICH: Well, I think we are restricting
or at least we are talking about now point source of dis-
charge and other discharge other than actual, so here we
are talking about ranges of 2 to 50 parts per billion
for--
lere
-------
124
Summary and Conclusions
MR. STEIN: By natural do you mean manmade?
MR. BADALICH: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Well--
MR. BADALICH:By unnatural I mean manmade.
MR. STEIN: Yes. By the way, I am not arguing
with your concept. I am talking about would you accept
'manmade" instead? The point is the word "unnatural" may
not have the kind of meaning—
MR. BADALICH: I think we would, because we
have no control over nature.
MR. STEIN: I know, I recognize that. But if
we say "manmade," we are saying the--in other words, I
would not like to call the activities of a city or a
steel company or a lead company or anything else an
unnatural activity.
MR. BADALICH: That is fair enough.
MR. STEIN: Yes. (Laughter.) But I think if
we say "manmade increases," what do you fellows think of
"may" or "will"? Is there any comment on that or do you
want to buy it?
MR. BADALICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, in my own
mind I don't feel that it has actually been pinpointed
-------
125
Summary and Conclusions
that there will "be.
MR. STEIN: I understand your point. I just
want to elicit comment, if there is any, or is this
acceptable to change "will" to "may"?
MR. POSTON: I think the biologists have told
us this morning, in my understanding, that concentration;
of copper, for example, chromium, are going to have a
definitely adverse effect on fishery in the lake if you
get into those concent-rations.
MR. STEIN: Do any of the other States want to
comment on that?
MR. PURDY: Well, Mr. Stein, as to whether
something has a deleterious effect, for example the zinc
that was questioned, I would expect whether it is from
natural or manmade sources that the effect would be
deleterious. So that to some extent even an increase
from natural sources would have a deleterious effect
but it would not be subject to control.
MR. STEIN,: That is right.
MR. PURDY: And later on if we go into the
recommendations, why, we could take care of that part.
So I guess to be correct, why, any increase could have
-------
126
Summary and Conclusions
a deleterious effect.
Prom the standpoint of the "may" or "can," when
you talk about a range of 2 to 50 parts per billion, this
is quite a range. I am not sure that we have demonstrate<
"can" in all cases. I don't see where "may" hurts us in
any way.
MR. STEIN: Your view is we strike the "manmade
and just leave "increases" and go to "may"?
MR. PURDY: As long as we recognize that later
on there may be some natural sources that we will not
recommend programs for control--
MR. STEIN: I don't know. Now, again I would
hope you could get together on this, because if we are
dealing at this conference with controls, we have zeroed
in on the manmade source--
MR. PURDY: That would be perfectly agreeable--
MR. STEIN: --maybe we can leave the'manmade."
Now, does anyone really have a strong feeling
on this "may" or "will"?
MR. POSTON: Dr. Mount indicates that 50 parts
per billion of copper would kill fish, well, trout for
example, lake trout, in less than — or in 24 hours, let's
-------
127
Summary and Conclusions
say two days.
MR. STEIN: Yes. Mr. Poston, in dealing with
the maximum part of the range, the question is will 2
parts per billion of copper kill fish. If it won't,
then I think "may" may be preferable. If you are going
to put the whole range in, then you have to have your vefb
relating to the whole subject and not just part of it.
MR. BADALICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe
that is the point. Dr. Mount and Dr. Bartsch testified
about phosphorus. We are talking about the number 0.01
of one part. There again we are saying here that we are
also including minerals that might have some effect, not
numbers low in minerals.
MR. STEIN: Does anybody have any objection to
"may" here with the range?
MR. POSTON: How about "changes in the order
of magnitude of parts per billion may have lasting dele-
terious effects"?
MR. STEIN: "Manmade changes in the order--in
the range." What do you mean "order"?
MR. POSTON: This doesn't have to be manmade
necessarily.
-------
128
Summary and Conclusions
MR. STEIN: We understand that. The point is,
presumably here we are not dealing with the natural
changes. If we are laying the groundwork for a control
program, we are dealing with the manmade ones.
Let me try this:
"Because of the low mineral content of Lake
Superior's waters, manmade changes in the range of parts
per billion"—strike out "2 to 50"--"of heavy metals,
such as copper,chromium, zinc, and cadmium, may have
lasting deleterious effects on the lake."
Is that an acceptable statement?
MR. POSTON: I think so. You might want to
add phosphorus in there.
MR. STEIN: Is that a heavy metal? You know,
I am a rudimentary scientist. I am just asking.
MR. PURDY: What was your suggestion now?
MR. STEIN: Here, let me run this this way:
"Because of the low"--let me check with you
people. I hope we don't have a non sequitur. I hope
that "Because of the low mineral content of Lake Superior
waters" tracks --"manmade changes in the range of
parts per billion of heavy metals such as copper,
-------
129
Summary and Conclusions
chromium,zinc, and cadmium, raay have lasting deleterious
effects upon the lake."
Is that all right?
All right. Will you go to the next one, please
MR; BRYSON: "4. The extreme clarity and cold
temperature of the waters of Lake Superior are a necessit
to support its present ecology. A reduction in light
penetration will significantly alter the types of life
therein. The clarity of the lake is extremely susceptibl
to being reduced by pollutants."
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments on that one?
Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, there again I
wonder if in the second sentence we might change tne
"will" to "may"?
MR. STEIN: How do you people feel about that?
Any other comments?
MR. POSTON: I think one of the reasons that
we might want to leave "will" in there is that we have
seen this occur in some of the other Great Lakes, -the
changes ,in life as you change penetrations.
MR. STEIN: How about, and I just throw this
-------
130
Summary and Conclusions
out, how about striking "significant" and say "will
alter"--
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
MR. STEIN: --as a flat statement?
MR. PURDY: That is all right.
MR. STEIN: All right?
All right. Are we all set on 4?
Let's go to 5«
MR. BRYSON: "5. The portion of Lake Superior
shallow enough to provide suitable fish spawning areas is
limited to a small band around the shoreline. This area
is most susceptible to the influence of natural and man-
made sediments. Deposition on the bottom of fine particles
discharged to Lake Superior is a threat to the inshore
food producing area and to the incubation of important
fish species."
MR. STEIN: Any problem with that one?
If not, let's go to 6.
MR. BRYSON: "6. Water quality criteria can
be established to protect the esthetic value, recreational.
uses and the unique aquatic life of the lake and yet such
that reasonable allowance is made for future municipal
-------
131
Summary and Conclusions
and industrial expansion."
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: I seem to be getting all the
discussion here.
I believe water quality criteria have been
established to protect the esthetic value, recreational
uses and unique aquatic life of the lake and reasonable
allowance is made for future municipal and industrial
expansion.
I believe we have interstate water quality cri-
teria standards that have been approved by the Federal
Government, although we have not the final word from the
Secretary of the Interior, But I believe as stated in
this document that the water quality criteria established
by the three States is of the highest water quality cri-
teria of any place in the Nation, and so I believe that
water quality criteria have been established to protect
these particular uses.
MR. PURDY: Mr. Stein, when you take into con-
sideration the so-called antidegradation statement that
has been included as a part, I believe, of all three
-------
Summary and Conclusions
States' approved water quality standards, I think I would
have to take the same position as Mr. Badalich, that they
have been established.
MR. STEIN: Do you people agree with that? You
don't?
MR. POSTON: I think there is a definition in
some of the—or one of the standards that calls a trace
of copper 50 parts per billion, and this is one of the
values that we think is--
MR. STEIN: You mean the values are—
MR. POSTON: It is listed as a trace. And the
trace is —
MR. STEIN: Let me try this, because I—
By the way, I don't know anything about this.
I haven't been working on the processing of these.
But your view is that the standards as proposed
may not go through as they are, it isn't Just a pro forma
approval by the Secretary of the Interior to add substan-
tive questions.
If this is the case, let's hear it.
MR. PURDY: They have been approved essentially,
except in Michigan's case the temperature standards have
-------
133
Summary and Conclusions
not been approved, but outside of that they have been
approved, including the anti-degradation statement.
MR. POSTON: It is my understanding that in
the case of Michigan those standards have been approved.
MR. STEIN: With the copper part?
MR. POSTON: No, I don't think this applies to
Michigan, the copper part.
MR. STEIN: We had better put this in the
record if we are going to come to an agreement. Let's
get down to specifics. Who are you talking about?
MR. BADALICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, in the case
of the State of Minnesota, we submitted our standards as
required in June of 196?. In June of 1968 we received
word from Secretary of the Interior Udall that the
standards were approved except for certain exceptions,
and nothing, certainly, pertaining to the Lake Superior
Basin, other than one stream where we did not set the
standards, on the St. Louis River. But since then, sub-
sequently, we have had meetings with the PWPCA. The
former Commissioner of the FWPCA, Commissioner Moore, ap-
proved the standards and recommended approval to the Dep
ment of the Interior, and likewise Commissioner Dominick
rt-
has
-------
134
Summary and Conclusions
But we feel that they are on the way and that they will
be approved momentarily.
DR. MOUNT: Mr. Chairman, if I may comment on
this, I think perhaps we have a problem of definition
here more than the approval of inappropriate standards,
and I feel that we got trapped in the same trap which
the United States Pood and Drug Administration has been
in with their pesticide zero tolerance levels. It is
my understanding that in several instances limitations
were placed on certain materials, such as copper, which
is a very good example, saying that no more than a trace
shall be present. I would have defined a trace as being
that amount which would not be detectable or barely
detectable by the currently used methods. However, it is
my understanding that this value, a trace, has been
defined by some of the States as 50 parts per billion.
Now, it is a matter of what is a trace and what
isn't, and I think what we need to do is to put down the
number rather than some word which doesn't tell us any-
thing .
MR. STEIN: 0. K. If this is the problem, let
me just take a second to talk about the zero tolerance
-------
135
Summary and Conclusions
operation and the problem that we had in this field.
Food and Drug has had this for many, many years. If
we can we will try to work it out here.
The problem is this. If you say you have a
trace of copper or no copper or no oil or no anything or
a trace of anything, what this generally means is whether
you can find that with the usual technique of measurement
Now, what happens is, say, if the usual technique of
measurement is that you are going to find something with
a zero tolerance, just for sake of argument, rather than
talk about trace, we will give you the characteristic
situation.
Let's say there is to be no copper or no any-
thing, no X, in a food or water or anything. What this
means is that they will use the usual technique to trace
that element. Maybe it is 5 parts per billion that they
find. If anything is below 5 parts per billion, the
normal testing that States and the Federal and the
municipal laboratories do don't find it and they go home
free.
i
Pretty soon when you operate like that you get ,
a bright young boy who comes up--and you have seen them
-------
136
Summary and Conclusions
all, our parade of them here — they have got bright young
boy? running these computers and test these in a new way,
and instead of parts per million they can find this in
parts per billion. Suddenly everyono who was in compliant
without changing something,finds himself in noncompliance
because they have a new test and everyone begins checking
for parts per billion. Well, that happens for a while and
then maybe they scurry around and work it out and they
meet that parts per billion test and they all feel com-
fortable again. Then even a newer boy and perhaps a
brighter boy comes up with a technique to find parts per
trillion and everyone is in violation again.
If this is the problem that we are getting in
and we equate trace with zero, because the notion is if
the standard is a trace of copper and some people think--
what is it, 50 parts per million or billion?
DR. MOUNT: Billion.
MR. STEIN: --50 parts per billion is a trace
and that is all right, and some other people think that
50 parts per billion is more than a trace and it is not
all right, then we are in the soup.
i
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that
e
3
-------
. 137
Summary and Conclusions
the anti-degradation statement that protects the waters
that are of a quality better than the numbers that have
been adopted by any particular State as a standard pro-
tect this area.
MR. STEIN: What do you think of that?
MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Chairman,, can I interject
here or comment?
I would note that our standards have been
approved in toto by the Department of the Interior, but
let me read a sentence from these standards. It says:
"The standards and water use designation are
subject to revision as data become available that permit
objectives to be stated by methods which define the
variation of distribution of values in quantitative and
statistically valid terms."
I think we recognize precisely the problem that
we are dealing with here. I think we ought to have some
recognition in this summary statement that these have
been adopted, but the insertion of the word "have" would
not, in my opinion,, preclude us from considering changing
these standards as the result of this conference.
MR. STEIN: Let me ask you, can we use this
-------
138
Summary and Conclusions
first sentence, that water quality criteria have been
adopted? And maybe we will want to qualify that by the
States .
MR. POSTON: I think that would--
MR. STEIN: "Have been adopted by the States
to protect the esthetic value, recreational uses and the
unique aquatic life of the lake."
I don't know that we need the second half of
that sentence unless you feel it is necessary.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, have you been
stating that the FWPCA is absolved of any responsibility
for these standards?
MR. STEIN: No. As far as I know, the FWPCA
has not adopted these standards. If you want to say
that—in other words, do you want to say that water
quality criteria have been adopted by Minnesota, Wis-
consin, and Michigan for water quality, and so forth,
values of the State, and the Federal Government has
approved the standards of Michigan and Wisconsin but has
not yet approved the standards of Minnesota? Is that
what you want to say? (Laughter.)
MR. BADALICH: No. I think very simply just
-------
139
Summary and Conclusions
put in here have been established."
MR. STEIN: But the point is, the Federal
Government has not adopted the Minnesota standards, as
far as I know.
MR. BADALICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, getting
back to a statement made by Dr. Mount, we have in our
standards also trace indicated for some elements. But
there again we clarify that, as Mr. Frangos pointed out
of Wisconsin, also by a statement that the samples shall
be preserved and analyzed in accordance with procedures
given in the 1965 edition of the Standard Methods for
Examination of Water & Wastewater by the American Public
Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and the Water Pollution Control Federation, and any
revisions or amendments thereto.
So we try to follow the latest techniques on
water analysis.
MR, STEIN: Mr. Badalich, I am not trying to
argue with the validity about those standards. As a
matter of fact, I had nothing to do with them and don't
know what the controversy, if any, is.
What we do know is that presumably all the States have adodted
-------
Summary and Conclusions
standards. We can state that as a factual matter. We
cannot say that the Secretary of the Interior has approve*
the standards for all the States. Can we? Because he
hasn't. And I don't really know what the issue is.
MR. POSTON: The standards for quality on lake
water from the State of Minnesota have been accepted.
MR. STEIN: For Lake Superior?
MR. POSTON: For Lake Superior.
MR. STEIN: Well, then, let's put that down.
This is great. Is this right?
MR. BADALICH: Would you repeat that?
MR. POSTON: That is right.
MR. STEIN: Are we all in agreement with that?
MR. BADALICH: Sure.
MR. STEIN: All right. Then why can't we say
that:
"Water quality standards criteria have been
established by the States and approved by the Secretary
of the Interior to protect the esthetic values, recrea-
tional uses, and unique aquatic life of the lake."
And I would put a period after that. Why do
you need the rest of that sentence? In the first place,
-------
141
Summary and Conclusions
it isn't English .from there on out. But the second thing
it seems to be self-serving and it weakens the operation.
Presumably any kind of standard you adopt makes reasonabl
allowance for future municipal and industrial expansion
or else it is dead the day you adopt it. Why can't we
put a period after "lake" and leave the rest of that
sentence out? 0. K.?
MR. POSTON: One question.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. POSTON: What are the copper and zinc
values for the lake in the Minnesota standards?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Poston, I would refer this
to the staff, but I believe copper is 100 parts per
million or 100 milligrams per liter.
Mr. Joiner?
MR. STEIN: I will tell you what we will do.
And this seems a real technical matter. Let us recess
for 10 minutes. I hope you can resolve this when we
resume.
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
I get some reports from the audience, that confejrees
-------
142
Summary and Conclusions
were weakening badly. And I said, "Who is -weaken
ing,all of us or one of the conferees?" And they said,
"All of you." And I said, "What do you mean?" And they
said, "We can't hear^you in the back." So let's try to
talk up. I do think we have an obligation.
Let's see if we can get to that No. 6 again.
Does anyone have a suggestion?
MR. BOSTON: I might suggest, Mr. Chairman,
that it read:
"Water quality criteria, including nondegrada-
tion provisions., have been established by the States and
approved by the Secretary of the Interior to protect the
esthetic value, recreational uses, and the unique aquatic
life of the lake."
MR. STEIN: All right?
MR. PURDY: Right.
MR. BADALICH: Right.
MR. FRANGOS: Right.
MR. STEIN: Let's read No. 7.
MR. BRYSON: "?. Lake Superior is an oligo-
trophic lake. Nutrient values in some areas of the lake
have been reported at levels approaching those commonly
-------
143
Summary and Conclusions
associated with nuisance algal growths. However, other
factors, such as temperature, are limiting."
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions
MR. FRANG-OS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question
about the purpose of the last sentence.
MR. STEIN: Would there be any objection to
striking that? Is there any objection?
I think that is a good suggestion. Some of
these statements look like they try to get everything
possible in them. Let's strike the last sentence because
I don't think that really is related. This reads:
"Lake Superior"--
Do you want to read that again, Mr. Bryson?
MR. BRYSON: "Lake Superior is an oligotrophic
lake. Nutrient values in some areas of the lake have been
reported at levels approaching those commonly associated
with nuisance algal growths."
MR. STEIN: All right, No. 8.
MR. BRYSON: "8. Outflow from Lake Superior
passes through Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario. Dissolved
chemicals in this outflow contribute to the levels found
in these downstream lakes."
-------
144
Summary and Conclusions
MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a
very significant summary and conclusion because the
waters in Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario can be no better
than those waters which are feeding those other lakes,
and, therefore, Lake Superior quality governs, to some
extent, the quality that you can have in the downstream
lakes.
MR. STEIN: There is no objection to this
sentence?
MR. POSTON: No objection.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
MR. BADALICH: Does this mean from No. 8 that
the nigh quality cf waters of Lake Superior are actually
harming Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario?
MR. POSTON: I don't think it does.
MR. BADALICH: I read it that way.
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, I think if we had
distilled water coming out of the lake we would con-
tribute something in the way of--I mean anything other
than distilled water would contribute something to the
-------
145
Summary and Conclusions
remainder of the lakes. Certainly it shouldn't say it is
harming the rest of the lakes.
MR. STEIN: Does it say it is harming?
MR. POSTON: What you are saying is that the
word "contribute" means to harm? I hadn't interpreted
it in that way.
MR. STEIN: Certainly this is true of chemicals,
aren't they?
MR. BADALICH: I think it has been stated that
chemicals are harmful.
MR. STEIN: Yes. And it is cumulative. You
know, every time I go down to Louisiana, believe it or
not, the thing they always complain about is the stuff
they get in the Mississippi from Minnesota, and sometimes
I am a little startled. But presumably they get a strong
fix on this kind of stuff.
How do you suggest that we word this in a
factual way that will be acceptable to everybody?
MR.' POSTON: All right, "Dissolved minerals in
this outflow become a part of"--
MR. STEIN: Dissolved minerals? All right,
let's try this.
-------
Summary and Conclusions
MR. POSTON: Materials?
MR. STEIN: No, no, dissolved minerals. I am
not sure all materials do, because the organics will be
stabilized or dissipated, won't they? Become a part.
MR. POSTON: How about persistent dissolved
materials?
MR. STEIN: Let's try this. If you want to get
fancy, let's do this:
"Dissolved minerals in this outflow become a
part of the levels found in these downstream lakes."
DR. MOUNT: I don't think minerals is technicall
correct. We are talking about various kinds of materials,
of which minerals are only one.
MR. STEIN: What would you say?
DR. MOUNT: I think "materials" is better.
MR. STEIN: Dissolved materials?
DR. MOUNT: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Or dissolved inorganic materials or
just materials?
MR. POSTON: Materials.
MR. STEIN: Materials? The difficulty I have
with that, Dr. Mount, is to a nonscientist, dissolved
-------
1*1.7
Summary and Conclusions
materials, instead of Toeing a precise term, is a very
vague one.
DR. MOUNT: Would "substances" fit any better?
MR. STEIN: Well, it is really the inorganics
that you are talking about, isn't it?
DR. MOUNT: No, DDT is not an inorganic. It
is an organic, but it is persistent. It is the per-
sistence characteristic that is important and not whether
it is organic or inorganic.
MR. STEIN: Why don't we say:
"Dissolved persistent substances"-- All right?
--"in this outflow become a part of the levels found in
these downstream lakes."
MR. BOSTON: "Become a part or the waters of
these downstream lakes."
MR. STEIN: "Of these waters"? All right.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Stein, would you read that
now?
MR.'STEIN: The first sentence remains the same:
"Outflow from Lake Superior passes through Lake
Huron, Erie and Ontario. Dissolved persistent substances
in this outflow become a, part of the waters of these
-------
Summary and Conclusions
downstream lakes."
0. K.?
MR. POSTON: 0. K. with me.
MR. STEIN: Let's go on to 9.
I will be back in a minute. Mr. Poston, will
you assist in taking over the discussion.
MR. POSTON: All right, let's read No. 9.
MR. BRYSON: "9. The discharge of taconite tai
to Lake Superior from the Reserve Mining Company, E.W.
Davis Works, has a deleterious effect on the ecology of
a portion of the lake by reducing organisms necessary to
support fish life."
MR. POSTON: John, do you want to comment?
MR. PURDY: Did he say to hold the discussion?
MR. POSTON: Well, he said go ahead.
MR. BADALICH: No, I would prefer to have the
Chairman here.
MR. POSTON: 0. K. Would you go ahead with No.
11 or No. 10, Dale?
MR. BADALICH: We have no objection to 10.
MR. POSTON: Read No. 10, Mr. Bryson.
MR. BRYSON: "10. The quantity of oxygen
ings
-------
149
Summary and Conclusions
normally dissolved in water is one of the more important
ingredients necessary for a healthy balanced aquatic life
The discharge of treated and untreated municipal and
industrial wastes with high concentrations of biochemical
oxygen demand has caused oxygen depletion in the St.
Louis River, Duluth-Superior harbor, and Montreal River."
MR. POSTON: Any comments?
MR. FRANGOS: Wally, I would suggest the
insertion of the word in the last line "caused oxygen
depletion in portions of." For example, that condition
does not exist for the whole extent of the Montreal.
MR. POSTON: Yes. Well, I think that is good.
Any other comment?
MR. BADALICH: What was that change, Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: Read it there.
MR. BRYSON: The change is, the second sentence
would now read:
"The discharge of treated and untreated
municipal and industrial wastes with high concentrations
of biochemical oxygen demand has caused oxygen depletion
in portions of the St. Louis River, Duluth-Superior harbo
and Montreal River."
-------
150
Summary and Conclusions
MR. POSTON: Is that acceptable?
MR. BADALICH: Yes.
MR. POSTON: Can we move to No. 11?
MR. BRYSON: "ll. Watercraft plying the waters
of Lake Superior are contributors of both untreated and
inadequately treated wastes in local harbors and in the
open lake, and intensify local pollution problems."
MR. POSTON: No comment?
MR. BADALICH: No objection.
MR. POSTON: Tom Frangos, do you have anything?
Ralph, do you care to comment on that?
MR. PURDY: It is all right.
MR. POSTON: No. 12.
MR. BRYSON: "12. Oil discharges from indus-
trial plants, commercial ships and careless loading and
unloading of cargoes despoil beaches and other recreation
areas, coat the hulls of boats and are deleterious to
fish and aquatic life."
MR. POSTON: Mr. Purdy.
MR. PURDY: I think we could strengthen this
if you put in, say, in the second line "the unloading
of cargoes have despoiled beaches and other recreational
al
-------
151
Summary and Conclusions
areas, coated the hulls of boats and are deleterious
to fish and aquatic life."
MR. POSTON: Have you got that?
MR. BRYSON: You are changing the tense?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. POSTON: Has despoiled.
MR. PURDY: These problems have occurred.
MR. POSTON: Have you got that?
MR. BRYSON: Yes.
MR. POSTON: Any other comment on this? And
then we will read it.
All right, Dale, read it.
MR. BRYSON: As I have it:
"Oil discharges from industrial plants, com-
mercial ships and careless loading and unloading of
cargoes has despoiled beaches"--
MR. PURDY: Have.
MR. BRYSON: Excuse me, "have", all right.
--"have despoiled beaches and other recreational
areas, coated the hulls of boats, and are deleterious to
fish and aquatic life."
MR. PURDY: Right.
-------
152
Summary and Conclusions
MR. POSTON: Any comments? Is that satisfactor
MR. BADALICH: Yes.
MR. POSTON: No. 13-
MR. BRYSON: "13- Evidence of bacterial pol-
lution has been reported in the St. Louis River, and
Duluth-Superior harbor area in Minnesota; and Superior
harbor area, Ashland inshore area and reaches of the
Montreal River in Wisconsin."
MR. POSTON: Mr. Purdy?
Mr. Badalich?
MR. BADALICH: I see you'added the word
"Superior."
MR. POSTON: Yes.
MR. BRYSON: They are both, Duluth Harbor in
Minnesota and Superior Harbor in Wisconsin.
MR. POSTON: Do you want to add the--
MR. BADALICH: No.
MR. POSTON: All right, then, it will remain
as it is.
MR. BRYSON: It will remain as is.
MR. POSTON: Mr. Frangos, do you have anything?
Is that acceptable?
-------
153
Summary and Conclusions
Mr. Stein, we were stopped by summary and
conclusion No. 9 &nc* if you would take up from there,
Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 have been--
MR. STEIN: Approved?
MR. POSTON: --approved.
MR. STEIN: What is the problem with 9?
MR. POSTON: If you open it up, you will find
out. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. BRYSON: No. 9 reads--
MR. STEIN: I guess you have read it.
MR. POSTON: No.
MR. STEIN: You haven't read it yet?
MR. POSTON: He read it, but they preferred
that the Chairman be here.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may comment,
if we accept the testimony this morning as factual and as
not needing further clarification or substantiation, and
as that is apparently the position of the conference,
then we heartily endorse No. 9.
MR. STEIN: Well, do you have any question on
-------
Summary and Conclusions
this 9 as it stands?
MR. BADALICH: No. I believe the testimony
brought forth this morning certainly substantiates it.
But there again I believe this is new testimony; we have
had no chance to evaluate this information; and we would
certainly like to substantiate this material.
MR. POSTON: Let me comment. The State of
Minnesota in the report entitled "Bottom Fauna of the
Minnesota North Shore of Lake Superior as Related to
Deposition of Taconite Tailings and Fish Production,"
it is in the bibliography reference number 5^, reported
a reduction in abundance of fish food organisms asso-
ciated with the deposition of taconite tailings in the
bottom of Lake Superior. It was estimated that the
reduction in fish food organisms could be expected to
result in a reduction of the total annual fish catch
of 5 percent or less for the area having tailings on
the bottom.
MR. BADALICH: I believe in testimony this
morning, Mr. Poston, there were percentages of 19 to
20 and 40 to 50 depending on the size of the trout. But
we go along with the recommendation.
-------
155
Summary and Conclusions
MR. STEIN: In other words, we will accept 9
as it stands, is that correct?
All right.
You are through 10, 11 and 12?
MR. BRYSON: Yes.
MR. POSTON: Yes, and 13.
MR. BRYSON: There were some changes made in a
couple of those. Would you like to have them read?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BRYSON: No. 10 was changed to, the last
sentence after "oxygen depletion" add the words "in
portions of."
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. BRYSON: No. 11 is unchanged.
No. 12 reads as follows:
"Oil discharges from industrial plants, com-
mercial ships and careless loading and unloading of
cargoes have despoiled beaches and other recreational
areas, coated the hulls of boats, and are deleterious
to fish and aquatic life."
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. BRYSON: No. 13 was unchanged.
-------
156
Summary and Conclusions
The maintenance of waterways for commericp.1
and recreational use is a necessary activity. The depo-
sition of polluted dredgings contributes to the degrada-
tion in quality of Lake Superior."
MR. PURDY: No objection.
MR. BADALICH: No objection.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. PRANGOS: All right.
MR. STEIN: Let's go.
MR. BRYSON: "15. Adverse effects upon water
quality and water uses of streams in the red clay area of
northwestern Wisconsin is occurring as a result of land
runoff from poor land management practices. The sediment
contained in the discharges from streams in this area has
an adverse effect on Lake Superior."
MR. STEIN: All right. Are there any comments
or questions?
Go on.
MR. BRYSON: "l6--
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments?
You can come back.
MR. BADALICH: There should be a change in the
-------
_ ___ 157
Summary and Conclusions
verb, I believe, in the first sentence.
MR. STEIN: What?
MR. BADALICH: We are talking about "adverse
effects is;" I believe it should be "adverse effects are
MR. STEIN: "Adverse effects"--
DR. ANDERSEN: -"are occurring."
MR. STEIN:-"are occurring." All right. O.K.
MR. BRYSON: "l6. A persistent pollutant
entering directly into the waters of Lake Superior or
dissolved in the water that feeds the lake mixes with
and becomes an integral part of a significant portion of
the lake water."
MR. PURDY: No objection.
MR. BADALICH: No objection.
MR. STEIN: All right, let's go.
MR. BRYSON: "l?. Discharges of wastes
originating in Michigan and Wisconsin cause pollution
of the interstate Montreal River. Discharges of wastes
originating in Minnesota and Wisconsin cause pollution
in the interstate St. Louis River and Duluth-Superior
harbor. Discharges of inadequately treated wastes
originating in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin cause
-------
Summary and Conclusions
pollution of Lake Superior. This pollution results from
nutrients which fertilize"--
Let me start again from "Duluth-Superior harbor.
"These discharges endanger the health or welfare
of persons in States other than those in which such dis-
charges originate. This pollution is subject to abate-
ment under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended."
MR. STEIN: Any comments or questions?
MR. PURDY: I have an objection. The first
sentence, unless this relates to, say, nutrients dis-
i
charged into the interstate waters of the Montreal River,
j
why, I would object. !
MR. POSTON: ¥e struck in the first sentence '
"Michigan and" and we added one sentence, the fourth ;
sentence down, we have added "This pollution results from :
!
nutrients which fertilize the lake."
MR. STEIN: How does that read now?
MR. BRYSON: The way it would read now is:
"Discharges of wastes originating in Wisconsin
cause pollution of the interstate Montreal River. Dis-
charges of wastes originating in Minnesota and Wisconsin
-------
159
Summary and Conclusions
cause pollution of the interstate St. Louis River and
Duluth-Superior harbor."
MR. STEIN: The only thing you struck was "and
Michigan"?
MR. BRYSON: "Michigan and."
MR. STEIN: All right, are there any other
problems?
MR. BRYSON: I am going to continue. "Discharg
of inadequately treated wastes originating in Michigan,
Minnesota and Wisconsin cause pollution of Lake Superior.
This pollution results from nutrients which fertilizes
the lake."
MR. STEIN: Where do you have that sentence?
MR. BRYSON: Two sentences were added, "Dis-
charges of inadequately treated wastes originating in
Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin cause pollution of Lake
Superior. This pollution results from nutrients which
fertilize the lake." Then we continue, "These discharges
endanger the health and welfare," and so forth.
MR. PURDY: I have one question with respect
to this particular section, and it, as I would see it,
does not address itself to the question of whether I
-------
l6o
Summary and Conclusions
the discharges from Reserve Mining Company are of inter-
state nature. Ana on the basis of the additional material
placed in the record this morning, it would seem as thoug
the conferees could possibly reach the conclusion that
there is presumptive evidence in the record to indicate
that the discharges from the Reserve Mining Company
endanger the health or welfare of persons in States other
than those in which such discharges originate and that
this pollution is subject to abatement under the provisio
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
MR. STEIN: How are we on that? Do you want
to handle that now or not?
MR. POSTON: Do you have specific wording that
you would like to propose, Mr. Purdy?
MR. PURDY: Well, I am not sure that I could
repeat what I stated earlier.
MR. POSTON: Maybe our reporter could repeat
it.
MR. PURDY: Yes.
(Record read as follows:)
There is presumptive evidence in the record to
indicate that the discharges from the Reserve Mining
-------
__ __ _ 161
Summary and Conclusions
Company endanger the health or welfare of persons in
States other than those in which such discharges origi-
nate and that this pollution is subject to abatement
under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
MR. PURDY: What 1 mean by presumptive evidence
is that, as I understand it, these will be continuing,
there will be continuing analytical work on samples
already collected, and that this may at some later point
in time—or that this at some later point in time should
be reviewed by the conferees to make a determination
whether there is such a pollution occurring or whether
there is not such a pollution occurring.
MR. POSTON: You propose this for recommendatiojn
No. 18?
MR. PURDY: Well, or include it in 17, one way
or the other. I don't care.
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. MACKIE: We would feel that this is a
logical conclusion of the conference and would support
Mr. Purdy's position that this should be included at
-------
162
Summary and Conclusions
this point.
MR. STEIN: How does Minnesota feel about this?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, we will concur in
the recommendation.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. BADALICH: This conclusion.
MR. POSTON: I will concur in this.
MR. STEIN: Let's have a sentence and wording
on this based on the--
MR. POSTON: It is all worded there.
MR. STEIN: Let me have it back.
(Record read as follows:)
"There is presumptive evidence in the record
to indicate that the discharges from the Reserve Mining
Company endanger the health or welfare of persons in
States other than those in which such discharges origi-
nate and that this pollution is subject to abatement
under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act."
MR. STEIN: Is that a statement that we want
to put in just as it stands?
If there is no objection, let's go on.
-------
. 163
Summary and Conclusions
MR. BRYSON: That concludes the summary and
conclusions.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Now, do you want to try to tackle these
recommendations or wait until tomorrow?
MR. POSTON: I would just as soon start.
MR. PURDY: If it is felt that we can move
through these recommendations in the morning, I would
prefer to postpone it until tomorrow.
MR. STEIN: What is your view?
MR. MACKIE: This is satisfactory to the State
of Wisconsin.
MR. STEIN: Is this satisfactory?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I think we agree
with that.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. POSTON: Are there other presentations to
make in the morning that would take--
MR. STEIN: I hope this is all we have to do
in the morning.
MR. POSTON: That would be satisfactory with
me .
MR. PURDY: I came on the basis of this being
-------
164
Summary and Conclusions
an Executive Session. No presentation to make on behalf
of Michigan.
MR. STEIN: What time do you want to meet in
the morning? 9:30 or 9?
We will stand recessed until 9^30 tomorrow
morning.
Wait a moment. Wait a moment. Let's hold this.
We are going to start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, an adjournment was taken until
9 o'clock, Wednesday, October 1, 1969.)
-------
Itv
MORNING SESSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1969
(9 o ' clock.)
MR. STEIN: The conference is reconvened.
Mr. Bryson, I wonder if you could come up and
start reading the recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
MR. BRYSON: "it is recommended that:
"l. Water quality criteria as shown in Table
3 (page 44) be included as part of the interstate water
quality standards on Lake Superior to reflect more
appropriately the uniqueness of the lake."
MR. STEIN: Are there any questions on that?
If not,, I have one. I am not sure, as I under-
stood the discussions of the conferees, that we reached
unanimity on the proposed water quality criteria in
Table 3 with the discussion we had here. This raises
some very interesting technical questions. I wonder
if it wouldn't be appropriate to use the same technique
that we used in Lake Michigan and some other places and
ask the Federal conferees and the State conferees to
constitute a technical committee and in six months see if
-------
166
Recommendations
they can come up with recommendations agreed upon by the
staff.
Now, in Lake Michigan we also included in some
of these advisory groups on the committee renresentatives
of industry. "What has occurred there is that we do have a
water quality criteria requirement that has been accepted
by all concerned. I think in the long run this
facilitates a program for pollution abatement in keeping
the lake clean.
Are there any comments on that?
Mr. Purdy?
MR. PURDY: I would support your suggestion,
Mr. Chairman, that this be referred to a technical
committee to report back to the conferees.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. POSTON: The idea of this would be that
certain numbers agreeable to all of the States concerned j
or the States concerned, their government, would provide j
!
in the standards these particular criteria? !
j
i
MR. STEIN: Yes, numbers. They may want to get!
t
zones. Any time you can get a number it is easier for us!
i
i
than just descriptive terminology. But I think for this i
-------
167
Recommendations
to have meaning, unless we are really going to do some
other things, unanimity on this is pretty important.
MR. PURDY: I think it also needs to be under-
stood that, at least I believe, all that this conference
can do is recommend these as guidelines back to the
States and that the States must adopt theitf, then,
through their appropriate means, which in our case means
a public hearing and then a decision by my Commission,
not me, as to whether this new criteria will be adopted.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, we would have to
follow the same procedure in Minnesota also. it would
be adopted as interim guidelines, and in turn we would
have to have the necessary public hearings, and so on.
But your idea would be consistent with our
No. 6 that we just completed yesterday on the summary
and conclusions whereby we say that water quality cri-
teria have been developed, so we have to have it con-
sistent .
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. POSTON: I think it is important that these
standards, quality standards, be updated from time to
time .
-------
16S
Recommendations
MR. STEIN: Let me--
MR. POSTON: There are changes that will be
made from some of the existing criteria, probably.
MR. STEIN: I think this technical committee c&n
consider that. And again,! think both Mr. Purdy and Mr.
Badalich indicated what the situation was. If we were g
to change the standards, we would have to hold the heari:ig
under our Act too and do that, and you know, in one Stat
we had a Federal hearing of that type to set standards.
I know all you people have had experience
with this. However, I really think in going through thi
that, in dealing with something as technical as standard
without the groundwork of the States and Federal people
getting together at the technical level in a technical
committee, we are apt to get bogged down in controversy
and in differences which may be of interest Just to
another technician and no one else. I think that the
fastest way to do this would be to try to get all the
technical people together and see if we can come up
with an agreed-upon statement.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of
discussion, another matter we thought of was that possib
-y
-------
Recommendations
any revisions to the existing water quality criteria
which may be developed in the future to develop research
by the National Water Quality Laboratory--! am talking
about Dr. Mount's organization — that this may be referred
to the National Technical Advisory Committee of the FWPCA
also for their suggestions, recommendations, and so on.
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, I think--
MR. BADALICH: So that these could be not only
adopted for Lake Superior but also possibly adopted for
all interstate waters throughout the Nation.
MR. STEIN: Right. I think that the committee
should have liaison with that nationwide committee to
see if they will do that.
If this is agreeable, can we ask the Federal
conferee to do the secretarial work and set up this
committee? And within a week or two, the States should
put their nominees on the committee and see if we can
get to work on that and have a report to the conference
within six months to see where we are going.
MR. POSTON: Very good.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to
recap this now on what is going to be done?
-------
^ 170
Recommendations
MR.. STEIN: Yes.
That a technical committee will be formed of
the conferees and such representation as. the conferees
wish to have on this; that the responsibility will be
that of Mr. Poston to provide the secretarial work for
the committee} and that the nominees will be provided by
the States and the Federal Government to serve on this
committee within two weeks; and within six months the
committee will report back to the conferees to see if
they have any recommendations for changing existing
water quality criteria or modifying existing water qualitjy
criteria to reflect the conditions that everyone wants
in Lake Superior.
MR. BADALICH: Will there also be coordina-
tion with the National Technical Advisory Committee?
MR. STEIN: Yes, and there will be coordina-
tion with the National Technical Advisory Committee.
¥e will leave that up to the committee to decide how
they want to get it done. We have utilized this device j
!
in the past, and I think these committees generally j
!
become self-operating and define the lines pretty clear.
If that is agreeable--
-------
171
Recommendations
MR. POSTON: This national committee is not a
functioning committee at this time and we should not tie
ourselves to something that--
MR. STEIN: That is right, get a report. But
if you can, you do want liaison with these national
bodies. Now, you may in addition to this--and this tech-
nical committee decided to do this in Lake Michigan--
wish to have industrial consultants in with you. Now,
this is a determination that the technical committee wil.
have to make for itself at its first meeting. If we go
through this procedure, it should be a tremendous service
to all of us. When you are dealing with a small tele-
phone book of numbers and two or three groups come in
with them, the permutations and combinations are such
that it is unlikely that they will be identical in
all respects. Unless you do this Joint groundwork you
are apt to bog down when it comes before a group of
this kind to make a determination. Therefore, I believe
this might be the fastest way to handle it.
If that is agreeable, let's go on to recom-
mendation No. 2.
-------
172
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS NOS. 2 AND 3
MR. BRYSON: Recommendation No. 2:
"The FWPCA and the States keep the discharge of
taconite tailings to Lake Superior from the Reserve Minir
Company, E. ¥. Davis Works, under continuing surveillance
and report to the conferees at six month intervals on an
findings that interstate pollution is occurring or is
likely to occur, and the State of Minnesota is urged to
take such regulatory actions as necessary to control the
intrastate pollution resulting from these discharges, if
any. "
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions
on that one?
I will comment on this. In view of the situa-
tion that we have, I think that the surveillance part of
it is all right. But the next operation that we have, "
the State of Minnesota is urged to take such regulatory a
as necessary to control the intrastate pollution resultir
from these discharges, if any," may "be too vague a charge
to give to the State, with the notion of what they were
going to do and whether that was going to be satisfactory
nd
itions
g
-------
173
Recommendations
or not. I think we possibly have come to a more
definite resolution of the problem. If we could
just take that first part and put a period after
"is likely to occur," and add a second sentence
to that to recommend that Reserve Mining Company,
either by its own work force or by the retention
of consulting engineers, within six months come up
with a plan for reducing the fines which seem to
travel across the lake and to prevent this kind of
travel. These fines, it seems, can be reduced in one
or two possible ways and maybe others, because there
should be no limitation if you get objective. One
way is to keep a certain measure of them out of
the lake and deposit them somewhere else. The other
measure would be to provide a method of coagulation
or other treatment which would cause the fines to
be heavy enough to drop and not drift.
Now, I know, to be specific on this,
in talking to our technical staff, and in particular
Dr. Mount, just as an advisory thing to give a
notion of what kind of ball park we are talking about,
-------
174
Recommendations
they indicate that if there is an objective to keep
fines of 40 microns or less out, or 325 mesh, and have
all the deposits drop within three miles radius of the
outfall, this might be a program which would, for the
time being, protect the ecology of the lake from dele-
terious effects from discharges from Reserve Mining, and
then the lake would be kept under surveillance.
I recognize there are many problems here -one
whether this can be done; whether there is a feasible
methodj whether these requirements or objectives as
indicated to me by our technical staff are the appro-
priate ones;or there should be variations. But the
recommendation is that we should make a start and ask
the industry to engage these firms or do this themselves
and come up with a definite report on this in six months.
MR. POSTON: Do you want me to comment?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. POSTON: Well, I think this Recommendation
No. 2 is kind of obsolete in terms of the discussions
that went on yesterday, and I think that there are two
or three things that I would like to see accomplished by
a recommendation to replace the Recommendation No. 2.
-------
175
Re commendations
I think there should be plans for elimination of pollu-
tion and these should be worked out cooperatively with th
State of Minnesota arid these plans should be for the
elimination of this problem, not something short term,
but a long-term elimination. I see that we become
increasingly more rigid in our requirements for waste
discharged into our lakes, and I think perhaps that these
plans should have alternatives that would show that more
than one procedure for elimination of this pollution has
been investigated and studied.
And the second thing that I think thns--
MR. STEIN: I am not sure I quite understand
you, Mr. Poston. What do you mean--
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I have a recommendk
tion that I would like to bring forth too, when Mr. Posto i
is through.
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
Well, the second thing that I am interested in
is that also at this time they come up with a timetable
for abatement of this problem.
And the third, as I mentioned there, was that
they would work with the State of Minnesota in the i
-------
176
Recommendations
preparation of this.
I would be willing to listen to recommendations
specifically.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, as far as your
second point there on the timetable, I think we had
better have a study first on it.
But we would like to recommend the following.
We will strike out your recommendation in the Lake
Superior report and in turn substitute that the Reserve
Mining Company be requested to undertake further engi-
neering and economic studies relating to possible ways
and means of reducing to the maximum practicable extent
the discharge of tailings to Lake Superior and submit a
report on progress to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and the conferees within six months of the date
of release of these recommendations.
Then also lake sampling and effluent data and
operational information shall be furnished monthly by
Reserve Mining Company to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
That would be our recommendation.
MR. STEIN: All right. Now, I don't think we
-------
177
Recommendations
are far apart. Do you have any objection to that first
sentence, that "continuing surveillance" business, in
this recommendation?
MR. BADALIGH: Nd, we tmven't as such. The
only thing, I think it would "be a little redundant, be-
cause we are asking for lake sampling and so on. We go
a little bit further.
MR. STEIN: No, this is presumably continuing
surveillance by FWPCA, is the first sentence.
MR. BADALIGH: Oh, you have got to have the
States. See, this is a requirement under our discharge
provision.
MR. STEIN: Yes. I think this is compatible.
This is for the State and the Federal Government, the
first sentence, to keep this under continuing surveil-
lance. You are asking in the second--
I think if we make two points, I don't see that
they are inconsistent. You are asking the industry to
report every month to yours, right?
MR. BADALICH: Yes.
MR. STEIN: And the Federal Government and the
States xvould then keep this under continuing surveillance
-------
178
Recommendations
as well. Right?
MR. BADALICH: It is repetitious, is all.
MR. STEIN: I don't know. I don't think it
is repetitious. Because., again, here is the issue we
have: If we are going to program, at least through the
Federal level for getting this thing done, and provide
the men and the money to do it and if we have a recom-
mendation from the conferees, I think that is a basis
for doing it. However, if we just say the industry is
going to provide this, then we have to start a new pro-
gram. And I think this would "be helpful, at least this
first sentence, in stating the responsibility.
Now, the second sentence, the way you put it,
I have no objection to that myself. But the notion is
that I think as an advisory, not necessarily in the
conclusions, that the kind of objective that our
technical staff is thinking of is in the terms that
I outlined. Presumably, then, unless there is a
change—because of these studies--this is the kind
of judgment our technical staff would, make when these
reports come in.
MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, I think it is
-------
179
Recommendations
Important that we have a timetable for the construction
of the abatement facilities--
MR. STEIN: That is another point, right.
MR. POSTON: --at the time of the six months.
MR. STEIN: Right, that is another point. Can
we hold that? Let's see if we can come to agreement.
We have as No. 2 what is in here up to the wore
"occur" with a period. No. 3 will be the wording Mr.
Badalich has given. Right? If we can agree on that so
far. Because there is nothing in there that settles
this question of a time schedule one way or the other.
Could we agree on those two?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Right? Are there any objections?
MR. POSTON: Could we have this again?
MR. BADALICH: Do you want me to repeat it?
MR. POSTON: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: "That the Reserve Mining Company
be requested to undertake further engineering and economi
) studies relating to possible ways and means of reduclng--
We are not just talking about the fines; we
are talking about the possibility of reducing them--
i
i
-------
i8o
Recommendations
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. BADALICH: --without any limitation or
definition of type of material.
"--reducing to the maximum practicable extent
the discharge of tailings to Lake Superior and submit a
report on progress to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and the conferees within six months of the date
of release of these recommendations. "
And then the last sentence would be:
"Lake sampling and effluent data and operational
information shall be furnished monthly by the Reserve
Mining Company to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
MR. POSTON: Do we request that?
MR. STEIN: No, this is-- Who do you request--
MR. POSTON: Well, submit a recommendation.
MR. STEIN: As far as I can see this, this is a
conference recommendation to the State of Minnesota,
and the conference believes it is always a State job to
deal with its own constituents. Presumably, if the
Secretary adopts this recommendation that you have heardr
and I have seen him do it under many, many previous con-
ferences,he would send a letter to Mr. Badalich and ask
-------
181
Recommendations
him to do this under the appropriate State and local law
and State procedures.
But the job and the day-to-day relationships,
I would hope not only for the next six months but from
here on out, will be between Minnesota and Reserve Mining
and whatever other industries they have in the State.
MR. POSTON: I think what I am looking for at
the end of this six months' period would be a plan of
the Reserve Mining Company for abatement of their pol-
lution with a schedule as to when this can be done.
MR. STEIN: I understand that point. That is
part of this procedure. If we have the first sentence,
No. 2 will read:
"The FWPCA and the States keep the discharge of
taconite tailings to Lake Superior from the Reserve
Mining Company, E.W. Davis Works, under continuing sur-
veillance and report to the conferees at six-month
intervals on any findings that interstate pollution is
occurring or likely to occur."
That is No. 2.
No. 3 will be what Mr. Badalich indicated.
Now, if we go into your point, and this is
-------
182
Recommendations
adopted, it can follow, but I think let's square 2 and 3
away first if we are agreed on that.
In other words, do you object to what we have
said so far?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: I would be hopeful that in
engineering studies tha.t a timetable would be set forth
and possibly some methods would be set forth and after
the first submission of the six-month report, then the
conferees and our agency make an evaluation and I certainly
think that we would set up a timetable, depending on the
feasibility of these studies now.
MR. POSTON: Well, I--
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. MACKIE: I would think that those studies
should indicate at least a tentative timetable of the
time to come back to the conferees. I wouldn't like the
idea that we simply come in with an engineering report
and then at that time develop a timetable. There should
be at that point, I think, a tentative timetable for the
-------
Recommendations
conferees to consider.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments?
MR. BADALICH: Well, on that, Mr. Chairman, I
think that might "be a little hard to do, because my under
standing is this will be the first approach to try to do
something with the method or process of taconite identi-
fication, so whether you can say that this will be done
on a timetable basis, we don't know. We would certainly
like the feasibility and practicability of doing this
type of an operation, so I think this would be brought
forth in the first technical report that they will submit
And I think we would have to make an evaluation on this
to see whether they could proceed any further or consider
possibly how we could proceed and then there might be a
possibility that maybe we could just reduce the fines or
something like this.
MR. STEIN: Here, let me try to--I am not doing
this; I am just giving this as a view. I am just trying,
hopefully, to resolve the issues so we--
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Chairman, I indicated that the
timetable at that time would be a tentative timetable.
We wouldn't expect them to come up with a definite
-------
184
Recommendations
timetable at that time, but I think it is important that
we have a time span to consider.
MR. POSTON: I can't see any difference between
this particular problem and the abatement of pollution
from all of the municipal works around where they have
established definite timetables, and I think what is fair
for one is fair for the other.
MR. STEIN: Well, I am not sure you have a
reasonable analogy. When we are dealing with a lot of
industries and municipalities, you have a reasonable idea
of the alternative methods available and they are fairly
standard. I suspect if you come up with a remedial
program here, it very possibly may be reached or may be
a new technique. I am not sure these are comparable.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, we will go along
with Mr. Mackie's suggestion, if they will submit a
tentative timetable, and in turn we will make a ground-
works review of this. This will probably be the best
procedure.
MR. STEIN: Right. Is that satisfactory?
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
MR. STEIN: I think that will take care of this
-------
185
Recommendations
We will put that in between your two sentences, that the
report will include a tentative timetable, before that
sentence that you have on monthly reporting. 0. K.? Is
that agreeable?
Let's go on, and from now on we are one number
behind. In other words, now 3 becomes 4, and from there
on in we move down.
MR. POSTON: Is this the total of this recommentia-
tion, then?
MR. STEIN: Yes. You have 2 and 3, that is
right. Do you want any more?
MR. POSTON: I wonder if it isn't possible to
define what kind of studies we might want them to make
other than economic studies. The matter of whether or
not this material ought to be put out on the ground or
on land disposal, I think this ought to be considered.
MR. BADALIGH: Mr. Chairman, I believe the
statement as we presented this is all-encompassing. It
says undertake further engineering and economic studies
relating to possible ways and means of reducing to the
maximum practicable extent the discharge of tailings.
MR. STEIN: You know, you engineers always have
-------
186
Recommendations
that bias. I don't see how you do this with Bob Tuveson
sitting next to you. As long as you say you are going to
cover economics and engineering fields, it is all-encom-
passing. We figure if you leave out legal studies, it is
not complete. (Laughter.)
MR. BADALICH: I think under law under our
statutory authority we have to have economic and other
studies to make the evaluation.
MR. STEIN: Right.
Have you got this resolved, Mr. Poston, or do
you have a specific recommendation, you want to make?
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would
be possible, as an alternative in here, for the company
to indicate the line that tney intend to pursue in advanc
of the six months' period? Getting bacK to Mr. Poston's
question.
MR. STEIN: All right. I think--
MR. MACKIE: In general terms, the lines of
investigation that the company intends to pursue.
MR. STEIN: How about that? I think that if
the company is going to meet the 6 months deadline,
they will have to either set up a work schedule in^ouse
-------
187
Recommendations
or have contracts with outside groups for the work. I
wonder if it would be possible in general terms for the
company to make a disclosure through Minnesota and this
would be available to the other conferees for their
information?
Now, if there were any progress where it was
felt that a serious error was made or someone had some
real problems, that this would be called to the attention
of the Minnesota agency.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I think that is
agreeable. We certainly would have close cooperation
and liaison with the company, and anything that we do
work out with them would certainly be disclosed to the
conferees.
MR. STEIN: Right.
Would that be agreeable, Mr. Poston, as a
solution?
MR. POSTON: I think so. My concern is that
I would hate to see a less than satisfactory plan
developed and for the conferees to have to pass on
something that is not satisfactory and at a later date
we come back and have to go at this problem again. I
-------
188
Recommendations
think that there is great concern on the part of the
public for disposal, dumping into the lake, and it just
concerns me greatly that the type of abatement we get
here might be less than satisfactory and I am just evi-
dencing this concern.
MR. BADALICH: I believe we all have the same
objectives here. I think our concern is just as great
as the Federal Government's in this and I believe their
companion States, so I think we have the same objectives
in mind. Maybe you are phrasing it a little differently.
MR. STEIN: Right. Mr. Poston, and I don't
want to keep working on this professional bias all the
time, but the notion that you can necessarily have a
satisfactory plan and say you are going to have one in
advance and have it work I think based on the record is
unduly optimistic. As a matter of fact, that is how guys
like me make a living, when these plans are not satis-
factory and we come in. This also cuts both ways.
As you know, Mr. Poston, we went up and down the
Missouri River in the pollution abatement program. We
made plans in the fifties, which we did very early, and
we came up with the idea of primary treatment. Now we are
-------
189
Recommendations
going up and down that river again on secondary treatment
So I am not sure that in the long run just
rushing in with a plan will give you the best solution
to the problem. Sometimes it may be more than you need,
but more often, in my experience, when we don't take our
time, an adequate amount of time, we generally come up
with something that doesn't work and we have to go back
and do it again. I think this is so important that we
can do this.
Now, again let me give you my view on this.
And hearing the testimony of Dr. Mount and Dr. Bartsch
both, and just looking at the water quality of the lake,
I think while we have possibly alarming symptoms, we
have a situation which will permit us to proceed in an
orderly fashion and yet preserve the water quality of
the lake. I think we are real lucky in Lake Superior and
we should not forget that. And I also think that this
may be a reasonable compromise on how to get this going.
MR. POSTON: Well, I think part of my thinking
is that this problem has been building for many years,
and I feel confident that the company has made many
studies already and they should be and probably are a
-------
190
Recommendations
long ways down the road at this time towards a specific
solution on this. And I would like to see that this
includes some consideration for land disposal as well as
elimination of part of the wastes being dumped into the
lake.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all of
the alternate methods will certainly be studied. I think
they want to come up with the best method and most feasibie
and also the most economical method, so if it is going
to be land disposal or if it is going to be coagulation
or the use of heavy density currents, or something or
other, I am sure all of these things will be taken into
consideration. They will surely look at all the alterna-
tives .
MR.MACKIE: Mr. Poston's point, I think, has
already been taken care of in the motion. Obviously if
Minnesota is going to indicate the lines they intend to
pursue, and if Mr. Poston feels that there are others
that should be pursued, he certainly will let Minnesota
know about it. So I think the point is covered.
MR. STEIN: Is that satisfactory, Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: Yes.
-------
191
Recommendations
MR. STEIN: All right.
Again let me just say one thing--and if you
want this, when I am through, off the record, Mr. Poston,
you can have it off the record, because there is some-
thing here that I think may be possibly unduly optimistic
and that is I don't think it is any great secret that a
lot of us have been working on this problem a long time
and talking to industry representatives, State represent-
atives, legal representatives, engineering representativ
To my best knowledge and belief, I do not think that the
company is way down the road with a feasible plan to do
this, that at the present time they are holding it in
their back pocket. I think if they had that this would
have come out.
I think we should recognize we are all approacl
ing this in good faith. In other words, what we are doir
here is we are recommending that the company now make a
bona fide attempt from the present time to find alternat*
methods of disposal of these wastes and not go forward
with any implication that this work has already been
done. Because if I thought that, I would ask them to
produce it today. I don't think it exists.
May we go on to the next point?
s .
g
-------
192
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4
MR. BRYSON: No. 3, which is now 4.
"The FWPCA and the States adjust or modify wate:
quality surveillance plans for the Lake Superior Basin to
insure that plans are sufficiently sensitive to monitor
changes in water quality. The FWPCA and States are
requested to report to the conferees within six months
concerning their program."
MR. STEIN: Are there any questions on that?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I have one comment
I hope we are not optimistic with the six months. I
thought I would like to scratch out the "within six months"
and include 'at the next session" whenever we reconvene
again.
MR. STEIN: At the next session of the conferen
right.
All right.
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
MR. MACKIE: We are wondering if this No. 3
on page 48 couldn't be strengthened somewhat. Rather
-------
193
Recommendations
than simply adjusting or modifying water quality sur-
veillance plans, I wonder if that could "be changed to
indicate perhaps substantially strengthened?
MR. STEIN: Substantially strengthened, did
you say?
MR. MACKIE: Yes. A simple modification might
actually mean — could possibly mean a decrease. I think
we are concerned about strengthening the surveillance
here.
MR. STEIN: What do you think of that?
MR. POSTON: I think that is a good idea.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to strike "the States
adjust"--
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: Wouldn't a lot of this depend
on the results of our No. 1 recommendation with regard
to water quality criteria?
MR. STEIN: Yes, this may or may not, I am not
sure.
You know, I have several points here. One,
I think this deals with a monitoring program, and while
-------
Recommendations
we can say that the technical people shall substantially
strengthen it, I don't know if they have the people, the
money or the techniques to do it. This may be a good
objective, but I think we have two different things.
In order to develop that No. 1, the water
quality criteria, we are going to have to have some good
information and good monitoring data to help us develop
this, and I think that possibly this almost comes first
or works hand in hand with it.
Does anyone have any objection to that "signif;-
icantly strengthen"?
If not, let's strike "adjust or modify" and
say, "The FWPCA and the States significantly strengthen."
What is that word, what is it, "surveillance"--
MR. POSTON: Substantially strengthen.
MR. STEIN: Substantially strenthen? All right
What is that word after "surveillance," is that plantd* or
plans?
MR. BRYSON: It should be plans. There is a
typographical error.
MR. STEIN: All right. 0. K., go on.
* Recommendation 3, as originally printed, but
later revised, was in error by use of the word plants.
-------
. 125
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5
ME. BRYSON: No. 5. This is the old No. 4.
"Secondary biological waste treatment be pro-
vided by all municipalities in the Lake Superior basin.
This action is to be accomplished by January 1973 or
earlier if required by Federal-State water quality stand
ards."
MR. STEIN: Any questions? Problems?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. PURDY: Again referring back to conclusions
reached on the, for example, Lake Michigan enforcement
conference, I think it would be appropriate to word these
in the same fashion where secondary biological waste
treatment or its equivalent be provided for all municipal
ities that discharge directly to or affect the quality of
Lake Superior or its bays or harbors. That is, it seems
to me that this conference deals with matters of inter-
state pollution out in the waters of Lake Superior, and
the type of treatment that we require on our across-State
waters is a matter of meeting the intrastate water qualit
-------
196
Recommendations
standards.
MR. STEIN: Except in this case I agree with
you in principle. We may have to adjust it here because
there are some streams, such as the St. Louis River,
which in itself is interstate in this situation. We
don't have that on the other lakes, I think, in that
sense. In other words, if you have a stream that is a
border between two States,, you would want the same
secondary treatment requirement affecting those.
MR. PURDY: It should be required to meet the
interstate standards.
MR. STEIN: Yes, that is correct. So I think
possibly to meet the geographical situation we have to
adjust the language a little to meet Mr. Purdy's point.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: The only other recommendation I
would have is on the date. We have a date of 1973 here,
and to be consistent with our implementation plan, which
we do have for all the interstate waters, we generally
have been giving four years for compliance and so we
would like to have that date changed to January 1974.
-------
197
Recommendations
This is consistent with our interstate water
quality standards now, is the reason I am saying this,
where we did at the outset require four years for com-
pliance .
MR. STEIN: Yes. Is there any objection to
that?
MR. POSTON: Are you moving this date back one
year?
MR. BADALICH: Right.
MR. STEIN: I am not holding it back, but some-
one sent these standards to Washington recommending it
be moved back and it doesn't leave much of a choice.
MR. PURDY: As long as the wording remains in
this "or earlier if required by Federal-State water quality
standards," why, I think this would be satisfactory.
MR. STEIN: Do you have any objection to that?
MR. POSTON: I guess that is--
MR. STEIN: We have done it already.
MR. POSTON: Right.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Let's get the wording that you had. Do you
have that?
-------
198
Recommendations
MR. PURDY: No, I don't fully have it.
MR. STEIN: Can we modify Mr. Purdy's wording
and where we talk about discharging directly into Lake Su-
perior "or an interstate tributary stream," and I think that
will take care of it.
Let's go on to the next point.
MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Chairman, just a comment on
that statement. Are we including "or its equivalent"?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. FRANGOS: Is that included in that?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. FRANGOS: All right. Well, we have no
problem with that recommendation. As you know, all of
our communities are already under orders under the inter-
state standards and we are well within that date. We are
talking about 1970.
MR. POSTON: Wisconsin will complete their
abatement programs in communities by 1970?
MR. FRANGOS: That is the deadline we set, yes,
which is well within the 1973-
MR. STEIN: 197^ now.
MR. FRANGOS: 1974.
-------
129
Recommendations
MR. STEIN: All right.
Let's go on with the next one, Mr. Bryso.'i.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6
MR. BRYSON: No. 6, which is the old No. 5-
"Continuous disinfection be provided throughout
the year for all municipal waste treatment plant effluents
This action should be accomplished as soon as possible
and not later than May 1970."
MR. STEIN: Any comment on that?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, to be consistent
again with the preceding recommendation, I would like to
include after the word "effluent" strike the period and
state "which are discharged directly to or affect Lake
Superior or its bays or harbors."
MR. STEIN: "or interstate tributaries"?
MR. BADALICH: "or interstate tributaries."
MR. STEIN: Right. Is there any objection to
that?
If not, let's go on to the next number.
-------
200
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 7
MR. BRYSON: No. 7, which is the old No. 6,
and there is a typographical error in this one also:
"Continuous disinfection be provided for
industrial effluents containing pathogenic organisms
or organisms which indicate the presence of such patho-
gens. This action should be accomplished as soon as
possible and not later than May 1970."
MR. PURDY: I would think that this ought to
be modified consistent with the modification just placed
in the new No. 7--new No. 6? Yes, 6.
MR. STEIN: 6. If there is no objection, we
will accept that.
Let's go on.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 8
MR. BRYSON: No. 8, old No. 7:
"Waste treatment be provided by municipalities
to achieve at least 80 percent reduction of total phos-
phorus from each State. This action is to be accomplishes
by January 1973, or earlier if required by Federal-State
-------
201
Recommendations
water quality standards."
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, here again, for
No. 8 to be consistent with No. 7, after "municipalities"
insert "which discharge directly to or affect Lake
Superior"--
MR. STEIN: No, this is a different kind of
recommendation, sir.
MR. BADALICH: Well, 0. K. And then I--
MR. STEIN: In other words, we are doing this
on a Statewide basis. If we were doing this on the citie
we would be up to 90 to get this. This does it anyway.
In other words, you figure your total load that is going
into Lake Superior and you cut this down by 80 percent.
In other words--
MR. BADALICH: Yes, I realize that. But what
I am saying is defining the municipalities that discharge
directly to or affect Lake Superior to be consistent with
the other paragraphs, and then again we wanted to insert
after State because vie do have a phosphorus removal
criteria in our standards which indicates that the phos-
phorus concentration shall be 2 milligrams per liter in
individual effluents. We don't go on about the 80 percent.
-------
202
Recommendations
MR. STEIN: Well, we are talking about an 80
percent reduction on a Statewide basis. But the issue
that we have had in the other States in dealing with phos
phorus is that we have to keep it out of the basin or it
will go in. I don't know that that modification applies
here. Because what is meant, if we are doing this on a
Statewide basis, is that everything that is going, into
the Lake Superior drainage basin is counted. This is
what has been done in the other Great Lakes States, so ii
you are going to have this kind of protection you will
have the flexibility to remove this on a Statewide-local
basis.
MR. BADALICH: But aren't we concerned with
the discharge from the municipalities that either affect
Lake Superior, which is in the basin very definitely,
but then again it also discharges directly to it? I am
just trying to clarify to be consistent with the other
recommendation.
MR. STEIN: You are not modifying, you are just
cutting down the load by 80 percent. What this means
is if you are dealing with a phosphate waste and you
figure that if you are dealing with a big city, such
as Duluth, and getting one percent more of the phosphate:
-------
203
Recommendations
out, you are going to get more phosphates than If you
have a small town go into phosphate removal at all. So
you may decide to concentrate on the big cities.
But the notion of giving you that 80 percent
operation--we have worked that out in the other Great
Lakes States--is to give the States flexibility dependent
upon their entire loading that they make to the basin,
not whether they go directly or indirectly into the lake.
MR. BADALICH: I know. But we are taking it one
step farther. We are not concerned about the total
loading. We are concerned about each individual effluent
in our standards. We indicate that they shall reduce
down to 2 milligrams per liter irrespective of big,
little, small, or what you want to call it.
MR. STEIN: Now you are using a different--
MR. BADALICH: Well, this is our approach in
our interstate standards.
MR. STEIN: Yes. But the point is that if they
do that, you will be well within this 80 percent reductiofi,
won't you?
MR. BADALICH: Yes, we will.
MR. STEIN: So I don't think this will affect
-------
Recommendations
you. But the other States that have this can have this
kind of program for the other States.
We have had this kind of problem with, for
example, New York, which has a little different approach
on the phosphate removal. The point is they bought
this because their program clearly brings them within
this reduction and should give them no problem. I
think Michigan has this; I don't know about Wisconsin.
Michigan has it and this will give them the flexi-
bility they need in their approach to the program.
I really don't think this should give you
any problem.
MR. BADALICH: I hope not.
MR. STEIN: I would like to ask you one
question: What do you think of that 1973 date on
this?
MR. PURDY: I have a problem there, Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. PURDY: Our interstate standards program
that we have developed called for this to be accomplishec
by 1977 as an outside date. As you know, this has been
moved up in the Lake Michigan Basin; it has been moved
-------
205
Recommendations
up in the Lake Erie Basin. I am not sure that we can
move this up to 1973 within our Lake Superior Basin and
assure you that it will be accomplished within this
time schedule. We do have a further requirement that
any new plants or if any modifications are made to an
existing plant that phosphorus removal facilities will
be installed as a part of that construction.
So I would like to take this recommendation
and then say that this action is to be substantially
accomplished by January of 1975 and present back to the
conferees a schedule of how we will be looking at this
with our individual municipalities within the Lake
Superior Basin at the next session of this conference.
MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. FRANGOS: We would tend to concur with that
recommendation on extending the deadline on phosphorus
removal. Our reasoning for taking this position is
somewhat akin to Michigan's. We face the realities of
requiring our major communities in the basin to go to
secondary treatment.
Additionally, one of the major problems we have
-------
206
Recommendations
in the harbors, as we know, is the matter of combined
overflows. And in terms of priorities, it seems to us
that we ought to zero in on these first.
We would think of 1975 as a good date, but as
these people come in with the detailed plans we can
closely examine and make some decision on whether they
ought to go now or defer it for two years.
MR. STEIN: Correct.
Mr. Poston, do you have any comment on this or
is that agreeable?
MR.POSTON: That is agreeable.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Now, let me say, if we go with this, we will
change Tl973"to "l975."This action is to be substantially
accomplished, Then,'&t the next session of the con-
fe r e n c e the conferees will present a detailed
time schedule on the proposed program." Is that agreeable?
MR. POSTON: Are you going to leave the wording
in there "or earlier if required by Federal-State water
quality standards"?
MR. STEIN: That is right. So I don't think
we have given anything away there. I hope not.
-------
207
Recommendations
You know, we are getting to the end that Dr.
Bartsch indicated to us would be the warning signal
date on this phosphate removal. I think we have to
recognize this and bend to it. In other words, he
says if we can accomplish this within 7 years we might
be all right. He didn't say what would happen if we
lagged. And by sticking to this date we may be tempt-
ing fate. But I think we have to accept it in that
sense.
All right?
MR. BADALICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will not
go along with the recommendation if you say it will appl
to municipalities in the basin. I would still like to
say "that discharge directly to or affect Lake Superior.
In our particular basin we are talking about towns like
Aurora, Biwabik, Babbitt, and all the rest of them that
are on intrastate waters within the basin, and we are
certainly not going at this time to require phosphate
removal when they are so remote from the lake.
MR. STEIN: Sir, I think this program as has
been worked out with the other States in this wording
precisely means that. This is why this was developed.
-------
208
Recommendations
The same argument came up. The point is, we can make an
adjustment if this doesn't accomplish that. But the purpose
of language of this kind is to permit you to take towns
like Aurora and not require any phosphate removal at all
if your Statewide computation brings you within the 80
percent. I don't think you are going to have a bit of
trouble. In other words, this was the formula that was
developed by the other Great Lakes States for Lake Erie
and Lake Michigan to accommodate the variety of State
programs to do this. There is going to be no problem
in your letting these intrastate—these little communities
on an intrastate stream not have any phosphate removal if
the total loading on the basis of the computation that
you are putting in is reduced by 80 percent.
MR. BADALICH: If the municipality is on an
interstate stream and it is tributary to Lake Superior,
yes. But if it is on the intrastate streams, we will
not go along with it and I will not go along with this
recommendation on that basis. If you will change it to
"which discharge directly to or affect Lake Superior or
its interstate streams," fine.
MR. STEIN: What do the conferees think of that?
-------
209
Recommendations
MR. FRANGOS: Let me make a comment. I think
the distinction that we made in the other conferences--
and -we have been through this, John, in some other places
our thought was that phosphorus carries through the drainage
system in that you don't have an assimilation phenomenon
taking place as you do, for example, in BOD. You take a
community on same smill tributary and you are going to get
a recovery and obviously there is not going to be any
effect on Lake Superior or the interstate waters. But it
was our concensus at these other conferences that phos-
phorus does not react this way and you do get this
cumulative rundown down to the interstate streams and
the lake itself. So this is why we have taken this
approach of 80 percent.
Now, it seems to me this recommendation gives
you the widest latitude for how to get it within the
State. We were the ones who asked for this in the Lake
Michigan conference. Ralph in Michigan proceeds one way,
we are proceeding a little bit different, but the net
result is that everyone on a Statewide basis is committing
themselves to reducing it by 80 percent.
So this is some of the thinking that went into
-------
_____ 210
Recommendations
this .
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, we do have an
effluent standard for all of our intrastate and also our
interstate streams and we require phosphorus removal to
at least 2 milligrams per liter on all discharges to
lakes, reservoirs, and so on. But on the streams, we
still haven't got into this and we feel we would like to
hold this in abeyance for some time.
So if you adopt this in the basin, go ahead and
adopt it, but we certainly will not go along with the
recommendation.
MR. STEIN: All right, we will take this and
we will indicate that Minnesota has a program that does
not go along with this.
I would just like to make one point on this.
The language you have here is compromise language, as
Mr. Frangos points out, that was put forward by the
States to give them the widest latitude. I think the
point is if we do not want this compromise language, mayb
the Federal people will go back to their original positio
and ask 90 percent phosphate removal at all the sources.
But I think if we can, let's take this and
-------
211
Recommendations
indicate that Minnesota objects to this; they have their
own phosphate program; and we will get a reading. I think
the answer will be affirmative that the Minnesota program
in effect will comply with this. I think we are arguing
about words and not about substances.
All right, let's go.
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
make one comment. I think it is understood that this 80
percent reduction is from point sources.
MR. STEIN: Point sources.
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. STEIN: That is correct.
MR. PURDY: And with that, why, it is consistent
with the program that we have in Michigan.
MR. STEIN: Yes, thank you.
Let's go on to the next one.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 9
MR. BRYSON: No. 9, which is old No. 8.
"industries not connected to municipal sewer
systems provide treatment equivalent to that of munici-
palities so as not to cause the degradation of Lake
-------
212
Recommendations
Superior water quality. This action is to be accomplishe
by January 1973 or earlier if required by Federal-State
water quality standards."
MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. POSTON: I would like to make the suggestio^
that we combine Recommendations No. 8 and No. 14. 14
pertains to connection of industrial wastes to municipal
systems.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. POSTON: And I have some suggested wording,
if you would care to hear it.
MR. STEIN: Let's get the substance of this
one first, 0. K.?
MR. POSTON: All right.
MR. STEIN: Let's keep that in min'd, what Mr.
Poston wants to do, but let's see if we agree with No.
9 now.
MR. PRANGOS: Can we strike "the" out in the
first sentence?
MR. STEIN: Which, sir?
MR. FRANGOS: "The degradation."
I
-------
213
Recommendations
MR. STEIN: You want the article stricken?
MR. FRANCOS: Yes, a grammatical suggestion.
MR. STEIN: Yes, all right. Strike the "the"
before degradation.
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. PURDY: This would be industries whose
waste has an effect upon Lake Superior or the interstate
streams and not connected to a municipal sewer system to
provide treatment equivalent to that of municipalities
that discharge into lake water, wouldn't it?
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston, do you have any--
MR. PURDY: Again up on the intrastate waters,
I think there is a matter of the industries meeting the
intrastate standards where they have been established by
the State.
MR. STEIN: This is an abundance of caution.
I don't believe they would degrade Lake Superior waters
anyway; otherwise we would be adding them.
MR. POSTON: Are you ready for my suggestion?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. POSTON: I would preface this recommendation
-------
214
Recommendations
with the sentence that "Discharge of treatable industrial
wastes to municipal sewer systems be encouraged," and then
follow up with, "However, industries not connected to
municipal sewer systems must provide treatment equivalent
to that of the municipalities so as not to cause degrada-
tion of Lake Superior water quality."
MR. STEIN: Any comment on that? That means
taking No. 14 and making it the first sentence of No. 9.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Poston, you are saying that those industria!.
wastes that are conducive to biological treatment in the
municipal treatment plant. Certainly those industries
that have some sort of toxic waste, we wouldn't want to
encourage them to go into a municipal treatment plant.
Those are comparable with--
MR. POSTON: I said "Discharge of treatable
industrial wastes," is the wording.
MR. PURDY: Toxic wastes are treatable.
MR. BADALICH: See, there again, Mr. Purdy says
toxic wastes are treatable. We would like to have some-
thing compatible or that are biodegradable.
MR. POSTON: Well, we ask that this be ancouragec
-------
215
Re commendations
and I think generally speaking--
MR. STEIN: Why don't we use that if he has a
phrase. How about "Discharge of compatible industrial
wastes"?
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
MR. STEIN: Instead of "treatable"? O.K.?
MR. POSTON: O.K.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. PURDY: How did the rest of that read?
MR. STEIN: It is the same. We are taking
"Discharges of compatible industrial wastes to municipal
sewer systems be encouraged," and then you say, "industries
not connected," and so forth as we agreed.
MR. BRYSON: Would you like a rereading of that?
MR. STEIN: No. I think we are all right,
unless anyone wants it.
MR. POSTON: That would eliminate No. 14 then.
MR. STEIN: Yes. 14 becomes the first sentence
of 9.
Let's go on.
-------
216
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10
MR. BRYSON: No. 10, old No. 9:
"Each State water pollution control agency make
necessary corrections to the list in Appendix A of muni-
cipal and industrial waste discharges to the Lake Superio
Basin. In addition, information should be provided on
each source to indicate whether it discharges pollutants,
including nutrients, that have a deleterious effect on
Lake Superior water quality. Detailed action plans for
treatment of all wastes having deleterious effects should
be developed, where not already completed. Such plans
shall identify the principal characteristics of the waste
material now being discharged, the quantities, the propos
program for construction or modification of remedial facu-
lties and a timetable for accomplishment, giving target
dates in detail. This list shall be presented to the
conferees within six months."
MR. BADALIGH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: I missed one point on No. 9
there, the date 1974 to be consistent with our Recommenda
5 and this also is consistent with our stipulation we
I —
tion
-------
217
Recommendations
have with the paper and pulp industries in the Cloquet
area.
MR. STEIN: Is that agreeable?
MR. POSTON: Yes.
MR. STEIN: All right. That will be changed.
Thank you.
Any comments on 10 as read?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, on this I think
I brought this up at the May conference, but we have
a listing in this Appendix A of many, many municipalities
that certainly do not affect or discharge into any inter-
state waters that affect Lake Superior, and for clarity
after the Appendix A would show those and then scratch
off municipal and industrial waste sources and then
include sources which discharge directly to or affect
Lake Superior or interstate^water quality.
MR. STEIN: Yes. All right. I think the
purpose of this is not only to expand on this but to
cont-ract it. We have done that in many,many cases.
And again let me indicate to the people here
what the name of the game is going to be after the
conference. The object is going to be to reduce that
-------
218
Recommendations
list as much as we possibly can, either because they
don't affect the waters or because they have adequate
treatment. The smaller we can make the list the better
off we are going to be as to the water quality.
Is this agreeable, Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Let's go on.
MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. FRANGOS: I think perhaps it might be
appropriate while we are discussing item now 10 to report
to the conferees the status of one particular pollution
source in Wisconsin that was an item of some interest at
the last session, and this is the duPont facility at
Barksdale on Chequamegon Bay. As we indicated at the last
session, this facility was cited and appears in our
implementation plan in the interstate water quality stand-
ards that have been adopted by the State and the Department
of the Interior. Under the details of that particular
implementation plan, the company is required to secure
abatement by October 1, 1970.
-------
219
Recommendations
Now, in following up on the State order that
was issued against the company, we have been meeting with
the company officials and they have submitted to us a
proposal for abating the pollution which presently occurs
in Boyd Greek. The company has sponsored a detailed
current study to be carried on in Chequamegon Bay and
now they have come up with some detailed engineering
proposals to us.
The proposal generally calls for dispersion
of these wastes, and they have indicated to us that there
are either little or no other alternative ways of dis-
posal. We have received that information and it is
currently under review and consideration by our depart-
ment. We have also made preliminary contacts with the
staff of the FWPCA and it is our suggestion to Mr. Poston
that we proceed currently to review this proposal to see
whether in fact we are going to meet the water quality
standards that have been set.
The reason I bring this up is because we talk
about a 6 —month period and we really need to resolve
this matter before that time if we are in fact going to
meet this deadline. And what I would suggest to you that
-------
220
Recommendations
we are going to do as a matter of information, that we
would like to work with the laboratory people up here
and come up with an agreement, if that is possible, then
inform all of the conferees exactly what steps were taken
MR. STEIN: Right, How long do you anticipate
that will take, less than 6 months?
MR. FRANCOS: Well, I would hope that we can get
a firm decision in 3 months, because there is only
one construction season left and, as you know, it is kind
of short up here.
MR. STEIN: Well, I understand, and if I am
wrong on this I wish someone would correct me—that there
will be certainly no objection from the laboratory people
here and full cooperation of the staff will be given to
Mr. Prangos on this matter.
That is correct, isn't it?
Right.
MR. POSTON: I would like to make a comment on
this. I note that--
MR. STEIN: We got that TNT plant set. Don't
pull it up. (Laughter.)
MR. POSTON: This oroblem is one of long stand In
-------
221
Recommendations
and I am sure that eventually this will probably come in
for a permit to the Corps of Engineers for a new dischar^
to the lake. I am particularly concerned by the
nature of the proposal here which indicates dispersion
as a treatment and I am sure that this can be worked out.
But I am disturbed by this particular approach of dis-
persion because I am much of the opinion that dilution
is not the solution,, rather some treatment must be pro-
vided. And Mr. Frangos has indicated to me that he is
anxious to work with us.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Poston, you would have dis-
appointed me if you didn't say that. (Laughter.) We,
too, have been very much concerned and we know that you
are concerned,and this is why we do want to review this
jointly so that we reach an understanding in all fairness
to the company.
MR. STEIN: All right. Hopefully--
MR. POSTON: I would suggest, Mr. Frangos, that
this work be done with Mr. Bryson, who will have the
laboratory facilities available to him and also our
standards activities so that he can get broad cooperation
-------
222
Recommendations
MR. FRANGOS: Fine, we will appreciate that.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: I would suggest it would
probably be consistent with the previous recommendation
that we change the last sentence there, that this shall
be presented to the conferees at the next session instead
of 6 months.
MR. STEIN: Yes, I think that would be
appropriate, right.
All right.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11
MR. BRYSON: No. 11, which is old No. 10:
"Unified collection systems serving contiguous
urban areas be encouraged."
MR. STEIN: All right.
Next one.
MR. POSTON: Wait a minute. I would like to
combine Nos. 10 and 11, and I have some suggested wording
because they try to--
MR. STEIN: The present 10 and 11?
-------
223
Recommendations
MR. POSTON: Right.
MR. STEIN: Or you mean the new--
MR. POSTON: "Unified collection systems."
MR. STEIN: And the one after that?
MR. POSTON: And the one after that.
MR. STEIN: All right, go ahead, if you want
to do that.
MR. POSTON: And I have a proposal.
MR. STEIN: Go ahead.
MR. POSTON: "The State water pollution control
agencies accelerate programs that provide for maximum
use of areawide sewerage facilities in contiguous areas
by encouraging unified collection systems, by discouragin
proliferation of small treatment plants, and by fostering
replacement of septic tanks with adequate collection and
treatment."
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Chairman, I would agree that
in terms of setting up some recommendation that those two
are closely related. But by the same token, I don't
think this really hurts us too much and we have adopted
a nonproliferation policy. And you know, this is a tough
-------
224
Recommendations
area to work with to get communities to act jointly. I
like the idea about having a nice short sentence so when
somebody comes into our office we say, "Here, this is
what we agreed to and it is only one sentence, " and
they will read it. If it is four or five, they won't.
So I would just as soon have that one sentence
stand by Itself.
MR. STEIN: How about that?
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
MR. STEIN: Will you accept that?
I think we have all had this experience, except
Mr. Badalich. You know, down in the Twin Cities he
really hasn't had that experience of trying to get the
community together. (Laughter.)
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Poston, would you substitute
"established" for "encouraged"?
MR. STEIN: No, we are going to leave it as it
is .
MR. BADALICH: Oh.
MR. STEIN: Let's go to 12. We have accepted
maybe
-------
Rec omrnen dations
11. Read the new 12.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 12
MR. BRYSON: 12, which is the old 11?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BRYSON: "Each of the State's water pollu-
tion control agencies accelerate programs to provide for
the maximum use of areawide sewerage facilities to dis-
courage the proliferation of small treatment plants in
contiguous urbanized areas and foster the replacement of
septic tanks with adequate collection and treatment."
MR. STEIN: Right.
Let's go on to 12.
You know, let me tell you one of the Nation's
horror stories on this. I don't think we have that here,
but in Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri,
we have two sewage plants right across the street from
each other. Of course the State line runs in between,
but it is .just like being right across the street from th
Hotel Duluth, and I hope we can da better stuff than tha
MR. PURDY: I would hope, though, Mr. Chairman,
that on this replacement of septic tanks that where septi
-------
226
Recommendations
tanks provide fully adequate treatment that we are not
supposed to go out and discourage their use and require
collection and treatment systems, because I think we
should recognize that when we have a collection and treat
ment system we end up with an effluent at the surface
stream.
MR. STEIN: Is that understood? Do you want it
changed here?
MR. PURDY: No, as long as this is in the record
and understood.
MR. STEIN: Let me go off the record for this.
(Off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Back on the record.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 13
MR. BRYSON: No. 13, old No. 12.
"Each State water pollution control agency list
the municipalities or communities having combined sewers.
The listing should include a proposed plan for minimizing
bypassing so as to utilize to the fullest extent possible
the capacity of interceptor sewers for conveying combined
flow to treatment facilities. Construction of separate
-------
227
Recommendations
sewers or other remedial action to prevent pollution from
this source is to be completed by October 1977."
MR. STEIN: Any comment?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I have one comment
as to the date. To be consistent with other Federal-State
enforcement conference rules where we have had the pleasu
of having you there, Mr. Stein, we have gone along with
10 years on this on the Red River, Rainy River and also
the Mississippi River, so I would like to have the date
changed to January 1980.
MR. STEIN: All right. Let me talk to that a
minute .
Are there any other comments?
MR. PURDY: Well, yes. If we would change this
to the 1980 date, I would like the additional wording "or
earlier if required by Federal-State water quality stand-
ards . "
MR. STEIN: Right.
All right, let me go off the record again.
(Off the record. )
MR. STEIN: Let's get back on the record.
How about December 31, 1979, instead of 1980?
-------
Recommendations
Will you accept that?
MR. BADALICH: Yes.
MR. STEIN: All right.
I think we should have this listing if we can,
I don't know if you can, at the next session of the con-
ference. Is this possible?
MR. PURDY: I doubt if we could have the pro-
posed plan for minimizing bypassing by then.
MR. STEIN: No, but the listing of the
municipalities. Can we have a list by the next conference]?
All right.
MR. FRANGOS: Just a comment on this recommenda-
tion just to give you at least one illustration of the
difficulty of this particular problem.
It was pointed out to me yesterday that the
city of Superior has the same geographical area as
Milwaukee and they have a combined system, and I think
you can appreciate the kinds of difficulties you are
going to run into to try to get that in a community wher«
you have got such a sparse density of population.
MR. STEIN: That is right. It says here, "Con-
struction of separate sewers or other remedial action."
-------
229
Recommendations
MR. FRANGOS: I have no quarrel with the
recommendation.
MR. STEIN: Right.
All right, may we go to 14, sir.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 14
MR. BRYSON: No. 14: "Discharge of treatable
industrial wastes to municipal sewer systems be encourage|3
MR. STEIN: No, no, no. You skipped one.
MR. BRYSON: I skipped one.
No. l4. "Existing combined sewers be separated
in accordance with all urban reconstruction projects
except where other techniques can be applied to control
pollution from combined sewer overflows. Combined sewers
should be prohibited in all new developments."
MR. STEIN: "Coordination" is the word, isn't
it, as it is written?
MR. POSTON: Yes, "coordination."
MR. BRYSON: I am sorry.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Is there any problem with this?
All right. Do any communities now have combine
-------
230
Recommendations
sewers in new developments in this area?
MR. BADALICH: Generally in Minnesota in the
redevelopment areas they do separate the sewers.
MR. STEIN: Yes. But supposing there is a new
subdivision?
MR. BADALICH: In fact we would not approve
combined sewers there. We haven't since at least 196^.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
May we go on to 15?.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 15
MR. BRYSON: 15, which matches the old 15:
"The States institute necessary controls to
ensure that the concentration of DDT in fish not exceed
1.0 micrograms per gram; ODD not exceed 0.5 micrograms
per gram; Dieldrin not exceed 0.1 micrograms per gram
and all other chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides.,
singly or combined, should not exceed 0.1 micrograms per
gram. Limits apply to both muscle and whole body and
are expressed on the basis of wet weight of tissue."
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments?
MR. PURDY: Well, on this, I think this is
-------
231
Recommendations
consistent with the recommendations of the Lake Michigan
technical committee on pesticides, and I think they also
spelled out in their recommendation that this is to pro-
tect the fish life and did not relate to, say, the public
health implications of the consumption of fish that might
contain the limits above this, and I would like this to
be spelled out also in these recommendations.
MR. STEIN: Is that agreeable?
MR. POSTON: Very good.
MR. STEIN: All right, that will be done too.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman--
MR. POSTON: Who is going to do this?
MR. STEIN: You have the sentence, don't you?
MR. POSTON: Yes.
MR. STEIN: ¥e will just add it.
MR. POSTON: I would just like that to be under-
stood, is all.
MR. STEIN: What do you mean, who is going to do
it? This will appear in the summary.
MR. POSTON: Draft it out?
MR. STEIN: I think it has been drafted, unless
you have some specific language from the committee that
-------
, 2^2
Recommendations
you want to use instead of what Mr. Purdy has just said.
MR. POSTON: What you want to do is use the
language that has already "been developed?
MR. PURDY: In the committee report.
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: I wanted to add, I will just put
this out for discussion and the reason for it, at the end
of the last sentence there after "tissue" put a comma,
"or establish and enforce such other environmental stand-
ards for pesticides in the Lake Superior basin as may be
agreed upon by the States and the FWPCA after establishin
an intensive monitoring program."
This was added because of the five-State
Governors conference on oesticides in the Great Lakes.
MR. STEIN: Is there any objection to that?
MR. PURDY: None.
MR. STEIN: If not, fine.
Let's go on to l6.
-------
233
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION HO. l6
MR. BRYSON: l6. "Uniform State rules and
regulations for controlling wastes from watercraft
should be adopted. These rules and regulations should
generally conform with the rules and regulations approved
by the conferees to the Lake Michigan - Four State
Enforcement Conference. Commensurate interstate require-
ments controlling the discharge of wastes from commercial
vessels should be the responsibility of the Federal
Government."
MR. STEIN: I guess Mr. Frangos has left for
a moment. Are vie running smack into a controversy here,
too, on the use of holding tanks and macerator/chlorinatcjrs
or not?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe
so, but I wanted to clarify this a little bit more,
because we certainly do not have State laws regulating
the federally-documented and licensed commercial crafts,
so we are wondering if you could insert after the word
"from" in the first sentence "noncommercial watercraft
should be adopted," because we have no control over the
-------
234
Recommendations
commercial activities of interstate boats, watercraft.
MR. STEIN: I have no objection to what you
are saying, but I want to get the language.
"Uniform State rules and regulations for con-
trolling wastes from watercraft under such State's
jurisdiction," which will do the same thing, because the
others may have a little different jurisdiction. In
other words, if under your law this is what you can
control, fine. No one is asking you to do more.
Now, can we get a report on that at the next
session of the conference?
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, of course we have
adopted the rules and regulations or regulations that
cover the full State and cover Lake Superior, so it is
not really a problem. However, I wonder, in view of
congressional activity and S-7 that would preempt the
States and would postpone enforcement on existing water-
craft for some 5 years, why we are addressing our-
selves to this problem until after the congressional
activity is terminated?
MR. STEIN: Well, I don't know, Mr. Purdy.
I never like to anticipate a congressional action or a
-------
235
Recommendations
State legislative action, whether a bill is going to pass
or not. The question you raise can always be raised,
because whether this bill passes or not it is going to
come up again, and when is the cutoff time when you. say
that you feel that Congress is not going to act or the
State is not going to act on this. I don't know whether
they are going to pass that bill or not or when they are
going to do it or if they don't. Let's assume they don't
do it at this Session, when is the appropriate time to
take this up.
MR. PURDY: Frankly, the Federal consideration
of such action has made it very difficult for the states
to pursue the enforcement of their regulations evolved
at an earlier date.
MR. STEIN: I recognize that. This doesn't
mention the date here, but I do think that something lika
this—even if the Federal law does pass--can be helped
a great deal by a uniform State requirement on
certain waters. As a matter of fact, I think the action
on Lake Erie and Lake Michigan has probably set the
tone or the direction for Federal requirements if that
law is passed now.
-------
236
Recommendations
The reason, possibly, for the Federal proposal
or the lack of a Federal proposal has "been the lack of
State action, and I am not talking about Great Lakes
States but probably possibly some other States.
But again I would think that there is a useful
purpose to be served even in the administration of this
if we are going to have all the Great Lakes States have
uniform substantive programs. So you can find that
possibly reflected--
MR. PURDY: I will be optimistic with you,
Murray.
MR. STEIN: 0. K. If there is no objection,
let's go on with this.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: I am just wondering, in place of
"rules and regulations" if we could say "Uniform State
policies "?
MR. STEIN: "Uniform State requirements" let's
put it. 0. K. "Requirements."
MR. POSTON: "Requirements"?
MR. STEIN: Yes. You know, a colorless word.
-------
237
Recommendations
All right.
MR. BADALICH: In tfte second sentence also.
MR. STEIN: Yes. "Requirements," right.
17.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 17
MR. BRYSON: 17-
"The dumping of polluted dredged material into
Lake Superior be prohibited."
MR. STEIN: Any question on that?
MR. PURDY: None.
MR. BADALIGH: No.
MR. STEIN: 18.
MR. POSTON: How about striking the word
"polluted," "dumping of dredged material into Lake
Superior to be prohibited"? (Laughter.)
MR. PURDY: I like it the way it was read.
MR. BADALICH: Likewise.
MR. POSTON: You like "polluted"? (Laughter.)
MR. PURDZ: I like it the way it was worded.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to pursue that or can
we go on?
-------
238
Recommendations
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Chairman., if he is really
serious about this,this could mean that we would be
prohibited or be in some problem as far as developing
beaches or parks, and so forth and so on. I think this
is going to have to be approved.
MR. POSTON: Well, I will withdraw it at this
time .
MR. STEIN: Yes. This would also mean you
couldn't put stuff in behind the dike either, and we
have been encouraging that for sometime. But that is
all right.
In other words, let me again say what the
notion here is. In dealing with polluted material or
any dredged material in a lake, you are not dealing
with a simple problem, and you can' t get a
simple answer. We have worked on this many,
many times and we have to think about this before v/e
put in a regulation. Unless you get any notion, you
people who have looked at the positions that we have
taken and principally Mr. Poston and myself on the
disposal of lake dredging, you know where we stand.
And I can give you my personal philosophy here
-------
239
Recommendations
I don't see any point in cleaning up these Great Lakes
and making them free from pollution just to provide a
dump. But I think that is very different than saying
you can't put any dredged material in the lake.
May we go on to the next point.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 18
MR. BRYSON: l8, "Programs be developed by
appropriate State and Federal agencies to control soil
erosion in the basin. The action plan developed by the
Red Clay Interagency Committee should become an integral
part of the programs conducted by all appropriate agencies,
groups and private individuals."
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to see
that end with the first sentence.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. PURDY: I don't know what the action plan
is that has been developed by the Red Clay Interagency
Committee at this point and time.
MR. STEIN: I get another reason for that.
I don't know that we can speak as a recommendation here
for all appropriate agencies, groups, and private
-------
240
Recommendations
individuals.
MR. POSTON: I think it would be important that
we do something about specifying somebody to look into
this . Otherwise this recommendation has no real meaning
and nobody else will look at it.
MR. STEIN: Well, I wonder if we could get a
report from you people or the Red Clay Committee, if
you think this is important, at the next session of the
conference with sufficient prior notice so we can evalua"
We really don't have that in mind or in the record, do
we?
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Chairman, between now and the
next meeting we could circularize the conferees with a
report on the activities of the Red Clay Interagency
Committee. This could be done.
MR. STEIN: Right. Let us have that and let's
schedule that for discussion at the next conference so
we can deal with the specifics, and it very well may be
that the conferees can endorse that program.
MR. BRYSON: No. 19?
MR. POSTON: How do we leave this, then?
MR. STEIN: We leave this that the programs
-------
241
Recommendations
be developed by appropriate State and Federal agencies
to control soil pollution. The Wisconsin conferees will
report at the next session of the conference on the
action plan developed "by the Red Clay Interagency
Committee and before the next conrerence will distribute
information concerning these activities, and after this
report the conferees will give this matter further con-
sideration and see if we can come up with definite
recommendations.
Let us stand recessed for 10 minutes.
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
Will you go on, Mr. Bryson.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 19
MR. BRYSON: No. 19.
"The discharge of visible oil from any source
be eliminated."
MR. STEIN: Any question on that one?
MR. PURDY: No question.
MR. POSTON: Well, I think this was probably
taken care of in other parts of our recommendations and
-------
242
Recommendations
standards and that it is really redundant. However,
I don't object to it.
MR. STEIN: All right. You know, we are not
writing a novel. And we have redundancies. When I
think about these redundancies, how much total dredging
is going into Lake Superior?
MR. BRYSON: I believe it was about 300,000
yards, ^ubic yards, last year.
MR. POSTON: Yes.
MR. STEIN: How much is that?
MR. BRYSON: Mr. Ryder, of the Corps of
Engineers, is over there. Maybe he can answer that.
MR. STEIN: That is all right. You know, if
we say no—one of the suggestions is the dumping of any
dredged material in Lake Superior be prohibited. Here
we are talking to this conference in connection with
60,000 tons of stuff a day going in. Sometimes, when
we talk about being consistent or redundant, maybe we
should think of our own position on these matters. But
I think this is all right for emphasis.
Let's have 20.
-------
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION NO. 20
MR. BRYSON: No. 20.
"The recommendations of this enforcement con-
ference be adopted as part of the States' enforceable
water quality standards."
MR. PURDY: This creates some problems to me.
Again for something to be adopted as a part of our
State's enforceable water quality standards, I have to
go through a public hearing and it is not my decision
as to whether they will be adopted, it is my Commission's
decision.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to--go on.
MR. POSTON: I have no objection to deletion
of this particular recommendation.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. POSTON: I think it is not important,
since the action of the Secretary when he makes his
summary would probably take precedence.
MR. PURDY: We fully anticipate that the
Secretary will ask the States to develop appropriate
programs under State and local law and we will do that.
-------
244
Recommendations
MR. STEIN: This is all right.
Are there any other comments?
MR. POSTON: I would have a recommendation that
the conference be reconvened in six months periodically
after that at the call of the Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes. Is this agreeable?
MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Chairman, before we get to
that, I have got one item which I think might be .just a
minor oversight, but we noted in the report that there
was a detailed listing and assessment of progress being
made at Federal installations. I thought that perhaps we
ought to at least note this in our recommendations and
I have a short sentence that I would offer.
Recommendation being that the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration will proceed in accordan
with established Federal policies to secure abatement at
Federal installations consistent with the recommendations
of this conference.
MR. POSTON: That would be acceptable to me.
MR. STEIN: Then that last part, "reconvene at
the call of the Chairman."
MR. FRANGOS: Yes.
*
*
-------
Recommendations
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. POSTON: I might suggest that we use seven
months instead of s.ix months, however.
MR. STEIN: Well, all right. Let's say--
MR. POSTON: Or approximately six months.
MR. STEIN: If you want to say approximately
6 months, that is all right. As you know, the
advantage of doing this is that we have generally worked
out the dates to our mutual satisfaction. Sometimes
it pays to delay the holding of a conference 2 or
3 weeks or a month pending a certain development
because you are going to move pollution control forward
a lot faster rather than adhering to a mechanical date
and then finding that some pertinent information or
action is not taken and you can't make a decision.
So as you all know, in working out this process
we try to keep this as flexible as possible. As far as
I know, we have never called one, at least I have never
called one, without consulting with the State administrators
Are there any other comments?
MR. POSTON: We have a conclusion as developed
yesterday, No. 17, and I think I could distribute this
-------
246
Recommendations
to you. It is a little bit awkward. Perhaps the con-
ferees would like to review and see if this is acceptable
as it is written.
MR. STEIN: All right. Oh, well, this? Well,
no, here, I tell you, we can be here all day with this.
We will do an editing job. I don't think that we have
any dissatisfaction with our summaries of the conference.
When we adopt our function by summarizing, we are just
reporters, and we don't say anything or put in anything
that isn't so.
So I think on the basis of past experience,
you can be pretty sure we are going to repeat what is
said here. If we have any question, we will be in touch
with you by phone as we have in the past.
Now, do you want to go off the record?
MR. POSTON: That is 0. K.
MR. STEIN: Let my experienced editorial staff
handle this rather than those engineers you have around
here.
All right.
Do we have anything else before we adjourn?
If not, I would like to again thank you all
-------
247
Recommendations
for coming. I do think that we have a program looking
toward a solution to the problem. Now, as generally
develops in programs of this type, I think the way this
came out possibly was a little different than any of the
parties or any of the participants at the first session
had ever intended. And to my mind, this is possibly
the best sign that progress is being made and we struck
a balance under our system of government to move forward
with the problem, because it usually is the case when a
formula or a solution evolves itself where you have many
different points of view that we may be on the right
track.
Now, again I think that the time span we had
between the conference and the Executive Session was put
to good use. One, I know, and I have been involved in
this myself, there has been a lot of concentration,
talking about the problems, negotiations, kicking ideas
around. At. the same time, I think it really just takes
time for ideas and notions to mature and get into
people's minds.
So I think what we did have was a very useful
gestation period, and I think what we have developed
-------
248
Recommendations
here today is the blueprint for a program which can come
up with an equitable evaluation and an equitable solu-
tion. The thing that is apparent about this, because we
have developed possibly a new formula that is agreeable
to all parties,is that the formula we have developed here
and the program we have developed is not going to work
automatically. What it is going to do is take good will
on the part of the municipalities, the industries, the
local governments, the State, the Federal people, and
all participants concerned and at least a meeting of
each other half way. I would hope we can have the
same kind of good will and good sportsmanship from the
citizens' groups and the other groups who have come here
and patiently sat through the Executive Session and have
contributed to the regular session of the conference.
And I would ask all you people to at least give this
program that we have to deal with the pollution problem
of Lake Superior a chance to succeed.
I think we really achieved a breakthrough.
We really have developed something in the very difficult
field of Federal-State relations. Also we are dealing
with the kind of resource where our responsibility is so
-------
249
Recommendations
great that we can't permit ourselves a serious mistake.
A,nd in dealing with a problem of this kind and in look-
ing at the whole problem, we are going to proceed in a
way and in a manner where we feel we know what steps we
are going to take and what action is going to be taken,
because, again as you know, if you make a mistake in
dealing with a lake you may for every day of that mistake
have water quality loss forever, and we don't intend to
do that in Lake Superior.
Again thank you all for coming. We hope you
will get to work and we will see you in 6 months.
We stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 11:30 o'clock a.m., an adjourn-
ment was taken.)
* U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1970 0—972-496
------- |