July 22,1969
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Progress Evaluation Meeting in the
Matter of the Interstate and Intrastate
Waters of the Upper Mississippi River
and its Tributaries-Minnesota and
Wisconsin
U. S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
-------
SECOND
PROGRESS EVALUATION MEETING
IN THE MATTER OF
THE INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE WATERS
OP THE
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
STATES OF WISCONSIN AND MINNESOTA
held in
Minneapolis, Minnesota
July 22, 1969
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
-------
-------
CONTENTS
A
PAGE
Opening Statement
by Murray Stein
H. W. Poston
M. Garnet
D. S. Bryson
Col. C. I. McGinnis
D. W. Marshall
T. F. Wisniewski
J. M. Harrison
J. P. Badalich
F. Lamm
R. Schnarr
D. R. Peterson
M. L. Robins
J. L. Davidson
Mrs. 0. J. Janski
J. Pegors
A. V. Dienhart
Closing Discussion
10
11
29
76
97
112
116
132
and 276
195
207
231
247
274
291
296
302
307
-------
Second Progress Evaluation Meeting in the matter of
the interstate and intrastate waters of the Upper Missis
sippi River and its tributaries in the States of Wisconsn
and Minnesota reconvened at 9:30 a.m. on July 22, 1969,
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
PRESIDING:
Mr. Murray Stein
Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
CONFEREES:
H. ¥. Poston
Director, Great Lakes Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Chicago, Illinois
John P. Badalich
Executive Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Robert C. Tuveson
Chairman
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Albert Lea, Minnesota
F. Wayne Packard
Me mb e r
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Edina, Minnesota
n
-------
CONFEREES (CONTINUED):
Steve J. Gadler
Member
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
St. Paul, Minnesota
Theodore F. Wisniewski
Assistant to the Administrator
Division of Environmental Protection
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
Andrew C. Damon
Attorney
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
PARTICIPANTS:
Dale S. Bryson
Director, Upper Mississippi River-
Lake Superior Basin Office, FWPCA
Minneapolis, Minnesota
John L. Davidson
City Engineer
Hastings, Minnesota
Arthur V. Dienhart
Assistant Vice President-Engineering
Northern States Power Company
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Merrill Garnet
Regional Federal Activities Coordinator
Great Lakes Region, FWPCA
Chicago, Illinois
James M. Harrison
Executive Director, Minnesota-Wisconsin
Boundary Area Commission
Hudson, Wisconsin
-------
3-A
PARTICIPANTS (CONTINUED):
Mrs. 0. J. Janski
President, League of Women Voters
of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota
Frank Lamm
Environmental Engineer
Metropolitan Council
St. Paul, Minnesota
Donald ¥. Marshall
Water Hygiene Representative
Environmental Control Administration
DHEW, Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Colonel Charles I. McGinnis
Deputy District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
St. Paul District
St. Paul, Minnesota
John Pegors
Director, Minnesota Environmental
Control Citizens Association
Donald R. Peterson, P.E.
City Engineer
South St. Paul, Minnesota
Maurice L. Robins
Executive Director-Chief Engineer
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District
St. Paul, Minnesota
Richard Schnarr
Chief Engineer
St. Paul, Minnesota
-------
3-B
LIST 07 ATTENDEES
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER EXFORCSENT COIJITSRENCE
PROGRESS EVALUATION MEETING
JULY 22, 1969
Peter Ackerberg, Reporter
Minneapolis Star
42> Portland Avenue
Minneapolis, MN
Arlin A. Albrecht
Daily Republical Eagle
Red Wing, MN 55060
F. C. Anderegg
Great Northern Oil Co.
Box 3596
St. Paul, MN
James J. Anderson, President
Watermation Inc.
P. 0. Box 3213
St. Paul, MN 55101
H. R. Austin, Plant Mgr. & Supt.
Cargill, Inc.
Savage, MN
A. W. Banister, Cons. Engineer
Banister Engineering Co. & City of
Stillvater, MS
310 No. Snelling Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Stan Barta, Chief Chemist
Honeymead Products
Mankato, Mil 56001
Barbard Beerhalter, News
WCCO Radio
625 - 2nd Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55^02
Dale C. Bergstedt
Senior Research Engineer
North Star Research Institute
3100 - 38th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55^06
Erwin E. Bloss, President
Horner & Shifrin, Inc.
1221 Locust St.
St. Louis, MO 63122
Mrs.. W. W. Brascugli
League of Women Voters - Minnesota
1560 - 6th Ave. No.
St. Cloud, MN 56301
Gary G. Broetzaan, Civil Engineer
U.S. Corps of Engineers, St. Paul
1226 Post Office Building
St. Paul, MN
Willard Brosz, Environmental Chemist
Green Giant Co.
lie Sueur, MN 56058
Woodie L. Broussard, Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey
1002 Post Office Bldg.
St. Paul, MN
Richard A. Brown, V.P.
Itasca Engineering Inc.
12401 Minnetonka Blvd.
Hopkins, MN
David Cahoy
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary
Area Commission
600 Second Street
Hudson, WI
Robert L. Gallery, Engineer I
Minnesota-St. Paul Sanitary District
2400 Childs Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Bert W. Clark, Environmental Chemist
Northern States Power Co.
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
-------
- 2 -
3-C
John L. Davidson, City Engineer
City of Hastings
100 Sibley St.
Hastings, I"! 55033
Paul Deal, Sa3.es Engineer
Edw. Kraener & Sons Co., Inc.
1000 W. 122nci St.
Burnsville, MN
Arthur V. Dienhart
Asst. Vice President
Northern States Power Co.
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55^-01
Daniel J. Dunford, Sewer Engineer
City of St. Paul
Room 234, City Hall
St. Paul, MN
RayW. Faricy, Jr., Attorney
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District
1408 Pioneer Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Keith M. Fellbaum, Civil Engineer
National Park Service
Mount Rushmore, Keystone, SD
Ted W. Fowler, Nuclear Engineer
Public Health Service
5514 Beasley Ct., Apt. Ill
Rockville, MD 20851
Dennis Gilberts, Engineer
Northern States Power Co.
4l4 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Gary F. Ginner, Acting Chief
Section of Sewage Works
Minneapolis Pollution Control Agency
717 Delaware St. S.E.
Minneapolis, MN
Wm. T. Gleason
Stream Plant Supv. Engineer
Northern States Power Co.
4l4 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Bernard M. Gronura, Area Program Officer
Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S.-Department of the Interior
821 - 2nd Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN
James M. Harrison, Exe. Director
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area
Commission
600 Second Street
Hudson, WI
Mrs. Arlene I. Harvell, Exe. Director
Save Lake Superior Association
East Star Route, Box 117
Two Harbors, M 556l6
Frederick Heisel, Director
Division of Environmental Helath
State Health Department
717 Delaware St. S.E.
Minneapolis, MN
Richard Hudak
Assistant to City Engineer
City of South St. Paul, MN
Walter A. Hurtley, Civil Engineer
City of St. Paul
234 City Hall
St. Paul, MM
Mrs. 0. J. Janski, State President
League of Women Voters - Minnesota
6500 Second Ave. So.
Minneapolis, mi 55423
Demetrius G. Jelatis, Mayor
City of Red Wing, MN
Robert J. R. Johnson, Reporter
St. Paul Dispatch
44 E. 5th St.
St. Paul, MN 55105
Marie Kachman
Minneapolis, MN
Harry G. Kaess
Engineer & Contractor Rep.
Minneapolis Gas Co.
739 Marauette
Minneapolis, MN 55402
-------
- 3 -
3-D
Charles E. Kiester, Sanitary Engineer
3M Company
099 Bush Avenue
St. Paul, M
K. B. Knox, Plant Manager
St. Paul Ammonia Products, Pine Bend
P. 0. Box lH8
South St. Paul, MN
A.. F. Laidlaw
Asst. State Conservationist
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
200 Federal Courts Bldg.
St. Paul, MN
Frank Larnm
Environmental Engineer on Staff
Metropolitan Council
Capitol Square Bldg.
Cedar St. at 10th
St. Paul, MN 55101
Keith D. Larson
City of South St. Paul
P. 0. Box 6
South St. Paul, MN
Scott E. Linsley, Asst. Engineer
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District
2lKX> Childs Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Col. Charles I. McGinnis
Dep. District Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Paul
121? U.S. Post Office & Custom House
St. Paul, MN 55101
Wm. B. Mann IV, Supv. Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey
1002 Post Office Bldg.
St. Paul, I®
Douglas A. Maulwurf, Chemist
City of South St. Paul, MN
Robert J. Miller
Northwestern Refining Co.
P. 0. Drawer #9
St. Paul Park, MN 55071
Joseph Monkoski, Civil Engineer
National Park Service
1^3 S. Third St.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Edward Monteleone, Associate
King & Gavaris
1569 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN
Mrs. F. J. Hahurski
League of Women Voters
3 Eagle Ridge Road
North Oaks
St. Paul, MN 55110
Gerry Nelson, Press
A.P.
200 State Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55101
K. E. Noonan
St. Regis Paper Co.
Sartell, MN 56377
David Lee Olson, News Director
KUOM
Room 1, Eddy Hall
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
Ralph Olson, Architect
MCEE
572 Lincoln Ave.
St. Paul, MN
Donald W. Marshall, Regional Representative
Bureau of Water Hygiene
Region 5, U.S. Public Health Service
Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare
433 W. Van Buren St.
Chicago, IL 60607
-------
3-E
John Pegors, President
Clear Air - Clear Water, Unlimited.
315 - 10th Ave. No.
Hopkins, MN 553^3
Donald R. Peterson
City Engineer
City of South St. Paul, MH
A. R. Renquist, Attorney
Northern States Power Co. t
k-lh Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55^01
Maurice L. Robins
Executive Director - Chief Engineer
Minneapolis--St. Paul Sanitary District
21+00 Childs Road
st. Paul, m 55106
Franklin Ryder, Civil Engineer
U.S. Corps of Engineers
1217 U.S. Post Office & Custom House
St. Paul, M 55101
Richard Schvarr, Chief Engineer
City of St. Paul
City Hall
St. Paul, M
F. Phillip Sharpe
Asst. Regional Supervisor, Fishery Serv.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife
Federal Building, Fort Snelling
Twin Cities, MM
Lyle H. Smith, Asst. Exec. Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
717 Delaware St. S.E.
Minneapolis, MN
George Sollwasser, Associate
Horner & Shifrin Inc.
1221 Locust St.
St. Louis MO 63122
Paul A. Solstad, Planner
Minnesota State Planning Agency
550 Cedar Ave.
St. Paul, M
Robert Soramer
KSTP
Minneapolis, MN
Donald L. Stewart, General Supt.
American Crystal Sugar Co.
Boston Building
Denver, CO
Curtis L. Swenson
Quality Control Manager
Pako Photo
9 West 14th St.
Minneapolis, MN
Walter Thorpe, Engineer
Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District
1408 Pioneer Bldg.
st. Paul, m 55101
Gedney Tuttle, President
M. A. Gedney Co.
Chaska, MN
A. H. Walter, CDR
U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Inspection Office
Dubuque, IA
J. Wesley Walters, Consulting Engineer
1288 No. Victoria
St. Paul, MN 55117
Fred W ampler, Regional Coordinator
U.S. Department of the Interior
Cincinnati, OH
Ron Way, Reporter
Minneapolis Tribune
^25 Portland Ave.
Minneapolis, MN
Richard D. Wenberg
Asst. State Conservationist Engineer
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservationist Service - Minnesota
200 Federal Building
St. Paul, MN 55100
Gordon Yeager
Rochester Post-Bulletin
Rochester, KIT
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
PROCEEDINGS
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. MURRAY STEIN
MR. STEIN: This meeting is open.
This meeting for the conference in the
matter of the interstate and intrastate waters of the
Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries in the
States of Minnesota and Wisconsin is being held under
the provisions of Section 10 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, as amended.
The first session of this conference was
held February 7 and 8, 1964, and was initiated in
accordance with requests from the Governors of Minnesota
and Wisconsin, as well as on the basis of reports, sur-
veys, or studies. The second session of the conference
was held on February 28, March 1, and March 20, 1967.
We also had a progress meeting on April 30, 1968.
Both the State and Federal governments
have responsibilities in dealing with water pollution
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
control problems. The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act declares that the States have primary rights and
responsibilities for taking action to abate and control
pollution. 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 pollution of interstate and navigable waters. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides that pol-
lution 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 or reaches such waters after discharge
into a tributary.
The purpose of this meeting 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 and the progress which has been made
to comply with the conference recommendations.
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
The official State agencies are the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Mr. Poston--and we will get to the State
people—is the Federal conferee.
My name is Murray Stein, and I am from FWF
headquarters of the Department of the Interior, Washing-
ton, D. C., and the representative of Secretary Hickel.
These agencies are parties to the con-
ference. In one or two conferences we have had in this
area some of the procedure has been misunderstood. Let
me make this very clear for the people here. The Wis-
consin and Minnesota and Federal representatives are
parties to the conference. We confidently expect, and
we always have done so, to give anyone who has anything
relevant to say an opportunity to make a statement.
However, what we do under the law is
invite the State agencies to the conference. The
Federal people also invite other Federal people where
appropriate. We turn over the time of the States to
them, that is Wisconsin and Minnesota conferees will
manage their own time. If you wish to make a statement,
CA
-------
7
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
get in touch with the Minnesota or the Wisconsin
conferee" and they will schedule you to make a statement
in your time.
Under the law, if this is not the case,
if you can't do that, you can come to the Chairman.
However, with the conferees with these two States repre-
sented here, I am sure that there is going to be no
problem in making your arrangements with the represen-
tative from Wisconsin or the representative of Minne-
sota.
In order to have a proceeding which will
develop the facts in an orderly fashion, we will have
statements from -the conferees and the other participants
and then permit comments or questions by the conferees,
not from the floor. If you have any question or any
statement or any comment to make, Just hold that and
when your time comes you will be given an opportunity
to make that statement.
A record and verbatim transcript of the
meeting is being made by Virginia Rankin. This is
being made for the purpose of aiding us in preparing a
summary a»d also providing for a complete record of what
-------
, _8
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
is said here.
Copies of the summary and a transcript
of this meeting will be made available to the official
State water pollution control agencies. We have
generally found for the purpose of maintaining relation-
ships within the States that people who wish summaries
and transcripts should request them through their State
agency rather than come directly to the Federal Govern-
ment. The reason for this is that when the meeting has
been concluded, we would prefer people who are interestec
in the problem to follow their normal relations in deal-
ing with the State agencies rather than the Federal
Government. Anyone other than the conferees wishing
to make a statement should come to the lectern and
should identify themselves with their name and their
affiliation so we can maintain an accurate record.
In view of the large number of conferees
on the panel, we are going to ask them to introduce
themselves, but I would first like to introduce Fred
Wampler, our Regional Coordinator. Mr. Wampler, will
you stand up. Glad to see you. Mr. Wampler has been
an excellent supporter of water pollution control from
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
the days when he was in the Congress of the United
States.
Can we go to the left and start intro-
ducing yourselves, please.
MR. DAMON: I am Andrew Damon, Assistant
Director, Bureau of Legal Services, Department of
Natural Resources, representing the State of Wisconsin.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Ted Wisniewski of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
MR. POSTON: H. W. Poston, Regional
Director, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
MR. BADALICH: I am John Badalich, Execu-
tive Director of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
MR. TUVESON: Robert Tuveson, member of
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
MR. PACKARD: I am Wayne Packard, also a
member of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
MR. GADLER: Steve Gadler, member of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
At this point we would like to call on
Mr. H. W. Poston for the Federal presentation.
Mr. Poston.
-------
10
H. W. Poston
FEDERAL_PRESENTATIOK[
MR. POSTON: The Federal presentation
will come in four short statements, the first by Merrill
Garnet, our Regional Federal Activities Coordinator. His
statement is going to be on the status of compliance of
Federal installations.
Additionally Mr. Dale Bryson will make a
statement on the monitoring program in the Minneapolis -
St. Paul area for the period July 7, 196?, until June 30,
1969, and then Col. McGinnis, the District Engineer of
the St. Paul District, has a statement for the Corps of
Engineers, and lastly Mr. Donald Marshall, Water Hygiene
representative of the Public Health Service, has a short
statement.
Mr. Garnet.
-------
11
M. Garnet
STATEMENT OF MERRILL GAMET
REGIONAL FEDERAL ACTIVITIES COORDINATOR
GREAT LAKES REGION,, FWPCA, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. GAMET: Chairman Stein, conferees,
ladies and gentlemen.
This statement is a status of compliance
report of Federal installations with the recommendations
of the Upper Mississippi River Enforcement Conference.
Reports of progress made by Federal
installations in the Upper Mississippi River Enforcement
Conference Area with regard to compliance with the
requirements of Executive Order 11288 and the conference
recommendations have been made at previous sessions of
the conference.
Recommendations for time schedules for
remedial action at Federal installations, as stated in
the Summary of Conference (Second Session), were that:
A. "operational and maintenance changes shall
be initiated immediately." This has been complied
with at all of the following installations:
-------
12
M. Garnet
1. Osceola Air Force Station,
Polk County, Wisconsin.
2. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
Dredge "W.A. Thompson".
3. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers,
Locks and Dams 1, 2 and 3.
4. U.S. Army, NIKE Site 20,
Roberts, Wisconsin.
5. U.S. Army, NIKE Site 70,
St. Bonifacius, Minnesota.
6. U.S. Army, NIKE Site 90,
Bethel, Minnesota.
B. "changes required at the 93^-th Troop
Carrier Group, Officers Club, Fort Snelling, be
completed and made operational within six months."
This has been complied with;
C. "a planned schedule of analyses be con-
tinued on effluent from the waste treatment
facilities of the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers,
Floating Dredge Thompson, so as to insure adequate
removals prior to overboard discharge of effluent."
This has been complied with]
-------
13.
M. Garnet
D. "changes required at NIKE Site 40 shall
"be completed and made operational within six months
This has not been complied with but the Summary
Progress Evaluation Meeting of the conference,
April 30, 1968, recommended that "the FWPCA request
the Department of Defense to adjust and expedite the
remedial schedule for NIKE Site No. 40 so that com-
pliance will be achieved by the final June 17, 1971,
deadline." In regard to NIKE Site No. 40, the
Launch Area treatment system is in compliance. The
waste effluent discharge to a ditch from the
Administration and Control Area is not in compli-
ance, since the extension of the sewer outfall has
not been installed. Programming documents are now
being prepared for inclusion of this project in the
Department of Defense Fiscal Year 1972 Military
Construction Program. Estimated completion date is
May 1972. This installation will not be in com-
pliance by the June 17, 1971, deadline.
E. "Federally-licensed (privately-owned)
watercraft are to provide treatment satisfactory
to the Federal Government as well as the State
-------
M. Garnet
agencies." Inasmuch as there are no Federal laws
regulating Federally-licensed watercraft, this
report is confined to the following two Federally-
owned crafts operating in the conference area:
No. 1. U_. Sj, Goas.t__Gu_ard _Buoy_Te_nde_r
"Fern", Home Port, Dubuque, Iowa:
This Federal vessel was not previously
cited in conference reports. The vessel operates
in the Upper Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers.
It is equipped with a waste-holding tank with
capacity for ten to twelve hours operation. The
holding tank is used when the vessel is operating
in the Minnesota River, but there is no shore pump-
out facility available, and it is customary to dump
the raw wastes in the Mississippi River. This
vessel will not be considered in compliance until
such time as a pump-out facility is available, or
other adequate treatment facilities are installed.
The Coast Guard has no additional plans at this
time. It is recommended that a larger holding tank
or acceptable treatment device be installed.
No. 2 . U_i_S_:L_Army, Corps of Engin^e^e_r_s_,
-------
M. Garnet
Derrick Boat "7671:
This vessel has not been previously
cited in conference reports. The vessel is equippe
with Macerator/Chlorinator units. Recent informa-
tion indicates that coliform counts in the effluent
are far in excess of acceptable limits, and there-
fore the facilities are not in compliance. The
Corps of Engineers has been advised that Macerator/
Chlorinators are not considered to provide accept-
able treatment of vessel wastes, and that plans
should be made to replace them. No information is
available at this time of any plans to provide
waste holding or other treatment facilities. It is
recommended that this vessel install an acceptable
treatment device at the earliest possible time.
This concludes the statement of the
installations.
Inventory information regarding all
Federal installations, including recommended improvements
completion of remedial measures, and effluent character-
istics is shown in the table of Federal installations in
the Enforcement Conference Area, this summary here.
-------
16.
M. Garnet
That concludes our statement.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that table
will appear in the record as if read.
(Which said table is as follows:)
-------
FEDERAL INSTALLATION SURFACE WATER DISCHARGES
in the
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN
ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AREA
17
July 1969
INSTALLATION
(Arency & Location)
MINNESOTA
U.S. Army
NIKE Minn. -St. Paul
Site 1»0
Farmington (Dakota Co.
U.S. Army
NIKE Minn. -St. Paul
Site #70
St.Bonifacius
(Hennepin Co. )
* Status of C
Receiving
Waters
iBasir.)
Unnamed
Creek
(Vermil-
) lion
River)
Ground
Undrained
swamp
Ground
3mplian.ce
Treatment
Provided
Admin. & Control
Area:
Secondary,
chlorination
Launch Area:
Septic tank,
tile field
Admin. & Control
Area:
Secondary,
polishing lagoon,
chlorination
Launch Area:
Secondary ,
seepage lagoon
with Upper Mississii
Est.
Pop.
Served
100
25
100
25
pi Rive
Discharge Characteristics
UK/I)
BOD- - 9.0
(95$ reduction)
BODc - 7.0
(91$ reduction - 6 me
6 mo . avg . )
-
r Enforcement Conference Re
Present
Flow
(1000
GPD)
5.0
0.5
_
f
0.5
commenda
* Status
of
Compli-
ance
N.I.C.
i.e.
i.e.
i.e.
fcions) :
Improvement
Needs
Extend
sewer
outfall.
None
L. Chlorina-
tion facil
ities.
2 . Improved
operation J
control .
Inroroved
operation &
control
I.C. - in c<
Remedial
Program
Funding -
FY 1972.
Est .Const
complete
5/72
Completed
Completed
Completed
onpliance;
Remarks
Effluent is discharged to a
roadside ditch; complaints
have been voiced by local
residents on numerous occa-
sions when odors developed
as a result of ponding in
the ditch. Programing
documents are being prepared
for inclusion of this project
in the DOD, FY 1972 Military
Construction Program.
ChlorinatlLon facilities are
in year-round operation.
No overflow from lagoon;
package treatment plant
underloaded.
N.I.C. - not in compliance
-------
18
INSTALLATION
(Agency & Location)
MINNESOTA, Cont'd.
U.S. Army
NIKE Minn. -St. Paul
Site #90
Bethel (Isanti Co.)
Admin. & Control Ares
U.S. Air Force
PB^th Troop Carrier
Group, Officers Clul
Fort Snelling
WISCONSIN
U.S. Army
NIKE Minn. -St. Paul
Site #20
Roberts (St.Croix Co. )
Receiving
Waters
Basin
Trib. of
Rum River
Ground
Marsh
near
, Minneso'
River
Ground
Ground
Treatment
Provided
Admin. & Control
Area:
Secondary,
chlorination
Launch Area:
Septic tank &
tile drain field
Two compartment
septic tank and
a soil absorption
field
Admin. & Control
Area:
Secondary ,
polishing lagoon
Launch Area:
Septic tank,
tile field
Est.
Pop.
Served
100
25
100
25
Discharge Characteristics
(ma/1)
BOD - min. - 11 ) June '69
5 max. - 31 )
87$ reduction
(6 mo. average)
_
No discharge from lagoon
..
Present
Flow
(1000
GPD)
5.0
0.5
3.7
5.0
0.5
*Status
of
Compli-
ance
i.e.
i.e.
i.e.
i.e.
i.e.
Improvement
Needs
1. Filter
recircula-
ti.on
2 . Improved
operation
& control
None
None
Improved
operation &
control
None
Remedial
Program
Completed
in 1966
Completed
in 1968
_
None
Completed
_
Remarks
Chlorination facilities were
activated in 1967
Enforcement Conference
recommendations were carried
out in the fall of 1966.
Deactivation of this site is
contemplated within several
years
-------
19
INSTALLATION
(Agency & Location)
WISCONSIN, Cont'd.
U.S. Air Force
Osceola Air Force Sta.
(Polk County)
U.S. Coast Guard
Buoy Tender "Fern"
U.S. Army -
Corps of Engineers
r£redge W. A. Thompson
Derrick Boat 767
Receiving
Waters
Basin
Ground
Miss.
River
Miss. Rive
Miss. Rive
Treatment
Provided
S.T. , tile drain
field at Trans-
mitter and Receiver
Sta.
Main Station -
2 - 20150 gal.
septic tanks,
2 oxidation ponds
in series.
Holding tank, with
capacity for 10-12
hours operation
r 2 - extended
aeration plants -
1200 gal/day unit,
1 unit forward,
1 unit aft;
effluent chlorina-
tion
r Macerator-
chlorinator
Est.
Pop.
Served
20
56
26
Discharge Characteristics
Ufi/1)
_
No overflow from second
oxidation pond.
Raw
Analysis of samples taker
6/18/69
Forward Aft
S.S. 65 mg/1. 29 mg/1
B.Coli 2300/100 2600/10(
ml ml
BOD 35 mg/1 30 mg/1
pH 7.6 7.3
Sample collected
on 6/30/69 showed coli-
form count of
1601900/100 ml
Present
Flow
(1000
GPD)
2k. 0
total
from
statior
-
2.0
0.5
*Status
of
Compli-
ance
i.e.
i.e.
N.I.C.
i.e.
N.I.C.
Improvement
Needs
None
None
Shore facil
ity to pump
out holding
tank
None
Acceptable
Treatment
or disposal
device .
Remedial
Program
_,
_
- None
-
Remarks
Continue maintenance practices
to assure adequate treatment
efficiency.
Operation and maintenance
practices adequate.
Home Port is Dubuque, Iowa.
Operates in Mississippi and
Minnesota Rivers . Holding
tank is used when operating
in the Minnesota River, and
evacuated into the Mississippi
River .
Home Port is Fountain City,
Wisconsin
Closer attention must be paid
to adequacy of chlorination
-------
20
M. Gamet
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or
questions?
MR. GADLER: I would like to ask a ques-
tion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. GADLER: I want to know why the
Federal Government can't comply with the laws of our
Nation. I wish somebody would answer that.
MR. STEIN: What are you referring to on
this?
MR. GADLER: Well, take a look at item
number D. It said the installation will not be in com-
pliance until May 1972. Certainly a Nation that can
afford the money they do for the things they do can
afford to spend a little money to clean up a NIKE
installation.
MR. STEIN: I agree with you on that.
This was one of the questions that I had.
Before we get into that, let me ask Mr.
Gamet a question. What is the population equivalent and
what is being discharged at that site which will not be
in compliance?
-------
21
M. Garnet
MR. GAMET: Well, NIKE Site 40 it is
estimated has approximately one hundred population and
a daily flow of about five thousand gallons of waste.
MR. STEIN: If you look at the answer to
that question and you ask about the government, I think
the only way that I know how to handle it is that, at
least in a free society like ours, there is no dichotomy
as far as I can see and no split between the government
and the people sitting here and the people sitting in
the audience. We are the government. And if you want
something done, it will be done.
When we deal with any law, there are
fairly traditional and clear rules of statutory con-
struction. This has been well known not only by the
founding fathers but by the Congress and by the govern-
ments such as the British Government and possibly some
other western European Governments from which we derived
our traditions when the constitution was drafted and we
embarked on our role as a Nation. One of these fundamental
rules of statutory construction is that unless specifically
so stated, the sovereign does not regulate itself.
In some areas where there has been a lot
-------
22
M. Garnet
of pressure, for example in the Oil Pollution Control
Act of 1924, the definition of person includes any
agent, employee or officer of the United States. In
the Water Pollution Control Act the definition does not
include the United States.
This is a statute that the Congress has
passed. In recognition of this omission, the Executive
Orders emanating from the White House have set up a
directive asking all Federal agencies to comply with
State and Federal water pollution control requirements.
Again, this requirement by its very nature is by its ver;
nature essentially a voluntary one, because while we may
be able to bring legal action from our Department or ask
the Justice Department to do that against an industry or
a city or a State, it is pretty clear that we can't do
it against another Federal agency. This is the way the
law is written and we have to work this out.
Now, again, if you would look at this date,
the problem seems to come from the appropriation of
funds. And again the appropriation of funds or what
you get for any particular project as a governmental
agency, it seems to me, relates to all of us in our
-------
23
M. Garnet
society. Our position, I think, and the only thing that
any of us can do--this pertains to dealing with either
State or Federal Governments—is to enforce the law as
we have it. Under the law the appeal here has to be
made through the agency, through the Congress and
through the budgetary process.
MR. GADLER: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. GADLER: Here is an estimated population
of one hundred that are dumping effluent into a road-
side ditch. Citizens of our State have complained on
numerous occasions about the odors. I don't know
whether the health authorities have gone down to examine
the possibilities of disease, but certainly I don't
understand as an individual why we should wait until
1972 for somebody to take some action to take care of
the people in that area. They are complaining about
odors and they are complaining about an action by the
Federal Government.
Certainly someone should say, "You comply."
We are forcing small industries and small people and
-------
24
M. Garnet
small municipalities in this State to do it. I believe
that the Federal Government, of which I am one part of
it or one individual in that institution, certainly
should comply, and that includes the--
MR. STEIN: I think Col. McGinnis will
be making a statement and perhaps he will have something
more to say on this .
Are there any more questions or comments?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I have one.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: This is referring to page
3 regarding the Derrick Boat "767" Reference is made
in this statement that the Corps of Engineers have been
advised that macerator/chlorinators are not considered
to provide acceptable treatment. Whose advice was this,
I would like to know? Because the State of Minnesota
does consider this type of device as acceptable as a
boat head and also the National Science Foundation,
which is a Federal agency that does look into the design
and acceptance of boat heads, does approve this type of
device. I would like to know where the Corps of Engi-
neers got this advice as to not being acceptable.
-------
M. Garnet
MR. GAMET: That came from us, from the
FWPCA.
MR. BADALICH: I see.
MR. STEIN: Are there any further ques-
tions?
Well, I have this, and I think about the
"Pern" too. As I understand the situation in the "Fern,1
the vessel may operate in the Minnesota River and they
don't dump, but it is customary to dump the raw wastes
into the Mississippi River because there are no pump-
out facilities on shore. One of the recommendations is
that they have a larger holding tank. What is the point
of the larger holding tank if they are going to dump it
in the river?
MR. GAMET: Well, the only consideration
there was that they would be able to hold all their
wastes until they return to their home port rather than
to dump in the Mississippi River after coming out of
the Minnesota River.
MR. STEIN: What will they do when they
return to the home port? Do they have a pump-out
facility there?
-------
26
M. Garnet
MR. GAMET: I am not sure. I believe
there is a pump-out facility at Dubuque, but that is a
long ways down river from Minnesota.
MR. STEIN: You are going to need an
awfully large tank.
MR. GAMET: Well, they have a complement
of, I believe, about twenty men.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: With reference to pump-
out facilities, I am quite sure there are plenty of
portable units available which are presently used for
pumping out septic tanks and hauling wastes away. Why
can't the unit contract for services of this type for
pumping-out purposes?
MR. GAMET: I see no reason why they
shouldn't. And if there are such available, we would
like to know where they are so we can make a recommenda-
tion to the--
MR. WISNIEWSKI: We will be glad to send
you a list of licensees in Wisconsin. We have them
licensed all over the State.
-------
, 27
M. Garnet
MR. GAMET: Very good. I am very happy
to know that.
MR. STEIN: Let's keep that in mind for
the recommendations, because I think Mr. Wisniewski
kind of anticipated the line of inquiry that I had. I
see no reason why, if you are going to have a holding tarjk
operation with Ure facilities that we have in the area, that
arrangements can't be made for adequate pump-out.
MR. GAMET: If these facilities are
available, this, in my opinion, is by far the best
solution--
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. GAMET: --and we will be happy to
have the information.
MR. STEIN: Do you have any date on that
Derrick Boat "767"?
MR. GAMET: No, sir, I am sorry, we were
unable to get any data.
MR. STEIN: Not data, date.
MR. GAMET: Oh.
MR. STEIN: If they are going to stop
using the macerator/chlorinator and put in a holding
-------
28_
M. Garnet
tank, again I would hope that they made arrangements
for a pump-out on the holding tank, do you have any date
when they are supposed to do that?
MR. GAMET: Well, I think Col. McGinnis
could give us an answer on that.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any further comments or ques-
tions?.
Mr. Tuveson.
MR. TUVESON: Mr. Garnet, will you furnish
Minnesota a copy of your recommendations regarding the
macerator/chlorinators, please?
MR. GAMET: Yes, sir.
MR. TUVESON: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any further comments
or questions?
If not., thank you very much, Mr. Garnet.
That was an excellent report, by the way.
Again, I know Mr. Garnet works for us, but as far as con-
ciseness and putting your finger on the facts, that is
as good a Federal installation report as I have seen.
Thank you very much.
-------
29
D. S. Bryson
MR. GAMET: Thank you, Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: Next Mr. Dale Bryson is
going to present a summary report on the monitoring
program in this area.
STATEMENT OF DALE S. BRYSON
DIRECTOR,, UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER -
LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN OFFICE, FWPCA,
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
MR. BRYSON: Mr. Chairman, conferees.
My name is Dale S. Bryson. I am the
Director of the Upper Mississippi River - Lake Superior
Basin Office, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion .
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration was charged under recommendation No. 6
to establish monitoring stations where appropriate
within the study area to aid in the evaluation of
improvement of water quality resulting from implemen-
tation of actions recommended by the conferees.
-------
30.
D. S . Bryson
Pursuant to the recommendation, three
locations for automatic water quality monitoring
facilities were selected. These are strategically
located to surround the areas of poorest water quality
in the vicinity of the Twin Cities. A constant vigil
of Mississippi River water quality, entering the metro-
politan area, is maintained "by the control monitor
located in north Minneapolis at the Northern States
Power Company's Riverside Power Plant. A second monitor
is located on the Minnesota River three and one-half
miles above its confluence with the Mississippi River.
The third monitor is located at the J. L. Shiely Larson
Plant downstream from all waste sources and records the
water quality of the Mississippi River as it leaves
the Twin Cities area. Thus, changes in the water quality
of the Mississippi River as it passes through the Twin
Cities are constantly recorded, permitting continuing
evaluation of the improvements in water quality antici-
pated with implementation of the recommendation.
These monitors are shown on the map with
the circles of the central receiving plants located at
our office in Minneapolis.
-------
31
D. S. Bryson
The automatic monitors were placed in
operation during July 19^7 an^ with a minimum of down
time have satisfactorily operated continuously. Water
is pumped through the monitors and is analyzed by four
different sensors for temperature, dissolved oxygen,
hydrogen ion concentration and specific conductance.
The equipment has been designed to accommodate four
additional analyses as sensors are developed and become
available.
The information collected by the monitors
is telemetered to a central recorder located at the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Minne-
apolis Office. The maximum and minimum value recorded
for each analysis is tabulated on a daily basis. Copies
of this data are forwarded routinely to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, the Division of Environmental
Protection, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
and the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District. The
data are summarized in graph form and are available for
public information, as are all raw data.
Copies of the summaries are before you
for the two years the monitors have been in operation.
-------
D. S. Bryson
I would like to have these data entered into the record.
The overall quality of the water in the
Twin Cities metropolitan area, as evidenced by the graphs
of data obtained from the three automatic water quality
monitors, is slightly improved.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Bryson, I am not sure we
have this data for the two years.
MR. BRYSON: This is the packet that was
placed before you before we started this morning.
MR. PACKARD: Oh, here. I see.
MR. STEIN: All right, this will appear
in the record as if read, without objection.
(Which said data summary is as .follows:)
-------
33
DATA SUMMARY
July 7, 1967 - June 30, 1969
AUTOMATIC MONITORING PROGRAM
MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL AREA
U. S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Adrainistration
Great Lakes Region
Upper Mississippi River -
Lake Superior Basin Office
-------
The overall quality of the water in the Twin Cities metropolitan
area, as evidenced by the graphs of data obtained from the three auto-
matic water quality monitors, is slightly improved. The Mississippi
River as it enters the Twin Cities (Monitor No. l) is of good quality.
The water quality parameters measured consistently exceeded minimum
requirements. The quality of the Minnesota River, immediately above its
confluence with the Mississippi River (Monitor No. 3) has shown some
improvement. Minimum dissolved oxygen requirements were not met at all
times in 196? and 1968, however, improvement was noted in 1969, due to
the installation of waste treatment facilities at several of the waste
sources. The quality of the Mississippi River as it leaves the Twin
Cities (Monitor No. 2) has also shown slight improvement. In the summer
and early fall of 196? the dissolved oxygen was consistently depleted.
While the minimum dissolved oxygen requirement of 3 milligrams per liter
(mg/l) was violated in 1968 the level did not drop below 1 mg/1. The
water quality to date in 1969 has been above minimum requirements,
principally due to high river flows.
-------
AUTOMATIC MONITORING STATION NO. 1
MISSISSIPPI RIVER - MILE 856.9
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. - RIVERSIDE PLANT
-------
36
-------
37
I "•'
f!:
I*«
* u
fii
.f «
3 21
0 T
0 3 zi
H J?
z
W
2
E ™ «ll
»!
-------
38
o o
z
-------
39
K 5 <
tf
|S I
»-
<
K
i p ;
*!i
i*a.
3 H
ssl-
-------
1
MS
3 *
|e .,
?. P.
X 111
O 3
Ul
Q.
Ul
CD ¥
O
Ul -I
o
z o
-------
•s
5 =
A
°-|;
i1^
l|f
iss
* z -fc
O »
S 2
3 S
i
z
5 i
o -
•e < -
o
M
£Si.
X Z
u. f-
O 3 z
;g2
J_L
^
< =
a *•
< ">
a •>
5 S
zQ«
< z u
a: < _i
o
z
o «
-------
1°
o
0
:»
*
0
M
m •
«
0 0
to "
0
o
z
• s
a
<
*
i %
*.
0
>
«
4
a
X (
<
^ «
" 0
o
o
0
O
M
0
0
M
O
o
o
o
" s
Is
3
4
4
3 i
•»
-==
' •
T
j *
a «
^
J5"
•*>
i
\
4*
>
j
x.
s
^
X
:^
\
J
^
I
1
i
2
X f
^lr
s J>
/
V
<
^
*
^
*>
(j1
r
S
\
-^
-*-=:
\
^
tS
•y
tf
s
n
D
LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN OFFICE |
MONITORING PROGRAM 1
ION NUMBER ONE
i"l
:
S'2
UJ
H <
tu o
z o
< z
1
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE 1
LESS THAN 5 PERCENT
ijj
t-
z
X "
*i
s>
a"
3
u O
L9 -
Z C
THE INTERIOR 1
ON CONTROL AOMIN. 1
CKlCAGO^ILLIUOia
U.S DEPARTMENT OF
GAPS IN DATA INDICATE
TRANSMISSION FAILURE
LESS THAN 5 PERCENT
LU
O
z
GAPS IN DATA INDICATE
TRANSMISSION FAILURE
. U
l<*
" in
is
sa
J a
—
s|
o
A
O
O «
M ft
s;
0 «
2
o
•
a
s
o
0
o
0
0
*" u
o
o
1 Ot Ot Ol Ot Ot 01 Ot Ot 0|
01 X H3/SOHWOU3IW -33NV1300N03
-------
s
O «
5 2
3 •>
Vf
i
o
?, o '
£1
5?
i 2
o •>
: S
J
*1
-s
V
PS
2;
UJ »^ **
lOf X
0(-
o:<-J
• Z
! O
; I
> |
i a
15
I-OI X W3 / SOHWOtOIYH — 33N»13nflNOD
-------
44
i"
.Is
; <*
>
-------
in
o
_i
2
<
1U
5
<
o
£ 2
!>
t
-------
AUTOMATIC MONITORING STATION NO. 2
MISSISSIPPI RIVER - MILE 826.?
J. L. SHIELY CO. - LARSON PLANT
-------
-------
-------
-------
50
i «
M
l|§:
~ 3
I
Sz
—£
Si
0. <
< a
o i-
-------
51
3
X
a.
**
a
o
>
a
o
fn
D
Z
n
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
n
0
o
—..
— ^
^
•
s
}
f
\
{
(
k
J
J
**s
Js
i»
1
UJ U
i- Q;
o -j
1 5
< w
Z S
~ VI
a <
< K
o H
0
b
C
5
a
V
t
t
u
a
a
a
Lj
e
>
i
to U
z I
<
^ >
UJ>
»*
Z c
<2
a: <
u
h
O
Z
z
a:
§o
a. >
Is
S£
t -*
o
o
-
I
(JJ
I
z
UJ
t-
UJ
UJ
2
j 2
Ul
£
a.
nl
5
i-
v>
u
§
>
a
2
Q
Z
Ul
o
UJ
D
>
I
a
u
UJ
a.
z
ft
i
H
10
u
:
:
2*
t >•
S a
c
UJ I
*?
°:
i-;
U Q
O
"2
U
H Ul
z ^
V)
< «
o t-
* cr
if
c -
j "1
- t
> =
»6
•
'8
c
j K
L
1-
l>
H"
-------
O
o
A
is
0
J
n -
5
n
O
X
o
£
o
IP
t **
2
w
O
n
5°
«**
X
0
o
CO
(A
CD O
ttt
0.
O
O
13
3©
s
c
"*o
4
{.
)
\
^
^
'^>
>
r
V
>
i
^
)
i
f
^
\
i
i
>•
v
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN OFFICE
0
U
I 2
STATION NUMBER TWO
MISSISSIPPI RIVER MONITOR - SH
Ul
XUJ
— _l
1 <
>
u
-1
X
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMIN. |
OAPS IN DATA INDICATE
TRANSMISSION FAILURE
ERCENT
z o-
UJ -IvOI
H-C
UJ
ms
Z
a K
u
M.
O
£
ss
5
O
_ K
3
22
O
4 «
X
vl
= 1
O
It
9 (E
O
O
O
n
3
s H
3
O
n
a
H"
-------
53
± u
0; m
O Z
H 3
5 2
o
x Z
II
Sgo
:tS
2^2
ui a. o
I = S
I < a:
15 "i
ii
(A Z
a. <
< K
O I-
UJ
I
t
ii
i -i
Ul
I-
o
-------
A
O
*
?s
2 a
z <0
? o
o5
K « -j
|sg
sii
UJUJj
t
Q. <
< C
O H
r
•c
?y =
™5r
OH
UJ-J
u
H
o
z
-------
55
OZW
UoSK
.85
; <*
4
*s
\
S
^L
COI « GN091I
-------
56
5
SO^
059: =
td OM
05m
B_,
<
-------
57
AUTOMATIC MONITORING STATION NO. 3
MINNESOTA RIVER - MILE 3.5
-------
58
-------
59
2 .
_ o
a ui >-
'!i
a £2
i»i
0 a:
ui
§
z
ui
o
>
X
o
• z"
o
! P
• 31
: Oo
I Q- UI
:««
IPS
S*
; *<
I I
5 5
-------
6o
-------
61
IT O
O "" H
O W -
MI
Z K CC
J L
K£Z
o <5
K
" i
u 8g
°^
l-d'
z o ^
u a. u
Z c
' bJ OT O
; t-ui •>
ujK
to
p
33
5 <
z. u.
5 I
" 5
S.2
-------
62
,
— e£
^
C
<
*z
^
S
v
s
j
^
>
^
s
D
X
DAILY
S
/
\
J
I
~^
1!
i«5
u
j
>
~ —
t
—3L
\
f
1
\
f
s*
^
5
J>
N"^
1
f
1
J>
>
f .
3
\
f>
S 1
2
S
J
I
1
'
P,
y%
i*
< 2
* ^
§|
o K
n
u.
a
a
a
0
2
a
a.
a
LAKE SUPERIOR QASlN OFFICE
AUTOMATIC MONITORING PROGRAM
STATION NUMBER THREE
LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER MONITOR
RANGE BETWEEN HIGH
NOTF*. AMH 1 OW HA II Y VAI IIPQ
U"
u
X -
_ f.
x>
UJ -
5c
RANGE E
WOTF: Ai\m i n
RCENT.
in
. o.
z
> *"
1
1 V)
111
-1
PH VALUE
LESS THAN .5 PERCENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMIN.
GREAT LAKES REGION CHICAGO , ILLINOIS
GAPS IN DATA INDICATE
TRANSMISSION FAILURE
-
-
-------
_r
s
< *
cc o
o u >-
*H
2|0
= '=0
\a-J-
*?°
-to
§3
*- z «J
1-^2
~ 00
O.U
O> U (A
2§i
si
5
< =>
o -J
O 4
Z u.
II
5 |
m 5
o. <
< a:
o i-
uj-J
o (n
z&
-------
OFFICE
MATIC MONITORING PROGRAM
STATION NUMBER THREE
MINNESOTA RIVER MONITOR
DMI
INOI
TION CONTROL
ON CHICAGO , IL
WATER POLL
AKES EGI
U.
DE
UJ
Uldrt
*°i
S*2
o*-
ui -1
O (/>
Z Ql^
< ZUl
or < _i
o
z
V> I-
2£
v0-
d«l
gz
S i
o H
Ul
(-
o
z
-------
£S
I K
E O
O U 1-
O IU —
£S|
SI**
— uj U
£ 5 >
a S ^
o <5
H 2<.
L. 2
O t-
c
^,
5 <
z u.
0. <
< -
u
13 _ 10
2 O«
-------
66
o
3
X
O
ft
C
s
u
*o
o
3N
JK
C
3
z
*
X
£o
o
K
JJ o
M
t-
to
O
-2
3
0
2 =
O
n
O
N
3
"* O
*
*^3
- —
^
— •
. — •
«c
j
— • —
«^
— V
"
— — ».
y
V.
^
/
/
^N
<
f
C
^
^
\
(
I
1
/
I
/
S
tc
UJ
— >
(/>
w
LU
Q.
0.
D
LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN OFFICE
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SJrtVEY
GAGING STATION
MINNESOTA RIVER
NEAR CARVER , MINNESOTA
DAILY MEAN FLOWS |
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINJ
X
o
u
O
o
«t
3^
<,*
s
o
A.
°IT
«
O
oat
a
m
m
VVANV
Z 0
X
M
0 w
- e
o
o£
a
M
o
M
oj
O
M
3
J
3
-------
-------
68
D. S. Bryson
MR. STEIN: Will you continue.
MR. BRYSON: The Mississippi River as it
enters the Twin Cities (Monitor No. 1) is of good
quality. The water quality parameters measured con-
sistently exceeded minimum requirements. The quality
of the Minnesota River, immediately above its confluence
with the Mississippi River (Monitor No. 3)5 has shown
some improvement. Minimum dissolved oxygen requirements
were not met at all times in 196? and 1968; however,
improvement was noted in 1969* due to the installation
of waste treatment facilities at several of the waste
sources. The quality of the Mississippi River as it
leaves the Twin Cities (Monitor No. 2) has also shown
slight improvement from that of 1967. In the summer and
early fall of 1967 the dissolved oxygen was consistently
depleted. While the minimum dissolved oxygen requiremen
of 3 milligrams per liter (mg/1) was violated in 1968,
the level did not drop below 1 mg/1. This is due in
part to the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District's
partial use of their secondary treatment facilities.
The water quality to date in 1969 has been above minimum
requirements, principally due to high river flows.
-------
69
D. S. Bryson
Marked improvement of the water quality
below Minneapolis-St. Paul will not occur until the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District's presently con-
structed facilities are placed in operation. It is
expected that the water quality monitor will reflect a
degradation in water quality due to the planned bypassing
of raw sewage from South St. Paul sewage treatment plant
Within the next month, the automatic monitor located at
Northern States Power's Riverside Plant will be removed.
The Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District has installed
an automatic monitor in that area. In order to avoid a
duplication of effort, our monitor will be moved to Lock
and Dam No. 3 near Red Wing, Minnesota. Data gathered
from this site will depict the quality of water a dis-
tance downstream from the area of degradation and after
mixing with the St. Croix River. The site location will
also provide information on pre- and postoperation of
the proposed powerplant upstream from Lock and Dam 3-
To implement the Nationwide Federal-State
local program to prevent, control and abate water pollu-
tion, the Department of the Interior will bring to bear
all of its resources and powers to the support of
-------
70
D. S. Bryson
measures which prevent pollution at the source. Wis-
consin and Minnesota submitted water quality standards
and plans for implementation for approval to the Secre-
tary of the Interior as required under the Glean Water
Act of 1965- Both States standards and implementation
plans for the conference area have been approved.
With the increased effort towards pollu-
tion control being experienced on the Federal, State and
local level, it is expected that the quantity of pollut-
ing materials discharged to the Mississippi River and
its tributaries will be greatly reduced.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Bryson.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. BADALIGH: Mr. Chairman, I have one.
At least on page 3, Mr. Bryson, you refer
to the statement in the second paragraph:
"it is expected that the water quality
monitor will reflect a degradation in water quality due
to the planned bypassing of raw sewage from South St.
Paul sewage treatment plant."
Does this refer to the short interval of
-------
73_
D. S. Bryson
time where they will be bypassing a primary treated
effluent during the time that they are connecting in
the new facilities? Is this what you make reference
to?
MR. BRYSON: Yes, sir.
MR. TUVESON: I hope that South St. Paul
will have some further comment on that later in the day.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments?
MR. POSTON: I was going to ask Mr.
Bryson just how he accounts for this better water
quality downstream when our Minneapolis-St. Paul sewage
treatment plant is not in full operation? Some of the
units are not functioning fully, they do not have
chlorination, and when South St. Paul is bypassing, how djo
we get better water, better water with less treatment?
MR. BRYSON: In 196? when the second
session of the conference was held and the monitors
were installed, the Sanitary District had primary treat-
ment and the facilities for secondary were under con-
struction. Last spring they placed into operation the
use of their secondary facilities. I am sure Mr. Robins
of the District will report on their activities later.
-------
D. S. Bryson
As I understand it, the facilities are
not fully operable now due to problems with the
incineration facilities. They are utilizing part of
their secondary facilities now so that the level of
treatment over that of 1967 has increased some percentage
points. This increased treatment has resulted in a
slight improvement of the water quality downstream. The
facilities are not being operated yet to their designed
capacity.
MR. TUVESON: Mr. Bryson, are you saying
in your statement that if it were not for the high river
flows there would perhaps be a degradation of water
quality?
MR. BRYSON: Definitely.
MR. GADLER: I have one question.
MR. STEIN: Yes, go ahead.
MR. GADLER: Mr. Bryson, I am especially
interested in variances, and from what you have just
stated it appears to me that every time somebody comes
before the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and asks
for a variance and if it is granted, will that also add
to this degradation?
-------
D. S. Bryson
MR. BRYSON: It would depend upon the
nature of the variance. If they are planning to dis-
charge significant quantities of partially treated
waste, yes, this would be a degradation of the quality.
That is such a general question, it is
hard to be specific on it. It depends on the nature of
the waste and the strength of the waste and the quan-
tity that they want to discharge.
MR. GADLER: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. GADLER: I would like at this time
to compliment the Federal water people for the stations
they operate down along the river. I had occasion to
visit one and it was really excellent.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
I think again this is a key to clean
water, these monitoring stations. We have a peculiar
situation here that in running water pollution control
facilities there isn't a built-in automatic check the
way we have in certain other utilities. For example,
if your water system goes out or your electric utility
or your phone system goes out, all the customers know
-------
D. S. Bryson
that immediately. You are not sure when this happens
with the water pollution control facility. Maybe the
fish know,but they don't talk.
So I think if we are going to make clean
water we are going to have to be more and more dependent
on these stations. I think we have a new way with
these people. The information collected by the monitors
is telemetered to a central recorder, and with space—age
personnel such as Dale Bryson, maybe we can find out a
little sooner than we found out in the past when our
pollution control facilities were malfunctioning.
Are there any other comments?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, as a matter
of information to the conferees, the State of Minnesota
was very fortunate in receiving their appropriation from
the legislature this year. We did receive funds to
purchase one automatic monitoring unit this fiscal year
and also one next fiscal year, and we do plan on setting
one up possibly between the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary
District plant and South St. Paul in the Mississippi River
and possibly another one in the St. Groix. But it will
be within the conference area.
-------
D. S. Bryson
So we have taken steps to supplement your
facilities and we hope to tie this in with your central
control plant. This will be worked out with Mr. Bryson
at a later date.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any other comments or ques-
tions?
If not, thank you very much, Mr. Bryson.
Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: Colonel McGinnis, District
Engineer for the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers,
will make a statement.
I will remind you that Colonel McGinnis
replaces Colonel Hesse as District Engineer here and
only very recently has come on the job. I hope you
will bear with him a bit if some of the potential ques-
tions here he doesn't have all the answers for.
-------
Col. C. I. McGinnis
STATEMENT OF COLONEL CHARLES I. MC GINNIS
DEPUTY DISTRICT ENGINEER, U. S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ST. PAUL DISTRICT
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
COL. MC GINNIS: Thank you, Mr. Poston.
Mr. Stein, Mr. Poston, ladies and gentle-
men .
I appreciate the opportunity to meet with
you and to des.cribe briefly the operations and respon-
sibilities of the Corps of Engineers regarding pollution
problems on the Upper Mississippi River and its tribu-
taries. The North Central Division of the Corps, which
I represent this morning, includes all of the Mississippi
River Basin from Saverton, Missouri, upstream to the
Headwaters Reservoirs area. Principal tributaries of
the Mississippi Rive^ system within this Division are
the Minnesota, St. Croix, the Wisconsin, the Chippewa,
the Iowa, the Des Moines, and the Rock Rivers.
The Corps of Engineers has for many years
maintained a navigation channel on the Mississippi River,
on the St. Croix River, and more recently on the
-------
77
Col. C. I. McGinnis
Minnesota River through channel dredging and the opera-
tion of several locks and dams on the main stem of the
Mississippi. Six reservoirs in the Mississippi's head-
waters area have been operated by the Corps since before
the turn of the century. The Corps has constructed
several flood-control projects and small boat harbors
along the river,* we are actively engaged in a floodplain
management program throughout the Mississippi Basin, and
in the development of recreational areas along the
river. I will say more about our recreational program
in a few moments .
The Mississippi River headwater reservoirs
have been operated to supplement low flows in downstream
reaches of the river and for the improvement of water
quality. These flow supplements have been provided from
storage within the normal operating limits of the
reservoirs as determined for other public uses of the
impounded water. Since water released from Lake
Winnibigoshish takes up to twenty days to reach St.
Paul, needs in the metropolitan area must be anticipated
well in advance.
Studies now being made indicate the
-------
78
Col. C. I. McGinnis
availability of substantial water storage capacity in
the Minnesota River Basin for quality control in the
Twin Cities metropolitan area during critical periods
when additional flow is required. On the basis of pre-
liminary studies, storage of several hundred thousand
acre-feet is tentatively being allocated for this pur-
pose in contemplated reservoirs on the Blue Earth. River
at Mankato and the Minnesota River at New Ulm.
Although our effort on the Upper Missis-
sippi and its tributaries has been directed primarily
toward facilitating navigation, we of the Corps take
cognizance of other public uses of the waterway. The
pool created by each dam on the Mississippi provides a
large water area for oxygen regeneration, for the pro-
pagation of fish and wildlife,, and for fishing. In
addition, re-aeration of the water as it cascades through
dams is an important oxygen regenerating factor. This
aerating action at our dams is the subject of a con-
tinuing joint study by the University of Minnesota and
the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District, at our Lock
and Dam No. 2. In connection with channel maintenance
dredging operations, each area considered for spoil
-------
r 79.
Col. G. I. McGinnis
disposal is reviewed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and State conservation agencies to insure that
such disposal will not have any deleterious effect on
the wildlife habitat.
Our dredging operations on the Upper
Mississippi are accomplished by the self-propelled
hydraulic Dredge "WILLIAM A. THOMPSON" and the Derrick-
boat 767 with its attendant work boats. The Dredge
THOMPSON, the Derrickboat and our work boats are now
equipped with sanitary facilities as was reported to
you previously. They are being monitored, as you know.
I will digress from my prepared text for
just a moment to say that I was personally unaware of
this problem on the Derrickboat 767. I can assure you of
personal attention again just as quickly as I can get
back with the members of my staff responsible for opera-
tion of the vessel. I cannot offer Mr. Gadler or the
Chairman a definite timetable for corrective action on
it, but we certainly will investigate it and make such
corrections as we can just as promptly as circumstances
will permit us to do this.
As you know, the General Regulatory Functions
-------
8o
Col. C. I. McGinnis
of the Corps as outlined in the River and Harbor Act of
3 March 1899> require Department of th<~: Army permits for
all types of structures and work in., over, or adjacent to
navigable waterways which fall within the area of active
Corps' jurisdiction. Originally these permits were
issued only in the interest of navigation, but in the
summer of 1967 the scope of Department of the Army permit
was expanded. On 13 July 19^7, the Secretaries of the
Army and of the Interior adopted a Memorandum of Under-
standing which outlined policies and procedures for dis-
charge of the two Departments' common responsibilities
to improve water quality and to abate pollution in the
navigable waters of this country. It was agreed that
District Engineers of the Corps would coordinate with
the Regional Coordinators of the Department of the
Interior in matters of fish and wildlife, recreation and
pollution associated with dredging and filling and exca-
vation operations authorized by Department of the Army
permits. Comments on all applications for permits are
requested from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, and other knowledgeable Federal and
-------
Col. C. I. McGinnis
State agencies prior to the issuance of permits. Thus,
Department of the Army permits represent the end result
of a close coordination and cooperation among all
interested Federal and State agencies in the full and
proper use of inland waters.
Pollution of the Mississippi River,
particularly "by gasoline and other petroleum products,
is a continuing problem. In 19^3 we contended with a
major oil spill of some four million gallons of soybean
and fuel oil on the Minnesota River; the recent instance
of a ruptured barge on the Mississippi River at Alma,
Wisconsin, is a second example. We in the North Central
Division have the capability., in collaboration with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the U.S.
Coast Guard, and the various agencies within the Depart-
ment of the Interior, of taking aggressive action in
event of such oil spills because of the location of our
locks and dams and attendant personnel along the Missis-
sippi River, the radio network connecting the lock sites.
and the availability of our marine equipment. In con-
junction with our activities in cleaning up the recent
oil spill on the Mississippi River at Alma, Wisconsin,
-------
82.
Col. C. I. McGinnis
the St. Paul District acquired a floating boom designed
to confine oil to a restricted area where it can be
removed from the water surface without creating excessive
pollution. On 7 July 1969, a public notice was issued to
all known interested parties indicating that this boom
will be available for usg in future instances of oil
spillage or for collection of other floating material
which could cause pollution.
The Corps of Engineers is carefully con-
sidering the pollution impact of recreational areas at
our Mississippi headwaters reservoirs and at our locks
and dams on the Mississippi River. Improved designs for
toilet, shower, and laundry facilities at our recrea-
tional areas are being developed; we are considering
secondary and tertiary treatment of wastes from such
installations in planning new facilities. Sanitary dump
facilities to accommodate trailer holding tanks have been
installed at many existing Corps recreational camp areas;
similar facilities at the locks and dams are being con-
sidered for recreational craft with holding tanks.
The Corps of Engineers is delighted with
the opportunity to contribute its professional expertise
-------
83
Col. C. I. McGinnis
to a full cooperative effort in the field of pollution
prevention and correction.• We feel a deep obligation
to provide a measure of leadership through example in
the design and management of our work. We look forward
to continuation of the fine spirit of cooperation which,
in our opinion, has permitted effective discharge of
interagency responsibilities under terms of the Depart-
ment of Army/Department of Interior Memorandum of Under-
standing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the oppor-
tunity to present our position.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Colonel McGinnis.
Are there any comments or questions?
If not, let me try to get at these three
points.
One, I would like to make a suggestion on
that Derrickboat 767. I know there may be some difference
of opinion on the macerator/chlorinator or the holding
tank. Wisconsin, as you know, requires holding tanks.
But my suggestion is on a Federal vessel that you
seriously consider the holding tank device in this
operation.
-------
Col. C. I. McGinnis
Now, I have one suggestion on those two
and possibly the third one--that is the NIKE site. I
wonder if within a month from now we could ask Mr. Garnet
to work with you and develop a report and go to the con-
ferees on what you are going to do about arrangements to
get pump-out facilities if possible for the "Fern," so
it won't be dumped into the river and what the proposal
is to handle the wastes from the Derrickboat 7o?» I
think we should at least know What your thinking is,
possibly within a month.
Is that possible if Mr. Garnet prepares
the report?
COL. MC GINNIS: We certainly will be pre-
pared within a month to give ^you our progress and our
intentions with regard to the derrickboat, sir.
Now, on the NIKE site, this is in the
area of military construction, and unfortunately the St.
Paul District does not have jurisdiction here. The
Chicago District of the Corps of Engineers has this area
for military construction.
MR. STEIN: How about operations?
COL. MC GINNIS: The operations would be
-------
_85.
Col. C. I. McGinnis
under the RADCOM.
MR. STEIN: That is another group?
COL. MC GINNIS: That is another group,
sir.
MR. STEIN: All right.
COL. MC GINNIS: I think what we can do
here, Mr. Stein, we certainly can notify and will notify
Chicago District of the construction problem and see
what arrangements have been made through them for cor-
rection of this condition.
MR. STEIN: Well, let's suppose we ask
Mr. Garnet for a report on three things, and you may have
to go to different commands for all these.
One, the proposal for correction of the
Derrickboat 767 problem.
Another is the proposal to see if we can
have the "Fern" have pump-out facilities or other
measures to handle pollution control.
The other problem—and I don't know if th:
is appropriate or not, I was waiting to hear—is that if
we are going to run a year late on NIKE site No. ^0,we should
have a judgment on whether any interim facilities or techniquss
-------
86
Col. C. I. McGinnis
such as chlorination of the effluent can be used to
ameliorate the problems--both the pathogen problem and
the odor problem.
Now, I think maybe I can leave it at
that because we may want to hear from the conferees in
the discussion period. But if you have any views on
these three matters, I think these are the three of the
Federal installations that need attention.
COL. MC GINNIS: The Derrickboat is the
St. Paul District's property and we are the point of
contact on this, sir. The other two agencies I think
probably could be more effectively dealt with if
approached directly, since we would just be another cog
in the chain that I am afraid would simply serve to
delay your action rather than enhance it.
MR. STEIN: I agree with you. Again, I
have been around the Federal bureaucracy for a long
time. That is why I suggested Mr. Garnet be the one
responsible for the report and get in touch with you for
the Derrickboat and get in touch with the appropriate
Department of Defense units for the other two features
-------
87_
Col. C. I. McGinnis
here and have that report in a month.
Mr. Garnet.
MR. GAMET: May I make a point in regard
to NIKE site 40. The post engineer at Fort Sheridan is
the officer responsible for operation and maintenance
of the NIKE sites. They have just recently instructed
the Chicago District of the Corps of Engineers to pre-
pare plans and specs for NIKE site 40.
MR. GADLER: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
MR. GADLER: I didn't mean to leave the
implication, Colonel McGinnis, that I was taking off on
the NIKE sites. The implication of my statement about
Federal pollution is that the Federal Government in its
various manifestations, spectrums and bureaucracy
magnifications is equally guilty, and I hate to see them
coming in the State, regardless of what they are called,
whether they are called the Corps of Engineers or
anything else, and pollute.
I certainly appreciate your statement
and I know that we are going to get your help.
COL. MC GINNIS: You can count on that,
-------
88
Col. C. I. McGinnis
sir.
MR. GADLER: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments
or questions?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: Colonel McGinnis, you may
not be able to answer this at this particular time, but
do you feel that in the very near future the Corps of
Engineers, probably with the help of the PWPCA, will be
able to guarantee a low flow augmentation to the lower
reaches of the Mississippi River from the headwaters
reservoir in order to protect the aquatic life and wild-
life and also for pollution abatement here in the metro-
politan and lower reaches of the Upper Mississippi River?
COL. MC GINNIS: The word "guarantee" is
very strong, Mr. Badalich. I would hate to offer you sue
hope as this. I think that our record, as I understand
it, in providing this flow augmentation has been very
good and we certainly would intend to continue policies
which have permitted maximum drawdown of those reservoirs
with due consideration for other purposes up there, to
-------
Col. C. I. McGinnis
assist in pollution abatement.
Frankly, our greatest hope in improving
flow augmentation right now is, as mentioned in my
statement, the authorization of eventual construction
of additional reservoirs on the Minnesota River. We
feel that if these reservoirs eventually come into the
system that the amount of water available for pollution
abatement would be so spectacularly increased as to
represent a really massive step forward in the work that
we are undertaking here today.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I have to
compliment the Corps of Engineers. We had an instance
last fall .just before the winter set in of cooperation
of the Corps of Engineers in providing the necessary
flow augmentation that was required because of the low
DO in the river, and I hope this relationship does
continue in the future.
COL. MC GINNIS: Thank you, sir. We will
make every effort to insure it does.
MR. GADLER: Mr. Chairman, I am going to
ask an ignorant question here.
Why is it necessary to augment the river
-------
90_
Col. C. I. McGinnis
with additional flow because of low DO?
MR. STEIN: Well, I don't know if any
of these people want to answer that, but let me try.
What happens is that if you have treat-
ment in a plant, it must be assumed that generally
the effluent is going into a river with a certain
amount of flow in the river. I suppose you can increase
treatment constantly and possibly not have flow aug-
mentation. But if you do that, you will find—and
you only need look at the rivers—that the point is
reached where water gets so low that even if you pro-
vide the best possible treatment you are going to have
a deleterious effect on aquatic life and the biota of
the river. So what you do for a variety of reasons,
one of which is water quality management, is have an
augmented low flow in the river during key periods of
time.
Now, let me Just get back to this,
because the Corps has been very sympathetic about this
and has worked with us very closely. But I am not sure
that the people in authorizing these structures have
recognized completely the necessity for augmented low
flows to maintain water quality in our rivers. Our
-------
91
Col. C. I. McGinnis
country is running out of naturally flowing rivers.
Rivers like the Mississippi and the Missouri, the
South Platte, various other rivers, Ohio, are regu-
lated streams. When we regulate a stream, presumably
we regulate the maximum flow so we don't have floods.
We make the maximum use of water. We also regulate
the minimum flow in the river.
Now, let me go back to two specific
cases, Mr. Gadler, to illustrate what I mean. In
one case we were successful. In another case we were
unsuccessful.
In the South Platte River, which flows
east from Denver, we had a requirement of secondary
treatment, plus chlorination, plus a tremendously high
degree of treatment to reduce sugar beet wastes. When
this is all completed during low flow periods, the
South Platte River dries up into a series of pools.
You see a dry area, then a little pool, a dry area and
a little pool. We can maintain fishlife in the warm-
water fishery in those pools, but obvioulsy you are goin
to wipe out all life with no water at all, as well as
you would wipe it out if you had polluted water. So
-------
92_
Col. C. I. McGinn is
therefore, when the water comes back into that stream,
the fishlife has to resurrect itself and you don't
have a year-round growth population here. We try to
get low flow augmentation to permit a flow in the
South Platte River on a year-round basis sufficient
to maintain a continuous flow up and down the stream.
We have not been successful in getting that.
On the other hand, here is what happens
in the Missouri River where we have a navigation season--
the Colonel probably knows the dates specifically, but
I don't have them in mind. In any event, the naviga-
tion season would stop in the wintertime when the
river freezes over and the boats can't go above Kansas
City. Now, in this case we have the Garrison Dam, the
Oahe Dam and several other dams upstream.
Naturally, with the competing demand
for water use, farm or agricultural interests want
as much water kept up there as possible, because
really for navigation you don't need that water at
all during the winter months. However, we have cities
such as Sioux City, Omaha, Council Bluffs, Atchison,
Leavenworth, St. Joseph, and if they were putting their
-------
.3
Col. C. I. McGinnis
streams into a very low flow or dry stream bed, we
would have pretty horrible conditions there during
the winter months.
So we worked out an arrangement with
the Corps whereby I think they maintained a minimum
during navigational periods of 30,000 cubic feet per
second and., until the treatment plants are built,10,000
cubic feet per second during winter months. Now as the
degree of treatment increases there will be a decreasing
need in low flow augmentation. This may be adjusted anc
we may be able to adjust this downward but if you are
going to regulate a stream, unless you have a sufficient
quantity of water there during the low flow period, you
are not going to tide your biota over that period and
you are going to have some catastrophic results.
In my opinion, I believe that low flow
augmentation is going to be as critical a part of water
quality management as treatment facilities and we are
going to have to use both techniques as our streams
become more and more regulated. I would suspect that
except for those streams that have been designated as
wild rivers by the Congress as a matter of public policy
-------
94
Col. C. I. McGinnis
we are going to find more and more streams will need
regulation. For those people who are interested
in a fully consistent environment, we are going to have
to have augmented low flows .
Are there any other questions?
MR. POSTON: I might add to this, Mr.
Chairman, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District
the treatment at the present time is somewhere around
5 0 percent removal of BOD and some of the other
pollutants that we get in the water, such as chlorides,
would not be reduced any, and as you have large popula-
tions you get an increasing load on the stream regardless
of the amount of treatment that you have. For example,
if you had 10 percent removal from a million you would
still—or 90 percent removal, you would have 10
percent remaining or still have 100,000 popu-
lation equivalent going to the stream —
MR. GAOLER: What you both have told me —
MR. POSTON: --and pollution is what we
are trying to assist with. One hundred percent treat-
ment would be very good and could be accomplished, but
it hasn't been decided as practicable.
-------
95_
Col. C. I. McGinnis
MR. GADLER: But what you both have told
me is that if we don't do something about this that some
day we won't have any water to augment with.
MR. STEIN: I don't believe I quite said
that. The point is we have to manage both the
quantity and quality of water in our streams. You
must recognize one thing, and I think this is a key
point that Mr. Poston pointed out. When we get an
inorganic such as salts in the stream
the quantity of those salts stays there as we go down-
stream until that water hits the sea. We see
that problem in an acute form at the present time in the
Colorado River. Now, if there is, say,, a ton of salt in
a particular area, you can do one of two things: 1) you can
have very little water and really have a salty inorganic,
or you name your inorganic other than salt, that is going
to have very deleterious effects, or 2) you can have an
augmented low flow and have much less salt content
in that stretch of stream which is going to maintain the
biota and preserve the ecology. It is my firm convictioji
as the population grows, low flow augmentation is just
going to have to be used.
-------
26
Col. C. I. McGinnis
Again, Mr. Gadler, what you have to
remember in a regulated stream, you can make that
stream flow slowly or cut it down to a minimum that
can be very, very, very low, except for local rainfall
you probably can cut it down almost completely, and we
certainly don't wan.t to do that or we have wiped out
the river.
Are there any other questions or comments?
If not, thank you very much, Colonel.
COL. MC GINNIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: Mr. Donald Marshall, Water
Hygiene Representative of the Environmental Control
Administration, Public Health Service, is here to make
a s tatement.
-------
, 97
D. W. Marshall
STATEMENT OF DONALD ¥. MARSHALL
WATER HYGIENE REPRESENTATIVE,, ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, DHEW, REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. MARSHALL: My name is Donald W.
Marshall. I am a Water Hygiene Representative for
Region V, Chicago. I might add at the present time
Minnesota is not within the Region V. However, most of
the Upper Mississippi activities have been carried out
of the Chicago office. If the President's reorganiza-
tional plan goes into effect in the next few months, I
understand that Minnesota will come within the Region V
area.
The Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, acting under the Public Health Service Act
has primary Federal responsibility for protecting the
health of the people. The Public Health Service has
strong interest in the protection and enhancement of
community water supplies, both as to adequacy and purity
for water reaching the ultimate consumer. Water as it is
-------
98.
D. W. Marshall
delivered at the tap should be potable and should meet
the recommended Public Health Service drinking water
standards. The discharge of pollutants and wastewaters
to rivers constitutes a threat to the health of people
living in these watersheds and utilizing these waters
for domestic supply, commercial and sports fishing,
recreation, and other purposes. The health threat
associated with water is of three types: chemical,
biological and radiological.
The Public Health Service has long been
concerned about the quality of water. The discharge of
inadequately treated municipal and industrial wastes
can cause impairment of water quality in surface waters,
such as the Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries.
The findings of previous studies indicate that inade-
quately treated municipal and industrial wastes are being
discharged to these waters and that they could endanger
the health and welfare of persons, not only in the States
of Wisconsin and Minnesota but in some of the adjoining
States. While conventional water supply treatment
processes are capable of removing or destroying patho-
genic organisms, the presence of pathogens in raw water
-------
99.
D. W. Marshall
supplies constitutes a hazard potential which is
dependent upon human or mechanical failure. Also,
polluted discharges constitute a direct hazard to
those using the waters for contact recreational
purposes.
In 1914 the Public Health Service estab-
lished and with periodic revisions, the last in 19&2, ha;
maintained and published drinking water standards for
water supplies used on interstate carriers and has
responsibility for the certification of such water
supplies. These standards have been adopted or are used
as the guidelines for drinking water quality in nearly
all of our States. The Public Health Service has also
served as consultant and technical assistant to State
and local health departments in their programs for safe-
guarding the quality of community water supplies.
There are several surface water supplies
in Minnesota as well as a number of surface water
supplies in other States which have their intakes below
the waste discharges from municipalities and industries
to the Upper Mississippi River. These public water
systems serve over one million persons in the State of
-------
.
100
D. ¥. Marshall
Minnesota.
The Wisconsin and Minnesota surface water
quality criteria were submitted to our agency for comment
and on September 20, 1968, and January 1, 1969, the fol-
lowing letters were transmitted to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration. These letters containe
an introductory paragraph as follows:
"Under the provisions of the Interdepart-
mental Agreement of September 2, 1966, we offer for your
consideration the following comments on the public health
aspects of the Minnesota/Wisconsin (individual letters
named the State whose criteria was being reviewed)
Surface Water Quality Criteria."
The Public Health Service comments were
limited to those criteria considered important to pro-
tection of the public health and are primarily concerned
with the following subjects: Discussion of Criteria and
Surface Water Quality Criteria, relating to Public Water
Supply and Recreation. In the discussion of criteria
for the State of Minnesota the comments were:
"Domestic Consumption: the
criteria should provide standards for
-------
101
D. W. Marshall
radioactivity in accordance with the recom-
mendations contained in the Public Health
Service 'Health Guidelines for Raw Water
Quality1 previously submitted to your
office"--meaning the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration--"for review. All
other Minnesota standards relating to
'Domestic Consumption' criteria are satis-
factory.
"The Minnesota standard relating
to 'Fisheries and Recreation,' based on
total coHform, should protect the public
health. On occasion,, however, the standard,
1,000 coliforms per 100 milliliters, will
limit recreational use of water when health
hazards do not actually exist. ¥e believe
that standards based on fecal coliforms
would give a more realistic guide for the
evaluation of health hazards. Such stan-
dards are recommended in Section II of the
Public Health Service 'Health Guidelines for
Raw Water Quality' previously submitted to
-------
102
D. W. Marshall
your office for review."
And for Wisconsin the comments relative
to Public Water Supply were:
"Since food processing waters
require water quality equal to that of
public water supplies, food processing
waters should be included in this class.
For the bacterial quality specified,
'appropriate treatment and adequate safe-
guards' should be defined as conventional
treatment including coagulation, sedimen-
tation, rapid sand filtration, and disin-
fection .
"Limiting standards should be
added for concentrations of boron, pesti-
cides, and the uranyl ion as recommended
by the Public Health Service 'Health Guide-
lines for Raw Water Quality.'"
Comments for Recreation:
"The bacteriological standard
pertaining to water contact recreation,
based on total coliforms, should protect
-------
103
D. W. Marshall
the public health." Here again we quote
the same thing. "On occasion, however,
the standard of 1,000 conforms per 100
milliliters will limit recreational use of
water when health hazards do not exist.
Again we recommend the use of fecal coli-
forms, which give a more realistic guide
for the evaluation of health hazards.
"The opportunity to present
these comments is appreciated."
Both letters were prepared for the signa-
ture of Chris A. Hansen, Assistant Surgeon General,
Commissioner, Environmental Control Administration,
Public Health Service.
You will note in these letters that we
do not consider any degree of waste treatment less than
secondary to be adequate where the downstream waters
are to be used for public water supply or whole body
contact recreation. In our opinion, fecal coliform
criteria is appropriate and that these criteria should
not be modified even on the basis of findings from a
sanitary survey. It is our belief that the criteria to
-------
104
D. W. Marshall
be used in Minnesota and Wisconsin should be no less
stringent than the limits placed in our previously
mentioned publication, "Health Guidelines for Raw Water
Quality," copy on file with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration. These guidelines provide stan-
dards for water to be used for domestic and food
processing uses, recreation, shellfish, agriculture,
as well as for control measures when considering vectors
or the disposal of solid wastes.
I am pleased to represent the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare at this meeting. We
in the Public Health Service are ready to do whatever we
can to cooperate and assist in the job of safeguarding
and improving the quality of these, waters. We would
urge the continuance of a vigorous water pollution
abatement program being carried out by the Federal,
State and local officials to assure a maximum use for
all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. GADLER: I have one question.
-------
105
D. W. Marshall
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. GADLER: I want to know why you
didn't include thermal wastes in the health threat to
water?
MR. MARSHALL: Sir, we don't consider
there to be any significant change in thermal that would
be a health hazard to mankind. We are primarily
interested in the health of mankind.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments
or questions?
Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: I have a question here. On
page 5 you say that, "in our opinion, fecal coliform
criteria is appropriate and that these criteria should
not be modified even on the basis of findings from a
sanitary survey."
Do you mean that if you find that the
fecal coliform is absent or very low and that you come
along and find from a sanitary survey that there is
waste being discharged^you should make your interpre-
tation on the basis of the fecal coliform?
MR. MARSHALL: What we mean is that we
-------
106
D. W. Marshall
should not extend the minimums or raise the 200. That
is the meaning of that, Wally. In other words, if a
sanitary survey indicated that it was a real good
environment or no problem,that we shouldn't raise our
limits to let it go wholesale on the use of the water,but
maintain these limits.
MR. GADLER: I have one more question.
MR. STEIN: Go ahead, Mr. Gadler.
MR. GADLER: Mr. Marshall, you said that
these were last revised in 1962?
MR. MARSHALL: The Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards, yes, sir.
MR. GADLER: Due to the fast-changing
technology of this century, does the Health Service plan
to change those again shortly?
MR. MARSHALL: Yes, in one sense, but not
shortly. It takes time. We have continuing committees
working on the various elements and concentrations, sir.
It is hopeful that with manpower and budget limitations
we will be able to come out with new drinking water
standards. The date has not been given to us so I could
not tell you that, but there is a continuing committee
to
-------
107
D. W. Marshall
working on the various things on this.
MR. GADLER: Well, the reason for asking
the question is that it is contemplated in the United
States that we are going to have one hundred or so
nuclear plants and they are going to be dumping a lot
of radioactive material into our air and into the water.
Does the Health Service take cognizance of that and are
they going to get some new things out?
MR. MARSHALL: With other agencies we
are serving on committees.
MR. STEIN: Don't you have that done?
Right now there are limits on drinking water.
MR. MARSHALL: There are certain limits,
yes .
MR. STEIN: Yes, for nuclear, radioactive
material.
MR. MARSHALL: The limits that we have
set in the drinking water standards are necessarily not
those that would be from the nuclear reactor discharge.
There are representatives of our agency working on a
committee to revise and update these limits.
MR. STEIN: This deals with drinking water
-------
108
D. ¥. Marshall
standards and I don't think--
MR. MARSHALL: Right.
MR. STEIN: --we should underrate this
because we have been in this problem before. At least
in drinking water or in ingestion when we had this
problem when they used to be exploding the "dirty bombs,"
in quotes, it made very little difference to someone
ingesting this material whether it was radium or
Strontium 90 or it came from the fallout from a bomb or
from the discharge from a uranium mill; once it got in
the body it was all the same. And I think the Public
Health Service has limits of radioactive material on
the raw water use for drinking water.
MR. MARSHALL: Yes, that is right.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. GADLER: Do they have them for the
public waters, did you say?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
Why don't you answer that, Don?
MR. MARSHALL: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. MARSHALL: The drinking water
-------
109
D. W. Marshall
standards for finished drinking water are basically the
same ones that we are recommending for raw water quality
MR. GADLER: Are these the same standards
as set by the ICBR or the AEG?
MR. MARSHALL: I believe they are. We
are on the committee that worked with the limits
recommended by the Federal Radiation Council, and
based on that we are in support of those recommenda-
tions at this time. As I say, though, we have people
on the committee that are working with other agencies
for the upgrading and revising of these.
MR. STEIN: Any more questions?
MR. TUVESON: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. TUVESON: Mr. Marshall, I would like
to refer back to the bottom of page 1 and top of page 2,
and I will read your statement:
"The findings of previous studies indi-
cate that untreated and/or inadequately treated
municipal and industrial wastes are being discharged
to these waters and that they could endanger the health
and welfare of persons, not only in the States of
-------
110
D. W. Marshall
Wisconsin and Minnesota but in some of the adjoining
States."
I find the statement to be alarming but
not very illuminating or very helpful. I think it
sounds a little like a politician's handout. I think
that you should at least identify for us the previous
studies to which you refer. I think you should identify
the municipal and industrial discharger about which you
are speaking. I think you should tell us whether they
do endanger the health. I think you could ascertain
this. And I think we should know whether these situa-
tions about which you are speaking are being corrected.
That is what we are here for.
MR. MARSHALL: The studies we refer to,
I am sure you are aware of, are by another agency,
primarily the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion. We are given copies of their reports and material
that is collected. Any time that we have inadequately
treated waste being discharged into surface waters which
are used downstream by public water supplies and other
domestic uses,it is agreed by public health officials tha
it is a potential health hazard.
-------
111
D. W. Marshall
As I further stated, conventional water
treatment processes are quite capable, we have to always
be reminded or mindful that water treatment plants are
subject to mechanical failure, human failure, and this
potential threat is always existing as long as we have
those potential hazards occurring.
MR. GADLER: I have one other question.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Gadler.
MR. GADLER: On the bottom of page 2 you
quote, "There are several water surface supplies in
Minnesota as well as a considerable number of water
supplies in other States which have intakes below the
waste discharges."
Now, in Minnesota which ones are you
referring to, any of them?
MR. MARSHALL: This is all the ones that
have intakes into the Minnesota River, the Upper Missis-
sippi River or even the Mississippi downstream. I didn't
list those but they are on record in our inventory of
public water supplies dated 1963. They are a matter of
record.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments
-------
112
WISCONSIN PRESENTATION
or questions?
If not,, thank you very much, Mr. Marshall
MR. MARSHALL: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston.
MR. POSTON: That concludes the Federal
presentation, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Let us recess for ten minutes
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
I will call on Wisconsin.now. Mr.
Wisniewski.
WISCONSIN PRESENTATION
STATEMENT OF THEODORE F. WISNIEWSKI
ASSISTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MR. WISNIEWSKI: This is a report of the
State of Wisconsin to the conferees on the Pollution of
the Interstate and Intrastate Waters of the Upper Missis
sippi River, Wisconsin-Minnesota, dated July 22, 1969-
-------
113
T. F. Wisniewski
The Initial progress report was made to
the conferees on April 30, 1968. This report brings up
to date the information on the status of progress toward
abatement of pollution of the St. Croix and Mississippi
Rivers by Wisconsin communities in the conference area.
S_t_. C^o_i_x__Ri_y^e_r
The city of Hudson is in full compliance
with the plan for implementation and requirements of the
conference.
The village of Osceola, in accordance
with requirements, completed construction of secondary
treatment facilities in June of 1969 and placed them in
operation.
The city of St. Croix Falls, through its
consulting engineer, on January 8, 1969* submitted a
report of progress for location of excessive infiltra-
tion of clear waters to the sanitary sewer. The major
source has been located west of Main Street, and a
report recommending procedures to be followed to
eliminate the infiltration will be submitted before
the end of this year. The study of the remainder of
the system is continuing.
-------
114
T. F. Wisniewski
Mississippi River
The village of Pepin consulting engineers
advise that all basic data necessary for final design
has been collected. An engineer's report with recom-
mendations will be submitted to the village board and
the State the first week of August 1969. The engineers
advise that they plan to meet the October 1, 1970^
compliance date set in the plan for implementation.
The city of Prescott consulting engineers
report that the required facilities will be in the final
design stage as soon as the city completes acquisition
of additional land for a site for the additions. They
propose to meet the October 1, 1970j compliance date set
in the plan for implementation.
Since the last report conference^ the
State of Wisconsin has proposed an expanded and improved
program of State assistance which a public referendum
has supported with an overwhelming margin. Legislation
to implement the program is now before the Wisconsin
Legislature. Communities in the Upper Mississippi and
St. Groix River area will be eligible for State assistanc
and for an advance of Federal assistance from the State
-------
115
T. F. Wisniewski
on their pollution abatement projects.
This is respectfully submitted by
Theodore F. Wisniewski, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources .
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Wisniewski.
Are there any comments or questions?
If not, thank you.
MR. POSTON: Mr. Wisniewski, essentially
on the Mississippi River the villages of Prescott and
Pepin are a little behind in their planning but they
intend to catch up, is that the summation?
MR. WISNIEWSKI: That is the intent of
the consulting engineers. They see no reason at the
present time for asking for any extension of time.
MR. POSTON: I note in St. Croix Falls
that they and Osceola and Hudson have all provided
disinfection, but you are not getting reports from St.
Croix Falls sewage treatment plant?
MR. WISNIEWSKI: We are now.
MR. POSTON: You are getting them now?
MR. WISNIEWSKI: We weren't in April of
1968.
-------
116
T. F. Wisniewski
MR. POSTON: Very good.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Mr. Harrison of the
Wisconsin-Minnesota Boundary Area Commission has
requested that he be given an opportunity to enter a
statement at this time.
I would like to call on Mr. Harrison.
MR. STEIN: As Mr. Harrison comes up, I
would like to indicate what I think the whole schedule
might be, that we will continue on until 12:30, then
recess for lunch and finish this afternoon, reconvene
at 2.
Mr . Harrison.
STATEMENT OF JAMES M. HARRISON
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN
BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION, HUDSON, WISCONSIN
MR. HARRISON: Chairman Stein, conferees,
ladies and gentlemen.
My name is James Harrison. I am the
Executive Director of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary
Area Commission, whose offices are in Hudson, Wisconsin
-------
117
J. M. Harrison
The Commission has requested that I make
the following statement on its behalf.
The Minnesota-Wise. Boundary Area Commission, wMdh
has
been represented in this conference as a conferee in
past sessions,is pleased to have the opportunity to
submit comments at this progress evaluation meeting.
The Commission is generally pleased with
the trend toward higher degrees of treatment of munici-
pal and industrial waste discharges in our area of con-
cern. As a matter of policy, recently adopted at
La Crosse in its June meeting, the Commission urge?
the State and Federal agencies to adopt--and dischargers
to accept—an effluent standard of 25 milligrams per
liter of 5-day (20 degrees C.) BOD and a maximum allow-
able temperature increase of 5 degrees Fahrenheit above
background levels at the point of discharge to the strean
channel.
The Commission further believes that as
present plans are developed for upgrading and expanding
treatment facilities, such plans should allow for
efficient and economical progression to tertiary treat-
ment processes where discharge characteristics call for
-------
118
J. M. Harrison
such reductions.
The boundary waters of our two States are
unique as a regional resource for commercial navigation,
major wildlife and fish management programs, recrea-
tional boating, swimming and water skiing, and enjoyment
of scenic beauty. In a broad sense, the Commission
believes, as we are sure you do, that each user must do
his part to maintain the delicate balance which will
allow for continuing multiple use of this public resource
From a management standpoint, the various agencies must
cooperate in promulgating and maintaining uniform stan-
dards and effective procedures for convenient and bene-
ficial public use.
There are four areas of concern to the
Commission at this juncture which we believe the con-
ferees should try to resolve:
1. The inconsistency with respect to
regulations governing discharge of wastes from all water-
craft on the boundary waters. Recreational boating has
increased tremendously in recent years in our area,
especially in the number of boats with marine toilets.
Boaters on the St. Croix, where the onshore disposal
-------
119
J. M. Harrison
standard is now in effect, seem to be complying with
this program. It is the Commission's position that
in the recreational boundary waters which are classified
for all uses, the uncontrolled random discharge of toilel
wastes from uninspected boat facilities poses a serious
threat to water quality in shallows, backwaters, marinas,
and swimming areas. The Commission is now conducting a
thorough field study of recreation facilities along the
boundary and will gladly advise the conferees on its
findings regarding the availability and types of marine
toilet pumping facilities. It has also sponsored legis-
lation which has passed the Wisconsin Assembly which
will bring the Wisconsin side of the Mississippi River
under controls by 1971-
2. Reporting and control of oil spills.
The Commission urges the appropriate State and Federal
agencies to join in the establishment of a contingency
operations plan for identification, evaluation and con-
trol of spills in the boundary area waters. We have
reviewed the FWPCA proposed plan for the Great Lakes
region and believe it offers a good starting point. We
feel it ought to have the essential State, local, and
-------
120
J. M. Harrison
private involvement built in to insure effective coordi-
nation and mobilization of resources to protect against
accidental disasters. Again, the Commission offers its
services as a coordinator and catalyst toward this end.
3. Issuance of "split permits" for dis-
charges. The Commission has gone on record opposing the
issuance of a partial permit for certain facets of the
NSP nuclear generating plant at Prairie Island near Red
Wing. This position was based on the belief that such a
practice is inconsistent with sound public policy in that
surveillance and control of major discharge sources,
which can be difficult under any circumstances, is made
infinitely more difficult in a multiple-permit situation.
The Commission urges adherence to the practice of issuing
comprehensive single permits covering all discharge
parameters.
4. Issuance of permits "after the fact."
The Commission applauds efforts of the agencies to
develop land-use guidelines based on water quality stan-
dards, and also the Minnesota approach to building permit
prohibitions without PCA-approved treatment facilities.
The Commission feels very strongly that the day must
-------
121
J. M. Harrison
come soon when the final decision regarding the location
of major discharge sources having regional environmental
effects must be made by regional authorities, rather
than be a local governing body.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear.
The Commission is available for further consultation and
assistance on these matters.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Harrison.
Are there any comments or questions?
Let me ask you one for clarification,
and if you want this off the record, I will strike it.
I noted your notion about discharge of
wastes from all watercraft and your concern that it may
pose "a serious threat to water quality in shallows,
backwaters, marinas, and sxtflmming areas," yet when you
have your restriction on thermal pollution or waste or
heat going in, in paragraph two, your only restriction
is five degrees Fahrenheit above background levels at
the point of discharge to the stream channel. What
happens to the possible threat of thermal pollution to
those same areas you were concerned about with wastes
from watercraft such as shallows, backwaters, marinas,
-------
122
J. M. Harrison
and swimming areas?
MR. HARRISON: Mr. Chairman, I think what
the Commission was aiming at here is an ultimate stan-
dard that could be applied in any portion of the water-
way, and where there are extenuating circumstances
because of a specific use where the water quality might
have to be even more stringently controlled, that should
be applied. This is designed to be what we hope would be
a uniform criteria throughout.
MR. STEIN: In other words, your tempera-
ture requirement would be a minimum?
MR. HARRISON: Yes.
MR. STEIN: And it might be more stringent
in specific areas?
MR. HARRISON: That is what we had in mind,
yes .
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. POSTON: Mr. Stein, I might comment
briefly on the reporting and control of oil spills and
the contingency plan as has been proposed by the Federal
agencies. The FWPCA, the Corps of Engineers, the Coast
-------
123
J. M. Harrison
Guard have developed a contingency plan, and we have met
with the State on this, and it is our intent that the
contingency plan to be successful must have State coop-
eration as well as loca] cooperation. And in the near
future we, along with the State and other Federal
agencies, will be meeting with some of the local groups
to insure a workable contingency plan and an awareness
of the overall plan.
MR. HARRISON: Very good, Mr. Poston.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments
or questions?
MR. PACKARD: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. PACKARD: I would like to ask in
connection with item 1 there, the control of marinas in
Wisconsin:
Is the legislation you refer to such
that would require marinas to have pumping facilities,
disposal facilities for all boats using the area?
MR. HARRISON: No, it would not require
marinas to have facilities. It would require, as is
now the case throughout the other inland waters of
-------
J. M. Harrison
Wisconsin, boats equipped with toilets to have some means
of disposing of their wastes onshore or in a manner
other than directly into the stream. The experience has
been, in our observation, that where the standard was
applied on the St. Croix River virtually all the marinas
in the area voluntarily, you might say, installed pump-
out facilities, and in fact I believe our survey will
show that there is a rather broad cross section up and
down the river at the present time, mainly on the Minne-
sota side, where boats can be pumped out at this moment.
MR. PACKARD: But there is no legislation
requiring this?
MR. HARRISON: No, that is correct.
MR. GADLER: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. GADLER: In relation to item 3, does
the State of Wisconsin take any position on this with
your group, your Commission?
MR. HARRISON: With respect to the policy
of split permits?
MR. GADLER: Yes.
MR. HARRISON: I personally am not aware
-------
125
J. M. Harrison
of any instance where a split permit has been issued, by
the State of Wisconsin in our area. Mr. Wisniewski is
probably more qualified to answer this question than I
am.
MR. STEIN: Are there any--
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Please define exactly
what you mean by a split permit.
MR. HARRISON: Mr. Wisniewski, what we
have in mind is where an industry or a discharger might
come in and ask for a permit to discharge a certain type
of waste or effluent into the stream where in fact he
may be discharging other wastes for which he would apply
for a separate permit. For example, a discharge permit
for, let's say, raw sewage--or not raw sewage but treated
sewage*and a separate permit for thermal waste.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Well, basically, our law
in Section 144.55 of the Wisconsin Statute requires that
any new industry or any existing industry which proposes
to expand its facilities or change a location of any of
its sewers must present a report to the Department indi-
cating what changes it proposes to make, what wastes it
will be producing, how these wastes will be treated to
-------
126
J. M. Harrison
prevent pollution of the receiving waters, and it is not
permitted to commence construction of a manufacturing or
industrial facility until after it has received approval
from the Department. This is with reference to indus-
trial wastes. This requires direct approval.
The same would hold true for sewage wastes
from that industry. The minute they came in for a per-
mit on industrial wastes, we would naturally be concerned
with the discharge of sewage from that particular
installation. This is, however, true only of discharges
that are made directly to the stream. If an industry
connects to a municipality, it is not required to submit
a report under that law. However, we have our munici-
palities adopt ordinances which regulate the types of
industrial wastes that they will accept.
MR. STEIN: Any other comment or question?
Mr. Harrison, you have one suggestion for
the conferees here—that the conferees try to resolve
the inconsistency with respect to regulations govern-
ing discharge of wastes from all watercraft, at least
on boundary waters in your Jurisdiction. Now, the
conferees have had this problem several times before,and
-------
127
J. M. Harrison
I think since you bring it up in the record just let me
outline what the problem is.
In some of the contiguous waters we have
a situation which may be somewhat different than in other
States which are contiguous. There is a little different
philosophy in Minnesota than Wisconsin. In Wisconsin they
require holding tanks and presumably a discharge into a
pump-out facility onshore. In Minnesota I guess you can
use a macerator/chlorinator and meet the requirements.
Unless the conferees want to do this at this time, we
have not resolved this issue, and I know we have had
statements before. I don't know how pertinent the push
is for this, but people in one State have gone to another
State and have been apprehended and fined because the
boat regulation was different.
Now, again this is a matter that I think
we recognize has not been resolved. If the conferees
want to take it up, fine. Or the whole question may
become moot because there is Federal legislation perco-
lating through and the Federal Government may be charged
with the control of this whole matter.
Are there any other questions?
-------
128
J. M. Harrison
MR. GADLER: One other question.
In item no. 4- you state, "The Commission
feels very strongly that the day must come soon when the
final decision regarding the location of major discharge
sources having regional environmental effects must^ be
made by regional authorities, rather than by a local
governing body."
Would you amplify that?
MR. HARRISON: I think, Mr. Gadler, what
the Commission has in mind here is situations regarding
large facilities like powerplants where in the first
instance the location might be basically the design of
the power company, assuming that they might not even
need a local building permit. This may not be true so
much for nuclear plants that an AEC approval for con-
struction is required; I am not too familiar with that
procedure.
But this is something that I believe has
raised the problem in the past, could again, maybe now,
and the question becomes quite academic once several
million dollars worth of plant are built. And I believe
what we are looking for here is a broader analysis prior
-------
s 129
J. M. Harrison
to a final decision as to where these facilities are
located.
To give you an example, the Upper
Mississippi River comprehensive basin study, which has
been under way for some years, is now nearing completion
already is showing indications that the Mississippi
River will be the primary source of power far inland for
many of the States which border on it. For example, in
the Des Moines River Basin in Iowa, where studies have
already been done as to the demands, the needs and the
supply for cooling water, the indication is that where
the demand cannot be met within the Des Moines River
Basin in the interior of the State plants will have to
be built on the Mississippi River and that the stream
could be loaded considerably up and down in a ladder
effect as the States gravitate toward it. It is this
kind of indication which leads us to believe that there
should be some broader consideration of these matters
than are now applied by just local jurisdictions.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or
questions on that?
You know, Mr. Harrison, let me make a
-------
130
J. M. Harrison
very brief one here, because I think you have raised a
very interesting point that we are finding in many, many
cases, not only with wastes coming from powerplants but
wastes coming from all sources. I think this has been
acute.
For example, in the Potomac we very
well may have the same situation as in Lake Erie and
other places where we have critical pollution prob-
lems. For example, in the Potomac they have pushed
for changing of the discharge points. Some people
have said—and I am saying this in a quote--"If they
carefully selected the point, a pound of BOD in one
place would do 1/10 the damage that it might do in
another place." Now, as the population grows and as
we get into these real, real critical areas of concen-
trated growth, we are going to possibly find that we
have to do two things that we haven't done before, not
only to provide a relatively high degree and sophisticate
degree of treatment, but also provide, as we talked
about earlier, possibly low flow augmentation, and,
thirdly, to make a very careful determination of where ir
-------
131
J. M. Harrison
this drainage system or this water system we are going
to permit the flow of the discharge of the wastes.
Again let me give you one case where this
was spectacular. I think site selection or at least
selection of disposal area very often is going to be the
key to pollution control and environmental control. I
don't want this singled out because I referred to this
industry before, but when we had a radioactive pollution
problem on the Colorado River, we found that originally
the mills, the uranium mills, did what was natural and
they got to the towns which were in the river right down
at the bottom of the ravine where they were either dis-
charging to the river or had a dike that broke into the
river and we had quite a problem. With the cooperation
of the States and the industry that problem has been
corrected.
But Wyoming developed a uranium milling
industry considerably later than the other States, and
the way that was solved was a very careful restriction
of the sites and putting them over the mesa, not in the
gorges where the water ran, so they could put the wastes
.on dry land and the question of the diked area was not
-------
131-A
J. M. Harrison
very critical because it didn't go very far and you
could pick it up. And we had no radioactive contami-
nation of the surface rivers in Wyoming, and this was
from the beginning, just because of real careful site
selection and the recognition of the problem that the
other States had.
So I do think, Mr. Harrison, you are
pointing to another key area in pollution control.
MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to add that I had no particular reason to
single out the power industry as an example here except
that it is pertinent to this discussion.
MR. STEIN: Right. Are there any other
comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. HARRISON: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Wisconsin?
MR. WISNIEWSKI: This completes the
Wisconsin presentation.
MR. STEIN: May we now call on Minnesota?
Mr. Badalich.
-------
132
MINNESOTA PRESENTATION
MINNESqTA_PRESENTAT_I_ON
STATEMENT OF JOHN P. BADALICH
DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL
AGENCY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
MR. BADALICH: Thank you, Mr. Stein,
fellow conferees, ladies and gentlemen.
I did pass out a copy of our statement
and also letters of people that would like to make an
appearance on behalf of the State of Minnesota, and I
also have another list of other people that will make a
verbal presentation here, I suppose this afternoon.
I will continue with the Agency's state-
ment and it is as follows.
The Agency appreciates the opportunity to
participate in this meeting and set forth for the record
certain changes such as in responsibility for water pol-
lution control in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, as
well as to present a summary of our progress in control
of water pollution in this area since the third session
of the conference which was held in April 1968.
-------
133
J. P. Badalich
The Legislature, in May 1969, expanded
the Agency to nine members, one of whom must be knowl-
edgeable in the field of agriculture. It is expected
that the two new members will soon be appointed by
Governor LeVander.
The conferees again are Mr. Robert C.
Tuveson, Chairman of the Agency; Messrs. Steve J. Gadler
and F. Wayne Packard, Agency members; and myself, Mr.
John P. Badalich, Executive Director.
Considerable progress has been made since
the previous conference toward fulfillment o.f the recom-
mendations contained in the second conference summary of
June 17, 1967, and the supplemental summary of July 26,
1968. The existing standards for these waters (Regula-
tion WPG 1, 2 and 3) were submitted to Secretary Udall
by Governor LeVander as part of Minnesota's proposed
interstate water quality standards on June 3®, 19^7, and
our proposal included recognition of the conference
recommendations, as well. Since receiving approval by
the Secretary of the Interior of our interstate stan-
dards, numerous meetings have taken place with personnel
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
-------
134
J. P. Badalich
and others concerned regarding the exceptions taken..
It is our understanding that we have reached agreement
on all items and that prospects for complete approval of
the standards by the Secretary are excellent. We have
heard since from Commissioner Dominick that some formal
clarification of a few points will be required. To the
best of our knowledge all necessary action will then
have been taken on our part to obtain final, complete
acceptance by the Secretary.
The lack of formal complete approval of
these standards presents serious problems of enforcement
to our Agency and we wish the conferees to note that we
need action by the Department of the Interior on these
standards. The changes under discussion include these
waters, for which standards had previously been estab-
lished, as well as any previously unclassified interstate
waters.
The following comments regarding remain-
ing items in question are given in the same order and
refer to the identically numbered recommendation in the
Summary of June 17, 196?. You may wish to have the
recommendations before you as you follow my comments.
-------
_ 133
J. P. Badalich
Please note that some items have been omitted, having
been dealt with adequately on the previous conference.
This treatment requirement has been used
by the Agency as a minimum requirement throughout the
conference area and in some cases even more stringent
effluent standards have been adopted. This is elabo-
rated upon in items 11 and l8 which follow, and also you
will see Attachments A, B, C and D, which are the Agency
effluent standards, Regulations WPG 18, 19, 20 and 21.
These regulations, which have been adopted, require
installation of treatment works sufficient to satisfy
the general as well as the specific recommendations.
Orders to enforce the standards have also been issued.
Re_c o_mme_n_d_at_l1o_n_No_j: __ 4_.
There are nov: eighteen municipal or simi-
lar sources on the main stems in the conference area for
which regular monthly plant reports are being provided,
an increase of three over last year. The newly reporting
sources are Hastings, Lake City and Taylors Falls,
leaving only Bayport. Further action will be taken
with regard to the other delinquent sources to require
-------
_ 136
J. P. Badalich
regular monthly reporting and to achieve 100 percent
compliance with this recommendation.
R e_c_omme_n_d a tjL_o n _N o_. __ 5. •
It is the policy of the Agency to require
adequate capacity and maximum flexibility of individual
treatment units in the design of all municipal waste
treatment facilities. Because of the existing high
quality of the waters of Lake St. Croix and the need for
preserving the same, we have informed Stillwater, Bay-
port and Oak Park Heights that nutrient removal should
be provided in the very near future.
The Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District
(MSSD) is planning to undertake a study aimed at reduc-
tion of possible detrimental effects from industrial
wastes .
Minnesota has had in effect for a number
of years a regulation for control of stored liquids capab
of polluting waters of the State, and legislation recom-
mended to require recovery of spilled materials was
passed by the 1969 Legislature. However, the accompanyin
le
-------
137
J. P. Badalich
request for a fund of $50,000 to provide standby equip-
ment and supplies and obtain manpower when needed for
oil recovery was not approved. Consequently, we are in
the position of having all of the basic essentials of a
good oil spill control program except the money and man-
power to carry through with recovery in the event of
default by those responsible for the loss. The recent
loss of oil from a barge accident on the Mississippi
River at Alma, Wisconsin, illustrated the need for
further improvements. It was apparently only through
good fortune, in the form of the light nature of the
oil, that much more serious damage did not result.
We received last year no additional
plans for more liquid storage sites in the conference
area, making a total of eleven still on hand. The
budget and staff proposed for this program were not
approved and the work has necessarily had to be given
a very low priority.
R e_c_ornme_n da t_:^on__N o_.__10_.
The Agency does not normally approve
permit applications for combined sewers. St. Paul has
started a planning study of a broad program of
-------
138
J. P. Badalich
improvements to existing combined sewers and operating
procedures, together with partial sewer separation, as
the first stage toward elimination of sewage overflows
directly to the river, and a preliminary report on Phase
I has been received. It is understood that the city is
planning to proceed with the necessary detailed studies,
but progress is being hampered because these studies
must take into account the results of the MSSD's research
and development study on use of the interceptors for
storage. The results apparently will not be available for
some time yet. Thus, it is unlikely that St. Paul will be
able to have all of their studies completed by June 1970.
Minneapolis has had a sewer separation program in effect
for many years, and as reported previously has a ten-year
program which should result in elimination of all combine
sewers at the end of that period. South St. Paul is
involved in research and studies on surface and under-
ground storage of combined wastes and a preliminary
separation study has been received. The MSSD is con-
tinuing with its special study project on the use of the
interceptors for storage so as to avoid overflow to the
river, and a report is expected very soon. The status
-------
139
J, P. Badalich
of the other municipalities is given in Attachment F
affixed to this report.
Recommendation No. 12.
Twenty-one industries in the conference
area are now submitting regular monthly reports., an
increase of eleven from last year. The delinquents will
be notified again of this requirement and more vigorous
action will be taken to obtain 100 percent compliance..
The only substantial industrial treatment works currently
not submitting reports is the Hudson Manufacturing Com-
pany of Hastings, Minnesota.
Recommendat i on_N_o_.__l_3. •
We have been advised by our legal counsel
that the Agency probably does not have the authority to
require installations on watercraft not licensed by
Minnesota. Based on our experience with this problem,,
we reiterate our belief that it is not realistic to
expect a State to exert control over watercraft which
are not licensed by that State, but are instead docu-
mented or registered with the Federal Government. Con-
trol over watercraft of this kind, as well as foreign
vessels, should be exercised primarily by the Federal
-------
140
J. P. Badalich
agencies having jurisdiction rather than by the States.
It is our understanding that the National Sanitation
Foundation has published criteria for sewage treatment
devices to be used on watercraft, including macerator/
chlorinator devices. ¥e endorse these criteria and urge
that the conferees do the same for application to the
interstate waters under consideration here^ so that
Minnesota boaters can safely use these devices in the
Minnesota-Wisconsin boundary waters. We ask that Minne-
sota be given full faith and credit in regard to our
formally approved devices when used in our waters as we
do to others, and strongly urge adoption of a recommenda-
tion for a reciprocal arrangement to this end. As an
illustration of our good faith in this matter, the 1969
Legislature approved a measure directing the Agency to
extend approval to devices approved by other governmental
agencies when used in Minnesota. Again I have an attach-
ment of the law relating to this passed legislation. We
strongly urge that our neighbors join us in reciprocal
action.
Re^c_ommendation No . 14 .
Cooperation has been demonstrated by the
-------
J. P. Badalich
owner of one more dump located In the river flood
plains, "bringing the total to seven. More detail on
these projects is given in Attachment G.
Recommendation No . 13_•
We are continuing to require upgrading of
treatment in these reaches as part of the Implementation
and Enforcement Plan of the Interstate Water Quality
Standards and will start formal enforcement hearings
where necessary as soon as the standards are approved
by the Secretary.
Re c_o rnme n d a "fc_i_on___No_.__ 1_6_.
The matter of allowable biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) loadings on the reach, of the Missis-
sippi River below the MSSD outfall has been the subject
of continuing discussion. Further studies of possible
alternate plant locations and the effect of their
effluents on the river both above and below the MSSD
were made recently in connection with the application
of the North Suburban Sanitary Sewer District (NSSSD)
for a permit to construct a plant in Fridley. Since
both the Metropolitan Council and the MSSD will later
present statements on their programs, I shall not comment
-------
142
J. P. Badalich
further now except to note that recent events concerning
the creation of the Council's Sewer Board and submission
of the MSSD's report are most encouraging and we fully
expect that any remaining problems in this reach will be
resolved soon.
Orders were issued to South St. Paul in
January 1969 ^° conform with recommendations of the con-
ferees and requirements of Regulation WPG 18 by June
1971« Subsequently, at the request of the city, the
Agency extended the completion date for conformance with
the conference recommendations to July 1972.
The city is presently engaged in the first
phase of a three-phase program to upgrade the sewage trea[t
ment facilities. Studies are being conducted on the use
of polymers and some modifications and additions to the
treatment works have been completed. I believe the city
of South St. Paul will elaborate on this a little later.
Recommendation No. 17•
This matter has not yet been resolved and
probably cannot be for some time, because the MSSD treat-
ment works referred to have not yet been placed in full
operation. We suggest that further consideration of
-------
143
J. P. Badalich
this item be deferred for at least two or three years in
order to allow the river to reach a new stage of equi-
librium after full operation of these works is attained.
We later will ask the MSSD representatives to elaborate
on the operational status of their plant.
Re commendati on__No_. 1_9. •
A new secondary sewage plant was placed
in operation at Hastings in July 1968. This recommenda-
tion therefore is no longer relevant.
Recommendation No. 20.
Limited treatment by the Minneapolis
Water Department of lime sludge is currently being
provided by sedimentation basins. Pull scale treatment
of backwash from the Fridley plant is provided by equip-
ment recently installed on an experimental basis. The
city has been notified that treatment of the wastes from
both the Fridley and Columbia Heights plants to conform
with the recommendations of the conferees and Regulation
WPG 21 must be accomplished by June 1970.. The engineer-
ing study is near completion. The water department has
indicated that it has a problem concerning acquisition
of the land needed for facilities to treat wastes from
-------
J. P. Badalich
the Columbia Heights plant. The department probably will
request a one-year extension of time for completion of
the total project.
Recommendation No. 21.
Presently from 3-0 to 4.5 million gallons
per day cooling and area runoff waters are discharged
directly by Armour and Company to the Mississippi River.
Sanitary sewage and industrial process wastes are dis-
charged to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The com-
pany was notified of the conferees' recommendations and
on January 6, 19^9, an order was issued by the Agency
requiring the company to provide treatment to meet the
effluent requirements of State Regulation WPG 18 or dis-
charge all wastes to the municipal sanitary sewer system
by June 1971. Subsequently,, a variance from the effluent
requirements and time limitations of WPG 18 was requested
by the company but denied by the Agency.
The company has made numerous in-plant
improvements to reduce wastes and water usage, and has
indicated its intention to discharge all wastes to the
municipal sanitary sewer system when alterations and
additions to the municipal treatment plant have been
-------
143
J. P. Badalich
completed. Monthly reports are furnished regularly,, and
apparently with some further in-plant improvements the
wastes could meet the recommendations.
From 2.0 to 2.5 MGD wastewater from
cattle pens and other area drainage is discharged by
the St. Paul Union Stockyards Company directly to the
Mississippi River. A substantial amount of the same
type of wastewater and sanitary sewage is discharged to
the municipal sanitary sewer system. The company has
been informed of the recommendations of the conferees anc
on January 6, 1969, was ordered by the Agency to provide
treatment to comply with WPG l8 or discharge all wastes
to the city system by June 1971- Subsequently, a request
by the company for a variance from the effluent require-
ments and time limitations of WPG 18 was denied.
The company has also initiated procedures
to cut down wastes and water usage. All truck washing
wastes are now discharged to the city sanitary sewer
system. Sewers to carry all waste to the city sanitary
sewer system have been constructed for use when additions
and alterations to the municipal treatment facilities are
completed. Cattle pens are now dry-cleaned and washed
-------
J. P. Badalich
down manually. Manure is deposited in a dump.
About 2.5 MGD of what is essentially
cooling water and area drainage is discharged to the
Mississippi River by Swift and Company. Sanitary sewage
and industrial process wastes go to the city sanitary
sewer system. The company has been ordered by the Agency
to provide treatment for wastes discharged directly to
the river to meet recommendations of the conferees and
requirements of WPG 18 or discharge all wastes to the
city system by June 1971. A company request for a
variance from WPG l8 was denied. During recent years
the company has provided in-plant improvements to reduce
wastes and water usage. A new sewer to convey all of
the plant wastes to the municipal sanitary sewer system
has been constructed for use when additions and improve-
ments to the municipal treatment facilities are completed
Monthly reports indicate the discharge with few exception
meets the recommendations. The company recently announce^
its intentions to close this plant permanently this
November.
Recommendation No. 22.
The Cenex, Inc., plant has been taken out
-------
J. P. Badalich
of production.
Recommendation No. 23•
The S. B. Foot Tanning Company at Red
Wing has been awarded a research and development grant
for design and construction of treatment facilities.
A preliminary engineering report has been received and
final construction plans are expected soon.
Recommendation No . _2J>..
The American Crystal Sugar Company has
essentially a closed system for process wastes. During
the spring flush when supernatant from the sludge pond
is discharged, the river is monitored for dissolved
oxygen and BOD content to be sure to comply with the
river standards.
On January 6, 19&9* "the Agency issued an
order to the company requiring compliance with WPC 19 "by
June 1971. The company requested a variance to permit
discharges to the river from the transport water sludge
pond in order to control odors during the spring flush,
and discharge of cooling water not in conformity with
the effluent standards when the quality of the water
taken in from the river is below the standards. The
-------
148
J. P. Badalich
Agency granted the request.
The company is currently making plans for
installation of facilities for handling spent lime on a
dry basis, and has indicated that necessary changes will
be made in-plant before the 1971-1972 campaign so that the
cooling water discharge will meet requirements.
R e_c^mjn eji d^t_i_p_n_N o_.__2_6_.
The Rahr Malting Company has diverted its
process wastes into the Shakopee system for treatment.
The Agency issued an order to Shakopee in January 1969
to provide secondary treatment by June 1970. In a sub-
sequent action by the Agency, at the request of the city,
the date for completion of the facilities was extended
to December 1970. The city has employed a consulting
engineer to design the facilities and a preliminary
report has been submitted. However, it appears more
likely now that an interceptor will be constructed instea
to divert the sewage into the proposed Southwest Sanitary
Sewer District (SWSD) plant.
A brief resume of the status of the
remaining nonconforming sources which were listed in
our previous statement follows:
-------
149
J. P. Badalich
Anoka has had final plans approved for
construction of expanded facilities. Financing arrange-
ments have been completed and con-struction is under way.
Northwestern Refining Company received
an order in December 1968 to provide necessary improve-
ments by June 1971- At the request of the company, the
Agency subsequently agreed to allow the company until
August I, 1969* "k° submit a report on studies being made
to determine how to meet the requirements of State Regu-
lation WPG l8. The report is nearly ready.
St. Paul Park has a secondary sewage treat
ment plant which was constructed in 1954 and additions
and alterations were provided in 1965. The village has
been requested to improve the operation of the plant to
comply with recommendations of the conferees. Incomplete
reports on operation are furnished and it cannot be said
definitely that they are yet in conformance. And since
then the Agency staff has made several analyses of the
St. Paul Park plant, and the BOD requirement as out-lined
in the recommendations is not being met at this particu-
lar time.
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
-------
130
J. P. Badalich
received an order requiring the company to comply with
the effluent standards of ¥PC 18 by June 1971- Subse-
quently, by action of the Agency, the company was given
until June 1971 to provide the additional treatment
facilities necessary to obtain an effluent in accordance
with recommendations of the conferees, with later review
regarding conformance with State Regulation ¥PC 18.
Cottage Grove recently completed
alterations and additions to the existing facilities.
Honeymead Products Company received an
order in January 1969 to provide adequate treatment or
direct their wastes into the city sanitary sewer system
by June 1971. The company has indicated they are working
to improve the existing treatment facilities, and that
it is their intention to connect to the city system when
engineers for the city have set standards for such dis-
charge. It is reported that consulting engineers for the
city have now provided the company with such standards.
Mankato received an order in January 19^9
to provide secondary treatment by June 1971- The city
requested an additional six months for construction and
their request was granted.
-------
151
J. P. Badalich
The city has hired a consulting engineer
and is proceeding with studies and preparation of plans
for expansion of the sewage treatment plant.
Henderson was issued an order in January
1969 to provide adequate sewage treatment by June 1970.
Engineers for the village submitted final
plans for a secondary treatment plant in March 1969.
The plans have been approved, and it is understood that
bids on the project have been received and contracts
have been awarded.
The M. A. Gedney Company_ received an
order on January 6, 1969,, to provide treatment in con-
formance with State Regulation ¥PC 19 and recommenda-
tions of the conferees by June 1971- The company has
employed a consulting engineer and has indicated its
intention to comply.
Stillwater has had final plans for
expansion of the sewage treatment facilities to provide
secondary treatment approved, and has applied for a
construction grant. The city requested and received a
six-month extension of time for submission of an engineer
ing report on sewer separation.
-------
152
J. P. Badalich
The summary of July 26, 1968, in general
reiterated the previous recommendations and indicated
that the completion date of June 17, 1971, should be met
for all facilities, including the MSSD. Up to this date,
departures from the overall recommended completion date
for treatment works have been authorized by the Agency
only as follows:
Name and Location
South St. Paul
Mankato
American Crystal Sugar Co
Description
Extension to July 1972.
Extension to December 197-
Spring release of sludge
pond supernate.
I wish to now call to the attention of
the conferees a major change in the organizational
structure of the governmental apparatus in the Twin
Cities metropolitan area concerning control of sewage
and waste disposal facilities.
Chapter 449, Laws of 1969, provides for
the creation of a Metropolitan Sewer Board under the
Metropolitan Council having the authority to take over
existing trunk sewers and treatment works in the entire
seven-county metropolitan area and to plan and design
-------
153
J. P. Badalich
for and construct and operate such works. The major
portion of the sources of sewage or wastes under con-
sideration by this conference will be included under the
Metropolitan Sewer Board's operating authority.
It is our feeling that this is a very
important piece of legislation and will at long last
provide for systematic planning and resolution of sewage
and waste disposal problems on a regional basis.
The Agency views the Metropolitan Council
as the primary authority with which it will deal hence-
forth in matters of water pollution control in this area,
The Board and the Council will be responsible for
interim and long-range planning and will also become
directly responsible for the largest discharges of
wastes to these waters. The Agency will be cooperating
with the Council in development of plans and projects,
and will expect the Council to assume a leadership role
in providing adequate treatment works in accordance with
the recommended schedules.
The representative of the Council who is
here today will elaborate on this subject, I am sure, in
more detail later in the meeting.
-------
J. P. Badalich
In summary, based on the listing of tire
fifty-five Minnesota sources of sewage or industrial
wastes, which was published in the Summary Report of the
Twin Cities-Upper Mississippi River Project on page 23
of the Conclusions, and the recommendations included in
the conference summaries of June 17, 19^7^, and July 26,
1968, it appears that all of those listed are in sub-
stantial conformance with respect to interstate waters
insofar as present treatment capability is concerned,
except the following:
MIS51SSIPPI RIVER
1. Anoka
2. Minneapolis Water Department
3. Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District
4. Swift and Company
5. St. Paul Union Stockyards Company
6. Armour and Company
7. South St. Paul
8. Northwestern Refining Company
9. St. Paul Park
MINNESOTA RIVER
10. Honeymead Products Company
-------
135
J. P. Badalich
11 . Mankato
12 . Henderson
13. M. A. G-edney Company
14. American Crystal Sugar Company
15. Shakopee
16. Stillwater
Thus, there remain now only sixteen
significant sources to be reduced, or put in another
way, seventy-one percent of the sources originally
listed have either made sufficient improvement in their
treatment in the past year to become satisfactory or do
not discharge wastes of any significance to interstate
waters .
In addition, positive action is either
already under way or there is an effective commitment
to proceed with adequate disposal works on the part of
all of the remaining sources cited, except possibly St.
Paul Park .
From our recent investigations it appears
that St. Paul Park probably is in compliance. I think
this was verified that they are not at this time.
-------
156
J. P. Badalich
However, further investigation will be made and if this
is not confirmed, an order will be issued to St. Paul
Park to comply under our Regulation WPG 18.
In the interest of "brevity, we have dis-
cussed in this statement only those sources which were
previously listed or specifically mentioned in recommen-
dations or others which seemed to warrant special mention
However, information on any of the other sources also
will be furnished as may be desired.
It is the consensus of the Agency that
Minnesota's progress in providing sewage and waste
treatment works in this area is excellent and will con-
tinue under a full head of steam. The agency wishes to
assure you that we will achieve early conformance with
the recommendations so that these waters will be main-
tained and enhanced as desired.
Along with this statement, Mr. Chairman,
I do have the attachments as listed on page 15 of the
report.
MR. STEIN: This, without objection, will
be included in the record as if read.
(Which attachments are as follows:)
-------
Attachments (7):
157
- 15 -
A. Regulation WPC 18
B. " " 19
C. " " 20
D. » " 21
E. 1969 revision of Boat Head Act
F. Status of combined sewer separation
G. Status of refuse disposal
-------
MINNESOTA ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Rules, Regulations, Classifications
and Water Standards
MINNESOTA POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY
1969 SUPPLEMENT
Minn. Reg. WPC 18
Filed with the Secretary of State
and Department of Administration September 26, 1968
Distributed by
BOCL'Ml^iTS SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF ADSIIiMSTRATIOI
Room 140 Centennial Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
-------
159
IUJLKS AND UKCULATIOMS WI'C 13
CHAPTER !•;:-: l-lTi-EN: W?C 13
EFFLUENT STANDARDS FOR c: IPi'OSAL SYSTEMS DISCHARGING TO
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FRO.'-' THE OUTFALL CI; THE MINNE-
APOLIS - ST. PAUL SANITARY DISTRICT SEV/ACE TREATMENT
PLANT TO LOCK AND .>AM NO. 2 NEAR HASTINGS
WPC 13 The following standards . of effluent quality and purity are hereby
adopted and established for that ocrfion of the Mississippi River from the
outfall of the Miniieapclis-St. Pa^i . Sanitary District sewage treatment plant
in the City of St. Paul, approxiir::a:ely at the eastward extension of Baker
Street East in said city, to the U. ':\ . Lock and Dam No. 2 above Hastings.
(a) Definitions. The terms "pers;.on," "sewage," "industrial wastes," "other
wastes," "treatment works," "dispocsal systems," and "waters of the state,"
as well as any other pertinent terrrms for which definitions are given in the
water pollution control statutes, as used herein have the meanings ascribed
to them in Minnesota Statutes (19677), Chapter 115. Other terms and abbrevi-
ations used herein not specifically defined in the law shall be construed in
conformance with the context and v professional usage.
(b) Standards. It is hereby established as a minimum requirement applic-
able to all persons responsible ' :cr disposal systems discharging sewage,
industrial waste or other waste eriiuuents to the above-delineated waters, or
which may affect these waters, thru from May 1 through October 31 there
shall be effective continuous ch!;:::ination of sewage and other effluents
containing viable pathogenic organ nisms. It is further established that all
effluents shall be treated prior tc discharge so as to meet the following
limiting permissible concentrations:
Substance or Characteristic Limiting Concentration
5-day biochemical oxygen demand 35 milligrams per liter
Total suspended solids 30 milligrams per liter
Total coliform group organisms 5,000 most probable number per 100
mill iliters
Oil 10 milligrams per liter
Turbidity 25
(c) Monthly Reports. All persoons operating sewage, industrial waste or
other waste disposal systems adjacccnt to or discharging to the waters covered
by this Regulation shall submit •- vvery month a report to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency on the operation of such disposal system, the
effluent flow, and the characteristic-;;-, and concentrations of the effluents and
receiving waters. Sufficient data con measurements, observations, sampling
and analyses, and other pertinent : information shall be furnished as may be
required by the Agency to reflect adequately the condition of the disposal
system, the effluent and the waters 5 receiving the effluent.
(d) Determination of Compliancco. In making tests or analyses of the
sewage, industrial wastes or other • '.vastes to determine compliance with the
standards, samples shall be collects 1 in such manner and place, and of such
type, number and frequency as may be considered satisfactory by the
Agency. No allowance will be nnr.de for dilution of the effluents in the
waters of the state into which t'icvy are discharged. The samples shall be
preserved and analyzed in ace.,\vdance with procedures given in the
Standard Methods for the Examinr.;.uon of Water and Waste-Water, by the
-------
i6o
W?C 1C MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTJIOL AGENCY
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and the Water Pollution Control Federation, or other methods acceptable
to the Agency.
(a) Variance. Where upon written application of the responsible person
or persons and after public hearing the Agency finds that, by reason of
exceptional circumstances, strict conformity with any provision of these
standards would cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical
or not feasible under the circumstances, the Agency may by Order grant
a variance from these standards to such person or persons upon such con-
ditions and within such time limitations as it may prescribe for prevention,
control or abatement of pollution in harmony with the intent of state and
federal laws.
-------
151
MINNESOTA ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Rules, Regulations, Classifications
and Water Standards
MINNESOTA POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY
1969 SUPPLEMENT
Minn. Reg. WPC 19
Filed with the Secretary of State
and Department of Administration September 26, 1968
Distributed by
DOCUMENTS SECTION, DEPAKTHTSNT OF ADMINISTRATION
Room 140 Centennial Building, St. Paid, Minnesota 55101
-------
UULES AND REGULATIONS WFC 19
CHAPTER NINETEEN: V/PC 19
EFFLUENT STANDARDS FOR DISPOSAL SYSTEMS DISCHARGING TO
THE MINNESOTA RIVER FROM ABOVE CHASKA TO THE JUNCTION
WITH THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT FORT SNELLINC
V/PC 19 The following standards of effluent quality and purity are hereby
adopted and established for that portion of the Minnesota River from the
Chaska Village south boundary to the junction with the Mississippi River
at Fort Sneiling.
(a) Definitions. The terms "person," "sewage," "industrial wastes," "other
wastes," "treatment works," "disposal systems," and "waters of the state," as
well as any other pertinent terms for which definitions are given in the water
pollution control statutes, as used herein have the meanings ascribed to
them in Minnesota Statutes (1967), Chapter 115. Other terms and abbrevia-
tions used herein not specifically defined in the law shall be construed in
conformance with the context and professional usage.
(b) Standards. It is hereby established as a minimum requirement ap-
plicable to all persons responsible for disposal systems discharging sewage,
industrial waste or other waste .effluents to the above-delineated waters, or
v':'ch may affect these waters, that from May 1 through October 31 there
i be effective continuous chlorination of sewage and other effluents con-
'••CiS viable pathogenic organisms. It is further established that all effluents
i be treated prior to discharge so as to meet the following limiting per-
•:. ible concentrations:
Substance or Characteristic Limiting Concentration
5-day biochemical oxygen demand 25 milligrams per liter
Total suspended solids 30 milligrams per liter
Total coliform group organisms 5,000 most probable number per 100
milliliters
Oil 10 milligrams per liter
Turbidity 25
(c) Monthly Reports. All persons operating sewage, industrial waste or
other waste disposal systems adjacent to or discharging to the waters covered
by this Regulation shall submit every month a report to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency on the operation of such disposal system, the
effluent flow, and the characteristics and concentrations of the effluents and
receiving waters. Sufficient data on measurements, observations, sampling
and analyses, and other pertinent information shall be furnished as may be
required by the Agency to reflect adequately the condition of the disposal
system, the effluent and the waters receiving the effluent.
(d) Determination of Compliance. In making tests or analyses of the
sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes to determine compliance with the
standards, samples shall be collected in such manner and place, and of
such type, number and frequency as may be considered satisfactory by the
Agency. No allowance will be made for dilution of the effluents in the
waters of the state into which they are discharged. The samples shall be
preserved and analyzed in accordance with procedures given in the Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-Water, by the American
Health Association, American Water Works Association, and the Water
Pollution Control Federation, or other methods acceptable to the Agency.
-------
163
.9 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CGJmSOL AGENCY
(e) Variance. Where upon written application of the responsible person
or persons and after public hearing, the Agency finds that, by reason of
exceptional circumstances, strict conformity y/iih any provisions of these
standards would cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical
or not feasible under the circumstances, the Agency may'by Order grant
a variance from these standards to' such person or persons upon such
conditions and within such time limitations as it may prescribe for preven-
tion, control or abatement of pollution in hermony with the intent of state
and federal laws.
-------
MINNESOTA ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Rules, Regulations, Classifications
and Water Standards
MINNESOTA POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY
1969 SUPPLEMENT
Minn. Reg. WPC 20
Filed with the Secretary of State
and Department of Administration September 26, 1968
Distributed by
DOCUMENTS SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Room 140 Centennial Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
-------
Io5
HULLS AND REGULATIONS Yi'PC 20
CHAPTER TWENTY: V/PC 20
EFFLUENT STANDARDS FOR DISPOSAL SYSTEMS DISCHARGING
TO THE MINNESOTA RIVER FROM MANKATO TO CHASKA
V/PC 20 The following siandan's of effluent quality and purity are hereby
adopted and established for that portion of the Minnesota River from the
month of the Blue Earth River in Mankato, to the Chaska Village south
boundary.
(a) Definitions. The terms "person," "sewage," "industrial wastes," "other
wastes," "treatment works," "disposal systems," and "waters of the state,"
as well as any other pertinent terms for which definitions are given in the
water pollution control statutes, as used herein have the meanings ascribed
to them in Minnesota Statutes (1967), Chapter 115. Other terms.and ab-
breviations used herein not specifically defined in the law shall be construed
in conformance with the context and professional usage.
(b) Standards. It is hereby established as a minimum requirement ap-
plicable to all persons responsible for disposal systems discharging sewage,
industrial waste or other waste effluents to the above-delineated waters, or
which may affect these waters, that from May 1 through October 31 there
shall be effective continuous chlorination of sewage and other effluents
containing viable pathogenic organisms. It is further established that all
effluents shall be treated prior to discharge so as to meet the following
limiting permissible concentrations:
Substance or Characteristic Limiting Concentration
5-day biochemical oxygen demand 50 milligrams per liter
Total suspended solids 30 milligrams per liter
Total coliform group organisms 5,000 most probable number per 100
milliliters
Oil 10 milligrams per liter
Turbidity value 25
(c) Monthly Reports. All persons operating sewage, industrial waste or
other waste disposal systems adjacent to or discharging to the waters
covered by this Regulation shall submit every month a report to the Minne-
sota Pollution Control Agency on the operation of such disposal system,
the effluent flow, and the characteristics and concentrations of the effluents
and receiving waters. Sufficient data on measurements, observations,
sampling and analyses and other pertinent information shall be furnished
as may be required by the Agency to reflect adequately the condition of the
disposal system, the effluent and the waters receiving the effluent.
(d) Determination of Compliance. In making tests or analyses of the
sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes to determine compliance with the
standards, samples shall be collected in such manner and place, and of
such type, number and frequency as may be considered satisfactory by the
Agency. No allowance will be made for dilution of the effluents in the
waters of the state into which they are discharged. The samples shall be
preserved and analyzed in accordance with procedures given in the Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-Water, by the American
Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and the
Water Pollution Control Federation or other methods acceptable to the
Agency.
-------
166
20 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
(e) Variance. Where upon written application of the responsible person
or persons and after public hearing the Agency finds that by reason of
exceptional circumstances strict conformity with any provision of these
standards would cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical
or not feasible under the circumstances, the Agency may by Order grant
a variance from, these standards to such person or persons upon such con-
ditions and within such time limitations as it may prescribe for prevention,
control or abatement of pollution in harmony with the intent of state and
federal laws.
-------
16?
MINNESOTA ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Rules, Regulations, Classifications
and Water Standards
MINNESOTA POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY
1969 SUPPLEMENT
mii. Reg. WPC 21
Filed with the Secretary of State
and Department of Administration September 26, 1968
Distributed by
DOCUMENTS SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF AR-JlMSTllATi
Room 140 Centennial Building, St. Paul, Mimicc-ota 55101
-------
168
RULES AND REGULATIONS WPC 21
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE: WPC 21
I-:, FLUENT STANDARDS FOR DISPOSAL SYSTEMS DISCHARGING
TO THE MISSISIri'l RIVHR FROM THE JUNCTION OF THE RUM
RIVER TO THE OUTFALL OF THE MIMNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL SANI-
TARY DISTRICT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, AND FROM LOCK
AND DAM NO. 2 NEAR HASTINGS, TO THE JUNCTION WITH THE
CHIPPEWA RIVER, AND TO THE ST. CROIX RIVER FROM TAYLORS
FALLS TO THE JUNCTION WITH THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
WPC 21 The following standards of effluent quality and purity are hereby
adopted and established for that portion of the Mississippi River from the
mouth of the Rum River hi the City of Anoka, to the outfall of the
Minneapolis-Si. Paul Sanitary District sewage treatment plant in the City of
St. Paul, and from the U. S. Lock and Dam No. 2 above Hastings to the
month of the Chippewa River at the lower end of Lake Pepin near the
Village of Wabasha, and that portion of the St. Croix River from the
Nevers Dam in Taylors Falls, approximately at the eastward extension of
the boundary between Sections 24 and 25, Shafer Township, Chisago
County, to the junction with the Mississippi River near Hastings.
(a) Definitions. The terms "person," "sewage," "industrial wastes," "other
wastes," "treatment works," "disposal systems," and "waters of the state,"
as well as any other pertinent terms for which definitions are given in the
water pollution control statutes, as used herein have the meanings ascribed
to them in Minnesota Statutes (1967), Chapter 115. Other terms and abbrevi-
ations .used herein not specifically defined in the law shall be construed in
conformance with the context and professional usage.
(b) Standards. It is hereby established as a minimum requirement ap-
plicable to all persons responsible for disposal systems discharging sewage,
industrial waste or other waste effluents to the above-delineated waters, or
which may affect these waters, that there shall be year-round effective
continuous chlorination of sewage and other effluents containing viable
pathogenic organisms which are discharged at or above public water supply
intakes, and effective continuous chlorination from May 1 through October
31 of sewage and other effluents containing viable pathogenic organisms
which are discharged to other reaches. It is further established that all
effluents shall be treated prior to discharge so as to meet the following
limiting permissible concentrations:
Substance or Characteristic Limiting Concentration
5-day biochemical oxygen demand 50 milligrams per liter
Total suspended solids 30 milligrams per liter
Total coliform group organisms 1,000 most probable number per 100
milliliters
Oil Not to exceed a trace
Turbidity value 25
(c) Monthly Reports. All persons operating sewage, industrial waste or
other waste disposal systems adjacent to or discharging to the water covered
by this Regulation shall submit every month a report to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency on the operation of such disposal system, the
effluent flow, and the characteristics and concentration of the effluents and
receiving waters. Sufficient data on measurements, observations, sampling
-------
159
V?C 21 Mi.NXKSOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
arid analyses and other pertinent information snail be furnished as may be
required by the Agency to reflect adequately the condition of the disposal
system, the effluent and the wafers receiving the effluent.
(d) Be&niHsiaiioa of Corrspliimcs. In making tests or analyses of the
sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes to determine compliance with the
standards, samples shall be collected in such manner and place, and of such
type, number and frequency as may be considered satisfactory by the
Agency. No allowance wili he made for dilution of the effluents in the
waters of the state into which they are discharged. The samples shall be
preserved and analyzed in accordance with procedures given in the Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-v'ater, by the American
Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and the
Water Pollution Control Federation or other methods acceptable to the
Agency.
(e) Vanaace. Where upon written application of the responsible person
or persons and after public hearing the Agency ilnds that by reason of
exceptional circumstances, strict conformity with any provision of these
standards would cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical
or not. feasible under the circumstances, the Agency may by Order grant a
variance from these standards to such person or persons upon such condi-
tions and within such time limitations as it may prescribe for prevention,
control or abatement of pollution in harmony with the intent of state and
federal laws.
-------
AN
170
S.F. No. 2103
CHAPTER N
3(C* -f'
«$&.
relating to marine coilcts and treatment
devices on watcrcraft; .amending Minnesota
Statutoa 1967, Section 361.29, Subdivision 4.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1967, Section 361.29,
Subdivision 4, is amended to read;
Subd. 4. Any treatment device designed for use with a
marine toilet, if in good working condition and of a type
acceptable to the water pollution control commission- agency
of the state of Minnesota, is presumed to comply with
requirements of this section. In. addition to.the treatment
devices which may be listed by Che pollution control agency
_ns being; acceptable, for visa on watorcrnft licensed by the
scflte-of Minnesota, any other treatment device which has_
been.formally..accepted by another state or national agency
for use on wnccrcraft upon waters over which such ochor
agency has jurisdiction for water pollution control purposesr
shall be considered acceptable by the pollution control
agency of the state of Minnesota for use on watercraft which
arc...lawfully exempt from licensing in Minnesota under the
provisions of section 361.03, subdivision 12, while such
w_,Ttercraft are upon any internal or boundary waters of the
state of Minnesota provided that such_other treatment device
must be in good working condition*
-------
171
S.P. No. 210.3
James B. Coctz
President of the Senat
•I*. L. Duxbtr
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Passed the Senate this 13th day of. May
In the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-nine.
Secretary of ttye SenateJ
Passed the House of Representatives this 23rd day of May
In the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-nine.
Edward A. Burdick
Chief Clerk, House of Representatives.
Approved JW**^')' 7
/
1969
Harold LeVander
Governor of the State of Minnesota.
Piled
Joseph L. Donovan
Secretary or £tc.tt.
-------
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Division of Solid Waste
"ATTACHMENT G"
175
Upper Mississippi River Enforcement Conference Area
Status of Solid Waste Disposal According to Recom-
mendation 14
Site
Pigs Eye Landfill
St. Paul Ramsey County
Mississippi River Flood Plain
Fish Hatchery Landfill
St. Paul, Ramsey County
Mississippi River Flood Plain
South St. Paul Landfill
South St. Paul, Dakota County
Mississippi River Flood Plain
North Mankato Sanitary Landfill
North Mankato, Nicollet County
Minnesota River Flood Plain
Weimert Dump
Belgrade Twp., Nicollet County
Minnesota River Flood Plain
St. Peter City Dump
St. Peter, Nicollet County
Minnesota River Flood Plain
Le Sueur City Dump
Le Sueur, Le Sueur County
Minnesota River Flood Plain
Henderson Village Dump
Henderson, Sibley County
Minnesota River Flood Plain
Carver Village Dump
Carver, Carver County
Minnesota River Flood Plain
Chaska City Dump
Chaska, Carver County
Minnesota River Flood Plain
Shakopee Pay Dump
Shakopec, Scott County
Minnesota River Flood Plain
Minnesota Valley Landfill
Glenda.le Twp., Scott County
Mimv.;ota River Flood Plain
July 22, 1969
Status Regarding Recommendation 14
In compliance by covering
In compliance by covering
In compliance by covering and levee.
All putrecibles excluded
In compliance by covering and dike.
Not in compliance. Should improve
covering and diking.
In compliance by relocation away
from flood plain.
In compliance by relocation away
from flood plain.
Not in compliance - Open dump.
Should cover
Not in compliance - open dump.
Should cover
Not in compliance - should improve
covering
Not in compliance - should improve
covering.
Not in compliance - should improve
•covering.
-------
- 2 -
176
Site
Burnsvilla Sanitary Landfill
(Xracmer Landfill)
Burnsville, Dakota County
Minnesota River Flood Plain
Freeway Landfill
iiunioville, Dakota County
Minnesota River Flood Plain
Bayport Dump
Baytown Township, Washington Co,
Drainage to St. Croix River
Status Regarding Recommendation 14
In compliance by covering.
Not in compliance - should improve
covering.
Not in compliance - should divert
drainage and improve covering.
-------
177
J. P. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: I believe, Mr. Chairman,
this concludes the statement of the Agency and then in
turn I do have a number of representatives from indus-
tries and municipalities who would like to make a state-
ment .
MR. STEIN: Right.
Let's see if we have any comments or
questions. Are there any?
MR. POSTON: I might have some comments
here.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. POSTON: First I notice that you have
concern about the standards, and I would like to say
that I will do everything within my capabilities to push
the paperwork along as fast as I can to get the standards
adopted. However, this is a thing that the Secretary
does, but I have assurance that things are in order to
send to them at this time.
MR. BADALICH: All right, sir.
MR. POSTON: I wondered how your Agency
is going to look at the water department's request for
an extension of time on their pollution problem, the
-------
178
J. P. Badalich
problem of disposal of their sludge wastes?
MR. BADALIGH: Mr. Poston, I think the
request will have to come from the water department
first of all. How the Agency might act in this matter,
I certainly can't second-guess them. They have proceeded
insofar as providing the bonding necessary, "but I believe
actually getting started under the construction facili-
ties and providing plans and specifications still remains
be offered to the Agency. I believe there might be--
there is a letter attached to--I am sorry, there is not,
but there may be a representative from the Minneapolis
¥ater Department here later on that might want to make
a statement.
MR. POSTON: I am a little disturbed every
time I see one of our research demonstration grants get
itself in a position that we are holding up and waiting
and can't proceed until we get the results of these
research demonstration projects. It seems to me that we
should be able to get available information from these
at a much earlier time. We do have ways and means of
handling wastes that are very well understood. This is
of concern to me because I see this happen more than once
to
-------
179
J. P. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Is there any specific
reference to anyone, Mr. Poston, or is this in general?
MR. POSTON: Well, this is in general,
but I note that the results are not going to be ready
for some time and I wondered whether there is any way
that we could step this up.
Well, this pertains to Red Wing or the--
MR. STEIN: Tanning company, isn't it?
MR. POSTON: --the tanning company.
MR. BADALICH: Yes, Mr. Poston, there is
a letter attached to my statement here from Mr. Christensjen,
Project Director for the S. B. Foot Tanning Company. I
think he pretty well reiterates what their position is
at the present time.
MR. POSTON: Also on page l±, the MSSD
has a research study on the use of interceptors for
storage. There was reference to progress is being
hampered because these studies must take into account
the results of their studies, that is St. Paul Sanitary
District?
MR. BADALICH: Yes, Mr. Poston, this is
reference to the combined sewer study, one of the
-------
__ 180
J. P. Badalich
recommendations requiring St. Paul and Minneapolis to
make an evaluation of this. I believe there is a long
deadline of about ten years, to about 1977, I believe,
for compliance,, but there is an implementation plan or
a schedule set forth that they have to have their plans
available by June of this year. But being that the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District did have this
research and demonstration grant with the computer
control of the interceptor outfalls,, this has delayed
this study until there can be some operational data
gathered on the function and the operation of these
facilities. I believe possibly Mr. Robins will
elaborate on this a little later.
MR. STEIN: I have a comment and perhaps
a question.
A question that was asked before was why
isn't the river better than it is. In summary what you
do say is, "only sixteen significant sources to be
reduced, or put in another way, seventy-one percent of
the sources originally listed have either made sufficien
improvement in their treatment in the past year to
become satisfactory,or do not discharge wastes of any
-------
J. P. Badalich
significance to interstate waters."
The question is, if this is the case when
they came in, why in the world isn't it any better? I
think you didn't need to imply that some of those six-
teen sources or less than thirty percent weren't pretty
big ones, because we have Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary
District, Swift and Company, Armour, South St. Paul,
American Crystal Sugar, Stillwater, for example. So I
think as long as we have significant large sources going
into the river you are not going to expect a spectacular
•waste treatment.
Although I do think that the report you
have given indicates a very active State agency in full-
fledged pursuit of a cleanup of an enforcement program.
I think your report is excellent.
There is one question I have, and this
was based on--
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Stein, before you go
any further, I believe representatives of some of these
sources will be here to explain their program in more
detail, and I think this will probably be clarified
further on what they are doing. As far as we are
-------
182
J. P. Badalich
concerned, everybody is in some sort of an implementa-
tion or compliance schedule.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. BADALICH: It is just that we have hac
construction facilities and other things going on, some
beyond our control, but they are proceeding in a very
set manner.
MR. STEIN: We recognize that and I think
this is the thing that we have to recognize in any
particular case--that people with the smaller jobs can
get through more readily than the people with the big
Jobs. First of all, the construction isn't as great.
Generally it is not as complex.
But I have one question on the basis of
staff reports we have seen. You said except for the ones
you listed the others are in compliance. Now, I have
specific reference to the 3 M's, Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing. The point is they are not listed as being
out of compliance and the question I have, did they
submit their preliminary plans within six to twelve
months and did they submit the final design for remedial
facilities between twelve to twenty-four months as
the
-------
183
J. P. Badalich
required by the last conference recommendation?
MR. BADALIGH: Yes, they did. The reason
they are not in compliance is because., as you probably
know, we also have adopted State regulations that we
referred to as WPG 18 through 21. But the requirements
under our State regulations are more stringent in most
cases, so they are in conformance to the Federal-State
enforcement conferees' recommendations, but not,as we
see it yet,according to our State regulations.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments
or questions?
MR. GADLER: I would like to ask a ques-
tion .
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. GADLER: Do you have all the new
sources that are dumping pollution in the river listed
or are they available to you?
MR. BADALICH: I believe they are, Mr.
Gadler, and I would like the choice of the word "dis-
charge" instead of "dumping."
MR. GADLER: Well, that is my prerogative,
I think, to use the term I desire.
-------
184
J. P. Badalich
The other point that I have, question
that I have to ask is, why doesn't the Hudson Manu-
facturing Company of Hastings turn in reports?
MR. BADALICH: I think, Mr. Gadler, you
are -well aware of this, I believe, in our reports to the
Federal Government under our program grant application,
this is a long tedious process of trying to get the dis-
charger to conform to this requirement. It is just a
matter of staying on top of it and we are trying to do
the best we can. I think you realize, Mr. Gadler, that
our effort has increased tremendously in this, and I
believe in the next report you will see in the program
plan that we have expanded on this and I think our
percentage of compliance has been greatly enhanced
because of our insistence of doing this.
Specific to the Hudson company, I myself
do not know what the holdup might be, but I am sure that
our enforcement officer will keep going after them and
we hope that we can have compliance in very short order.
MR. GADLER: Is it compliance or is it
compliance with submitting a report?
MR. BADALICH: It is compliance with
-------
18'
J. P. Badalich
submitting a report. Basically that is what this
recommendation refers to, and they have been very
reluctant and I suppose very lax in submitting this.
MR. GADLER: We don't know, then, whether
they are in compliance with the regulations?
MR. BADALICH: On that I cannot answer
either. I suspect that they would be.
MR. TUVESON: We will comment on that
later.
later.
MR. BADALICH: We will comment on that
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments
or questions?
MR. POSTON: I might talk about your
recommendation number 13 on page 5 pertaining to boats.
And I would say that the National Sanitation Foundation
is a study agency and it is my understanding that the
recommendations on sewage treatment devices covered an
evaluation of the various kinds of treatment that might
be expected from these installations.
The States around Lake Michigan, for
example, came up with a recommendation for control of
-------
186
J. P. Badalich
wastes from watercraft and they determined that it was
best to provide holding tanks, incineration or equivalent
and that overboard discharge of wastes was not accept-
able. And in light of the fact that Wisconsin has this
standard, I think that I wouldn't want to be a party to
reducing the effectiveness or reducing our pollution
control by approving a raacerator/chlorinator type device
which from all the information that I have been able to
find is not as satisfactory a device for waste disposal
from watercraft.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to answer that
now?
MR. BADALICH: Well, Mr. Poston, we feel
that the National Sanitation Foundation is a very credible
institution and they are certainly supported by Federal
funds, and so on, and we believe that they have the
expertise necessary to tell us this. We haven't got
the research facilities to go into every type of device
that is on the market. We rely on these people and I
believe that their criteria they set forth are acceptable
to our agency.
Up until the time it is proven differently
-------
^___ 18?
J. P. Badalich
and that we can actually compel holding devices on all
of our marinas, this will have to be done through legis-
lation. I think this is a very adequate system at the
present time.
MR. STEIN: Let me--
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: In connection with
criteria established by the National Sanitation Founda-
tion, it is my understanding that the National Sanitation
Foundation established criteria for the evaluation of
macerator/chlorinator devices. They did not establish
criteria for devices nor did they approve any devices.
All they did was set standards for the evaluation of them
MR. BADALICH: Yes. And based on that
evaluation, Mr. Wisniewski, we felt that they certainly
meet our criteria.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: But they didn't approve
any.
MR. BADALICH: I agree with you there,
yes. It is just a recommendation on their part.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: No, they made a
-------
188
J. P. Badalich
recommendation strictly as to how you are going to study
and examine these things. They did not make a recommenda
tion on the devices themselves.
MR. STEIN: May I make a suggestion here?
I was afraid we would get into this. We are about at
lunchtime. I think this is the one position or one area-
also Minnesota has made a pretty strong recommendation--
the one area where in principle or philosophically I can
sense that we may have a little difference of opinion
among the conferees.
Now, whether we want to meet this or not,
I would suggest we can resume after lunch. But I suggest
you may want to get together with the other conferees and
see how far we want to pursue this and how productive
i t will be for the conferees to .adopt a position on
this. I am ready to go any way any of the conferees
would make a judgment on this because this is why we are
here. But I would think we should consider this during
the lunch period and corne back then and decide how and
in what manner we want to pursue it.
And with that,as previously--
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Stein,there is another
-------
189
J. P. Badalich
important point in this recommendation and that is the
fact that we have no jurisdiction over federally
licensed or documented boats. And I think there is a
very important point to be brought up^ too--that we
ourselves regulate our own users and Wisconsin does
also, but federally documented vessels are exempt.
And I think this should also be ironed out and some
recommendation made in this regard.
MR. STEIN: Right. Let me go off the
record now. We are on our lunchtime.
(Off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Let's recess for lunch
until 2 o'clock.
(NOON RECESS)
-------
190
AFTERNOON SESSION
(2 o'clock p.m.)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
MINNESOTA PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I think at
the close of the morning session you made a statement
about the State of Minnesota getting in the field of
radioactivity and sort of surpassing the Federal
authority on that and also talked about what we are
doing in the area of boat heads.
The only way I guess I can answer that
is the fact that in our statutes it indicates that
radioactivity is probably one of our charges through
the definition of wastes in our statutes. And also I
think Mr. Don Marshall brought it out this morning that
there is concern about radioactivity in the public
health standards which we have adopted by reference
and they are clearly part of our interstate water
quality standards. Whereas, in the State statutes, the
governor operation of our Agency, it very clearly indi-
cates that we have no authority over federally documente
and licensed boats and also foreign vessels. So maybe
-------
191
J. P. Badalich
that is the only answer I can give in rebuttal as to why
we are more concerned in radioactivity and probably
fighting the Federal Government on this than we are in
boat heads, because we feel under our statutory author-
ity we do not have the authority in one that we do have
in the other.
MR. STEIN: I am not sure you are fight-
ing the Federal Government at all.
MR. BADALICH: We are not fighting you.
We are in agreement with you at all times, at least try
to make out a public agreement.
MR. STEIN: At least publicly we are always
in agreement.
MR. BADALICH: Absolutely.
Mr. Stein, to continue with Minnesota's
participation in this reconvening of this important con-
ference, I would like to call on the respective agencies
that want to make a statement.
MR. STEIN: Just a moment. I believe we
may have some more questions.
MR. BADALICH: All right.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston.
-------
192
J. P. Badalich
MR. POSTON: I would like to clarify one
point that was brought out that the Minnesota Agency
extended the time for compliance and extended three in
particular, South St. Paul, Mankato, and American Grysta:
Sugar Company, and I would like to ask whether or not
these agreements to extend the time were made subject to
the concurrence by the conferees. I think this is a
point, that if we can have other agencies extending the
time before they are going to meet with us that there
would be a question of who does set the time schedules,
what is going to be permitted with respect to the con-
ferees' determinations and conclusions.
I guess my specific question is, then,
was this given subject to the concurrence of the con-
! ferees?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
If I may answer that in part, Mr. Poston,
under our interstate water quality standards we do have
the standard as such and also the compliance implemen-
tation plan and there we did indicate in some of the
policy provisions of our standards that at any time that
the Agency did grant a variance, whether to the standard
-------
193
J. P. Badalich
or whether to the compliance schedule, and so on, that
the FWPCA would be informed of this particular action,
and we have thus provided this information. And I
would concur with you that possibly this should be
discussed by the conferees, although the State did act
under their own statutory authority to grant this
variance and we felt it was justified after a public
hearing. And I believe following my presentation, when
I do call upon these particular dischargers, that they
will certainly bring up their reasons for this as a
matter of information to the conferees.
MR. POSTON: I had one other question
with regard to South St. Paul. I understand that they
are going to bypass raw or partially treated sewage
for a period of time. This is continually a problem,
as I see it, around in various places. When they
build a new waste treatment works they like to stop
the operation of the old one and jump into full con-
| struction activity and bypass the existing plant. ¥e
(
\ have been very adamant in trying to get schedules or
i
a proviso in the construction contract and specifica-
tions that there would be no bypassing at the time of
-------
194
J. P. Badalich
construction of new facilities.
I wondered if this was considered at the
time it was decided that South St. Paul would bypass
raw or partially treated sewage?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Poston, I believe it
was in the construction plans that were submitted to
the Agency, but I will leave this up to them to answer
this. This is due to their construction of their new
and expanded facilities whereby they are constructing
new primary grit chambers, and the bypass will be of
peak flows during some periods of the day and I believe
that Mr. Peterson or Mr. Larson will elaborate on this
a little bit more.
MR. POSTON: And one final comment. I
think you are to be commended for a very complete report
this time. It covers the whole range of problems very
well.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you, sir.
MR. STEIN: Are there any further com-
ments or questions?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Stein, if I may con-
tinue now, I would like to call upon the people that
-------
195
F. Lamm
have indicated they would like to make a presentation,
and I would like to start off with probably now the
biggest discharger in the metropolitan area and that
is the Metropolitan Council. I believe they will be
represented by Mr. Frank Lamm, their Environmental
Engineer. As you probably know, under legislation the
Sewer Board was just established here several weeks ago,
and we hope to develop a very good rapport with them.
So may I call upon Mr. Lamm at this
particular time.
STATEMENT BY FRANK LAMM
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
MR. LAMM: Thank you, I think, Mr.
Badalich. (Laughter.)
Mr. Chairman, conferees. My name is
Frank Lamm. I am on the staff of the Metropolitan
I Council. I have been asked to make a brief statement
i
\ today relative to the Metropolitan Council's responsibili
ty
-------
196
F. Lamm
in this matter.
Before I make the official statement, let
me clarify one point. We are not now the biggest pol-
luters. (Laughter.)
MR. BADALICH: I said discharger.
MR. LAMM: Or discharger.
MR. GADLER: Discharger or dumper.
MR. LAMM: Or dumper. (Laughter.)
The Metropolitan Council thanks the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the opportunity
to participate in this progress evaluation meeting en
the matter of the Conference on the Pollution of the
Interstate Waters of the Upper Mississippi River and
Tributaries. It is well to review the current role
of the Council on pollution control concerning that
portion of conference waters which is within the metro-
politan area.
The Metropolitan Council was created by
the 196? session of the Minnesota Legislature to "coor-
dinate planning and development of the metropolitan
area comprising the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington." This entire
-------
, 197
F. Lamm
area lies within the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
To achieve these planning and development
objectives, the Council was given certain responsibili-
ties in its law and through Federal regulations relating
to metropolitan planning and local grants-in-aid. On
the subject of use of the rivers for sewage dilution and
setting of standards for pollution abatement the Council
was charged specifically to engage in a continuous pro-
gram of research and study concerning the control and
prevention of water pollution in the metropolitan area
in conformity with applicable Federal and State laws.
In the 1969 session of the State legis-
lature, the Council was given the further responsibility
of creating a Metropolitan Sewer Service Board which,
together with the Council,"can take over, acquire,
construct, operate, and maintain all interceptors and
treatment works necessary for the collection, treatment,
and disposal of sewage in the metropolitan area."
The Metropolitan Council has recently
appointed the seven-man Metropolitan Sewer Service Board.
It is expected that the board will be organized and will
initiate its duties within the next three weeks.
-------
198
F. Lamm
Specifically, the board's enacting legislation requires
it to take over all sanitary districts and joint sewer
boards during calendar year 1970. Also, at any time
after January 1, 1970, the board is to assume ownership
of all existing interceptors and treatment works which
will be needed to implement the Council's comprehensive
sewerage plan, and to acquire, construct, equip, operate
and maintain all additional interceptors and treatment
works which will be needed for such purpose.
These far-reaching requirements mean
that the Metropolitan Sewer Service Board will even-
tually assume ownership and will operate many of the
pollution control facilities under discussion today.
The Metropolitan Council would, therefore, like to take
this opportunity to state its intentions of cooperating
with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other
responsible Federal, State and local agencies in the
preservation, and where feasible and desirable, the
upgrading of interstate waters within the metropolitan
area.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Lamm.
-------
199
F. Lamm
Are there any comments or questions?
If not, let me ask you one. This is
particularly important in view of your potential power
and authority.
The last sentence on page 1 of your state
ment o n the "...use of the rivers for sewage dilution
and setting of standards for pollution abatement the
Council was charged specifically to engage in a contin-
uous program of research and study..."
What do you mean by that sewage dilution
business?
MR. LAMM: Fortunately, that is within
the previous statements that have been presented.
Speaking as an individual, and I can't speak for the
sewer board now because it hasn't been in operation, I
seriously question the use of rivers for sewage dilution
per se. In that I mean that I think that the primary
objective should be adequate treatment and then dis-
charge of this adequately treated effluent into the
receiving stream. I don't want to give the impression
here that the Metropolitan Council condones dilution
as the solution to pollution because I don't feel that
-------
200
F. Lamm
way personally and I don't feel the Council does either.
MR. STEIN: I hope not, because if you
are going to cooperate with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, anyone who approaches the notion
of using rivers for sewage dilution is going to have a
hard time cooperating with us.
MR. LAMM: Yes, I agree. And as I say,
this is sort of an unfortunate wording that had previously
been written into this.
MR. GADLER: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. GADLER: In the last two sentences
on page 2 it says, "and where feasible and desirable."
You don't imply that it is not feasible and desirable
to upgrade interstate waters?
MR. LAMM: Oh, sure, we can upgrade them
from their present condition to a new condition, but we
can't continually upgrade. We are going to reach a
point where we are meeting the standards, let's say, or
even exceeding the standards. But right now there is
no intention to clean up all stretches of all interstate
rivers to the exact same degree, at least there are no
-------
201
F. Lamm
standards that I know of right here.
So what I mean is to meet the standards
that are set by the PGA and where it is feasible and
desirable this means upgrading the existing conditions
of the interstate waters to meet these standards.
MR. STEIN: Let me go on that, then. As
long as you are starting, let's understand each other.
I don't have any trouble with feasible and desirable,
but I don't know that we ever stop with this upgrading.
You know, this business of when you get to the moon
maybe you stop before and you don't have to go to Mars.
Now, again, and I would like to use this
example of the radiation operation. We dealt with
radiation in some rivers, specifically the Celorado
River, where they had Public Health Service water qualit
standards for radium, for example, of three microcuries
or what they call micro microcuries or what they call
now picocuries. They always change the terminology on
that, but the number is important. Three was sufficient
for a water intake. And everyone wanted to stop there
and we indicated that you could go further and we did
go further and now we have got it down to one part, one
-------
202
F. Lamm
picocuriein the Colorado River water on radiation,
which is much better than the water quality standards.
Our charge, at least in the Federal law,
is to enhance water quality. With your agency
starting out I don't want you to get any notion,
"because this is not the Federal program and not our
notion, that once you meet the standards you can rest
your oar s and you don't have to go any farther.
Because I think our job is to enhance the water quality,
and I will use your phrase here, where feasible and
desirable^to make that water as clean as we possibly
can for the maximum number of uses and give us enough
safeguards.
MR. LAMM: Mr. Chairman, we are in agree-
ment with that particular statement and I don't think
that the sentence as left in here leaves any other
interpretation.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or
questions?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. LAMM: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich.
-------
203
J. P. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to next call upon the city of Minneapolis. Is there
anybody here from Minneapolis?
If not, Mr. Chairman, I do have two
attachments that were presented to the conferees "by the
city of Minneapolis, one under date of July 17, 1969*
from Mr. Clayton Sorenson, and also a sewer separation
status report by Milton Christensen I would like to
have entered into the record.
MR. STEIN: May I see them?
MR. BADALICH: Yes, you have those.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, these
will be entered into the record as if read.
(Which attachments are as follows:)
-------
Mil
204
.s
. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
.i;i,Vr-~-w\ A. Si.iiLNSON. P.E.
CITY L Nt-.INEER —DIRCCTOH
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55415 "July 17, 1969
ta Pollution Control Agency
e Street Southeast
T. B. CORLETT. DIRECTOR. WATER WORKS
W. G. RIDGE, DIRECTOR. OPERATIONS
E. A. DAfJCOCK. DIFICCTOR. GENERAL SERVICES
M. E. ENQUIST, DIRECTOR, STREETS & SANITATION
P. D. SMITH, DIRECTOR. ENGRG. DESIGN
R. H. SPRUNGMAN. DIRECTOR, TRAFFIC ENGRG.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Attention: Mr. John Badalich, P.E.
Executive Secretary & Chief Executive Officer
2 11CSS
Gen
iucni
The City of Minneapolis has reviewed your Information Release dated July 10,
196? regarding the progress evaluation meeting on pollution control of the Upper
Mississippi River and reports the following progress.
The City of Minneapolis was directed in a letter from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency dated August 28, 3-96? to undertake a Remedial Program for pollution
abatement in the City of Minneapolis. The City reviewed the obligations and recom-
mended measures as set forth in the letter of August 28, 1967 and found no objec-
tions to them. On December 21, 1967 the City submitted a letter and report to the
Pollution Control Agency indicating their willingness and ability to comply to the
recommendations. A report of sewer separation in Minneapolis with a proposed
10-year program has been submitted to the Pollution Control Agency.
The City has continued an aggressive program of planning and construction of
separate storm sewer systems with expenditures of $2,li81j,!j85.09 in 1967,
$3,135,u39.32 in 1968, an anticipated expenditures of $2,635,000.00 in 1969 and
$3,660,000.00 scheduled for 1970? in addition to other agency work estimated at
$600,000.00 for each of the years of 196? and 1970.
A IfJD grant US-Minn.-81; was approved for $1,386,000.00 for 1968 and an appli-
cation is now on file for $777,367 oO for 1969.
Separation has now been accomplished in about 1^>% of the sewer system, with
plans and programs being developed for complete separation by 1977 at an estimated
cost of $21,000,000.00.
,-i • •-• /, ••-.'-. i~\ •"-•
Li. -O/.1.1-!- L/J-J.J.
Clayton A. Sorenson, P.2.
Director of Public Works
-------
••:/ o
205
DUiVittTttZNT OF PUBLIC WORKS
OlAVTON A. SOH^NSON. P.£.
CITY I'.Ml'.I.NI i.rf — DI.C.CrOR
M:.\NLAi'OLI:;. V.i.NNLt.OTA SS41i
! ts
July 14, 1969
Jo.;.-. P. Eadalich, P.2.
St.'.tc of J/.inncsota
Pollution Control Agency
717 Doinwaro Street S.E.
Mir.neapolis, Minnccpta 55440
Dear Sir:
Re: Sowe-r Separation Status
Enclosed is a sheet giving the current status of our sewer
separation for the 2nd Quarter of 1969} extending through June 28,
1969.
Very truly yours,
Clayton A. Soronson
Director of Public Works
jV.iltor. R. Christonsen
Sewer Planning Enginee
Enclosure
-------
206
o
CITY 0.:
Sower Soparctior. Report - 2nd Quarter, 1969
(to Juno 28> 1969)
Estimated Accumulated Percentage
Dc'Sci-iption Cost Coat Completed
S3 5:h St. M.E.(31st-35th Ave. N'.E.) 5 235,000. S 242,022.17
208 IV „ 22nd St.(Aldrich-Blaisdell Aves.) 328,257.84 44,589.12 20%
200 Central - New Brighton Road
Broadway - 33rd Ave. M.E. 525,000. 230,014.63 50%
230 3rd Ave. X'.E. (Mios.Kiver-Jacksor.) 765,170. 454,252.56 65%
231 36th Ave. N. to 4lst Avo. N.,Lyndalc-River)255,015.72 203,006.56 9&%
279 E. 25th St. (2nd Ave. - 4th Ave. So.)
E. 22nd St. (Stevens - 4th Ave. So.) 30,005.80 70,669.54 95%
12 Kennedy St. N.E. (Stinson Blvd.-Hoover) 80,013.00 63,865.00 100%
2:-.v 1st Ave. N.E. - E. Kennepin 199,903.80 52,932.07 55%
Ronovjnl - St. Anthony East 827,000. 130,000.00 20%
323 Fulton Residential Paving Area 100,000. 10,000.00 2G%
321 Keewaydir. Residential Paving Area 175,000. 35,000.00 70/o
355 Fuller Residential Paving Area 60,000. 45,000.00 70%
Industrial - Pacific St. Area 65,000. 38,500.00 99/a
356 18th Ave. N.E. (Central - Monroe) 20,000. 19,512.00 lC07o
322 Victory South Res. Paving Area 175,000. 15,000.CO 5%
Renewal - Wear North Side 766,000. 233>859_.0_0_ 30%
4,656,366.16 1,888,222.65
-------
20?
R. Schnarr
MR. BADALICH: Next I would like to call
upon the city of St. Paul. I have a statement here from
the St. Paul Water Department, but does Mr. Hurtley from
the city of St. Paul want to make a statement at this
time?
MR. SCHNARR: Mr. Badalich, I want to
make a statement.
MR. BADALICH: Oh, I am sorry, Mr.
Schnarr, the City Engineer, is here to make a statement
for the city of St. Paul.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHNARR
CHIEF ENGINEER
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
MR. SCHNARR: Mr. Chairman and conferees,
ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Richard Schnarr. I am Chief
Engineer of the Public Works Department for the city of
St. Paul and I would like to present a progress report
for the city of St. Paul to the conferees on pollution
of Interstate waters.
(Which said statement is as follows:)
-------
208
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
PROGRESS REPORT
to the
CONFERENCE ON POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE WATERS
of the
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
Ho]iday Inn Central
Minneapolis, Minn.
July 22, 1969
By
Richard A. Schnarr
St. Paul City Engineer
-------
209
As the representative of the City of Saint Paul, I am very appreciative of
the opportunity to present a statement to you regarding Saint Paul's progress In
water pollution abatement and to share with you some thoughts that we have regarding
the general problem of water pollution.
While, as Mr. Avery stated on behalf of the City of Saint Paul on April 30,
1968, we in Saint Paul are In favor of clean rivers and pollution abatement and to
that end have, over a period of time, spent millions of dollars to reduce pollution,
and most of this before the current orders and directives from the state and federal
regulatory bodies were issued, I believe it is time for all of us to take a good
look at the regulations and standards if such regulations and standards are such as
to require collected waste or sewage, regardless of their source, to meet higher
requirements than the normal quality of rainwater runoff from fields, pastures, and
similar areas. I am sure that we, as taxpayers in the State of Minnesota, are not
interested in spending tax money, whatever the source of such tax money, for develop-
ment or construction for pollution abatement which does not result In a reasonable
reduction in pollution of our rivers and lakes.
In order to bring this report into focus for all in attendance, I will quickly
summarize our situation in Saint Paul.
About September 1, 196?, we received a letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency outlining measures which would, in the opinion of the Agency staff, ensure
that the objectives of the Conference would be met in full. The areas of concern
were the open dump within the flood plain of the Mississippi River and the discharge
into the Mississippi River of certain storm sewer or combined storm and sanitary
sewer outfalls which did not conform to the effluent standard set out in the require-
ments. The recommended measures for compliance were as follows:
1. Make an engineering study of combined sewers and develop methods
eliminating them and/or developing effective means of controlling
the discharge of sewage to the Mississippi River from this source in
conformance with the standards.
-------
210
2. Construct no more combined sewers and where possible eliminate such
existing sewers.
3. Monitor and control the outfalls of existing combined sewers so that
a maximum amount of combined sewage and storm water Is conveyed to
the di sposal plant.
U. Operate a sanitary land fill in accordance with the standards.
5. Report to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at regular intervals
and at such special times as required.
In connection with the directives received from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, the City of Saint Paul has engaged two consulting engineering firms to assist
in the engineering study.
Greeley and Hansen, Engineers, of Chicago, Illinois, were engaged to perform
a study of the administrative, operational, and financial aspects of the pollution
control activities, relating to both our existing and future sewerage systems. The
intent of the Phase I report of Greeley-Hansen was to study current methods of
administration, financing, and operation of the Saint Paul sewerage system and to
outline and give direction to what will be included in Phase II of the report which
includes recommendations for future operation. The Minnesota Legislature in session
earlier this year passed legislation which will affect the financing, operation, and
administration of all such systems; and, since the provisions of the legislation
present many uncertainties as to financing and administration by the City in future
operations, the Greeley-Hansen report has had to be delayed; and it now appears
that the Phase I report will be completed In September of this year.
Horner & Shifrin, Inc., of Saint Louis, Missouri, were engaged to study the
controlling of sanitary sewage discharge into the Mississippi River; and they have
completed their study of sewer separation Phase I, a copy of which was submitted to
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for review and comment on September23, 1968.
One of the comments received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was that
-2-
-------
211
the Phase II studies should be closely coordinated with the Sewage Regulator Demon-
stration Project of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District, which will be
reported on briefly by Mr. Robins, Chief Engineer of t.he Sanitary District.
The preliminary results of this program are very promising and point up the wisdom
of close coordination between the Horner-Shifrin Phase II studies and the Sanitary
District Demonstration Program. Preliminary results indicate that the regulator
program may reduce the sanitary sewage spillage into the river by 75% and by Increa-
sing the scope of the program, it may very well be that the amount of pollution from
combined sewage overflow could be insignificant. As a result, the Saint Paul City
Council, by resolution, has requested an extension of time for the study report with
improvement proposals from March 17, 1969, to March 17, 1970. A copy of the resolu-
tion is attached to this statement, and the request for extension of time as indi-
cated is hereby restated to this Conference.
In connection with the solid waste disposal in St. Paul, we have revised our
disposal method and are now operating a sanitary land fill in reasonable compliance
with the standards. This operation does still need some reorganizing and closer
supervision by our supervisory personnel, particularly in the winter and spring when
conditions for this type operation are difficult at best. Solid waste disposal will
ultimately be controlled by the Metropolitan Council through the county governments
In the seven county area In accordance with legislation passed at the last legis-
lative session.
Much of our combined sewer system in Saint Paul is inadequate for the increased
sewage and runoff now being directed into it. This lack of capacity causes sewage
backups into the basements of buildings connected to it. In 19&7 the Public Works
Department made a study and report of this situation and concluded that an estimated
$1*0,000,000 relief sewer program would be required to correct the problem. From 1967
through 1969 the City of Saint Paul has programmed 65 relief sewer projects at a cost
of $8,988,000. Of these projects 37 are for completely separate storm systems with
-3-
-------
212
outlets to the Mississippi, lakes, or existing storm trunk sewers, and the other
28 projects are constructed as separate storm sewers which outlet into existing
combined sewer trunk lines. It is anticipated that in the future we will proceed
with this program at the rate of two to three million dollars of construction a
year. The sewer projects mentioned above do not include the small local improve-
ment projects that are done each year. All extensions of existing sewers are con-
structed as separate sewers.
The construction of these relief sewers must be our first concern since this
represents an immediate health hazard to our people in St. Paul due to sewer backups
in basements.
While we have, we feel, made considerable progress in the never ending battle
against pollution, we are greatly concerned about the ever increasing costs to
accomplish the work required.
At the present time, it appears that our program will result in a combination
of methods which will probably include separation of storm and sanitary sewers
where practical; regulation of outfalls at the river to reduce the overflow to the
river from combined sewers by manual and computer controlled methods; and storage,
reduction of solids, and disinfection of overflows of combined sewers when over-
flowing is necessary.
Approved by the City Council
of Saint Paul July 18, 1969
-k-
-------
213
R. Schnarr
MR. SCHNARR: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
By the way, do you want that resolution
in the record too?
MR. SCHNARR: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will
be done.
(Which said resolution is as follows:)
-------
CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL NQ
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK f'L£
O/;-
/C*i>
.; / ; .COUNCIL RESOLUTION—GENERAL FORM 213-A
cc^M1 iVi'o's:a ' • ' •'-x V i--/x[v .'.•-?! ..,^f^~-*( OATE
/ - / i / ;
//./ // :/
WHEREAS, a Federal-State Conference on Pollution of the Upper Mississippi River
was held In Minneapolis in February and March, 1967, and
WHEREAS subsequent to said conference the City of Saint Paul did not receive
from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency until August 31, 1967, a notice of
certain sewer system effluent standards and a directive to complete certain
sewer system studies by March 17, 1969, and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 1968, the City of Saint Paul transmitted to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency for review and further direction a preliminary engineering
report proposing methods and concepts to accomplish a higher degree of control over
the discharge of sewer system effluent to the Mississippi River, and
WHEREAS review and approval of said preliminary engineering report is necessary
before St. Paul can proceed with more detailed planning, and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has not as of February 11, 1969,
responded with the said necessary review and further dire.ction concerning said
preliminary engineering report, and
WHEREAS conclusions of both the City of Saint Paul and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency with respect to the extent and character of necessary sewer system
changes in Saint Paul should properly await the results of a federally-funded
research and demonstration project now being conducted by the Minneapolis-St. Paul
Sanitary District, and
WHEREAS an appraisal of results from said research and demonstration project will
be available during the latter part of 1969,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the City Council hereby request the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency to extend the time for completion of the study report
with improvement proposals by the City from March 17, 1969, to March 17, 1970, and
SE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the City Clerk transmit a copy of this resolution to
Mr. John P. Badalich,' Director, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
'•ffl
COUNCILMEN Adopted by the CounciL^l___IlL_l9
Yeas Nays
Carlson FEB 1 A 19S3
Dalglish / Approved 19.
Holland-
__In Favor
Meredith
Peterson, ./ () . ~0 ^y01
TcdescorX#/i"
-------
213-B
R. Schnarr
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or
questions?
Let me start you off. You had a storm-
water overflow program, 65 relief sewers which are
backing up into the basements, about 37 completely
separate, 28 constructed as separate storm sewers which
outlet into existing combined sewer trunk lines. In
other words, you took 40 percent of that problem and you
transferred it from the basement to the river, right?
MR. SCHNARR: Not necessarily to the river
I couldn't say for sure--
MR. STEIN: Well, where do those combined
sewer trunk lines run?
MR. SCHNARR: Some of them run to the
-------
214
R. Schnarr
sanitary district, I presume all of them do.
MR. STEIN: Combined sewers? What
happens when it rains? You are not getting a problem
in the basement when it doesn't back up and rain. When
it rains and you get this business, they are bypassing
and they are going to the river.
MR. SCHNARR: If the trunk is not
causing any problem, then there is no overflow. The
problems that we have on backup are generally the
sewers in the streets near the residential areas.
MR. STEIN: I understand that. How many
of your trunks of those 28 projects when it rains don't
bypass that sewage treatment plant?
MR. SCHNARR: I don't know that there
are 28 trunks that we are talking about. It is 28
projects.
MR. STEIN: Twenty-eight projects.
But how many of those 28 projects, or 40 percent
of what you relieve in the basements--! thoroughly
agree you should relieve those basements because I
have a basement too, but how much of that 40 percent of
-------
______ , 215
R. Schnarr
what you relieve in the basements doesn't hit that
river untreated?
MR. SCHNARR: I couldn't give you any
specifics. I would presume that our sewer engineer and
our sewer department have gone through this and eliminatec
the problems where they could. It may be that some
of these do overflow into the river at the present time.
MR. STEIN: "Well, I am just saying on
the face of it--it looks like you have handled a very
difficult problem. But on the face of it it looks like
you have taken 100 percent out of the basements and
you have transferred--without any further statement, and
there may be something further--40 percent of that to
the river. And I am not sure we can consider that a
satisfactory ultimate solution.
MR. SCHNARR: The presumption that this
goes into the river is not necessarily a true presump-
tion. The control--
MR. STEIN: Where does it go, then?
MR. SCHNARR: The computer programming
control on these things has made a very definite change
in the amount of .flow into the river on storms. As a
-------
216
R. Schnarr
matter of fact, the indication is that it has reduced it
by 75 percent. This is a very preliminary--
MR. STEIN: We are talking about that
stuff that was backed into the basement. When something
goes into a storm sewer, either it goes into a treatment
plant or goes into the river untreated. Where else can
it go? Now, you know what goes into your treatment
plant. If it doesn't go there, it has to go into the
river untreated, doesn't it?
MR. SCHNARR: But from your presuming
that all 28 of these will go directly into
the river, that is wrong. It may be that some of them
do. As I stated in the report, it is necessary that we
take care of first things first, and I believe flooded
basements come before the concern for the river. Not
that we don't have concern for the river, but there are
only so many dollars and certainly we have to take care
of first things first.
MR. STEIN: We would all agree with that.
But presumably if you take the stuff out of the basement
you should know where it goes as your alternative.
MR. SCHNARR: Yes, it goes into our
-------
21?
R. Schnarr
combined trunk sewers on 28 projects.
MR. STEIN: Where does that go?
MR. SGHNARR: This goes down to the sani-
tary district and only overflows when the capacity of
the sewers is overtaxed as far as the trunk is concerned.
MR. STEIN: That is what happens with all
combined sewers. There is no magic about that. But
they wouldn't be going into the basement unless you had
a big rain.
MR. SCHNARR: But it isn't necessarily
the trunk that is backing it up when we get it into the
basements. It may be just the lateral sewer, it may
be just the sewer itself in the street. It isn't
necessarily the trunk sewer that is backing it up.
MR. STEIN: Well, I--
MR. SCHNARR: We are working toward the
elimination of all of these problems, but as I state in
the report, I think that it is essential that we take
care of our homes in St. Paul and stop the backup in
the basements. This is the primary concern at the
present time.
MR. STEIN: Let me put this question
-------
218
R. Schnarr
another way. Do you have any program that these
other 28 projects that are not in separate sewers
and are going into combined sewers will not reach the
river untreated? Do you have any program?
MR. SCHNARR: In the last paragraph we
indicate:
"At the present time, it appears that our
program will result in a combination of methods which
will probably include separation of storm and sanitary
sewers where practical; regulation of outfalls at the
river to reduce the overflow to the river from combined
sewers by manual and computer controlled methods; and
storage, reduction of solids, and disinfection of over-
flows of combined sewers when overflowing is necessary."
MR. STEIN: Well, if you feel that is
the answer--
MR. SCHNARR: I don't know that this is
the answer. This is what our engineering study is
supposed to come up with.
MR. STEIN: I understand that. I am
not sure we have the answer to the question. We are
not sure, as far as I can tell, how much of your
-------
• 219
R. Schnarr
combined sewers are going into the river or what the
load is. In preventing your basement problem—which
I think is commendable, by the way, I thoroughly
agree with you it is the first step. It would seem
offhand that as far as an ultimate solution to the
problem is concerned, which is the separation of the
sewers and provision that material go to the treatment
plant, we have handled about 60 percent of that load.
We are not sure what happens to the other 40 percent.
Let me give you my suspicion. I think it goes to the
river untreated.
MR. SCHNARR: Well, it certainly doesn't
all of it. I would certainly be misleading you if I
indicated to you that I .know exactly where they go,
because I don't, frankly.
MR. STEIN: That is the point. I think
for the peace of mind of us all we really should make
a determination of where these wastes go.
MR. SCHNARR: I am sure that our sewer
engineer has made this determination. There are some
locations where I am sure there is some overflow into
the river, although this again I couldn't make any
-------
220
R. Schnarr
specific statement on "because I don't recall the
specific projects.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I think if
you refer to page 3, the second paragraph, they have
indicated the desire for an extension of time in sub-
mitting this report. I think this report itself will
probably have a lot of your answers on how they propose
to correlate the three different areas of study and that
is the use of the interceptor computer outfalls and also
the use of their combined sewers and also detention
times, etc.
So I think a lot of this will be answered
in this particular report. ¥e are asking for this just
as patiently as the FWPCA is waiting.
MR. GADLER: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. GADLER: You are asking Mr. Schnarr
some questions and I would like to come to his defense
because Mr. Schnarr has just become City Engineer of the
city of St. Paul on May 19th or 20th or June 1st and
consequently he has not been able to become as conversant
-------
221
R. Schnarr
with all of those details as he would be ordinarily.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Gadler, I hope I haven't
been misconstrued. I did not direct any questions at mr
Schnarr personally.
MR. GADLER: No, I understand that. But
he just doesn't have it.
MR. STEIN: But we are dealing with the
facts.
But let me ask Mr. Badalich a question.
If we are going to wait another year for the study
report, we are not going to--certainly, March 17, 19^9^
is past. Are we going to have to wait until March 17,
1970, to get this report?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I believe
we are, because if you read the resolution, the Agency
staff itself concurred in this, because, as Mr. Poston
brought out, your R and D project is not completed and I
think a lot of the bearing on this storm sewer separation
program for St. Paul bears on the successfulness and the
programming of this computer system of regulating out-
falls to the Mississippi River. So they had to have
that background information before they could proceed
-------
222
R. Schnarr
with their plan, and we certainly, I individually and
the staff, concur in this resolution of the city of
St. Paul.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to make a comment,
Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: I don't like to see these
research demonstration projects be the reason that we
hold up construction of needed facilities. I think that
there are ways and means of handling our waste problems,
and to me we are caught in a web at some times with
these various projects when one is used against the
other as a means of delaying construction. We are really
in the business to speed up things and do a better job.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Poston, is the ulti-
mate in the separation of storm sewer and sanitary sewer
going to be complete separation? I think the Federal
Government itself is still toying with this question,
and I believe I remember The Cost of Clean Waters that
was put out by the Department of the Interior indicated
that it would probably cost $55 billion to $60 billior
-------
223
R. Schnarr
dollars to separate these storm sewers in the major
cities. So I think these R and D projects certainly
have a useful purpose in pollution control, and if
there are methods available besides complete separation,
whether it is the use of detention basins or whether it
is controlled gating, and so on, I think all these
should be explored before we go on one particular
method of abatement, I guess you would call it.
MR. POSTON: I am not convinced that
every place that has combined sewers will utilize the
same procecures that they decide in the Minneapolis area
for separation of sewers. I think each one of these
may have particular situations that require a particular
type of a plan and I would like to see engineering
studies go ahead and interpret what the best way is.
MR. BADALICH: I think St. Paul has
probably been utilizing all three methods, as they
stated in the last paragraph of their testimony.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. SCHNARR: I would like to assure you
that this is not being used as the means to hold up any
construction, but I think we do need to be concerned
-------
22^
R. Schnarr
about what we are building and what it is going to do,
and I think if the best method is a combination of
regulation plus storage and treatment, then this is the
method that should be used, not purely storage or
treatment.
MR. STEIN: Yes. By the way, I think
this is an important point and certainly not directed
at the city, but looking at the city of St. Paul reso-
lution, two of the "whereases:"
"Whereas, subsequent to said conference
the city of St. Paul did not receive from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency until August 31, 19^7, a notice
of certain sewer system effluent standards"--this is on
the last page, and this is, again, really not directed
necessarily to the State either--"and a directive to
complete certain sewer system studies by March 17, 1969*"
In other words, one of the "whereases"
for the delay is an action that they didn't receive
certain effluent standards. And then they say:
"Whereas, conclusions of both the city
of St. Paul and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
with respect to the extent and character of necessary
-------
223
R. Schnarr
sewer system changes in St. Paul should properly await
the results of a federally-funded research and demon-
stration project now being conducted by the Minneapolis-
St. Paul Sanitary District."
I think we are faced with the situation
here, gentlemen, of having an action--and we are as
involved in those standards as you are, Mr. Badalich;
this is not directed at the State in any way. Where we
are dealing with the putting out of standards, where we
are dealing with the funding of a research and develop-
ment project by the State and Federal Government spon-
soring It and we have a deadline for compliance, we just
have to realize that the actions we take in other areas
may be bona fide reasons for a discharger to rely on in
not meeting those deadlines. And as a matter of fact,
both of those things, both the effluent standards and
the results of a research and demonstration project that
our agencies and other arms of the agencies have put
forth have been the basis of the resolution of the city
of St. Paul for the year's delay.
Now, I am not saying that that year's
delay is not justified, but I think we have to recognize
-------
226
R. Schnarr
in those other actions that we very well may be affect-
ing a schedule that we set up in an enforcement con-
ference. And you can't lay that at the door of the city
of St. Paul at all. This is the State and Federal
agencies.
MR. TUVESON: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. TUVESON: I direct your attention to
the last "whereas" which you quoted, "Whereas conclusions
of both the city of St. Paul and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency with respect to the extent and character
of necessary sewer system changes," etc. The
Agency itself has taken no action. If there is such
concurrence, it is the concurrence of the city of St.
Paul and the Pollution Control Agency staff. I don't
believe we have had it in front of us.
MR. STEIN: Yes. By the way, I think,
Mr. Tuveson, that you have presented the same problem
that we are faced with, and let me just add this right
here, because this is the problem. I don't know that
the conferees, the Federal conferees, had this before
them. But if—and I am speaking for the Federal
-------
227
R. Schnarr
Government—if our research and demonstration staff
gives a grant for an operation which is going to affect
this as well as your staff may do something, we as con-
ferees or you as an agent are faced in effect with a
fact accompli. The city comes forward with every
reasonable assurance to rely on this, to feel that this
has to be done before they can proceed in a reasonable
fashion, and I think from an administrative point of
view the Federal Government certainly has as big a
problem as any State does in this.
But from an administrative point of view,
I think we have to realize if we set up a compliance
schedule,and whether it is the Federal staff or the
State staff goes ahead with one of these other projects
with any discharger, this very well may affect the
compliance with that schedule. And this is something on
which we have to look to ourselves.
And I want to make it again clear, this
is not at all being directed to the city of St. Paul,
because I think you had every right to and should have
relied on what you did,here. There is no question about
that. But I think both the State and Federal agencies
-------
228
R. Schnarr
have to look at themselves in this regard.
Are there any further comments or ques-
tions?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. SCHNARR: Thank you.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you, Mr. Schnarr.
The next I have, Mr. Chairman, is a
letter, I believe, from the St. Paul Water Department
I would like to have entered into the record. This
is attached to my statement given this morning. This
was made by Mr. Clifford W. Hamblin, the General
Manager.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, this wil
be entered as if read.
(Which said letter is as follows:)
-------
WAIST! DEPARTMENT
BOARD or .'••A'n.'ft cG;/<;-.-;..:*iOKr.rs
IsaON.!'-!: ;-.GFr.::T F. SP«Al'KA,. Iv- ••'<:•
©
229
»OY ''/. HOIZES
-t. of Ditiribu'non
•..'. "' JWiSSEN
> . :•. .<.f V/aior Supply
S'J:'
MISSISSIPPI. WVER
iiil T7!^
«J O L. It i w' ».*
USES
July 16, 1969
fe/k^
>•••». y .*>•&
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
c/o: John P. Badalich, Executive
Secretary & Chief Executive Officer
717 Delaware Street, S. E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
We have received your 'Information Release1 dated
July 10, 19695 regarding the Progress Evaluation Meeting in
the natter of the Conference on Pollution of the Interstate
Waters of the Upper Mississippi River and Tributaries to be
convened on July 22, 1969.
We are unable to attend the Conference; consequently,
by this letter, ve wish to inform the conferees of the pro-
gress the City of Saint Paul Board of Water Commissioners is
making in vater treatment plant waste disposal facilities
since the tine of the preceding sessions of the Conference.
As you know, at the tine of the preceding sessions
the waste sludge from our softening process was being dis-
charged to lagoons that were becoming nearly filled to capacity;
and our filter backwash water was being discharged into the
Municipal Sewerage System conveying wastes to the Minneapolis-
Saint Paul Sanitary District waste treatment plant.
In January of this year, the Board awarded a con-
tract for the construction of a Lir.:e Hecalcining and Wash-
water Recovery Plant which will cost $2,2^9,1+65.00. The plr.r.v.
is now \inder construction and we estimate that it will be com-
pleted and in operation by August 1, 1970.
-------
230
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minneapolis, Minnesota
c/o: Joan P. Badalich, Executive
Secretary & Chief Executive Officer -2- July 16, 1969
With these new facilities all filter backwash water
will be recovered and returned to the water treatment plant for
processing into finished water. The waste sludge from our
softening process will be converted to usable lime in the re-
calcining plant. The lime, so obtained, will be used in the
water treatment plant and any excess will be a marketable pro-
duct which can be cold.
Heedless to say, we are pleased to be able to report
the above progress. Let us know if any additional information
is desired.
Yours very truly,
- / /
Clif/ord W. 'Hamblin
Gerie'ral Manager
EAH/saa
-------
231
D. R. Peterson
MR. BADALIGH: Mr. Chairman, next I
would like to call upon the representative of the city
of South St. Paul. I believe Mr. Don Peterson, City
Engineer, will make a statement.
STATEMENT OF DONALD R. PETERSON,P.E.
CITY ENGINEER
SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
MR. PETERSON: Thank you, Mr. Badalich.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Poston and members of
the Minnesota-Wisconsin Pollution Control Agency and
ladies and gentlemen.
I wish to make a brief statement review-
ing what progress has been made by the city of South St.
Paul in taking the necessary steps to attempt to comply
with orders which have been issued for abatement of
pollution of the Mississippi River. Before I get into
my prepared statement, I would Just like to clarify
some questions that were brought up this morning by Mr.
Dale Bryson concerning the bypassing of sewage at South
St. Paul.
-------
232
D. R. Peterson
We are presently in the process of
expanding our sewage treatment plant. We are in a
three-phase program of improvement. We are right now
about ninety percent complete with the first phase.
And in putting this first phase into operation, we are
going to be removing six of the large sewage pumps in
the primary pumping station and replacing these with
larger capacity pumps. We have three wet wells and we
will be taking one of these wet wells out of service at
a certain period of time. In fact, that is this week.
This means that we will be losing some
pumping capacity only during the time that we are
replacing pumps, and we anticipate that this will be for
a period of about five days. So the bypassing of sewage
is that all of our sewage is getting primary treatment
and secondary treatment and pond clarification except
the extreme peak flows at a rate of over 15 million
gallons per day, which is being bypassed directly to the
river for a period of five days while the new pumps are
being completed. We expect that these connections
should be made this week and that is the extent of the
bypassing.
-------
, 233
D. R. Peterson
I would like to again point out that
anything under 15 million gallons per day is
getting treatment and is also going through our anaerobic
stabilization pond. So whatever bypassing is necessary
to make these connections is kept at a very bare mini-
mum by using the other pumps that are in use.
The final order which was issued by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on December 31* 1968,
orders the city of South St. Paul to conform to WPG 18
and that effluent from the municipal sewage treatment
plant must not exceed the following limiting character-
istics .
5-day BOD 35 mg/liter
total suspended solids 30 mg/liter
total coliform 5,000 MPN/ml
The order also stated that plans for con-
struction of facilities to meet these requirements were
to be submitted to the MPCA by June 17, 1969, that bids
are to be let and awards made by December 17, 1969, and
construction to be completed or facilities must be
operational by June 17, 1971-
On November 19, 1968, I wrote a letter to
-------
234
D. R. Peterson
Mr. Badalich concerning our ability to meet the orders
that were proposed.
On April 17, 1969, I made a prepared
statement on behalf of the city at a public hearing
held by the MPCA asking that a variance from the stan-
dards and times be granted. The request for variance
made by the city of South St. Paul asks for the follow-
ing standards and timing:
Standards
5-day biochemical oxygen demand 50 mg/liter
total suspended solids 50 mg/liter
total caliform group organisms 5,000 most probable
number per 100 milli-
liters
Timing
1. Completion of testing on
demonstration facilities to the extent
that phase two expansion can be planned
by December 31, 1969-
2. Completion of plans for
phase two by September 1970.
3- Awarding of construction
contracts by January 1971.
-------
235
D. R. Peterson
4. Completion of phase two
expansion to comply with MPCA standards
by July 1, 1972.
Mr. Badalich mentioned this morning the
request for extension on the completion of the phase
two expansion was granted to July 1, 1972, from the
original standard, which I believe was June 17, 1971.
We haven't heard anything on the reduction of the stan-
dards and are assuming that we will proceed on our
phase two expansion to meet thirty-five milligrams per
liter.
I will quickly summarize progress to date
in improving our sewage plant expansion. Our original
report, which was prepared in 19&5, recommended improve-
ments in three phases: Phase one was the construction
of hydraulic improvements, new trickling filter dis-
tributors, chlorination facilities, new grit chambers,
new hot industrial sewage line, a new industrial pumping
station, new sludge transporter, and experimental
facilities to demonstrate the feasibility of an experi-
mental chemical treatment process; Phase two will con-
sist of further improvements to meet the effluent
-------
236
D. R. Peterson
standards dependent on the success of the chemical
process; Phase three will consist of sludge handling
and disposal facilities.
Plans were completed for the construction
of phase one in September 196? and contracts were let in
January of 1968 for this first $3 million
project.
At the present time we have completed
89.6 percent of the phase one. The pumping equipment
is being installed at the present time and grit chambers
(pre-primary) will be completed by September 155 1969-
It is contemplated that substantial completion so that
all systems are operational will be completed by
October 1, 1969$ and final phase one completion by
November 1, 1969. This is, I might add, a period of
about four months over our original projections, and
the contractor is proceeding at the quickest possible
rate and we have commitments that these time schedules
will be made.
At this time the feasibility of the
Blaisdell-Klaus chemical flocculation process appears
doubtful but we have experienced some success.
-------
237
D. R. Peterson
I might clarify this, that we have
experienced some success using certain chemicals, but
the financial feasibility of using these chemicals at
this time has not been determined. It is likely that
this process will not be used but we are not certain
at this time. We should have an answer late this year
on that.
Our request for variance on the timing
of our second and third phase expansion appeared
realistic at the time we requested that variance, but I
would like to state that certain developments have
occurred which definitely affect the future improvements
of our plant.
The first thing is the adoption of the
Metropolitan sewer bill. Our proposed timing is realistic
but as stated in our request for variance, it would be
more economical to provide additional treatment at Pig's
Eye to relieve pollution of this stretch of the river
than to increase treatment at South St. Paul which is
presently over ninety percent removal. Removals to
reach an effluent of thirty-five mg/liter at South St.
Paul will require over ninety-eight percent treatment,
-------
D. R. Peterson
whereas this would have the same effect as increasing
Pig's Eye treatment only 0.42 percent. Now, with the
advent of the metropolitan sewer bill, this appears to
have some validity.
In regard to this, we are still assuming
that we will meet these standards, but I believe that
the Metropolitan Council is further evaluating this and
there is a possibility that there might be a determina-
tion made or a request made that some of the increased
treatment be transferred in location.
A second event which affects us is the
unfortunate announcement that Swift and Company will
terminate business in South St. Paul on November 29*
1969. We are still not certain if certain facilities
will remain, but it is quite likely that the entire
Swift operation will close. If this occurs, it will
result in a decrease of approximately four MGD of strong
industrial sewage which will affect the plant operation
drastically. With the removal of this large sewage load,
it is possible that with longer detention times possible
due to phase one expansion and that by providing storage
and recirculation and chlorination that we can meet the
-------
239
D. R. Peterson
standards proposed with only the phase one improvements.
In any event, it appears absolutely necessary to evaluate
the flows and strengths remaining after November 29,
1969, and to completely redesign the plant to take into
account these new conditions.
It appears necessary that we should have
a complete summer and winter season of operation of our
new facilities to evaluate their effectiveness before
any further plant expansion is designed.
I hope that this statement furnishes you
with the necessary information needed. Our request for
timing changes are certainly not stalling tactics, but in
our opinion are absolutely necessary to properly plan
and to expend public money, whether it be local, metro-
politan, State or Federal money.
I wish also to state at this time that a
draft copy of our report on the separation of combined
storm and sanitary sewers has been submitted to the MPCA
for review and comment. The final report should be com-
pleted soon and will be submitted when complete.
And at this point I would like to add
that we have hired a consulting firm to investigate the
-------
240
D. R. Peterson
elimination of our combined sewage problem. We have
attacked this in three methods. One would be the com-
plete separation of all storm and sanitary combined
sewers, the second would be the detention in storage
basins of the overflow of the combined sewage and then
chlorination and direct discharge to the river, and the
third alternative would be the impoundment of the com-
bined sewage in either underground or on-surface
storage ponds with discharge in off-peak hours to the
sewage treatment plant before discharge to the river.
It appears at this time that the separation might be
the most feasible answer, though we do have some further
investigation and we will report this in detail within
a month to the Pollution Control Agency.
The city of South St. Paul is doing all
within its capabilities to improve the quality of the
Mississippi and will continue to cooperate with the MPCA
and PWPCA in this effort.
I want to thank you for the opportunity
of presenting this report. Respectfully submitted on
behalf of the city of South St. Paul by Donald Peterson,
City Engineer.
-------
241
D. R. Peterson
MR. STEIN: Do we have any comments or
questions?
Let's see if I understand this. After
all, this is after the dust settles.
What you are doing really is asking for
an extension from June of 1971 to July of 1972, is that
a fair statement?
MR. PETERSON: That is correct. Yes,
that is correct.
MR. STEIN: All right. In other words,
what this all boils down to is that you anticipate it is
going to take you another year to do it?
MR. PETERSON: That is correct.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Any other comments or questions?
MR. PETERSON: I would like to make one
comment in regard to this, Mr. Chairman. With the
closing of the Swift and Company plant, we will be going
into a complete re-analysis of the system and it appears
that we are going to have to have some time to evaluate
whether we will meet these standards without further
expansion or whether we will not.
I am stating at this time that it appears
-------
242
D. R. Peterson
that we would need close to a year of evaluation to know
whether we will be meeting these standards with the
Swift closing or not. I am not asking for a further
extension beyond the date which has been granted by the
Pollution Control Agency at this time, but I am inform-
ing you of the new situation that has developed and that
we will be in very close contact with you on this. We
may be coming back for a further extension when we
evaluate the effect of this closing.
MR. STEIN: Let me again get off the
record here.
(Off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Let's go back on the record.
Are there any other comments or questions?
Go ahead.
MR. POSTON: I would like to get back to
this matter of bypassing. It is my understanding that
South St. Paul is going to bypass when the flow is in
excess of 15 million gallons a day, is that right?
MR. PETERSON: That is right.
MR. POSTON: Then my question is what
amount of time during this 5 - day period will the flow
-------
243
D. R. Peterson
"be over 15 million gallons?
MR. PETERSON: I believe I would have
to refer that to our sewage treatment plant superin-
tendent, who is in the audience. But yesterday was
the date that we were to start bypassing for a period
of five days. Yesterday we did no bypassing. Now,
what is happening today, if our flows are exceeding
the capacity of the pumps, I cannot say.
But maybe Mr. Larson could give us an
estimate of the amount of time that this would happen.
We are, I believe, expecting about 1-1/2 million
gallons would be bypassed.
Is that correct, Mr. Larson?
MR. LARSON: May I speak from the floor?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. LARSON: We will be bypassing at
about a 2-1/2 to 3 million and maybe up to 5 million
rate, but not flow. The rate will only occur for a
period of 6 to 8 hours, so that the total bypass
will amount to 1-1/2 to 2 million gallons and possibly
we can hold it below that.
This situation was created because one
-------
244
D. R. Peterson
part of the plant had to be put out altogether and we
can't put all of the sewage into the anaerobic stabili-
zation pond with the facilities we have available.
MR. PETERSON: I might add that in an
expansion of an existing plant if you are replacing
pumps that are inadequate capacity, I know of no possible
method of replacing these inadequate pumps with the
proper size pumps without taking the old ones out of
service. I very definitely state that the bypassing
will be held at a very bare minimum.
MR. LARSON: Mr. Poston, this I realize
we don't like, but many plants are able to avoid a
situation like this because they have gravity flow.
We have to lift our sewage three times, so that we
haven't gravity flow.
MR. POSTON: I think that my concern with
this is that our sewerage system is a utility, and it is
the only utility that permits this interruption of
service. The telephone company or the water company
or the light company, they provide you temporary service,
and in this case we are not getting that continuous
service. I think that we are going to have to come to
-------
245
D. R. Peterson
the time when we provide this continuous service.
MR. LARSON: Sir, I don't want to tie
argumentative, but I would like to point out that in
spite of the fact that we are admittedly bypassing now,
during the spring flood when other sewage treatment
plants in the area were bypassing we gave ours primary
treatment.
MR. STEIN: Oh, boy. I don't know whether
you extricated yourself or you damned everyone else in
the community. (Laughter.)
Any other comment or question?
MR. POSTON: The other question I have
is what are you doing relative to disinfection of your
effluent?
MR. PETERSON: We are installing chlori-
nation facilities at the present time. This is part of
our first phase expansion. These facilities are being
installed at the present time.
We are running our effluent through a
clarification, an anaerobic stabilization pond, which
we extracted under 70 percent BOD removal, and
under the first phase expansion which will be complete
-------
246
D. R. Peterson
"by November 1st we will have complete chlorination
facilities to meet the requirements that were stipu-
lated under the orders that we received.
MR. POSTON: The date for making that
operational was what?
MR. PETERSON: This will be this year,
November 1969. Everything will be completely operational
by that time.
MR. STEIN: The Minnesota agency has
taken no action on this request for an extension, have
they?
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: We have granted the
extension to 1971 to meet the deadline of having the
plant in operation to meet the 35 milligrams
per liter effluent, but there is a very good possibility
that after the first phase construction is completed
that the city of South St. Paul may be able to meet
the requirements of the Federal-State enforcement
conference. This will remain to be seen after the
successful operation of these facilities and also the
-------
D. R. Peterson
progress on the R and D grant.
MR. STEIN: Any further comments or
questions?
Thank you very much.
MR. PETERSON: Thank you.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to next call upon Mr.Maurice Robins, the Chief
Engineer and Superintendent of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
Sanitary District.
Mr. Robins.
STATEMENT OF MAURICE L. ROBINS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - CHIEF ENGINEER
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL SANITARY DISTRICT
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, conferees of
the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin, also the Federal
conferee, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Maurice L. Robins, Executive Directoi
Chief Engineer of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary
District. On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the
-------
248
M. L. Robins
Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District I want to thank
you for this opportunity to appear here and give this
statement which demonstrates our progress on the stipu-
lations of this conference.
During the past fourteen-month period
since the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
conference of April 30, 1968, the Minneapolis-St. Paul
Sanitary District has made significant progress in the
fulfillment of the recommendations of the Conference
Summary dated June 17, 1967. Previously adopted programs
of plant expansion have been continued; new plans to
accomplish higher treatment efficiency and greater
capacity have been initiated and are now in the process
of development.
The $27 million dollar plant expansion
program which the Sanitary District commenced in 1962 is
essentially completed and in operation. Using the high
rate activated sludge process, the expanded plant
accomplishes seventy-five percent BOD removal and
eighty-five percent suspended solids removal.
The Sanitary District's sewage treatment
plant now ranks among the ten largest plants in the
-------
M. L. Robins
country in terms of its capacity. Fifty suburban
communities and four agencies are presently participants
in sewage contracts with the central cities. With a
tributary population of 1,366,600 persons, the Sanitary
District treatment plant presently serves approximately
fifty percent of the sewered population of the entire
State of Minnesota. Present sewage flows average in
excess of two hundred million gallons per day.
Recent accomplishments of the Sanitary
District in its continuing program of water pollution
control include the following items:
1. Submittal to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, in conformance
with the Agency's and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration's schedule,
of an engineering report and preliminary
plans for a further expansion of the Sani-
tary District sewage treatment plant.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to
have you enter officially into these proceedings the copy
of that expansion report.
MR. STEIN: This will be done, without
-------
250
M. L. Robins
objection. Is this the expansion report?
MR. ROBINS: That is the expansion report
MR. STEIN: This will be an exhibit avail-
able at our offices in Washington and in Chicago and
will not be included in the record.
MR. ROBINS: All right, sir.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. ROBINS: Thank you.
(The expansion report referred to is
marked Exhibit 1 and is on file at the FWPCA Head-
quarters in Washington, D. C., with a copy on file
at the FWPCA Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois.)
MR. ROBINS: 2. Adoption of a
budget by the Board of Trustees of the
Sanitary District which incorporates the
funds necessary for planning and construc-
tion of the initial projects of a five-phase
program of treatment plant expansion with
a total estimated cost of $35 million.
3. Approval by the Metropolitan
Council of the preliminary plans for plant
expansion as presented in the "Report on the
-------
251
M. L. Robins
Expansion of the Sewage Treatment Plant"
of April 1969.
I wish to mention that the appendix of
this report does contain a copy of that approval letter.
4. Continuation of operation
of the $27 million project of secondary
treatment facilities and sludge disposal
facilities .
5. Completion of construction and
the commencement of test operation of the
sewage regulator demonstration project.
6. Essential completion of con-
struction of chlorination facilities, one
of the components of the enlarged treatment
works.
REPORT ON PLANT EXPANSION
In compliance with the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration recommendations and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ORDER of June 11,
1968, the Sanitary District has adopted the engineering
report and preliminary plans for a further expansion of
the sewage treatment plant to accomplish higher degrees
-------
232
M. L. Robins
of treatment and provide additional plant capacity.
This document was submitted to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency on April 29, 1969, in precise accord with
the Agency's schedule and that established at the most
recent conference of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration.
The report recommends expansion of the
sewage treatment plant using the Step Aeration Activated
Sludge Process. The design is based upon the following
items:
Design Period - Year 1980 to 1985
(dependent upon service area expansion, which the
Metropolitan Council, of course, has the control of
at the present time.)
Design Flow - Annual average - million
gallons per day - 260.
Sewered Population 1,707,000 person
Industrial Population
Equivalent 1,299,000 person
Total Population
Equivalent 3,006,000 person
R aw Sew a g e Concentratio n s
BOD-in milligrams per liter 250
Suspended Solids-in milligrams per liter 315
-------
253
M. L. Robins
Plant Effluent Concentration
BOD-in milligrams per liter 29
Suspended Solids-milligrams per liter 30
Plant Effluent Load
BOD-in pounds per day 63,700
Suspended Solids-in pounds per day 68,000
Coliform Organisms-most probable
count per hundred milliliters 5,000
Degree of Treatment
BOD Removal-net-in percent 88.2
BOD Removal overall-in percent,
(which includes the return liquors
recirculated through the plant) 89.9
Suspended Solids Removal-net-in
percent 90.5
Suspended Solids Removal-overall-
in percent 91-6
Coliform organism reduction-in
percent 99-97
The proposed plant expansion has been
divided into thirteen projects to facilitate the planning
and construction of the overall program. Each project
will be planned, bid, awarded, and constructed separately
although many of the projects will be under way concur-
rently. The proposed projects are as follows:
-------
, 254
M. L. Robins
Project 1 - Additional Aeration Tanks -
West Battery.
Project 2 - Sludge Incineration Equipment.
Project 3 - Aeration Tanks, Pipe Gallery,
Final Sedimentation Tanks - East Battery.
Project 4 - Aeration Compressor Equipment.
Project 5 ~ Enlargement of Screen and Grit
Facilities.
Project 6 - Modification of the present
Primary Sedimentation Tanks.
Project 7 - Addition to Administration
Building.
Project 8 - Addition to Sludge Filtration
and Incineration Building.
Project 9 - Sludge Thickening Tanks.
Project 10 - Ash Disposal Basins.
Project 11 - Plant Maintenance Shop and
Warehouse.
Project 12 - Plant Flood Protection Works.
Project 13 - Air Pollution Control Equip-
ment .
Figure No. 2-7 which is attached shows
-------
, 255
M. L. Robins
the proposed arrangement of the major treatment units of
the recommended plant expansion with a designation of
each of the thirteen projects. This plant layout is one
designed to readily accommodate further future expansion
of the treatment plant beyond the immediate program.
The secondary complex arrangement may be adapted to
approximately 420 million gallons per day, nearly double
the present day flow.
In total, this Five Phase Program is
estimated to cost $35 million, including a minimal
contingency for inflation. The estimated construction
costs include all the structures, equipment, conduits,
and site work necessary for a complete plant that will
satisfactorily operate using the step aeration activated
sludge process. Estimated project costs of the plant
expansion are further given in the table herewith
attached.
A time schedule of planning and construc-
tion has been developed which accomplishes the incrementajl
construction of the treatment plant improvements essen-
tially over a four-year period. The schedule places
immediate priority to those projects involving secondary
-------
256
M. L. Robins
treatment works which directly affect plant effluent
quality. It is believed that the program of planning
and construction will satisfy the general intent of the
wording of the ORDER which directs the Sanitary District
to comply with the requirements of WPG l8 on or before
June 17, 1971.
Figure No. 2-9 and Table No. 2-3 show the
recommended schedule for the treatment plant improvements
The proposed schedule is based upon a
series of individual projects which are phased over a
reasonable period of time to facilitate planning, pro-
vide contracts which can be handled by competent con-
tractors, minimize interference with the operation of
the existing primary and secondary plants, extend capi-
tal expenditures over a period of time and meet the
Pollution Control Agency water pollution objectives.
With the recommended schedule, the existing
sewage treatment plant would remain in continuous opera-
tion throughout the construction period with the possible
exception of short duration curtailments to effect pipe
connections or similar procedures. Also, the thirteen
Projects which comprise the five phases of the program
-------
237
M. L. Robins
can be utilized to provide an increased degree of
treatment as each is completed. Essentially, this
means that the step aeration process,, meeting the
nominal ninety percent treatment requirements, will be
operable in June 1971 as required by the original con-
ference stipulations. Supplementary facilities for
secondary treatment as provided in Phase 2 would main-
tain this level of treatment as the plant flow and load
increased beyond the limited capabilities of the Phase
I projects.
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR
PLANT OPERATION AND EXPANSION
On June 23, 1969, the Board of Trustees
of the Sanitary District formally adopted a budget for
the year 1970 which includes funds for the implementa-
tion of the sewage treatment plant expansion program.
In addition, the budget provides for the continuation
of full operation of the present plant throughout the
year 1970. Essentially, these budgeted amounts are as
follows:
Operation and maintenance of the sewage
treatment plant, sewer regulators, and intercepting
-------
238
M. L. Robins
sewers - $5,337,363-
Planning and construction of initial
projects of a five phase program of treatment plant
expansion with an estimated cost of $35 million -
$7,840,000.
Total budget for year 1970 - $13,177,363-
That part of the budget designated for
planning and construction of additions is based upon a
schedule as presented in the "Report on the Expansion
of the Sewage Treatment Plant" of April 1969, which I
referred to, Mr. Chairman, and you will have in your
office. In this report a program is proposed which
accomplishes the incremental construction of the treat-
ment plant improvements over a four-year period.
Funds are included for the commencement
of construction and partial completion of the following
projects:
Project No. 1 - Additional Aeration Tanks-
West Battery.
Project No. 2 - Sludge Incineration Equip-
ment .
Project No. 3 - Aeration Tanks-Pipe Galler
-------
239
M. L. Robins
Final Sedimentation Tanks - East Battery.
Project No. 4 - Aeration Compressor
Equipment.
Project No. 7 - Addition to Administra-
tion Building.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF EXPANSION PLAN
In accord with the review procedure for
the projects of agencies in the metropolitan area, the
Metropolitan Council reviewed the Sanitary District's
proposed preliminary plan for expansion of the sewage
treatment plant.
Approval of the Metro Council Referral
Committee was received on July 3> 19^9 • On July 1°>
1969, the plan was formally approved by the entire
Metropolitan Council.
A copy of the approved letter is herewith
attached,
OPERATION OF TREATMENT^PLANT
The existing Sanitary District sewage
treatment plant has been constructed in two stages.
The original "primary treatment" plant was placed in
-------
260
M. L. Robins
operation in 1938. In 1963, construction was started on
the "secondary treatment" addition and this phase was
subsequently placed in operation during 1966, With the
completion of the new secondary treatment facilities, a
portion of the sewage flow began to receive secondary
treatment in addition to the primary treatment. Because
of the limitation of the capacity of the sludge disposal
works., the flow through the secondary plant was tempo-
rarily restricted to a rate commensurate with sludge
filtration and incineration capacity.
When the sludge disposal expansion was
completed and placed in operation in the spring of 1968,
the percentage of sewage subjected to primary and
secondary treatment was increased.
During the period of test operations of
the sludge incinerators in October 1968, difficulties
were experienced with the performance of these units.
As a result, it was necessary for the Sanitary District
to curtail secondary treatment and revert largely to a
primary process with supplemental secondary sedimenta-
tion .
Upon the completion of modifications to
-------
_ 261
M. L. Robins
two of the sludge incinerators in June 1969, secondary
treatment operation was reactivated. An acceptance test
was conducted on one incinerator last week and the seconc
is scheduled for the near future.
The Sanitary District is confident that tl°
full operation of the secondary treatment and sludge dis-
posal works will continu-e in the future.
The Sanitary District has undertaken, and
is currently operating, a $1.75 million project aimed at
controlling the loss of polluted overflow from combined
sewers during rainstorms and snowmelt conditions. The
program, which is acknowledged to be the first of its
kind in the Nation, has drawn much attention in the pol-
lution control field and is financed in part with a
Demonstration Grant awarded by the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration under the provisions of the
Water Quality Act of 1965.
The project consists of forty-three
remotely-controlled regulator gates and inflatable
dams, forty-two sewer level monitors, five river quality
monitors and eight rain gauges located throughout the
-------
262
M. L. Robins
Twin Cities, with all components interconnected by
telemetry to a process control computer. A mathematical
model of the interceptor sewer system will be utilized to
guide operational functions. During a period of excessiv
urban runoff, the complete system functions to reduce the
discharge of combined sewage to the river until all of
the conveyance and storage capacity of the combined
sewer system has been utilized, and then determines
which excess flow should be discharged to the river for
minimal pollutional effect. Flow of combined sewage to
the District's treatment plant has increased appreciably.
Operation of the system to date has shown
that a substantial reduction in combined sewer overflows
has been accomplished. Although the project, because of
its unique nature, has encountered some difficulties
with installed hardware and is still in a stage of
mathematical model refinement, preliminary indications
are that the system is an effective means of controlling
sewer flows and overflows to produce results which
approach those of substantial separation of storm and
sanitary sewage, at a fraction of the cost of such
separation. On-line operation of the system is
-------
263
M. L. Robins
continuing, with qualitative results of the program to
be reported upon within the next two years.
A first stage preliminary report has been
completed and is presently in the process of review by
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration pro-
ject headquarters in Washington, D. C.
COMPLETION OF _CHLORIMTION_FACILITIES-
To comply with the Federal Water Pollutior
Control Administration recommendations and the Minnesota
Pollutibn Control Agency ORDER with regard to disinfec-
tion of the plant effluent, the Sanitary District
instituted the planning and construction of chlorination
facilities .
The chlorination system consists
basically of facilities for storing and handling liquid
chlorine, equipment for vaporizing the chlorine, chlorin
gas feeders, and diffusers at points of chlorine solu-
tion injection into the sewage flow. Chlorine solution
may be applied at four locations—to the primary effluen
to the secondary effluent, to the spray water, and to
the sludge at the thickening tanks.
For secondary effluent, the chlorination
-------
264
M. L. Robins
system incorporates an automated control system which
permits economical operation of the chlorinators to
suit the variable disinfection requirements. The control
system is responsive to the chlorine residual level and
rate of flow of the plant effluent.
The chlorination facilities represent an
investment by the Sanitary District of approximately
$900,000. At the present time, this project is
essentially completed and is now in test operation.
SUMMAJRY
In summary, the Sanitary District has met
the first deadline of the Schedule of Remedial Program
of the Federal ¥ater Pollution Control Administration.
An engineering report and preliminary plans have been
submitted as required.. The report recommends a further
expansion of the Sanitary District treatment plant to
accomplish a higher degree of treatment and provide
additional plant capacity. Total estimated cost is $35
million.
The Sanitary District Board of Trustees
has adopted a budget which incorporates the funds neces-
sary for planning and construction of the initial project
-------
265
M. L. Robins
of a Five Phase Program of plant expansion. Final plans
and specifications for the early projects are under way.
Approval of the preliminary expansion plans has been
granted by the Metropolitan Council.
Operation is continuing of the recent
plant enlargement consisting of secondary treatment
facilities and sludge disposal facilities.
Test operation is in progress of the
sewage regulator demonstration project which provides
an effective and economical means of controlling sewer
overflows from combined sewer systems.
In response to the FWPCA Recommendations
and State ORDER, the Sanitary District has constructed
a new system of chlorination facilities which will
provide disinfection of the sewage effluent. This
$900,000 project is essentially completed and, as I
mentioned, in test operation at the present time.
(The following documents were submitted
by Mr. Robins:)
-------
266
'•if- CULM IK
'•if~~ —*"" T|
It , , ...,...,
L. A _!_* _!,-.> J. * «.J_i_i -w J_ I JL.J—L J J I
c.Tj:r;r ^3 cr trrr n r~ _ r^^^» r~rrr^7C^=r^ - ^,
EXISTING TREATff!ENT PLANT LAYOUT
SHOWING PROPOSED EXPANSION
TOITI. IIHfi. tUUU. IIBEKOH. 110 1HOCUTEI. IMCOMOIITED
-------
TABLE NO. 2-1
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
267
i
:' v~
\f*
k 1
•'!£:
H
li~
-:u_,
=
f
1
••jeo
:1~
00
*«ffl
1=
'• •aa-
U_I
CO
•' as
''ex-
; ua
00
•=:
. u«5
PROJECT TITLE
PROJECT 1. ADDITIONAL AERATION TANKS - WEST BATTERY
PROJECT 2. SLUDGE INCINERATION EQUIPMENT
PROJECT 3. AERATION TANKS - PIPE GALLERY - FINAL SEDIMENTATION TANKS - EAST BATTERY
PROJECT 4. AERATION COMPRESSOR EQUIPMENT
PROJECT 5. ENLARGEMENT OF SCREEN AND GRIT FACILITIES
PROJECT 6. MODIFICATION OF PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANKS
PROJECT 7. ADDITION TO ADMINISTRATION BLDfi.
PROJECT 8. ADDITION TO SLUDGE FILTRATION AND INCINERATION BIDS.
PROJECT 9. SLUDGE THICKENING TANKS
PROJECT 10. ASH DISPOSAL BASINS
PROJECT 11. PLANT MAINTENANCE SHOP AND WAREHOUSE
PROJECT 12. PLANT FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS
PROJECT 13. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM FOR F. & 1. BLDfi. NO. 1
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
mi ••mn i i ._
PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS OF PROJECT
ADO FOUR NEW AERATION TANKS, A NEW INFLUENT CHANNEL, AND
MODIFY THE EXISTING PIPE AND EQUIPMENT GALLERY.
ADD ONE NEW SLUDGE INCINERATOR IN THE SPACE PROVIDED IN
EXISTING Fl.TRATION AND INCINERATION BUILDING NO. 2.
ADD TWO NEW AERATION TANKS, THREE NEW FINAL SEDIMENTATION
TANKS, A PIPE AND EQUIPMENT GALLERY, INLET AND EFFLUENT
CHANNELS ANt CONNECTING TUNNELS.
ADD TWO NEW AFRATION COMPRESSORS IN THE SPACE PROVIDED IN
EXISTING COD PRESS OR BUILDING.
ADD FOUR NEW (RIT CHAMBERS, ADDITIONAL BAR SCREENS,
CONNECTING CHANNELS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING
SCREEN AND CRIT BUILDING.
ADD TWO NEW PIIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANKS - ONE ON EACH SIDE
OF THE EXISTING TANKS.
ADD NEW OFFICE SPACE AND RECEPTION AREA TO EXISTING
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
ADD EIGHT NEW VACUUM FILTERS, TWO NEW SLUDGE INCINERATORS,
IN AN EXPANSION OF EXISTING FILTRATION AND
INCINERATION BUILDING NO. 2.
ADD SIX NEW SLUDGE THICKENING TANKS, SLUDGE HOLDING TANKS,
PIPE AND EQUIPMENT GALLERY AND CONNECTING TUNNELS.
ADD NEW EARTH WALLED ASH DEWATERING AND DISPOSAL CELLS.
ADD A NEW BUILDING TO CONTAIN A PLANT MAINTENANCE SHOP AND
STORAGE AREA.
ADD A CONCRETE FLOOD WALL, OTHER PERMANENT DIKING AND
MODIFY OUTFALL CLOSURES.
ADD NEW AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND MODIFY
EXISTING FILTRATION AND INCINERATION BUILDING NO. 1.
ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION
COST
$5.422,000
1,021,000
$6,168,000
634,000
$1,400,000
1,150,000
120,000
$6,265,000
2,640,000
250,000
$ 700,000
2,641,000
1,530,000
ESTIMATED
TECHNICAL
SERVICE AND
CONTINGENCIES
$ 542,000
102,000
$ 617,000
63,000
$ 140,000
115,000
12,000
$ 626,000
264,000
25,000
$ 70,000
264,000
153,000
1
TOTAL
ESTIMATED \
PROJECT COST j
$5,964,000
1,123,000 I
$6,785,000 ;
697,000 i
$1,540,000 ;
1,265,000 \
132,000
$6,891,000
2,904,000
275,000
$ 770,000 \
2,905,000
1,683,000
$32,934,000
BASED ON ENR .1300
-------
268
MMM
_
U-l
a_
C^4
U-l
OO
**"
J
UkJ
ME
°-
1
L
1^
r
Ibfcj
4s
f
1
_ _ ™™, i
• '•^%%%%%%^
PWIIFPT 1 inniTinHJL iERATlON TANKS - WEST BATTERY L ''/''/M£Z%££%i
PROJECT! SLUDGE HEBATION EQUIPMENT Mifl
PROJECT 3 AERATION TANKS - PIPE GALLERY - FINAL SEDIMENTATION TAHKS - EAST BATTERY
fWMp^W
PROJECT 4 AERATION COMPRESSOR E3UIPMENT \j
SCHEDULE PER ORDER :
j i
^ ;
: '.
I | ,
i ''
..
MM
i I i j
Mli
, | i j
70
??/*?/
n
'^
%•
•<$.
i
i •
i *
'i
it
;
f1- i
n
%
i
\
i
^
i
^
\
1
i
i
i
11
!
1
•
•
^X^1
i!
;i
,
'%.
i
n.
i
i
i
i
:
i • I
'm
: , '
: ; i.
IM
wm>.
w?
!
i
1
i
1
|
i
1
%
1
I !
1 ;
1972
• i ;
I=C±
, .
• i i • :
' i !
! j !
\ 1 i
! 1 !
! i !
! ! '
1 ! M -:
, | : r !
]
!
!
i
•••
BMBMM
.
| .
1 | .
; \
\
\ \ \
\
', j
RAMMM
197
; i
i i
1
:
;
i
: ! i
i • i
1 I I
j
i
i
i i
! |
1 i
BOH
3
i
i
i
i
i
j
i
j
I •
Hi
;
.
'
|
i
i
i
•
i
1 j
i
1
i
i
1
i
!
i
i
|
i
I
!
i
|
1
1
|
i
19
i
!
1
i
:
i
I
!
;
I
;
|
i
j
r
h
t i
i .i
i i
i i
j i
7
i
i
i
i
4
;
!
ii
1
1
t
i
i
1
1
I;
!
II
1 !
]
)
! 1
;
PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEOULE
FOR PfiOPOS£0 EXPANSION
FlfiWt m. «-9
-------
269
«*»
PROJECT TITLE
PROJECT 1. ADDITIONAL AERATION TANKS - WEST BATTERY
PROJECT I SLUDGE INCINERATION EQUIPMENT
PROJECT 3. AERATION TANKS - PIPE GALLERY - FINAL SEDIMENTATION TANKS - EAST BATTERY
PROJECT 4. AERATION COMPRESSOR EQUIPMENT
PROJECTS. ENLARGEMENT OF
ARD GRIT FACILITIES
PROJECT 6. MODIFICATION OF PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANKS
PROJECT 7. ADDITION TO ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
PROJECT 8. ADDITION TO SLUDGE FILTRATION AND IHCIfJERATIOH BLDG.
PROJECTS. SLUDGE THICKENING TANKS
PROJECT 10. ASH DISPOSAL BASINS
PROJECT 11. PLANT MAINTENANCE SHOP AKD WAREHOUSE
PROJECT 12. PLANT FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS
PROJECT 13. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM FOR F. & I. BLDG. NO. 1
TABLE NO. 2-3
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
ESTIMATE
PROJECT COST
$5,964,000
1,123,000
$6,785,000
697,000
$1,540,000
1,265,000
132,000
$6,891,000
2,904,000
275,000
$ 770,000
2,905,000
1,683,000
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
PHASE COST
$7,087,000
$7,482,000
$2,937,000
$10,070,000
$5,358,000
$32,934,000
BEGIN FINAL
PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS
APRIL 1969
APRIL 1969
JUNE 1969
APRIL 1969
JUNE 1970
JULY 1971
MAY 1970
MAR. 1970
FEB. 1971
JAN. 1972
JULY 1971
MAR. 1971
MAY 1971
COMPLETE FINAL
PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS
DEC. 1969
OCT. 1969
JUNE 1970
DEC. 1969
JAN. 1971
DEC. 1971
AUG. 1970
FEB. 1971
JULY 1971
MAR. 1972
DEC. 1971
DEC. 1971
DEC. 1971
COMMENCE
CONSTRUCTION
MAR. 1970
JAN. 1970
SEPT 1970
MAR. 1970
APR. 1971
MAR. 1972
NOV. 1970
MAY 1971
OCT. 1971
JUNE 1972
MAR. 1972
MAR. 1972
MAR. 1972
COMPLETE
CONSTRUCTION
JUNE 1971
JUNE 1971
SEPT. 1972
SEPT. 1972
OCT. 1972
DEC. 1972
JUNE 1971
APR. 1973
APR. 1973
OCT. 1972
DEC. 1972
FEB. 1973
JULY 1973
-------
ff \
Capitol Square Building, Cedar Street at 10th Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 227-9421
July 14, 1969
Mr. Maurice L. Robins, P.E.
Executive Director - Chief Engineer
Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District
2400 Childs Road
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106
RE: Plans for Expansion of Sewage Treatment Plant
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 305
Dear Mr. Robins:
At its meeting of July 10, 1969, the Metropolitan Council considered the report of
its Referral Committee on the proposed expansion of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul
Sanitary District sewage treatment plant at Pigs Eye, as outlined in the April 1969
"Report on the Expansion of the Sewage Treatment Plant" prepared by Toltz, King,
Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc. This proposal was treated as a plan of an
independent agency and reviewed as required under the terms of the Metropolitan
Council Act, as amended by the Metropolitan Sewer Act. Council staff findings on
this plan were discussed with you and Mr. Walter Thorpe of TKDA at the Referral
Committee meeting on July 3, 1969.
After consideration of the Referral Committee report, the Council adopted the following
statement:
"The Metropolitan Council finds that the proposed expansion of the Minneapolis-
Saint Paul Sanitary District treatment plant at Pigs Eye is consistent with the
Metropolitan Sewerage Plan in principle, and approves this expansion plan
with the 13 identified projects but with the understanding that detailed plans
and specifications will be submitted to the Council for appropriate review when
available."
Sincerely yours,
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By
Marvin F. Borgelt
/dms Vice-Chairman
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Anoka County O Carver County O Dakota County O Hennepin County O Ramsey County O Scott County O Washington County
-------
271
M. L. Robins
MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, may I say
this, that if the conferees would withhold questions
relative to the regulator demonstration program until
at the end, I do have our present project engineer, Mr.
Robert L. Gallery, here who would be available to answer
any and all questions regarding that project.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Maurice, this is great. I think this is
such a tremendous change and such an improvement that
this is the first time I think we really can see the
light at the end of the tunnel.
Now, the obligation, of course, that Mr.
Robins had in being in charge of the largest single
gatherer and treater of wastes, of course, in this area
was significant. I think we have the blueprint here for
a cleanup. I think we have an expression of the will
for this to be done. And if there is any single event
which means that the case is cracked and you are going
to have clean water in the Twin Cities metropolitan
^ this is it.
I may have several points here, but I am
not going to bring them up now, I am so overwhelmed.
-------
272
M. L. Robins
Just one little one.
If you are going to have this stormwater
project to take care of your snowmelt, for a fellow from
Virginia who has been here very often, I never thought
you had a snowxnelt. (Laughter.)
MR. ROBINS: ¥e do have that, sir. Some-
times it lasts as long as May, but we do have it.
MR. STEIN: Right. But I really do think
that this is wonderful.
Speaking for myself, I think this report
and the progress that we have, the dates that we see,
for this area is epic making, because I have no doubt
that this program is going through on schedule. If it
does go through on schedule, we are on our way to licking
the pollution problem in the Twin Cities' area.
Thank you very much, Mr. Robins.
MR. ROBINS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Right. Do you want to call
on anyone before we have questions or not? Or do we
have any comments or questions?
Are there any comments or questions?
-------
273
M. L. Robins
If not, thank you very much.
MR. ROBINS: Thank you, sir.
MR. STEIN: You have really overwhelmed
us. You know, speaking for myself, it is five or six
years I have waited for this to happen.
Thank you.
MR. ROBINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thought Mr. Badalich had taken our
title of No. 1 polluter away and transferred that over
to the Metropolitan Council, but I see Mr. Lamm gave
it back to us. Thank you, sir. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
May we have a ten-minute recess, please.
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: We will reconvene.
MR. TUVESON: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Badalich
is temporarily out of the room and has the order of
appearances for the rest of the Minnesota delegation,
but I believe at this time he was going to call on the
representative from Hastings.
Come forward, sir, and introduce yourself,
please.
-------
J. L. Davidson
STATEMENT OF JOHN L. DAVIDSON
CITY ENGINEER
HASTINGS, MINNESOTA
MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, gentlemen
of the Commission. I am City Engineer of Hastings,
John Davidson. I did not come with a prepared statement
today because I hadn't planned on making a presentation.
However, in view of the fact that certain reference was
made this morning to the city of Hastings operation
and in particular to one of our residents, H. G. Hudson
Manufacturing Company, I thought I possibly could clar-
ify a few points in this regard.
I am not representing, however, H. G.
Hudson Manufacturing Company. I have been working with
Mr. Ed Field, the manager of H. G. Hudson, in studying
the possibility of bringing all of the industrial flow
into the city of Hastings sewer system and sewage treat-
ment plant.
We have, as Mr. Badalich pointed out this
morning, complied with all requirements of the FWPCA
team statements as directed in the last conference. We
-------
273
J. L. Davidson
have completed our treatment plant construction through
secondary treatment. We are presently treating the
sewage to 94 to 95 percent removal of BOD and solids,
returning approximately 10 to 14 milliliters per liter
of BOD and solids to the Mississippi River.
There is a problem, however, in accepting
the flow from H. G. Hudson in that in their brass clean-
ing processes and zinc plating processes there is evi-
dence of chromates in their effluent. They do pretreat
their sewage, and I was not aware that they had the
dubious distinction of being the only industry on the
Mississippi not furnishing the Pollution Control Agency
these monthly reports as required. I do know they are in
the process of setting up their own laboratory so that
they can comply with these requirements. I am also
aware of the fact that they would like to put their
effluent into the city of Hastings system, in which
case we would be responsible for their reports.
That is all I have to say in regard to
this subject. Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
-------
2?6
J. P. Badalich
If not, thank you very much.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you, Mr. Davidson.
Mr. Chairman, next I would like to intro-
duce into the record the attachments I had onto our
presentation. First of all, a letter from the S. B.
Foot Tanning Company that was addressed to myself from
Mr. Christensen, if I may introduce that in the record.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will
be entered.
(Which said letter is as follows:)
-------
277
&,
RED WING,V /SOTA 66060
July 14, 1969
Mr. John P. Badalich, P.E.
Executive Secretary & Chief Executive Officer
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
717 Delaware Street S.E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
Project No. 1212ODSG
Dear Mr. Badalich:
Please enter the following statement in the records during the
progress evaluation meeting to be held July 22, 1969.
Equipment bids for the waste water treatment plant at the S. B.
Foot Tanning Company will be received and opened in the Tanning
Company Office July 15, 1969.
These bids are for all equipment other than the sludge dewater-
ing and incineration section. This portion will be due for opening
in early August.
Construction plans are approximately 98% complete and will be
submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Federal
Water Pollution Control Agency in the next few weeks for evaluation
and comment.
All operating agreements and land transfers between the S. B.
Foot Tanning Company and the City of Red Wing have been completed
and signed by all parties. Copies of the agreements are in the files
of the MPCA and the FWPCA.
We would expect to begin filling and piling for the project some-
time in late fall of 1969, and complete the construction of the plant
in spring of 1970 .
-------
-Page 2-
The water quality standards as previously stated by the
MPCA are those we are attempting to meet through the con-
struction and operation of this plant.
As previously stated in the last progress report, we are
operating a four year Federal Research and Development
Program under Grant No. 1212 ODSG.
B. F. Christensen
Project Director
-------
279
J. P. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Next I would like to intro-
duce for the record a statement by Mr. Paul L. Twedt,
Plant Manager of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company of
Mankato, Minnesota. That was also furnished as part of
the presentation this morning.
MR. STEIN: Without objection,, that will
be accepted.
(Which said letter is as follows:)
-------
280
July 15, lSf-9'
State of Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
717 Delaware Street S.E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55^0
Attention: Mr. John P, Radalich
Dear Mr. Badalich,
Since 1 do not olan to a,ttend your progress evaluation meeting, I
would like to submit the following report on the progress at Archer
Daniels Midland Company at Mankato, Minnesota.
The pollution problem at ADM has been corrected. The sewer which
vies contributing lime and boiler blewdown water to a local creek
has been plugged and this material is now being s-ent to a settling
pcncl. The only water that is being sent to the local creek is
some condenser water which is clear water at about 80° F. Analysis
will be made on the water. In appearance it is much clearer than
the water in the creek upstream from the sewer.
Trie ground is absorbing all the water we are discharging from the
boiler room.
Any water containing BOD is being sent to the. city sewage treatment
plant, as has been done for many years.
Cur oil storage tanks are also diked so if they burst, no oil would
enter the Minnesota River.
Archer Daniels Midland plant at Mankato is no longer contributing
anything that would pollute the local creek nor the Minnesota River.
Sincerely yours,
Paul L. Twedt
Plant Manager
PLT:sn
-------
281
J. P. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: Next I have a letter that
was attached to our presentation that was a letter from
the Rahr Malting Company, under the signature of C. R.
Alt, indicating their progress. I would like to intro-
duce that in the record also.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will
be accepted.
(Which said letter is as follows:)
-------
282
"
RAHR MALTING CO.;
GENERAL OFFICES
GRAIN EXCHANGE. MINNEAPOUS.MINNESOTA 55415
PREGIDE.NT
CHICF EXCCUTIVI: OFFICER
July 16 1969
Pollution Control Agency
State of Minnesota
717 Delaware Street S.E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
ATTN: John P. Badalich
Executive Secretary and Chief Executive Officer
Gentlemen
We have your information release of July 10 informing us of the
Progress Evaluation meeting in the matter of the Conference on
Pollution of the Interstate Waters . We are relying on direction
from our retained engineering counsel in this matter, but greatly
appreciate being continuously informed.
Since we have for some time been connected to the sewage disposal
system of the City of Shakopee, we are maintaining continuous
contacts there. We anticipate further participation in the planning
for compliance which is underway.
Sincerely
C'.'"R. Alt
-------
283
P. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: I also have a letter here
from the 3M Company under signature of Joseph T. Ling,
Ph.D., Manager Environmental and Civil Engineering,
regarding their progress since the last evaluation
meeting, and I would like to introduce this for the
record.
objection.
MR. STEIN: That will be accepted, without
(Which said letter is as follows:)
-------
284
GENERAL OFFICES • 3M CENTER • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 • TEL. 733-1110
PLEASE REPLY TO: 3M COMPANY • P.O. BOX 3331 • 900 BUSH AVENUE
SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101
July 16, 1969
Subject: Progress Report
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Chemolite Plant, 3M Company
Mr. John P. Badalich, P.E.
Secretary and Chief Executive Officer
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
459 Board of Health Building
University of Minnesota Campus
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55U40
Dear Mr. Badalich:
This letter is in response to your information release dated
July 10, 1969, regarding a progress evaluation meeting in the matter
of the Conference on Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Upper
Mississippi River and Tributaries. Our Chemolite plant is located
in this stretch of the river.
As you know in 1962, additional new wastewater treatment facilities
were constructed to expand and modify the existing facilities at Chemolite.
These facilities, which presently are in use, consist of skimming and
settling tanks, sludge concentration tanks, stabilization ponds, and
neutralization facilities.
In August, 1966, construction of an addition to the existing pol-
lution control facilities was started. This addition which is a
modification of the activated sludge process consists of an equalization
and neutralization tank, an aeration unit, two final settling tanks, a
pump house, and necessary appurtenances such as pumps, air blowers,
piping and flow measuring devices. These facilities were designed to
provide an effluent (BOD concentration of 65 mg/L) that would comply
in all respects with the State regulations that were adopted in March,
1963. At the present time this activated sludge facility is removing
more than 90 percent of the BOD, resulting in a BOD concentration in
the overall Chemolite plant effluent of well below 65 mg/L. This data
is reported to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at the beginning
of each month.
miNNESOTA miNINGAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY
-------
285
Mr. Badalich -2- July 16, 1969
As a result, however, of the Federal-State Conference on the pol-
lution of the interstate and intrastate waters of the Upper Mississippi
River and its tributaries, a summary report was issued on June 17, 1967,
outlining the general and specific recommendations of the conference
regarding the water quality and treatment facilities to be provided
by each individual source discharging wastewater to the river.
This report recommended that waste loadings from all sources
between and including the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District (MSSD)
and the South St. Paul sewage treatment plant not exceed 68,500 pounds
of 5-day BOD per day. In addition, the State-Federal conference recom-
mended that all municipalities below South St. Paul in this section of
the river provide secondary treatment and a concentration of BOD in
their effluent that does not exceed 50 mg/L.
It also was recommended that all industries below the area between
MSSD and South St. Paul provide an effluent quality equivalent to that
recommended for municipalities, or in other words, an effluent that
does not exceed a BOD concentration of 50 mg/L.
As a result of this conference WPC 18 was adopted. Among other
things this effluent standard requires a concentration of BOD that
does not exceed 35 mg/L and a suspended solids concentration that does
not exceed 30 mg/L.
Since the data shows that the effluent quality provided from the
existing treatment facilities at our Chemolite plant will meet the
river standards, and since the Federal-State Conference required an
effluent BOD of 50 mg/L, we requested a variance from effluent standard
WPC 18. This request was made in a letter to Mr. R. C. Tuveson, Chairman,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, dated January 27, 1969. The request
for variance included the following:
(1) Establish a 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand of 50 mg/L.
(2) Establish a total suspended solids concentration of 50 mg/L.
(3) Establish a turbidity value of 50 units.
It is our understanding that the request for the variance has been
approved by the Agency.
In order to meet the conditions of the variance and WPC 18 the
following additions and modifications will be made to the existing
wastewater treatment facilities:
1. New Primary Settling Tank
In order to furnish additional settling capacity and improve
operation flexibility we are planning to add one primary settling
tank to the existing treatment system.
-------
286
Mr. Badalich -3- July 16, 1969
1. New Primary Settling Tank (continued)
The new tank will be 73 feet long by 16 feet wide. It is designed
for 700 gpm (gallons per minute) and will provide a more efficient
removal of suspended solids in the raw wastewater.
Normally this new tank will be operated together with the existing
two settling tanks.
The final plans and specifications for this new settling tank will
be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in August,
1969.
2. Improved Scum Removal Facilities
An improved scum removal facility will be added prior to the
existing equalization tank. At the present time part of the
equalization tank surface is used for manual scum removal.
The new facility will provide more efficient scum removal before
the wastewater is discharged to the aeration tank. This will
result in a more efficient operation of the overall activated
sludge treatment facilities.
3. Equalization Tank Modifications
The overall BOD removal efficiency of an activated sludge
treatment facility can be improved by providing a uniform feed
to the aeration tank. In order to do this pumping equipment
will be installed as part of the existing equalization tank
and the wastewater will be pumped at a continuous, uniform
rate to the aeration tank.
To provide a more uniform feed of BOD to the aeration tank
a mixer will also be installed in the existing equalization tank.
The mixer will be located in the center of the tank and will
be operated on a continuous basis.
The final plans and specifications for these modifications will
be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the
near future for review.
H-. Chlorination Facilities
Chlorination facilities will be added to provide chlorination
from May 1st through October 31st each year.
-------
287
Mr. Badalich -4- July 16, 1969
5. In-Plant Control of.Wastewater
To continuously reduce the waste load to the present treatment
facilities from the process areas the in-plant wastewater reduction
program will be continued in order to determine-1 any remaining
major sources of wastewater discharge and what changes can be
made at the source to reduce them.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this progress report on
the wastewater treatment facilities at our Chemolite plant to the
conference. If we can provide any additional information, please let
us know.
Yours very ft
Joseph T. Ling, Ph.D., Manager
Environmental and Civil Engineering
JTL/jb
-------
288
J. P. Badalich
MR. BADALICH: And the final statement I
have here that was sent to me is a statement from the
M. A. Gedney Company, "by Mr. Gedney Tuttle, President.
I have that here and I would like to distribute it to
the conferees. I would also like to have that intro-
duced into the record.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will
be accepted.
(Which said letter is as follows:)
-------
289
Phone: 445-4350
M. A. 6EDNEY COMPANY
Chaska, Minnesota 55318
STAT5T-7EK? OF K, A. GEDIISI CO.
Before Conference on Pollution of Intersteta Uators - July 22S lp5S
sp
f
!The fe-llcuirg ststsraent is offered by tho K. A. Gedney Cor,ipsny in rs-
onse to sn ii'iior.r.ation release from tho Pollution Control .'gency., Stata
I'ir.nc;.^ta5 dstad Ji'.ly 10P 195? (M?GA27i})a urging industries contributing
the pollution of -^te::'s under consideration by this progress evclv^tion
jjting to present ..:;.:'crr.:.viion en v;hst they hcvo done or propose to do tc-
rd abating such pollution.
T'ho M. A, Gsdnoy Cc.r.psr,y is a pr.c!:er of pickles and relstad productsj
ccstsd ia Chanhasscn, I-Iiiinooota on the I-Iimcscta River between Ch^sla "nd
•^jhocee^ Ssnitcry \;ejt.;s frora thii: facility are cischsri/ed to the uuiiici-
.:~1 ccrsgo plar.t in Cia-"l:s» Pl^nt liStitcs o::e Uischsrged to trio Is£con«-tyc3
•:o I-Iin^jsota Hiver each Spring cuiin;; tlie high rater period under controlled
Lschorge over an cpp: •o:'.L;:;3tG tv;o ueel: period onlye The river is monitored
::. :.ng \:his period ar.u the resrltirj date is trensrattsd to the MPCLi snd othc;
:der this r.:othcd of discharge we hsvo never shc;;n any significant effect in
,;o r:".v;;.«« Construction of tho lagcons ::cs begun in the surfer of 1965- In
a effort ta iniprove this system, ;;e instjlled UJQ 10 K? floating aerators in
ilncj tho inception of eff"'.uc::t tt^nd^rdc;, xcs -Here confronted ;;ith a
-•sicirch prc 'bl-a iii bio-<-:.£;r.,.I ;tic;i of i;c3t^j with tho particular ch^rcctor-
istic devjl:jped in tho pic'cli^s p^ococi". 1 search of oiir industry failed to
L-evec.1 cny cctisf^ctjry tyjte;;; for trc.Jtrr.2at of picicle ucstes.
During ths sur.iir.er crul fall of 1?63 x;o ::3n a series of carated osnioles of
varying atrenjhtc of if fluent to dotcr.,ii:i the biO"dogrsd£bili"uy of our effiu-
.entj. The results of this e:cpori:;;sr.t showed that our waste is readily bie-
dagredcblo by serctioa.
I
7 on
hcve
Ncven.ber of Iy6.1» v:3 ccntactod Dr* II. Orin Ilalvorscn to assist us in
;vli:g tha research iis&ccd to Cotsblich cats for possible plcnt designs.
:crj of 1969, cvonu&s of research hsd been selected end constructio:-
iippir.3 of c- research laboratory ':2sr; be2--n<> Honitoring of plent ef-
in character and cr:^z:.:t£5 and operation of sn axpsriEental digester
jun appraciius taiy March 1,,. 19c9» 2ho feeding rctes on this £:::perin:,;nt
en increased frer. ons-half liter per dcy to four liters per dey cur-
. "jith reeson"b^y sstisfectory results. We "Jill continue this experi-
i:orl: until lets ?sl.l, 19o9; by t;hich tims us should have established
d.;ri;.r.i loading ret3 to tho ercperi:,:entol digester. When the complete dsts.
-------
290
-2-
vhis thena is a curcisry report of our progress in t-icsta t^satrr.siits srd
cf our i-.vicnt to be in coraplicnce v;i-bh standards by Jur.e l?a 1971 in accor-
dcr.co •with the abs'ie^on'i order1 issued to us by the Minnesota Pollutica Co;i-
Signed
Gcdncy Battle3 President
H. A. Gsdnoy..Germany
-------
291
Mrs. 0. J. Janski
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, next I would
like to proceed and call on Mrs. 0. J. Janski, the
President of the Minnesota League of Women Voters.
MR. STEIN: You know, the Rahr Company
had some changes in the beginning. I read their letter
and it was great. They wrote this to Mr. Badalich, and
the operative sentence is:
"¥e are relying on direction from our
retained engineering counsel in this matter, but greatly
appreciate being continuously informed."
Give my regards to them. (Laughter.)
Great.
MR. BADALICH: Mrs. Janski.
STATEMENT OF MRS. 0. J. JANSKI
PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF MINNESOTA, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
MRS. JANSKI: Thank you, Mr. Badalich.
Gentlemen.
Many of our Minnesota local leagues--we
have 68 local leagues in Minnesota — have checked
-------
292
Mrs. 0. J. Janski
out their own communities to determine the status of
local,, municipal and industrial waste treatment facili-
ties. Some are pleased with the progress being made,
others are not. It is obvious that members are con-
cerned that water quality standards be enforced and that
the several levels of government work out the most
effective method for enforcing these standards.
Before any enforcement program at any
level of government can be successful, there must be
public realization of the urgent necessity for strict
enforcement. Laws are not easily enforceable without
widespread public acceptance. The opinions expressed
at the Minnesota Pollution Control Hearings on April 8,
17, May 13, 21, and June 23, indicated that the public
backs strict enforcement of the standards. We urge that
you grant no further postponements.
¥e recognize that State agencies are under
strong pressures which make it difficult to carry out
the pollution abatement program. Because the Federal
Government is less affected by political and industrial
interests powerful in a single State, the L¥V is con-
vinced that the Federal Government has an important
-------
; 293
Mrs. 0. J. Janski
role in strengthening enforcement of abatement pro-
ceedings when local and State efforts fail. We also
feel that Federal help is often needed when interstate
waters are involved. The problem of the laws regulating
sanitation on boats in Minnesota-Wisconsin border
waters is a case in point. Reciprocal agreement should
result in the highest standards being maintained.
We know that local governments can feel
beholden to employers with large tax contributions.
We feel that pollution control is one of the costs of
doing business. We are also aware that without Federal
help, this is a financial impossibility for many small
industries and municipalities. We are most concerned
with the reduction in the request for Federal funds.
The crux of the problem is the gap between the $1
billion needed for Federal sewage treatment facility
construction grants-in-aid in fiscal 1970 and the 1970
budget request of the former administration which
amounts to $214 million. Thus far, the new administra-
tion has left unaltered this fiscal 1970 budget request.
This sum, the same amount appropriated for fiscal 1969,
is inadequate to accelerate water cleanup. Standards
-------
29^-
Mrs. 0. J. Janski
in themselves will not make a single stretch of waterway
less polluted and more inviting. Technology exists to
do a far better job than is being done. States have
assumed a share of the costs of local treatment facility
construction, but the Federal Government has gone back
on its promise of adequate assistance.
At the April 30, 1968, conference, Mr.
Badalich stated that 64 percent of the offending
industries and municipalities had corrected their dis-
posal methods. Thirty-six percent had not, including
the 12 largest polluters.
Today we heard that 71 percent
now have corrected their disposal methods. Twenty-nine
percent still remain, and of this 29 percent,
we understand, we had some of the larger polluters.
The public waters belong not to a town
or an industry but to all the people. In Minnesota and
Wisconsin we have a unique situation. No other State
is polluting our water. We receive it pure; we have no
cleanup problem except for what we ourselves produce.
There are increasing and varied demands for clean, open
water that suggest far heavier demands in the years
-------
295
Mrs. 0. J. Janski
immediately ahead. There is a growing and deep-rooted
concern about the quality of our environment and the
threats to this quality from the waste of an expanding
technology. There is also the movement of population
to metropolitan areas which intensifies the rapidly
growing pollution problem.
It is becoming increasingly important
for industries to return water in as much the same
condition as it was withdrawn. If we have made mistakes
in the past, and we know we have, now is the time to
remedy those mistakes. It is time for effective action.
We can no longer treat water as a free resource that is
used but once and discarded.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you. Are there any
comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much, Mrs. Janski.
MRS. JANSKI: Thank you.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you, Mrs. Janski.
Next I would like to call upon Mr. Donald
W. Andrews, I don't know whether he is in the audience,
representing the Minnesota Environmental Defense Council,
-------
296
J. Pegors
"but I did receive a communication from him indicating
he would like to make a statement.
If not, we will proceed.
Next I have also a letter from Mrs. Ruth
E. McLeod, Secretary of the Minnesota Environmental
Control Citizens Association, requesting a statement
be made. I believe Mr. John Pegors, one of the Directors
of the Association, will make a statement.
Mr. Pegors.
STATEMENT OF JOHN PEGORS
DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL CITIZENS ASSOCIATION
MR. PEGORS: Mr. Chairman and conferees,
the only comment that I would like to make on behalf of
MECCA is that first we are pleased with the progress that
seems to be evidenced here. We realize that the best
laid plans of mice and men often do go astray, and we
would urge the conferees to keep their minds on what
these people have proposed today.
¥e have one question to ask of this group.
-------
297
J. Pegors
Is it possible that the new Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Facility, which will be in operation, one
portion of it, by 1972, that the thermal discharges
from this facility can be included in the matters which
the conferees will consider? We realize that at the
time the conference was originally called this was not
a project that would come under the scope and juris-
diction of this group, but it would be wise to antici-
pate new major sources of pollution of the river and
we would respectfully request that all of the thermal
discharges be included in the conferees' deliberations.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you, Mr. Pegors.
Mr. Chairman, this question was posed
to me earlier by Mr. Pegors and by others. It is my
understanding of this Federal-State Enforcement Con-
ference that we are concerned with the dischargers
enumerated in the original report, that is the report
of 1967* that any subsequent dischargers or any new
industries or municipalities to be located on the
river are subject to the Federal-State interstate
-------
298
J. Pegors
water quality standards.
And I would say in answer to Mr. Pegors1
question that I believe any new industry or any new
discharger coming into the area would be subject to
these Federal-State interstate water quality standards.
So I see no necessity for actually including this at
this time in this conference.
Am I correct in that assumption?
MR. STEIN: I think that is correct.
The conference technique or the enforce-
ment technique is to abate existing pollution. The
Congress recognized that there was a gap there, and in
order to prevent pollution they adopted the standards
technique, which was to be preventive as well as cor-
rective. And presumably that technique will be utilized
to handle all future dischargers.
Now, we do have enforcement authority
under that technique too, and that will be utilized if
it is appropriate. But at the present time we do not
have a discharge from the proposed Prairie Island instal'
lation. Is that correct?
MR. BADALICH: That is correct.
-------
299
J. Pegors
MR. PEGORS: Mr. Chairman and conferees--
MR. STEIN: By the way, if you are going
to continue the colloquy, how about coming up here just
for the secretary? Because it is very difficult for her
to work all day this way.
MR. PEGORS: Well, Mr. Chairman and
conferees, our purpose in bringing up this question
about the Prairie Island Nuclear Generator lies in the
fact that the proposed permit for nonradioactive
discharges from the facility is in conflict with the
WPC 15 or the so-called interstate standards that are
under consideration and I believe now have been approved
by the USDI. The proposed permit, a preliminary draft
over the date of May 28th of this year, permits the use
of the Mississippi River from the point of discharge
into the river of the effluent from the Prairie Island
facility down to below Lock and Dam No. 3 as a mixing
zone. This particular stretch of river is subject to
varying flow rates, varying all the way from 2,900 cfs.
up to about 160,000 cfs., and we feel that, as you have
indicated, this is a new source of pollution. But the
conflict does exist between the proposed permit for this
-------
300
J. Pegors
facility and the Federal interstate quality.
MR. STEIN: Whose permit?
MR. PEGORS: The Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency's permit, which has been under discussion
at the June 9* June 23 and July 7 meetings and one
public hearing.
MR. STEIN: I will let Minnesota answer
that. But as you can appreciate, as I understand it, ther
is still a real question of who issues the permit, AEG
or Minnesota or both.
MR. PEGORS: No, this is a nonradioactive
material. The permit has been split into two separate
parts. This is what we are discussing.
MR. STEIN: I stand corrected on that.
Well, I think again, we have to approach
this in an orderly manner. I don't want to prejudge
this, but if the assumption is that Minnesota is
issuing a permit which is in violation of the standards
that they adopted and the Federal standards, we will be
glad to take that up under our standards procedure. But
since we are not dealing with an existing discharge,
it is not amenable to this procedure.
-------
, 301
J. Pegors
By the way, I make no judgment, not
having looked at that, whether the Minnesota permit is
or is not in conflict with the standards it has adopted.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, it certainly
is not our intention to issue a permit that is less
stringent than the Federal-State water quality standards
In fact, I would dare say, Mr. Pegors, that the permit
as drafted in the preliminary form is more stringent
than the WPG 15 regulation.
But then again this will be a topic of
discussion at a formal hearing that the Agency has
established on August 19th, and we will be hearing the
public testimony regarding the nonradioactive wastes
and also thermal discharge, so I believe that will be
answered in the due course of time.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Are there any further comments or
questions?
If not, Mr. Badalich.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, this com-
pletes my list of those persons wishing to make a
statement, unless there is somebody from the audience
-------
302
A. V. Dienhart
that would like to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Dienhart, the Vice President and Chief
Engineer of the Northern States Power Company.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR V. DIENHART
ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
MR. DIENHART: Mr. Chairman, conferees,
ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Arthur Dienhart. I am
Assistant Vice President of Northern States Power
Company, Minneapolis.
NSP has been a participant in the pro-
ceedings of previous conferences. The NSP statement
in the conference of April 30, 1968, emphasized our
compliance with the recommendations of the conferees.
Monthly reports submitted to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency are evidence of our compliance not only
with recommendations of the conferees but also with
the water quality standards of the Minnesota Pollution
-------
303
A. V. Dienhart
Control Agency.
The need for soundly established, clearly
worded, and consistently administered environmental
standards is fundamental to industry for the planning,
the design, the procurement of equipment, the construc-
tion and the operation of electric power generating
plants and similar major industrial facilities.
Because o.f the 5-or 6-year leadtime required for the
design and construction of major industrial plants,
it is important that standards be developed on the
soundest technical basis which is available and that
they be changed only upon valid data which is developed
to support such changes. Stability and consistency in
the promulgation and administration of standards is
fundamental to the development of a healthy economic
climate in Minnesota or Wisconsin or any other political
jurisdiction.
One of the best ways of evaluating
environmental standards is through the monitoring of
the environment as mentioned earlier by Mr. Bryson
of the PWPCA. NSP has several environmental monitoring
programs in progress and the status of these programs
-------
30^-
A. V. Dienhart
is well known to the appropriate Federal and State
agencies. NSP welcomes any increased activity by
Federal and State agencies in environmental monitoring
which is conducted in such a manner as to eliminate
much of the uninformed speculation and the inappropriate
transfer of unrelated environmental information which
have characterized the opposition to electric powerplant
projects in this region.
Previous testimony by the Minnesota-
Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission mentioned specifically
NSP's Prairie Island Nuclear Generating plant now under
construction on the reservoir of Federal Lock and Dam
No. 3 near Red Wing, Minnesota. The plant is being
designed to comply fully with the promulgated standards
of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for thermal and
other wastes. The designs also will meet the Wisconsin
standards for these discharges.
Pre-operational and post-operational
environmental monitoring and reporting will supply
evidence of compliance. The plant will not discharge
any oxygen demanding wastes to the Mississippi River.
NSP's permit application for the Prairie
-------
305
A. V. Dienhart
Island plant mentioned in earlier testimony covers thermal
and chemical wastes under jurisdiction of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Technical data concerning
radioactive wastes and their treatment has been supplied
to the Agency also. Insofar as rad waste treatment is
concerned, the plant is being designed to meet standards
for safeguarding the public health and safety as
established by the appropriate Federal agencies.
In summary, NSP supports and complies
with the objectives of this conference and the spon-
soring agencies. We believe the concept of carefully
developed, consistently administered standards is
vital to the welfare of the people of this region.
Thank you for the opportunity to present
this statement.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I believe
this concludes the Minnesota participation in this
conference, so I will turn the chair back to you.
MR. STEIN: Does anyone at this time
-------
306
M. Stein
feel they want to say something? Because at the
conclusion of this, we are going to terminate public
participation and have a discussion among the conferees
and try to come to an evaluation, conclusions and
recommendations, if any. So if anyone wants to say
anything, just make it known to me now or else we will
proceed with our discussion and evaluation.
-------
307
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
MR. STEIN: It seems to me we have three
areas of concern and I guess you can check these out any
way you want. One is the sources of waste falling under
the Federal jurisdiction—one under Wisconsin and one
under Minnesota. I think the Wisconsin one may be the
easier to handle at the beginning. I would say the
reports here indicate that all the sources in Wisconsin
are in substantial compliance with the recommendations
of the conference. Is that correct? If there is any
difference there, I think we should hear it.
If not, then we have the Federal people.
With the Federal we have two ships and one NIKE site
with which, evidently, there might be problems. I will
review the proposal. The proposal is that Mr. Garnet
get together with the Corps of Engineers, the Coast
Guard and whoever is responsible for that NIKE site
and within a month indicate the remedial action which
is going to take place and send that to the conferees.
I think with the NIKE site we have
this. If we are committed to that 1972 date because
of the budgetary process, one thing remains unanswered:
Is there something they can do in between if
-------
308
JLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
they are discharging waste into a ditch and if there is
an odor problem to alleviate that while the program is
going forward. I make no specific suggestion, but some-
thing like chlorination of the material before it goes
out.
MR. GAMET: They are already chlorinating.
MR. STEIN: Pardon?
MR. GAMET: They are already chlorinating.
MR. STEIN: They are chlorinating this
before it goes out?
MR. GAMET: That is right. But it is
going into the ditch.
MR. STEIN: Where is the smell coming from?
MR. GAMET: Pardon me?
MR. STEIN: Where is the smell coming from?
MR. GAMET: It is some place along in the
ditch.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Garnet, I think if they are
properly chlorinating that loading of effluent, it seems
to me that there can be an odor control problem for the
year. This isn't a tremendous load from 100 people at
the NIKE site.
-------
309
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
MR. GAMET: That is correct.
MR. STEIN: And I think this should be
looked at and the report should be made in order, if
we are going along with this, to have the "best possible
operation while we are here.
As Mr. Wisniewski pointed out, on the
other problem of the holding tank on the Coast Guard
ship, I think we should explore the possibility of
making arrangements or seeing if they can make
arrangements with the pump-out facilities on shore.
I think the suggestion is entirely appropriate. If
they can't find any marina to do it, they should get
a man who cleans out septic tanks and make a contract
with him, an appointment to come up to him to a docking
facility and pump this out. As far as I can see, there
is no reason to dumo this into the Mississippi River.
Then with regard to the Corps of Engi-
neers' boat, I think the Colonel indicated to us that
they should be able to give us a schedule within a
month and a program for their proposal to stop the dis-
charge of wastes from that vessel. We should get that
report from you a,nd Mr. Poston sent to all the conferees
-------
310
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
MR. GAMET: We will consult with all
three agencies.
MR. STEIN: And when the report is made
available it will be made public.
That handles two.
Then we come to the Minnesota situation.
As I pointed out, Minnesota has a very active program
in dealing with the pollution situation. I believe
in view of the complexity of the program, the way
Minnesota has handled this and the kind of report
it presented deserves commendation indeed. The State
program is excellent.
All indications are the Minneapolis-
St. Paul District will be completed on schedule, at
least that is the prognosis now. If you have dealt
with many of the large cities of the size of Minneapolis-
St. Paul—I have said this before—if you want to know
what the large cities are, look at the roster of your
major league baseball and football teams and if they are
in the big leagues they have got a big league water pol-
lution problem. So those are the cities with which to
compare them. I have no doubt that in working this out, i
t has
-------
311
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
taken a lot of hard work. In fact, I know it has taken
work on the part of the Federal people, the State people
and the people in this area to get the program going.
The idea that at this stage we can still be on schedule
with the Twin Cities program is indeed an achievement.
We are lucky in a sense that the Twin
Cities area really has a fairly garden variety of munici-
pal and industrial wastes—one that has been treated many
times before and is amenable to known methods of treat-
ment. The kind of reporting that Mr. Robins gave us was
based on very conservative, sound American engineering.
There is no reason to believe it shouldn't work. We
must keep on top of the schedule and see that it is
completed, because, as we know, unless we keep our eyes
on it something might happen. However, if the schedule
is completed, we are on our way to cleaning up the prob-
lem here.
As far as the 12 areas or the other
11 specific dischargers are concerned — some of the
] conferees may have their views on this; correct me if
I am wrong —there isn't going to be operational slip-
page on those 12 of more than a year in any case; is
-------
312
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
there?
MR. BADALICH: Well, it isn't determined
at this time, Mr. Chairman. We are indicating here of
the 16 di sen argers that they are not in compliance
as far as the goal of the river standards that we have
adopted, but they are on a compliance schedule and we
just have the three that I have noted on page 12 where
an extension or some direction has been given by our
agency and we feel that maybe concurrence should be given
to this by the conferees.
MR. STEIN: Would you go over the three
and those dates again?
MR. BADALICH: Yes. They were noted on
page 12 of my statement.
South St. Paul, the agency granted an
extension to July of 1972 from the June 17, 1971, dead-
line .
Mankato with an extension to December of
1971 from the June 17, 1971, deadline.
And then as far as the American Crystal
Sugar Company is concerned, the allowance of the spring
release of sludge pond supernate to counteract an odor
-------
313
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
problem that is occurring during the winter storage of
their sludge deposits. This is only done during the
time that the river quality is high enough to receive
this and it is done under controlled method.
MR. STEIN: Well, what happens when these
go out? Is there any real deleterious effect on the
river?
MR. BADALICH: We haven't noted any at
this time, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a practice
that is being followed to some extent on the Red River.
But there again the American Crystal Sugar has a complete
flow system but we have run into this odor problem and
that occurred last spring.
MR. STEIN: Don't use the Red River as an
example. Under the ice we have had some bad experiences,
as you know, in the spring when the oxygen has gone down
to zero.
MR. BADALICH: Then we would not allow it
here in this particular case. We have checked with the
monitoring stations of the FWPCA and as soon as the
situation does reach a critical stage then any release
would be curtailed, so we will watch that.
-------
314
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
MR. STEIN: By the way, on the safeguards
on that,and I think the safeguards are probably DO safe-
guards more than anything else--
MR. BADALICH: That's true.
MR. STEIN: --how low do you let the DO
get before you curtail it? Of course you have a
different situation here. You have more water and the
Red River is relatively a smaller flow of water under
ice cover where you are not getting any oxygen. Do you
have a limit on the amount that you let the DO go before
you curtail discharge of sludge.
The reason I ask that is, the problem we
have had when this happens, if the DO, dissolved oxygen,
gets down to zero you can wipe out all the life in the
river, which is a pretty serious effect.
MR. BADALICH: I think the minimum level
would be the permissible level under the interstate
water quality standards, and if I remember correctly I
believe this is 4 milligrams per liter. Is that right'
MR. STEIN: Is that correct?
MR. BADALICH: Is that the minimum stan-
dard on the Minnesota River, Joe?
-------
315
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
MR. JOHANNES: Normally, but during the
spring period of discharge I believe it is 5-
MR. BADALICH: All right.
MR. STEIN: In other words, you won't let
the DO get below 5 even when they are having this
discharge during the spring?
MR. JOHANNES: I believe that is right,
yes .
MR. STEIN: Is there any objection to
accepting that variance?
MR. POSTON: I talked to a representative
of the American Crystal Sugar Company during the recess.
And he indicated that there was no problem with water
pollution--that it was more a variance requested because
of air pollution and that they were installing a dry
sludge handling, which Mr. Badalich mentioned in his
report, to handle this sludge with a high percentage of
solids and that then there is no water to discharge.
This was my understanding.
MR. BADALICH: Yes, that is true, Mr.
Poston. But their effluent, the sludge being discharged,
which is in a liquid state, does not meet our effluent
-------
316
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
quality standards, so that is the reason that the
deviation is given. We have an effluent requirement
as well as a water quality requirement. So we will not
deviate from the water quality requirement but we will
from the effluent.
MR. POSTON: In other words, you are
going to meet the water quality standard as set forth by
the conferees?
MR. BADALICH: Yes.
MR. POSTON: And the water quality stan-
dards?
MR. BADALICH: Yes, that is right.
MR. STEIN: Is that agreeable, then? Is
there any objection to that?
MR. POSTON: I think that these discharges
should be on a case-by-case basis. In other words, we
should try to have them call on the State pollution agency
at each time they make this discharge so that there isn't
a promiscuous more than necessary number of times at
which they would make these releases.
MR. BADALICH: Yes, that is right, Mr.
Poston. They are obligated to inform the agency and that
-------
317
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
was done this spring and then we in turn will watch the
control discharge and the automatic monitoring station
on the Minnesota River will certainly give us the
desired results in the event that they are exceeded.
MR. POSTON: And then they ask and you give
permission--
MR. BADALICH: That is correct.
MR. POSTON: --at the time of the request?
MR. BADALICH: That is right.
MR. STEIN: With those restrictions, is
there any objection?
I think the key points here that are
obviously going to be looked at, you really do a check
on the DO. I don't think there is a coliform or any
other check. In other words, if the DO does not go
below five and they indicate to you when they are going
to--
MR. BADALICH: It is four. Correct that
to four.
MR. STEIN: That is what I thought. That
is a little better. I think this jibes more with reality
I was a little surprised when he said five.
-------
318
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
If the DO does not go below four parts
per million and the discharge is reported to the agency,
then they will be permitted to do it. Is this all right?
Go ahead.
MR. POSTON: I think that is right.
MR. STEIN: 0. K. Let's work our way up
to Mankato. There is an extension to December 1971-
What is the reason for that, Mr. Badalich?
MR. BADALICH: I believe, Mr. Chairman,
that they would like to get in the final construction
period. As you know, here in Minnesota we are confronted
with the adverse weather conditions during the winter
and they would like to be allowed the full construction
period during the year of 1971- So they have asked in
effect an extension of approximately six months.
MR. STEIN: Is there any objection to
that? In other words, the reason for that is a short
construction season and they feel they need another six
months to take advantage of the full 1971 season for
being in compliance?
MR. BADALICH: That is right.
MR. STEIN: Is there any objection to that
-------
319
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
MR. POSTON: Are they behind schedule at
this time?
MR. BADALICH: I believe they are insofar
as the submission of the final plans, but there again
they felt that they could accelerate their submission of
plans so as to meet the construction deadline of
December 1971 along with the award of contract, and so
on. But we are riding herd on them and I certainly hope
that in good faith they will meet this required date.
MR. POSTON: I have strong feelings about
extending deadlines until at least the deadline which we
have given has been passed. I think it is brought out by
the discussion of South St. Paul that they wanted an
extension of a deadline and then they figured that maybe
they are going to come back for another one. This is the
gist of what I got out of this and I don't like to get
myself in a position of giving one extension and then
another extension at a later date. I think the pressure
goes onto the conferee the minute that he grants that
extension and I would rather have the pressure on the
polluter than on myself.
And therefore, I think I would suggest
-------
320
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
until they get behind on this deadline that we not go
ahead and give an additional extension at this time.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Poston, you are speak -
ing of the final construction deadline then?
MR. POSTON: Yes.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, the agency
has already extended this deadline to December 1971
on that basis and hopes that the construction schedule
will be maintained.
MR. STEIN: Do we have any other statement!
on that? In other words, we recognize that you have
extended the deadline . Do the conferees want to take a
stand on extending that deadline at this time or do you
want to let that go?
Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: I would prefer to wait until
they become delinquent before I would consider the
extension of a date.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to comment on this
at all, Mr. Damon?
MR. DAMON: Not particularly, other than
in our own experience we usually don't like to talk about
-------
321
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
extending after the date has become delinquent because
then it is after the fact and the guy is a violator and
polluter and he is going to court about that time. We
don't talk extensions at that time. I find, while I
appreciate what Mr. Poston is trying to do, I find the
procedure a little foreign to ours in Wisconsin. If
there is going to be an extension granted it has to be
made timely, it has to be made prior to the date of
delinquency, because once he is delinquent he is in
trouble .
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston?
MR. POSTON: Perhaps there is an inter-
mediate date which has been exceeded here that would
require some extension, and I think it would be agreeable
to consider that. But this final date which is over a
year away, to extend that, I think we would be having
additional meetings prior to that time and that there
might be ample time to satisfy Mr. Damon's problem
between now and the final deadline date.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may
elaborate a little more, the city of Mankato was to have
their final plans and specifications in on June 30"th of
-------
322
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
1969., and these plans have not been formulated at this
particular time. They feel, according to their consult-
ing engineer, that they will not be presented until the
latter part of this year, so that the award of contract
will not be made before possibly December of 1969 and the
we are allowing the reasonable construction period. So
they have exceeded the one deadline already, Mr. Poston.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to make any
judgment on that or do you want to defer?
When are they supposed to get the plans
in?
MR. BADALICH: They were supposed to have
them in by June 30"th of this year, but we are hoping
they will have them in before the end of the year.
MR. STEIN: How much before the end of
the year?
MR. BADALICH: Maybe I could defer this
question to the staff.
Mr. Johannes ?
MR. JOHANNES: They should have a full
six months' extension from the June deadline, which
logically then would take them to the middle of
-------
323
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
December.
MR. STEIN: To get the plans in?
MR. JOHANNES: That is right.
MR. STEIN: Then how can they let the
contract by the end of December?
MR. JOHANNES: No, I don't believe they
can actually let the contract. It would be early next
spring.
MR. STEIN: Well, may I make a suggestion
on this? And I ask Mr. Damon and Mr. Poston and all of
you to comment on this. Why don't we wait until we hear,
and you are assuming that we are going to hear by the
end of December, whether they have gotten their final
plans and specs in, right?
MR. TUVESON: Mr. Chairman, I presume
they are delinquent now?
MR. STEIN: That is right.
MR. TUVESON: What are you going to do
about that?
MR. STEIN: Well, the issue
is whether the conferees are going to extend the con-
struction deadline. I think we are on notice that they
-------
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
are delinquent now. My suggestion is that we give them
a few more months to get their plans and specifications
in. If they don't do that the conferees will be able
to make a judgment on the final construction date
enough in advance of letting the contracts on whether we
are going to give them more time or proceed. It would
seem to me that the indicia of good faith of whether
they are going to proceed is when they are going to get
their plans in.
What I wonder--and this is just a pro-
posal I am going to make--what do you think would be a
reasonable date we can expect those people to have plans
in to give you enough time to review them and give your
approval of them so they can let the contract? When do
you think is a reasonable date? Do you think by the
middle of December or not or do they need more than that?
MR. GINNER: I would say--
MR. STEIN: Please identify yourself.
MR. GINNER: Gary Ginner. I would say
realistically, since we do not have the preliminary
engineering report at this time, that to expect the
final plans by December is a little unrealistic. I would
-------
, 325
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
say February or March myself personally.
MR. STEIN: If this is what you say,, then
let's face up to the situation. If they are going to
get in plans by February or March, what does that do to
the proposal to let the contract by March and take
advantage of the construction season?
MR. GINNER: Well, I think that would be
all right. That would give them over a year from March
to have the facility completed.
MR. STEIN: What do you mean, give them
over--
MR. GINNER: Assuming the extension.
Excuse me.
MR. BADALICH: So that would give them
until--
MR. GINNER: You would have in effect two
construction seasons, you would have the summers of 1970
and 1971.
MR. STEIN: When are they supposed to get
the preliminary plans in? Can we expect that in two
months?
MR. GINNER: The preliminary engineering
-------
326
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
report should be in within the next week. I talked to
the consulting engineer a week ago and he said he would
have it in here within two weeks.
MR. STEIN: Let me raise this point with
the conferees and we may be able to get in touch with
this again. I think we have a faster cutoff date.
Let's say that they are to get the
preliminary engineering report in by the end of August.
If they have not gotten the preliminary engineering
report in by the end of August, I think we will take
it that Wisconsin and the Federal Government are
recommending that no extension be granted. If they
do get the preliminary engineering report in by the
end of August, we can then arrive at a specific date
with a recommendation from Minnesota and the engineer
as to the exact date they expect to get the final
plans in. We will take that up with the conferees
again without the necessity of our meeting, because
I think we all know the issue, although we will try
to do this in public so you will know the dates and
make a judgment on these at the time they come in.
-------
327
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
Now, I would suggest that they shouldn't
have—do they need more than 6 months after the end
of August to get the final plans and specs? We should
shoot for when, February? The end of February. Let's
set that up tentatively, the end of August to the end
of February, because I think if there is going to be a
consideration--and I think Mr. Damon may very well have
a point--you will be able to make a judgment by February
as whether you are going to meet your conditions
or not. So, in other words, the end of August for pre-
liminary plans and the end of February for final plans.
By the way, how long does it take you in
a plant like this to review and approve those plans? It
shouldn't take too long, should it? I know you--
MR. GINNER: I would say roughly 30
days .
MR. STEIN: Pardon?
MR. GINNER: I would say 30 days.
MR. STEIN: Thirty days. End of February,
March; that would bring us up to April. I hope they are
not going to lose--
When does your construction season start?
-------
328
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
MR. BADALICH: Right about April,
depending on the floods in the community.
MR. STEIN: I know. What I am getting
at, I am just trying to think this thing out with you
people. I would like to have a date of April 1,
where they can be approved and they can be ready to let
the contract by April ls s o they have two full con-
struction seasons and not an excuse. Is that at all
possible? Can we push that up, gentlemen? If you need
your full 30 days can we push that up to final
plans at the end of February and ask you perhaps to
review the plans and specs by March 15 to work with
them? Is that at all possible?
MR. GINNER: I think this is possible.
The reason I said 30 days was sometimes they require
additions or alterations.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. GINNER: It depends a little bit on
what time you get the permit typed up and sent out.
MR. STEIN: I understand that. But if we
can, let's try. I don't want to cut down on the city's
time if the State will make the extra effort here, and I
-------
329
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
know it is a "burden. But I would like to if we can, if
we are going to sell this, I think what we should try to
do is get this thing all set by April 1st so they
reasonably can have two construction seasons without an
excuse. 0. K .?
All right, let's try that. The end of
August preliminary, the end of February final plans and
specs. We would hope to have the approval of the State in
not more than 2 weeks and hopefully give them the go-
ahead so they can take care of 2 construction seasons.
All right, let's move ahead.
MR. POSTON: You know, one thing that I
think is important here is that we let the man who is
designing these plans and specs, making the plans and
specs, know the urgency of this thing and put a little
bit of responsibility for hustling on this project on
his back.
MR. STEIN: I think that is fine.
MR. POSTON: Rather than you the Chairman
trying to make amends for him and extend his time a
little, it is up to him to do a little of that.
MR. STEIN: Let me tell you this, I don't
-------
330
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
think he has any time extended, certainly not as of this
moment. Unless he makes these dates, and he has got
dates hanging over him of the end of August and the end
of February, I know what my recommendation is going to
be in that the original date we set still stands. That
hasn't been changed by the conferees. So I think the
ball definitely is on their side of the net and I have
no notion of who the engineer is.
MR. POSTON: So do I.
MR. STEIN: Do you know who it is?
MR. POSTON: No.
MR. STEIN: By the way, this is certainly
not personal.
Let's go to South St. Paul. You heard
the presentation. Here they are asking for a year
extension. And there are several reasons for that that
were advanced. One is the closing of a major meat
packer and other difficulties. What do you think of
that?
MR. POSTON: I think that I still would
like to have the final date not extended until he has
failed on this date and made every effort to catch up
-------
331
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
somewhere and to maybe extend the preliminary dates.
If you will remember, the Metropolitan Sanitary District
came along and were behind about a year and they found
ways and means of stepping up their activity to the
extent that they are going to meet this schedule.
MR. STEIN: Well, when you talk about
putting the pressure on them, of course the Metropolitan
Sanitary District has been through the Stein wringer
already. That is why they came up with it. And I am
very happy they did this.
But again we have a problem. Have they
gotten the preliminary plans and specifications in South
St. Paul?
MR. BADALICH: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In
fact, I was instrumental at that particular time. ¥e
had them in in early 196?•
MR. STEIN: South St. Paul, yes, that is
your home town. When you were there they were on time.
MR. BADALICH: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: How about the final plans and
specifications?
MR. BADALICH: Yes, on Phase No. 1 they
-------
332
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
have been completed and are under construction. Phases
Nos. 2 and 3 depend on the operational results they
receive from Phase No. 1. Now, this entails the
expanded treatment facilities for capacity and also for
BOD reduction, plus this R and D grant. He indicated
In his statement that it would be November, the latter
part of November, of 1969 before the first phase unit
is operable and then from there they will have to go
through the evaluation3 etc.
MR. STEIN: How long would that take?
MR. BADALICH: Well, normally under a
schedule in phasing of sewer treatment plant construction
we like to get at least one complete season of operationa
data and I think that is what we are striving for and
that in turn brings up the 1-year delay. But then
again, since then the one major packer has moved out of
the area and again this may be that the treatment
facilities after the first phase in operation might be
adequate to meet the Federal-State enforcement con-
ference recommendations. But then again we are sure
that they probably will not meet the State recommenda-
tions, which are more stringent.
-------
333
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
So at this particular point we can't say
yes or no that they will meet the requirements after the
first phase or not.
MR. STEIN: Yes, after the first phase--
which should be at the end of December of 1969?
MR. BADALICH: November of 1969.
MR. STEIN: November of 1969.
MR. BADALICH: November 29.
MR. STEIN: Would we need more than a
month to determine whether the first phase in fact, with
the closing of the packing plant, was meeting the con-
ference recommendations? Would we be able to determine
that by the first of the year?
MR. BADALICH: Well, I think that the flow
will certainly diminish, but then again they would not
have any operational data at all seasons of the year and
that is, I think, the critical part in going ahead with
any expansion.
MR. STEIN: I understand that. But you
see, we have two problems as I understand you, Mr.
Badalich. One is whether they meet the State require-
ment, which is more stringent. You indicate that if
-------
334
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
they complete Phase 1 with the closing down, I believe,
of Swift, it is just possible they may meet the con-
ference requirements.
MR. BADALICH: That is the speculation,
but we will not know until actually this comes in
operation.
MR. STEIN: Yes, but will we need a whole
year of operation to determine that?
MR. BADALICH: I don't know, Mr. Stein.
I think logically it certainly is good to evaluate your
treatment facility after it is once constructed. And as
they say here in Minnesota, where we have four definite
seasons, it is well to get the winter operation, because
that is probably the most critical in all our treatment
plant designs.
MR. STEIN: I would think so, that the
critical point comes in the winter. In other words, it
would seem to me again--let's put this this way--we are
going to come to a crunch at the end of February with
this Mankato operation. With South St. Paul, by the end
of February we should have a pretty good idea of whether
Phase 1 is going to meet the Federal-State conference
-------
335
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
requirements, because we will have gone through most of
the winter, which is your critical period, certainly
with DO and probably pathogens under the ice cover. So
by February we should be able to make an evaluation.
Again, I am Just making a proposal here,
Mr. Boston. Possibly in cooperation with the Federal
people I wonder if we can ask you: 1) at the end of
November we certainly make a judgment whether South St.
Paul has completed Phase l;and 2) at the end of Novem-
ber, if this judgment is made by then, the Federal
people in cooperation with the State people will be
prepared to begin making an evaluation of the South
St. Paul Phase 1 results. I don't know how much of
a staff Wisconsin has or whether it wants to participate,
but if it does it is welcome. I think this is merely
a technical question in getting the data. If Minnesota
doesn't have the people, maybe at least the methodology
should be worked out among the three jurisdictions. We
will do this and have a report at the end of February.
So at the end of February we will be able to make these
judgments:
1, whether Mankato is moving ahead with
-------
336
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
its final plans and specs and,
2., whether Phase 1 of South St. Paul has
been completed and under that whether because of the
closing of the packing house this meets Federal-State
requirements or whether they can proceed with the
expansion or whether they will need the full year
evaluation before they can proceed with the expansion.
And these are the matters that the con-
ferees can take up after the end of February. We should
schedule that in the early part of March to make these
judgments.
If this is going to work, there is going
to have to be Federal-State planning to begin this
evaluation as soon as that South St. Paul Phase 1 plant
goes on stream. You can't begin gearing up after the
end of November or December and expect to have it done.
In other words, we will have to work out this summer and
fall exactly what we are going to look for, agree on the
methodology and assign the personnel. 0. K.?
What will have to be taken into account, o
course, will be the research and development project
during the two where we have come out on that. Maybe we
-------
337
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
can utilize some of the personnel on that. Are we in
agreement with that, that we will proceed with that befor
we go to any consideration of extension of the dates?
And I have one more—pardon me.
MR. BOSTON: I think this is a wise thing
to do, particularly since when you had that Stein wringer
going before and the MSSD asked for extension of time
because they wanted to evaluate their operation, the
conferees refused this extension of a year's time there
and we have seen now that they were able to go ahead.
So I think this is a wise decision to make this at a
later date.
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, again, as
we proceed, I would recommend too that we get together
in some meetings with the State and Federal people to
see what kind of realistic schedule or proposal we can
come up with for South St. Paul and see if it is in
the proper interest of pollution control to do this.
I appreciate what you say, Mr. Poston,
as these things go forward. As you know, in the Calumet
area around Chicago many of the steel industries
were asking for extensions of 2 and 2-J1/2
-------
338
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
years, and when we finally went through this careful
evaluation process a good deal of the work was done
with only a 6 months' extension and a lot of it in a
year extension and Just a few phases 18 months; we never
got to 2 years or 2-1/2.
So in addition to these reports, let us
look over the situation very, very carefully with the
technical staff and come up with a possible recom-
mendation. If there is a possibility of working it
down, I think the only way is in full consultation
with the discharger, and that includes the city here,
because I don't think the Federal agency can do this
itself. The steel industries agreed, as you well
know, or the oil industries, to the shaving of this
operation down, and I think by February we should
come up with this program.
In addition to that I have one more thing
to discuss, because it seems that this is moving all righjt
again I would hope Wisconsin can participate, but this
may be a drain on Wisconsin resources--and that is whether
the Federal and State people can get together and come
up with an evaluation on the stormwater project in the
-------
339
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
various communities. These look good from what has been
said up to now, but again I think what we need is a
critical evaluation and recommendation if we are pro-
ceeding in the proper manner and in the proper time
frame for the stormwater activites. I suspect we are
largely on the track, but I think we are going to
possibly need an evaluation on that. As you can appre-
ciate in all these cases, as we solve problems we begin
zeroing in on some of the more difficult ones until we
come out.
Are there any other suggestions that we
might have on this?
MR. TUVESON: Mr. Chairman, Minnesota
will concur in the recommendations.
MR. STEIN: I have one more recommendatior
and let me put this out as a question of dicta. It woulc
help the situation considerably for the Federal Governmer
in this regard if Wisconsin and Minnesota got together or
boat control and came up with a regulation on the dis-
charge of wastes from boats between themselves. Gentle-
men, even if Federal legislation passes, we are going to
have to put out a regulation or a requirement.
-------
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
We were particularly fortunate in the
four Lake Michigan States and the five Lake Erie States
in that they all came up with the same recommendations.
I think it would help us all if we could get a uniform
recommendation one way or the other from Wisconsin and
Minnesota. This would be by far the best way to handle
it and this is going to be, as I say, regardless of
whether there is Federal legislation or not.
I would hope between now and February
that you will be able to get together, and, if you wish,
you can set up a committee and put a Federal guy on it
to help do some of the technical work. But I hope we
can get a report so that an agreement may be reached
which will enable us to move forward on this boat
pollution. I believe this is the only area where in
principle we have contiguous States such as Minnesota
and Wisconsin that do not have perhaps completely com-
patible regulatory programs.
MR. BADALICH: Mr. Chairman, I think we
would be receptive to that type of meeting, but you have
to realize that Minnesota has been the leader in this.
We have had a Statewide boat head regulation since 1962
-------
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
and Wisconsin has one in effect only on their boundary
water, which is the St. Croix River, at this particular
time .
We would certainly sit down and talk this
over, but again we feel we are following the expertise
of national organizations and I guess we stand behind our
device as much as they do.
MR. STEIN: That is right. I am making no
substantive judgment. I am just talking about this pro-
cedure, because my guess is that chances for Federal
legislation are pretty good. And the problem is going
to be on us. It is on us now. It is on us in the con-
ference. We can't delay it too much longer. We will
all be in a lot better shape if we can come up with
uniform recommendations from the two States.
We have not faced a situation in this
area yet where we found two States in disagreement.
Maybe we will, but I hope it is not here. I am not
making any Judgment on what regulation or device should
be used because I surely can't. We would ask you to do
that.
And if you would, Mr. Poston, what has beer
-------
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
helpful in the past — let me come up with another sug-
gestion—what has been helpful in the past has been a
technical committee to prepare a report.
Mr. Badalich, let me ask you this. How
about either you or someone designated by you being
chairman of that committee, set it in motion and come
back with a report incorporating the Federal views?
Mr. Poston will designate someone. I am sure Wisconsin
will. You will report on the committee views at the
next conference or designate someone from the committee
to do so.
MR. BADALICH: I will be glad to do it.
MR. STEIN: All right, thank you.
Now, are there any other points that we
can cover?
MR. DAMON: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. DAMON: You have hinted several times
as to whether Wisconsin would or might express interest
in participating in some of these items where extensions
have been requested.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. DAMON: I will carry back the
-------
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
recommendation that Wisconsin will participate, although
we recognize that it is the primary responsibility of
the State of Minnesota. We have an interest and will at
least participate in the discussions on these matters.
We will also have a representative on this
boat toilet problem and see if we can't resolve that one
with some mutual satisfaction.
Further if you want to explore that clear
water problem to any greater extent, we would be willing
to participate in that as well if you feel it desirable.
MR. STEIN: Would you be specific? What do
you mean clear water?
MR. DAMON: You mentioned something about
the Federal people and the two State agencies talking
about clear water separation--
MR. STEIN: No, stormwater.
MR. DAMON: Stormwater, excuse me.
MR. STEIN: Stormwater separation. 0. K.
Let me say on that, the only reason I was reluctant
is that while it is of vital interest to Wisconsin
in a water quality sense, I didn't want to put you in
the position of adding a burden on your staff. I don't
-------
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
know that this would take too much time, but I am certain
that any participation we got from Wisconsin could only
help the situation and we would hope that you would go in
with that. But I think we need a report on that.
0. K., are we all about set?
MR. BADALICH: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: If we are, again I think in
a way this has been a very productive conference. It is
a conference at which we have gotten reports that indi-
cate that within the present scope of knowledge we
are on top of the program and on top of the problem . We
have a program that can work and lit is going to work in
the very near foreseeable future. The real difference
in any of the major operations--!!! the treatment of the
wastes—is not precisely what we are going to do but when
we are going to do it. The sole difference may be a
year, which is not that much.
There are two unresolved areas yet, of
course, that have to be handled. One of these is boat
pollution. In boat pollution, when I pointed out the
unresolved areas, none of the jurisdictions are proposing
to discharge wastes raw from boats. It is a matter of
-------
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
which treatment measure will be going forward.
And the second thing is the stormwater
problem. I would say that I think the actual progress
in the stormwater problem is as good here as anywhere
in the country. I think again- the question here is not s
much one of are we going to do anything about itj it Is
how we can do it most expertly, because in this con-
ference area we are probably in fact doing more on storm-
water in folding that into the corrective program than
we have in any comparable metropolitan area.
MR. TUVESON: Mr. Chairman, what are the
mechanics now of winding this thing up? Will you pre-
pare findings and recommendations?
MR. STEIN: Yes, we will prepare a sum-
mary which will say what we said here, no difference,
and send it to you. Presumably we will be calling
another meeting in late February or early March.
MR. TUVESON: You, Mr. Chairman, will
reconvene that one?
MR. STEIN: Yes, yes.
MR. TUVESON: You will set the time and
place?
-------
346
people here.
CLOSING DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
MR. STEIN: After consultation.
MR. TUVESON: All right.
MR. STEIN: After consultation with you
0. K.? Are we all set?
I want to thank you all for staying with
us. I think we are on our way to a clean upper Mississip
River.
adjourned.
adjourned.)
Thank you very much. This meeting stands
(WHEREUPON, at 5:15 p.m., the meeting was
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 O - 373-270
------- |