Volume 6
Chicago, Illinois
Jan. 31, Feb.1-2, Feb. 5-7,196
Executive Session
March 7, 8 and 12,1968
ILLINOIS
r
INDIANA
Pollution of
Lake Michigan and its tributary basin
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
-------
287^
1 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1968
2 MORNING SESSION
3 9:30 a.m.
4
5 MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
6 Here Is what we are going to try to do.
7 We're going to have the Wiaconain presentation and
8 then give the Conferees an opportunity to discuss
9 the Federal Conclusions and Recommendations which
10 we postponed. We are going to push right through,
11 because we want to see what our time Is without a
12 break, and hopefully we can finish this phase of
13 the Conference without a luncheon break.
14 With that I will call on Wisconsin,
15 Mr. Holmer.
16
17 WISCONSIN PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
18
19 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Stein, Conferees, I am
going to ask Ted Wlsnlewskl as the Initial part of
1 our preparation to read Into the record or present
for the record certain statements of organizations
23 whose representatives were unable to be here this
24 morning.
25 Mr. Wisnlewski.
-------
2875
1 WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION
2 MR. WISNIEWSKI: Mr. Chairman, Conferees,
3 Ladles and Gentlemen.
4 There are several communications which the
5 submitters nave asked to be read Into the record.
6 First is a statement on behalf of the
7 Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.
8
9 STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
10 WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION
11
12 The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, as all
13 conservationists are, Is greatly concerned over the
14 rapidly deteriorating quality of the waters in the
15 Great Lakes Basin. We recognize the need for careful
16 protection by high standards of Interstate water
17 quality criteria. We have repeatedly expressed
18 this concern in hearings which have been held in
19 our State.
20 We believe that the primary quality
21
criteria should be to provide water-based recreation
22
and production of fish for sport and human food. We
believe that standards on this level will provide
24
the base for effective polution control and beat
25
serve the interest of all people, to abate the
-------
2876.
1 WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION
2 damage already done.
3 We believe that priority should be given
4 to the following problem areas, which should be
5 stopped Immediately.
6 1. Industrial discharge of solids.
7 2. Disposal of wastes high in oxygen demands.
8 3. Heat loading from manufacturing process and
9 generation of electric power.
10 The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation realizes
11 that the speed at which any clean-up or abatement
12 can be accomplished is directly related to the monies
13 spent. We maintain that monies spent on pol:>,
14 control is a payment on an over-due debt to nature
15 and an investment in the future. We urge that the
16 Federal Government as well as participating States
17 insure that adequate monies are made available to
18 effectively carry out a truly effective pollution
19 abatement program.
20 WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION
21 Mr. Leo W. Roethe, President
22
Mr. Richard A. Hemp, Executive Director
23 Box?
24 Mosinee, Wisconsin 5^55
25
-------
' 2877
1 WISCONSIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION COUNCIL
2 MR. WISNIEWSKIs The next communication
3 is one from the Wisconsin Resource Conservation
* Council. It is addressed to the Conference Chairman.
5 WISCONSIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION COUNCIL
6 January 31, 1968
To- Conference Chairman
7 Lake Michigan water Pollution Conference
c/o Sherman House
8 Chicago, Illinois
9 Statement by- Wisconsin Resource Conservation Council
to be included in the record of the conference
10
The WRCC in meeting at Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
on January 20, 1966 passed the following resolution.
12
1- re-affirms support of the four State Federal
13
Conference January 31 and urges Wisconsin's
14
Governor and State officials to cooperate.
15
2- urges the PWPCA not extend the deadline
16
date of December 31, 1968,for treatment facil-
ities by Indiana steel mills.
18
3* urges PWPCA not approve State standards
»3
that extend nutrient control for 10 years.
The reason for #3 is the following quote from
22 "Water Control News, "10/16/67, Commerce Clearing House, Ino,
"The State programs of Illinois, Michigan
23
and Wisconsin which call for a deadline for control
24 of nutrients in Lake Michigan are incredibly short-
25 sighted and could stamp the seal on the death warrant
for Lake Michigan, according to Superintendent
-------
2878
1 WISCONSIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION COUNCIL
2 Vinton Bacon of the Metropolitan Sanitary District
3 of Chicago."
4 A Classification of "partial body contact"
5 for Wisconsin rivers; the Fox, Oconto and Peshtigo
6 would mean that these rivers are unfit and unsafe
7 for total body contact. This is not cleaning up
8 the water but rather, it tends to legalize already
8 existing pollutions that are well on the way to
10 destroying Lake Michigan.
11 Martin Hanson, Secretary
12 WRCC
13 Box 70?
14 Mellen, Wisconsin 5^546
15
18 MR. WISNIEWSKI: The third statement
17 comes from the City of South Milwaukee.
IB February 2, 1968
19 STATEMENT OF POSITION AND POLICY FOR THE CITY OF
20 SOUTH MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN,REGARDING WATER POLLUTION
21 CONTROL IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN AREA
22
23
The City of South Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
wishes to congratulate the Secretary of the Department
25
of the Interior and the governing bodies of Wisconsin,
-------
2870*
1 CITY OF SOUTH MILWAUKEE
2 Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan on actively pursuing
3 the problem of water pollution of the Lake Michigan
4 area by holding this Conference.
s The City of South Milwaukee highly approves
6 of the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control
7 Act and of the steps, such as this conference, being
8 taken to implement this Act.
9 We are In accord with the spokesmen for
10 the several governing bodies Involved who presented
11 statements at the Initial meeting of Wednesday,
12 January 31, 1968, urging the direction this
13 Conference should endeavor to take.
i4 We also agree wholeheartedly that It is
15 not enough to set standards and timetables for
16 achieving said standards without each individual
17 governing body taking a long hard look at their own
18 areas to see in what ways their water pollution
19 control measures may be strengthened. Such is the
20 case with the City of South Milwaukee.
21 We have, in the past seven years, undertaken
various studies of ,our own sewage treatment facilities
23 to provide us with a complete appraisal of existing
24 treatment methods and recommendations for a higher
25 degree of treatment. At this time, plans and
-------
2880
1 CITY OP SOUTH MILWAUKEE
2 specifications are being designed for a secondary
3 treatment facility that will conform to the standards
4 set by w;e State of Wisconsin Department of Resource
5 Development. We anticipate submitting these plans
6 and specifications to the State and Federal author-
7 itles before July of 1968 and further to begin
8 construction of the facilities by early 1969.
9 It IB our policy to comply In every way
10 with the standards that are properly set by the
11 State of Wisconsin in conjunction with the Federal
12 Government.
13 We believe that only through active
14 participation in the establishment and implemen-
15 tatlon of sound water pollution control standards
16 can the problem of pollution be conquered, and we
17 strongly urge all governing bodies concerned in
18 the Lake Michigan area to play an active part in
19 establishing the necessary criteria for control of
20 water pollution and also to abide by these criteria
21 in evaluating and renovating their own water pol-
22 lution control facilities.
23
24 MR. WISNIEWSKI: The next communication
25
is not directly addressed to the Conferees, but
-------
2881
1 MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION
2 it Is of interest because it shows the position of
3 the Milwaukee Board of Harbor Commissioners relative
4 to the problem of dredging.
5
6 STATEMENT OP
7 BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS
8 MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
9
10 January 24, 1968
11 To the Committee on
12 Buildings-Grounds-Harbors
13 Common Council
14 City of Milwaukee Re Pile Number 65-2979-c
15 Gentlemen:
16 The Board of Harbor Commissioners appre-
17 elates the courtesy of Chairman Lanser, in having
18 furnished the Board copies of the letter of December 5,
19
Division of Economic Development.
1967, addressed to your honorable committee by the
20
21
In the preparation of a ten-year port
22
development and land use plan, the Harbor Board
23
was instructed to collaborate with the Commissioner
24
of Public Works, the Department of City Development
25
and the Economic Development Division, because of
-------
2862
1 MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION
2 related municipal planning considerations. Such
3 collaboration was invited by the Harbor Board and
4 was fully received, including close consultation
5 with the Expressway Commission and the City Engineer,
6 so that lakefront expressway plans could be fully
7 oriented with outer harbor plan projections.
8 The Commissioner of Public Works and the
9 Director of City Development have evidenced their
10 collaboration and approval by appending their
11 signatures to the joint report which transmitted
12 the ten-year plan, which awaits hearing and detailed
13 consideration by your committee.
14 The Economic Development Office suggests
15 that before the harbor plan achieves "long-range
16
prugi
Extensive market analysis of future port
program status" it should include the following:
17
18 business;
19 List of priorities with dates of implementation;
20
Estimates of costs, Justified by future
21 benefits to accrue^
22
The Economic Development staff suggests
23
strictest attention to the dictates of sound
"We must approach this prospect by paying the
24
25 economic considerations." we might .observe that
-------
2883
1 MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION
2 the Harbor Board and ita staff have always been
3 guided by the dictates of sound economic considera-
4 tions, one evidence of which is a municipal port
5 investment of $20 million, with a sound market value
6 of $35 million. Another evidence is land purchased
7 or made at low coat, upon which market values of
8 up to $60,000 or more per acre are now controlling.-
9 Fort development and the shipping business
10 are volatile, full of variables and subject to many
11 forces of change. Lake and ocean shipping are both
12 going through a rapid-fire technological revolution,
13 which is having a considerable Impact upon ports
14 and shipping methods. We wish it were possible to
15 match a physical development plan with a neat,
16
concise package of projections, with a precise
17 sequence of events. Unfortunately, neither the
IP
Division of Economic Development nor the Board of
19
Harbor Commissioners possesses a crystal ball which
20
foretells what Industry X, ship line Y, or warehouse Z
21
will do to expand, contract or change. We must deal
22
with trends and probabilities, as all other planning
23
agencies must.
24
The Board and the Port Director can see
25
little justification for costly economic studies.
-------
2884
1 MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION
2 A considerable amount of source material is .
3 available which can be drawn upon, including our
4 own experience and trends in the Port of Milwaukee;
5 major traffic' studies by the U. S. Corps of Engineers;
6 Seaway traffic studies by Stanford University and
7 others; and recent consultant studies for other
8 lake ports.
9 The data and projections of these studies
10 can be recast for interpretation by the Port of
11 Milwaukee. We might point out that thirty years
12 ago the sizable land mass of Jones Island was
13 relatively virgin and today we could not fit a new
14 marine enterprise Into a half acre site on Jones
15 Island in proximity to deep water. Small parcels
16 remain for development, far removed from water and
17 therefore limited in their use. We have no fears
18 that land now or later to become available from
19 development of the North Harbor Tract won't be
20 fully utilized. The effect of lakefront expressways
21 will, of course, be to make the Milwaukee outer
22
harbor accessible as never before, and we predict a
23 high demand factor for all lands available, with
substantial returns to the City.
25
However, problems of greater moment than
-------
2885
1 MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION
2 those suggested by the Economic Development Division
3 now confront the City Government and the Harbor Board.
4 We refer to the interrelated problems of channel
5 maintenance, disposal of dredging silt, and possible
6 effects on water quality in Lake Michigan. These
7 questions are the subject of Intense study by the
8 Corps of Engineers, the Federal Water Pollution
9 Control Administration, cities, states, and port
*o authorities. The file before you, and the ten-
11 year plan, contemplates the building of retaining
12 structures, and the making of land, in an orderly
13 projection for future development. In the very near
14 future, Milwaukee and every other major lake port
15 may be dealing with a question of land fills, in
16 terms of providing reservoirs for dredged material.
17 If restrictions are placed upon deposit of dredging
18 silt in deep water in the Great Lakes, there will be
19 two alternatives i
(a) to dispose of such silt by creating
21 reservoirs in which it can be placed, which means
impervious walls, and which could result in the
23 making of new lands, although not necessarily of
24 the highest quality
25
(b) the second alternative will be to terminate
-------
2886
1 MILWAUKEE HARBOR COMMISSION
2 dredging,; to let the harbors and channels silt
3 up, and to see port cities wither on the
4 economic vine.
5 The Board therefore suggests that the
6 ten-year port development plan and the question's
7 raised by the Economic Development Division be
8 held in abeyance for some months, to permit
9 further investigation of future Federal, State and
10 local policy with respect to dredging and silt
11 disposal. The emphasis on land fills for port
12 development may change completely in the near
13 future, and we therefore suggest the City Government
14 consider this as a most Important open question for
15 continued close study and observation. As soon as
16 preliminary judgments can be had relating to the
17 interrelationship between water pollution and
18 dredging procedures, we can then make Judgments
19 as to the procedures and alternatives which confront
26 the City in these matters.
21 Respectfully,
22 BOARD OP HARBOR COMMISSIONERS
23
H. C. BROCKEL
(Signed) H. C. Brockel
24
25
Municipal Fort Director
HCBzJlv
-------
2887
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT A. EWENS
MR. WISNIEWSKI: This coupletea the
reading of the four communications which were
•directed to the Wisconsin Department.
MR. HOLMER: Thank you, Mr. Wisniewski.
Mr. Robert A. Ewens, the Executive
Vice-President of the Wisconsin Manufacturers1
Association has a statement to present at this time.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. EWENS
EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT
WISCONSIN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION
MR. EWENS: Mr. Chairman, ladies and
^gentlemen.
We welcome the opportunity to appear
• • :> •
before this Conference as the representative of more
than 1500 Wisconsin manufacturing plants, all
intensely concerned with the problems of pollution.
/
Wisconsin is justifiably proud of its
position within the American economy as both an
agricultural and an industrial state. Wisconsin
industry has flourished not only because of the
aptitude and ingenuity of its industrial leaders,
but also to a great extent because Wisconsin
-------
2888
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 facilities for "The Good Life", including the
3 availability of abundant and beneficial water and
4 other recreational resources, have attracted to
5 Wisconsin in increasing numbers manufacturing
6 subsidiaries of many out-of-state companies.
7 I may say that of the Fortune 500 largest
8 corporations in America, 107 have established plants
9 in our state.
10 Wisconsin industry is vitally Interested
11 in preserving those resources as a major factor In
12 the successful growth of its industrial economy.
13 The report of the Wisconsin Department
14 of Resource Development establishing standards
15 and setting deadlines for compliance on Interstate
16 waters has been on file with the Federal water
17 Pollution Control Administration since last June.
18
Its recent approval by the Department of the
19 Interior permits the acceleration of prompt and
20
efficient effort by both government and Industry
1 to attain the standards of water quality desired
22
within the allotted time.
It is worthy of note that of the 17 sources
24 of Lake Michigan pollution identified and scheduled
25 for remedial action in the report, only five are
-------
2889
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT A. EWENS
industrial installations:
One involves a problem of septic tank overflow
upon which action is already in process;
One Involves the primary treatment of an
Industrial discharge by October 1970;
One involves the neutralization of acid
cleaning wastes for which no present recommenda-
tion is made;
Two involve the discharge of manufacturing
wastes for which adequate treatment is scheduled
before October 1970.
Of the remaining 12 identified sources,
9 are municipal sewage operations, almost all of
which Involve the separation of combined sewers,
probably the most frustrating and most expensive
water pollution problem facing the Nation today.
These are scheduled for final compliance by 1977.
The remaining three are a private school,
a commercial laundry and a public restaurant, all
involving sewage and septic tank improvements.
The full picture of Wisconsin's part in
the Lake Michigan problem is not complete, however,
without reference to
(1) The Menomlnee River, a boundary river
-------
2890
1 ROBERTA. BWENS
2 between WlaconBin and Upper Michigan which
3 supports four Installations identified as
4 potential polluters of the lake. Two are paper
5 companies Involved in the proper disposal of
6 fiber, bark and chemical waste for which no
7 additional requirements are presently recommended.
8 The remaining two are municipal sewage systems
9 facing secondary treatment and combined sewer
10 problems scheduled for correction In 1970 and
11 1977* respectively.
12 (2) The great industrial complex along the
13 Fox River which empties into that extension of
14 Lake Michigan known as Green Bay — an area of
15 which we in Wisconsin are doubly proud (the
16 second basis of our pride is its paper Industry
17 which, in the light of this Conference is
receiving as much publicity as our other great
»0
asset — the Green Bay Packers)., Surveys of
20
the pollution problems of this area are approach-
21
ing completion and promise to be both extensive
22
and comprehensive. This particular area has been
23
among the most active and progressive in the
24
Nation in combatting the problems of water quality
25
over the past several decades, with many millions
-------
2891
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 expended in plant Investment voluntarily and
3 without governmental harassment for the abate-
4 ment of a unique pollution problem. Our great
5 paper industry which will be the subject of a
6 separate report before this Conference has worked
7 and continues to work intensively to preserve
8 to Wisconsin the heritage of water resources
8 amenable to public and private use and enjoyment.
10 (3) Probably the most obvious ommission in the
11 picture of Lake Michigan water quality is the
12 contribution of Wisconsin agriculture, and Indeed,
13 of agriculture throughout the Great Lakes area,
14 to the pollution of our Inland seas.
15 To date, we have no reliable method of
16. identification* or measurement of this source of lake
pollution, nor to be equally frank, do we. have any
18
workable program to combat the problem.
«A
Except, perhaps, what we have known all
20
along — proper agricultural husbandry. .
21
Having been advised that any substantial
22 ,«
rainfall within 48 hours following the application
23
of agricultural fertilizer will result in a run-off
24
and lops of up to 60 percent of the nutrient value
25
of that application, one might anticipate that
-------
2892
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 agriculturists would schedule their fertilizing
3 operations either long before or immediately fol-
4 lowing a cloudburst.
5 The reliability of rainfall forecasts over
6 a three-day period is a question for meteorologists --
7 not for farmers nor, indeed, for this assembly. We
8 are faced with the fact that the present state of
9 weather and agricultural science offers little
10 immediate hope of solving this aspect of our pollu-
11 tion problem.
12 The burden, therefore, falls upon the
13 municipalities and upon industry. Their pollutants
14 are readily identifiable, accurately measureable,
15 and to some extent combatable.
16 Our main concern is that in imposing that
17 burden, economic sanity should prevail — for under
18
our present system of municipal financing. Industry
19 must carry a double burden in the field of pollution
20
abatement t
21
(1) The massive investment required for cor-
22
rectlve measures within the manufacturing
23
process itself.
24
(2) The substantial participation as major
25
taxpayers in most communities In the financing
-------
2893
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 of Improvements of municipal sewage facllltlee.
3 This double cost cannot be passed on to
4 any worthwhile extent in the form of increased
5 prices for Industrial products. Under our traditional
6 and, I trust, eternal system of free enterprise and
7 free competition, Wisconsin manufacturers saddled
8 with a large and sudden Increase in their cost of
9 production cannot effectively peddle their goods in
10 competition with manufacturers in other areas currently
11 free of comparable expenditures.
12 In addition, the problems and the cost of
13 abatement of pollution vary not only from industry
14 to industry, but within the same industry in different
15 locations. The technology of pollution abatement in
16 the Oary steel mills is vastly different than that
17 applying to the commercial duck farms near Racine,
18 Wisconsin. As the problems and the solutions vary,
19 so does the cost of improvement vary from plant to
plant and from state to state.
21 The final question is the Individual
22
company's ability to absorb or pass on the added cost
23
of pollution control, and upon that question hinges
24
the success or bankruptcy of that company.
25
The cost, therefore, we urge, must be
-------
2894
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 Imposed gradually and reasonably. To use an analogy
3 to our friends In the dairy industry:
4 An economical cow can be expected to produce
5 about 900 gallons of milk in the period of a
6 year. If she doesn't, she should be culled
7 from the herd. Try to pump that same gallonage
8 out of her in a week or a month, and you will
9 wind up with a dead cow.
10 The moral applies equally to the manufac-
11 turing Industry. A well-managed company that has
12 managed to stay in business under present economic
13 conditions should be expected to solve its problems
14 of pollution over a period of time without suffering
15 a fatal blow to its financial statement. Try to force
16 the financing of pollution control in a shorter period,
17 and you will wind up with a dead company.
18 Part of the problem of industrial pollution
19 turns on the adequacy of municipal facilities to
20 handle the waste of the entire municipal population
21 of which Industry is an important part.
This is clearly Illustrated by the problems
of Peter Cooper Corporation in Oak Creek, Wisconsin,
24
which has for some time been committed to connect to
25
the South Shore Metropolitan Sewage facilities. The
-------
2895
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 extension of those facilities to the plant has been
3 delayed, however, pending proper financing — a part
4 of which is involved in a long-pending application
5 by the commission for Federal assistance. If we
6 read the signs accurately, the financing and the
7 solution of this particular problem will be achieved
8 before the year's end, two years ahead of the Wisconsin
9 deadline.
10 Part of the problem industry faces in its
11 efforts to combat pollution can be traced to questions
12 of charging technology in the pollution field and,
13 until recently, the lack of local standards to be
14 achieved.
15 This is Illustrated by the circumstances
16 •" '
of J. I. Case in Racine, Wisconsin, which voluntarily
and without governmental urging Installed an air
18
cleaning system in Its foundry operations employing
19
the best known technology then available, and now
20
finds itself apparently contributing to the pollution
21
of Lake Michigan via the discharge of fine black sand
22
collected through its excellent air cleaning instal-
23
latlon. This problem has fortunately now been ellm-
24
inated by trucking the filtered residue to an approved
25
dump site where perhaps some new aspect of pollution
-------
2896
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 will later be discovered.
3 Thla company in particular has long worked
4 with State, County and local authorities to solve
5 problems of disposal of non-sewage waste, run-off
6 from downspouts and the erosion of lake frontage
7 through the natural interaction of wind and wave.
8 Having been "burned" in the course of voluntary
9 corrective measures, the company might be expected
*0 to sit back and wait for explicit governmental direc-
11 tion. Such is not the case, however. J. I. Case has
12 further developed its continuing program of correction
13 and improvement, with the assistance of high grade
14 professionals, and has submitted its future plans to
15 the Wisconsin Department of Resource Development for
16 further suggestions and approval while continuing its
17 day-to-day efforts to solve problems of air and water
18 pollutions within its plant and in the Racine community.
19 One of its problems is the preservation of its
20 Lake Michigan shoreline, seriously eroded as a result
21 of natural phenomena, and the reconstruction of that
an
shoreline, a problem involving.some rather tricky
23 legal problems of title vis-a-vis the State Government.
24 With continuing cooperative effort, however,
25
J. I. Case anticipates complete solution of known
-------
2897
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 pollution problems within the established 1970
3 deadline at a cost now estimated in excess of
4 $3 million in direct company expenditure alone. What
s its cost of municipal improvement will be is still a
6 matter of conjecture.
7 We therefore in Wisconsin hope to apportion
8 the financial burden of pollution abatement equitably
9 between industry and the rest of the tax-paying public
10 so we may preserve and expand Wisconsin industry as
11 a major basis of our economy.
12 We ask only that we be permitted to approach
13 our problems in the light of our own peculiar circum-
14 stances — circumstances which may at first glance
15 appear similar to those pertaining In our sister
16 states here represented, but markedly distinguished
17 by our topography, our location, our type of industry
18 and our economy from those in Illinois and Indiana
19 and, to a lesser degree, from those in Michigan.
20 Wisconsin Industry has demonstrated and
21 here reaffirms its willingness and its ability to
22 work cooperatively with its state authorities and
23 with its counterparts in the other Lake Michigan
24 States toward the goal we all seekz
25 The preservation and enhancement of our common
-------
2898
1 ROBERT A. SWSNS
2 heritage in Lake Michigan and in the other
3 interstate waters which serve and support our
4 pursuit and enjoyment of the good life in
5 Wisconsin.
6 Thank you very much for the opportunity
7 to address you.
8 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Ewena.
9 Any comments or questions?
10 MR. KLASSEN: I am interested and I would
11 like the speaker's opinion or comment on the etate-
12 ment at the top of Page 5. I raise this point, and
13 I would like his comment on it.
14 It tells about a company staying in busi-
15 ness and "should be expected to solve its problems
16 of pollution over a period of time"—I want to add
17 this is a little vague—"without suffering a fatal
18 blow to its financial statement."
19 I want to ask this speaker if he feels
20 that a company should refrain from spending money
21 for water pollution control and at the same time be
22 paying dividends to the stockholders? Is this part
23 of what you mean by a blow to its financial
24 statement?
25 In other words, is, in your opinion, it
-------
2891
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 compatible for a company to say, "We can't finance
3 Improvements or put In adequate treatment works
< and at the same time pay dividends to it» stook-
5 holders"?
6 MR. EWENS; No, I didn't mean that. I
7 meant that the company should not be operating on
8 a deficit basis. I have no connection with dividends.
9 But speaking of dividends, It Is a funda-
10 mental of economics that you have got to have capital
11 for Improvements, and capital is only attracted to
12 Industry If there Is a potential Income to be realized.
13 What I am urging this group Is give us
14 time, like all Improvements In any capital structure,
in Improvements in the manufacturing process.
16 I was Interested In reading in the paper
coming down on the train to Chicago this morning
18
that one of the reasons why Mr. Khudsen has left
19
the Executive Vice-Presidency of General Motors to
20
be jme the President of the Ford Motor Company was
21
that In his opinion General Motors' management was
22
in error in not planning longer than four years In
23
advance as to what General Motors was going to do.
24
And so what I am urging on this pollution
25
problem, industry will solve it, but it has to have
-------
2900
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 time and financing to do so.
3 MR. KLASSEN: Do you have any estimate on
4 the time that we should wait? We have kind of waited
5 a long time already.
6 MR. EWENS: I quite agree with you, but I
7 don't think you oan generalize on time. I think each
8 individual plant has to be studied separately.
9 MR. STEIN: Are there any further comments
10 or questions?
11 MR. MITCHELL; On the top of Page 7 y;ou
12 indicate that we should "apportion the financial
13 burden of pollution abatement equitably between
14 industry and the rest of the tax-paying public."
15 I might direct your attention to a new law we
16 passed in Indiana which allows our industrial people
17 to construct waste treatment facilities and then not
18 have those placed on your property tax rolls, which
19 gives them an incentive to construct those waste
20 treatment facilities. And we found that in working
21
with some of our Industrial people that there has
22
been a renewed interest in them meeting their obli-
23 gation.
24
MR. EWENS: Thank you, sir. I want a
25
copy of that law, and I will get it.
-------
I 2901
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 MR. STEIN: Are there any further comments
3 or questions?
4 Mr. Holmer.
5 MR. HOLMER: I want to thank the other
6 Conferees for asking the questions that were on my
7 mind.
8 MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston.
9 MR. POSTON: I have a question, particularly
10 since Mr. Klassen asked about time of compliance with
11 recommendations and abatement.
12 On Page 2 you indicate that there are 17
13 sources of Lake Michigan pollution identified and
14 only 5 of these are Industrial sources.
15 MR. EWENS: Yes, sir.
16 MR. POSTON: I know that in this Conference
17 we are talking about the total of the Lake Michigan
18 Basin, and in this respect I think those on the
Fox River would be considered as pollution sources
that affect Lake Michigan, at least from the etand-
21
point of phosphates, nutrients, I wondered if these
22
industries are aware of their effect on the lake
23
and have intents to take remedial actions also.
24
MR. EWENS: I am sure they are, and. I--am sure
25
the gentleman who will speak here for the Paper
-------
2902
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 Industries can answer you more directly on that.
3 MR. STEIN: Mr. Ewens, I certainly agree
4 that Industry should be given a reasonable time, and I
s think the Conferees, both In a State program and In
6 our Federal-State program, have generally given
7 Industry a reasonable time. I think we have a record
8 here, at least In the Federal enforcement cases, of
9 dealing with some 1200 Industries throughout the
10 country,ancl I didn't hear too many complaints when the
11 time schedule was set as to the time.
12 But once a reasonable time schedule Is set,
13 I wonder what the record of Industry should be In
14 meeting that time schedule?
15 MR. EWENS: If It Is reasonable, I think
16 it should be complied with.
17 MR. STEIN:~ I think it should. But I
18 think if we look at the record, you will find a
19 considerable amount of pressure for extensions and
20 slippages, and this is something I think that has to
21 be kept In mind. Once a reasonable time schedule is
22 set, I think industry has an obligation to meet it.
23 MR. EWENS: I quite agree if the test of
24 reasonableness is applied.
25 UR. STEINi Yes.
-------
2903
1 ROBERT A. EWENS
2 MR. HOLMERi Mr. Bwens, I have one more
3 question. This is of a philosophical nature, but
4 going to the heart of your statement. Should a
5 firm which is operating at a deficit be permitted
6 to continue to operate if it has not met its pollu-
7 tion abatement responsibilities to the community?
8 Do you view pollution abatement as a high priority
9 expenditure on the part of the company and one of
10 the first obligations of the company?
11 MR. EWENSi I do indeed. 1 certainly don't
12 think that extensions should go on indefinitely for
13 a company that is eternally running in the red. I
14 think it should be a No. 1 consideration on pollution.
15 MR. STEIN i Are there any further comments
16 or questions?
17
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
(No response.)
18
19 Mr. Holmer.
MR. HOLMER: Representative of some of
21
the industries on the Pox River and all of the
22
Pulp and Paper Industry in the Lake Michigan Basin
23
is Richard Billings, of Neenah, Wisconsin.
24 Mr. Billings.
25
MR. STEIN: While Mr. Billings is coming up,
-------
2904
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 I would like to welcome him. Again he represents
3 an industry with a tremendous pollution problem,
4 represents people sometimes who have had philosophic
5 differences with the regulatory agencies, and he also
6 represents an industry that has to, If they are going
7 to comply with what the regulatory agencies are going
8 to ask, spend considerable amounts of money.
9 I might say, though, given these things,
10 it has been a pleasure to work through the years
11 with Mr. Billings because we know he has had complete
12 candid exchange of views and information both from
13 government sources and industry sources. I would
14 like to say in the most hotly contested cases we
15 have never found any difficulty in getting Information
16 on waste discharges or production from the pulp and
17 paper industry, and I xtont think they have had any trouble
18 getting that information and exchange of views from
19
us. I think in every recorded case, we have been
able to work out solutions.
21 I think Mr. Billings is to be commended for
22
the highest type of industrial statesmanship in what
23 admittedly very often is a very difficult area.
24 Mr. Billings.
25
MR. BILLINGS i Thank you very much, Mr. Stein.
-------
2905
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 That la truly praise from Olympus.
3
4 STATEMENT OP RICHARD M. BILLINGS
5 REPRESENTING THE
6 WISCONSIN PULP AND PAPER COMPANIES
7
8 MR. BILLINGSi Mr. Chairman, Conferees,
9 Ladles and Gentlemen.
10 My name la Richard M. Billings. I am
11 Assistant to the Vice-Preeident - Research and
12 Engineering, of Kimberly-Clark: Corporation. I am
13 making this statement as spokesman for the paper
14 companies representing 80 .percent of the pulp and
15 paper production in the Wisconsin segment of the
16 Lake Michigan drainage basin. The companies are
17 listed at the end of this statement.
18 Of the Nation's 4? paper •producing States,
19 Wisconsin ranks first in sales, first In tonnage pro-
duced, first in capital investment, first in taxes
paid, and number of people employed. It has been a
22 principal Industry of the State since before 1900.
23 It has assets of over nine hundred million dollars
24
and employs one out of every 11 Industrial workers
25
in Wisconsin. Its continued growth and well-being
-------
2906
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 are vitally dependent upon its continuing ability to
3 sake economic use of the water resources upon which
4 ita processes depend. It is concerned with the
s quality of the water coming to it as well as the
6 effect of its effluents on the onflowing river. It
7 haa, therefore, been a leader for many years in the
8 study and solution of water quality problems, and in
9 the abatement of pollution.
10 Wisconsin was one of the first States to
11 become concerned with water quality and its management.
12 Legislative action was recorded as early as 1899*
13 3he Committee on Water Pollution was created by the
u legislature in 1927 and was one of the first inter-
15 departmental pollution control agencies in the U. S.
16 It has developed a broad range of basic data and has
17 been a national leader in the development of water
18 quality control and pollution abatement programs,
19 Bie Wisconsin Division of Resource Develop-
20 ment (successor to the Committee on Water Pollution)
21 thus has in its files today a record of stream condi-
22 tions in Wisconsin extending over a period of 39 years.
23 It is intimately familiar with the history of popula-
24 tion growth, expansion of manufacturing, and their
25 effect upon water quality. The state is also familiar
-------
2907
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 with the economic implications of any water quality
3 control measures. It is, therefore, uniquely quail*
4 fled to establish practical and enforceable water
5 quality standards for Wisconsin's interstate waterways
6 and for the intrastate waters which form a part of
7 interstate drainage basins.
8 She Wisconsin pulp and paper Industry has
9 a long history of active participation in pollution
10 reduction and control. It established a liaison
H committee at almost the same time that the State
12 Committee on Water Pollution came into being. Hie
13 industry committee has acted in an advisory capacity
14 to the State and has enabled the State to broaden its
is efforts.
16 In addition, the paper Industry has for
17 many years Joined forces with the State in making
18 cooperative river surveys. This assistance of
19 Industry engineers, chemists and technicians*has
20 made possible State surveys of river flows and currant
21 measurements, of biological studies and chemical
22 analyses to a greater extent than would have been
23 possible otherwise.
24 In 1939, thirteen Wisconsin mills formed
25 the Sulfite Pulp Manufacturers Research League, which
-------
2908
I RICHARD BILLINGS
2 has since expanded its scope to cover all chealcal
3 pulping processes* The League, which la financed
4 by the paper Industry, established and operates a
5 unique research laboratory. It has done the research
6 and accumulated the basic information upon which the
7 Individual mills have developed specific pollution-
8 abating by-products and proceaaea. fhe League Itself
9 has also originated or pioneered the following pol-
io lutlon abatement facilities or practicess
11 1. Developed the process for producing Torula
12 yeast from spent sulflte liquor. The flrat
13 such yeast plant In Wisconsin was started by
u the League.
is I might add that this la the flrat of its
IB kind In the Western Hemisphere.
17 2y Developed the theory and procedures that
18 have made possible the yearly utilization of
19 millions of gallons of spent sulflte liquor
20 as roadbinder.
21 3. Pioneered the first successful spent calcium
22 base sulflte liquor evaporation system in the
23 country, thus developing the basic Information
24 necessary, to construct today's Installations
25 employing this abatement process.
-------
2909
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 4. Worked out with the inventor a practical
3 method of utilizing hydroelectric turbine
4 installations for the reaeration of rivers,
5 Tone of oxygen added to Wisconsin atreams each
6 day of the critical summer period are the direct
7 result.
8 Current basic studies aimed at pollution
9 abatement include methods of production of wood sugars,
10 adheslves, and diaperaants. Processes such as reverse
11 osmosis have attracted national attention resulting
12 in a contributing FWPCA grant for feasibility studies*
13 Electro-dialysis, developed by the League for the
14 paper Industry, has proven adaptable for pollution
15 abatement in the dairy industry.
16 Most Wisconsin pulp and paper mills belong
17 to and finance the efforts of the national Council
18
also pioneered in the treatment of pulp and paper
for Stream Improvement, founded in 19^3, which has
19
mill wastes. The specific application of clarifiera,
21
aerators, activated sludge ponds, spray disposal
22
systems, aerated and stabilization lagoons to pulp
23 and paper mill wastes is in most instances the result
of recommendations and advice of the National Council
25
Staff of engineers and chemists
-------
2910
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2 information on pollution abatement develop-
3 ments la also exchanged regularly between companies.
4 For this reason, the axilla of the Industry across the
5 Nation act as a broad testing ground and reservoir
6 of abatement experience. In the highly competitive
7 pulp and paper Industry of today, pollution abatement
8 Is one field where no competitive barriers exist.
9 The Institute of Paper Chemistry In Appleton
10 furnishes bioassay and biological stream surveys
11 which are of tremendous importance in the Industry's
12 efforts to minimize and control pollution.
13 In the area of biological stream surveys,
14 in the last ten years alone, the Institute has
15 studied Intensively 7*500 miles of streams, rivers,
16 swamps and lakes across the length and breadth of
17 the Nation.
18 The cost of the foregoing efforts to the
19 industry has been high. The Wisconsin Department of
20
Resource Development's annual summary of capital
21 expenditures for paper Industry facilities which
22
resulted in or were Intended to result in reductions
23 in pollution — this is the old Fora B and now F0j?a
24 WB-8 -~ indicate that 36.6 million dollars was spent
25
in the last ten years, and that research costs were
-------
2911
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2 7.5 million dollars over this period. This la only
3 part of the story, however. Yearly operating costs
4 of the average effluent treatment installation run
s about 15 per cent of the original capital expenditure.
6 These costs continue as long as a mill Is In operation.
7 The opening section of the Federal Water
8 Pollution Control Act states:
9 "..., it is declared to be the policy of congress
10 to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary
n responsibilities and rights of the States in
12 preventing and controlling water pollution, to
13 support and aid technical research relating to
14 the prevention and control of water pollution,
15 and to provide Federal technical services and
16 financial aid to State and Interstate agencies
17 and to municipalities in connection with the
18 prevention and control of water pollution."
19 (33 U.S.C.A.I 466)
20 This statement of policy, which emphasizes
21 the secondary nature of Federal Involvement in the
22 area of water quality control, is fundamental to
23 the consideration of the questions here presented
24 and to any recommendations,which you aa Conferees
25 ultimately make.
-------
2912
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 With respect to interstate waters, the
3 Federal Act provides that the States shall
4 "adopt (A) water quality criteria applicable to
5 interstate waters or portions thereof within such .
6 State, and (B) a plan for the Implementation and
7 enforcement of the *;, criteria adopted ..."
8 Action by the Federal Government is
9. restricted where effective State programs and standards
10 of water quality exist. All of the States present
H here as Conferees have in fact developed and submitted
12 the requisite standards and programs within the time
13 " required.
14 Since the development and submission of the
15 Wisconsin program, members of the Wisconsin paper
l6 industry have continued to work on pollution-abatement
17 projects consistent with the Wisconsin program, even
18 though Federal approval was not received until last
19 week. As evidence of this continuing effort, statements
20 by or on behalf of paper companies at the hearing on
21 the lower Fox River held January 18, 1968, in Appleton,
22 Wisconsin, are appended hereto as exhibits.
23 Mr. Chairman, I would like to have these
24 added to the minutes at this time.
25 MR. STEIN: Without objection, these will
-------
2913
1 RICHARD BILL BIOS
2 be included as exhibits.
3 MR. BILLINGS: In view of the record of
4 action by the States in response to the provisions
5 of the Federal Act, we feel that the timeliness of
6 this Conference is open to question.
7 Wisconsin standards and plans for enforce-
8 Bient were submitted only last June, and were approved
9 only last week. Certainly insufficient time has
10 elapsed to determine the adequacy of Wisconsin's
n program for abatement and whether or not any delays
12 are being encountered. These are two of the three
13 statutory mandates to this conference. The other,
14 occurrence of pollution of Interstate waters, might
is be a more relevant subject of Inquiry after State
16 standards and enforcement procedures had been in
17 operation long enough to determine their effect on
18 present pollutional situations, which are already well
19 documented.
20 The House Appropriations Committee, in a
21 report dated July 20, 1967, says:
22 "As the power to control water quality and
23 quantity Is not only the power to make or break
24 business and agriculture but is a power over the
25 life of the Nation itself, it is essential that
-------
2914
! RICHARD BILLINGS
2 the Federal water Pollution Control Admlnis-
3 tratlon not only closely coordinate its plans
4 and activities with all the Federal agencies
5 involved, but also with each of the States,
6 local jurisdictions, and private interests
7 affected by the program. The imposition of
8 restrictions and controls without full and
9 equitable consideration of the essential and
10 varied interests involved in water supply,
11 Including priority of use and riparian rights,
12 could have a most serious adverse effect on
13 the various segments of the economy dependent
14 upon water for their existence."
is (90th Congress 1st Session
IB H.R. Report #505, Page 80)
17 This statement constitutes a solemn warning
18 of the dangers of action without adequate considera-
19 tion and understanding of the future consequences and
20 the evaluation of potential complications.
21 It is certainly relevant in considering the
22 report of the Federal Water Pollution Control Admlnls-
23 tration of January, 1968, entitled, "water Pollution
24 Problems of Lake Michigan and Tributaries" which
25 purports to be the,working document for this Conference.
-------
2915
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 This report, to the extent that it makes reoommenda-
3 tions of standards and necessary treatment, is certainly
4 premature. Further, we respectfully submit that It
s constitutes a perfect example of that kind of approach
6 which the Appropriations Committee, in its statement
7 warns us to avoid.
8 Nowhere In the PWPCA report Is there an
9 indication that any study of the cost of Implementing
10 its recommendations or the benefits to be expected
11 therefrom has been made. Neither is there any con-
12 slderation of the economic burden on those who would
13 be required to implement them.
14 We take serious exception to the recommenda-
15 tlona contained in the Report (pp 65 et seq) and
16 particularly to general recommendations Nos. 4 and 5
17 and by implication the principle expressed in No. 2,
18 These recommendations appear to require an
19 arbitrary degree of treatment whether or not the
magnitude of the discharge is gallons per day or
21 millions of gallons per day, whether the receiving
22
stream is a trickle or a torrent, and whether it is
in the center of a forest or the heart of a city.
24
Such recommendations attempt to enforce a standard
25
treatment, even when the stream classification, no
-------
2916
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2 matter how stringent, is being met without it. This
3 is requiring treatment for treatment's sake. It
4 would require the spending of substantial sums of
5 money which in many instances would create little
6 or no benefit to anyone.
7 The recommendations of the PWPCA for
8 uniform treatment, regardless of need, will have
9 the same effect as uniform effluent standards. This
10 would appear, therefore, to be in direct violation
11 of the intent of Congress, which in considering the
12 problem of pollution and pollution abatement,
13 rejected uniform effluent standards in favor of
14 stream classification, as the wisest and most
15 appropriate avenue to the optimum use of our Nation's
16 streams.
17 We also question the inclusion of the
18 arbitrary timetable calling for plans within six
19 months and completion within thirty-six, This is
20 totally unrealistic. Intelligent plans for treatment
21 must be based on laboratory and pilot plant studies.
22
The adaptability and workability of new principles
must be demonstrated before they can be planned on
24
a production scale. The PWPCA itself has made
25
numerous grants calling for studies expected to
-------
2917
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RICHARD BILLINGS
require two years or more for completion. These
grants Include Project WPRD 60-01-6?, a study and
evaluation of four alternative biological procedures
for treating combined municipal and pulp anU paper
mill wastes by the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage
District and four paper mills, and WPRD 12-01-68
with the Pulp Manufacturers Research League for the
evaluation of the treatment of pulp mill wastes by
reverse osmosis.
Hie arbitrary timetable approach for all
recommended action in the entire Lake Michigan
basin area if nothing more endangers the development
of sound technical information, discourages thorough
planning, and encourages careless expenditure of
government and private funds. It also Ignores the
relative importance of specific problems or projects,
and the very real need for priorities in their planning
and completion.
To the extent that these remarks may have
seemed critical, I trust that they will be accepted
as being constructively critical and will be helpful
to the Secretary and the Conferees in arriving at
recommendations on how best to proceed toward the
attainment of common goals.
-------
2918
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2 We believe that economic studies and cost-
3 benefit comparisons are essential to an intelligent
4 attack on water quality problems. Pollution control
5 is far too serious and costly to be undertaken without
6 first making such evaluations.
7 We believe that great opportunities for
8 progress lie in the development of newer, more
9 efficient, and less costly methods of treatment and
u> waste disposal. We offer the results of our research
11 in these areas to all who may benefit, and urge you
12 to encourage, in every way possible, more and broader
13 research of this nature.
14 Our criticism of the PWPCA report is not
15 directed at those who prepared it, since we do not
16 know the nature and scope of their assignment. Our
17 suggestions are based on the premise that as the
18 basic working document of this Conference, it contains
19 serious omissions and makes arbitrary recommendations
20 without factual support either in terms .of need,
21 economic feasibility, or time required. We urge you
22 to recommend that these omissions be rectified.
23 We agree wholeheartedly that there is need
24 for continued active effort to control and abate
25
pollution and we welcome the growing public awareness
-------
2919
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RICHARD BILLINGS
of the existence and complexity of the problems.
In conclusion, while we will oppose
strenuously the establishment of programs without
regard for actual need, and those that impose
arbitrary criteria, standards, timetables, and
regulations, we are prepared to throw the weight
of our industry behind the development of well-
considered and practical pollution control programs.
We will continue to give strong financial
support to research in pollution control techniques.
We welcome the assistance and will cooperate with
Federal, State and local governments in the develop-
ment of new and advanced control methods. As such
methods come into being, we will continue to adapt
them to our specific problems and bring new installa-
tions into operation. While much has been done, we
agree that more can be done. We urge, however, that
these steps be made wisely, not in haste, and only
after full consideration is given to the consequences.
SUBMITTED IN BEHALF OFi
AMERICAN CAN COMPANY
BADGER PAPER MILLS, INC.
-------
2920
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 CHARMfXN PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY
3 COMBINED PAPER HILLS, INC.
4 CONSOLIDATED PAPERS, INC
5 POX RIVER PAPER CORPORATION
6 GILBERT PAPER DIVISION, MEAD CORPORATION
7 GREEN BAY PACKAGING, INC.
8 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION
9 NICOLET PAPER COMPANY
10 RIVERSIDE PAPER CORPORATION
SCOTT PAPER COMPANY
12 JOHN STRANGE PAPER COMPANY
13 THILMANY PULP & PAPER COMPANY
14 (The exhibits submitted by Mr. Billings
15 are as follows:)
16 CONFERENCE IN THE HATTER OP POLLUTION OP LAKE MICHIGAN
17 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS JANUARY 31, 1968
18
19
20
21 EXHIBIT I
22 to the
23 STATEMENT OP WISCONSIN PULP ft PAPER COMPANIES
24
25
-------
2921
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2
3 STATEMENTS BY OR ON BEHALF OF
4 PULP AND PAPER COMPANIES
5 PRESENTED AT THE HEARING
6 ON THE LOWER POX RIVER
7 JANUARY 18, 1968
8 BEFORE THE
9 WISCONSIN DEFT. OP NATURAL RESOURCES,
10 DIVISION OP RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
11
12 STATEMENT BY AMERICAN CAN COMPANY
GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN
13
My name la Martti Lundstrom. I am Mill
14
Manager of American Can Company's mill In Green Bay.
15
At Green Bay our company operates a Sulphite and
16
Groundwood Pulp Mill, a Paper Mill and related Con-
17
verting Operations producing sanitary tissues, paper
18
towels and napkins. At this operation we employ
19
approximately 1,200 people with an annual payroll
20
between $9 and $10 Million. In addition we operate
a Pulp and Paper Mill at Rothschild, Wisconsin and
22
Paper Mills, at Ashland, Wisconsin and Menomlnee,
23
Michigan.
•4
Our company has had a long history In
Zo
cooperating with State authorities and In the
-------
2922
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 Implementation of a progressive water pollution
3 abatement program. As an example, the American Can
4 Company in 1953 installed spent sulphite liquor
5 evaporators resulting in an immediate reduction of
6 about 50 pezO>ent in the amount of BOD discharged
7 from the sulphite pulping operation. During the
8 ensuing years there has been a continuing downward
9 trend in BOD discharge from this source. In recent
10 years the capacity of the evaporators has been
n increased by improved instrumentation and controls,
12 increased heating capacity, installation of an
13 improved chemical cleaning system and a flash cooler.
u Most recently, improved collection of spent
15 sulphite liquor has been realized through a change in
16 processing this product.
17 In 1960 the American Can Company put into
18 operation a settling lagoon system, the primary
19 purpose of which was to bring fiber losses to a
20 level below 1 per §ent of total mill production.
21 Figures given in the Annual Survey Reports received
22 from the former Committee on Water Pollution (State
23 of Wisconsin) show that our total fiber losses have
24 consistently been less than the 1 percent goal. As
25 an example the years 1965, '66 and *67 show 0.87pex _cent
-------
2923
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2 0.86 peiCJsent and 0.83 per: .pent respectively. Figures
3 taken from in-plant measurements during the past six
4 months indicate the settling lagoons are 90 per; $ent
s plus effective in removing settleable solids. This
6 per pent efficiency would indicate that the lagoons
7 are performing as they were intended.
8 Also in I960 we installed our original
9 spray dryer for processing concentrated spent sulphite
10 liquor. This capacity for producing spray dried
11 products was doubled in 1965 by the installation of
12 a second spray dryer.
13 In June of 1966 a paper machine was shut
14 down. One of the principal reasons for discontinuing
is operations on this machine was the high fiber loss
16 during its normal operation. Economic studies
17 indicated we could not Justify the cost of modernizing
18 this machine and its stock system in order to slgnifi-
19 cantly reduce this fiber loss. The shutdown of this
20 machine showed an immediate and substantial reduction
21 in the amount of settleable solids being sent to the
22 lagooning system.
23 The foregoing installations have all pro-
24 vided the means for reducing wastes discharged from
25 our mill. However, we are continuing our studies
-------
2924
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 toward further improvement. The remaining signi-
3 ficant source of BOD discharged from our mill is
4 the weak and unoollectable spent sulphite liquor.
5 As part of our program to deal with this material we
6 have Joined with three other mills in the Green Bay
7 area and with the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage
8 District in a joint industry-municipal project for
9 treatment of mill effluents which are presently not
10 amenable to processing. Pilot plant studies have
11 indicated that the Joint treatment of the effluents
>
12 involved looks favorable. If successful, there is
13 good prospect for construction of a full scale plant
14 to handle these effluents. When and if such a plant
15 is put into operation, a further substantial reduction
16 in the BOD load from our plant can be expected.
17 American Can Company will carry its fair share of
18 the capital and operating costs of such a plant.
19 1A8/68
20
21 BEFORE THE
22
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
23 DIVISION OP RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
24 PUBLIC HEARING, APPLETON, WISCONSIN
25 JANUARY 18, 1968
-------
2925
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2
3 STATEMENT OP
4 CHARMIN PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY
5 GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN
6 M. J. AUCHTSR, VICE PRESIDENT - MANUFACTURING
7
8 The Charmin Paper Products Company operatea
9 two mills manufacturing sulphite pulp and sanitary
10 paper products at two locations within the City of
11 Green Bay. They are known as the Bast River Mill
12 and the Pox River Mill. Our Little Rapids Mill,
located at West De Pere on the Fox River, was shut
down on a permanent basis in October of last year*
15 The Little Rapids employees were transferred to our
16 Green Bay Mills.
17 Since first testifying for my ccripany on
18 pollutional matters in 19^8 and 19^*9, Charmin's
19 physical plant and capacity has more than doubled.
20 Employment has Increased from 815 to 1560. During
21 this period, over ten million dollars has been spent
22 in the construction and operation of our pollution
23 abatement facilities.
24
25
-------
2926
! RICHARD BILLIN0S
2 BIOCHEMICAL OXYQEN DEMAND
3 First, I would like to briefly describe
4 our efforts and performance to reduce the oxygen
5 demand on the Fox River. At the 1949 Hearings,
6 Charmin committed itself to the construction of a
7 treatment plant knowing full well that the then known
8 methods for treating spent sulphite liquor were only
9 in an experimental stage. We constructed a Yeast
10 Plant to utilize the wood sugars in the liquor pro-
11 dueIng feed and food yeast. This plant cost over
12 three million dollars and eventually attained pollu-
13 tion abatement levels approximating 45 per cent to
M 50 per cent biochemical oxygen demand reduction.
15 After operating more than twelve years, the Yeast
16 Plant was shut down early in 1967* Paper mill
17 expansions begun in the early I960 ls had to be
18 supported with increased pulp capacity. It was not
is practical to process the added spent liquor in the
20 Yeast Plant. We proposed and obtained State approval
21 to construct an evaporate and burn plant. This plant
22 began operations in 1963. Initially, it was operated
23 in conjunction with the Yeast Plant. Later, with
24 Improved techniques, we obtained better biochemical
25 oxygen demand removal by eliminating the Yeast Plant
-------
292?
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 from the process*
3 Our spent liquor collection facilities
4 initially Installed in conjunction with the Yeast
s Plant have been modified to handle the increased
6 liquor flow. Biochemical oxygen demand removal in
7 any treatment system is proportional to efficiency
8 of spent liquor collection. Our collection facilities
9 compare favorably with the best in the Industry. The
10 liquor collection and treatment facilities along with
11 other Improvements In Pulp Mill operations, have
12 reduced total biochemical oxygen demand by 70 per cent.
13 Thla compares with the 3^ per cent reduction reported
14 in 1957 &nd the 66 per cent reduction achieved in
is 1965.
16 Further Improvements are dependent upon
17 completion of several construction projects now
18 underway and development of treatment methods capable
19 of handling condensate from the evaporators and
20 dilute wash waters from the Pulp Mill.
21 Charmin has long felt that biological
22 processes will attain the highest level of treatment
23 efficiency of dilute wastes. We first initiated
24 research on this concept by Jointly treating yeast
ge
plant effluent combined with domestic wastes in 1958.
-------
2928
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 The work was done at our expense In co-operation
3 with the Oreen Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District
4 on pilot plant trickling filters. This effort was
s discontinued in 1961 because It proved only partially
6 successful. Reports of this Investigation were
7 submitted to the State Committee on Water Pollution
8 at that time. A new approach, again at Charmin
9 expense, was begun in late 1964 utilizing the more
10 modern activated sludge process on condensate and
11 dilute wash waters in combination with domestic wastes.
12 The domestic wastes provide the dilution and the
13 nutrients in the form of phosphorous and nitrogen
14 necessary for successful treatment. The laboratory
T_
15 and pilot plant results were sufficiently promising
16 to Interest the three other pulp and paper mills in
17 the Green Bay area. Together with the Oreen Bay
18 Metropolitan Sewerage District, the four mills are
19 carrying out a co-operative research program financed
20 in part with a Federal Government Demonstration and
21 Research Grant. After the technical and engineering
22 aspects of the Joint treatment approach have been
23 worked out, further hurdles must be overcome before
24 this effort can be consummated. However, there is
25 prospect for the construction of a super plant designed
-------
2929
! RICHARD BILLINGS
2 to treat a combined effluent load, Industrial and
3 domestic, In the Green Bay area. We estimate that
4 such a plant will help us attain up to 85 per cent
5 reduction of our total pollutlonal load, This is
6 equivalent to secondary treatment and the highest
7 practical degree attainable with present day tech-
8 nology.
9
10 SUSPENDED SOLIDS
11
12 By collecting excess process water at the
13 East River Mill and pumping It through a pipeline in
14 our tunnel to the Fox River Mill, we have eliminated
15 the discharge of all wastes--biochemical oxygen
16 demand and suspended solids—from the East River.
17 Since 1964, all of our mill effluents from the East
18 River Mill and the Fox River Mill pass through a
19 single effluent measuring station at the Fox River
20 Mill. This station is equipped with modern sampling
21 and analysis equipment.
22 With our system of fiber and water conaer-
23 vatlon in papermaklng operations, our suspended solids
loss from papermaking have for many years been well
25 below the State Committee on Water Pollution Standard
-------
2930
-. RICHARD BILLINOS
2 of one pound per thousand gallons and 1 per cent of
3 production. Our records Indicate our paper-making
4 losses are consistently around 1/2 of 1 per cent.
5 In September 1965, we started up a flotation^
@ oentrifugafelon-lncineration system to dispose of fines
7 from the Pulp Hill. Aa is usual with new installations,
8 we experienced some operation difficulties in each of
9 the thi?@Q distinct sections of the system. Flotation
10 and incineration appear now to be under control. We
u continue to have some problems with centrifugatlon.
12 Early in November 1967, we Initiated a new
13 program to invest an additional $920,000 in pollution
14 abatement facilities at our Oreen Bay Hills. This
is new program scheduled to be completed by May 1, 1968
16 will allow us to reach 75 per cent biochemical oxygen
17 demand reduction. The program consists oft
18 ... more settling tanks, a second centrifuge,
19 additional flotation and screening equipment
20 all directed to reducing the fiber content of
21 waste water,
22 ... additional equipment to recover and treat
23 more spent sulphite liquor from pulp making, and
24 ... a number of small but Important process
25 changes at the East and Fox River Hills, such as
-------
2931.
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 better collection of overflows, new instru-
3 mentation, piping changes and reduced water
4 usage.
5 A separate appropriation for approximately
6 $260,000, is being formulated and will be approved
7 In the next few months. These funds will be spent
8 on further reducing paper machine losses and in-plant
9 water conservation measures.
10 When these programs are completed late In
11 1968 or early 1969, suspended solids losses from our
12 pulp and paper mill operations are expected to b@
13 somewhat less than 3/4 of 1 per cent of production.
14
15 SUMMARY
16
7 In summary, we believe the record confirms
that Charmin has consistently and progressively
19 carried out its 1949 commitments. Further, by mid-
1968, we will have achieved a 75 per cent biochemical
21
oxygen demand removal. Our goal In 1972-1973 will
22
be 85 per cent or 1?0,000# of biochemical oxygen
23
demand removal per day which is equivalent to
24
secondary or complete treatment. This will result
25
in effluent discharge of 30,000 to 35,000 pounds of
-------
2932
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 biochemical oxygen demand per day. Such a degree
3 of treatment, if uniformly attained by all parties
4 concerned, will result in a substantial up-grading
5 of the Pox River and Green Bay to a level meeting
6 the water quality standards proposed by the State
7 of Wisconsin.
8
9 January 30, 1968
10
11 Mr. Freeman Holmer
12 Director, Wisconsin Department
13 of Resources Development
14 1 West Wilson Street
15 Madison, Wisconsin 53702
16 Dear Mr. Freeman:
17 Combined Paper Mills, Inc. wishes to file
18 this written statement in response to your notice on
19 investigation and hearing and a report on an investl-
20 gatlon of the pollution in the lower Fox River and
21
Green Bay made during the period 1966-67 dated
22 January 4, 1968. Our company does not take issue
23 with the survey findings as summarized In Item 18
24
on Page 5 of the above report. We wish to indicate
25
our interest and intend to cooperate with the
-------
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 Department In all matters pertaining to stream
3 pollution.
< Our company Is an old mill, just under 80
5 years old, and has had all the problems associated
6 with Improving water pollution conditions In an old
7 mill. Since the first orders Issued in 1949, we
8 installed four additional eavealIs and in 1955
9 installed a primary clarlfler. After working with
10 various manufacturers of sludge thickening equipment,
11 we finally installed an Eimco Rotobelt Sludge Filter
12 in 1959, the first application of this type of equip-
13 ment of delnk sludge thickening in the Industry.
14 The total cost of the equipment at this time was just
15 under $300,000.00.
16 Further studies were then instituted for
17 treatment of the deinking waste water to provide
18 secondary treatment for the total mill effluent.
19 Because of the problems associated with the treatment
20 of deinked effluent, this study required two complete
21 summers and part of a third. The primary problem
22
associated with this study was the excessive foaming
v
23 conditions resulting from the use of a relatively
24 high useage of synthetic detergent. From the data
25 obtained, the Chester Consulting Engineers
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2934
RICHARD BILLINQS
of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, were retained to study
the data and make recommendations as to the aroope
of the facilities necessary to suocessfully treat
the total effluent.
Because of the very large size equipment
necessary to handle this type of effluent and since
the State of Wisconsin passed a law limiting the use
of certain types of detergent, our company decided
to cease the deInking operation and substitute this
with a revolutionary new process for producing a
mechanical type of pulp based on the mechanical
refining of aspen wood chips after a treatment with
a weak chemical solution at relatively low temperatures
The process was chosen because it was based on the
use of wood readily available in Wisconsin and also
gives a very high yield. As a result, the company
ceased deinking operations by August, 1966, and
replaced this with the cheml-mechanical pulping
operation on a small commercial basis. Initial work
on studying the characteristics of these wastes was
started to determine what process would provide the
best treatment. We now know that the volume of
effluent is considerably less on a per ton basis than
it was for the deInking process and that the suspended
-------
2935
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 solids are also less than what they were for the
3 deinking process. This summer we expect a full sized
4 plant in operation and will continue our study to
5 determine the process to use to tr©@,t the effluent/
8 The company is installing two additional
7 hydro electric generators at the present time which
8 will have provisions for air venting the same as
9 provided for at three of our present turbines which
10 are used to aerate the water passing through the
11 turbines during the critical river flow periods when
12 approximately 3/4 of a ton of oxygen per day is added
13 to the water.
14 Very truly yours,
15 COMBINED PAPER MILLS, INC.
16 R. A. VOGT
17 RAV:Jmb
18
19 STATEMENT OP CONSOLIDATED PAPERS, INC.
20 PUBLIC HEARING ON POX RIVER POLLUTION
21 APPLETON, WISCONSIN
22
23 January 18, 1968
I am G.K. Dickerman, Technical Assistant
-------
2936
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 To The President, Consolidated Papers, Inc., with
3 headquarters in Wisconsin Rapids. Consolidated owns
« and operates a bleached aulfite pulp mill situated
5 on the Pox River in the heart of the City of Appleton.
6 This plant is capable of producing 150 tons of pulp
7 a day and employs 264 men, has an annual payroll of
9 $1,900,000, and paid $90,000 in property taxes in 1966„
9 The very substantial pollution abatement
10 program which has been carried out at our Appleton
11 mill strongly supports the written statement of
12 corporate policy which says in part, "As good
13 corporate citizens, we continue to accept our
14 responsibility to preserve and protect natural
15 resources and environment in the areas in which we
16 operate." In keeping with this policy, we do want
17 to see the water quality of the Lower Pox River
18 brought up to the standards for Industrial and
19 cooling water, as well as partial body contact and
public/water supplies, which classification has been
proposed between Appleton and Green Bay. We would
22
take issue, however, with those who suggest that
this section of river be classified primarily for
24 fish and aquatic life, since this nullifies the basic
25
"multiple use" concept.
-------
2937
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 i would like to tell you something of what
3 we have done to improve the water quality of the Fox
4 River below our Appleton Division, commonly known as
5 the Interlake mill. Following the public hearings
6 held In Green Bay In December 1948 and 19*19, we
7 submitted plans for an abatement program as directed
8 In Order 2-49JA-5. The plan as approved by the State
9 Committee on Mater Pollution called for the installa-
10 tlon of an evaporator and facilities for burning the
11 concentrated spent sulflte liquor in a furnace
12 especially modified for this purpose. There was no
13 design or engineering experience to draw on in this
14 country for this unique evaporator; therefore, we
15 had to go to Sweden to obtain a design suitable to
16 our special requirements. We estimated our pollution
17 load would be reduced by 40 per cent.
18 This pioneering installation was completed
19 and started up on January 12, 1933* The cost of
20 the evaporator with associated equipment came to
21 $673,000. Although the economics were unfavorable,
the abatement efficiency exceeded expectations and
23 the BOD discharge was reduced from 45 tons a day as
24 shown in the 1949 survey to less than 20 tons, or
25 slightly more than 50 per cent.
-------
2938
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 In April, 1957* there was another Pox River
3 hearing, this time In Appleton. It was followed by
4 Order 3-57J-27 dated October 10, 1957* requesting
S that we submit plans for further reduction. This time
6 It was stated that our reduction should be on the
7 order of 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the base load-
8 Ing. Studies which had been carried out by the mill
9 technical staff with the assistance of the Institute
10 of Paper Chemistry resulted In the design of Improved
11 collection facilities. The plans were approved and
12 the facilities were put into operation in the spring
13 of 1961. We soon realized that additional evaporation
14 capacity would be needed to take care of the improved
15 collection. We installed an additional evaporator
16 . at a cost of $220,000. It was started up on October
17 12, 1962.
18 Since then we have installed a third
19 evaporator, and although there has been no official
20 determination, we estimated that we have now reduced
21 the dally BOD discharge to approximately 12 tons.
22 These later gains are of less spectacular amounts
23 than the gains of 15 years ago* because the better a
24 mill*s performance becomes, the harder it is to take
25 off another increment of pollution.
-------
2939
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2 This recent addition to our evaporating
3 capacity allows us to collect 75 per cent of the
4 spent liquor dissolved solids with an estimated 70
5 per cent reduction in BOD loading. This met the
6 objective of the State Board of Health and the
7 Committee on water Pollution as expressed in the
8 series of orders numbered 3-57J issued October 10,
9 1957, from which I quote: "It appears that a minimum
10 overall reduction of 70 per cent to 75 per cent from
11 raw waste load is needed to gain improved conditions
12 in the receiving water." End of quote.
13 I want to emphasize that this program would
14 not have been possible based on the original concept
15 of burning all the concentrated liquor. We could not
16 have supported the cost and, furthermore, we were
17 unable to find a satisfactory solution to the problem
18 of fly ash which was critical due to the mill's
19 central city location. Fortunately, an Intensive
20 program of research and sales effort led to the
21 development of a by-product market which has been
consuming all of the spent liquor we can collect and
23 convert to dry or concentrated form. Our total
24 expenditure at this plant for pollution abatement
25 facilities, including the third evaporator addition
-------
29^0
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 installed In 1967, now amounts to over $2,250,000.
3 It Is interesting to compare this figure with our
4 total investment for the remainder of the mill of
5 $5-1/2 million.
6 Only by making heavy expenditures in
7 developing our own technology where none existed,
8 were we able to meet the objective of 40 per cent
9 reduction in compliance with Order 2-49JA-5 issued
10 February 21, 1950. Expansion of the facilities at
11 additional heavy cost enabled us to meet the escalated
12 objective of 70 per cent to 75 per cent reduction
13 from the raw waste load. Our progress, while sub-
14 stantlal, has been difficult because Inter-lake's
15 major facilities essential to the production of pulp
16 are old and obsolete. Nevertheless, our mill has
17 managed to continue in operation through a time when
18 other mills using the same pulping process have been
19 closing one by one at an accelerating rate. We know
20
only too well that the cost of pollution abatement
facilities has been an Important factor in each closing
22
In some instances the sulfite mills are replaced with
facilities for producing kraft pulp, but such a move
4 is not feasible in our Appleton location. We must
25
conclude that it would not be good business Judgment
-------
2941
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 to plan additional major capital expenditures to
3 meet further escalated targets in the reduction of
* BOP loadings at the Interlake mill.
5 We recognize further reduction in BOD
6 loadings may be necessary to reach the water quality
7 standards proposed for the industrial and cooling
8 water classification. Further reduction by our
9 Appleton mill must come through treatment of the
10 very dilute wastes and at the moment this presents
11 an unsolved problem. Presently, we are conducting
12 pilot studies in our mill on the reverse osmosis
13 or industrial kidney process which is under develop-
14 ment by the Pulp Manufacturers' Research League.
15 This will be followed by a large-scale demonstration
16 of a commercial-size unit to be built with funds
17 supported in part by the Federal Water Pollution
18 Control Administration under a research and demonstra-
19 tlbn grant made to the Research League. The process
20 appears too costly for general application, but we
21 hope it may prove practical for the concentration
22 of certain wastes so as to make more intensive use
23 of our existing facilities.
24 It has also been suggested that reductions
25 in BOD can be accomplished through the formation of
-------
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2 a metropolitan water treatment district with
3 facilities for Joint secondary treatment. We believe
4 that this should be given careful study by a planning
5 agency qualified to do the Job. Secondary treatment
6 or its equivalent on all industrial wastes on the
7 Lower Fox may be necessary but it appears thoroughly
8 impractical, both technologically and economically,
9 on an individual basis. We submit that any further
w . - •
10 effort should be directed toward a facility designed
11 for Joint treatment of municipal and industrial waste.
12 Furthermore, we suggest that any such project
13 study be expanded to Include an overall study of the
hydrology and water quality of the entire Lower Fox.
15 We must have a sufficiently accurate analysis of the
16
whole situation to assure sound forward planning of
17
capital needs. Computer technology now makes such
18
analysis feasible through simulation models of
19 hydrology and water quality. We believe such a
study is essential to meet the long-range objectives
21
proposed by the Department of Natural Resources.
22
In summary, we are proud of what we have
23 .
done at Consolidated's Interlake mill. We have
24
consistently met the targets set for BOD reduction.
25
We have gone ahead with substantial installations on
-------
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 our own initiative several times when we were
3 already in full compliance with the orders of the
Division of Resource Development or its predecessor
5 agency,
6
7 STATEMENT OF GREEN BAT PACKAGING, INC.
8 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
9 DIVISION OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
10
11 Green Bay Packaging, Inc. operates a
12 neutral sulfite semichemical pulp and paperboard mill
13 in the City of Green Bay, withdrawing water for pro-
14 ceasing from the Fox River and discharging the water
15 after use. This mill operation is presently under
16 Order 3-57J38AA issued by the Committee on Water
17 Pollution July 27, 1965 to reduce the quantity of
18 5 day Biochemical Oxygen Demand by 75 per cent to
19
,682 pounds per day.
20
21
an order to the Company in 1957* no technically
22
feasible method of accomplishing this goal was known
23
which would permit the mill to continue its operation,
24
Green Bay Packaging consequently was compelled to
25
seek time extensions to investigate developing
-------
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2 Technology. Meanwhile our Company supported
3 laboratory development work on what appeared to be
* th@ most promising process to aocompllsh our particu-
5 lar needs. We then proposed to the Committee a plan
6 for expanded pilot plant work, which provided for
7 the design and construction of the first pilot scale
8 project of the Atomized Suspension Technique as
9 applied to pulping liquor combustion. After approval
10 by the State, we constructed and operated this pilot
11 plant. This experience dramatically demonstrated a
12 risk that our industry has repeatedly faced at great
13 expense, namely that laboratory success does not
14 necessarily mean practical large scale success. Our
15 pilot plant encountered massive corrosion difficulties
16 that were impossible to overcome. We were compelled
17 to scrap the entire plant as well as the immediate
18 possibility of meeting the Committee order by use
19 of this method.
Following this experience, Green Bay Paokag-
21
ing continued its program of evaluating, In detail,
22
every process that appeared to offer an answer to
23 •
the problem. We also became the first semichemlcal
24
pulp producer to join the Pulp Manufacturers Research
25
League to review the potential applications of their
-------
2945
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 work to our needs.
3 The League at that time was considering
4 the installation of a commercial-scale Electrodialysls
s pilot plant and this seemed applicable to our par-
6 ticular problem. We assigned a chemical engineer
7 to work full time on this project with the League
8 technical staff at their laboratories in Appleton.
9 Results eventually forced the conclusion that Electro-
10 dialysis, at this stage of development could not be
11 fitted to our process conditions.
12 Our technical staff continued its evaluation
13 of other developing methods. In 1963 application
14 of the fluid bed combustion process to neutral sulfite
15 semi chemical pulping liquors had been reported. We
16 , undertook pilot plant work to learn in detail the
17 effects the use of this process would have to reduce
i8 BOD and how it could be technically adapted to the
19 process requirements of our mill. Analysis of the
20 pilot plant results Indicated that; fluid-bed com-
21 bastion could do the job, and with the State's
22 approval Green Bay Packaging in 1965 contracted
23 for the design and construction of its present fluid-
24 bed combustion plant. This plant was started up in
25 July of 1966 and as is often the case with a new
-------
29^6
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 process, encountered a series of process design
3 problems. We established reliable process control
4 during the second quarter of 1967* Operational
5 experience as well as equipment and process improve-
6 ments are continuing to improve stability,
7 To keep close watch on how well the new
8 plant can do its, Job, we expanded our effluent
9 sampling program during 1967* We first increased
s
10 sampling to a weekly 72 hour composite sample. Then
11 last December, we again expanded the sampling to
12 composite 10 samples each hour 24 hours per day, 5
13 days per week. The data obtained in 1967 is sum-
14 marlzed In the attached table and reflects the
15 effect of the fluid-bed combustion plant. The plant
16 eliminated the discharge of more than twenty three
17 million pounds of pulping liquor solids representing
18 approximately six million pounds of BOD during the
19 year.
The present plant is the first of its
21
design, and as such, required months of process
22
analysis and modification work. Variability of BOD
23
results reflect the many interruptions required for
24
process adjustments or equipment modifications that
25
could not be made without temporary shutdowns. This
-------
29^7
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 phase of development Is nearlng completion, and we
3 expect to eliminate the need for such downtime,
4 except for unexpected mechanical breakdown. As the
5 fluid-bed installation achieves this condition, we
6 are confident that the improved plant reliability,
7 expanded liquor and product storage, and further
8 experience, will enable us to meet the ordered
9 value consistently during 1968.
10 This progress in eliminating the effects
11 of collectible liquors has been substantial and very
12 expensive. Difficult as it has been. It represents
13 the most simply solved part of the total effluent
14 problem because we have dealt with relatively con-
15 centrated BOD contributing materials. We hope to
16 achieve further significant reductions in the
17 effluent BOD. At this time however, no practical
18
method is known to us by which we can separate the
undesirable organics from the tremendous volumes of
recycled process water in which they are dissolved.
Means to accomplish this separation are being studied*
22
in the League laboratories and Green Bay Packaging
23
is a participant in the League's large scale Reverse
24
Osmosis project to demonstrate the practicality of
25
such studied. Another possibility now in the
-------
2948
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2 preliminary stage of Investigation la to send these
3 dilute waters to a bio-oxidation plant capable of
4 processing such weak wastes along with municipal
5 sewage. Green Bay Packaging is actively participating
6 along with other major pulp and paper mills, the Green
7 Bay Metropolitan Sewage District, and the Federal
8 Water Pollution Control Administration to demonstmt©
9 the technical and economic feasibility of this approach,
10 These are long term development projects however, and
11 the reliable data needed, assuming a successful com-
12 pletion of either or both projects Is not expected
13 until 1970 or 1971.
14 These methods to remove additional BOD
15 already show evidence that they will be more costly
16 to remove each pound of BOD than the methods we have
17 used to date. Whether such costs are supportable is
18 a question that will not be resolved until these
19 projects or others like them are fully investigated.
20
Planning, when it can be based on factual information
21 '
will require logical and clearly defined goals. The
22
substantial increase in cost to achieve each new
23
improvement will simply not permit errors in decisions,
24
Large capital expenditures and major increases in
25
operating costs that produce no marketable product
-------
29^9
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 will not allow a company to continue to provide
3 employment and strength to Its community.
4 Green Bay Packaging, Inc. has demonstrated
5 a substantial effort. We have achieved significant
6 results In the elimination of pollutlonal effects of
7 our collectible pulping liquors. We will continue
8 such efforts In attacking the as yet unanswered
9 problems of dilute wastes. We remind the Division
10 of Resource Development that this area of the problem
11 will yield only to new methods. It will take deter-
12 mination, time and expense to Identify, develop and
13 put such new methods to commercial use.
14 ^ Green Bay Packaging will actively continue
15 Its present program and Its forward progress In
16 accord with both the letter and the spirit of the
17 State's stream protection program.
18
Respectfully submitted,
19
20
William R. Nelson
21
Director, Research & Development
22
Green Bay Packaging, Inc.
23 WRN:kh
24
25 1A8/68
-------
GREEN BAY PACKAGING, INC.
STREAM IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENT REPORT - 196?
Month
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE.
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
Pulp
Mill
Op. Days
30
28
30' "
30
30
30
25
28
27
31
30
26. «
Fluo -.
Solids
Op. Days
18.0
15.0
13.0
15.0
25.0
29.0
19.0
25.0
19.0
26.7
20.55
20.30
$F.S.
Oper.
Time
60
54
43
50
83
97
76
89
71
86
69
76
-
.#/Mo.BLS
To Fluo
Solids
2,469,411
2,095,787
3,202,136
3,129,875
2,597,726
2,682,086.
2,040,553
2,626,199
2,561,093
3,090,125
2,832,582
*, 962, 400
,$BLS
Burned
43
51
50
49
83
- 96
61
60
86
85
63
94
Average
#/BOD/24Hrs .
Produced
79,200 .
78,700
81,900
87,300
78,700
76,000
75,550
78,700
78,250
82,500
85,000
80,300
Effluent
Average
#BOD/24Hrs .
25,926
29,010
42,879
39,830
28,449
18,031
25,561
25,767
42,574
27,600
31,072
27,120
Average/6
Reduction
BOD
. 6?
63
48
54
64
76
66
67
46
66
64
66
-
#/M Gals.
Filterable
Solids'
1.35
1.84
2.26
2.68
_ 2.20
0.94
1.13
1.61
2.41
0.95
1.82
1*43
w
vo
VJ1
0
-------
2951
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2
3 STATEMENT
4 by
5 ROBERT P. BALCH
6 Hearing in Appleton, Wisconsin
7 State Division of Resource Development
8 January 18, 1968
9
10 My name is Robert P. Baloh. I am a
11 Research Associate and Group Leader of the Aquatic
12 Biology Group at The Institute of Paper Chemistry,
Appleton, a graduate school and research center.
14
I have a Bachelor Degree and Master of
is
Science Degree from Michigan State university in
16
Aquatic Biology, and have been employed as an Aquatic
17
Biologist by the Institute for 17 years.
18
I have been engaged in biological water
19
quality studies in the Lower Fox River and Green Bay
20
since 1955. It is noteworthy that the 1955 Pox River*
21
Green Bay biological water quality study, which forms
22
in large part, the baseline with which recent studies
23
are compared, was a Joint effort with Kenneth M.
24
Hackenthun, then state public health biologist, and
25
myself.
-------
2952
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 I have personally conducted, or supervised,
3 six biological water quality studies of the Lower Fox
4 River and Green Bay. These have been made at
5 regular intervals between 1955 and 196? on behalf of
6 a group of Pox River Valley pulp and paper companies.
7 My immediate reason for appearing at this
8 hearing is to provide additional data that may be
9 helpful to aquatic biologists from the State Division
10 of Resource Development in review of their conclusions
11 drawn in the biological portion of their water quality
12 study dated January 4, 1968 and entitled, "Report on
13 an Investigation of the Pollution in the Lower Fox
14 River and Green Bay made during 1966 and 1967".
15 This group of Fox Valley pulp and paper
16 mills has authorized the Institute of Paper Chemistry
17 to make the data available to State personnel for
18 their use and I discussed the data with the State
19 biologist this last Tuesday.
20 On Page 14 of the State Report the condition
21 of the biological complex existing in that portion
an
of the river in the vicinity of Appleton Palisades*
23 Appleton Yacht Club is described as containing "no
24
above mentioned report, the author interprets this
clean water organisms.'.' On Page 17 and ^7 of the
25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RICHARD BILLINOS
condition to indicate a deterioration of water quality
in this section of the river since intolerant or
sensitive ("clean water") animals were present in
this area in 1955 and not apparently, in 1966.
•Rie data reported by the State biologists
support their conclusion. However, since the 1955
study, my studies of 1957, 1959> 1961, 1964, and
1967 have all shown the presence of a significant
number of several different kinds of intolerant or
sensitive organisms to be present in the Appleton
Palisades-Appleton Yacht Club portion of the Lower
Pox River.
Further, the Division of Resource Develop-
ment report states that a total of 67 bottom samples
distributed over 23 Fox River Stations were the
basis for their 1966 biological study of the Fox River.
The Institute's 1967 study Included a total of 302
samples from 43 Lower Fox River stations including
27 samples which were from the Appleton Palisades-
Appleton Yacht Club area alone, in addition, five
other studies, all Indicating the presence of an
intolerant or sensitive animal population in this
area, have been made.
It is evident from an Inspection of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
295^
RICHARD BILLINGS
available data that these sensitive organisms were
present on the bottom of the river during six studies
Including those made in 1964 and 196?. It is probable
that additional samples collected by the State
biologist would have established their presence there
in 1966.
There is no question that the density and
diversity of this Intolerant or sensitive bottom-
dwelling Invertebrate animal population in the
Appleton Palisades-Appleton Yacht Club portion of
the river are reduced as compared to that population
present upstream from municipal and industrial dis-
charges , in areas of comparable hydrology, in the
Neenah and Menasha channels. There also can be no
question that an established resident population of
intolerant organisms also has been present in the
Appleton Palisades-Appleton Yacht Club portion of
the Lower Fox River on at least six different occasions
between 1955 and 1967.
In addition to the differences between the
1966-1967 State report and my reports, noted for
that section of the Fox River immediately upstream
from Appleton, there are some differences regarding
the State's finding pertaining to that section of
-------
2955
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 the Lower Fox River between the College Avenue Bridge
3 and the Kimberly Dam* downstream from the City of
4 Appleton.
5 On Pages 14 and 15 of the State Report,
6 conditions of the biological complex in this area
7 are reported. A comparison of their 1966 data with
8 mine for 1967 indicates a difference in the water
9 quality between these two reports. The additional
10 data presented here indicate that the water quality
11 of that section of the river between College Avenue
12 Bridge and the Kimberly Dam has not deteriorated
13 as described in the State Report.
14 Appended to this statement is a summary
15 of the data that we have assembled in our most recent
16 survey, along with a list of the companies.that have
17 underwritten the costs of this work.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
2956
Biological Study of the Fox River and Green Bay
Project 1861
List of Sponsoring Companies
1. American Can Company
2. Bergstrom Paper Company
3. The Charmin Paper Products Co.
(The Procter & Gamble Company)
4. Combined Paper Mills, Inc.
5. Consolidated Papers, Inc.
6. Fox River Paper Corporation
7. Gilbert Paper Company
8. Green Bay Packaging Inc.
9. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
10. Nicolet Paper Company
11. Riverside Paper Corporation
12. John Strange Paper Co.
13. Thilmany Pulp & Paper Company
Neenah, Wisconsin
Neenah, Wisconsin
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Cincinnati, Ohio
Combined Locks, Wisconsin
Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin
Appleton, Wisconsin
Menasha, Wisconsin
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Neenah, Wisconsin
West DePere, Wisconsin
Appleton, Wisconsin
Menasha,/ Wisconsin
Kaukaun'a, Wisconsin
- 5 -
-------
2957
LOVER FOX RIVER annUS - 1967
A Buaoaxy of D&ta Pertaining to. the Macroscopic Bottom Dualling Invertebrate Fauna
Station Station
number Mileage
Station Description
A
1
2
3
5A
5?
5C
5D
5B
5F
6
6A
6B
7
fcO-Ul.5 Vicinity of Heenah, Manaaha
channel* In Lake Hlnnabago
39.J Heanah channel - vicinity Heeaab
light
38.5 . Manaoha channel upstream from
drawbridge
37.9 Little Lake Butte dea Morta -
downstream from Heenah ohannal
37.6 Little Lake Butte dea Morta -
extreme south end
37.3 Little Lake Butte daa Morta -
power trananlaalon tovera
37-0
36.9
36.6
36.2
35.5
35.8
35.0
Little Lake Butte dee Horti -
mldvay between K.C. Lakevlev
and C.&R.H. rail trestle
Little Lake Butte dee Morte -.
vicinity C.&N.H. rail trestle
Little Lake Butte dee Morta -
, mldlake
Little Lake Butte dea Morta -
midway between C.&H.W. rail
trestle & Stroebe'a Island '
Little Lake Butte ties Morta -
south end of Stroebe's Island
Little Lake Butte dea Morta -
power transmission lines -
Streets'a Island
Little Lake Butte des Morta -
Stroebe'a Island - north end
Little Lake Butte dea Morta to
Fox River transition cone
"HO quantitative aanplea.
Combined qualitative and quantitative data.
°Saaple datar questionable.
timber of Genera
Average Itinber
of Organltaa
per Square Foot
Intol-
erant
1
9
7
e
0
3
«*
ib
ie
Tol-
erant
9
15
• 11
11
1
6
3b
V
1«
Vary
Tol-
erant
10
9
7
9
3
5
,b
.."••>* -
0°
vary £ Intel-
Intol- Tol- Tol- erant
•rant erant erant Oenara
5 857 316 5
-• -* -' 87
"-• •• •* 28
-* -* -* 89
•* -* -* 0
.» .•••'.• a
- ' 9 88 20*
0 3 2« 11
-• -* •« 50a
Stream
. Claaiiflcatlon
Semipolluted
Balanced
Balanced
Unbalanced
Bemipolluted
Eaat shore -
unbalanced. Center
of lake 4 weat shore
- eemlpolluted
Wost shore -
polluted, Eaat
shore & mldlaka -
aemipolluted
West shore &
mldlake - polluted
Eaat shore —
aemipolluted
SemipoUuted
ob 3* ab o
9 9
68 219
0
0
0
0
lb
2
3
10*
*
7
7*
0
0
0
*
9
5
W
»
1M>
0
0
0
Polluted
Sen! polluted
GemlpoUuted
Semlpolluted
Oray board house
.vicinity - serai- •
polluted, downstream '
gray board houaa -
ipolluted
-------
LOWER FOX .RIVER STUDIES - 1967
A Sumnary of Data Pertaining to the Macroscopic Bottom-Dwelling Invertebrate Fauna
Average Number
of Organisms
number of Genera per Square Foot
Station Station
Bumber Mileage
8
9
10
11
13
14
16
loA
17
18
20
21
22
22A
32.8
30.5
30.0
Station Description
Applaton — follsades to Lutz
Appleton — College Avenue Bridge -
1/2-Mile downstream — College Avenue
Bridge
28.5 Vicinity of the Appleton Sewage
27.8
27.3
26.4
25.0
24.3
23.2
22.5
20.0
lfl.5
16.0
14.2
Sunset Point — Klmberly
Klmberly Dam — Immediately upstream
Vicinity Riverside Sanitarium, shortly
downstream from Combined Locks
Midway between Riverside Sanitarium
and Riverside fork - Kaukauna
Riverside "Park — Kaukauna
1.5-MHeu downstream — Kaukauna
Midway between Kaukauna & Raplde
Croehe
Immediately upstream — Raplde Croehe
Dam
Midway between Raplde Croehe &
1 Mile downstream - Wrights-town
Midway between Wrlghtstown &
Little Rapids
fntol-
•rant
10
5
0
ob
1
db
0
Tol-
erant
17
15
n
14*
14
10*
.10
Very Very
Tol- Intel- Tol- Tol-
erant erant erant erant
jl .» .» -a
8 -» -ft -*
9 -* -* -*
9b 0 422 26
12 ' - -« . -« -a
llb 0 2228 206
8 '-• -» -•
% Intol-
erant
Genera Stream Classification
26
13
0
0
3
0
0
Unbalanced
Unbalanced (right bank)
Semipolluted (left bank)
Semipolluted (left bank)
Left bank & midstream - semipolluted
Right bank (100-yd. downstream from
sewage outfall) - semipolluted
Semipolluted
Semipolluted
Right bank - polluted
Left bank - semipolluted
Semipolluted (left bank)
0
ob
0
V
ob
ob
0
0
T
6*
3
V
2 •
5*
7
5
11
9*
2
V
3b
4b
6
*
a
0
0
0
0
•-•
_•
-*
64
220
1
17
a
_•
a
32
20
3
5
•
„•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t*if IM » y**>A^**^v* \ JJCA <
Polluted (right b(
Polluted
Polluted
Polluted
Polluted
Polluted
Polluted
14
Polluted
*Ho quantitative samples.
^Combine! qualitative and quantitative data.
fO
VO
\JI
00
-------
2959
Station Station
Ho. Mileage
LOWER FOX RIVER 8TU1UE8 - 1967
A Sunoary of Data Pertaining to the Macroaoqple Bottom-Dwelling Invertebrate Fauna
Station Description
23 12.1 Immediately upstream - Little
Rapids Dam
2b 11.9 Shortly downstream - Little Rapid* 1*
Dam
Opposite Hickory Grove.Sanitarium
Midway between Little Rapids and
Hickory Grove Sanitarium
2.3 Miles downstream from Little
Rapids Dam
Junction of Lost Dauphin Road
and County Highway D
Da Fere.radio towers
St. Herbert College Campus
Immediately downstream Da Fere Dam
Downstream De Fere Dam 3/8 mile
Ashwaubenon Creek Slough — Buoy
19, 20
26E l».3 Dutchman's Creek Slough
260 3*1 Opposite Ft. Howard Paper Co.
27E 0.8 City of Oreen Bay - near mouth
of East River
27F 0.0 City of Oreen Bay — mouth of Fox • 0
River at power plant
2>tA
2UB
ae
2UD
25
25A
26A
2oB
26C
11.5
10.7
9-7
9.2
8.7
7.0
6.U
6.0
5.2
Ho. of Genera
Intol-
erant
0
1°
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tol-
erant
2
5
B.
3
2
1
2b
3
7
1
0
0
0
3
Very
Tol-
erant
3
6
5
3
2
3
5b
5
8
1
1
0
2
1
Average Number
of Organisms
per Square Foot
Intol-
erant
0
~»
0
— *
0
0
0
0
--•
0
• 0
0
0
0
Tol-
erant
7
--'
25
— •
9
It
23
28
«a
<1
0
0
0
19
Very
Tol-
erant
7
a
59
--*
25
26
5*
79
--'
9
3
-------
2960
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2
3 STATEMENT OP R. M. BILLINGS
ASSISTANT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT
5 RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
6 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION
7
8 RE: THE INVESTIGATION OP POLLUTION
OP THE LOWER POX RIVER
9
10
TOs DEPARTMENT OP NATURAL RESOURCES
11 DIVISION OP RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
12
13
14 APPLETON, WISCONSIN
15 January 18, 1968
16
17 My name Is Richard Billings. I am assistant
18 to the Vice President of Research and Engineering of
19
Kimberly-Clark Corporation. I am appearing before
20
you today to outline briefly the stream Improvement
21
programs now In various stages of planning and
22
completion at the Kimberly-Clark mills situated on
23
the Pox River. As these additions and changes are
24
accomplished, pollution from these mills will be
25
progressively reduced. This will be an Important
-------
2961
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 contribution to the total effort being made through-
3 out our Valley — a total effort designed to signlfl-
4 cantly improve the Fox River.
s The effect of these improvements should be
6 felt this coming summer, and will become increasingly
7 apparent in the following years. It will take time,
8 however, to bring the Lower Fox into year around
9 compliance with the standards recommended by the
10 Division of Resource Development. Pulp and paper
11 has been manufactured in our Pox Valley for nearly
12 a hundred years.
13 The majority of the mills are old mills
i4 and pollution reduction is much more difficult to
15 achieve with old mills than with new ones. Today
16 concern for pollution abatement has become increasingly
17 widespread. Advanced abatement methods can now be
18 incorporated in the design of a new plant from the
19 very beginning. This was not true when many of the
20 Valley's existing mills were built. Because it was
21 not, we are faced with the problem today of pains -
takingly working out individual solutions for each
23 old plant. These solutions must be tailormade to
24 the physical layout and location of a plant, to the
25 plant1s technological development and to the economic
-------
2962
! RICHARD BILLINOS
2 climate in which it exists. Sometimes a practical
3 solution cannot be found and the operation must be
4 -discontinued. Whatever the solution may be, it does
5 not come easily or quickly.
6 Further, it has been demonstrated that it
7 requires at least three years to conceive and develop
8 a program from the laboratory until, having passed
9 through the pilot plant, full-scale design, construe—
10 tion and shake-down stages, it emerges as an operating
n unit. Even after operations start, a period of months
12 must elapse before the "bugs'* are all eliminated and
13 the new system is brought up to design efficiency.
14 ifte treatment facilities already in operation and
15 the increasing frequency of start-up-of new ones,
IB bear testimony to the fact that the paper industry
i? has long been hard at work to meet today's demands
18 for improved streams.
19 But Just as today's improvements are the
20 results of yesterday's preparations, so today we
21 must plan for tomorrow — and each tomorrow with
22 its Increase in population and production will
23 likewise Increase the challenge. Installations
24 which we make today must be flexible and adaptable
25 and expandable* We cannot afford to spend huge sums
-------
2963
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 on equipment which will do the job now but which,
3 before long, will have to be abandoned because of
4 obsolescence. We who have the assignment of improving
5 our streams through reducing pollution must look
6 carefully down each street — every street — to see
7 that it does not come to a dead end. And the streets
8 are not marked.1
9 One avenue that appears at this time to
10 hold much promise is the one which leads to Joint
11 treatment of industrial and municipal wastes. Pollu-
12 tlon is everybody's problem and today's conditions
13 are due to population growth as well as to industrial
14 expansion. No plan for the future of an area can
15 ever be complete unless it includes practical provision
16 for waste disposal. The Fox Valley Council of Govern-
17 ments is launching such a study — the first of its
18 kind in the area. Engineers have been engaged and
19 a comprehensive review of present and future municipal
20 and industrial requirements will be undertaken. Local
21 funds have been approved,, application for a Federal
22 grant has been made and approval is expected shortly.
23 First, however, there is much to be done
24 and much is being done at individual mills to solve
25 the problems of today. Each solution will be made
-------
2964
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 with an eye to the future. For no natter what the
3 Council of Governments study reveals* or what break -
4 through* are made by research, or what reductions
s in pollution are accomplished by industries and
municipalities, that which we do today must be
7 considered only as the step that precedes the steps
8 which come tomorrow and in the future.
9
10 Pollution Abatement at Kimberly
11
12 The KlBberly mill has been reducing the
13 spent sulfite. liquor pollution of the Fox River
14 since 1949. Progress has been steady, but because
15 the sulfIte pulping operation at Kimberly is over
16 seventy-five years old and the mill is an old one,
17 progress has been made one step at a time. First
18
increased to 30 per cent, then to 70 per cent for
was a reduction of 40 per cent, later this was
is
the seven months of the year when warm water and
21
low flow give rise to the most critical pollution
22
problems, then to 70 per cent the year around, and
23
today the oxygen demanding load which each gallon
24
of the river is expected to assimilate is 75 per cent
25
less than it was during the period of August 1 to
-------
1 T 2965
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 November 30, 19^8, used by the State as a basla for
3 comparison.
* These reductions were brought about by
5 attacking the problem from several angles. The
6 actual amount of sulf ite pulp produced has been cut
7 back until today normal operation Is 40 per cent less
8 than It was In the summer of 1948* Huge storage ponds
9 holding a total of 30 million gallons of epent liquor
10 were constructed so that the abatement target could
11 be maintained during every day of the year. Theae
12 ponds, by providing temporary storage during low
13 flow, prevented overload of the river at any time.
14 A roadblnder program was instituted at considerable
15 cost and millions of gallons of the concentrated spent
16 liquor were disposed of on country roads to lay the
17 dust and reduce the maintenance.
1 In spite of this progress, it became evident
19
over two years ago that conditions in the river were
20
still not good enough to insure the presence of
21
dissolved oxygen at all times in the Lower Fox
22
during all hot days of summer. At a meeting held
23
with the Committee on Water Pollution in December
24
of 1965, Kimberly-Clark agreed to study the possibility
25
of substituting some other pulping process giving
-------
2966
1 RICHARD BILLBJOS
2 less pollution than the sulfite process.
3 Kimberly-Clark further stated that if the change to
4 another process did not prove feasible and no other
s suitable method of further reducing pollution could
6 be found during this time, the corporation would
7 discontinue sulfite pulping operations at Kimberly
8 at the end of two years. Activity has been intense*
9 Pilot plant production of trial pulps and mill scale
10 trials of purchased pulp have been made. The
11 economic possibilities of various pulping processes
i2 have been investigated. The feasibility of converting
13 the old sulfite mill has been the subject of engineer-
14 ing study. Alternatives have been weighed.
15 By last winter it had become apparent
16 , that no alternate method of pulping would utilize
17 the existing equipment and satisfy the other require*
18 merits for a mill situated as Kimberly is and producing
19 the types of paper that Kimberly does. No new research
20 development had appeared that could be immediately
21 applied to the Kimberly problem. If pollution were
22 to be further and significantly abated, the only
23 solution available was to cease operation of the
24 sulfite mill entirely.
25
This is not the answer we wanted. The
-------
2967
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 elimination of many jobs will affect the economy
3 of the Village and the reduction In purchases of
4 pulpwood, power, finishing supplies and maintenance
materials will affect a much greater area, the cost
is high to Kimberly-Clark also. The existing system
7 pumps wet pulp directly from the cooking area to the
8 paper machines, thus eliminating the costly drying
9 and repulping steps. Conversion to purchased pulp
10 required that equipment be purchased and Installed
11 for unloading dry baled pulp, conveying It to and
12 from storage and then repulping it to the water
13 suspension required for use in paper manufacture,
14 This new equipment has cost the Klmberly mill $192,000.
15 Sooner or later the sulfite mill would
16 have been shut down anyway because old equipment
17 becomes steadily more obsolete and difficult to
18 maintain. Four of our six digesters, however, would
19 be all that would be necessary to maintain our
20
would have made It possible for us to continue
present 80 tons per day production schedule and
21
22
operations for from five to seven years longer. We
23
would have preferred to keep the pulp mill in opera-
24
tion as long as possible because even at present
25
pulp prices, it will cost us $300,000 more a year
-------
2968
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 to operate the Kimberly mill on dry pulp purchased
3 from elsewhere than on wet pulp manufactured at
4 Kimberly. Also, the next five to seven years of the
5 Intensive research effort going on nationally Into
6 ways of abating pollution, might turn up a method
7 that would be applicable to the Kimberly problem.
8 So, I repeat, shutdown Is not the answer we wanted,
9 but It Is the only one we could find If pollution
10 from Kimberly were to be further significantly
11 reduced at onoe.
12 The phasing out of the operation is going
13 along on schedule. Installation of new equipment Is
14 complete. Trial runs are about to start. To lessen
15 the Impact of the shutdown on the employment and
16 economy of the Village, plans were made months ago,
17 The timing has been set to take full advantage of
18 the summer vacation period and of the attrition nor-
19 mally expected. Nevertheless, over fifty people who
20
have been hired during the last two years will be
21
laid off and others will take poorer paying Jobs,
22
Entirely aside from the economic aspects, the impact
23
of demotion upon the individual is severe.
24
In spite of these and other problems we
25
will meet our promised deadline of May 31st. Prom
-------
2969
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 that date on we expect to hold the Biochemical
3 Demand of discharges from the Klmberly mill to leas
4 than 10 tons of oxygen per day, and we are already
s partially compensating for this by the several tons
6 of oxygen which we add by turbine aeration during
7 the critical summer months.
8 Work la In progress on reducing settleable
9 solids in the mill waste waters. Discontinuing
10 sulfite production will reduce woodroom losses and
11 eliminate the discharge of fibers and fines resulting
12 from sulf ite cooking and bleaching. More efficient
13 internal handling of waste streams and the separation
i4 of flows of relatively clear water which require no
15 treatment will be possible* New water and waste
16 balances will be undertaken for the mill as soon as
17 operations have settled down after the changeover to
18 purchased pulp in June.
19 We believe that the primary philosophy of
20 pollution abatement should be one of maximum recovery,
21 thus requiring a minimum of ultimate disposal. One
22 of the more difficult wastes to reclaim and to reuse
23
In papermaking Is the waste water from the coating
24 process. Very promising progress Is being made In
the Kimberly-Clark Research and Engineering Department
-------
2970
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2 at Neenah, Wisconsin, on a separate treatment for
3 this waste stream. If the laboratory tests are
4 borne out, a major obstacle to the reduction of
5 paper mill pollution will have been removed. The
6 process would make possible the removal and recovery
7 of large amounts of clay and would reduce the diapers-
8 ing power of the starch and protein binders. This
9 reduction in dispersing power of the coating wastes
10 would, in turn, Improve the efficiency of any final
11 settling process used on paper mill effluents. This
12 new process thus may reduce pollution in two ways.
13 Laboratory testa are being substantiated
i4 in a bench scale pilot plant now. If these tests
15 are successful, a continuous pilot plant will be
16 constructed at the Kimberly mill. It will take about
17 eighteen months to complete the pilot plant studies.
18 In the meantime, wastes stream separation, reoircula-
19 tlon and disposal needs will have been determined by
20 mill personnel and the results of the two programs
21 will be combined to establish the size and nature
22 of treatment facilities required. Ihe Pox Valley
23 Council of Governments survey will be completed by
24 that time and the decision will then be made as to
25
whether the Kimberly mill becomes a part of a Fox Valles
-------
2971
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 project, or Installs treatment facilities of its own.
3 Our recommended timetable would be as follows:
4 May 31, 1968 - Close down the Kimberly sulflte
5 pulp mill
6 Dec. 31, 1969 - Submit outline to DRD as to
7 proposal for treatment facilities either:
8 a) As a joint venture
9 b) As separate treatment at the Kimberly mill
10 If a joint venture, the Kimberly mill will,
11 of course, expect to meet the joint schedule.
12 If separate treatment at the Kimberly mill
13 is decided upon, the timetable would continue as
14 follows:
15 March 1, 1970 - Submit detailed plans to DRD
16 One year after DRD approval - construction to
17 be completed and facilities placed In operation.
18
19 Pollution Abatement at the Heenah Mills
20
21 LAKEVIEW
22 The new clarlf ier at the Lalceview mill will
23 begin operation this spring. Shipment of the last
24 of the equipment will be made within the next few
25 weeks. The clarifier climaxes a program of stream
-------
2972
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2 improvement that has extended over a period of ten
3 years. In 1964, a disc filter was installed to
* remove fibrous material from the waste stream passing
$ to Little Lake Butte dea Horts. This installation
6 reduced the losses to the lake by 28 per oent. The
7 material so recovered Is returned to the process, the
8 greater portion thus becoming usable again. This !•
9 the hope and goal of moat In-plant recovery processes.
10 The cost of the clarlfier now being installed
11 at Lakeview is an entirely different matter. The
12 sludge separated has no use and must be removed. To
13 date, therefore, no way has been found of returning
14 a penny of the quarter of a million dollars spent
15 in the elarifler installation* m addition, It will
16 add materially to the annual operating coats of the
17 Lakevlew mill. Interest on the investment, clarlfier
18 operation and sludge disposal coats are expected to
19 approach $50,000 per year. For as long as that mill
0 continues to exist, a great many additional boxes
1 of Kleenex tissues will have to be sold to pay for
22
the clarlfier and its operation.
23
It was decided to Install the olarifler
24
after nearly four yeara of investigation of various
25
methods of reducing pollution to Little Lake Butte des
itorts.
-------
2973
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2 This installation reduced the losses to the lake
3 by 28 per cent. The material so recovered is
4 returned to the process, the greater portion thus
5 becoming usable again. This is the hope and goal
6 of most in-plant recovery processes.
7 The cost of the clarifier now being
8 installed at Lakeview is an entirely different
9 natter. The sludge separated has no uae and must
10 be removed. To date, therefore, no way has been
11 found of returning a penny of the quarter of a
12 million dollars spent in the olarifier installation.
13 In addition, it will add materially to the annual
14 operating costs of the Lakeview mill. Interest on
15 the investment, olarifier operation and sludge dia-
16
posal costs are expected to approach $50,000 per year.
17 For as long as that mill continues to exist, a great
18 many additional boxes of Kleenex tissues will have
19 to be sold to pay for the clarifier and its operation.
20
It was decided to install the clarifier
21
after nearly four years of investigation of various
22
methods of reducing pollution to Little Lake Butte
23
des Morts. No further in-plant methods such as the
24
disc filter or added reciroulation and use of water
25
were found that were adaptable. Tests involving
-------
29T2*
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2 lagooning at first appeared promising. Over a two-
3 year period, however thla method proved to be
4 unsatisfactory In the limited areas available, due
5 to the unpredictable occurrence and length of
6 Wisconsin's wet and dry spells.
7 When operation of the clarifier has
8 settled down, we expect that the Biochemical Demand
9 of discharge to the river will be less than three-
10 quarters of a ton of oxygen per day, and over 90 per
11 cent of the aettleable solids will be eliminated.
12
13 BADGER QLOBE MILL
14
15 This mill located in the center of Neenah
16 has maintained its discharge to the river at less
17 than 1 Ib. fiber/1000 gal. of effluent for over
18
fifteen years and at the same time has maintained,
19
or in some years actually decreased, the total gallons
20
dijcharged to the river. Formerly a four-machine
21
mill, two machines have been shut down in the last
22
four years. These were the oldest in Kimberly-Clark
23
and therefore were unable to meet the competitive
24
demands of today. They also had the very high
25
losses of fiber that characterize old machines.
-------
2975
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 BO their shutdown further reduced the total fiber
3 loss from the mill. During this same period,
4 separation has been made of waste waters in which
s fiber concentrations are high, and these go to the
6 sanitary sewer while the dilute waters go to the
7 river. A new vacuum save-all designed to recover
8 fiber is performing efficiently.
9 Recent installations of new diversion gates
10 and semi-automatic control are assuring that present
11 control limits of less than 1 Ib/lOOO gal. suspended
material in the effluent will continue to be maintained
13 BOD from the mill is less than 400 Ibs/day.
14
15 Pollution Abatement at the Neenah Paper Company
16
17 When this mill was purchased by Kimberly-
18 Clark in 1956, it was over 80 years old. Discharges
19 of waste-containing waters at that time emptied into
20 the river through one hundred and fifty-three different
21
pipes, and total losses could only be roughly
22 estimated. Since then we have gradually been
23 modernizing equipment and in the process we have
24 been working out a comprehensive effluent control
25 system in which the discharge points have been reduced
-------
2976
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 from 153 to four* The flret complete survey of the
3 mill losses by Kimberly-Clark Indicated a daily
4 solids loss to the river of 3,135 IDS. and BOD in
s excess of 2000 IDS. Since that tine. In spite of
6 increased production/ the total loss to the river
7 per operating day has been reduced to an average of
* less than 1000 Ibs. of fiber and 300 Ibs. BOD. This
9 has been accomplished chiefly by in-plant additions
10 of two filtration and one flotation save-alls, and
11 by the rerouting of pipelines to reuse water. As
12 at the Lakevlew mill, we see no further in-plant
13 improvements to be made at this time. Study is
14 underway of the problems involved in collecting,
15 at a single point, the four process water discharges
16 mentioned about and of installating facilities so
17 that this water may be screened before it passes to
18 the river. This step will eliminate the chief source
19 of pollution still remaining from the Neenah Paper
Company plantj namely, fiber losses occurring when
21
grades are being changed or when the mill is being
22
shut down. It should be pointed out that the fibers
23
removed by the screen will not be suitable for reuse,
24
and so must be disposed of otherwise. The screening
25
system at Neenah Paper Company, therefore, like the
-------
2977
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 Lakeview clarifler, is strictly an added cost of
3 doing business.
* A pilot plant screen unit is now testing
5 the proposed process, and several months will be
6 required to determine its effectiveness and any
7 operating problems. If this proves as successful
8 as we are confident that it will, engineering of a
9 full scale collection and screening unit will be
10 completed and plans submitted to the DRD by December 31
11 1968. Installation should be complete nine months
12 after DRD approval is received.
13 This has been a brief background of the
14 accomplishments that have been made; Bf the problems
15 that are still confronting us, of the steps that are
16 in progress to correct these problems and a timetable
17 for the completion of these steps.
18
19 STATEMENT FOR LOWER FOX RIVER
20 D.N.R. HEARINGS - APPLETON
21 JANUARY 18, 1968
22
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Natural
24
Resources Board, Fellow Citizens:
25
My name is Robert E. Driessen. I represent
-------
2978
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 Thllmany Pulp & Paper Company, an Integrated kraft
3 pulp and paper mill located at Kaukauna, Wisconsin.
4 I am Technical Assistant to the Vice President-
5 Manufacturing and my primary responsibility Is the
6 company's stream Improvement program. For the past
7 25 years, I have been a Registered Professional
8 Engineer In the State of Wisconsin.
9 Thllmany Pulp & Paper Company, established
10
In 1883, considers Itself fortunate In being situated
11 In the Fox River Valley and In being able to play a
12 significant role in Its growth. Presently 1,600
13 Individuals pool their dally efforts to produce
14 800 tons of kraft pulp and paper, acquiring the
Income to participate In the highly regarded community
16 life of the Valley.
17
Thllmany uses less than 1 per cent of the
18
average dally flow of the Fox. The Incoming water
19
Is processed through mechanical clarlflers and Is
20
chemically treated when used In pulp washing, bleaching,
21
paper manufacturing or for process stream and power
22
generation.
23
The pulping process Is of the kraft type,
24
making It possible to utilize 99 per cent of all
25
of the raw material. The bark must be removed from
-------
2979
! RICHARD BILLINGS
2 the logs, but is collected and burned In one of the
3 boilers. Cooking liquor Is concentrated by evapora-
4 tlon and burned to recover the chemical. By-products
s of turpentine and soap skimmings are collected and
6 marketed. Non-usable residual chemicals are aocumu-
7 lated at the source and trucked to company-owned
8 landfill areas.
9 In the paper mill, each of the eight paper
10 machines Is equipped with its own vacuum filtration
n system to minimize fiber, filler, and color loss.
12 Subsequent to the Individual primary filters is the
13 secondary salvage system comprised of a very large
14 disc-type Saveall designed to further minimize the
is same losses. Ninety per cent of the process water
16 i§ then channeled to the lagoon sedimentation system
17 where suspended solids are settled and where natural
18 aeration occurs over the 20-acre surface area provided.
19 Incidentally, since 1958, the treatment system has
20 included the effluent from the City of Kaukauna
21 sewage plant. This will terminate during 1968 upon
22 completion of their secondary treatment facilities.
23 Settled solids are removed from lagoons by dredge
24 pumping to a five-acre drying bed, from which the
25 sludge is removed and trucked to landfill area. This
-------
2980
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2 comprises the basic system for handling and treating
3 effluent losses.
4 To show the effectiveness of the system
5 described, I would like to refer to the Department
6 of natural Resources, Division of Resource Develop*
7 ment Report of January 4, 1967, which, in our
8 opinion, substantiates the resulting performances,
9 Referring to Table 2, which covers DO and BOD and
10 coliform count during 1966 and 196?, it is noted
11 that no significant differential exists in dissolved
12 oxygen or BOD at locations on the river immediately
13 above and below Thilmany.
14 Table 3> which compares DO and BOD during
15 the years 1964, 1965, and 1966 again indicates no
16
significant differences between readings taken above
17
and below Thllmany properties. Table 6, the biologl-
18
oal study, appears to confirm the data in Tables 2
19
and 3, as relatively no change is indicated when
20
data is compared on samples taken above and below
21
Thllmany on July 21, 1966.
22
Current plans are directed at continued
23
reduction of losses at the source, the elimination
24 .
of special discharges and the greater reuse of
25
process water resulting In decreased suspended solids
-------
2981
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2 and BOD being discharged to the lagoon system.
.5
3 Refinement of techniques la expected to result In
4 further reclamation of by-products. Twenty-nine
s active projects comprise the present program designed
6 to accomplish these objectives,
7 Ifctllmany has Just announced the planned
8 addition of a new paper machine with supporting
9 facilities, nils will complete the most recent
10 five-year expansion and modernization program as
11 covered in letters to you on December 29, 1967 and
12 May 24, 1965 in accordance with Order No. 3-57J-30
13 of October 10, 1957* Incorporated in the design of
14 the new machine will be applications of the latest
15 technology for minimizing material loss and for
16 water conservation.
17 In summary, I would like to state that
18
improvements directly and indirectly related to
Thllmany has spent over $3,500,000 in capital
19
elimination of material losses to the river.
21
Operating costs of treatment facilities'cost the
company approximately $100,000 per year. Budgeted
23
capital expenditures for 1968 total $200,000.
24
Detailed reports covering the above have been
25
supplied to you on a regular basis.
-------
2982
1 RICHARD BILLINtfS
2 The results attained from the above have
3 been gratifying and concentrated attention will be
4 aimed at increasing the efficiency of the highly
5 regarded existing treatment system.
6 One final point I would 11 Ice to make. A
7 vital need exists to coordinate the efforts of the
8 municipalities and industries with all parties
9 involved in the control and use of the waters in
10 the Wlnnebago watershed. An example is the recent
11 action of the Fox Valley Council of Governments
12 decision to survey the existing facilities and
13 determine the future treatment requirements of a
14 portion of the Valley. "Die singular goal should be
15 the best use of total dissolved oxygen available
16 and development of the full natural reaeratlon.
17 potential of the entire Wlnnebago watershed especially
18 during the short, critical summer period.
YQ
For example, during 1967, TOxilmany monitoring
of DO at locations above and below the mill revealed
21
satisfactory conditions until mid-July, at which
22
time the stream flow was reduced by 1/2 and the DO
23
almost Immediately decreased from ^ to 1 mg/liter.
24
The above occurred at a time when the lake level
25
was 14" above crest at Menasha Dam, or 32" above the
-------
2983
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 established minimum.
3 The 263 square miles comprising the Lake
4 Winnebago pool, with 39" of depth legally available
5 for flow control, has capacity for storage of more
6 than 80 days of average flow through the lower Pox.
7 Under existing criteria for control, the daily
8
11
average flow has fluctuated from 1,000 sec. ft. to
9 23,000 sec. ft. during the past 10 years, with an
10 average of 3,770 sec. ft. During the critical
summer months, the river flow has been 40 per cent
12 below the annual average, contributing sizably to
13 the problems we are discussing here today. Maintaining
4 the Winnebago pool level at maximum elevation until
late June and controlling the release of the waters
16 to the lower Fox at a rate of 3,500 to 4,000 sec. ft,
17
would very likely result in sizably Improved natural
is ~^
aeration by best use of the loo ft. drop in elevation
19
from Lake Winnebago to DePere.
20
It is quite possible that provision of
21
additional water storage, over and beyond that of-
22
the Winnebago pool, may be a logical economic
23
solution to ultimate improvement of the waters of
24
the lower Pox.
m 1/18/68
-------
2984
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Billings.
3 Are there any comments or questions?
4 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, It would be
5 much more pleasant if I sat here and didn't say
6 anything, I know, but if I did, someone might think
7 that I accepted all of these statements, which I
8 know are given in good faith, but honestly, to me
9 this is the old line, the old-fashioned approach.
10 (Applause.).
11 "We need more research. We are not ready
12 for a solution." Yet this very speaker detailed
13 all the research and all the study that has been
14 going on for years and years, including their
15 Institute.
16 , Now, I know from my own experience--now,
17 this is not directed towards thelr industry, but if
18 the shoe fits, put it on—I know from my own exper-
19 ience that very often It is cheaper to study and do
research than to get the Job done.
21 Now, I am reminded of what Patrick Henry
22 said, I know you all know this. He said/ "They tell
us, sir, that we are weak," when we were going to
take action to become a Nation. .He said, "When will
we be strong? After we have been further beaten
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cf
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
2985
RICHARD B1LLINOS
down by the British?"
I want to make this analogy here. "We
are not ready yet, we need more time, we need more
research/ these timetables are unrealistic. There-
fore, we should wait." How long should we wait,
until all of Green Bay Is gone? I have been up
there, and I think that—
Now, I want to agree with the first part
of your statement, so far as the State of Wisconsin
is concerned they have been one of the leaders, they
have had a fine program, they have had many good men,
and this is not criticism of the State of Wisconsin.
But I have been up in that Green Bay area.
I just wonder how long you want to wait up there?
What more research do you need? Now you are going
to make it available to us. I thought it was avail-
able.
I am not surprised at this, but I am
really disappointed in this attitude of Industry,
because believe me, it is old-fashioned.
MR. BILLINOS: Well, Mr. KLasaen, I would
suggest that you look fairly closely at the exhibits
that I entered. You say you have been up to Oreen Bay*
I live there. I don't come up just occasionally. Z
-------
2986
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2 know what the progress has been In our area. I
3 have been working in this area for a great many
4 years. If I oame before you today with no record
5 of accomplishment, with simply the request that we
6 be given more time, then I think your remark would
7 have been Justified.
8 But I would like to point with pride, I
9 think that this meeting would have spent much better
10 time if there had been more pointing with pride and
11 less beating of chests mixed with pumping of chests
12 In this case. We have new Installations coming on
13 that river all the time, starting right up at the
14 outlet to Lake Wlnnebago, installations are going on.
15 It has been a proven fact that it takes about three
16 years' time to take an idea from the laboratory stage
17 through the pilot plant of development, the shakedown
18 stage until it becomes an actual operating entity.
19 We have those, they oame on the line last year, the
20 year before, they are coming on right now, right
21 today, and we are not talking about these. This
22
is not an excuse for inactivity.
Whenever you get down near the goal line In
24
a football game, the going becomes much tougher, and
25
that is exactly the case that we find ourselves in
-------
298?
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2 now. I could name any one of the Industries along
3 the river as to what has been done and the money that
4 has been spent. In fact, I would challenge most of
5 the people that I have heard at this last six days
6 who have gotten up and talked about what needs to be
7 done to ask, how many of you individually have
8 actually done something? This is not talking to
9 the group of Conferees here who are in it all the
10 time, but I am in it all the time myself. We have
11 money to prove that we are putting our pocketbooks
12 where our speech is. We have made investments.
13 When I talk about the money that has been
14 spent, I refer only to that portion of the iceberg
15 which you can see. I didn't even mention the amount
16 of money that must go into research before any
17 manufacturing process is put on the road. Fully as
18 much time is spent on determining what is to be
done with wastes on a new plant as there is on the
water supply for that plant.
21 MR. HOLMER: Clarence, if I might—
22
MR. BILLINGS: There are certain prob-
23
lems that are really difficult to handle.
24 MR. HOLMER: Clarence, if I might, I would
25
like to comment on these comments of Mr. Billings.
-------
2988
1 RICHARD BILLINQS
2 The concern about delay and the need for
3 more research I think is one that you and I-are part leu
4 larly aware of.
5 There is one instance in Green Bay where
6 there is a research project, referred to in
7 Mr. Billings' statement, in which we are trying to
8 achieve the Joint treatment of municipal and
9 Industrial wastes there, including four paper mills.
10 This is a departure from past practice and one that
11 we expect will result in both a dramatic reduction
12 in BOD and in the removal of phosphorus.
13 The -timetable., for this project is a very
14 tight one. It has been reviewed very intensely
15 with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
18 tion, and it is my understanding that it is entirely
17 approved by PWPCA. It calls for completion of
18
construction by September 30* 1972. This would not
19
be in conformance with the suggested timetable that
20
is included in the FWPCA Report.
21
I want the timetables to be as tight as
22
possible too, but this is one where there is needed
23
movement through pilot plant to operating conditions
24
and it does take time.
25
MR. STEIN: I think we can get to those
-------
2989
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2
specifics.
3 Maybe I look at this a little differently,
but, you know, Dick, Mr. Klassen and some of us
5
sitting here have heard this story from Industry
6
a long time. I recognize that you speak for—
7
what? —about a dozen companies here, and when
8
you speak for a dozen companies you tend to hit
9
the lowest common denominator and the more
10
liberal views don't show. My experience Is this
11
monolithic approach of the Industry In these joint
12
statements when you deal with the negotiations
13
doesn't show.
14
We are making advances, Just like a
15
glacier, but, Clarence, remember 15 years ago
16
the representatives of the pulp and paper
Industry said we didn't need any Federal enforce-
18
ment at all and this should be left to the States
19
and the Federal Government should confine its role
20
to research. Now, they say we have a secondary
21
role with the States; and now what we have to do,
22
although the Conference Is premature, is get a
23
little research and be given more time.
24
I think we are getting closer and closer
25
together. But if it took us 15 years to get this
-------
2990
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 close, I wonder If the quality of Lake Michigan la
3 going to wait or we are not going to ruin the Lake
4 before we get completely close and close enough.
5 There la one other point you made here on
6 this cost-benefit operation, that we should take In
7 cost-benefit, the pulp and paper Industry, and many
8 other Industries, have made that plea to the Congress
9 many times. The Congress has considered this. They
10 set up the control measures as we have here,
11 X am not saying that the cost-benefit
12 approach Is not a possible approach. I don't think
13 It is applicable; It should be applicable to water
11 pollution control. Other people evidently have a
15 different view.
16 But If you have that view, I think you have
addressed this to the correct forum, the Congress.
18 Neither the States, or any of the four States, in
19 their legislation have taken the cost-benefit approach
as a basis for State legislation, nor do we have It
21 in Federal legislation. :And, Mr. Billings, I will
22
defend to the death your right to go to the Congress
23
any time you want to, to get them to change It. But
24
as I understand the four State laws and the Federal
25
law, this is not the approach we use in applying
-------
2991
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 these conditions.
3 I do think there are certain recommendations
4 made here. If, as you say or Mr. Holmer says, there
5 are specific plants that have to put in treatment
6 works to do this, this is fine. And we will take
7 these up and look at them with particularity.
8 As I understand this report, though, there
9 is no argument here for treatment for treatment's
10 sake. That is, the treatment has to be related to
11 water quality.
12 But again as I heard in the last few days,
13 and there is a viewpoint which indicates, I don't
14 know that the Conferees are going to do it, but the
15 viewpoint indicates that unless heroic measures are
16 taken and taken pretty soon to save Lake Michigan,
17 we may be beyond the point of no return.
18 I wonder if we can afford the indulgence
19 of talking about further research, pilot plants,
looking for new processes, and so forth. Are the
21
waters of Lake Michigan going to wait with us?
22
MR. BILLINGS: Mr. Stein, there is no
23
question in our minds that it can't wait. We are
24
not waiting. You request heroic effort. We are making
25
heroic efforts.
-------
2992
1 RICHARD BJULLIN05
2 My objection to the arbitrary timetable
3 la in both directions. It len't going to take three
4 yeara to do certain things. We have got some good
s progress right now. But it is going to take more
6 than three years to do certain things because we don't
7 know the answers.
8 You heard yesterday Mr. Purdy make a
9 statement that the requirement of 80 per cent
10 removal of phosphates had not yet been established
11 but it looked to be the best way to proceed.
12 One question that was not asked Dr. Bartech
13 when he was on the stand here that I would think
14 would have been a very excellent question was simply
15 this: If the removal of phosphates as recommended
16 in this report were to be accomplished, would you,
17 Dr. Bartsen, as a technical man say that this would
18 eliminate our algae problem?
19 Dr. Bartsch—I don't think he is here
20 today.
21 MR. STEIN: He isn't here today,and the
reason he was released was we have our local enforce-
23 aent man and biologist here, Mr. Cook, who has been
24 associated with Dr. Bartsch on this report and is
prepared to answer that question if you want to
-------
2993
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 raioe it with bin*
3 MR. BILLINGS: I wouldn't aind asking
4 that question.
s MB. STEIN: Mr. Cook, do you want to try
6 to answer that?
7 MR. COOKi I am Grover Cook, Director of
8 Enforcement, the Great Lakes Region, PWPCA.
9 I understand the question is that if the
10 phosphorous content of Lake Michigan were reduced
11 substantially .there would be an iamediate — or not
12 immediate, perhaps, but there would be a reducti&n
*3 in the development of algae.
14 MR. BILLIKOS: That was not the question.
15 MR. COOK: Will you restate it, please?
16 MR. BILLIKOSi The question was if the
17 reduction of phosphates in the effluents as reoom-
18 Bended were to be established, would we see an end
19 to our algae problem?
20 MR. COOKt Well, I can say yes and qualify
21
it a bit. This has been done in other places.
22 In the Madison Lakes, for Instance, when
23 the phosphates were stopped from, being discharged to th
24 lakes, it no longer became necessary to copper
25 sulfate or treat with arsenic.
-------
299S-
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 We found in Lake Huron, a very careful
3 study done by the Canadianst that when they applied
* phosphorus to a certain area it grew algae and whe.n
5 they stopped the algae went away.
6 I don't think there ie any doubt about it,
7 with the stopping of the discharge of phosphorus and
8 other nutrients, we will reduce the concentration or
9 the development of algae in the Lake.
10 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
11 Dr. Boruff, please.
12 DR. BORUFF: I would like for the speaker
13 to make a little arithmetic problem.
14 Realizing the by-products that you have
15 developed from your waste streams, about how much
16 PS is left per ton of paper? I am trying to throw
7 this whole thing into perspective.
18 MR. BILLINGS: How much what?
DR. BORUFP: How much population equivalent
is left after you have taken out by-products, how
21
much is left today?
22
Then I would like to multiply that by
23
tons of paper to get the entire pollution load in
24
perspective.
25
MR. BILLINGS: Well, if you are talking
-------
2995
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 population equivalent in urine and fecee, zero.
3 If you are talking population equivalent
4 in infectious hepatitis, zero.
5 If you are talking any of the £ colif brrns —
6 DR. BOBUFPs You are skirting ay question,
7 1 realise ~~
8 MR. BILLINGSt No* you said population
9 equivalent* and I objectvery strenuously to that term.
10 If you say population equivalent in oxygen demand,
11 then I might try to answer it differently.
12 DR. BORUPP: Population equivalent to me,
13 sir, is based on BOD, oxygen demand.
14 MR. BILLINOS: Oxygen demand only.
15 DR. BORUPF: Okay, we are on the same
16 basis now.
17 MR. BILLINGS: All right.
18 DR. BOROFPJ How much residual population
19 equivalent or pounds of BOD af tev you have taken out
your by-product* is left per ton of paper, about?
21
MR. BILLDfOS: it varies tremendously
22
depending upon the grade of paper made.
23
For example, it will run from —
»
DR. BORUPFi Take the average for the
25
State of Wisconsin, which is a Duke's mixture of a
-------
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2 number of different processes.
3 MR. BILLINOS: You can't take an average
4 when ground wood haa 10 pounds of BOD and kraft has
5 60 and aulflte has 600. An average would be rela-
6 tively meaningless.
7 Actually, In our sulflte mills they are
8 mostly in the neighborhood of 70 to 85 per cent
9 reduction In BOD. You notice I am skirting population
10 equivalent because I don't like the term, but pounds
11 of biochemical oxygen demand.
12 DR. BORUFP: All right, you give me that
13 figure axil will divide by 1? hundredths.
14 MR. BILLINGS: No.
15 DR. BORUPP; How many pounds — if you
16 want to go pounds of BOD, then give me pounds of
17 BOD.
18 MR. BILLINGS: Well, that is what I am
19 saying, that in each case it is a reduction of
approximately, oh, I would say a very hard average
figure, but from 70 to 80 or 85 per cent reduction
22
of the sulfite, which is about — untreated it
comes close to 600 pounds of BOD per ton produced
24 of pulp.
25
With paper it Is about 20 pounds or less.
-------
2997
1 RICHARD BILLINOS
2 But you are talking about BOD here
3 strictly. Dr. Boruff, not phosphates?
4 DR. BORUPFt I am not talking phosphates
s at all. I am talking about PE load — or, excuse
6 me, pounds of BOD.
7 Eighty per cent removal on a general base
8 of 600 pounds of BOD per ton?
9 MR. BILLINGS: Well, I think that is —
10 DR. BORUPF: That would leave me —
" . MR. BILLINOS: — putting it strong.
12 DR. BORUPPt — 20 percent; which would
13 be a BOD of 120?
14 All right, I can make an arithmetic
15 from here. Divide it by two-tenths, multiply it
,-SH.
16 by five is a population equivalent,in round figures,of
17 1200 per ton.
18 Now, how many tons of paper in the State
19 , of Wisconsin?
^ MR. BILLINOS: I don't have that figure
21 right now, sir.
22 DR. BORUPP: Oh, come. You are in the
23 industry. You must know.
24 (Laughter.)
25
MR. BILLINOS: One is hung frequently for
-------
2998
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 approximations, but in this particular basin I
3 think that I would nave to defer to Mr. Wisnlewski,
4 but I think it would be in the neighborhood of
5 7POO tons. This is pulp and paper. And remember
6 that for paper it is not 600, it is 20. For ground
7 wood, it ia not 20, it is 10 to 15 * And the total
8 figure that I have would be for the pulp-paper
9 production.
10 DR. BORUPPJ All right. My quick arithmetic
11 problem, then, tells me that in this area we are
12 talking about a population equivalent — back to my
13 terminology — of around four million people. This
14 is not a light load. And this is the residual load
15 as per my question that you still-have left after
16 you have put into commercial usage the research
17 that you have accomplished and you have taken out
18 the by-product.
19 , MR. BILLINOS: I dislike your continual
reference to by-products, because there are relatively
21
few by-products for the pulp and paper industry at
22
the present time. In paper the waste that we remove
23
isn't even' good for fill, and when you get something
24
that isn't even good enough to fill holes with you
25
are sort of at the bottom of the barrel. This is
-------
2999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RICHARD BILLINGS
broken fibers and fines and some clay-like, which
has almost the same composition as river bottom clay.
This ia the aort of thing that escapea from our paper
mill.
DR. BORUFPt I realize you have a tough
waste. In the distilling business with which I was
associated we also had a tough waste. But through
the development of by-producta we solved the problem.
MR. BILLINOS: Well, we have been attempting
to solve the problem for some time, but there still
hasn't been found a good use for this broken fiber
that becomes almost horny in nature and the clay
that escapes. Our only possibility, we feel, is
for the reclamation within the mill of the clay
and we are attempting to close up our mills all the
time.
DR. BORUPF: Yea.
Excuse me, my friend, and we have been
friends for many years —
MR. BILLING: Yea.
DR. BORUFP: — for pursuing thia discus-
aion. My total point was to orient us as to the
pollution load within your industry that you still
have left to treat.
-------
3000
1 RICHARL BILLINGS
2 And thank you very much for your commenta.
3 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Dr. Boruff.
* I think this for the Conference, and
5 particularly for all the people in the audience, is
6 the real illuminating dlacusalon between Mr. Billing!
7 and Dr, Boruff. You know, the assumption in some
8 of these papers is all we have to do is have a little
9 research and we are going to come out with the answer,
10 Right here we have found that even after years of
11 association, the people don't speak the same terms,
12 the terms of population equivalent or BOD. Each
13 one uses it.
14 Over and over again Mr. Billings in his
15 paper used the phrase"spent sulfite liquor." It
16 seems to me I always read in the Government reports
17
someone talks about a population equivalent of
that they talk about"sulfite waste liquor." When
H8
19
four million people going into the Great Lakes from
20
the pulp and paper industry or perhaps in the
21
Puget Sound a population equivalent from pulp and
22
paper going in totaling more than the entire popu-
23
lation of the area, the industry says that really
24
isn't population equivalent; it is only population
25
equivalent .in the terms of BOD or oxygen demand
-------
3P01 ,-
I RICHARD BILLINGS
2 posiibly.
3 So I don't know —ard laskyou to draw your
4 own Judgment — that all we have to do la press a
5 research button and the answer is automatically going
6 to come out. I think we have a long way to go.
7 MR. BILLINGS: Mr. Stein.
8 MR. STKBft Yes.
9 MR. BILLINGS: I would like to correct one
10 Inference that might be drawn, and that Is that
11 although the four million pounds that he arrived
12 at —> I haven't checked on that one — granting
13 even that that were right, that Is not all going to
i4 Lake Michigan. Phosphorus by nature Is always
15 phosphorus. When It Is discharged from a mill or
16 a plant or a detergent or a laundry or something
17 like that, regardless of what form It is In, you
18 can't create or destroy matter and It will continue.
19 But BOD or biochemical oxygen demand Is
20 quite a different matter. Die end points of
21 biochemical oxygen demand destruction are carbon
22
dioxide and water, and the natural re-aeration of
23 our streams and lakes will reduce this four million
24 pounds, as he says leaves the mill,to the place
25 where if It were a critical problem it would show
-------
3002
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 up in oxygen deficiency.
3 I think that for five days we have heard
4 testimony given that we do not have a problem of oxy-
5 gen deficiency in the Great Lakes except, perhaps,
6 a few tenths, I would expect that dead alewlves
7 piled up five feet deep on the bottom would create
8 quite an oxygen demand.
9 MR. STEIN: Are there any comments?
10 We can get Into a lot of that because one
11 of the by-products you talked about was the road
12 building. You say phosphorus doesn't dissipate. I
13 have heard people say you put the stuff in the roads
i* as a binder and then it rains and rains and rains
is over a period of time and finds its way back Into
16 the water course anyway, so the by-product doesn't
17 keep It out of the stream.
18 I think we can have these theoretical
19 arguments back and forth. All I am illustrating
20 is I hope we will try to come up with a practical
21 program that the Industry, the States and we can
22 agree on. We have been arguing these questions for
23 a lifetime. I hope we live long enough to keep
24 this up the next quarter of a century and possibly
25 get a little closer together. I am not sure we are
-------
3003
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 going to resolve them.
3 There Is one thing I know we can do on
4 the basis of past experience Is to come up with an
5 agreement with the States and with your industry
6 plant by plant specifically on what you feel is
7 reasonable that you have to do and that we feel
8 is reasonable under the circumstances to save the
9 water.
10 MR. BILLINGS: Very good.
n MR. STEIN: Thank you.
12 Are there any further comments or questions?
13 MR. BOSTON: I would like to comment to
14 the effect that it has been referred to earlier when
15 Secretary Udall's statement was given that the City
16 of Green Bay went some 20, 2$ miles to Lake Michigan
i7 for a new source of water supply because the water
18 quality was not satisfactory in Green Bay or the
19 Pox River.
20 I think this is well known, that water
21 quality has been seriously endangered for over 10
22 years. There has been considerable notice given
*? to industry and polluters on the Fox River that
24 there are problems, and I think this meeting
25 here today demonstrates that action hasn't been
-------
3004
l
RICHARD BILLINGS
2
fast enough and that one of the reasons that we
3
are here today is to stimulate action at a little
4
faster rate than we have been going In the paat.
5
MR. BILLINGSi Mr. FOBton, your statement
6
Is absolutely oorreot. We want to stimulate action
7
in every way that we can, but we think that that Is
8
exactly what is going on. I can only point again
9
to the things that have been accomplished on the
10
river. We in Kimberly-Clark have reduced our BOD
11
to the river by about two-thirds of what It was a
12
few years ago. Where we are today Is only of
13
importance and relative to where we have been and
u
where we are going.
15
I think we are going. Whether it will
16
, be rapid enough or not to suit everyone I don't
know, but I am sure that everyone has the message
18
loud and clear.
19
MR. STEINJ Right.
20
Are there any further comments or questions?
One of the Conferees told me we should not
badger 'the witness from the Badger State.
24 (Laughter.)
.. MR. BILLINGS: Mr. Chairman, I would like
«O
to point out one last factor that makes my appearance
-------
3005
1 RICHARD BILLINGS
2 befrre you today particularly appropriate.
3 Monday was my birthday, which means that
4 I was born under the sign of Aquarius, the water
s bearer.
6 (Laughter,)
7 (Off the record.)
8 MR. STEINt Mr. Holmer.
9 MR. HOLMERi Is Mr. 0. A. Jahnke In the
10 room?
11 Prom Milwaukee, a consulting engineer,
12 Mr. Herbert Moore, has asked for an opportunity
13 to present a statement.
14
15 STATEMENT OP HERBERT MOORE
16 CONSULTING ENGINEER
17 MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
18
19 MR. MOORE; Mr. Stein, Conferees,
Ladles and Gentlemen.
21 My name Is Herbert Moore, Consulting
22
Engineer, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I haven't a paper.
23 I am speaking without notes.
24 I would comment that I asked Mr. Freeman
25
Holmer to appear after reading the program of PWPCA
-------
3006
1 HERBERT MOORE
2 and the recommendations,and I: flaLt compelled to comment
3 that this program would actually impede the pollution
4 abatement of Lake Michigan., I would like to indicate
5 in what manner I think this would occur, because it
B could be corrected, of course, and a Federal Program
7 instituted that would help abate pollution.
8 It seems to me that it la too rigid and
9 that the timetable is peculiar. It is too rigid in
10 requiring primary, secondary and tertiary installa-
11 tions,ani ifear would cause communities to proceed
12 not cautiously in projecting sewerage and sewerage
13 treatment facilities at sites that might not be
14 appropriate and efficient in the long-range meeting
15 of demands for an ultimate solution of the problem.
16 The time lag of five years for abating
17 pollution from overflows strikes me as being very
18 bad. I would ask the question, what is the differ-
19 ence between pollution from overflows and any other
20 pollution? And this time lag is harmful to the
21 total cause of pollution abatement.
I don't maintain as an engineer that the
23 correction of overflow problems is as simple as
4 ioerely putting In a pump and storing the liquid and
25
treating that liquid. But it is associated,
-------
300?
1 HERBERT MOORE
2 definitely, with the program of pollution abatement
3 and should not be separated and thus cause undue
4 emphasis to be placed upon existing facilities, which
s the recommendations in the report gives a blessing.
6 On Page 24 you can note the words indicate that
7 primary and tertiary plants would not become obsolete,
8 the fact that there are new methods being devised
9 would not deter us from proceeding with phosphate
10 removal now, and that existing facilities would not
H become obsolete. I think they would become obsolete.
12 i do not like to see the Federal Government give
13 its blessing to proceeding with the use of existing
14 sites that may be completely wrong.
is I would like to say that Wisconsin, it seems
16 to me, is a leader in this water pollution abatement
17 field with the splendid new water law, a giant step
18 forward. I feel that the present proposed Federal
19 recommendations would slow down Wisconsin or cause
20 Wisconsin to spend a lot of money needlessly towards
21 pollution abatement that would be ineffective.
22 What is needed from the Federal Government
23 is a set of standards. Instead of coming in with
24 standards that are mediocre, which, of course, the
25 States have had for years, they should come in with
-------
3008*
1 HERBERT MOORS
2 a set of standards that are higher and thus give
3 help to the States and direction to communities,
4 rathe? than a pat on the back and to say go ahead
s with what you are doing and keep on doing more of
6 the same and this will result in hundreds of millions
7 of dollars being spent needlessly. Direction is
8 needed.
9 I would refer also to an item on Page 66,
10 which Z think is a f uadamental mistake of the
11 report, Paragraph 15, which stipulates that snail
12 disposal plants, because of the operating problems,
13 would be frowned upon by the officialdom and that
14 in fringe areas in large metropolitan areas,of
15 course,they should be connected up with the big
16 sewer systems.
17 1 feel that this is the wrong point of
18 view and that this perhaps is a point of view
19 that is prevalent in so many cases of water
20 pollution abatement. The big answer is considered
21 meritorious where actually the real answer may be
22 improvement in technique and operation of the small
23 plant, saving great sums of money on sewer expendi-
24 tare, and perfecting operation and abandoning the
septic process and going into aeration processes
-------
3009
1 HERBERT MOORE
2 and going into ground Hater recharge and opening
3 the door to a containment of liquid wastes rather
4 than the collection of liquid waste to a yet bigger
5 plant. And this point of view, if it could be
6 corrected, would induce communities to begin to
7 solve the problems logically.
8 I, therefore, say that the federal Govern-
9 oent could be of help, but at preterit* under the
10 present program, I fear that it would actually be
11 a hindrance.
12 Itoank you.
13 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, I would Juat
14 like to ask this witness one question and that is
15 all.
16 In his capacity as a consulting engineer,
17 I am wonderings are you a consultant to any of the
1 industries or cities that are named in this report
19 or on the spot?
20
MR. MOORB: Not to my knowledge, Clarence.
21
I would like to coament further and say
22 that it seems to me that Illinois, with its, let's
23 say, abatement of pollution of Lake Michigan,is
rather out of the picture of this Conference and ia
in a splendid position to say to the others, clean
-------
3010
1 HERBERT MOORE
2 up, but at thia Conference it certainly isn't
3 appropriate to comment on the mediocre standards
f that the State of Illinois has had, and that is all
5 they could do, I suppose, because other States did
6 the aaae, and so we now are tending to project
7 mediocre standards as a formal rigid pattern which
8 le, I don't think, healthful.
9 MR. VOOTj Kr, Moore, with respect to
10 your cottBents on the Federal Reconaaendatlon 15
11 about maximizing the use of areawide sewerage
12 ayatema, which apparently you don't agree with,
13 are you then advocating, say, as a coxaaunity grows
14 that a sewage treatment works be constructed for
15 each subdivision as it develops in a cowaunity or
16 in an area? Xa this what you are advocating?
17 MR. MOORE; I am advocating the idea of
18 dispersal of sewage at fringe area subdivisions,
19 yes, rather than collecting that sewage and bringing
it into a central plant.
21 MR. VOGT: On what basis do you make this
22 recosuBendatlon?
23 MR. MOOREi Well, I sake thia reoofluaenda-
24 tion on the baais of, let me say, new evidence that
25 is indicating and proving that aerated liquid
-------
3011
1 HERBERT MOORE
2 will pass into the subsoil at a higher rate than
3 septic liquid will, and this gem of an idea hasn't
4 apparently been exploited very fully up to now, but
5 perhaps will be with the need for water pollution
6 abatement. And, therefore, the subdivision at the
7 edge of a large city, to Justify its existence as a
8 subdivision, you see, and to Justify its being
9 created, would have to provide the land area
10 necessary for providing, let's say, aqua for
11 recharge if appropriate to that particular area
12 as the best solution.
13 MB. VOQTt Are you saying to do this on
14 an individual hone septie tank system or a community
is collection system with treatment and then disposal
16 into the ground?
17 MR. MOORE: The ideal, of course, would
is be for the individual hone, with the individual
19 well and the individual solution to the problem on
20 the premises that would be developed and proper
21 evapo transporation soil treatment provided to
22 solve the problem for the individual home.
23 MR. VOQT: This is certainly contrary to
24 our experience in Michigan where we have run into
25 numerous problems because of the geology of certain
-------
3012
MOORS
2 areas where this la Just not feasible.
3 MR. MOOREs Z grant you where the geology
4 la not feasible and the rook outcrop is near the
5 surface of the ground, sewers to a remote area would
6 be necessary.
7 MR. VOQT: Hot rock outcropping. We have
8 very little rock outcropping in Michigan. Most of
9 ours Is unconaolldated materials, and in many areas
10 we get into tight clay soil where your proposal
11 would just be not feasible at all. In fact, we are
12 now doing precisely what ia recommended here in the
13 Federal Report, to go to areawide collection systems
14 to avoid sewage outcropping on the ground and running
15 into the roadside ditches,
16 MB. MOORS: I think the answer in that
17 ease would be aeration of the liquid and preparation
18 of the soil for evapo transporation. I think this
19 can be done in a given area. The idea would be that
20 . the liquid, instead of being Introduced deep in the
21
ground as we now propose in all the State plumbing
codes with septic tank provisions, let that liquid
23
be aerated to create an aerobic environment for
24
bacteria and let that be introduced into the topsoil
25
so that it would evaporate or be useful for
-------
I 3013
1 HERBERT MOORE
2 irrigation and be diepoaed of In that way.
3 MR. VOGT: of course our plan* do essen*
4 tlally this. In fact, we recommend disposing of
s the liquid at a depth not greater than 24 inches,
6 and we still have run into problem. So our
7 experience has been contrary to your proposal here.
8 MR. MOORS: Have you aerated the liquid?
9 MR. VOQT: Yea, we have also tried
10 extended aeration type treatment works.
11 MR. MOORE: Thank you.
12 MR, POSTON: Are there any other questions
13 of Mr. Moore?
14 Mr. Holmer?
15 (No response.)
16 MR. PQSTON: If not, thank you, Mr. Moore.
17 Mr. Holincr, you nay proceed.
18 MR. HOLMER: Is Mrs, Robert Erlckson in
19 the room?
20 We have been involved with cows and foxes
21 and badgers, and now I turn our attention to the
22 wolf.
23 The Wolf River in Wisconsin was the origin
24 of a regional planning cooaiselon, which has since
25 been renamed the Northeast Wisconsin Planning
-------
3014
1 GERALD PAUL
2 Commission. We are fortunate in Wisconsin in
3 having two major planning commissions, one covering
* the southeast seven counties, including Milwaukee,
5 Racine and Kenoaha, the other covering 14, I believe
6 it ia, of the northeastern wiaconain counties that
7 are endeavoring to develop a coordinated and
8 cohesive program for the management, among other
9 things, of their natural resources.
10 The Northeast Wisconsin Regional Planning
11 Commission has embarked on a specific and intensive
12 hydrological program.
13 Here with us this morning ar® the Vice-
14 chairman of the Northeast Wisconsin Regional Planning
15 Commission, Mr. Eugene Garrow — excuse me, Chairman
16 of the Standing Committee on Water Resources Conaer-
17 vat ion—Mr. Torn Pitt and Gerald Paul, the hydrologiat
18 for the Northeast Wisconsin Regional Commission.
19 Mr. Paul will present the report of the
20 Commie a ion.
21
22
23
24
25
-------
3015
1 QERALD PAUL
2
3 STATEMENT OP GERALD PAUL
4 CHIEF HYDROLOG1ST
5 NORTHEASTERN WISCONSIN
6 REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
7
8 MR. PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Holmer, Conferees,
9 Ladies and Gentlemen.
10 My name Is Gerald Paul. I am the Chief
Hydrologist for the Northeastern Wisconsin Regional
12 Planning Commission,and I have been asked to present
13 this statement for that Commission.
14 The Northeastern Wisconsin Regional Plan-
is ning Commission represents a nine-county area
centered along the upper portion of the Pox and
17 Wolf Rivers. The watersheds of these major Wisconsin
18 rivers combine to form the largest tributary in the
19 entire Lake Michigan Basin. Approximately 6,000
20 square miles of drainage area contribute flows
21 which are discharged into the Lake via Green Bay.
22
The Northeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commis-
sion would like to go on record as standing ready to
assist in any efforts to "save our lake". We are
25
already heartened by two objectives of this Conference:
-------
3016
1 QERALD PAUL
2 1. The positive attitude that corrective
3 pollution abatement action must be taken—
4 and will be taken.
5 2. The concern for Inclusion of the tributaries
6 and their originating sources of pollution oon-
7 tribution and relevant problems.
8 The people of our area of Wisconsin have
9 long been concerned about the progressive deteriora-
10 tlon of our vital water resources and what ultimate
effect it would have on the way of life for the
12 inhabitants and others. In 1958 an organization
13
formed by concerned citizens to protect, restore
:(The Wolf River Imprdvement; Association) was
14
and preserve the Wolf River for future generations,
Through their efforts the Wolf River Basin Regional
17
Planning Commission (comprising seven counties)
18
was created, by the then Governor Gaylord A, Nelson.
19
A staff was hired, a comprehensive plan developed,
20
other counties added, and the name changed to the
21
Northeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
22
in 1967.
23
The Planning Commission, having been
24
founded by citizens concerned about water quality
25
and purity, is devoting much of its staff time to
-------
3017
1 -. GERALD PAUL
2 assisting the nine member counties in the planning
3 fields of flood plain zoning, sewer and water, and
4 sanitary codes in addition to stream flow and
5 chemical analysis of the waters at 107 monitoring
6 stations. The stream flow and chemical analysis,
7 data gathering which started December 8, 1967* la
8 performed by two highly qualified staff people,
9 myself, Mr. Gerald Paul, Chief Hydrologlst-Civil
10 Engineer, and ray associate, Mr. Boyd Kinzley,
11 -Director of Natural Resources. Our sewer and water
12 comprehensive planning assistance to our nine member
13 counties is provided by Mr. Prank Hedgeock, Chief
14 Planner, and his assistant, both members of the
15 Planning Commission staff who have been active in
16 this field for the Commission since September 1, 1967.
17 A few more statistics are essential to
18 understand the problems confronting the Northeastern
19 Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and Its nine
20 member counties, and the pollution abatement of
21 Lake Michigan:
22 (1) The combined Pox-Wolf River, as mentioned,
23 is the largest tributary to Lake Michigan with
24 a mean of 4140 CPS. This is almost 1 1/4 times
25 the amount granted the State of Illinois for
-------
3018
1 GERALD PAUL
2 diversion purposes.
3 (2) Hie drainage area of this watershed,
4 served by the Northeastern Wisconsin Regional
5 Planning Commission, IB approximately 5,817
6 square miles or approximately 90 per cent
7 of the total acres that drain Into Green Bay.
8 There are 233 miles of river from Hlles, the
9 start of the Wolf Riverj to Lake Wlnnebago.
10 (3) The population of this area in 1930 was
n 253,5*10 and 320,629 In I960, with a projection
12 of 398,000 by 1980.
13 (4) The 1962 per capita Income of residents
14 In the region was $1,780 with one out of
15 every two households In the rural counties
16 having Incomes of less than $4,000 In 1962
17 compared to less than one out of every three
18 In the urban counties.
19 (5) In this region there are a total of 116
20 Incorporated municipalities and unincorporated
21 villages consisting of 67 unincorporated
22 villages, 39 Incorporated areas of under 5,000,
23 5 incorporated areas of 5*000 to 9*999 popula-
24 tlon, and 5 incorporated areas with a popula-
25 tion of 10,000 or over, the latter being in the
-------
3019
1 GERALD PAUL
2 lower reaches of the region primarily.
3 The points we would like to make are as
4 follows:
5 (1) Urbanization along our regional waterways,
6 we feel confident, will be controlled by enforce-
7 ment of our water Resources Act which deals with
8 flood plain and shore line zoning. However, the
9 67 smaller unincorporated villages and some of
10 the 39 cities of under 5,000 population are
11 faced with a preponderous problem of compliance.
12 Some of them are polluters, dumping raw sewage
13 into the river) they know itj they want to do
14 something about it but they do not have the tax
15 baae to provide the necessary means. They have
16 received State orders to comply — they will
17 be cited and possibly prosecuted unless State
18 and Federal grants are forthcoming. We invite
19 this Conference to take special note of this
20 situation as it no doubt exists in the other
21 neighboring States as well and deserves the
22
serious consideration of all concerned and the
23
support of Senator Nelson's proposal of 90
24
percent assistance for sewage treatment
25 facilities.
-------
3020
1 GERALD PAUL
2 (2) We recommend surveys for comprehensive
3 recommendations relative to the Interrelation-
4 ship of surface and ground waters to avoid con-
5 tamlnatlon of our water by Indiscriminate
6 selection of sites for waste disposal.
7 (3) We recommend that Congress be asked to
8 expand "701" planning grants to Include funds
9 for hydrologlcal studies.
10 (4) We heartily endorse the watershed approach
11 to our water resource problems and recommend
12 that the' Federal and separate State Governments
13 seriously consider all aspects of the use of
14 data processing equipment for central recording
15 and reporting of technical Information pertain-
16 Ing to water resources; permits such as flowing
17 well discharge; well drilling; channel enlarge-
18 ment; dally industrial consumptive use of water,
19 etc., so effective up-to-date water administra-
tion can be effective.
21
(5) We recommend that 100 per cent abatement
22
of human pollution of Lake Michigan be the goal
23
of this conference and its ultimate proposals,
24
for if this goal is not attained and maintained
25
by us and our successors the compounded problems
-------
3021
1 GERALD PAUL
2 of the future can only prolong the date of the
3 ultimate death of Lake Michigan.
4 We recommend further that siltation be
5 classified and dealt with as a pollutant. Sources
6 of information tell us that the Wolf River is the
7 recipient of approximately 700 tons of silt annually.
8 This originates /from two major sources, namely,
9 wave wash assumed from pleasure boats in the navi-
10 gable portion of the river and agricultural lands
11 throughout the area. These two sources of siltation
12 presently do have programs in progress to alleviate
13 this condition; however, they are inadequate and
14 must be expanded upon.
15 (1) Stream bank erosion can currently be
16 corrected on agricultural land by the farm
17 owner cooperating with the ASCS, on a cost-
18 sharing basis. There are two drawbacks to
19 this program:
20 (a) It is not compulsory.
21 (b) There is no provision for cost sharing
22
assistance on non-agricultural land. How-
^ ever, our Planning Commission haa called
24 the latter to the attention of Senator
25
Nelson asking that the ASCS Program be
-------
3022
! GERALD PAUL
2 expanded to Include non-agricultural land
3 also.
4 (2) Subwatershed development is possible under
5 PL $66 but must be accelerated throughout the
6 Lake Michigan watershed if we are to maintain
7 the carrying capacity of our surface water
8 systems and prevent silting eutrophicatlon of
g our reservoirs.
10 We recommend that the current trends and
11 proposals to separate storm and sanitary sewer
12 systems be given a long, hard look. Are we ulti-
13 stately going to have to treat storm sewer water
u because of the increased use of calcium chloride?
is If BO, are we actually doing the right thing by
16 separating these systems or would it be more practi-
17 cal and economically feasible to spend this time and
is money in building treatment plants, now?
19 we wish to thank you for the opportunity
20 to present our views and pledge our fullest eoopera-
21 tion to preserve Lake Michigan, one of our greatest
22 heritages.
23 Respectfully submitted,
24
25 (signed) Gordon A. Bubolz
-------
3023
1 OERALD PAUL
2 Gordon A. Bubolz, Chairman
3 Northeastern Wisconsin Regional
4 Planning Commission
5
6 (Signed) R. E. Oarrow
7 R. E, Oarrow, chairman
8 Standing Committee on Water Resources
9 Conservation
10
11 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Paul.
12 Are there any comments or questions?
13 Mr. Vogt.
14 MR. VOOT: Mr. Chairman.
15 Mr. Paul, on Page 3 (3Q19) you Indicate that
16 the smaller communities which admittedly are pol-
17 luters and dumping raw sewage into the streams,
18 they recognize this, they want to do something about
19 it, but you allege that they do not have the tax
basis to provide the necessary means.
21 On what basis do you make such a Judgment?
22 MR. PAUL: Well, in line with some of the
water quality work that is being done in that area
24 and in line with the water quality criteria which
25 has been developed, various monitoring of numerous
-------
3024
.1 GERALD PAUL
2 streams in our region has been done. These certain
3 communities have been cited as major polluters..
4 However, legislation, I believe, from the Attorney
5 General's office levies huge sums, I can't recall
6 any particular figure, maybe Mr. Holmer can back me
7 up on this, I think it is something like $500
8 thousand for a community of in the neighborhood of
9 maybe 300 people. This is the —
10 MR. VOOT: You are just talking in
11 generalities?
12 In other words. It seems to me that If you
13 claim that the communities are not financially able
14 to correct their pollution, you should have some
15 basis for this, and It seems that there would be
16 ways and means of determining this. Do you have
17 this information?
18 MR. PAUL: 1 don't have that at my dis-
posal. It does seem evident —
MR. VOGTi On what basis did you make
21
that statement, then?
22
MR. PAUL: It was made from actual figures,
23
which I don't have here.
24
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Paul, Gene Garrow is
25
right behind you. He may have an answer to the
-------
3025
1 GERALD PAUL
2 question.
3 MR. OARROW: In answer to your question,
4 air, there is the Village of Fremont of a population
5 of approximately 575 to 600. The coat of engineering
B estimate for sewage treatment plant for this village
7 is $403,000. Their gross assessed value is some-
8 where in the neighborhood of $2 million,
9 This is a town of retired people, elderly
10 people, who retired on very low income, are operating
H very close to the belt, so to speak, and comprised
12 probably of a greater percentage of widows per capita
13 than the national figures would reveal. In other
14 words, I think there is something like between 35
15 and 45 widows occupying separate houses, separate
16 entitles.
17 This particular village of the Wolf River
18 is located in the flood plain and the 100-year
19 flood stage did create a flooding condition of
20 practically the majority of the downtown business
21 district as well as many of the residential areas.
22 They have pursued for the past three years,
23 at least, the course of seeking assistance from the
24 State of Wisconsin, Federal funds, whatever sort of
grant would make it possible to accomplish the
-------
3086*
1 GERALD PAUL
2 sewage treatment of their effluenta from the City.
3 At the present tine they dump into the Wolf raw
4 aewage, all of them, practically all of them* The
s saturation of soils is such that they are at a point
6 of, as we say and as has been used here, of no return.
7 There is no alternative to speak of at the present
8 time other than to go to a sewage treatment plant.
9 However, they feel and had a meeting as
10 recent as last night and expressed their opinions
11 that they are in no position for a bonding for a
12 period of 50 years because the revenue from this
13 facility would not be sufficient to operate the
14 plant and moat assuredly their present assessed
15 valuation and income of the village is in no posl-
16 tion to provide this added income for operational
17 monies.
18 Does this answer your question, sir?
19 MR. VQQT: "Riis Is Just one example, sir.
20
I wouldn't expect that every community would be in
21 a flood plain where some means of pollution control
22
couldn't be exercised, even going to Mr. Moore's
23 suggestion here earlier where a small village of.
24
individual septic tanks with in-ground disposal,
say, 5 or 6 hundred people might even go to
25
-------
302?
1 GERALD PAUL
2 thereby removing their wastes from probably the
3 storm sewers that are thereby polluting the near-by
4 stream. I would think that this might wall be a
5 solution In some Instances.
6 In other oases I think It Is incumbent
7 upon these communities to do the very utmost from
8 the standpoint of attempting to finance as much aa
9 they can over a period of time. It may be that
10 they have to do this In a stage program, but at
11 least get going rather than just throwing up their
12 hands and saying we can't do It.
13 MR. GARROW: Sir, would you call get: going
14 three years of diligent efforts to seek assistance
15 throughout various State agencies and a meeting as
16 recent as last night with the Federal Housing Admin-
17 latratIon? Their legal counsel and the — there
18 was one other man there In attendance from one of
19 the agencies. I think that In a small village like
20 this when you have approximately 30 people out, this
21 Is a pretty good representation.
22
By no means do I wish you:to feel or
23
entertain the thought that Fremont Is the isolated
24
instance. This flood plain extends all the way
25
practically to Shawano. Mr. Paul can point out
-------
3028
1 GERALD PAUL
2 here for your benefit where Shawano Is In relation
3 to Lake Winnebago, and you will find that this is
4 a matter of approximately 100 miles and perusal of
5 the map will show you that there are many small
6 unincorporated villages.
7 Research will show you that many incorpo-
8 rated villages still are not in a financial position
9 to accomplish this at this time without Federal or
W State grants. We have been Informed or the Village
11 of Fremont has been Informed that State and Federal
12 grants have been earmarked for at least 1969. State
13 compliance requested required that they comply by
14 January 1968.
15 MR. VOGTj Sir, I don't mean to imply
16 here that we don't have the same problems in
17 Michigan,because we do. We have small communities.
18 But I think the position I am taking here is the
19 same position I take on our Water Resources Commis-
20 sion in Michigan, that poverty isn't an excuse for
21
pollution and that the communities Just can't seek
22
outside aid to solve their problems. They must do
as much as is physically possible with their own
24
funds and then if there is a gap between what they
25
have and what they need, maybe they can seek some
-------
3029
1 GERALD PAUL
2 outsId© aid.
3 But it is incumbent for them to do the
4 maximum with their own resources, and this is about
s the same story we tell our smaller communities in
6 Michigan which are faced with the same problem that
7 you folks in Wisconsin have.
8 MR. QARROW: We as a planning commission
9 are working very closely with these people. We are
10 attempting to steer, guide them and aid them in any
11 way possible. It does become frustrating when there
12 is the earnest effort to comply and there is also
13 the sound logical reasoning that they just finan-
14 clally can't comply,
15 We feel confident, however, that our State
16 agencies are aware of this. But 1 think that we
17 wanted to bring this to light,feeling that possibly
18 previous speakers had not sufficiently elaborated
19 on this particular point. If we are going to clean
20
up Lake Michigan, it has many facets. We can't only
look at the obvious pollution that is visible; we
22
must do a little research and go into the back
country, the originating sources of water, and pick
24
up the polluters whoever and wherever they may be
25
and arrive at this determination of how we are going
-------
3030
1 QER/LD PAUL
2 to cope with It. This Is only a segment of the
3 problem that we are pointing out to you for your
4 information at this time.
5 MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
6 Are there any further questions or
7 comments?
8 If not, thank you.
9 MR. HOLMER: I have one question of Mr. Paul
10 or Mr. Oarrow either one.
11 I would like you to indicate briefly the
12 sources of funding for your hydrological program.
13 MR. QARROWi We are operating under a very
14 stringent budget. The way the Planning Commission
15 of the State of Wisconsin is set up is that we are
16 allowed to -- the counties ask to form a regional
17 planning commission and the State statutes provide
18 that if it is granted and approved by the Governor
19 that three ten-thousandths of a mill of assessed
20 n valuation IB allowable. I think that this primarily
21 was one of the reasons that the population of these
22 nine counties was pointed put, because in the fund-
23 ing of a planning commission such as this there are
24 many facets to planning and demands upon planning,
25 and it is comprehensive planning involving all these
-------
3031
1 GERALD PAUL
2 other things such as economic development,
3 population expansion, explosion, If you will,
4 among other things, land use, and as a result, in
s order to service all of these member counties,
6 monies have to be divided, In our Instance down
7 to where we can only afford at the present time
8 a hydrologist — and believe me, gentlemen, this
9 took us three and a half years or four arid a half
10 years to get a hydrologlst, civil engineer, which
11 Mr. Paul happens to be — and with the magnitude of
12 the job you can see we are only scratching the
13 surface.
14 Now, these funds In addition are supple-
15 men ted and augmented by some Federal funding, local
16 funds, et cetera. However, our budget Is not that
17 high that we feel that we can do a full water
18 resource pollution abatement Job unless we do have
19 additional assistance from possibly the new District
20 3* which Involves our area, or possibly your recog-
21 - nitIon of the fact that we are a major contributor
22 to the Lake Michigan watershed.
23 MR. HOLMERi That was part of the answer,
24 at least, Mr. darrowo
25 My reason for asking the question, Mr. Stein
-------
I 3032
1 GERALD PAUL
2 is that this has been an Interesting cooperative
3 program and in the details at the back of your
4 records you will find that part of this program
5 is financed out of a Federal appropriation for
6 comprehensive water planning, and a somewhat larger
7 amount has been allocated from the State budget to
8 help finance this program as well as your local tax
9 funds which are providing the base for the program,
10 It is an important one and it ought to be
11 supported, but it is also an example of inter-govern-
12 mental cooperation involving all three levels.
13 MR. QARROW: Thank you, Mr. Holmer.
14 MR. STEIN: Are there any further comments
15 or questions?
16 (No response.)
17 MR, STEIN: If not, thank you very much.
18 Mr. Holmer.
19 MR. HOLMER: Before I begin, I would
20 like to ask if there is any resident of Wisconsin
21 who desires to present a statement to this Conference
22
who has not had that opportunity?
23 Yes, sir,
24 MR. JAHNKE: After awhile.
MR. HOLMER: No, first.
-------
3033
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0. A. JAHNKE
Mr. Jahnke?
Mr. 0. A. Jahnke of Milwaukee,
STATEMENT OP 0. A. JAHNKE
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
MR. JAHNKE: I have no paper.
Mr. Stein, Chairman, and Conferees.
I feel awful ashamed to have to come up
here in order to protect Lake Michigan.
My grandfather and your grandfathers and
fathers passed a law for us, Section 13 of the River
and Harbor Act of March 3* 1899* which reads:
"Under Federal law enacted by Congress it
is unlawful to deposit or discharge or cause to be
deposited or discharged any refuse matter of any
kind or description whatsoever from any ship, barge
• Q.
or other floating craft of any kind or from shore
docks or wharves into any navigable waters of the
United States."
That includes the whole 50 States.
"Also unlawful are deposits of this nature
on shore of the waterway or on shore of a tributary
where the refuse material is liable to float or to
-------
I 3034
1 0. A. JAHNKE
2 be washed into the navigable water. Included in
3 the term 'refuse1 are petroleum products, garbage,
4 debris of any kind, other kind of refuse, Including
5 bottles, paper, and ao forth."
6 The prescribed penalties for this violation
7 and conviction of this statute reads substantially
8 as follows:
9 "Every person, corporation or company
10 that shall violate or shall knowingly violate, aid,
11 abet, authorize or instigate a violation of this
i2 law shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
13 punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500 nor less
14 than $500 or by imprisonment in case of a person
15 for not less than 30 days nor more than one year
16 or by both fine and imprisonment at the discretion
17 of the Court."
18 That is the end of the quotation of this
19 law,
20 When the Jesuit priests and the early
explorers first came up on the Lakes in 163**, they
22
called the Great Lakes the Oceans of Sweet Water.
23 And when I was a boy, I was born right on Lake
24
Michigan right north of Manitowoc there, my grand-
25
father bought Grants Pier. They didn't have harbora
-------
3035
1 0. A. JAHNKE
2 in them days. I used to play down at the lake
3 from the time I was about five years old, and
4 whenever I got thirsty I used to take my hands and
s make a little oup and take a drink, but I don't
6 believe we can do that today.
7 I just wanted to read, from this law that was
8 passed In 1899 for the records and the Government
9 records,because If we had followed up from that time
10 on we wouldn't have needed this Conference today.
11 Thank you very much.
12 MR. STKINj Thank you.
13 (Applause.)
14 MR. STEINi I say this for the purpose of
15 the record,and I BBS the Corps of Engineers are In
16 here, this is not a new statute. This must have
17 been at least the ten thousandth time I have either
18 read it or heard it. it is not an easy statute to
19 read. I think if the statute purported to clean up
all pollution we wouldn't need our Federal program
21 or our Federal law. The courts have litigated this
statute for years. The Corps of Engineers has
23 administrated it.
24 The pollution referred to refers to
25
pollution whien interferes with navigation.
-------
3036
1 PREEMAN-'HOIiMER
2 . Would you continue.
3
4 STATEMENT OP FREEMAN HOLMER
5 ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OP RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
6 WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OP NATURAL RESOURCES
7
8 MR. HOLMERi Mr. Stein, Fellow Conferees.
9 I want to thank all of the witnesses,
10 Mr. Jahnke and Mr. Moore and Mr. Billings and
i1 Mr. Ewena, and I would like also to thank our
12 women representatives who have appeared here before,
13 Mrs. Dahl yesterday, who has sent to us a telegram
14 this morning addressed to the FWPC Conferees, whioh
15 reads as follows :
16 "Even as this group discusses pollution
17 problems an atomic power plant is discharging ten
18 degree thermo pollution into Lake Michigan. Addi-
19 tional plants will add more* Experts admit ecologl-
20 cal changes. Controlled freezer unit using cheaper
21 atomic power to cool the extra ten degrees would
22 eliminate the problem in the lake, also in the
23 Alaskan salmon spawning rivers and in Florida's
24 Biacayne Bay, saving large industries as well as
25
natural beauty. Another example of the 'new approach1
-------
3037
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 xwM
-------
3038
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 Conferees need to bear constantly in mind as we
3 come to grips with the problems that confront us
4 in our role here.
5 Senator Nelson said:
6 "The Governors of the four States called
7 to this Conference have designated as their repre-
8 sentatives the heads of their appropriate conaerva-
9 tion water resources or natural resources departments.
10 These men are all thoroughly experienced in the
11 field of water pollution. Most of them are veteran
12 administrators of their own State programs designed
13 to clean up pollution. This, of course, puts them
14 in a difficult position. All of them are proud of
15 their own State programs, all of them are somewhat
16 sceptical of Federal 'interference1 in their water
17 pollution programs."
18 I am going to return to Senator Nelson's
19 quotation in a moment, but let me pause here long
20 enough to aay that anyone who denies the fact that
21 the existence of someone looking over your shoulder
causes a degree of sk?*lcism at any point need only
23
be here or in our home States when there are those
24
who offer advice or counsel or restriction, and this
25
applies to all of us, because we all look over each
-------
3039
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FREEMAN HOLMER
other's shoulders in this business and there Is a
tendency to be If not skeptical at least nervous.
Senator Nelson went on:
"It Is going to take real statesmanship
on the part of these men to rise up to the challenge
which the Conference presents to them and to agree
on a really bold set of recommendations which will
clean up Lake Michigan. They may be called upon to
make recommendations which will be painful for them
and others in their States to accept, but there is
no alternative If we are to save Lake Michigan."
Yesterday in his address to us Governor
Knowles provided an answer and a guide to the
Wisconsin Conferees when he said clearly and boldly,
"Wisconsin is prepared to cooperate fully in support
of the recommendations which are developed in this
Conference. We are unequivocally committed to meet
our responsibilities in the preservation of Lake
Michigan."
Wisconsin law declares it to be "the
express policy of the State to mobilize Government
effort and resources at all levels, State, Federal
and local, allocating such effort and resources to
accomplish the greatest result for the people of
-------
3040
I FREEMAN HOLMER
2 the State aa a whole." Twice it affirms "the
3 importance of Lakes Superior and Michigan and Green
4 Bay aa vast water resource reservoirs," and the
s necessity for high water quality standards relating
6 to these waters.
7 In pursuit of this statutory directive,
8 Wisconsin: Administrative Code declares the initial
9 Intention that the open waters of Lake Michigan
10 shall meet the standards for all uses, that swimming
u beaches meet the standards for body contact recrea-
12 tion and that the harbor areas (in the vicinity of
13 pollutlonal outlets) be raised to meet what are
14 really exacting minimum standards. The long-range
15 goal of Wisconsin intrastate standards, including
16 those Inland waters which are a part of the Lake
17 Michigan Basin, is "to permit the use of water
18 resources for all lawful purposes," including the
19 reproduction of game fish and minnows. The "working
20 objective" is already declared to be to achieve
21 these goals within ten years,
22 Achievement of this goal requires the
23 cooperation of Industry, local Government, and
24 private citizens. State financial assistance to
municipalities and tax Incentives to industry have
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3041
FREEMAN HOLMER
been provided to encourage such cooperation.
Administrative orders, enforceable In the courts/ are
available, If needed, to assure compliance.
With specific respect to Lake Michigan,
the State or Wisconsin submitted to the Department
of the Interior initial water quality standards and
a plan for their Implementation, we are gratified
that these have merited approval by the Department
and request that they be incorporated in the record
of this conference, along with a copy of the Wisconsin
Water Resources Act of 1965 and related legislation.
Subsequently I shall make reference to
certain other documents evidencing the Wisconsin
Program. These are included in two rather large
notebooks which have been distributed to the Confer*
ees, and I would suggest rather than incorporating
these at the points in my remarks that they be
Incorporated as a single exhibit.
MR. STEIN: Do you want them as an exhibit
or part of the Conference transcript, Mr, Holmer?
MR. HOLMER: As an exhibit, sir.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will
be done.
(Which said documents are marked Exhibit
-------
3042
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 and are on file at the Federal Water Pollution
3 Control Administration Office in Washington, D.C.,
4 and at the Regional Office of the FWPCA in Chicago,
5 Illinois.)
6 MR. HOLMER: The communities and industries
7 affected by the plan of enforcement have been notl-
8 fled of our Intention to enter the necessary pollu-
9 tion abatement orders promptly. You will find in
!0 that planned implementation target dates and the
11 specific requirements. We have deferred entering
12 formal orders to these municipalities and communi-
13 ties, first while we were awaiting the approval or
14 modification of our standards in the processes of
15 review in the Department of the Interior,and more
16 recently in anticipation of this Conference. We
17 intend, of course, that our plane and orders will
18 reflect the results of this Conference and they are,
19 these plans and orders, merely the next steps in
our continuing program of pollution abatement.
21 We will make no effort here to enumerate
22
all of the past or present steps being taken to
23 abate the pollution of Lake Michigan by Wisconsin
24
communities and Industries. These are in many
25
respects detailed in the documents which have been
-------
3043
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 distributed to the Conferees. The Conferees
3 already know that Milwaukee has been a pioneer in
4 secondary treatment and is scheduled for improvement
5 of its collection and treatment facilities over the
6 next ten years at an investment of approximately
7 $150 million in local funds. Kenosha dedicated its
8 new secondary treatment plant last October. Racine's
9 new secondary facility is under construction. Green
10 Bay and Milwaukee (in efforts which have been
11 encouraged and financially supported by the Federal
12 Water Pollution Control Administration) are deeply
13 engaged in major research dealing with papermaklng
14 wastes, nutrient removal, and the management of
j
15 storm runoff.
16 Other efforts in the Lake Michigan Basin
17 are or will shortly be under way in the Lake
18 Michigan Basin in Wisconsin to abate pollution.
19 Some of these will result from recent surveys of
the Fox River and the Root River and recent hearings
21
thereon. The reports of these and other basin sur-
22
veys should also be made a part of the record of
23
this conference, and they have been distributed. We
24
are taking these and similar steps in the confident
25
expectation that our actions will have a favorable
-------
3044
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 effect on the character of the waters of Lake
3 Michigan. Further surveys in 1968 will complete
4 current coverage of the streams in the Lake Michigan
Basin.
The news release on December 21 announcing
7 this Conference listed seven specific forms of
8 pollution among those which should be considered
9 here. There are others that have been Included In
10 the report of the Federal Water Pollution Control
11 Administration, including urban and agricultural
12 runoff, sedimentation, and the matter of persistent
13 pesticides.
14 Of the seven items originally listed,
15 three (dumping of dredged material, oil pollution,
16 and control of discharges by commercial and pleasure
17 craft) clearly require national standards and a
18 consistent program among Federal agencies.
19
municipal and Industrial wastes, thermal pollution,
Three of the listed items (treatment of
20
21
and beach pollution) seem clearly within the province
22
of the States. It is essential, however, that the
23
States be enforcing adequate and comparable standards
24
and that the programs of the States be coordinated.
25
Michigan, for example, has adopted a bold program
-------
3045
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 addressed to the alewife nuisance; Wisconsin is
3 sharing in the enterprise. We will continue to
* collaborate with the other Lake Michigan States,
5 and the Federal agencies, through the Oreat Lake
6 Basin Commission, in the development and execution
7 of a comprehensive program.
8 *nie seventh listed problem (the overen-
9 richment of shoreline waters by nutrients) is
10 especially crucial. And may 1 say that the next
11 few paragraphs were written before this Conference
12 convened, ad. I vent to say something about them after
13 I read them as they were written two weeks ago.
\
14 Phosphorus, nitrogen, and other nutrients
15 enter the Lake from a multiplicity of sources, many
16 of them natural. The Subcommittee on Air and Water
17 Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works
| A
has reminded us that "even in the absence of man,
lakes would eventually die. . . .through natural
runoff, sedimentation, and changes In the biological
21 ..
balance of the Lake.
22
Itiis process of aging is inevitable,
23
although it may, for long periods, be Imperceptible.
24
It is marked by "increased fertility and the prolif-
25
eration of algae."
-------
3046
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 The Committee Report (No. 917, 90th
3 Congress, 1st Session) goes on to observe that
4 "Present knowledge of eutrophlcatlon and potential
5 techniques of prevention and reclamation....is too
6 limited to begin a full-scale program of Federal
7 involvement....We lack adequate technology to deal
8 with the problems of diffuse sources, natural and
9 man-influenced, which characterize the principal
10 contributors to eutrophication."
11 yesterday when Mr. Purdy was at this
12 microphone, I posed a question to him and I got an
13 answer. The question was, given the existence of
14 all of the alewlves and their provision of phosphorus
15 to the shoreline waters whether it really made a
16 great deal of sense to begin with a major effort
17 at the removal of phosphorus from municipal and
18 industrial waste facilities.
19 And his answer, I think, helped to clarify
20 my own thinking, which had been severely influenced
21 by the statements last Wednesday by Dr. Baumgartner
and Dr. Weinberger. The problem of phosphorus and
23 its elimination is clearly a critical one, and while
24 there are vast gaps in our knowledge and subject to
25
further review of the recommendations submitted to
-------
304?
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FREEMAN HOLMER
UB by the Federal water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, it teems clear that we need to take all feasi-
ble steps in this area as rapidly as we can.
Wisconsin policy is clear. She decision
has been made to enhance the quality of all Wisconsin
water and particularly to control, to the extent
feasible, the processes of eutrophicatlon in all
our lakes, including Lake Michigan. The odds
against us are significant but we are determined
and have directed our efforts to arrest and reverse
the process. We propose that this conference face
the problem squarely and realistically; as though
. . ,. . , ,, We suggest that
we ever had any other intention. ^^^
this requires substantial research and submit for
incorporation in the record of this Conference a
pioneering report "Excessive Water Fertilization,H
developed by the State of Wisconsin. This Joint
effort of the University of Wisconsin and State
-^ '- •
agency personnel offers a number of specific
recommendations that deserve consideration and
adaptation by this Conference.
(Which aald report is aa follows:)
-------
EXCESSIVE WATER FERTILIZATION
Report
To The
WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF STATE AGENCIES
By
Prof. Richard B. Corey
Department of Soils
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Prof. Arthur D. Easier
Laboratory of Limnology
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Prof. G. Fred Lee
Water Chemistry Laboratory
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
F. H. Schraufnagel, Chairman
Public Health Engineer
Water Resources Division
Dept. of Resource Development
453 State Office Building"
1 W. Wilson Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53702
Thomas L. Wirth
Water Research Coordinator
Conservation Department
Nevin Hatchery
Route 2
Madison, Wisconsin 53713
Madison, Wisconsin
January 31, 1967
-------
3049
January 31, 196?
Mr. H. E. Wirth, Chairman
Water Subcommittee
Natural Resources Committee of
State Agencies
P. 0. Box 309
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
Dear Mr. Wirth:
The working group on Control Techniques and Research on Water Fertili-
zation has been charged with the problem of excessive fertilization of
our lakes and streams. We were asked to study the need for removal of
nutrients and to make recommendations concerning proposed state policy
or programs in this field.
The accompanying report, "Excessive Water Fertilization," represents
the efforts of our group in complying with the request. This report
outlines the problem; the key nutrients, their sources and estimated
contributions; control methods and makes recommendations. A summary
and the recommendations are in the first part of the report.
\
This report, we feel, fulfills our responsibility. However, if we can
be of further assistance, please contact me or any member of the working
group.
Very truly yours,
F. H. Schraufnagel
Chairman
Working Group
JM
-------
3050
SUMMARY
The State of Wisconsin is blessed with many lakes and rivers. Some
of these waters are showing signs of deterioration in water quality as a
result of receiving excessive amounts of nutrients. It is highly likely
that the frequency and severity of these problems will increase with further
urbanization and recreational use. We believe that excessive fertilization
will become our most important public problem in water resources. Every
possible action should be taken at this time in order to minimize additional
deterioration in water quality.
Sources of nutrients (or fertilizers) are numerous. Domestic sewage,
even when treated to a point where the effluent is sparkling clear—in factt
suitable for trout rearing, contributes a major source of nitrogen and
phosphorus o These two elements are generally considered the most important
contributors to excess fertilization of Wisconsin waters. Conventional
treatment facilities are presently removing less than half of these nutrients,
although they efficiently remove the suspended solids and oxygen consuming
substances that have traditionally given sewage its unaesthetic connotation.
The volume of domestic sewage will not only increase with increasing popu-
lation but the accelerated use of the plant nutrient phosphorus in synthetic
detergents for our laundry and kitchen sinks appears to be adding to the
problem.
Another major source of nitrogen and phosphorus is runoff from rural
lands, particularly manured croplands. These fertilizers reach lakes and
streams via overland runoff and underground percolation. The major potential
source of these fertilizers is surface runoff from manure applied on frozen
soil. Commercial fertilizers do not appear to "be significant sources except
in some areas with specialized crops.
Urban runoff, another major source of nutrients, will continue to
rise as the surfaces of the landscape become increasingly covered with
roads .and roofs. Precipitation onto water surfaces also makes a significant
contribution of nutrients through the action of "washing" the atmosphere.
The development of wetlands for agricultural and urban use also brings
about an increased rate of decomposition of organic materials so that seepage
and runoff from these soils may contain large quantities of nitrogen and
phosphorus. Various kinds of industrial wastes are also rich in nitrogen
and phosphorus. They do not appear to contribute the volume of these nutrients
that domestic sewage or rural and urban runoff do but can be important in
local situations.
The solution to the malady of excessive water fertilization is best
obtained by prevention. Better removal of nutrients from sewage appears
possible by several methods, Improvement of present sewage treatment
operations is possible, as is adding an additional stage (tertiary
treatment) for effluents now released as "finished" products. The use
of chemical precipitants has shown considerable promise in pilot plants
and can undoubtedly be perfected further. The biochemical removal of
nutrients by growing and harvesting algae in effluent holding ponds seems
an ideal method of removing nutrients, but experimental trials to date
-------
- 2 - 3051
have demonstrated several problems that have not been solved. The removal
of nitrogen by modifying the present activated sludge process shows promise,
but to remove phosphorus requires a different modification. Liquidization
of winter manure and storage until spring may prove to be an effective
measureo
Harvesting plants and animals from lakes as a control method has
much in its favor as it suggests a use for these fertilizers. Unfortunately.,
the quantities of fish and aquatic plants which must be removed in order to
offset the input of nitrogen and phosphorus cannot possibly be attained.
However, aarvesting and refuse removal, coupled with better sewage treatment
and control of nutrients in rural runoff, may go a long ways towards solving
the problem. In addition, harvesting and refuse removal may provide suffi-
cient aesthetic benefits (rough fish removal and aquatic vegetation clearing)
to be well worth continuous efforts on many lakes.
Lake shores, river frontages and entire drainage basins may require
better zoning regulations in order to minimize the introduction of nutrients.
Other methods show promise for specific waters. For example, diversion
of effluents around the Madison lakes and flushing waterways with clear water
as practiced in Milwaukee and Chicago have improved local conditions„ Chemical
control of algae and large aquatic plants is effective in localized areas,
but it is only a treatment of the symptom and may cause harmful side effects*
Dredging shallow portions of lakes, although expensive, may become worthwhile.
Artificial circulation of an entire lake is practical and is now
beginning to receive some attention as a means of improving water quality.
Continuous vertical mixing and aeration with compressed air to cause
accelerated oxidation of plant and animal deposition may provide improved
water quality in lakes already in an advanced state of enrichment. Drawing
surplus water from the bottom of lakes during seasons when it is richer in
nutrients than the surface waters normally spilling out may benefit water
quality. The impoundment of streams and subsequent controlled release of
water to improve quality shows considerable promise as a control method.
A number of recommendations for coping with the problem of deterio-
rating water quality from excessive water fertilization follows.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Initiate studies on sources of nitrogen and phosphorus to determine
their significance in fertilization of Wisconsin water. Particular emphasis
should be given to municipal sewage, manure spread on frozen land, drainage
from marshes and other wetlands, urban runoff, industrial waste waters,
agricultural drainage and septic tanks. These studies should be directed
toward determining the expected contribution from these sources in order
that better estimates can be made in specific situations.
2. Initiate a study on the significance of detergent-based phosphorus in
the fertilization of Wisconsin surface waters. If this study shows that
detergents represent a significant source of phosphorus, action should be
taken to minimize this source.
-------
. 3 - 3052
3. Initiate studies on methods of controlling plant nutrients from
sources that may be of significance. Emphasis should "be placed on performance,
cost of installation and operation of nutrient removal processes from pilot
plants, demonstration, units and full scale operating systems. Also, emphasis
should be given to methods of zoning watersheds to minimize the transport
of plant nutrient to lakes.
k. Initiate long-term detailed studies on the current degree and
rate of fertilization of selected lakes and rivers by nitrogen and phosphorus
as well as other growth promoting substances and factors. Emphasis in these
studies should be directed toward gaining information on the relationships
of plant nutrient influx and the growth of excessive amounts of aquatic
plants. Streams and lakes that are in various degrees of eutrophication
should be selected for study. It is suggested that consideration be given
to studies on Trout and Crystal Lakes in Vilas County, Pine Lake in Chippewa
County, Big Cedar Lake in Washington County, Devils Lake in Sauk County,
Little Court Oreilles Lake in Sawyer County, Lake Minocqua in Oneida County,
Lake Delavan in Walworth County, Pewaukee Lake in Waukesha County, Bailey
Lake in Waupaca County, Lake Mendota iri Dane County, the Brule and Rock
Rivers and Black Earth Creek. One or two lakes that have excessive amounts
of aquatic plant growth should be selected for a demonstration project in
which every feasible effort is made to reduce the amounts of plant nutrients
entering the lake. This study would provide information on the cost of
minimizing plant nutrients from various sources and also the effect of this
action on water quality.
5. Initiate studies on the technology of harvesting or increasing
the harvest of surplus crops in lakes and rivers, hence removing fertility,
e.g. fish, higher aquatic plants, algae, bog and marsh plants and, possibly, .
removal of bottom sediments.
6. The State should initiate a program of review of potential water
quality problems in proposed public and private impoundments.
7. On the lakes where action is taken to reduce nutrient inflow,
studies should be initiated to determine the effect of the corrective action
on water quality.
8. An advisory committee consisting of representatives from state
agencies and university personnel should be formed to advise, coordinate
and guide the studies on the problems of excessive water fertilization.
9. A water fertilization study group should be established. This
group should consist of senior individuals and supporting assistants
representing aquatic biology, soil chemistry, water chemistry, ground
water hydrology, sanitary engineering, political science, planning and
water law. The primary responsibility of the group would be to investigate
lakes and rivers that are being excessively fertilized in order to determine
the sources of plant nutrients, recommend corrective action and determine
the effect of these measures.
10. A substantial fund should be allocated to support the investi-
gations listed above.
-------
3°53
11. A need exists to keep the public informed concerning problems
and progress on excessive fertilization. The University Extension, or
another appropriate agency, should undertake this service as a central
objective.
I. THE PROBLEM
The "Working Group on Control Techniques and Research on Water
Fertilization" has been charged with the problem of excessive fertilization
of lakes and streams. It has been suggested that the need for removal of
nutrients should be studied to produce a proposed state policy or programs
in this field.
There is a general consensus that excessive fertilization is a growing
problem and results in a deterioration of water quality. Often the problem
is insidious and makes deep inroads before being detected. Over a period of
years there may be a gradual loss in clarity, a development of color and an
increase in aquatic life with a changed ecological make-up. These are
symptoms, yet they could be regarded as "normal" conditions too. Weed
choked areas, the stench of decaying algae and fish, curtailment of water.
sports, losses in property values, water supply taste, odor, and filtration
problems and the change from aesthetic values to nuisances can be the
cumulative results that bring the matter to a head.
Lakes and quiescent bodies of water appear to be more adversely
affected than flowing streams. Fertilization is often associated with man's
activities. A systematic approach would be to get an idea of the elements
or ingredients that make a water fertile, determine the source or sources
and find out what can be done to eliminate, restrict or ameliorate them.
II. NUTRIENTS FOR CONSIDERATION
Bartsch (1961) gave examples of induced eutrophication of surface
waters made fertile by sewage and included fish ponds, Lake Zurich in
Switzerland, the Madison lakes, Connecticut's Lake Zoar and Lake Washington
at Seattle. Bare Lake, Alaska, was deliberately fertilized (Edmbndson,:
with .025 mg/1 of POjj-P and 0.125 mg/1 of N03~N. This was followed by a
heavy algal growth and its cloudy appearance was noted by airplane pilots.
A report by Rudolfs and Heinemann (1938) called attention to -the
fact that the value of sewage and sludge in the promotion of plant growth
could not be attributed to their mineral nutrients only. They stated that
practically all the experimental work was with nitrogen, phosphorus, potash
and mineral substances. Provasoli (1961) indicated that vitamins B-^,
thiamine, and biotin and perhaps other unknown substances should not be
neglected as factors in bloom production. Most investigations of aquatic
nutrients center about nitrogen and phosphorus. Undoubtedly, these two
are critical but other factors are apparently involved.
The usual nitrogens considered are those tied up in cell material
as organic nitrogen, and the inorganic forms: Ammonia, NHq, or ammonium,
""; nitrite, N02"; and nitrate, NOo". Inorganic nitrogens are considered
-------
3054
as readily available nutrients. Free nitrogen gas, Ng, is generally not
available but in some cases can be significant where nitrogen fixation
organisms are involved.
Soluble orthophosphate, POj/"3, is considered the important form
insofar as cell utilization is concerned. This type of phosphorus is some-
times loosely referred to as soluble phosphorus or inorganic phosphorus.
However, condensed or polyphosphates , major constituents of synthetic
detergents, are soluble and inorganic but are not orthophosphates . Total
phosphorus includes the condensed phosphates and orthophosphates as well
as that found in organic forms.
III. NUTRIENT SOURCES
Sewage
Sewage is frequently cited as being a major contributor to water
fertilization. It would be helpful to get an idea of the amounts involved
and nutrient removals that are obtainable by present treatment practices.
A report by Rudolfs (19^7) indicates an adult ingests from 1.2 to
2.0 grams of phosphorus per day (l to 1-2/3 Ibs./year). In adult humans, it
can be assumed that over-all the input equals the output. In the excreta, 35
to 50 percent of the phosphorus is contained in the feces and 50 to 65 percent
is discharged in urine. Phosphorus in the latter is present in oxidized form
as free phosphoric acid and disodium and monosodium phosphate. An adult needs
a minimum of 0.88 grams of phosphorus per day (0.71 Ibs./year) to replace body
losses (Wirtshafter, 19^2). Pregnant women, nursing mothers and growing children
about 1.3 to 1.5 grams of phosphorus per day (1.05 to 1.20 Ibs./ year).
Data presented by Keefer' (19^0 ) concerned nitrogen and phosphorus
in fresh human wastes from 100,000 persons of both sexes and varied ages
and showed an average excrement per day of 82.5 grams of feces and 96? grams
of urine . The daily average amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus amounted to
6.63 and 0.8l grams respectively (5-3 and 0.65 Ibs./year) with 8? percent
of the nitrogen and 6^ percent of the phosphorus discharged in the urine.
The study dates back before the turn of the century. Analytical methods
used then (Rafter, 189^) are still valid but diets may have altered the
make-up of excreta somewhat.
Buswell (1928) compiled data from physiological chemistry texts by
Hawk and Mathews showing the nitrogen excreted by a normal adult per day.
The urine contribution amounted to 1,500 cubic centimeters containing 17-57
grams of nitrogen while there was 1.80 grams in the feces. Following is the
amount of nitrogen in grams per day from various constituents in the urine.
Urea - 16.35 Hippuric Acid - 0.05
Great inine - 0.37 Ammonia - 0.53
Uric Acid - 0.25 Thiocyanates - 0.02
There was no breakdown of the nitrogen compounds in the 20 grams dry weight
of feces excreted per day. The total nitrogen excreted per day by a normal
adult is given as 19-37 grams (15-6 Ibs./year).
-------
3055
-6 -
In addition to excreta, domestic wastes contain kitchen and laundry
wastes; Also, the water supply or carriage water may contain some nutrients
initially. Undoubtedly, comminuted household garbage adds to the nutrient
loading, but citable figures seem to be lacking.
Data on public water supplies in Wisconsin are shown in a 1935
compilation (Bur. San. Eng., 1935). Of the k6j public water supplies
listed 201 had nitrate-N of less than 0.1 mg/1, 89 were in the range from
0.1 to 0.5, 8k ranged from 0.6 to 2.0, Jh had concentrations from 2.1 to
5.0 and 19 had values exceeding 5 mg/1. The arithmetic average was approxi-
mately I.e.' mg/1. In only two cases was the nitrite-N concentration in
excess of 0.1 mg/1. Twenty-seven of the supplies were from surface waters
and the remainder from wells and springs. The highest nitrogen concentration
believed found in tests of Wisconsin private water supplies was 150 mg/1
of nitrate-N from a well located near a corral (Nichols, 1966). In the
summer of 1966 a farmyard well showed a content of 100 mg/1 of nitrate-N
(Goode, 1966). The soluble phosphorus content of 104 Wisconsin well waters
(Hensel, 193?) varied from 0.00 to 0.15 mg/1. The majority of samples con-
tained less than 0.01 mg/1. £l mg/1 in 100 gals./day = 0.378 grams/day or
0.304 Ibs./year!]
Sawyer (i960) found that prior to the use of synthetic detergents,
phosphorus in sewage ranged from about 2.5 to 4 mg/1 and averaged 1.5 grams
per person per day (1.2 Ibs./year). He also indicated that heavy duty
detergents may contain 12 to 13 percent of phosphorus.
Industry statistics for 1963 (U. S. Bur. Census, 1966) indicate
the total production of synthetic organic detergents for household use as
follows.
Dry Types - 3,152,840,000 Ibs.
Scouring Cleansers - 508,295,000 Ibs.
Liquids - 127,523,000 gals.
During 1963, .the principal phosphorus compounds and the amounts used in
soap and detergent products was given as 696,19? tons of sodium tripoly-
phosphate and 109,209 tons of tetrasodium phosphate. Figures were not
available for the 1963 use of trisodium phosphate, although in 1958 the
latter amounted to 30,776 tons. Calculations based on the amount of
phosphorus in these compounds for the July 1963 population show that the
average per capita use in soaps and other detergents averaged 2.2 pounds
per person per year (2.73 grams/day).
A recent report on phosphorus chemicals (Sherman, 1966) showed the
1965 production as 550,138 tons of elemental phosphorus, 56 percent of
which was used by the detergent industry. It was stated that the amount
of phosphorus in most detergents has been increased during the past few
years. Dividing the 6l6,000,000 pounds of phosphorus involved by the July
1, 1965 estimated United States population of 194,583,000 results in a
per capita phosphorus usage in detergents of 3.17 pounds per year.(3»9^
grams per day).
-------
3056
- 7 -
A graphical presentation (Carmody, 1965) shows that the United States
demand for synthetic detergents increased from about ^ billion pounds in
19^8 to k billion pounds in 1964, while the use of soap decreased from 2^
to 1 billion pounds in the same period. Maloney (1966) demonstrated that
a common household detergent stimulated algal growth because of its sodium
triphosphate, NaPO^o* ingredient.
About 25 municipalities in Wisconsin using ground water add poly-
phosphate to sequester iron or control corrosion. The maximum concentration
of polyphosphate additive that will be approved for use is 10 mg/1 and dosages
are usually less than half that amount. Based on an average water usage of
100 gallons per day and a phosphate concentration of k mg/1, it is estimated
that the carriage water contribution from this source amounts to about O.k
pounds per person per year. At Milwaukee, ammonia or ammonium sulfate
are used to aid in disinfection of water but the concentration of nitrogen
amounts to only about 0.2 mg/1 and is negligible in the over-all sewage
make-up.
According to the report by Rudolfs (19^7), 50 to 60 percent of the
phosphorus in raw sewage is removed by settling, 75 to 80 percent by settling
and trickling filter, and 80 to 90 percent by the activated sludge process
while irrigation achieved approximately a 95 percent removal. These values
for conventional treatment facilities are higher than presently being achieved'.
Chicago area activated sludge type treatment plants (Hurwitz, 1965)
remove an average of 66 percent of the total phosphorus with individual
plant removals of 78, 37 and $k percent being found. The authors indicated
that variations were probably because of the existing characteristics of the
wastes received at the plants . Orthophosphate appeared to be more difficult
to remove than other forms of phosphorus.
Studies on three activated sludge plants in San Antonio, Texas
(Vacker, 1966), disclosed a considerable variation in phosphate removals
from practically nothing at the "underloaded" Leon Creek plant to as much
as 96 percent in the Rilling plant, with up to 6.8 percent of phosphorus
on a dry weight basis being found in the sludge. The apparent design
and operational considerations for maximum phosphate removals follow.
1. Maintain a constant BOD to solids loading rate of about 50 pounds
of BOD/100 pounds of aeration solids by controlling raw waste and return
sludge but avoiding long retention in the secondary clarifier.
2. Provide a relatively large amount of air, but avoid over-aeration
which would result in excessive nitrification and aerobic digestion of
solids .
3. Digester liquors should not be returned to the treatment system
until the phosphates are removed from the liquor.
The authors felt that the considerations were "compatible with economical
and efficient treatment for removal of BOD and suspended solids."
-------
3057
- 8 -
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission (Milwaukee Sew0 Comm.,,
1965) (Ernest, 1966) operates a conventional activated sludge plant for
treatment of screened sewage- Waste sludge is dried for fertilizer and
is not digested. Detailed plant records are available. During 1965, the
screened sewage contained an average of 39-6 mg/1 of nitrogen and 7.7 mg/1
of phosphoruso Effluent analyses showed that treatment removed 69»9 percent
of the nitrogen and 75.3 percent of the phosphorus. The sludge contained
44.7 percent of the incoming nitrogen and the remaining 25.2 percent probably
represents loss to the atmosphere by denitrification and aeration. Phosphorus
calculations agree within 5 percent when comparing the influent with effluent
plus sludge, the latter figure being slightly higher. The treatment plant
has a split flow. In August 1965S following completion of changing the east
section from spiral flow tube diffusors to ridge and furrow plate type
diffusors, the over-all removal of phosphorus increased to about 80 percent.
The Commission staff has been studying nutrient removals, particularly of
the phosphorus, and conducted plant-size experiments. Detailed, full-scale
nutrient studies would be beneficial to all, and federal or state financing
of such projects should be considered.
The Madison Metropolitan Sewerage Treatment Plant (Woodburn et alo,
1965) (Baillie, 1966) operates parallel facilities of the trickling filter
and activated sludge types to treat settled sewage„ In 19&5* 72»3 percent
of the flow was treated by activated sludge; 26.8 percent received trickling
filter type. Sludge is digested and then air-dried. During 1965 s the
average nitrogen concentration in the raw sewage was 29.4 mg/1 and the
discharge composite from both plants amounted to 20.9 mg/1 for an over-all
reduction of 28.9 percent. Phosphorus determinations are not routinely
made on the raw sewage. Following is a comparison of the effluent from
Madison's Nine-Springs Sewage Treatment Plant for a one year period in
1943-44 by Sawyer and Associates (Sawyer, 1943) and on a calendar basis
for 6 years, 1960-65s in a recent study (Wis0 Water Poll., 1966).
Madison's Treated Effluent
Year Org. N .Inorg. K Total P Sol. P
1943-44 2.4 17.1 3.20 2.84
I960 4.45 - 1.30 18.63 - 2.27 9.26 - 1.17 6.91 ± .84
1961 4.87 - .62 20.67 - 1.76 11.02 ± 1.08 7.9^ - .88
1962 6.18 - .91 20.82 ± 2.38 11.91 ± .9^ 8.44 - .51
1963 5.75 - .66 21.15 - 1.59 9«72 - 1.19 8.12 - .79
1964 2.95 - .92 16.92 - 3«2l 9.07 - 1.06 7.95 - .88
1965 3.36 - 1.58. 17.53 ± 1.83 7.63 - 1.08 6.69 i .77
The above results are averages based on 24-hour composites taken about once
a. month.. Data for 1960 through 1965 include 95 percent confidence intervals
for the means „ Assuming that the standard deviation of the 1943-44 mean
values are similar to those found for the recent years, a statistical
evaluation indicates nitrogen values in 1965 were similar to those of
1943-44 but differences are noted for 1961 through 1963. Phosphorus
results are sharply and very significantly higher than in the earlier
period but show a decrease in the past .year. Flow in 1965 averaged about
22.48 million gallons per day (MOD) compared with 12.5 MGD in the 1943-44
period. The sewage volume in 1965 was 5.9 percent higher than in 1964,
-------
3058
- 9 -
and if this was caused by ground water dilution would lessen the phosphorus
discrepancy. Other possibilities could include a change in the make-up of
domestic sewage or industrial waste contributions or in the sampling and
analysis procedures.
Additional treatment facilities were placed into operation in September
of 1963. The plant overload for the period from 1961 through 1963 probably
accounted for the high nitrogen. Phosphorus increases over the earlier
period are probably due to the use of synthetic detergents, but there is
no apparent reason for last year's decrease. Three sets of composite samples
on the plant were obtained in May of 1966. Their averages revealed a concen-
tration of 10.5 mg/1 of total phosphorus in the raw and 7.6 mg/1 in the
effluent for an over-all reduction of 27 percent. The soluble phosphorus
was reduced from 8.6 to 6.7 mg/1 or about 22 percent.
Sewage from the Village of Dickeyville, Wisconsin, is treated by an
extended aeration type activated sludge system. Waste sludge is hauled
and disposed of onto land. Following are the results in mg/1 obtained on
three surveys.
9/14-15/65 9/15-16/65 > 2/16-17/66
BOD
Raw 340 268 454
Final 2.6 2.8 23.4
% Reduction 99.2 99.0 9^.8
Nitrogens (Untreated Sewage)
Organic 18.0 21. if 28.0
.Ammonia 1*9.0 53.2 56
Nitrite <0.002 <0.002 <.004
Nitrate <0.4 <0.80 0
Total 67 75 84
Nitrogens (Treated Sewage)
Organic 1.4 0.82 4.8
Ammonia 0.44 0.37 3.6
Nitrite O.l6 0.008 0.55
Nitrate 32.4 31.8 35.6
Total 34.4 33.0 44.6
% Reduction 48.7 56.0 46.9
Phosphorus
Total Raw 17.0 21.0 22.3
Sol. Raw 12.0 14.0 11.0
Total Treated 16.3 l6.5 17.0
Sol. Treated 15.4 15.0 14.7
% Reduction 4.1 21.4 23.8
-------
3059
- io -
The plant receives excellent operating attention and the loading
and flow are substantially less than the plant was designed to handle.
Per capita waste volume in this community is low, less than 45 gallons
per day during the surveys, which helps account for the high nitrogen and
phosphorus content in the raw sewage. The effluent is highly oxidized as
shown by its low BOD and high nitrates. However, the treatment removes
only about 50 percent of the nitrogen and 20 percent of the phosphorus.
Note too that in all cases the soluble phosphorus concentration in the
effluent was higher than that in the untreated sewage.
Another similar extended aeration-type plant serves the Wrightstown
Sanitary District #1 to handle domestic sewage from the unincorporated
community of Greenleaf, but it is followed by a flow-through stabilization
pond. The results for a single 24-hour survey in April 1966 follow.
Plant Lagoon
Raw Effluent Effluent
Nitrate - N 1.6 11.5 3.5
Total P 9.2 4.8 2.8
Soluble P 2.4 4.0 1.8
Unfortunately only the nitrate portion of the nitrogen was determine^..
The plant was handling about 70 percent of its design flow during the survey
and the theoretical pond detention was 50 days. A little less than 50 percent
removal of phosphorus was achieved by the plant, but the over-all reduction
by the plant and lagoon was approximately 70 percent.
A survey of the conventional activated sludge plant at Kimberly in
March 1966 showed that the total phosphorus was reduced from l8.7 to 13.3
mg/1 or about 29 percent, but the treatment increased soluble phosphorus
from 3.3 to 3.7 .mg/1. The nitrate-N concentration in the effluent was 4.3
mg/1 compared with less than 0.08 in the influent. No further nitrogen
data was available. This plant has sludge digestion facilities. A survey
of a conventional activated sludge plant at an institution in May 1966
showed nitrogen concentrations of 23.3 and 17.4 mg/1 in the raw and final
for an over-all removal of 23 percent. Total phosphorus was reduced from
3-8 to 2.4 mg/1 or 37 percent, while soluble phosphorus changed only from
1.6 to 1.4 mg/1 or a reduction of only 12.5 percent.
The Village of Little Chute has a modified activated sludge plant
consisting of pre-aeration, contact aeration, sludge reaeration and aerobic
sludge digestion. A single survey indicated a reduction in nitrogen from
20.9 to 18.0 mg/1 or 16 percent and an apparent increase in total phosphorus
from 7.6 in the raw to 8.0 mg/1. in the final. Soluble phosphorus in the
final was also higher than in the raw sewage.
Nutrient contributions from the Woodruff Sewage Treatment Plant were
studied beginning in about 1942. At that time, the community had a high-
rate filter and sludge digestion facilities. Composite samples of influent
and effluent were taken for five surveys between December 194-2 and February
1943. The average nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations reaching the plant
then amounted to 55.3 and 4.43 mg/1, respectively, compared with 30.7 and
2.53 fflg/1 in the effluent. Over-all reductions amounted to 44.5 percent of
-------
. n - 3060
the nitrogen and 43.6 percent of the phosphorus. In May 1966 a study was
made of a high-rate filter plant treating sanitary wastes from an industrial
establishment. Nitrogens were reduced from 39.6. to 29.9 mg/1 and the total
phosphorus decreased from 8.4 to 7.0 mg/1. Respective reductions amounted
to 24.4 and 16.6 percent. The soluble phosphorus increased from 4.2 to 4.8
mg/1, but the plant's BOD reduction amounted to 80 percent which is about par
for this type of facility.
Two high.schools in southeastern Wisconsin use septic tanks and sand
filters. Results obtained in mg/1 on composite samples in May 1966 follow.
New Berlin Brookfield New Berlin
5-4 5-4 5-24 '
Septic tank Effluent
Organic N 9-3 H.3 7.8
Ammonia 42. 4 25.2 44.8
Nitrites <.01 < .002 <.002
Nitrates .32 <.l6 < .1+
Total N 52.0 36.7 53.0
Total P 6.4 4.8 8.0
Soluble P 4.8 2.8 8.0
Sand Filter Effluent
Organic N 2.4 1.0 0.9
Ammonia 4.8 <.l 9.6
Nitrites .34 <.01 .38
Nitrates 17.6 13.0' 15.2
Total N 25.2 14.1 25.9
Total P 2.2 2.4 2.4
Soluble P 2.2 2.2 2.0
% N Reduction 51.5 6l.7 51.1
•% P Reduction 65-7 54.2 70.0
The reductions are based on comparisons of septic tank effluent with the
sand filter effluent because of difficulties in sampling the raw sewage
at these locations. However, on May 24, samples of raw sewage were obtained
at the New Berlin High School. They revealed 54.6 and 15.6 mg/1 of organic
and ammonium nitrogen and 7.6 and 4.8 mg/1 of total and soluble phosphorus.
This would indicate the septic tank removed about 17 mg/1 of nitrogen, but
there was an apparent increase in the phosphorus of 0.4 mg/1 which could be
attributable to the inability of obtaining a representative sample.
Ma-ckenthun and McNabb (1961) reported on a study of sewage stabilization
ponds in Wisconsin. At Junction City, the over-all reduction for the two
lagoons operated in series was in excess of 90 percent for nitrogen and
phosphorus on three of the four composite samplings. However, tests in
March 1959 indicated a reduction of 45.7 percent and 8.2 percent for the
nitrogen and phosphorus. In August 1958 the Spooner lagoon showed a nitrogen
reduction of 80.7 percent and a phosphorus removal of 71'percent. The pre-
vious December, a nitrogen reduction of 67.2 percent was achieved. The tests
in December did not include an analysis for phosphorus.
In 1953, the California Water Pollution Control Board reported on
water reclamation investigations (Cal. Water Poll. Bd., 1953). A total of
eight circular spreading basins were constructed adjacent to the Lodi,
California, Sewage Treatment Plant. The study was made with fresh water,
-------
3061
- 12 -
final effluent and settled sewage on a Hanford fine sandy-loam with a
water table of at least 22 feet. Ammonia-N was completely removed within
U feet. Nitrites disappeared but nitrates increased by several hundred
percent. Phosphates disappeared during the first foot of vertical water
travel.
An investigation of nitrogen ground water contamination in Minnesota
(Preul, 1966) was made during the years of 1962-65 from observations at
11 waste stabilization ponds and 6 soil absorption systems. Effluents from
septic tanks had average dissolved nitrogen concentrations of about 60 mg/1
mainly as NH^-N. Conversion of ammonium to nitrates in soil to as much
as 40 mg/1 of N03-N were found, and, in one case, a concentration of 28
mg/1 was found at a distance of about a hundred feet. Raw sewage discharged
to the stabilization ponds under consideration contained a dissolved nitrogen
average of 25 mg/1. In the soil, ammonia was found to be less than 3 ng/1
within 20 feet and nitrates did not exceed 1.0 mg/1 at 150 feet. The tie-up
of nitrogen in algal cells and anaerobic conditions on the pond bottom was
believed to lessen the travel of nitrogen in the soil. Stabilization ponds
did not appear to present a serious threat to nitrate contamination of ground
waters.
A study (Anon., 1966) was summarized in the Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation concerning irrigation of treated sewage at the Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Spray irrigation was used
year-around to dispose of 0.5 MGD. It is reported that 68 to 82 percent of
the nitrogen and 98 to 99 percent of the phosphorus contained in the treated
plant effluent is filtered out in the upper 12 inches of soil.
Santee is a residential community with a population of 13,000 located
near San Diego. Reclaimed water (sewage) is used as a water source for a
series of 30 acres of lakes.' These lakes are used recreationally for boating,
swimming and fishing. Sewage is treated by an activated sludge-type system
and a 30-day storage oxidation pond. Pond effluent is pumped to 6 one-half
acre percolation beds underlain by impermeable material at a depth of about
10 feet. Underground flow is collected, chlorinated and flows consecutively
to lakes 5» ^, 3 and 2. Nutrient amounts and reductions are shown in the
following table.
N(lbs./day)
-------
3062
Lake k Lake 3 ~~
M(lbs./yr.) P(lbs./yr.) N(lbs./yr.) P(lbs./yr.)
Inflow 2,260 hkO 690 150
Outflow 690 150 290 25
Loss 70 50 50 10
Stored 1,500 2Uo 350 115
Shad, bass, catfish and sunfish were planted in 1961 and 1962.
Excepting the channel catfish, there are indications of successful hatches.
Eutrophicaiion is apparent. Blooms develop, but as yet have not been
repulsive. Two fish kills were experienced in 1965 as a result of oxygen
depletion when the predominant growths were blue-green algae. In the deeper
regions of the pond, the sediment has formed a thick layer of sulfurous
muck (Merrill, 1966).
Aside from land disposal facilities and Milwaukee's Jones Island
treatment plant, conventional biological sewage treatment plants in
Wisconsin are removing less than one-half of the nutrients. Absence of
primary settling and sludge digestion at the Milwaukee plant, as well as
use of ferric chloride for sludge conditioning, may have something to do
with that plant's superior nutrient removals. Some treatment plants doing
an excellent job of BOD removal have mineralized the bulk of the nutrients
to nitrates and orthophosphates which are readily available fertilizers.
Disturbing also is the fact that present phosphorus removals are considerably
lower than those shown in the report by Rudolfs (19^7) which means that the
doubling of the phosphorus in the raw sewage has resulted in a substantially
higher concentration in the effluent. If population increases are also
considered, the phosphorus picture is bleak indeed.
Another portion of the report discusses the high nutrient removals
that can be achieved on a laboratory scale and some of the problems involved.
Brief mentions have been made recently that nutrient removals of 90 percent
and better are being achieved at some treatment plants. Authoritative
studies and papers regarding these relatively high nutrient removals are
lacking. Particularly needed are detailed studies concerning successful
plants and the development of the more promising bench experiments to
full-scale facilities. On a practical scale at the present time, about
the best we have to offer are land disposal facilities.
Per capita plant construction costs decrease with increasing
treatment facility size and generally the larger facilities provide
consistently better treatment and result in economies of operation.
Metropolitan treatment works are in a more favorable position to attract
and retain good personnel. Another portion of the report indicates that
sewage has a high phosphorus content compared to its nitrogen and carbon bio-
chemical requirements. Inclusion of industrial wastes that have a relatively
high carbohydrate to nutrient content could be mutually advantageous .
Private disposal systems are of the outdoor privy and the septic tank-
soil absorption types. Use of the outdoor facility is generally confined to:
excreta disposal, while water-borne wastes treated by the other usually
include kitchen and laundry wastes. A few of the outdoor privies have a
concrete vault, but most of the pits have earthen bottoms and sides and
-------
3°63
there is absorption of liquid into the ground. The outdoor system has an
advantage insofar as confining the nutrients, but convenience as well as
sanitary and aesthetic considerations are contributing to its demise. Soil
absorption systems, as the name implies, require a soil that will transmit
water. Septic tank pre-treatment to remove solids and grease, suitable soil,
adequate sizing, etc., are factors that must be taken into consideration.
Industrial Wastes
The-re is considerable variation in the nutrient concentrations found
in industrial wastes. Some industrial wastes, such as those from most pulp
and paper mills, require supplementary nutrients to make them amenable to
biological treatment. Other wastes may be high in nutrients but be unbalanced
with respect to the C-N-P ratios. Also there may be a considerable variation
from factory to factory within an industry, depending on inplant operations
and controls.
Typically, paper and pulping wastes are low in nutrients.. However,
two pf Wisconsin's pulp mills use the ammonium sulfite cooking process.
These wastes could represent a source of nitrogen but information on the
concentration and over-all contribution is lacking.
A study was made by the University of Wisconsin, under contract with
the U. S. Department of Agriculture, regarding the effectiveness of spray
irrigation- for the disposal of dairy plant wastes. A series of composite
samples were obtained of the wastes being discharged at the five factories
which were intensively studied, and the following results were reported.
/ Nitrogen (mg/l) Phosphorus (mg/l)
Plant Ave. Range Ave. Range
A 17.1 6.5-2?
B 180 . 108-298 59.7 24-105
C 43 10-111 31 12-77
D 170 93-319 132.3 33-194
E 58 19-110 35.2 16-62
This study indicated that under suitable conditions, spray irrigation
provided a satisfactory method of dairy waste disposal (Lawton et__al., 1960).
Sharratt et al. (1959) found an average of 1,364 mg/l of nitrogen
and 450 ppm of phosphorus in seven Swiss and American cheese whey samples.
Their study indicated that whey could be used as a source of plant nutrients
with favorable effect on soil aggregation. Composite samples were obtained
at two creamery plants in Wisconsin by pollution control personnel. At a
small factory manufacturing some butter and shipping whole, skim and butter-
milk , the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were 6.7 and 6.0 mg/l,
respectively. At a large plant manufacturing butter from whey cream,
producing buttermilk solids and practicing water reuse, the nitrogen and
phosphorus amounted to 114.4 and 30.5 mg/l« Both of these factories used
irrigation disposal, and there generally was little evidence of wastes over-
flowing to a stream.
-------
- 15 - 3061t
Canham (1958) made a study of spray irrigated pea canning wastes
containing comminuted solids and reported.the nutrients in pounds per acre
for a seasonal application of 7 inches of waste water.
Screened Comminuted
Nutrient Wastes Solids Total
H 12.8 7.3 20.1
P 9.8 4.1 13.-9
K 28.7 8.2 36.9
The total nutrients added to the land were said to be considerably greater
than what was removed from the soil by a crop of meadow fescue. Calculations
on the above data show that the average nitrogen and phosphorus concentration
in screened pea canning wastes amounted to 8.1 and 6.2 mg/1, and if the
comminuted solids were added the respective concentrations would be 12.7
and 8.8 mg/1.
The Oscar Mayer Company meat packing plant at Madison, Wisconsin
provides secondary treatment of their wastes before discharge either to
the Madison Metropolitan sewerage system or to the irrigation fields for
additional treatment. Lysimeter studies were conducted over a 10-year
period from 1950 to 1959» and the nutrients in the secondary treated waste
waters averaged 36.8 mg/1 of nitrogen and 9.6 mg/1 of phosphorus. Soil,
crop and percolate samples indicated nearly a complete removal of the
phosphorus and about 90 percent of the nitrogen. Investigations on ^0-foot
by 40-foot plots, using Miami silt., loam and.Plainfield sand, were made over
a four-year period. The total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in
the effluent irrigated were 54 and 20.3 mg/lj respectively. Percolate from
the Miami silt loam had 9.0 and 9'5 mg/1 of total nitrogen and 0.6 and 0.8
mg/1 of total phosphorus at optimum and high effluent applications. The
effluent from the Plainfield sand plot had 73.0 and 102.5 mg/1 of total
nitrogen and 1.0 and1 1.2 mg/1 of total phosphorus. All nitrogen in the
effluent was nitrate. The extremely high nitrogen was believed due to
concentrating of the percolate by evaporation and transpiration and also
because of "soil disturbance" in setting up the plots (Seesing, 196l).
Wastes from a small laundry in Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin, are treated
with alum and settled. Purpose of treatment is to remove BOD, suspended
solids and detergents. However, on two occasions in 1966, the concentration
of phosphorus was determined to get an idea of the removal being achieved.
Results are shown in the following table.
Raw Treated
Total P Soluble P Total P Soluble P
80 6.4 12.4 0.1
80 5.4 14.0 0.7
The above data indicate a phosphorus removal of slightly over 80 percent.
-------
- 16 - 3065
The use of nitrates for waste stabilization (Warrick, 19^5) may not
add to the nitrogen concentration in the effluent. Nitrogen balances on
cannery lagoons treated with sodium nitrate showed a rapid breakdown of the
nitrate to gaseous nitrogen and possibly, at times, to ammonia with an
over-all loss of nitrogen. Observations and samplings were made at a milk
receiving station (Ernest, 195*0 where waste treatment was provided by a
nitrate dosed four-compartment septic tank. A total of 100 pounds per day
was dissolved.and uniformly added to the milk wastes resulting in an average
nitrate=N addition of about 550 mg/1. The results obtained on composite
samples indicated the first compartment effluent contained only 0.5 mg/1
of nitrato-H, 15.2 mg/1 of nitrite-N, with the remaining 42.7 mg/1 of
nitrogen mainly in the organic form. The fourth compartment effluent
contained little if any nitrates and nitrites, 16.8 mg/1 of ammonia-N
and 26.0 mg/1 of organic nitrogen. A large volume of gas, probably
nitrogen, was evolved from the first two compartments„
Aside from the irrigation studies, there is relatively little
data in depth available on the degree of nutrient removal obtained by
treatment of industrial wastes. It is anticipated that for balanced
industrial wastes, nutrient removals would be comparable to those achieved
by similar type sewage treatment facilities.
Contributions from Rural Lands
Most of the soluble nutrients which get into lakes and streams from
rural areas are first dissolved in water and then moved in solution to the
waterways. Some nutrients may also be carried to the streams and lakes as
components of suspended particulate matter and later be' converted to soluble
forms. Therefore, to fully grasp the problem of water fertilization from
rural lands, it is necessary to understand the factors which affect the forms
and solubilities of the nutrients and the manner in which the nutrients are
transported to the streams and lakes . Since most of this transportation
occurs in surface runoff or in percolating water, a knowledge of the factors
affecting the relative amounts of runoff and percolate is important.
The Water Balance in Wisconsin
The State of Wisconsin receives an average precipitation of about
30 inches per year,, Part of this is intercepted by the vegetation and is
evaporated without reaching the ground. Of that which falls /on the land,
some will run off the surface and the remainder will Infiltrate into the
soil. Of that which infiltrates, some will be lost .by evaporation from
soil and plant surfaces (evapotranspiration) and some will 'percolate through
to the ground water. The problem of water fertilization is concerned
primarily with the nutrients in the surface runoff which get to streams
by overland flow and nutrients in percolating waters which move slowly to
the waterways as "base flow."
Factors Affecting Surface Runoff. Surface runoff occurs whenever
the rate of precipitation exceeds the rate of infiltration. There are many
factors including soil texture, slope, moisture content, cover, etc., which
affect infiltration into a soil, but one of the most important is the physical
character of the soil surface. If many large pores are present at the soil
surface, water will infiltrate rapidly providing there is no impervious layer
-------
- 17 - 3066
in the soil below. The presence of large pores is usually associated with
either coarse-textured sandy soils or with well-aggregated fine-textured
soils. The large pores at the surface must be maintained if continued
rapid infiltration is desired. This may not be a problem with sandy soils,
but the maintenance of stable aggregates at 'the surface of fine-textured
soils can be difficult.
The energy associated with the impact of falling raindrops is one
of the most important factors operating to break down the soil aggregates.
Any cover which will absorb the raindrop impact will tend to protect the
surface structure, thereby maintaining infiltration with resulting low
runoff. Forested lands, because of their extensive surface cover, generally
show the least and agricultural soils planted to row crops the greatest
surface runoff when soil and slope conditions are otherwise equivalent.
The surface runoff that does occur from forested lands usually takes place
in the spring when the snow is melting and when some of the soil may still
be frozen. The surface runoff from agricultural lands will usually range
from 1 to 2 inches per acre per year in southern Wisconsin, but there can
be considerable variability from year to year depending on the amount and
seasonal distribution of the precipitation and on the rainfall intensity
during the more severe storms.
Factors Affecting Percolation of-Water. The water which infiltrates
into the soil ultimately is evaporated or transpired, or it percolates to
the ground water. The amount reaching the ground water depends on a number
of factors, most of them related to the conditions affecting evapotrans-
piration. For evapotranspiration to occur there are two prerequisites,
a source of energy (vaporization of 1 gram of water requires about 580
calories) and a source of water. The energy is derived primarily from solar
radiation. In an average year, Madison, Wisconsin receives enough solar
radiation to evaporate about 79 inches of water. Most of this radiant
energy, enough to evaporate about 50 inches of water, is reflected or
reradiated. The difference or "net radiation" available for evaporation
of water or heating the air and soil amounts to enough energy to evaporate
about 29 inches of water. This energy, plus about a 2-inch evaporation
equivalent derived from dry air masses moving in from other areas, results
in an evaporation potential of about 31 inches (Tanner, 1966).
Evaporation from a free water surface, such as a lake, will approxi-
mately equal the evaporation potential of 31 inches. Evapotranspiration
from land surfaces will depend on the availability of water at the surface
exposed to the radiation. If a bare soil is moist at the surface, the actual
evaporation will approach the potential evaporation. However, continued
evaporation requires that water be transmitted to the surface from deeper
in the soil by unsaturated flow. Since the rate of water transfer under
unsaturated conditions slows markedly with a decrease in water content in
the soil, the rate of evaporation soon exceeds the rate of transmission to
the surface arid the surface of the soil dries out. At this point further
movement of water to the surface is extremely slow, and evaporation practically
ceases until the soil is again wet by rain or irrigation.
If plants are growing on the soil, the water supply available for
evapotranspiration will be larger. Transpiration from leaf surfaces of
plants well supplied with water will approach the potential evapotranspiration,
-------
- 18 - 306?
and the water supply available for transpiration will include any plant-
available water within the root zone of the plants. Thus the water available
to the plant will depend on the content of plant-available water in the soil,
the depth of the root system, the distribution of roots within the root zone,
and, of course, the replenishment of the supply by precipitation or irrigation.
How much this water supply will be depleted during the growing season will
depend on the deficit between precipitation and evapotranspiration during
that period of time. In some cases, the plant may exhaust the available
water in the root zone, and transpiration will be markedly retarded.
In Wisconsin, the potential evapotranspiration approximately equals
the precipitation. However, potential evapotranspiration exceeds precipi-
tation by about 7 inches from April through August while precipitation
exceeds evapotranspiration by about 6 inches from September through March
(see Table l).
Table 1. Average annual precipitation and potential evapotranspiration
by month at Madison Wisconsin.
Potential Evapo- Cumulative
Precipitation transpiration Water Balance Water Balance
Time Period Inches Inches Inches Inches
Preceding Year (Assume excess from September on has accumulated.) 4.0
January 1.3 0.2 1.1 5.1
February 1.1 0.5 0.6 5.7
March 1.8 1.3 0.5 6.2
April 2.5 2.9 -0.4 5.8
May 3.3 4.2 -0.9 4.9
June 4.0 5.4 -1.4 3.5
July 3.3 5.9 -2.6 0.9
August 2.9 . 4.5 -1.6 -0.7
September 4.0 3.2 0.8 0.1
October 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.4
November 2.3 0.6 1.7 2.1
December 1.4 0.2 1.2 3.3
Annual 30.0 30.7 -0.7
April thru Aug. 16..0 22.9 *-6.9
Sept. thru March l4.0 7.8 6.2
Thus in an average year up to 7 inches of available water would have to be
stored in the soil within reach of the plant roots in order that plants with
long growing seasons and complete ground cover would not suffer for lack of
water. Conversely, 7 inches of water would be required to replace the moisture
deficit in the soil at the end of the growing season before any water could
percolate to the ground water. Under the conditions of maximum evapo-
transpiration described here, there would be no water available to replenish
the ground water since the excess water accumulated from September to April
does not quite equal the growing season deficit. It should be kept in mind
that these are average values, and that actual values, especially for
precipitation, vary .considerably from year to year.
It is apparent from the above discussion that the proportion of
precipitation used for evapotranspiration depends on the characteristics
of the vegetation and of the soil. Evapotranspiration is greater.
-------
3068
- 19 -
1. The greater the proportion of the land covered by vegetation
2. The deeper the root system of the plants
3. The greater the proliferation of roots within the root zone
k. The longer the growing season of the plants
5. The greater the amount of water stored within the root zone
or within the surface layer susceptible to evaporation
6. The greater the proportion of the rainfall coming as frequent
small showers during the months with high potential evapo-
transpiration.
Once these principles are understood, the reasons for the differences
in evapotranspiration under the different land uses shown in Table 2 are
apparent.
Table 2. Effect of land use on evapotranspiration (Tanner, 1966).
Type of Surface Evapotranspiration
Cover or Land Use (in./Yr. )
Water 29-32
Forest 25-30
Alfalfa-brome 22-26
Corn 18-22
Grain (seeded to alfalfa) 18-22
Bluegrass 15-19
Bare soil 12-18
In any given watershed the land use will be somewhat varied, and the
average annual evapotranspiration will range somewhere between the 12 to 18
inches for bare soil and the 25 to 30 inches for forest. In the Lake Mendota
watershed, for'instance, the available data indicate that in an average year
about 2k inches of water are lost by evapotranspiration and about 6 inches
of water finds its way to the surface waters, nearly 2 inches by surface
runoff and k inches by percolation and base flow. Practically no water is
lost from this basin by underflow. The ratio of surface runoff to percolation
will vary with slope, ground cover and soil type, so that these data do not
necessarily apply to other watersheds.
Soil Chemistry of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
The nutrients of primary concern in surface runoff or percolating
water are nitrogen and phosphorus since they appear to be limiting factors
for the growth of algae. To understand how these nutrients get from the
land into the surface waters, it is necessary to know some of the reactions
which affect their solubility.
-------
3069
Nitrogen. Over 90 percent of the total nitrogen in soils resides
in the soil organic matter. Microbial decomposition of the organic matter
results in the release of nitrogen in the ammonium form (NH^"*"), a process
called ammonification. Under conditions of good aeration and favorable
temperatures different microorganisms oxidize the ammonium first to nitrite
(NOg") and then to nitrate (NOg"), a process called nitrification. The
step from nitrite to nitrate is usually faster than from ammonium to nitrite
so that practically no nitrite accumulates. If the content of ammonia (NH^)
in the system is high, however, nitrite may accumulate, and it is toxic to
many organisms. If nitrate is exposed to conditions of poor aeration (reducing
condition;.:), it will be reduced to gaseous nitrogen forms and lost to the
atmosphere, a process called denitrification.
Ammonium ions are held on the cation exchange sites in soils, so the
concentration of ammonium in the soil solution is not very high. The nitrate
anion, on the other hand, is completely soluble in the soil solution, and
it moves with the soil water. Therefore, nitrate is the form of nitrogen
most subject to leaching. It is also subject to denitrification under
reducing conditions.
Phosphorus. About half of the phosphorus in many surface soils
exists in organic forms and half in inorganic forms. The inorganic forms
are mainly iron and aluminum phosphates in acid soils and calcium phosphates
in alkaline soils. All of the inorganic forms of phosphate in soils are
extremely insoluble, and any phosphorus added as fertilizer or released by
decomposition of the organic matter is quickly converted to one of these
insoluble forms. Because of the extreme insolubility of these phosphates,
the over-all concentration of soluble phosphorus in the soil solution of
surface soils seldom exceeds 0.2 mg/1 and concentrations in the range of
0.01 to 0.1 mg/1 are common. Phosphorus concentrations in the soil solution
of subsoil layers are usually less than 0.01 mg/1.
Soluble Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Surface Runoff and Percolates
The concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface runoff are
considerably different from those in soil percolates. The ammonium and
especially the nitrate forms of nitrogen are very soluble. If these materials
are present at the surface of the soil at the beginning of a rain, the first
rain that falls will dissolve them and carry them into the soil. If surface
runoff occurs later, there will be little soluble nitrogen left at the surface
to be carried away with the runoff. Therefore, runoff waters usually have
very little soluble inorganic nitrogen. In fact, the nitrate contents of
runoff waters are usually lower than the average nitrate content of rain
water. This is due to the fact that the first rain that falls sweeps most
of the nitrate from the air and carries it into the soil. The rain which
falls later and runs off has a lower nitrate content.
Though runoff waters contain relatively little nitrate, this is not
necessarily true of the water which percolates through the soil. As stated
before, nitrate is completely soluble in the soil solution and moves with
it. If the nitrate ions manage to evade capture by the plant roots as they
move downward, they will be present in the drainage waters which move to the
lakes and streams by base flow. Thus soil percolates generally have higher
-------
3070
- 21 -
contents of nitrate than do surface runoff vaters. This nitrate eventually
reaches the waterways unless the water emerges in a marsh where it may be
absorbed by the vegetation or converted to.gaseous nitrogen because of
reducing conditions.
The relative concentrations of soluble phosphorus in surface runoff
and soil percolates are just the reverse of the nitrogen system. Application
of phosphorus to the surface of the soil tends to saturate the "fixing" sites
at the surface and locally raise the concentration of phosphorus in the soil
solution. This is an equilibrium system, and although infiltrating waters
will carry the soluble phosphorus downward, more will quickly dissolve to
maintain the concentration in solution. Runoff water will contact this
surface soil, and the phosphorus concentration in the runoff could conceivably
approach the equilibrium concentration. If phosphorus fertilizers were
applied to the soil surface, the equilibrium concentration of phosphorus
in a thin surface layer could reach 1 mg/1 or more and the concentration
of phosphorus in the runoff water might range up to 'a few tenths of a mg/1.
This is speculative, at best, since there are no data available which pertain
directly to this problem. However, the fact that soluble phosphorus concen-
trations in surface runoff frequently approach or exceed the average concen-
trations expected in the soil solution would support this contention.
In the water which percolates through the soil, the soluble phosphorus
concentration is usually very low because the phosphorus gets precipitated
in the subsoil. Therefore, most of the soluble phosphorus should reach the
waterways via surface runoff. This contrasts with nitrogen since most of
the soluble inorganic nitrogen should reach the waterways mainly by perco-
lation and base flow. These conclusions assume that the soils are not frozen.
If the soils were frozen, a relatively large proportion of all soluble nutrients
at the soil surface would be carried away in the runoff waters. This is
undoubtedly the.case during the initial stages of the spring thaw, and is
of special significance for nutrients in manure or fertilizers applied on
frozen fields.
Effects of Suspended Material. The energy associated with the impact
of falling raindrops tends to break down aggregates of-soil particles at
exposed soil surfaces, and the runoff waters can then pick up the .finer
particles and carry them downslope, possibly to a stream. When runoff
waters are concentrated in channels, the velocity of the water, and thus
its erosive power, is increased and deep gullies may be formed. Much of
the finer material eroded from a gully, mainly subsoil material, may end
up in a stream. During periods of high flow, the streams themselves erode
their banks and carry some of the eroded material downstream in suspension.
-Suspended materials, whatever their source, undoubtedly affect the nutrient
status-of the water, however, there are no data available to estimate the
magnitude of their effect. Therefore, the following discussion is based
mainly on theoretical arguments.
Nitrogen in.suspended particles is present mainly in the organic
form. Some of these particles will sediment out when the water velocity
decreases, to be covered later by other sediments so that they do not
contribute significantly to the soluble nitrogen supply. Other organic
particles may be attacked by microorganisms with the nitrogen being converted
to soluble inorganic forms in the decomposition process. Fresh organic
-------
- 22 - 3071
materials are quite readily decomposed by microorganisms, but humified soil
organic matter is quite resistant. Thus, the contribution of the suspended
organic matter to the soluble nitrogen content will depend on the nature of
the organic materials.
Phosphorus in suspended particles is present in both organic and
inorganic forms. The organic forms would undergo the same reactions as
nitrogen. However, the inorganic forms present a more complex system.
The phosphorus bonded to iron, aluminum or calcium in the mineral
particles tends to equilibrate with the phosphorus in solution. If the
particles come from a surface soil high in phosphorus, they will tend to
support a relatively high concentration of phosphorus in solution. If,
on the other hand, the particles come from a subsoil low in phosphorus,
they will support a low concentration of phosphorus in solution. In fact,
if subsoil particles were introduced into a stream containing a moderate
or high concentration of soluble phosphorus, they would adsorb phosphorus
from the water thereby lowering the phosphorus concentration in solution.
Since much of the sediment in streams during high flow is frequently derived
from stream bank erosion, the phosphorus status of the sediments in the
stream beds and stream banks may well be an important factor affecting the
concentration of soluble phosphorus in the water during periods of high flow.
Since algae problems are found primarily in still waters where
suspended materials have largely settled out, the contribution of eroded
particulate matter to the nutrition of the algae is probably associated
with its effects on the concentrations of soluble nitrogen and phosphorus
in the incoming waters and not with the total or "extractable" amounts of
nitrogen and phosphorus in the particles themselves.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Sources in Agricultural Soils
Fertilizers are frequently thought to be the major sources of plant
nutrients and, therefore, the major contributors to water fertilization in
Wisconsin. This is not the case. According to State Department of Agriculture
figures (Braatz, 19&5), fertilizers sold in Wisconsin during the 196*1-65
season contained approximately 50,000 tons of nitrogen and 40,000 tons of
phosphorus. If a cropland acreage of 10,000,000 acres is assumed, this
would amount to an average of about 10 pounds of nitrogen and 8 pounds of
phosphorus applied per cropland acre. If potential nutrient contributions
from legumes, animal manure, rainfall and decomposition of soil organic
matter are taken into account, the relative contributions shown in Table 3
are obtained.
Table 3. Sources and estimated amounts of available nitrogen and
phosphorus in cultivated soils in Wisconsin.
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Source Lbs./A. Lbs./A.
Fertilizer 10 8
Legumes 12
Precipitation 8
0. M. Decomposition ij-5 5
Manure k2 12
Total 117 25
-------
3072
- 23 -
The estimates for the contribution of legumes are "based on fixation
of kO pounds of excess nitrogen per acre per year on 3,000,000 acres. The
precipitation data are taken from Shah (1962). Nitrogen and phosphorus
release from soil organic matter is based on an average soil with 3 percent
organic matter, the organic matter containing 5 percent nitrogen and 0.5
percent phosphorus and decomposing at a rate of 1^ percent per year
(Woodruff, 19^9). Manure estimates are based on 4,000,000 animal units
at 15 tons of manure per animal unit per year and a manure composition of
0.5 percent nitrogen and 0.1 percent phosphorus. A 30 percent loss of
nitrogen due to volatilization during handling and storage is assumed.
These average figures can be somewhat misleading as most of the
manure and fertilizer nitrogen will be applied on about 2,700,000 acres
of corn and vegetable crops, and some of the manure will be dropped on
permanent pasture land. However, the average figure can be used to judge
the probable relative importance of the various nutrient sources. The
fertilizer contributes only about 9 percent of the nitrogen and 32 percent
cf the phosphorus which becomes available to the plant. Manure, on the
other hand, contributes about 36 percent of the nitrogen and k8 percent
of the phosphorus. It is obvious that the manure is a much greater factor
in total nutrients applied than is commercial fertilizer. This is of
special concern since much of this manure may be applied on frozen ground
during the winter months so that it can contribute significant quantities
of soluble nitrogen and phosphorus to the spring runoff waters.
Estimates of Soluble Nitrogen and Phosphorus in
Surface Runoff from Rural Lands .
There have been very few studies in which the contents of soluble
nitrogen and posphorus were measured in surface runoff waters of Wisconsin.
Therefore, there is always the danger of overinterpreting or misinterpreting
the little information that is available. Estimates of soluble nitrogen and
phosphorus in surface runoff have been .made for the Lake Mendota watershed
(Nutrient Sources Subcommittee, 1966) on the basis of runoff experiments
conducted near Madison plus information obtained from Vermont and other
states. These estimates are probably the best that are presently available,
and they should be applicable to much of the agricultural region of south
central Wisconsin. They would be less representative of other areas in the
state, since the farming practices and the ratio of surface runoff to percolate
will vary. However, they do serve to point out the major contributors of
nutrients. For this reason, the sources of data and the basis for the estimates
are given in considerable detail. It should be pointed out also that these
estimates are only "best guesses" and may be in error by a factor of 2 or
even more. Also, these data represent "average" conditions, and quantity and
composition of both runoff and percolate can vary widely from year to year.
Characteristics of the Lake Mendota Watershed. The watershed of Lake
Mendota is occupied by relatively permeable, calcareous, loamy glacial
deposits with a significant covering of loess. Most soils have developed
in this loess, but some soil development has occurred in the glacial till
immediately below the loess. Many of the soils developed under prairie
vegetation and have an A horizon which is 8 to 16 inches thick and relatively
high in humus. Most of the watershed has gentle, slopes. There are many small
-------
3073
undrained depressions in the uplands and. several large wetlands which contain
organic soils. :
The following table gives estimates of the acreage devoted to various
land uses in the Lake Mendota watershed. These acreage figures were derived
from data from the Wisconsin Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Blueprint
for Growth (1961) by the Dane County Citizen's Planning Committee, and from
U. S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps.
Table 4. Land Use in the Lake Mendota Watershed.
Land Use Acres "jo of Watershed
Cropland* 103,500 73
Corn and Row Crops* (51,000) (36)
Oats* (18,500) (13)
Hay and Pasture* (34,000) (24)
Woodland** 10,000 7
Pasture and Other* 11,400 8
Major Wetland** 7,100 5
Urban** 10,000 7
Total 142,000 100
*Estimated from cropland uses in Dane County reported by
Wisconsin Crop and Livestock Reporting Service and Blueprint
for Growth by Dane County Citizens Planning Committee.
•**Estimated from U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps.
The following table summarizes the estimates made .of the nitrogen
and phosphorus contents of the surface runoff from cropland, woodland,
manured land and wetland in the Lake Mendota watershed. The methods and
source materials used in obtaining the estimates are described in the
sections following the table. j
Table 5. Estimates of Soluble Nitrogen and Phosphorus Contained
in Runoff Waters in the Lake Mendota Watershed.
Nitrogen Lost Phosphorus Lost
Land Use Lbs./A. Lbs./Watershed Lbs./A. Lbs./Watershed
Cropland and Pasture^/ 0.06 6,900 0.04 5,400
Woodland2/ 0.03 300 0,003 30
WetlandS/ '. - - -
Manured Lantfy 3 45,000 1 15,000
Total 52,200 20,430
I/ Derived from data of Eck, Jackson and Bay, Annual Report, A.E.S. project
~/. 791 (Phase 5), 1957.
2/ Concentrations taken from Sylvester, R. 0. (i960) as quoted in "Limnological
Aspects of Recreational Lakes," Public Health Service Publication 1167.
No data on which to base an estimate.
Figures for Lbs./A. from Midgley and Dunklee, Bui. 523, Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Vermont, 1945.
-------
Runoff From Cropland and Pasture
The estimates of the nitrogen and phosphorus contents in the surface
runoff from cropland and pasture are based on the data of Eck, Jackson and
Bay (1957) which were obtained from a Miami silt loam with a 10 percent
slope. Although Eck et al. (l957) report values for total nitrogen and
pH 3 extractable phosphorus as well as water soluble phosphorus and
nitrate nitrogen, only the water soluble forms are considered in these
calculations. The total nitrogen and pH 3 extractable phosphorus should
be associated almost exclusively with suspended particulate material, most
of which would undoubtedly sediment out before reaching the lake. The
values for nitrate losses per acre are considerably lower than those of
Eck et al. Their values for concentration in the runoff were used and
2 inches of runoff per year was assumed. The values which they report would
have required a runoff of almost 9 inches per year. The values given are
for an intensive three-year corn-oats-hay rotation and the "permahe,ht
pasture and other" category was included with the cropland.
Runoff From Woodland
No data could be found on the nutrient content of surface runoff
from local wooded areas, so this was estimated from the nitrogen and
phosphorus contents in streams flowing from wooded areas (Sylvester, I960).
These are very rough estimates, at best, because it is impossible to estimate
the relative contributions of surface runoff and base flow.
Runoff From Manured Land
The use of manure on frozen land can result in relatively large
losses of nutrients in runoff waters. Since spring meltwaters cannot
enter the frozen soil, they run off carrying with them the soluble
constituents of the manure. The common practice of spreading manure
daily means that it is spread on frozen soil about- five months during
the year. The calculation of nitrogen and phosphorus losses from manured
land required estimates of the manure applied and the amount of loss from
a given application. The Wisconsin Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
report that there are approximately j6 dairy cows per square mile in Dane
County. Since the Lake Mendota watershed has a higher than average
percentage of cropland than the rest of Dane County, a density of 100
cows per square mile was 'assumed. This amounts to approximately 20,000
cows in the watershed. If each cow produces 15 tons of manure per year
and one-half of that manure is applied during the months of November through
March, about 150,000 tons will be applied on frozen ground. This is
undoubtedly a high estimate if only manure production by dairy cows is
considered, but this will be augmented by manure produced by steers, hogs,
chickens and young stock. If this amount of manure were applied at a
normal 10-ton per acre rate, it would cover 15,000 acres. The data of
MLdgley and Dunklee (19^5) indicate that about 3 pounds of nitrogen and
1 pound of phosphorus were lost from a 10-ton per acre application of manure
on an 8 percent slope in Vermont when the ground was frozen. It should be
emphasized that these figures may be high. Although Midgley and Dunklee
did not state the forms of nitrogen and phosphorus determined, one gets
-------
- 36 - 3°75
the impression from reading the paper that it was total nitrogen and phosphorus,
If this were the case, some of the particulate material would undoubtedly
settle out'before reaching a stream, resulting in lower amounts actually
reaching the lake. Also, they applied all of the manure on snow covered
land in December and January which would afford maximum chance for losses
to occur.
Runoff From Marshlands
One would suspect that runoff from marshland might, under the right
circumstances , make a very significant contribution to the nutrient content
of lakes and streams. However, little data could be found that would suggest
even the order of magnitude of this contribution. Theoretically, the potential
release of nutrients, especially nitrogen, would be large but extremely
variable depending on conditions of weather and drainage. Drained marshes
offer ideal conditions for production of nitrates through aerobic decompo-
sition of the organic matter. The amount of this nitrate reaching the lake
would depend on the total amount produced, absorption by plants, and amount
and distribution of rainfall.
Undrained marshes, on the other hand, present a very complex picture.
If the summer and fall periods were relatively dry so that the water table
receded, the rate of nitrate production would probably exceed the rate of
absorption by plants. Thus nitrates might accumulate and be flushed out
with the spring runoff. However, if the fall season were wet so that
saturated conditions prevailed in the marsh, and if the temperature were
high enough during this time to support a moderate rate of microbiological
activity, any nitrates present would probably be denitrified under the
resulting reducing conditions and the spring runoff would contain little
nitrate. This does not necessarily mean that the total mineral nitrogen
content would be low because ammonification reactions can proceed under
anaerobic conditions so that the NHV* content might be significant.
The data of Mackenthun (1962), which include data from Sawyer, Lackey
and Lenz (19^5), indicate that marshland may have contributed to the much
higher inorganic nitrogen content in Door Creek than in other streams with
less marshland, but it is impossible to estimate the relative contribution
of the undrained marshland with any degree of accuracy. Sawyer et al.
found that the Picnic Point pump furnished 8.7 percent of the inorganic
nitrogen entering Lake Mendota from stream flow, although it contributed
only 1.7 percent of the flow. The water from this source was drainage water
from the University marsh 'which gives an idea of the potential nitrogen
contribution from drained marshes .
The analytical information available did not seem adequate for making
even rough estimates of the nutrient contribution of marshlands and so no
estimates are included. Most of the analytical data encountered were for
grab samples which were not taken throughout the period of peak spring runoff
from marshy areas, and which included undeterminable contributions from
agricultural lands, base flow and possibly sewage effluent.
-------
Ground Water
Precipitation that enters the soil and is not evaporated or transpired
becomes part of the ground water. This later may re-appear at springs to feed
lakes and streams maintaining base levels and flows or be pumped out of wells.
The average nutrient concentrations of 0.01 mg/1 of phosphorus and 1.2 mg/1
of nitrogen from orthophosphates and nitrates found in Wisconsin water supplies
should be comparable to the average levels found in ground waters. The move-
ment of water through the soil is slow. It will probably be years before
the impact of present nitrogen applications in fertilizers and wastes show
up as nitrates in our surface waters.
Ground water flows are highly variable depending on areal physical
characteristics as well as precipitation. Stahl (19&5) cited a 70 percent
ground water contribution to total flow for the La Crosse River above West
Salem compared to 15 percent in the total runoff of the Black River near
Neillsville. Based on an annual 30 inches of precipitation, the estimated
combined ground water outflow plus well pumpage for the state as a whole
is approximately 3-^ inches (Wis. Geol. Sur., 1966). Use of these figures
for any year or specific area could result in a large discrepancy.
There is little information on the effect of current agricultural
and land disposal practices on the nitrate content of the ground water.
Therefore, there is a need for studies involving:
1. Factors affecting the movement of nitrate to the ground water.
2. Rate of movement and flow patterns of nitrates in ground water.
3. The importance of denitrification reactions.
U. Concentrations of nitrates in emerging ground water.
A logical starting point for such a study would be the sandy section of
central Wisconsin which is currently undergoing rapid development for the
growing of vegetable crops. The combination of sandy soils, high nitrogen
additions and supplemental irrigation make this a potential problem area
as far as nitrates in ground waters are concerned. A cooperative study
involving the four points listed above would seem very desirable.
Conclusions on Rural Nutrient Contributions
Wisconsin receives an average of about 30 inches of precipitation
per year. Of this, approximately 2k inches are lost by evapotranspiration
and about 6 inches reaches surface waterways by a combination of surface .
runoff and base flow of water which has percolated through the soil. The
ratio of surface runoff to base flow varies with soil type, slope, management
and surface cover, but an average figure of about 1 to 2 inches for surface
runoff and k to 5 inches for base flow would probably be close.
The plant nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, which are of concern
in surface waters because of their role in the growth of algae, are found
in both surface runoff and percolate. However, the distribution of both
-------
. 28 . 3077
these nutrients "between surface runoff and percolate depends on the chemical
reactions which these elements undergo in soils. The inorganic forms of
nitrogen, especially the nitrate form, are very soluble and move into and
through the soil with the water. Therefore, more inorganic nitrogen appears
in the percolate than in the surface runoff. Phosphates, on the other hand,
form very insoluble precipitates with iron, aluminum and calcium compounds
in the soil so that very little appears in the percolate. Since surface
applied phosphates tend to remain near the surface and maintain a high
equilibrium phosphate concentration in the surface soil solution, the surface
runoff cortains considerably higher concentrations of phosphorus than does
the percolate. If soluble forms of either nitrogen or phosphorus are applied
on frozen soil, the surface runoff waters will contain relatively high amounts
of both nutrients until the soil thaws.
The major potential source of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface
runoff from rural lands would appear to be manure applied on frozen soil.
Any commercial fertilizer containing nitrogen and/or phosphorus applied on
frozen soil would also be a factor, but relatively little is applied in this
manner. Commercial fertilizer or manure applied when the soil is not frozen
would not seem to be a heavy contributor to nutrients in streams and lakes.
The greatest contribution in this category would probably be from phosphate
fertilizers top-dressed on hay lands. Contributions of nitrogen and phosphorus
from wetlands are difficult to estimate, but there is no question but what
drainage waters from drained marshes will be relatively high in soluble
nitrogen. Sources and amounts of nitrogen in soil percolates and the fate
of this nitrogen need further investigation, but the Lake Mendota study
suggests that this is an extremely important source.
Urban Runoff
As part of the Madison lakes survey, Sawyer & Associates (19^-3)
studied storm water drainage to Lake Monona. They estimated that the storm
water volume average did not exceed 10 cubic feet per second. Representative
samples showed mean nitrogen values of the following: Ammonia, 0.28; organic,
1.30; nitrite, 0.02; and nitrate, O.lU ppm. Mean total and soluble phosphorus
amounted to 0.?8 and 0.22 mg/1. The latter is about 10 times that of a normal
stream water, while the nitrogen content is similar. High concentrations
of soluble phosphorus in November 19^2 were believed due to the burning of
leaves in the streets.
Sylvester (1961) reported on a 1959 Seattle study. A mean total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia and organic nitrogen) concentration in urban
street drainage of 2.$k mg/1 with 0.53 mg/1 of nitrate nitrogen was found.
The mean total and soluble phosphorus concentrations were 0.208 and 0.076
mg/1. Runoff from a major highway had the highest nitrogen values.
Arterial streets contained the most soluble phosphorus and residential
streets the highest total phosphorus concentration. The samples were
obtained from the street gutters and generally excluded roof drainage.
As expected, highest nutrient concentrations were found in the earlier
periods of runoff.
A Cincinnati study of 1962-63 covering a 27-acre residential-light
commercial area with separate storm sewers was reported by Weibel et al.
-------
- 29 - 3078
The mean nutrient concentrations found in mg/1 follow: Nitrite-N, 0.05;
nitrate-N, O.U; ammonia-N, 0.6; organic-N, 1.7; and soluble phosphorus,
0.26. The total nitrogen is equivalent to 8.9 pounds/acre/year and the
soluble phosphorus 0.82 pounds/acre/year. Here too, there was a decrease
in nutrient concentration with time after start of runoff.
The mean soluble phosphorus in the Madison and Cincinnati studies
are similar - 0.22 compared to 0.26 mg/1, but the Seattle value is only
about one-third as much. Weather Bureau data shows the average precipitation
for a 30-year period, 1931-60, for the cities as follows: Seattle, 38.9*4-
inches; Madison, 30.16 inches; and Cincinnati, 38.02 inches. The Cincinnati
nutrient data is the most recent and for a residential-light commercial
section, while the Seattle study generally did not include roof drainage.
It is believed that the Cincinnati values of 8.9 and 0.82 pounds/acre/year
of total nitrogen and soluble phosphorus would be similar to current runoff
from urban areas in Wisconsin. The total phosphorus, which was missing from
the Cincinnati data, would be about 2.5 pounds/acre/year by applying the
phosphorus ratios found for the other two cities.
Of the state's 36,1^7,760 acres the urban acreage amounts to 377,200
acres or about 1 percent of the total. Urban land is that within the
corporate i-inrit.fi of all sections with populations of 5>000 and over. If
we include incorporated communities of less than 5>000, the urban acreage
would be increased by 292,100 acres to 669>300 acres (Wis. Dept. Res. Dev.,
1963). Wisconsin's average rainfall amounts to 30 inches annually. Of this,
20 inches is evaporated and transpired and the remaining 10 inches eventually
flows out of the state (Wirth, 1959)- Urban areas, because of their roofs
and pavements, have larger amounts of direct runoff .and less evapotranspira-
tion to the atmosphere and seepage into the soil. As rough estimates for
urban areas in Wisconsin, the evaporation and transpiration would be in the
vicinity of 15 inches, the water seeping into the ground would account for
probably 3 inches and direct runoff about 12 inches.
Included in the Cincinnati study (Weibel, 196^) is a figure for the
dustfall at an air pollution station in the test area. This amounted to
506 pounds/acre/year as compared to 730 pounds/acre/year of suspended solids
in storm runoff during the same time. There was no breakdown concerning
make-up of the dustfall.
Subsources of nutrients in urban areas are not well defined. It
might be expected that smoke and industrial emissions account for a large
share of the nutrients. The automobile, pets and urban lawn fertilization
practices are suspects, too.
The pall that overhangs our urban areas is fairly well documented,
but its nutrient make-up leaves much to be desired. The suspended particulate
matter in urban U. S. atmospheres, based on 22,500 air samples at 232 stations,
averaged 115 micrograms per cubic meter of air for the 1957-63 period (u. S.
Bur. Census, 1965). The concentration increased progressively with population
size from 80 in the 10,000 to 25,000 population centers to 182 micrograms
per cubic meter in sections of 3-million and more inhabitants. The arithmetic
average in 8 non-urban areas in the U. S. amounted to 36 micrograms per cubic
meter. Included in the gaseous air pollution level data were averages for
-------
-30- 3°79
six large U. S. cities. Nitric oxide averages ranged from 0.03 ppm in
Washington, D. C. to 0.10 ppm in Chicago, while nitrogen dioxide varied
from 0.03 ppm in Cincinnati and St. Louis to 0.06 ppm in San Francisco.
Most of the airborne nutrients are of terrestrial origin and grounding
them by precipitation and fallout only represents a redistribution over the
land. Runoff from land areas may include some of this nutrient matter.
Precipitation
Precipitation helps flush out dust and certain gases from the
atmosphere. A limited amount of data is available on the amount of
nitrogen in precipitation but there is virtually no information available
on its phosphorus content.
During June 1963, in conjunction with a fallout measurement for
radioactivity, rainfall was analyzed for nitrate-N- on three occasions and
showed concentrations of O.U2 to 0.55 mg/1. A single analysis revealed
2.3 mg/1 of ammonia-N, 0.026 mg/1 of nitrite-N and 0.03 mg/1 of soluble
phosphorus. The samples were collected atop the Laboratory of Hygiene
building in Madison.
Carroll (1962) cites 1958 data, after Junge and Werby, for 18 stations
in conterminous U. S. The nit rate-N varied from O.l6 to 1.05 and averaged
0.52 mg/1, while the ammonia-N values ranged from 0.0k to 1.7 and averaged
0.3^ mg/1. Average precipitation in the U. S., and also in Wisconsin, is
approximately 30 inches annually. Using the latter figure and the 0.86 mg/1
of inorganic nitrogen, one arrives at a precipitation contribution of 5.8
pounds/acre/year.
Thunderstorm activity has been credited with contributing about one-
half pound of nitrogen from nitrites and nitrates and precipitation with
flushing out an additional two to six pounds of nitrogen per acre annually
(Allison, 1957). Larson and Hettick (1956) noted that the sulfate con-
centration was usually about double the combined nitrate plus ammonia and
felt that the nitrogen contribution by lightning was insignificant compared
to that of fossil fuels. Shah (1962) shows nitrogen-in precipitation at
six Wisconsin stations for the years 1958 and 1959 - four of the stations
were the same both years. The average precipitation at the 1958 stations
amounted to 21.1 inches and the nitrogen contribution amounted to ^.l pounds
per acre. Only nitrates were determined in the fall quarter of 1958 and,
therefore, these value's would be low. In sharp contrast, the 1959 rainfall
averaged 38.1 inches at the stations and the average nitrogen amounted to
13.6 pounds per acre.
Nutrients from the atmosphere may fall directly into surface waters.
.Wisconsin's water area within the state amounts to 1,136,920 acres or 3.1
percent of the total (Wis. Dept. Res. Dev., 1963). Analysis of precipitation
includes part of the direct nutrient contribution to surface waters, but
fallout of particulate matter not downed by precipitation would represent
an additional contribution.
Waterfowl
Studies of duck farm waste were reported by Sanderson (1953) in 1953-
KLs data showed that the average daily contribution for 1,000 ducks amounted
to 5.7 and 7.6 pounds of total nitrogen and phosphate respectively, while the
-------
- 31 - 3080
soluble phosphate amounted to 3.6 pounds. These values are equivalent to
2.08 pounds of nitrogen, 0.90 pound of total phosphorus and 0.^3 pound
of soluble phosphorus per duck per year. The total nitrogen was said to
vary little, but the total phosphate ranged from 4.7 to 10.5 pounds each
day per 1,000 ducks. However, the ratio of soluble to insoluble phosphate
was relatively constant. Phosphate fluctuations probably were due to the
make-up of the food. Pilot plant treatment of the wastes by an Imhoff tank
had an undesirable effect in that it increased the soluble phosphorus over
that found in the raw.
Mackenthun et al. (196^) reported that Paloumpis and Starrett used
a factor of 0.5 applied to the previous figures to allow for diet differences
of wild ducks. For the latter on an Illinois lake, they arrived at an annual
contribution of .12.8 pounds of nitrogen and 5.6 pounds of phosphorus per acre.
Wild ducks tend to feed in the water and may not contribute additional.
nutrients. However, their excreta contains considerably more inorganic nitrogen
and phosphorus than their food, making nutrients more readily available for' new
aquatic growth than if the usual decay and subsequent nutrient release took
place. Geese are apt to feed on land and bring additional nutrients into the
water. Migratory waterfowl may be in the state only a relatively short time.
It is anticipated that where high waterfowl populations, supplemental feeding,
year-around open waters, domestic duck farms, etc., are involved, localized
problems could occur but state-wise the nutrient contribution from waterfowl
is probably not significant.
Chemical Deicers
A non-corrosive mixture for the chemical removal of ice and snow at
airports has been patented. Its composition according to the patent indicates
22 to 29 percent urea, 71 to 78 percent ammonium nitrate and up to 2 percent
of various sodium phosphates. Another formulation for runway deicing consists
of 75 percent tripotassium phosphate and 25 percent formamide. The potential
market for runway deicers is estimated in tens of millions of pounds per year
(Anon., 1965).
During the winter of 196^-65 a total 160,000 tons of chlorides were
applied to Wisconsin state trunk highways for deicing (Schraufnagel, 1965).
The sodium and calcium in the runoff probably does not have an adverse effect
on water quality. However, sodium hexametaphosphate, which is marketed as
an additive to prevent corrosion, could provide a source of phosphorus and
add to aquatic fertility. The chloride runoff study indicated little usage
of the phosphate additive in Wisconsin. An inquiry was made at Truax Field
concerning their practices. Chlorides, because of their corrosiveness, are
used sparingly and no use is made of the other mentioned airport deicers.,
The chlorides as applied are usually mixed with sand.
During the past few winters, an increasing number of stores have been
noted handling chemical deicers. These are generally packaged in small
plastic bags and are being promoted for use on sidewalks and driveways.
Typically, the deicer formulation is not indicated. The majority probably
are calcium chloride and one is s.odium chloride, but some of them are ammonium
sulfate, others are ammonium nitrate and one contains potassium pyrophosphate
plus formamide. Warnings concerning damage to concrete surfaces by the fore-
mentioned ammonium compounds have been issued by the Portland Cement Associ-
ation and others (McCord, 1966) (Lerch, 1962) (Anon., MLlw. Jour., 1966).
The extent of their use was not determined; however, with the increasing number
-------
. 32 - 3081
of retail outlets marketing deicers, this source of inorganic nutrients could
become significant in a short time. Ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate
contain 35 percent and 21 percent, respectively, of inorganic nitrogen.
Nitrogen Fixation in Surface Waters
Although the earth's atmosphere is predominately nitrogen, the gas
is generally not an available nutrient. However, some strains of blue-green
algae and certain groups of photosynthetic bacteria have the ability to
utilize atmospheric nitrogen and incorporate it into living cell material.
In "Report on Nutrient Sources of Lake Mendota" (Nutrient Sources
Comm., 1966), test results by Goering (1963) were used in arriving at the
nitrogen contributed by nitrogen fixation. A conservative estimate of 80,000
pounds of nitrogen per year were attributed to nitrogen fixation. This is
equivalent to a little over eight pounds/acre/year. The value obtained is
admittedly a r«ugh estimate based on Lake Mendota data. Its applicability
to other lakes is questionable.
Sawyer and Ferulla (1961) indicated that nitrogen fixation was greatest
in lakes receiving fertilization from sewage or farm drainage and implicated
phosphorus as the key element in nitrogen fixation. This suggests a snow-
balling effect if phosphorus is available.
Bottom Sediments
Only brief mention will be made of bottom sediments, since they
usually do not involve new fertility sources but rather make nutrients
available for use and reuse.
Bottom sediments, including runoff particulate matter, waste sludges,
decaying aquatic residues, etc., contain nutrients which are generally hot
readily available but are tied up organically or chemically. Their availa-
bility is complex and affected by such things as depth, area, benthic
organisms, temperature, water chemistry and turnover.
Potentially, bottom sediments can represent a long-term nutrient
reservoir. This and nutrient cycling can help explain why once a body of:
water becomes fertile it can remain adversely affected for a long period
even though the primary nutrient sources have been eliminated.
Nutrient Estimates
In order to better appraise the significance of the various sources,
the following crude state-wide estimates of nutrient contributions are shown:
1. Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Discharges
a. Domestic Sewage. In I960 these facilities served 67-5 percent
of the state's population. It is estimated they now serve 68.5 percent of
the state's population or 2,860,000 persons. Per capita, it is assumed that
the annual contributions amount to 10 pounds of nitrogen and 3-5 pounds of
phosphorus and that an over-all reduction of ko percent is achieved by
treatment.
Nitrogen = 17,200,000 Ibs.
Phosphorus = 6,000,000 Ibs.
-------
- 33 - 3°82
b. Milk Wastes Tributary to Municipal Facilities, Consider
that about 7 of the 17-billion pounds of milk are processed by factories
that utilize municipal treatment facilities. Assume an over-ail milk loss
of 2 percent containing 0.096 percent phosphorus and 0.6 percent nitrogen.
Add 50 percent to phosphorus for cleaning compounds.
Nitrogen = 500,000 Ibs.
Phosphorus = 126,000 Ibs.
c. Meat Packing. Consider that the secondary treatment plant
effluent irom one large meat packer for which data is available as being
indicative of one-fourth of the meat packing nutrients discharged after
treatment.
Nitrogen = 1,3^0,000 Ibs.
Phosphorus = 350,000 Ibs.
d. Canning, Laundry, Tanning and Other Wastes. (Not separately
tabulated.) Estimated total discharge from municipal treatment plants,
items a through d.
Nitrogen = 20,000,000 Ibs.
Phosphorus = 7,000,000 Ibs.
2. Private Sewage Systems
Approximately 1,317,000 of Wisconsin's resident population use
private sewage disposal systems. Summer homes and accommodations for
out-of-state tourists could boost the over-all equivalent use of private
systems to about 1,600,000 people. Discharge of septic tank treated sewage
into surface waters is prohibited, but violations do occur. Soil can remove
virtually all of the phosphorus but nitrogen removals are variable. Use
the same over-all nutrient figures as for those connected to public sewerage
facilities and estimate that 5 percent of the phosphorus and 30 percent of
the nitrogen eventually gets into the surface waters.
Nitrogen = 4,800,000 Ibs*
Phosphorus = 280,000 Ibs.
3. Industrial Wastes
Aside from the pulp and paper mills which discharge relatively
low nutrient wastes, most of the other factories handling organic materials
and not connected to municipal facilities use land disposal systems. Their
over-all contribution is estimated as approximately 1,500,000 pounds of
nitrogen and 100,000 pounds of phosphorus.
k. Rural
a. Manured Lands. Estimate 2,700,000 acres and a runoff loss
of 3 pounds of soluble nitrogen and 1 pound of soluble phosphorus per acre.
Nitrogen = 8,110,000 Ibs.
Phosphorus = 2,700,000 Ibs.
-------
3083
b. Other Cropland. Estimate 9,600,000 acres with nutrient
losses of 0.06 and 0.04 pound per acre of nitrogen and phosphorus.
Nitrogen = 576,000 Ibs.
Phosphorus = 38^,000 Ibs.
c. Forest Land. Estimate 1^,500,000 acres and runoff losses
of 0.03 and 0.003 pound per acre of nitrogen and phosphorus.
Nitrogen = ^35,000 Ibs.
Phosphorus = ^3,500 Ibs.
d. Pasture. Woodlot and Other. Estimate 9>000,000 acres and
nutrient loss of 0.06 pound per acre of nitrogen and 0.04 pound per acre
of phosphorus.
Nitrogen = 5^0,000 Ibs.
Phosphorus = 360,000 Ibs.
e. Wetlands runoff and drainage from wetlands is believed to
be extremely variable. No estimate attempted.
f. Ground Water . Assume 0.01 mg/1 of soluble phosphorus and
1.2 mg/1 of soluble nitrogen in the ground water and 3«5 inches annually
per acre from approximately 36,000,000 acres.
5. Urban Runoff
Assume 500,000 acres with a runoff of 8.9 and 2.5 pounds per
acre per year of nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively.
Nitrogen » ^,^50,000 Ibs.
Phosphorus = 1,250,000 Ibs.
6. Precipitation on Water Surfaces
Assume that the 30 inches of annual precipitation falls on
1>136,920 acres of water surface and that the precipitation contains 0.9
mg/1 of inorganic nitrogen and 0.02 mg/1 of soluble phosphorus.
Inorganic Nitrogen = 6,950,000 Ibs.
Soluble Phosphorus = 155,000 Ibs.
7. Waterfowl
Probably no significant additional nutrient contributions are
involved. See previous discussion.
8. Nitrogen Fixation
Variable, but may be significant in some waters. No estimate
attempted
-------
- 35 -
3084
9. Chemical Deicers
Nitrogen arid phosphate compounds are "being promoted for deicing
but their uses in the state to date are believed negligible.
Table 6
Summary of
Estimated Nitrogen and Phosphorus Reaching
Wisconsin Surface Waters
N
N
Source
Municipal Treatment Facilities
Private Sewage Systems
Industrial Wastes*
Rural Sources
Manured Lands
Other Cropland
Forest Land
Pasture, Woodlot & Other Lands
Ground Water
Urban Runoff
Precipitation on Water Areas
Total
Lbs. Per Year
of Total)
20,000,000
4,800,000
1,500,000
7,000,000
280,000
100,000
24.5
5.9
1.8
55.7
2.2
0.8
8,110,000
576,000
1*35,000
540,000
34,300,000
4,450,000
6,950,000
2,700,000
384,000
43,500
360,000
285,000
1,250,000
155,000
9.9
0.7
0.5
0.7
42.0
5.5
8.5
21.5
3.1
0.3
2.9
2.3
10.0
1.2
81,661,000 12,557,500 100.0 100.0
•^Excludes industrial wastes that discharge to municipal systems.
Table does not include contributions from aquatic nitrogen
fixation, waterfowl, chemical deicers and wetland drainage.
The tabulation shows that ground water contributes the most nitrogen
to surface waters and it is essentially as nitrates. Municipal treatment
plants are by far the largest source of phosphorus and they are the second
largest nitrogen contributor.
, ;
Over-all, the nitrogen to phosphorus ratio "of nutrients reaching
surface waters is about 6^ to 1. Mackenthun et al. (1964) cited laboratory
investigations by Gerloff and Skoog showing that 5 units of nitrogen plus
0.08 units of phosphorus would produce 100 units of algae. Their experimental
work indicated a ratio of about 60 to 1, but in natural occurring algae and
submerged plants the ratio is about 10 parts of nitrogen to 1 part of phos-
phorus. Sawyer, Lackey and Lenz (1945), following a study of southeastern
Wisconsin lakes, set forth inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations
of 0.3 and 0.015 ng/1 respectively as the minimum average annual concentrations
that would result in frequent nuisance blooms. The latter ratio is 20 to 1.
Were it not for the alleged role of phosphorus in the stimulation of nitrogen
fixation (Sawyer and Ferulla, 196l), the ratios would implicate nitrogen as'
generally being the limiting nutrient in Wisconsin surface waters.
-------
- 36 - 3085
IV. CONTROL METHODS -
MUtrient Removal by Further Treatment
Conventional waste water treatment plants are designed to remove
floatable and settleable solids and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). A
well-run secondary sewage treatment plant can produce a sparkling clear,
well oxidized, stable effluent which is relatively low in BOD, inoffensive
in odor, and with reduced numbers of pathogenic organisms. Therefore, it
may be concluded that properly designed and operated sewage treatment plants
do an admirable job in producing an effluent that is relatively inoffensive.
However, in recent years, considerable concern has been focused on the role
of treated sewage effluent in the fertilization of natural waters. Numerous
studies have shown that properly treated sewage effluent contains significant
amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds and, therefore, can represent a
potentially important source of plant nutrients for the receiving waters'.
Conventional sewage treatment does remove some plant nutrients. For example,
Levin (1963) concludes that approximately a 20 to 40 percent reduction in
phosphorus can usually be expected. Johnson et al. (1956) (1958) agrees
with this conclusion and states that a range of 30 to 50 percent nitrogen
removal is reasonable for most plants.
During the past 25 years there have been numerous laboratory studies
on methods to improve nitrogen and phosphorus removal in sewage treatment.
These studies have ranged from modification of existing treatment procedures to
providing a third stage or tertiary treatment processes designed specifically
for nutrient removal. These processes may be divided into two groups - chemical
methods and biochemical methods. Examples of processes available in each group
are discussed below. Additional references on the reduction of nutrients in
sewage effluents and other methods of control can be found in review (Mackenthun
and Ingram, 1961*) (Algae Metro-Wastes, 1960) (ingraham, 196*0 (Oglesby and
Edmondson, 1966).
Chemical Methods*
Precipitation with chemicals has been used as a secondary treatment
process for many years. In Europe the natural corrosion of scrap iron in
"fill-and-draw" batch tanks has been used since about 1930 to produce a
chemical floe at a very low cost. Feng (1950) and Scott (19^7) conducted
laboratory studies using this material on Madison, Wisconsin, sewage effluent,
with removal of nutrient materials as a primary objective. Removals were
not as high as might have been desired, with 50 to 80 percent removal of
nutrients resulting from 5 to 5^ hours of contact time. They both concluded
that the extremely long detention times required for iron flocculation by
corrosion nullified the low chemical cost advantage of the procedure. Neither
investigator studied the effects of long periods of use upon the scrap material,
but it may be the case that longer and longer detention times would be required
as corrosion products accumulate upon the surface of the iron. Since long
detention times and batch operations (twice as many holding tanks required
for switching) would greatly increase the construction costs of such a plant,
*This section of the report is principally derived from a University of
Wisconsin Water Chemistry Seminar paper by Fred Doll (Lee & Fruh, 1965).
-------
- 37 -
the objection to the use of the method in practice is an economic one.
More corrosion could be produced in a shorter time by pH adjustment, but
this is also prohibitively expensive for all but the smallest flows.
For phosphorus removal, the use of precipitating chemicals in a final
settling tank has been investigated. Lea et al. (195*0 have investigated
the use of alum (aluminum sulfate - A12(SO^)3 • l^^O) as a coagulating agent
for effluent from the Nine Springs Treatment Plant in Madison, Wisconsin.
Their work indicated that 99 percent removal of soluble phosphorus could
be effected with an alum dosage of 300 ppm, and that the most economical
dosage would be about 185 ppm with 96 percent reduction of soluble phos-
ihorus. The optimum pH of removal was 7.1 to 7-7. Studies by Henricksen
1963) indicated that the optimum pH may be somewhat lower, and stated that
the fundamental mechanism of removal may be sorption rather than precipitation.
Studies of alum precipitation by Malhotra et al. (196*4-), Rohlich (1963),
Katz (l9**-9) and Scott (l9*<-7) have substantiated the conclusions of Lea
et al. (195*0-. .About 6 to 10 times-more alum by weight is required for
this treatment than for conventional water treatment processes, and the
disposal of very great amounts of sludge is a problem. Lea's et al. work
included a scheme for the recovery and reuse of alum by the addition of
sodium hydroxide and calcium chloride to the sludge to form soluble sodium
aluminate and precipitate tri-calcium phosphate. The sodium aluminate solu-
tion is adjusted in strength and pumped back to the settling tank for further
coagulation. The tri-calcium phosphate is separated by sedimentation and is
a by-product, possibly marketable, of the process. The equations are shown
below. • . .
A1(OH)3'(POU)= + >NaOH = FaAlOa t. Na^POl^ + 2HgO + 30H"
NaA102 + 2NaP% + 3CaCl2 = NaA102 + Ca^POj^ + 6NaCl
Pilot plant studies have shown that the process is then economically feasible,
with reported reductions in soluble phosphorus of "79 to '89 'percent and about
80 percent recovery of the alum. However, the process is somewhat complex
to operate , and lack of adequately trained personnel for plant control of such
a scheme remains as an obstacle to its use in practice.
Other common coagulants which have been used in water and waste water
treatment are the iron salts, ferric sulfate and ferric chloride. Katz
(l9*<-9) reports 100 ppm of ferric sulfate for 80 percent removal of phosphorus.
The difference in performance is probably due to the fact that iron salts
produce a "heavier" floe than alum, and generally perform better at equal
weights of chemical added. Even the use of 60 ppm of ferric sulfate results
in the addition of about 3 ' tons of chemical per day to a flow of 15 MGD,
and the problems of sludge disposal and economic feasibility without iron
recovery are significant.
Lime is a commonly used precipitant in sewage treatment because of
its low cost. Malhotra et al. (196*0 used both lime and sodium hydroxide
to precipitate hydroxy-apatite and/or tri-calcium phosphate in a comparative
study. It was concluded that lime was most satisfactory, with 90 percent
soluble phosphorus removal at a dosage of 600 ppm and a pH of 11.0. The
extremely large volumes of sludge obtained, and the high pH of the effluent,
are the major disadvantages. It may be possible to calcine the sludge and
-------
- 38 -
reuse the line, thus saving on chemical costs, but an additional equipment
investment is required, and operation of this equipment requires trained
personnel. As will be seen later, the high pH of the effluent may be of
some advantage for the subsequent stripping of ammonia nitrogen. Malhotra
et al. (196V) also investigated' the use of coagulant aids (bentonite and -
Separan HP- 10) for alum flocculation, but concluded that phosphorus
reduction was not markedly enhanced by the use of 'these aids. Owen (1953)
reached similar conclusions with regard to lime precipitation of phosphorus.
Katz (19^9) used an ion exchange resin (Amberlite IR-Ufi) for
phosphorus removal and achieved 92 percent reduction. This treatment
method is not presently of practical importance because of the high initial
cost of the resin, regeneration and operation costs, and the need for.
preliminary filtration to remove suspended matter. Recently, Eliassen
et al. (1965) have reported the results of studies on the use of ion
exchange for nutrient removal from secondary effluent. Their results
are essentially the same as those reported by Katz.
(1962) has studied the possibility of removing sewage effluent
nutrients by electrolytic means. He developed a process which he called
the Electrolytic Sewage Purification Method, which utilizes sea water for
the production of magnesium, and its subsequent use as a precipitant chemical.
This process has been tried on a pilot plant scale and has worked satis-
factorily. Economic feasibility is dependent on the availability of large
amounts of low cost electrical power and brines. The high chloride content
of the effluent may be objectionable.
The successful removal of nitrogen from effluents presents more
difficulty than the removal of phosphorus, because nitrogen is not susceptible
to the usual precipitation methods. It is undoubtedly true at the present
time that biological removal methods, particularly modifications of the
activated sludge process and the use of oxidation ponds for oxygen stabili-
zation and nutrient reduction of the final effluent hold the most promise.
The element nitrogen exists in sewage in several forms: Nitrogen gas,
nitrate and nitrite ions, ammonia and organic matter. In view of the fact
that as much as 60 percent of the total nitrogen in sewage may be represented
by ammonia, the elimination of this gas by stripping at a pH greater than
about 9-5 seems to be one alternative approach to the problem. Kuhn (1956)
and Nesselson (196*0 have used countercurrent air stripping in a 2-meter
high percolation tower packed with Raschig rings and achieved 92 percent
removal of NHg when roughly kOO m3 of air was used per m^ of sewage at pH
11. It is conceivable that the high pH resulting from previous lime
precipitation of phosphorus could be used advantageously in this process,
but the problem of the disposal of an effluent with such a high pH remains.
With sufficient effluent dilution, no practical difficulties should arise.
Kuhn had some problems with frothing at the top of the column, and anti-
foam compounds were added to prevent this. The large amounts of air applied
and the necessity of pH adjustment show that the method is economically
prohibitive at present, and the operation requires close attention.
Another alternative approach to ammonia removal is the use of cation-
exchange resin. Nesselson (196U) found that the regeneration solution amounted
to at least the equivalent of 6 percent by volume of the total-flow quantity
-------
- 39 - 3°88
of treated sewage. Evaporation of this water for recovery of ammonium
chloride in useable form is not economically attractive.
The possibility of the removal of any of the other forms of nitrogen
from sewage effluents by chemical means has not-been seriously considered.
Nitrogen gas, not usually present at high concentrations, will be removed
concurrently with the ammonia in any stripping operation. Organic nitrogen
is apparently best reduced by biological methods and only nitrate and
perhaps nitrite removal remains to be considered. Young et al. (196^)
have screened various reducing agents with the reduction of nitrate to
reduce the methemoglobinemia hazard of potable waters. Among the most
effective found was ferrous hydroxide with a colloidal copper hydroxide
catalyst. Limitations of the method were the long detention times required
(about five hours) and the expense of the chemicals.
Biochemical Methods*
The studies on the use of organisms to remove nitrogen and phosphorus
have followed two approaches: (l) Tertiary treatment with algae, and (2)
modification of the activated sludge process. Developments along each of
these lines are presented below.
Removal of Nutrients with Algae. Tertiary treatment of sewage with
algae is well documented. The ability of algae to utilize inorganic carbon
as a carbon source is a major advantage of this process since secondary
effluent is high in nitrogen and phosphorus content but low in available
organic carbon. This, therefore, inhibits further treatment with hetero-
trophic organisms. Various reports (Dugdale, 1962) (Sawyer and Ferullo, 196l)
on the ability of some species of algae to fix elemental nitrogen in the
laboratory and under field conditions further indicate the usefulness of
these organisms for such a purpose. Phosphorus would then be the limiting
micronutrient for algae growth. Tertiary treatment with algae is employed
in much the same manner as the activated sludge process. A mixed population
of algae in a holding pond is fed secondary effluent, allowed sufficient
contact time for nutrient utilization and then the depleted water discharged
into a receiving water. To insure maximum extraction of nitrogen and
phosphorus, it is necessary that the bio-production per unit volume of
culture be maximum.
Bogan (1961), using optimal conditions in laboratory studies, has
reported high rates of orthophosphate removal - from 80-90 percent removal
in 6-12 hours. This constituted removal of 20-25 ppm of the phosphate.
Removal was attributed to both biological and pH effect. From these
laboratory studies, a field pilot plant was constructed. This plant is
unique in.that a method for recovery of excess algae is included. Poor
results have been attained thus far, however, due to the inability of
maintaining sufficient.incident light intensities. Gates and Borchardt
(196*0 in .laboratory studies have examined various parameters such as
depth, surface area and mixing to find means of enhancing the efficiency
and performance of algae treatment through adequate environmental control.
*This part of the report is primarily based on a University of Wisconsin
Water Chemistry seminar paper by Rick Spear (Lee & Fruh, 1965).
-------
3089
From these experiments, they have concluded that the over-all controlling
factor in the use of algae for waste treatment is light intensity. They
have proposed the use of two-stage algae treatment. The first stage to
be low algal densities to enhance high photosynthetic activity with short
detention times and the second with dense populations and longer retention
for final polishing. These investigators have not proposed any method for
harvesting the algae although they mention it as necessary.
Field studies on algal ponds by Fitzgerald (i960) for a two-year
period show average nitrogen removal throughout the year of 30 percent with
maximum removals of 70 percent in the summer. Phosphorus removal during
periods of maximum photosynthetic activity coincided with high pH conditions
in the pond and was attributed to precipitation rather than biological
removal. Fitzgerald concludes that the benefits attributed to this treatment
may be offset by increased suspended solids in the effluent. Mackenthun and
McNabb (1961), in reporting on stabilization pond studies in Wisconsin,
essentially confirmed Fitzgerald's observations. Parker (1950) reported
on the effect of passing sewage effluent through a series of eight ponds
with an optimum nitrogen removal of 51 percent in the summer and 12 percent
in the winter. Korbotz (1951) found the percent removal of soluble phosphorus
in his-, artificial algal ponds at Nine Springs Treatment Plant varied directly
with the ambient air temperature (presumably the water temperature varied
accordingly) from a maximum of 80 percent at 75° F. to 0 percent at ^4-5° F.
In a three-month field study of dissolved solids removal, Bush et_al. (1961)
attained 50-70 percent inorganic nitrogen removal and 20-68 percent soluble
phosphorus removal. Maximum temperature range during this study was from
65-95° F.
Neel et al. (196!) has successfully utilized algae stabilization
ponds for nitrogen and phosphorus removal reporting in excess of 80 percent
nitrogen .removal for most of the year and 30-60 percent soluble phosphorus
reduction.
Golueka and Oswald (1965) review and evaluate various methods of
harvesting planktonic algae from sewage oxidation ponds. The authors point
out that the entire question of the feasibility of algae harvesting depends
on the existence of a market for the sewage-grown algae. Should such a
market exist, communities that are forced to undertake tertiary treatment
could scarcely afford not to consider algae production as a partial solution
to their waste disposal problems.
Several recurring problems concerning the use of algae for nutrient
removal appear throughout these reports.- These problems must be overcome
before algae treatment can be effectively used in nutrient removal. These
are:
1. Necessity of maintaining high light intensities.
2. Inorganic carbon supply is rapidly exhausted and artificial
means of supply are necessary.
3- Temperature fluctuations cause poor removal efficiency.
k. Maintenance of desired forms of algal.
-------
3090
- in -
5. Removal of excess or spent algal cells "before release
of water to receiving waters.
It is concluded that the effective use of algae for nutrient removal
has not reached its proposed goal.
Removal of Hutrient by Modified Activated Sludge Process. As mentioned
earlier the present activated sludge process reduces nitrogen and phosphorus
content only to a limited extent. Modifications of this process to enable
higher nitrogen and phosphorus removals has been investigated. Simultaneous
removal 01 a high percentage of both nitrogen and phosphorus by these modifi-
cations has not been achieved. Conditions for the removal of nitrogen are
deleterious to the removal of phosphorus and vice versa.
Several investigators present different modifications of the activated
sludge process to achieve the same ends. These entail the biological oxidation
of reduced nitrogen compounds to nitrate (Nitrification), with subsequent
reduction to nitrogen gas (Denitrification). This induces maximum nitrogen
removal but very little phosphorus uptake.
Wuhrmann (1957) (1962) reported studies conducted under both laboratory
and field conditions. He used an additional tank inserted between the acti-
vated sludge and final settling basin. High rate aeration in the first tank
provides conditions for complete nitrification, while the second tank induced
rapid anaerobic conditions for enhancing denitrification. Efficiency of at
least 90 percent removal was reported using domestic sewage of concentrations
of 25-30 ppm of nitrogen. Effluent values of 2-k ppm were recorded..
Johnson and Schroepfer (1964) have reported laboratory studies on
nitrogen removal using essentially the same modifications as Wuhrmann.
They found the addition of 30 percent by volume of raw sewage to the second
tank was necessary to induce denitrification. They report less optimistic
removal of 63-70 percent nitrogen.
Ludzack and Ettinger (1962) in a process called "the semi-aerobic
activated sludge process" have divided a conventional tank into two sections
with low rate aeration in the first compartment and higher rate in the second.
The mixed liquor of the second section is recirculated to the first tank.
This process provides for denitification on the first section and nitri-
fication in the second. The advantage proposed over the other processes
is better sludge volume indices.
The possibility of removing phosphorus from sewage effluent has long
been recognized. Lea and Nichols (1936), in experiments using a supplemental
organic carbon source, achieved complete phosphorus -removal in three days.
Sawyer (l9**7) achieved 98 percent inorganic phosphorus and 97 percent
inorganic nitrogen removal using 80 ppm glucose supplement. Other investi-
: gators have since duplicated these findings. Two major drawbacks to this
nethod can be cited: (l) Cost of carbohydrate supplements, and (2) increase
in sludge volume.
Feng (1950), in his laboratory studies, reported increased soluble
phosphorus removal in proportion to increased aeration rates. Levin (1963)
has further investigated the effect of increased aeration rates and has
-------
3091
reported removal of 3-^ ppm soluble phosphorus with three hours contact
time. During these first three hours, no increase in numbers of organisms
was detected. He has proposed that this is a "luxury" uptake phenomenon
resulting in the formation of intracellular granules or stored phosphorus.
Advantages of this method are: (l) The elimination of the necessity of the
addition of organic carton substrate, and (2) no increase in final sludge
volume. Field studies have shown promise, although optimum conditions for
removal were not effected. One major misgiving of this process is the loss
of phosphorus to the medium after three hours and leakage cannot be stopped
at any aeration rate.
It appears from these reports that modifications of activated sludge
process can be effective in removing nitrogen and to some extent phosphorus
but is, in general, limited to quantitative removal of only one or the other
of the two nutrients.
Harvesting
The harvest of fish in Wisconsin lakes by sport fishermen undoubtedly
removes a sizeable quantity of nutrients from these waters, although it has
probably never been considered a benefit in this sense. Prom creel census
records from two northern Wisconsin lakes (Escanaba Lake in Vilas County
and Murphy Flowage in Rusk County), the annual harvest of sport fish ranges
from 30 to 50 pounds per acre. In southern Wisconsin the harvest rate is
somewhat higher. In Lake Mendota, Herman et al. (1959) estimated the harvest
of yellow perch during the ice. fishing season at 50 pounds per acre. Although
the harvest is not known for the rest of the year, the catch of other species
and the summer catch of yellow perch could likely boost this figure to 100
pounds per acre on an annual basis. Records from Cox Hollow Lake in Iowa
County demonstrate the annual removal of some 50 pounds of game fish per
acre (northern pike and largemouth bass) during a" three-year period. It
is, therefore, likely that an annual removal of 50 pounds per acre of fish
by anglers is probable in fertile Wisconsin lakes.
In addition, a number of these lakes are also subject to rough fish
(mostly carp) removal. For example, Helm (1951) reported in Lake Waubesa
an average of 317 pounds of rough fish per acre were removed from 1936 to
1950. In Lake Mendota, some 20 to 30 pounds per acre of rough fish have
been removed annually in recent years (Uo Ibs./acre in late 1966). It is,
therefore, probable that the total removal of fish from a number of fertile
Wisconsin lakes is over 100 pounds per acre annually which was also reported
by Threinen (19^9).
As reported by Mackenthun (19^9)> "the nitrogen content of fish flesh
(wet weight) is approximately 2.5 percent and the phosphorus content is
approximately 0.2 percent. Therefore, the removal of ho pounds of fish is
necessary to remove a pound of nitrogen and 500 pounds to remove a pound of
phosphorus. At a harvest rate of 100 pounds per acre annually, the removal
of nitrogen and phosphorus is 2.5 and 0.2 pounds per acre, respectively.
To obtain some insight as to the.significance of this removal, it
is convenient to use the estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus inflow and
-------
3092
outflow from the Report on the Nutrient Sources of Lake Mendota (1966).
It is estimated that Lake Mendota receives some kj, 000 pounds of phosphorus
per year of which about half goes out, leaving a "balance of 23,500 pounds.
The nitrogen input is roughly estimated to "be 550,000 pounds per year with
retention of 50 to 90 percent or 225,000 to ^95,000 pounds. The harvest
of 100 pounds of fish per acre would remove some 2,000 pounds of phosphorus
and 25,000 pounds of nitrogen per year or slightly more than k percent of
each of these elements estimated to enter the lake. To remove half of the
phosphorus entering the lake would require the annual removal of 1,175 pounds
of fish per acre and 2,000 pounds per acre in the case of nitrogen, obviously
impossible to attain. '
The removal of aquatic plants is also looked upon as a means of
nutrient removal. Recently, Gerloff and . Krombholz (1966) analyzed rooted
aquatics in several lakes and demonstrated a luxury uptake of nitrogen and
phosphorus in fertile waters. In Lake Mendota, six species of rooted aquatics'
contained an average of 3 percent nitrogen and O.kj percent phosphorus
(dry weight basis). The amounts are almost twice the quantities reported
by Schuette and Adler (1928 and 1929) for Lake Mendota in earlier years.
On the basis of the recent rssults, a ton of rooted aquatics contains 7.2
pounds of nitrogen and 1.13 pounds of phosphorus. In Lake Mendota, it
would take the removal of 4l,000 tons of aquatics to offset the estimated
input of phosphorus and 76,000 tons to offset the estimated nitrogen input.
Attainment of such huge harvests is likely impossible, but it is possible
to remove smaller quantities .
Livermore (195*0 reported that aquatic harvesting machines are able .
to cut up to four, tons of drained aquatic plants per hour. The City of
Madison is removing close to 1,000 tons per year (Saley, 1966). Madison's
experience during the last two years suggests that one ton per hour per
machine is a more practical estimate for sustained harvest. The cost of
operating their harvester is approximately $65 per hour (includes depreciation,
maintenance, transportation, etc.), and the cost of removal of aquatics per
ton is
If the present removal efforts were increased to double the harvest,
approximately 5 percent of the estimated input of phosphorus would be removed
in Lake Mendota. This level would remove about 3 percent of the estimated
nitrogen input. Among the limiting factors of aquatic plant harvesting
should be mentioned the possibility of favoring greater algae blooms if
significant areas of rooted aquatics are removed. H&sler and Jones (195*0
report the antagonistic action of large aquatics on algae might be expected
to also act in reverse.
Nees et al. (1957) in an analysis of removal methods suggest that
increased harvest of rough fish is definitely possible. Initial or increased
effort in aquatic plant harvesting is also possible. The combination of
increased harvest methods, while not being an obvious answer to the eutro-
phication problem should be carefully studied in more detail for consideration
as an important contribution in any program to improve water quality.
-------
3093
Control of Excessive Algae and Rooted Aquatic Plants
The concept of chemical control of weeds and pests has been used
successfully in agriculture where obtaining the highest yield from a single
crop, such as corn or wheat, has been emphasized. Here, as many competitors
as possible are to be eliminated in order to enhance maximum growth. In a
lake or river, on the other hand, there is a great diversity of life encom-
passing complex communities of plants and animals. When man-induced
eutrophication sets in, the interactions among these associations are
distorted. If chemicals are used to kill or prevent the growth of nuisance
organisms, complex distortions take place and a chain of undesirable
situations may occur. There are, as yet, no chemicals which are specific
enough, in their inhibiting effect, to be used with inpunity.
Some of the chemicals used affect a variety of organisms and their
delicate younger stages adversely, and some accumulate in the lake soils.
It is difficult to control the influence of a chemical added to a lake or
to apply it at the proper time. A great deal more research is needed to
produce specific inhibiting agents which do not have undesirable side
effects on other organisms and which disintegrate promptly after application.
In the interim, we recommend a greater effort to harvest the surplus crops
of algae, higher aquatic plants and fish, and to apply more effort in the
devising of techniques to make this possible.
According to Mackenthun (1959)> the ideal algicide or herbicide must
meet the following conditions. It must be selective; in only rare cases is
the total destruction of the entire plant population desired. It must be
non-toxic to fish and most fish-food organisms at the plant-killing concen-
tration. It must not prove seriously harmful to the ecology of the general
aquatic area and it must be of reasonable cost.
Palmer (1962) points out, as do others, that the most effective
pattern to follow in plant and algae control is to anticipate and prevent
problems rather than to delay until they become serious. This plan of
attack, however, requires adequate records of the kinds, numbers and
locations of the various algae and weeds in the water supply.
Of the many chemicals that have been used for the control of land
plants, only a few have been utilized in aquatic weed control. Of these
chemicals, sodium arsenite has been most extensively used, at least in this
area. Mackenthun (1958) has described the capabilities and application of
sodium arsenite. Sodium arsenite is efficacious in controlling most types
of aquatic plants as well as those algae that produce pond scum. The pond
scum algae, including species of Cladophora, Oedogonium and Hydrodictyon
are effectively destroyed by a concentration of 5.0 ppm AS203 while algae
growing below the surface are riot affected. Sodium arsenite is not effective
against plants with a wax-like coating on their leaves, such as water lilies.
Chemical treatment of this sort is generally not effective against water
shield, the duckweeds, and stoneworts, muskgrass and floating-leaf pondweed.
The application rate of sodium arsenite and other herbicides is governed
by many factors such as depth of the water, shape and size of the treated
area and the location of the treatment area as it is affected by wind, wave
action, etc.
-------
Arsenic is highly toxic to humans and its use should also "be governed
by accepted tolerance limits set by the United States Public Health Service
(1962) and others.
A well-known herbicide, 2,4-D, has proved successful in the destruction
of water hyacinth and other emergent weeds (Eggler, 1953)- Concentrations of
1,000 ppm have been sprayed on exposed leaves producing an effective kill.
The residual concentration in the surrounding water will be very much less
than 1,000 ppm. Alligator weed was more resistant to treatment, but weaker
growths were effectively controlled with two treatments . According to McKee
and Wolf v.1963), the toxicity of 2,U-D to aquatic life varies widely. Many
specific examples are given, but the threshold toxicity for fish is about
75
Bruns et al. (1955) have published studies on the use of aromatic
solvents for the control of aquatic weeds in irrigation ditches. In this
report the solvents, which were mixtures of aromatic and cyclic hydrocarbons
of either petroleum or coal tar origin, were specified by certain ASTM
physical characteristics. The solvent chosen is mixed with an emulsifier
and injected beneath the water surface to give a concentration of 300 to
600 ppm for 30 to 60 minutes. Eventually the emulsion will break and the
solvent will evaporate, leaving the water reasonably unpolluted. Aromatic
solvents are toxic to aquatic life, but do not harm crops in the concentrations
used.
To date, the algicide that is in most common use is copper sulfate.
Although copper sulfate is the chemical which, up to the present time, most
nearly fits the specifications mentioned earlier, it does have shortcomings.
According to Mackenthun (1958), copper sulfate will poison fish and other
aquatic life when used in excessive concentrations and it may accumulate in
bottom muds as an insoluble basic carbonate following extensive use.
The solubility of copper in water is a function of pH and alkalinity;
for this reason, the application of standard toxicity tables is difficult.
Also, the resistance of different organisms to copper sulfate varies widely
(Goodey, 1946).
McKee and Wolf (1963) give reference on the toxicity of copper sulfate
to various fish; in summary, the lethal doses range from 0.002 to 200 ppm
for various fish in different waters.
Chlorine gas has been used as an algicide in some instances. The
chief drawback in its use is the difficulty involved in applying the chemical
to the exact spots needing treatment.
Chlorinated hydrocarbons, primarily benzenes, have been used for the
control of aquatic weeds in ditches and lakes. Commercial chlorinated
benzenes under the trade name Benoclor are "still" runs of chlorobenzenes
consisting mainly of the trichloro isomer. The compound is sprayed under
the surface of the water and forms a milky cloud that is readily absorbed
by plants; the plants generally die within 2k hours after application.
Aquatic animal life is destroyed by the treatment unless it is able to get
out of the treatment area. Benoclor is not toxic to birds or animals.
Aquatic weeds vary in their response to Benoclor with Chara and "water Weed"
-------
- U6 « 3095
being two types that are easily killed. Sago pondweed, coontail moss,
horned pondweed and water milfoil are intermediate in response (McKee and
Wolf, 1963) (Oglesby and Edmondson, 1966).
Preliminary work has been carried out on the use of chlorophenyl
dimethyl urea (CMU) as an algicide (Maloney, 1958). It was concluded from
the results of both laboratory and field tests that CMU at a concentration
of 2 ppm prevented growth of all species of blue-green algae and diatoms
and 65 percent of the green algae tested. Good results were obtained with
filamentous algal growths of the types that blanket ponds and lakes and
attach themselves to reservoir walls. CMU is reported to have a very low
tpxicity to fish and other aquatic animals at the concentrations used.
Care must be exercised in the use of CMU, however, because at higher
concentrations it is a soil sterilant and may destroy desirable vegetation.
It has been demonstrated that 2,3-dichloronaphthoquinone is selec-
tively toxic to blue-green algae in concentrations of 30 to 55 ppb
(Fitzgerald and Skoog, 1951*). At concentration as low as 0.5 ppm, it
controlled 28 percent of the blue-green algae being tested without being
toxic to green algae or diatoms. No observable damage was done to fish,
zooplankton or higher aquatics present.
Tests have been carried on at the R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering
Center to determine effectiveness of quaternary ammonium compounds as
£lgicides. One of the compounds tested controlled twice as many kinds of
gj?een algae at 1 to 2 ppm as did copper sulfate. At 0.5 ppm, it controlled
29 percent of the green algae tested while copper sulfate controlled none.
This chemical appeared to be less toxic to fish than copper sulfate; its
k& hours median tolerance level was 0.65 ppm as compared to 0.19 ppro f°r
copper (Palmer, 1956).
Rosin amines have been found to be effective algicides. The rosin
amine D sulfate is selectively toxic to certain diatoms while the rosin
amine D acetate has more general algicidal properties. Tests showed that
at 2 ppm the rosin amine D acetate controlled 90 percent of the algae present
compared to 53 percent for copper sulfate. At 0.5 ppm, the amine was three
times as effective as copper sulfate. Preliminary toxicity tests on fish
indicated that the toxicity of the rosin amines was about the same as copper
sulfate. The effectiveness of the rosin amines seems to vary with pH,
hardness and other factors (Palmer, 1956).
It has been found that certain antibiotics exhibit toxic or inhibitory
effects on algae. Actidione is selectively toxic to certain green algae ,
and diatoms while streptomycin, neomycin, terramycin and certain other anti-^
bidtics are effective against blue-green algae (McKee and Wolf, 1963)
(Palmer, 1956).
A recent laboratory evaluation of the effectiveness of potassium
permanganate as a possible algicide for water reservoirs has been carried
out (Fitzgerald, 196^). Concentrations of potassium permanganate ranging
from 0.5 to 2.0 ppm gave the same results as copper sulfate in the concen-
tration range 0.025 to 0.10 ppm. Fitzgerald points out that potassium
permanganate is an algicidal rather than an algistatic agent. Fitzgerald
and Faust (l963a) (l963b) have shown in laboratory tests that copper sulfate
is an algistatic agent; the growth of certain algae is merely inhibited by
copper sulfate and, after the copper is precipitated, these algae resume
normal growth.
-------
- 1*7 - 3096
Potassium permanganate is not toxic to fish at the concentrations
mentioned above, but it may be toxic to certain fish-food organisms
(McKee and Wolf, 1963). Acrolein has been found useful in destroying
water weeds, algae and snails in irrigation ditches and reservoirs in
concentrations of from 3 to 6 ppm. Acrolein is generally toxic to fish
at these concentrations (McKee and Wolf, 1963).
The above discussion of chemicals is intended to give a broad picture
of the classes and types of compounds that are "being considered and are
being found effective in algae and weed control. The list of such chemicals
is growing rapidly, and an increasing amount of basic and applied research
is "being carried out on the problem of chemical algae and weed control.
The problem posed by increasing fertility and productivity is becoming more
and more apparent and is creating interest in and a need for research of
this type.
Other Methods*
Thomas (1963) suggests several methods of eutrophication reversal
or improvement which include the harvest of plants and animals. In addition,
he suggests as most important the control of nutrients that enter the waters.
Other environmental techniques suggested are dilution with large quantities
of nutrient-free water to flush out fertile water, drawing off nutrient
rich hypolimnion water during periods of thermal stratification, and deep
water aeration to mix and aerate lakes. He felt that the hypolimnion draw
technique might prove most useful, but the addition of fresh water to the
hypolimnion and the ventilation of the hypolimnion did not look as promising
because the nutrients remained in the lake. The experience to date with
continuous aeration and mixing at a current research project at Cox Hollow
Lake in Wisconsin (Wir'th and Dunst, 1966) suggests this method as one showing
considerable promise. This 96-acre lake was destratified with several
resultant water quality improvements. Further studies are necessary to
evaluate permanency of these improvements with continued operation of the
destratification equipment.
Many of the methods that follow in this section were proposed at
one time or another for the Madison lakes. The methods are general enough
that they can be and have been applied to other bodies of water. The Madison
lakes merely offer a convenient example.
One of the prime causes of artificially induced eutrophication in
lakes is the addition of domestic sewage and sewage effluents. In Wisconsin,
the Lewis Bill which was passed in 19^3 required that the sewage effluent
from the metropolitan Madison area be diverted around Lakes Waubesa and
Kegonsa. The treated effluent is discharged through a 5.1 mile, 5*4-inch
concrete pipeline into a 3.8-mile open channel which empties into the-
Badfish Creek. The channel is provided with two cascade aerators to restore
dissolved oxygen. Diversion was begun in December 1958 (Lawton, 1961).
The Madison sewage diversion project is probably one of the most studied
projects of its kind, but similar projects have been proposed and are being
put into operation on other lakes with similar problems.
*TMs section of the report is derived in part from a University of
Wisconsin Water Chemistry seminar paper by Phil Kammerer (Lee & Fruh, 1965).
-------
3°97
Lake Washington is another example of a lake that has undergone
rapid eutrophication due to domestic waste pollution in recent years.
Lake Washington seems capable of tolerating a maximum phosphorus input
of 17 Ibs./acre/year. Currently, 9 Ibs./acre/year is being supplied
from natural sources. Phosphorus from sewage sources has increased from
about 2 Ibs./acre/year in the period 1916-30 to a current level of 6 Ibs./
acre/year (Brown and Caldwell, 1958).
In some cases, tributaries can contribute appreciable amounts of
nutrients to lakes. An example of this is cited in the Oscar Mayer Report
(1955) on the Madison lakes. In the years 19^2-^4, an average of 10,000
pounds of inorganic nitrogen and about 3>000 pounds of organic nitrogen
per month was contributed to Lake Kegonsa by Door Creek. In the month of
March 19^3 for example, it was found that Door Creek contributed 66,000
pounds of inorganic nitrogen and 20,000 pounds of organic nitrogen to the
lake while during the same period the Madison sewage plant contributed
55,000 pounds of inorganic and 6,200 pounds of organic nitrogen. Two
approaches to solving this type of problem have been suggested. One is
to employ stabilization ponds to remove nutrients from the stream water.
The other is to divert the stream, thus preventing the addition of the
nutrients to the lake.
Another possible method of preventing nutrients from reaching a lake
is the diversion of treated sewage effluent into ground waters (Oscar Mayer
Report, 1955)- The feasibility of this process depends on many factors.
A major factor is the total nitrogen content of the effluent - a buildup
in nitrogen in a ground water used extensively as a domestic water supply
may cause a high enough N0g~ level to make the water toxic to infants
(methemoglobinemia). Consideration of this method of disposal must be made
with caution. Such factors as the "ion exchange" capacity and percolating
capacity of the soil must be considered in addition to the public health
hazard involved.
The investigators in the Oscar Mayer Report (1955) feel that nuisance
conditions in the lower Madison lakes could be partially alleviated by
augmenting the flow through the lakes. Higher flows would cause dilution
of the lake water, flushing out of stored nutrients and shorter detention
periods. There are several possible methods of augmenting lake flow. One
method is lake storage. In the case of the Madison lakes, this could be
accomplished in a number of ways. One possibility would be to maintain a
high level in, the lakes during early summer and reduce the level later to •
increase the flow through the lower lakes.
Another method of controlling flow in the lakes is through the use
of impounding reservoirs on tributaries to the lakes. One possible site
for such a reservoir would be the Westport marsh area at the Yahara River
inlet of Lake Mendota. Another possible site for a reservoir is a swamp
area southwest of Lake Waubesa. Extensive hydrologic studies would have
to be made to determine the amount of water available to fill these
reservoirs. It has been suggested that it might be necessary to pump
quantities of ground water or lake water into the reservoirs during the
spring in order to maintain the reservoir at the desired level. The use
of reservoirs has the advantage that lake levels would not fluctuate as
widely as they would using lake storage.
-------
3098
Another possible method of supplementing lake flow is dilution with
other surface water or ground water. In the Madison lakes, the cost of
using well water or Wisconsin River water to augment flows in August and
September appear to be more costly than impounding reservoirs or lake .
storage. Sylvester and Anderson (19&0 propose the addition of low nutrient
Seattle city water to Green Lake in Seattle for the purpose of reducing
nutrient concentrations and reducing troublesome algae blooms.
Dredging of shallow areas in Lake Kegonsa and Lake Waubesa has been
suggested to reduce "weed" nuisance. (Weed or weeds in this report is used
to include the larger aquatic plants and rooted vegetation.) Dredging will
reduce sunlight penetration with a resulting decrease in weed growths.
Sylvester and Anderson (1964) have suggested similar treatment for Green
Lake in Seattle.
The last method that will be mentioned in this section is irrigation.
Irrigation in Wisconsin is practiced mainly with industrial wastes (canneries,
packing houses and milk processing plants). Irrigation using municipal
wastes is used in Europe and the southwestern United States where water
is in short supply. Not only is the water beneficial for irrigation, but
additional benefits may be derived from the nutrients present in the sewage
effluent. Irrigation systems are difficult to operate during Wisconsin
winters. ,
There are natural losses that may enter into an over-all nutrient
balance which in a strict sense are not control methods. Nutrient nitrogen
may be lost to a water by denitrification. Outlet streams may carry dis-
solved and particulate nutrients out of lakes. Emergent insects that leave
the aquatic environment represent still another loss. These losses or
reductions vary greatly and no over-all estimate of their magnitude will
be made in this report.
V. IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRAMS
Previous portions of the report discussed the problem of excessive
fertilization and its apparent causes, nutrient sources and an idea of their
magnitude and control methods. With these as background information, where
do we go from here? Citing various approaches of determining and solving
the problem and giving examples may be helpful prior to making specific
recommendations .
Obviously, there is a need for further study and research. The
causes and cures of excessive fertilization provide a gamut of areas for
an array of disciplines. A particular problem of concern is accurately
measuring or appraising eutrophication in a body of water to determine its
over-all change or to compare it with another. Incorporating the various
critical factors involved into a "Eutrophication Index" might be helpful.
Baseline information is necessary. Survey and inventory of our
surface waters and nutrient sources are vital. Lake and stream classifi-
cation and surface water monitoring are examples of two such programs. A
big gap in our inventory of nutrient sources is the contribution from marsh-
land drainage.
-------
- 5o -
Legislation has been enacted for the protection of public waters.
Some examples of Wisconsin legislation include; The prohibition of non-
degradable detergents,,s. lM;.l4; reporting of intended new waste sources,
So I^o555j exclusion of sewage plant effluent discharges to the Madison
lakes, s. lMf.05; laws relating to dams on the Wolf and Brule Rivers, ss.
30.25 and 31-3P; and excluding periodically flooded areas for garbage and
refuse disposal, s, l4^.0^5» A law banning the use of phosphorus compounds
in detergents might be considered as a means of reducing the amount of that
nutrient reaching our surface waters. However, similar legislation recently
proposed in New York and Pennsylvania didn't get past the committee stage.
Education in some cases may be helpful in gaining support and getting
the job done. Such an approach might be applicable in getting sewage treat-
ment plant operators to adopt procedures that could curb nutrient losses or
in having farmers improve their land fertilization techniques„
An action program to reduce nutrients or their adverse effects in
surface waters would be desirable. Diversion of effluents and storm waters
from lakes into large streams would'be one example. Diversion often is not
practical because of the distance to a larger stream and opposition by
communities or individual parties oh the larger stream. For some small
communities with favorable soil conditions, land disposal may provide a
fairly good solution. In most cases, the development and use of tertiary
treatment methods for nutrient removal appears to be the only hopeful
method. Runoff from manured land is a large contributor of nutrients,
particularly when the soil is frozen. Liquid manure handling holds some
promise. In some areas, there is apparently little that can be done and
this would include the inorganic nitrogen in ground waters.
Intensive protection and study of key waters should be instituted.
Several lakes and streams having a unique property or long history should
be included. The list should contain lakes with varying degrees of eutro-
phication as well as contrasting rivers.
Obviously, there is no single, simple solution available to solve
the problem of excessive fertilization. However,, our growing population and
its increased per capita nutrient contributions make it expedient that we
move ahead by all available means. It takes time to develop the technology,
finance the improvements and put them into operation. Undoubtedly, conditions
will worsen before they improve, yet they will not improve by themselves.
;
The previous are examples of steps and measures that might be con-
sidered to handle the problems associated with excessive fertilization of
our surface waters. Specific recommendations are shown in the forepart of
this report beginning on page 2.
**####
Conversion Factors
Acre = 0,kOk7 hectares Hectare = 2.Vfl acres
Cubic foot = 0.02832 cubic meters Kilogram/hectare = 0.892 pounds/acre
Cubic meter = 35.315 cubic feet Liter = 0.26^4-2 gallons
Foot = 0.3048 meters Meter = 3.2808 feet
Gallon = 3o?85 liters Pound = ^53-6 gr. or 0.^536 kgo
Gram = 0.0022046 pounds Pounds/acre = 1.120 kgo/hectare
Gram/day = 0»805 pounds/year
-------
3ioo
REFERENCES
Algae and Metropolitan Wastes Trans, of i960 Seminar, Tech. Rept. W61-3, R.A. Ta/t
San. Engr. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Allison, E. "Nitrogen and Soil Fertility" Soil, The 1957 Yearbook of Agriculture Gov.
Drinting Office, Washington, D.C., 85-94(1957).
Anon. "My Advice, Sir? Beware of De-icers on Concrete" Milwaukee Journal (Dec. 18, 1966).
Anon. "Sohio De-icer Heralds Use of Chemicals for Ice and Snow Removal at Airports"
Chem. Engr. News, p. 24 (August 9, 1965).
Anon. "Wastewater Reuse Study" J.WPCF, _38 1, Hi (January 1966).
Baillie, E.P. (Madison Sewerage Dist.) Communications (1966).
Bartsch, A.F. "Induced Eutrophication - A Growing Water Resource Problem" Algae and
Metropolitan Wastes SEC TR W61-3, R.A. Taft San. Engr. Center, Cincinnati,Ohio
(1961).
Bogan, R.H. "The Use of Algae in Removing Phosphorus from Sewage" ASCE Trans. 126
231 (1961).
Braatz, D.R. "Commercial Fertilizer Summary - Wisconsin 1964-1965" State Dept. Agr.
Mimeo (1965).
Brown and Caldwell, Civil and Chemical Engineers "Metropolitan Seattle Sewerage and
Drainage Survey" (March 1958).
Bruns, V.F., Hodgson, J.M., Arle, H.F. and Timmons, F.L. "The Use of Aromatic Sol-
vents for the Control of Submersed Aquatic Weeds in Irrigation Channels" U.S. Dept.
Agr. Cir. No. 170, Washington, D.C. (1955).
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering with Collaboration of State Laboratory of Hygiene and Wis.
State Board of Health "Public Water Supplies of Wisconsin" Madison, Wisconsin
(July 1935).
Bush, A.F., Isherwood, J.D. and Rodgi , S. "Dissolved Solids Removal from Waste Water
by Algae" ASCE Trans. 39-57 (May 1961).
Buswell, A.M. The Chemistry of Water and Sewage Treatment The Chemical Catalog Co.:
New York (1958).
California Water Pollution Control Board "Water Reclamation in Relation to Ground Water
Pollution" Publ. No. 6, Sacramento, California (1955).
Canham, R.A. "Comminuted Solids Inclusion with Spray Irrigated Canning Waste" Sew. Ind.
Wastes, 30 8, 1028-1044 (August 1958).
-------
3101
Garmody, T. W. "Detergent Chemicals Forecast" Detergent Age, 2 1, 16-17 (June 1965).
Carrol, Dorothy Rainwater as a Chemical Agent of Geologic Processes -- A Review Geo.
Sur. Water-Supply Paper 1535-G, Gov. Printing Office, Washington D.C. (1962).
Dane County Citizens' Planning Committee Blueprint For Growth (December 1961).
Dugdale, V.A. and Dugdale, R.C. "Nitrogen Metabolism in Lakes - II. Nitrogen Fixation in
Sanctuary Lake, Pennsylvania" Limn. Ocean., 1_ 170-177 (1962).
Eck, Jackson and Bay, Annual Report, AES Project 791 (Phase 5) (1957).
Edmondson, W.T. "Water Quality ManagementandLake Eutrophication: The Lake Washing-
ton Case" Based on papers prepared for a series of seminars at the Univ. of Washing-
ton (Spring, 1964).
Eggler, W.A. "The Use of 2,4-D in the Control of Water Hyacinth and Alligator Weed in the
Mississippi Delta, With Certain Ecological Implications" Ecology, ^4 409 (1953).
Eliassen, R., Wycoff, B.M. and Tonkins, C.D. "Ion Exchange for Reclamation of Reusable
Supplies" J.AWWA, 57 113 (1965).
Ernest, L.A. Avalon - Industrial Waste File Communications (1954).
Ernest, L.A. (Milwaukee Sewerage Commission) Communications (1966).
Feng, T.H. "Removal of Phosphorus from Sewage Plant Effluents" Ph.D. Thesis in Civil
Engr., Univ. of Wisconsin (1950).
Fitzgerald, G.P. "Stripping Effluents of Nutrients by Biological Means" Algae and Metropol-
itan Wastes SEC TR W61-63, 136-139, R.A. Taft San. Engr. Center, Cincinnati,
Ohio (1960).
Fitzgerald, G.P. "Laboratory Evaluation of Potassium Permanganate as an Algicide for
Water Reservoirs" Southwest Water Works Jour. Qanuaxy 1964).
Fitzgerald, G.P. and Faust, S.L. "Bioassay for Algicidal vs. Algistatic Chemicals" Water
Sew. Works, 110 8 (1963a).
Fitzgerald, G.P. and Faust, S.L. "Factors Affecting the Algicidal and Algistatic Properties
of Copper" Applied Microbiology, JJ. 4, 345 (1963b).
Fitzgerald, G.P. and Skoog, F. "Control of Blue-Green Algae Blooms with 2,3-Dichloro-
naphthoquinone" Sew. Ind. Wastes, 26 1136 (1954).
F^yn, E. "Removal of Sewage Nutrients by Electrolytic Treatment" 15th Cong. Limn.,
Madison, Wisconsin (August 1962).
-------
3102
Gates, W.E. and Borchardt, J.A. "Nitrogen and Phosphorus Extraction from Domestic Waste
Water Treatment Plant" J.WPCF, 36_ 443-462 (196^.
Gerloff, G.C. and Krombholz, P.H. "Tissue Analysis as a Measure of Nutrient Availability
for the Growth of Angiosperm Aquatic Plants" Limn. Ocean., J_l 529 (1966).
Goering, J.J. "Studies of Nitrogen-Fixation in Natural Fresh Waters" Ph.D. Thesis, Zoo-
logy Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin (1963).
Golueka, C.G. and Oswald, W.J. "Harvesting and Processing Sewage-Grown Planktonic
Algae" J.WPCF, 37_ 4, 471 (1965).
Goode, P.P. (State Laboratory of Hygiene) Communication (September 1966).
Goudey, R.F. "Chemical Weed Control" J. AWWA, 38_ 2, 186 (1946).
Hasler, A.D. and Jones, E. "Demonstration of the Antagonistic Action of Large Aquatic
Plants on Algae and Rotifers" Ecology, _30 (1949).
Helm. W.T. "An Interpretation of Rough Fish Statistics from Lake Waubesa". WCD Invest.
Rept. No. 751 (1951).
Henricksen, A. "The Coagulation Process Applied to Phosphate Removal" Proc. of the
Coagulation Colloquium, Water Res. Assn. (April 1963).
Hensel, E.G. "Soluble Phosphate Content of Safe and Unsafe Well Waters in Wisconsin"
B.S. Thesis, Chemistry Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin (1937).
Herman, E., Wisby, W., Wiegert, L. and Burdick, M. "The Yellow Perch - Its Life His-
tory, Ecology, and Management" WCD Publ. 228 (1959).
Hurwitz, E., Beaudoin, R., and Walter, W. "PHOSPHATES Their Fate in a Sewage Treat-
ment Plant -- Waterway System" Wat. Sew. Works, 112 3, 84 (March 1965).
Ingraham, S.H. "Removal of Algal Nutrients from Domestic Wastewater: Parti. Literature
Survey" New York State Dept. of Health, Rept. No. 11, Parti. (November 1964).
Johnson, W.K. "Nutrient Removals by Conventional Treatment Processes" Proc. 13th
Ind. Wastes Conf., Purdue Univ., Ext. Ser., 96 151 (1958).
Johnson, W.K. and Schroepfer, G.J. "Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removals by Conventional
Treatment Processes" San. Engr. Prog. Rept. 104S, Univ. of Minnesota, Minne-
apolis (September 1956).
Johnson, W.K. and Schroepfer, G.J. "Nitrogen Removal by Nitrification and Denitrification'
J. WPCF, 36 1015-1036 (1964).
Katz, W.J. "The Chemical Removal of Phosphorus from Sewage Effluents" M.S. Thesis in
Civil Engr., Univ. of Wisconsin (1949).
-------
3103
Keefeir, C.E. Sewage Treatment Works 1st ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York (1940).
Korbitz, W.D. "Removal of NH3-Nitrogen from Sewage Effluent" M.S. Thesis in Civil
Engr., Univ. of Wisconsin (1951).
Kuhn, P.A. "Removal of Ammonia Nitrogen from Sewage Effluents" M.S. Thesis in Civil
Engr., Univ. of Wisconsin (1956).
Larson, T.E. and Hettick, I. "Mineral Composition of Rainwater" Illinois State Water
Sur. Ciic. No. 56 (1956).
Lawton, G.W. "The Madison Lakes Before and After Diversion" in Algae and Metropolitan
Wastes Tech. Rept. W61-3, R.A. Taft San. Engr. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio (1961).
Lawton, G.W., Engelbert, L.E., Rohlich, G.A., and Forges, N. "Effectiveness of Spray
Irrigation as a Method for the Disposal of Dairy Plant Wastes" Univ. of Wisconsin,
Engr. Res. Rept. No. 15 and Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Rept. No. 6, Madison, Wiscon-
sin (1960).
Lea, W.L. and Nichols, M.S. "Influence of Substrate on Biochemical Oxygen Demand"
Sew. Works, 8 435 (1936).
Lea, W.L., Rohlich, G.A. and Katz, W.J. "Removal of Phosphates from Treated Sewage"
Sew. Ind. Wastes, 26 261 (1954).
Lee, G.F. and Fruh, E.D.(ed.) "Eutrophication of Natural Waters" Water Chemistry
Seminar, Univ. of Wisconsin. Mimeo (1965).
Lerch, W. "WARNING! Use the Right De-icer" Modern Concrete (May 1962).
Levin, G.V. Reducing Secondary Effluent Phosphorus Concentration Prog. Rept PHS
Grant WP-99, Dept. of San. Engr. & Water Res., The Johns Hopkins Univ. (April
1963).
Livermore, D.F. "Harvesting Underwater Weeds" Water Works Engr., 107 2, 118(1954).
Ludzack, F.J. and Ettinger, M.B. "Controlling Operation to Minimize Activated Sludge
Effluent Nitrogen" J.WPCF, 34 9, 920 (1962).
Mackenthun, K.M. "The Chemical Control of Aquatic Nuisances" Wis. Comm. on Water
Poll., Madison, Wisconsin (1958).
Mackenthun, K.M. "Summary of Aquatic Weed and Algae Control Research and Related
Activities in the United States" Wis. Comm. on Water Poll., Madison, Wisconsin
(1959).
Mackenthun, K.M. "A Review of Algae, Lakes and Nutrients" J.WPCF, 34_ 10, 1-0,77-1&85
(October 1962).
-------
3104
Mackenthun, K.M. Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Water U.S. Dept. H.E.W., PHS (1965).
Mackenthun, K.M. and Ingram, W.M. Limnological Aspects of Recreational Lakes PHS
Publ. No. 1167, U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., Washington, D.C. (1964).
Mackenthun, K.M. and McNabb, C.D. "Stabilization Pond Studies in Wisconsin" J.WPCF,
33 12, 1234-1251 (December 1961).
Malhotra, S.K., Lee, G.F. and Rohlich, G.A. "Nutrient Removal from Secondary Effluent
by Alum Flocculation and Lime Precipitation" J.AWP, 8 487 (1964).
Maloney, T.E. "Control of Algae with Chlorophenyl Dimethyl Urea" J.AWWA, 50_ 3, 417
(1958).
Maloney, T.E. "Detergent Phosphorus Effect on Algae" J.WPCF, _38 1, 38-45 (1966).
McCord, G.K. (Portland Cement Assn) Personal Communication (December 1966).
McKee, J.E. and Wolf, H.N. Water Quality Criteria 2nd ed., State Water Quality Control
Board, Sacramento, California, Publ. 3-A (1963).
Merrill, J.C.Jr. and Katko, A. "Reclaimed Wastewater for SanteeRecreational Lakes"
J.WPCF, _38 8, 1310-1318 (August 1966).
Midgley and Dunklee, Bui. 523, Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ. of Vermont (1945).
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission "Jones Island Plant Operating Data for 1965".
Neel, J.K., McDermott, J.H. and Monday, C.A.Jr. "Experimental Lagooning of Raw
Sewage at Faueh, Missouri" J.WPCF, 33 603 (1961).
Neess, J.C., Helm, W.T. and Threinen^ C.W. "Some Vital Statistics in a Heavily Exploited
Population of Carp" J. Wildlife Mgmt., _2J. 279,(1957).
Nesselson, E.J. "Removal of Inorganic Nitrogen from Sewage Effluents" Ph.D. Thesis in
Civil Engr., Univ. of Wisconsin (1954).
Nichols, M.S. (Emeritus Prof, of San. Chem.) Communications (1966).
Nutrient Sources Subcommittee of the Technical Committee of the Lake Mendota Problems
Committee "Report on the Nutrient Sources of Lake Mendota" Madison, V/isconsin
(1966).
Oglesby, R.T. and Edmondson, W.T. "Control of Eutrophication" J.WPCF, 38_ 1391-
1562 (1966).
Oscar Mayer and Company "The Madison Lakes Problem" Part II (September 15, 1955).
-------
3105
Owen, R. "Removal of Phosphorus from Sewage Plant Effluent with Lime" Sew. Ind. Waste
25 548 (1953).
Palmer, C.M. "Evaluation of New Algicides for Water Supply Purposes" J.A'WWA, 48_
9, 1133 (1956).
Palmer, C.M. Algae in Water Supplies PHS Publ. No. 657, Supt. of Documents, Washing-
ton, D.C. (1962).
Parker, C.D., Jones, H.C. and Taylor, W.S. "Purification of Sewage in Lagoons" Sew.
Ind. Wastes, 22 6760 (1950).
Preul, H.C. "Underground Movement of Nitrogen" J.WPCF, 38 3, 335-336 (March 1966).
Provalsoli, L. "Micronutrients and Heterotrpphy as Possible Factors in Bloom Production in
Natural Waters" in Algae and Metropolitan Wastes SEC TR W61-3, R.A. Taft
San. Engr. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio (1961).
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, U.S. Dept. of H.E.W. (1962).
Rafter, G.W. and Baker, M.N. Sewage Disposal in the United States 2nd ed. D. Van
Nostrand Company: New York (1894).
Rohlich, G.A, "Methods for Removal of Phosphorus and Nitrogen from Sewage Plant
Effluents" J.AWP, 7 427 (1963).
Rudolfs, W. "Phosphates in Sewage and Sludge Treatment - I. Quantities of Phosphates"
Sew. Works J.our., _19 1,43-47 (January 1947).
Rudolfs, W. and Heinemann, B. "Growth-Promoting Substances in Sewage and Sludge -
I. Review of Literature" Sew. Waste Jour., 10_ 4, 643 (July 1938).
Saley, B. (Madison City Health Department) Personal Communications (1966).
Sanderson, W.W. "Studies of the Character and Treatment of Waste from Duck Farms"
Proc. 8th Ind. Waste Conf. Purdue Univ., 38 1, 170-176 (1953).
Sawyer, C.N. "Fertilization of Lakes by Agricultural and Urban Drainage" J. New Engl.
Water Works Assn., 61 109 (1947).
Sawyer; C.N. Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.:
New York (1960).
Sawyer, C.N. and Ferrullo, A.F. "Nitrogen Fixation in Natural and Laboratory Conditions",
Algae and Metropolitan Wastes W61-63, p. 100, R.A. Taft San. Engr. Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio (1961).^
-------
3106
-Sawyer, C.N. Lackey, J. B. and Lenz, A.T. "Investigations of the Odor Nuisance Occur-
ring in the Madison Lakes" Madison, Wisconsin (1943-1944).
Sawyer, C.N., Lackey, J.B. and Lenz, A.T. "Investigation of the Odor Nuisance Occur-
ring in the Madison Lakes, Particularly Lakes Monona, Waubesa and Kegonsa from
July 1943 to July 1944" Kept, to the Governor's Comm., Madison, Wisconsin (1945).
Schraufnagel, F.H. "Chlorides" Wis. Comm. Water Poll., Madison, Wisconsin (August
1965).
Schuette, H.A. ana Alder, H. "Notes on the Chemical Composition of Some of the Larger
Aquatic Plants of Lake Mendota" II. Tran. Wis. Aca. Sci., Arts, Letters, 23
249 (1928) and III. 2A 135 (1929a).
Scott, R.H. "The Reduction of Soluble Phosphorus in Sewage Plant Effluents" .Ph.D. Thesis
in Civil Engr., Univ. of Wisconsin (1947).
Seesing, J. R. "The Physical and Chemical Properties of Soils and Growths of Plants as
Affected by Irrigation with Sewage Effluent" Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin
(1961).
Shah, K. S. "Sulfur and Nitrogen Brought Down in Precipitation in Wisconsin" M.S. Thesis,
Soils Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin (1962).
Sharratt, W.J., Peterson, A.E. and Calbert, H.E. "Whey as a S ource of Plant Nutrients
and its Effect on the Soil" J.Dairy Sci. 42 7, 1126-1131 (July 1959).
Sherman, J.V. "Phosphorus Chemicals" Barren's (October 12, 1966).
Stahl, E.H.A. "Development and Uses of Ground Water Supplies" J. AWWA, 57 9, 1123
(September 1965).
Sylvester, R.O. Limnological Aspects of Recreational LakesPHS Publ. 1167 (1960).
Sylvester, R.O. "Nutrient Content of Drainage Water from Forested, Urban and Agricultur-
al Areas" in Algae and Metropolitan Wastes SEC TR W61-3, R.A. TaftSan.
Engr. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio (1961).
Sylvester, R.O. and Anderson, G.C. "A Lake's Response to its Environment" ASCE San.
Engr. Div. 90, SA 1, Parti (February 1964).
Tanner, C.B. Mimeo, Soils Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin (1966).
Thomas, E.A. "Die Veralgung yon Seen and Fldssen, deren Vrsache und Abwehr"
Monatsbull. Schweiz. Ver. Gas- und Wasserfachm., Nr. 6/7, 12s. (1963).
(The Eut rophication of lakes and streams, their cause and prevention.)
-------
310?
Threinen, C.W. "An Analysis and Appraisal of the Rough Fish Problem of Wisconsin"
WCD Invest. Kept. No. 715 (1949).
U.S. Bureau of the Census Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1965 86th ed.,
Washington, D.C. (1965).
U.S. Bureau of the Census "Census of Manufacturers, 1963 Industry Statistics: Cleaning
and Toilet Products" MC63(2)-28D. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
(1966).
Vacker, D., Connell, C.H. and Wells, W.N. "Phosphate Removal Through Municipal
Wastewater Treatment at San Antonio, Texas" Presented at the annual short school
of the Texas Water and Sewage Works Assn., Texas A & M University (March 9,
1966).
Wanick, L.F., Wisniewski, T.F. and Sanborn, N.H. Bull. Wis. State Board of Hlth and
Natl. CannersAssn. p. 27 (1945).
Weibel, S.R., Anderson, R.J. and Woodward, R.L. "Urban Land Runoff as a Factor in
Stream Pollution" J. WPCF, 36_ 7, 914-924 (July 1964).
Wirth, T.L. and Dunst, R.C. "Limnolqgical Changes Resulting from Artificial Destrati-
fication and Aeration of an Impoundment" 28th Midwest Fish. Wildl. Conf.
(December 1966).
Wirtshafter, Z.T. Minerals in Nutrition Reinhold Publishing Corporation: New York (1942).
Wisconsin Comm. on Water Pollution "A Review of Chemical Monitoring on Badfish Creek
and Lower Receiving Rivers 1960-1965" Madison, Wisconsin (June 1966).
Wisconsin Department of Resource Development Land Use in Wisconsin (1963).
Wisconsin Geological Survey, Personal Communications (1966).
Woodburn, J.G., Polk, W.J. and Nelson, G. A. "Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Comm-
issioners of Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District for the Calendar Year 1965."
Woodruff, C.M. "Estimating the Nitrogen Delivery of Soil from the Organic Matter
Determination as Relected by Sanborn Field" Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 14_
208-212 (1949).
Wuhrmann, K. "Tertiary Treatment"1 Sweiz, Z. Hydrol., 19_ 409 (1957).
\Vuhrmann, K. "Nitrogen Removal in Sewage Treatment Processes" Verh. Internat. Limn.
15_ 580-596 (1962).
Young, G.K., Bungay, H.R., Brown, L.M. and Parson, W.A. "Chemical Reduction of
Nitrate in Water" J.WPCF, 36 395(1964).
-------
3108
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 It la suggested, sometimes blithely and
3 blandly —
4 MR. STEINi Is that blandly or blindly?
5 (Laughter.)
6 MR. HOLMER: — that Wisconsin, Michigan
7 and Indiana should divert their municipal and Indus-
8 trial wastes outside the basin of the Lake.
9 Mr. Klassen addressed himself to this problem
10 . earlier. Such a response to the problems of pollu-
11 tlon—divert the burden to someone else--cannot be
12 entertained lightly. The initial and operating
r ~ •
13 costs would be substantial. The analysis of costs
14 and benefits, and consideration of the kinds of
15 institutional arrangements required, thinking in
18 terms of the numbers of industries and municipalities
17 that would be involved in such an arrangement, would
18
be an essential prerequisite to further consideration
19 of such a proposal. A decision of this magnitude
can, of course, be made only In the light of consi-
21
deration of all of the consequences and all of the
22
alternatives.
23
Let las reiterate, this is a suggestion
24
which Is often made. It is not rejected out of
25
hand. It, as well as all of the other alternatives
-------
3109
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 that are open to us as we face this crisis, need
3 to be considered fully and carefully and completely
4 to assure that we do deal with the problem in the
5 way that measures up to the best knowledge we have.
6 The key to the success of the conference
7 will lie in our ability to deal, in an organized
8 and comprehensive fashion, with the complexity of
9 the problem. Wisconsin takes pride, as you heard
10 yesterday from Governor Knowles, in its Water
H Resources Act precisely because it seeks to approach
12 water quality and water management with a coordinated
13 program. That program requires such elements as
14 comprehensive planning, shoreland and flood plain
15 zoning and the mandatory training and certification
16 of sewage treatment plant operators. They are
17 described in our application for a program grant
18 submitted to the Federal Water Pollution Control
19 Administration. We think that this has many sug-
20 gested items that the Conferees ought to be aware
21 of and to consider in dealing with this comprehen-
22 sive problem. Efforts of the kind described in
23 the application are essential to supplement the
24 more customary pollution abatement activities. It
is, therefore, requested that the formal statements
-------
311.0,
! FREEMAN HOLMER
2 of Wisconsin flood plain and shoreland management
3 programs also be incorporated in the Conference
4 record and that the Conference consider recommenda-
5 tions on these subjects jf shoreland and flood
6 plain zoning. We are confident in Wisconsin that
7 the control of the land usage adjacent to streams
g and lakes is a critical key to the effective pre-
9 vention of pollution as well as to its abatement,
10 and we think that this deserves attention.
11 I would suggest, too, that another item
12 with which we are involved in Wisconsin, and all
13 of us in the other States as well, is in the area
14 of the private sewage disposal facilities, which I
15 think we need to speak to rather explicitly when
16 we come to the development of our Conference Report
17 and summary.
18 On Thursday, with the concurrence of
19 members of the Conference, I distributed to the
20 Conferees what we called an Opening Statement. It
21 was a kind of a working document which I submitted
22 to the Conferees suggesting what seemed to us in
23 Wisconsin to be the appropriate contents of the
24 Summary Report of this Conference and made some
25 suggestions with respect to the sequence with which
-------
• , 3111
I FREEMAN HOLMER
,2 we ought to approach the development of our recom-
3 nendatlons* I wanted to do this for several reasons.
4 That Opening Statement suggests that In the Summary
5 Report of this Conference there should be a somewhat
6 more extensive treatment than is offered In the
7 PWPCA's working document relating to the nature of
g delays In dealing with this problem. We are hopeful
9 and confident of the success of the efforts in
" _
10 which we are engaged, but we are also concerned
H that we make it clear to the people of these four
12 States that there are necessary steps which must
13 be taken in sequence and that there will be a alg-
14 nifleant period before the effects of some of the
15 steps which we are proposing to take will be effec-
16 tive, that they will in fact achieve the results
17 for which we all hope.
18 And so it is necessary to include, we
19 would suggest, in the Summary Report of this Confer-
20 ence a general description of the kinds of lead
21 times that are required for engineering and con-
22 structlon and,where necessary,research, that we
23 Identify the research gaps and the kinds of time
24 that will be required to fill them. We must deal,
25 it seems to &e, with the problem of the shortages
-------
3112
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 of technical personnel and in those areas where
3 legislative action is required some idea of legls-
4 lative lead time. We need to address our attention
5 to the simple magnitude of the task that is involved
6 in such areas as sewer separation and those areas
7 which are involved in the combination of municipal
8 and industrial treatment or inter-municipal waste
9 treatment, which is one of the recommendations in
10 the PWPCA Report and which will obviously require
11 a somewhat longer period of gestation than is required
12 for some of the other facets of this problem we are
13 coming to grips with.
14 As we consider the alternatives before
15 us, let me suggest that we seek to agree, first,
16
in the areas where our present knowledge is inade-
17 quate, to establish a set of specific research
18 priorities and rigorous schedules for implementa-
19 tion of new procedures resulting from such research.
Next, we should seek agreement on the standards to
21
govern our handling of the problems for which present
22
technology offers practical guides (as in the
23
handling of municipal and industrial wastes). Then
24
we should seek concurrence with respect to our
25
respective responsibilities in areas where our
-------
3113
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 knowledge la less certain (as In control of alewives)
3 but where promising alternatives appear to be avail-
4 able.
5 And may I suggest also In reiteration that
6 we bear In mind as we proceed with our deliberation
7 the necessity for establishing priorities on our
8 needs and our actions as was suggested by
9 Governor Knowles yesterday.
10 TSie national interest in the problems of
11 the Lake Michigan Basin would appear to warrant a
12 substantial Federal Investment in those areas where
13 more knowledge is needed. Especially in the Green
14 Bay area, where a commercial fishery Is at stake,
15 a Federally-financed pilot project, supplementing
16 present research efforts, may be in order.
17 In Wisconsin, the application of present
technology to the handling of municipal and industrial
19 wastes will proceed as rapidly as is possible. We
20
are committed to doing so. The cost of dealing
21
with the nutrient enrichment of the Lake, however,
22
computed on the basis of known technology, is
23
widely regarded as prohibitive. At least it was
24
two weeks ago. But "prohibitive" is a relative
25
word. If research now underway fails to produce
-------
3114
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 significant breakthroughs in the near future we
3 suggest that this Conference also seek agreement on
4 the means to be considered for future action on
5 this problem. I would modify that to conform with
6 what I had to say earlier on this subject.
7 Our environment is in delicate balance.
8 Man can alter it significantly but we dare not
9 alter it beyond our power to reverse our own errors.
10 And let us not deceive ourselves. We face a long and
11 costly struggle and we cannot succeed fully without
12 using tools that either do not yet exist or are
13 now viewed as impractical. To succeed we must be
14 aggressive and persevering. Constant vigilance is
15 not only the price of liberty; it is also a part
.18 of the price of survival.
17 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Holmer, for
18 a very excellent statement.
19 Do we have any comments or questions?
20 MR. JAHNKEi Could I ask him a question?
21 MR. STEINs We don't take any questions
22 from the floor. I am sorry. If we threw this open
23 to., the floor, I think we would get a permanent lease
24 on the hotel.
25 Are there any other questions or comments?
-------
3115
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 MR. POSTON: I would like to aak Mr. Holmer,
3 In the first part of his paper, as I understand
4 this there will be set Intrastate standards on
5 Intrastate waters In the State of Wisconsin and
6 that you would expect to achieve these standards
7 In 10 years? Is this —
8 MR. HOLMER: Let me clarify that because
9 It is a more far-reaching statement than appears
10 on Its face. Indeed, there are those In Wisconsin
11 who have serious doubts as to whether It is possible
12 to achieve the goal as stated here within 10 years.
13 "The long-range goal of Wisconsin
14 intrastate standards..JB to permit the use of
15 water resources for all lawful purposes, including
16 the reproduction of game fish and minnows."
17 This is our highest standard of use.
18 And we have adopted as our own Internal challenge
19 the achievement of this objective within 10 years.
20 This Is more than we have promised anybody else
21 but ourselves. /
22 MR. STEIN: This goes above and beyond that.
23 MR. HOLMER: Yes, sir.
24 MR. STEIN: Are there any other further
25 comments or questions?
-------
3116
1 FREEMAN HOLMER
2 I think you have a very constructive
3 statement here, and In looking at all these rthink
4 we are very close together, but necessarily because
5 of the complexity of this all the four States have
6 come In with something slightly different. I think
7 we have a real challenge In trying to get our pro-
8 grams dovetailed to meet the Lake Michigan Conference.
9 Are there any other questions?
10 (No response.)
11 MR. STEIN: Do you have any further
12 people from Wisconsin?
13 MR. HOLMERj We do not.
14 MR. STEIN: You do not.
15 We have consulted with the Conferees, and
16 because of driving conditions—I will take the
17 blame for this; Mrs. Rankin calls me a slave driver—
18 we are going to go right through. I am Just calling
19 a recess now for 10 minutes. We will reconvene at
20 that time and the next thing we will take up will
21 be the Federal Conclusions and Recommendations
22 which have been presented by Mr. Robert Schneider
23 earlier. We deferred comment on these until now.
24
Before that, I do think that Mr. Poole
25
has a statement to make.
-------
3117
1 STATEMENT OF H. LaBRANT
2
3 INDIANA PRESENTATION (CONTINUED.)
4
5 MB. POOLE: I have a statement here that
6 has been handed in this morning by Mr. H. LaBrant,
7 of Whiting, Indiana, which I would merely like to
8 enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, without reading
9 it.
10 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
11 (which said statement is as follows:)
12
13 STATEMENT OP H. LaBRANT
14 WHITINQ, INDIANA
15
16
February 6 press reports allege that the
17
State of Indiana produces the majority of the
18
pollution of Lake Michigan. This places great
19
importance on the acts of the City of Hammond,
20
Indiana, which has dumped most of this pollution
21
into Lake Michigan.
22
The acts of the City of Hammond have
23
nullified hundreds of millions of dollars of
24
construction of the Sanitary District Cal-Sag Canal
25
designed to scavenge the domestic and industrial
-------
3118
1 STATEMENT OP H. LaBRANT
2 wastes of the Calumet District of Indiana by
3 drainage of the Calumet Rivers.
4 The City of Hammond, Indiana, has diverted
5 the majority of the,Industrial and domestic filth
6 of Gary, East Chicago, Indiana Harbor, and Hammond,
7 Indiana, from the Cal-Sag Canal and dumps It into
8 Lake Michigan.
9 The enormity of the pollution contribution
10 by the City of Hammond and the relative ease, speed,
11 and low cost of reversing this pollution diversion
12 makes it difficult to understand why public exposure
13 of this gross pollution has been suppressed.
14 While all water pollution must be condemned
15 and corrected, if we must choose between the tempo*
16 rary pollution of a stream or a lake we should
17 choose the stream because a stream can be flushed
18 and rejuvenated, a lake cannot. If we must choose
between emptying Calumet area wastes into Lake
Michigan or the Cal-Sag Canal, it should be the
21 Cal-Sag.
22
-Three Indiana steel mills reported by
23
the press to be the greatest polluters of Lake
24
Michigan were scavenged by the Grand calumet River
25
and the Cal-Sag Canal before the unjustifiable acts
-------
3119
1 STATEMENT OP H. LaBRANT
2 of the City of Hammond diverted these and other
3 industrial and domestic pollutants into Lake Michigan.
4 Eleven years ago the City of Hammond,
5 Indiana, desired to replace the two-lane Columbia
6 Avenue Bridge across the Grand Calumet River with a
7 four-lane "causeway fill" to save the cost of a
8 bridge and petitioned the Corps of Engineers for
9 permission to dam the river which had been navi-
10 gated and had many lift bridges.
11 A remonstrance against permitting the dam
12 across the Grand Calumet River was presented at the
13 Corps of Engineers hearing alleging that the culverts
14 proposed were inadequate to carry the flow, that
15 they would become silted and obstructed resulting
16 in diversion of most of the polluted wastes this
17 stream carried into Lake Michigan thru the Indiana
18 Harbor Ship Canal.
19 The Colonel in charge of the hearing
20 agreed that diversion of pollution into Lake Michigan
21 would probably result, but stated he had to reject
22 the remonstrance because the Corps of Engineers was
23 authorized by law only to consider the effect on
24
navigation and flood control, not pollution and
25
public health, safety, and welfare. Certainly
-------
3120
1 STATEMENT OP H. LaBRANT
2 Congress should promptly correct this limitation;
3 water pollution and public health are more important
4 considerations than the navigation of a coal barge.
5 The silting and obstruction of the culverts
6 by debris and vegetation has exceeded the expecta-
7 tions of the remonstrators. As a consequence, near
8 the Illinois-Indiana State line the formerly navi-
9 gable Grand Calumet River has been reduced by the
10 Hammond Dams to an ankle deep, six foot wide creek
11 with little current. By contrast, the outflow from
12 the Grand Calumet River in the Indiana Harbor Ship
13 Canal at the Columbus Drive Bridge is navigable by
14 Great Lakes freighters and has a strong current
15 rushing out into Lake Michigan and carrying most of
16
the Calumet area pollutants.
17
This can be reversed by removing the
Hammond Dams and placing a temporary coffer dam
19
across the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal near Columbus
20
Drive: to force hydraulic cleaning of the silted
21
Grand Calumet channel caused by the Hammond Dams.
22
Positive flow in the Indiana Harbor Ship
23
Canal away from Lake Michigan can be provided
24
with a large volume low head screw or other type
25
of irrigation pump to move water past the coffer
-------
3121
STATOdENT JP H. LaBRANT
dam until locks are built at the mouth of the
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal to protect Lake Michigan,
similar to the protecting locks at the mouth of the
Chicago River.
(Signed) H. LaBrant
Whiting, Indiana
(The following photograph was submitted
by H. LaBrant:)
Grand Calumet - West of Holmann Ave. bridge
-------
3122
I FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON PEST CONTROL
2 MR. STEIN: Do you have any other state-
3 ment to introduce?
4
5 FEDERAL PRESENTATION (CONTINUED.)
6
7 MR. POSTON: We have, I think, about
8 two statements, Mr. Cook has those, that I would
9 like to distribute to the Conferees at this time
10 and have them introduced into the record.
11 MR. STEIN: These statements will be
12 distributed and entered into the record, if there
13 is no objection, as if read. And if I hear no
14 objection, I am presuming they will be entered into
15 the record.
16 (Which said statements are as follows:)
17
18 STATEMENT OP
19 FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON PEST CONTROL
20 8120 WOODMONT AVENUE
21 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20014
22
23 February 2, 1968
24
25
-------
3123
1 FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON PEST CONTROL
2 Mr. Grover Cook
3 Great Lakes Region
4 Federal Water Pollution Control
5 Administration, USDI
6 33 East Congress Parkway, Room 410
7 Chicago, niinois 60605
8
9 Dear Mr. Cook:
10 It was a pleasure to attend the first two
11 days of the Enforcement Conference on the Pollution
12 of Lake Michigan and I wish that I could have stayed
13 longer.
14 There was a question asked following
15 Dr. Carbine's report at the close of the day on
16 Thursday, February 1, which I felt should have
17 further comment. However, the time of day was not
18 propitious for an extended gratuitious answer from
19 the floor. Nevertheless, the following comments
20
may be of interest to.the panel if it is not too
late to insert them into the record.
22
Dr. Carbine had indicated that the present
23 levels of pesticides in Lake Michigan were not yet
24
at a critical level but some of them were approach-
25
ing such levels. Mr. Idassen asked, what are
-------
312!*
I FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON PEST CONTROL
2 considered lethal levels of pesticides and how are
3 they determined? The answers given by Dr. Carbine
4 and Mr. Stein were correct, since it is true that
5 no satisfying simple answer can be given to this
6 question. Nevertheless, it would be unfortunate to
7 leave the panel with the impression that little or
8 nothing is known on this important subject. The
9 facts are that a great deal of excellent research,
10 both in the laboratory and In the field, has been
n done on hazards to fish and other aquatic organisms
12 from a variety of pesticides. Much of the data on
13 EC 50's (the concentration which produces the
14 expected effect in 50 per cent of the test popula-
15 tion) have been gathered and are being evaluated by
16 the National Technical Advisory Committee to the
17 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration on
18 Water Quality Criteria. However, all of this
19 research does not provide a straightforward simple
20 answer to such a generalized question as, What is
21 the lethal level of pesticides?, because the problem
22 is far more complex than is implied in the question.
23 In the first place, there are a wide variety of
24 pesticides each with its own toxic characteristics.
25 Secondly, with many different species of fish some of
-------
3125
1 FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON PEST CONTROL
2 them will have a very different sensitivity to
3 pesticides than do others. Moreover, fry are
4 frequently much more sensitive than are more mature
$ fish. For example, in some species of fish the fry
6 may be especially sensitive to certain formulations
7 of the weed killer 2,^-D but quite resistant to
8 other forms of the same weed killer. Another im-
9 portant fact is that most of the pesticides of
10 especial Interest have extremely low solubility in
11 water. Nevertheless, they may adhere to particles
12 and contaminate the sediment on the bottom. More-
13 over, they will be concentrated in various organisms
14 in the food chain. Therefore, the most significant
x
15 hazard to fish under certain circumstances might be
{
16 due to the effect upon the food chain rather than
17 because of their direct toxlcity to fish.
18 If I might be permitted to offer some
19 interpretations, I would suggest that these compli-
cations should not be a cause for despair or for
insisting on a simple though possibly inadequate
22
answer. Rather, I believe that the excellent
scientists who are currently studying this problem,
24
both In the four States involved in the Conference
25
and in the Federal Government, should be encouraged
-------
3126
1 FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON PEST CONTROL
2 to continue if not expand their studies. At the
3 same time, efforts to find substitutes for the
4 toxio pesticides should be continued or expanded
5 and techniques should be sought to reduce the con*
6 tamlnation of lakes and streams by such pesticides.
7 Advantage should be taken of the fact that the
8 levels in Lake Michigan are not yet critical so
9 that an orderly solution to this problem can be
10 found,
11 The potential danger of a premature
12 solution might be illustrated by the current claims
13 in the cotton growing areas of the Southwest that
14 restrictions on the use of persistent chlorinated
15 hydrocarbon pesticides have resulted in more severe
16 damage to the environment than would have occurred
17 from DDT. Specifically, two non-persistent pesti-
18
cides, carbaryl and azodrin, have been used in
place of DDT for the control of certain cotton
20
insects. Carbaryl, a carbamate, does not persist
21
in the environment but it is extremely toxic to
22
honeybees and it is claimed that it has nearly wiped
23
out bees and other Important pollinators from wide
24
areas. Similarly, azodrin, an organic phosphorus
25
insecticide, likewise disappears rapidly from the
-------
I 3127
1 FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON PSST CONTROL
2 environment but is nevertheless very toxic to certain
3 birds and has killed large numbers of quail and doves
4 in these cotton growing areas.
5 I have no factual data on the accuracy of
6 these reports but they sound reasonable and illua-
7 trate my suggestion that we should not risk an
8 unknown danger in order to forestall a known danger
9 which has not yet reached critical proportions.
10 Rather we should take advantage of the grace period
11 still remaining before us to find more desirable
12 alternatives.
13 I will be looking forward to the recommen-
14 datlone of this Conference with a great deal of
15 interest. I am sorry that I could not remain
16 through the balance of the presentations.
17 Sincerely yours,
18
19 William M. Upholt, Ph.D.
Executive Secretary
21
Federal Committee on Pest Control
22
23
24
25
-------
3128
1 STATEMENT OP VERNE M. BATHURST
2
3 STATEMENT BY VERNE M. BATHURST
4 STATE CONSERVATIONIST, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
5 EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN
6
7 Mr. Chairman:
8 I appreciate this opportunity to make a
9 statement at this Conference. The U. S. Department
10 of Agriculture and the Soil Conservation Service
11 have an interest in pollution problems, particularly
12 as they relate to pollution from sediment.
13 The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is the
14 U. S. Department of Agriculture technical arm of
is action for soil and water conservation. It cooperates
16 closely with Federal and State agencies that deal
17 with loans, cost-sharing, fish, wildlife, recreation,
is and other matters related to land and water use.
H We stand ready to cooperate in any way
20 which we can to control erosion and thereby reduce
21 pollution by sediment in Lake Michigan.
22 The problem of water pollution, especially
23 that caused by sediment, cannot be dealt with effeo-
24 tively without considering the lands upon which it
25 falls. The treatment of those lands is a primary
-------
3139
1 STATEMENT OP VERNE M. BATHURST
2 concern to the Soil Conservation Service.
3 The discharge of sediment into water
4 supplies has, in the past, often been associated
5 with only agricultural lands. This is no longer true.
6 Serious erosion, sediment production, and
7 resulting pollution occurs on lands used for any and
8 all purposes -if those lands are left unprotected.
9 There is evidence that major sediment deliveries
10 are taking place in our streams and lakes within
11 the Lake Michigan drainage area from other than agri-
12 cultural lands. This is particularly true of those
13 areas of suburban and industrial development near
14 our major cities, many of which are in close proxim-
15 ity to water areas. The same is true to a large
16 degree of any industrial, municipal, or recreational
17 development which Includes scarifying the land and
18 leaving it uncovered to the ravages of erosion during
19 periods of construction. The extent of the severity
20 of sedimentation will depend upon the erosiveness
21 of the soil, the length of time which the soil is
22
left exposed, the season which it Is exposed, and
23 the topography in the area, plus the proximity to
24 streams or lakes.
Excessive sediment is essentially harmful
-------
3130
1 STATEMENT OP VERNE M. BATHURST
2 to all beneficial uses of water. The coat of
3 filtration of water for domestic and industrial
4 uses generally exceeds all other costs. Sediment
5 smothers and Inhibits aquatic life and greatly
6 reduces the recreation potential of the Nation's
7 lakes, streams, and reservoirs. It fills streams,
8 channels and lakes, requiring costly maintenance,
9 It impairs the oxidation of organic pollutants in
1° streams. Sediment causes erosion of power turbines,
11 pumping equipment, and other structures.
12 The quality of our water depends upon how
13 it IB treated from the time it falls as precipitation.
14 Since practically all of our precipitation falls on
15 land. The treatment that it receives has a major
18 bearing on water quality.
17 The treatment measures of which I speak
18 are those which reduce the velocity of water to the
18 point where it will not carry significant amounts
20 of sediment. Also Important are those measures
21 which provide sufficient cover for the land to pre-
22
vent the dislodging of soil particles which later
23
become detrimental sediment in our lakes, rivers,
streams, such as Lake Michigan and its tributaries.
25
The same practices which have so
-------
3131
1 STATEMENT OP VERNE M. BATHURST
2 effectively controlled erosion on agricultural lands
3 can, with modification, be applied to all other land
4 uses where erosion is a problem. The same principles
5 Apply in either case.
6 All sources of sediment must have unified,
7 coordinated attention if we are to overcome this
8 threat to our water resources. Whether the sediment
9 source is farmland, surface-mined areas, roadsides,
10 streambanks, or from land being converted to urban
ll or Industrial uses; the greatest progress can be
12 made when all Interests, public and private, in a
13 drainage area unite their efforts. Attempts to deal
14 with the problems piecemeal are costly and in many
15 instances ineffective. Many land users, public
16 and private, have not fulfilled their responsibility
17 toward pollution abatement through sediment control.
18 Preliminary studies in Michigan Indicate
19 that as much as 100 tons of soil per acre per year
were being eroded from sites undergoing urban devel-
21 opment. This is twenty times that considered an
acceptable loss from agricultural land. Soil can
23
be conserved in place for three to five cents per
24 cubic yard. The costs of removing sediment from -
25
water or streambeds are many times higher.
-------
3132
1 STATEMENT OP VERNE M. BATHURST
2 The Soil Conservation Service and the
3 U. S. Department of Agriculture has a wealth of
4 experience and skill In dealing with soil, water,
5 plants, and animals - the basic resource elements
6 in our environment. Limited as the programs are for
7 dealing with roadsides, atreambanks and surface-mined
8 areas, we have knowledge and skills that can be
9 applied to these sources of sedimentation and pollu-
10 tlon. This knowledge and skills are those which
11 have been developed in carrying out an effective
12 nationwide soil and water conservation program.
13 Much has been and is being done to correct
14 erosion problems. The Soil Conservation Service
15 works closely with soil conservation districts.
16 These districts, which are local entities of State
17 Government, provide local leadership for soil and
18 water conservation programs. The Service also
19 cooperates closely with planning commissions, land
20 use boards, health officials, county governments,
21
and others by providing soils information and tech-
22
nical counsel in erosion control and the wise use
23 of land.
24
Our soil scientists conduct soil surveys
25
to determine the erosivenees, and other characteristica
-------
3133
1 STATEMENT OF VERNE M. BATHURST
2 of the Individual soils. Soil Conservation Service
3 soil conservationists then develop conservation
4 plans, with the landowner, which spell out the
5 conservation practices necessary to control erosion
6 and excessive runoff. This assistance Is available
7 to all landowners and land users - be they individual
8 or group, public or private. Technical assistance
9 Is then provided as necessary In the Installation
10 of the needed conservation measures. Other agencies
11 within the Department can In some cases provide
12 cost-sharing or loans for conservation measures.
13 Soil Conservation Service engineers have
14 worked closely with the Bureau of Public Roads to
15 develop guidelines for minimizing possible soil
16 erosion from highway construction. We have worked
17 with County Governments in some parts of the Nation
18 as they developed county sediment control programs
19 to control sediment In the urbanizing areas of
20 their counties. We stand ready to provide the
21 same cooperation with individual or groups of
22
counties in the Lake Michigan basin should they
23 desire to Implement such a program.
In summary, I would again stress the
25
seriousness of sediment as a pollutant. I would
-------
313**
1 STATEMENT OP VERNE M. BATHURST
2 also strees the fact that we now have the technical
3 know-how to control excessive sedimentation on
4 nearly all land uses. Additional efforts and a
5 willingness to carry out necessary conservation
6 measures is needed by all land users to effectively
7 control the sediment pollution problems in Lake
8 Michigan and its tributary streams.
9 We in the U. S. Department of Agriculture
10 and the Soil Conservation Service stand ready to
11 participate in active programs to solve the problem.
12
13 MR. STEIN* We will stand recessed for
14 ten minutes.
15 (Recess.)
16 MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
17
All the material that was presented by
18 Mr. Poston will be entered into the record as if
19 read, the material that he presented before the
recess, as there is no objection.
21 Mr. Schneider.
22
We will now give the Conferees an
23
opportunity to comment on the Federal Conclusions
24
and Recommendations.
25
-------
3135
ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2
3 DISCUSSION ON CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
* IN THE PWPCA REPORT
5
6 MR. STEIN: Who wants to start?
7 Or would you suggest that I go down
8 these one at a time? I hope the people in the
9 audience can find this. This may be a little
10 better procedure; let me see If we might get
11 uniformity.
12 I will start on page 63. Is that
13
correct, Mr. Schneider?
14 MR POSTON: Sixty-five.
15 MR. SCHNEIDER: The conclusions start
16
on 63 and the recommendations on 65.
17 MR. STEIN« Sixty-five, right. All
18
right. I thought my reading glasses were
19
working.
20
To save time I will not read these.
21
If you want to follow the ball game, get one
22
of these books out.
23
No. 1 conclusion. Any comment?
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman.
25
MR. STEIN: Yes.
-------
3136
I ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. MITCHELL: Page 65 la the recommenda-
3 tlons and you say No. 1 conclusion.
4 MR. STEIN: Yes. I am going to cover
5 the conclusions first on page 63. No. 1.
6 Are you all set? Any comment or
7 question?
8 (No response.)
9 MR. STEINi If not. No. 2.
10 (No response.)
11 MR. STEIN; There la no comment?
12 By the way. If we pass one, we can go
13 back, in other words, you are not foreclosed
14 if I pass one.
15 No. 3.
16 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman. .
17 MR. STEIN: Yes.
18 MR. HOLMER: The next to last sentence
19 of this conclusion is that feasible methods exist
20 for bringing this problem under/control. I presume
21 that this does not mean that our present research
22 projects at Green Bay and Milwaukee would be
23
unproductive.
24 MR. SCHNEIDER: I wouldn't think so, no.
25
We would still want to continue on with the research
-------
3137
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 program.
3 MR. STEIN: Any other comment?
4 MR. HOLMER: Well, let me pursue this
5 juat a bit.
6 Would it be more appropriate to modify
7 that or limit it to technical feasibility? We
8 may be talking in some of these methods about rather
9 expensive methods, and your feasibility in this
10 sense is restricted to technical feasibility
11 rather than a description of economic feasibility.
12 MR. SCHNEIDER: I think based on Dr.
13 Weinberger's testimony, he feels that feasible
14 methods do exist and we based our conclusions on
15 the information that we had from Dr. Weinberger.
16 MR. HOLMER: Some of that Information
17 indicated certain removal capabilities for certain
18 of the chemical precipitation processes were
19 achieving 99 percent removal capability, for
20 example. This, however, was in at least two
21
instances, to our knowledge, In Wisconsin based
22
on the use of filter samples. The data submitted
23
by Dr. Weinberger were to the effect that we
24
could hope for three-cent, four-
-------
3138
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 yesterday, I recognize, at least In part, for the
3 cost of chemicals. But we are talking here In a
4 range of increased sewage treatment costs all told,
5 including capital Investment and disposal of sludge,
6 et cetera. Are we not talking about an Increase In
7 total cost of sewage treatment In excess of 50 per-
8 cent over current conventional methods?
9 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, before hearing
10 Dr. Weinberger I would probably have agreed with
11 that, but the cost, as I recall, that he quoted
12 Included the capital Investment.
13 ... MR. HOLMER: Yes. But what I am asking
14 really is the comparison between the costs he
15 cited, which are up, let's say, at 4 cents and did
16 not include the sludge removal. Are the total
17 costs not in excess of 50 percent of current
18 secondary treatment?
19 MR. SCHNEIDER: Frankly, I wouldn't—
«n
MR, HOLMER: I think we would want to
21
pursue this further when the appropriate time
22
comes. But I wanted to raise this question
23
because it is a matter which we should understand
24
before we proceed with concurrence on proposed
25
recommendations.
-------
3139
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. SCHNEIDERi Well, again my impression
3 from Dr. Weinberger's presentation was that the
4 costs he presented were the total costs for this
5 additional removal; and I think when Mr. Fierce
6 discussed their projects yesterday that, well, he
7 said the cost was only for the chemical addition,
8 this was based on incomplete mixing of the chemi-
9 cals, there was no flocculation provided, and they
10 were Just introduced in a lift station, for example,
11 where there wasn't adequate mixing. So there is
12 a difference in the cost from what Dr. Weinberger
13 was talking about and what Mr. Pierce was dis-
14 cussing. It is going to cost more, there is no
15 doubt about it.
16 MR. WISNIEWSKI: Mr. Schneider,
17
Weinberger's costs are based on plants with a
18
10 million gallon per day capacity. He says
19
they can hit 5 cents per thousand gallons. This
20
is what Weinberger said.
21
Now, how many plants do we have in
22
this entire drainage basin which have capacities
23
of 10 million to 20 million gallons per day? We
24
have many little plants of 100,000 gallons; capac-
25
ity, 200,000, 500,000. Certainly these are not
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 going to be able to do this at the 5 cent per
3 thousand gallon rate. Theira are going to be
4 more nearly 10 cents to 15 cents per thousand
5 gallons, and the practical test, Manitowoc, said
6 10-1/2 cents per thousand gallons.
7 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, I think if you
8 want an answer to that, we would have to go to
9 the recommendations. The recommendations did
W not call for removal of phosphates in the smaller
11 plants beyond the percentage indicated in Recom-
12 mendation No. 2, which apparently can be achieved
13 through modifications in existing secondary treat-
14 ment facilities. In other words, there wasn't an
15 intent here to get the maximum phosphate removal
16 that Dr. Weinberger was talking about in all of
17 the plants in the basin.
18 MR. WISNIEWSKI: That seems to be the
inference, however, of the conclusion and the
recommendation related to it.
21 MR. STEIN: Are you people agreed on
22
what you mean? Because I think this can be
adjusted.
24 MR. WISNIEWSKI: I think we can certainly
25
agree that maybe Dr. Weinberger's processes will
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 x accomplish removal of 80 percent of the phosphate
3 at a cost of 5 cents per thousand gallons in plants
4 in the range of 10 million gallons to 20 million
5 gallons per day, but these costs will not apply
6 for the communities that have flows of 100,000
7 to 500,000 gallons per day. Their costs will
8 be considerably higher than this unit figure.
9 They just don't have this economy-sized package.
10 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, again I think
11 that Dr. Weinberger's cost figures were aimed
12 toward removal beyond what you can expect in a
13 secondary treatment plant with minor modifications.
14 Now, hopefully you can achieve this 80 percent
15 removal in smaller plants without the costs that
16 he was talking about.
17 MR. WISNIEWSKI: The actual test runs
18 upon which Dr. Weinberger based his conclusions
19 indicated that on a full plant scale they were
20 doing from 4? percent to 77 -percent removal,
21 on full-scale plants. The other higher figures
22 were obtained on pilot scale and on lab scale
23 sizes. So that when you get to actual full-
2* scale you are not going to get anywhere near
25
80 percent removal, and the bigger the plant
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 the less your chances of getting a high removal.
3 MR. KLASSEN: I have a question,
4 Mr. Chairman.
5 MR. STEIN: Yea, Mr. Klassen.
6 MR. KLASSEN: Are you through, Mr.
7 Holmer?
8 MR. HOLMER: Yea.
9 MR. KLASSENs There la one point that
10 i want to Inject here. I first hope that we
11 have feasible methods.
12 There is one phase of this that Dr.
13 Weinberger did not cover; and I say this from
14 our own personal experience because we are right
15 In the process now of having a plant designed in
16 the Chicago area for nutrient removal, phosphate
17 removal, and this is the problem of adding to the
18 effluent dissolved chemicals. In other words, you
19 can add chemicals to remove the phosphates, but I
20 believe—and I would like a comment from somebody
21 who knows more about it than I do—that you also
22 are at the same time increasing the dissolved
23 chemicals In the effluent.
24 As I recall, in Michigan I think they
25
referred to this where they were using some iron
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 Salts that they noted an increase In the iron
3 content of their effluent. Does somebody want
4 to comment on that?
5 MR. STEIN: I asked Or. Weinberger
6 about that myself, you know, after he gave his
7 testimony. I don't want to necessarily give
8 second-hand information, but his reply to me
9 was that it would not be a significant problem.
10 MR. KLASSEN: It would not be?
11 MR. STEINz That is what he said. This
12 was the one thing that occurred to me, Mr. Klasaen,
13 and right after his testimony I questioned him on
14 that very carefully, but I am not, of course,
15 making the reply as having expert knowledge on
16 this. I am Just reporting my conversation with
17 Dr. Weinberger.
18 MR. KLASSEN: The Conferee from Michigan,
19 or Mr. Post on?
20 MR. POSTON: I might comment on that
21 briefly, Clarence.
22 MR. KLASSEN: All right.
23 MR. POSTON: The use of iron as a
24 coagulant, the iron is put in there in Michigan
25 in the form as iron chloride, and it is the intent
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 that the phosphate la picked up by the Iron and
3 settled out, and so that, at least theoretically,
4 all of the Iron would go to the bottom and be
5 removed with the sludge and the phosphate.
6 The chloride radical would remain in
7 the solution, and If excess of lime were used
8 some of the additional dissolved solids would also
9 come out similar to a water softening plant where
10 excess lime treatment Is used.
11 So depending upon the process, the
12 method that is applied. It could actually reduce
13 the dissolved solids.
14 MR. KLASSEN: But it could also increase
15 lt?
16 MR. POSTON: But It could also increase
17 it.
18 MR. VOGT: I might comment about that,
19 Clarence, a little bit. As you noted from our
presentation yesterday, we did find some Increase
21
in the iron in the effluent, and of course the
22
amount of iron will vary depending upon the limits
23
that we go to or we attempt to reach In removal of
24
the phosphates. If we want to remove higher quanti
25
ties of phosphates and necessarily have to add
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 additional Iron, then we are going to have some
3 additional iron in the effluent, and a lower
4 phosphate residual we will have less iron in the
5 effluent.
6 MR. KLASSEN: Thank you.
7 MR. VOGT: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman,
8 that we are getting into some technical discussions
9 here that might well involve some of our more tech-
10 nical colleagues to answer some of these questions.
11 MR. KLASSEN: I think, Mr. Chairman,
12 too, like Mr. Vogt said, that this might be a
13 reason for our maybe reconsidering something
14 that Is as definite as here in the recommendations,
15 because we are right today faced with approving or
16 disapproving methods for phosphate removal, I
17 think that I am for coming out with something real
18 definite, but I also hope that in so doing we are
19
on a pretty firm technical basis so we won't be
accused of spending money unnecessarily or making
21
the city spend it. I know we all feel this way.
22
MR. STEIN: I think you are entirely
right. The questioners will have the advantage of
24
seeing where we need to produce the technical
25
people to get up this Information.
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 in Lake Michigan we are faced with a
Q
problem. If what was said here in the statements
4 is true and Lake Michigan is eutrophying at a
pretty rapid rate, I am not sure we have the time
to make too many mistakes. We have to be pretty
7
sure we are going to come up with the right kind
p
of program. We may not have the second chance.
9
And BO we are going to have to look at these problems
very, very carefully.
All right. Are there any other comments
12
on that?
13
Yes.
U
MR. VOGT; Mr. Chairman, along this line,
15
Conclusion No. 3, in the second line where it
16
makes reference to other lakes within the basin,
17
and then also going back to Item No. 2 where it
18
says water uses of Lake Michigan and its tribu-
19
taries, we have a question about the applicability
20
of any conclusions or recommendations to tributaries
21
as well as the lake*
22
In other words, for example, these water
23
uses of Lake Michigan which are impaired, or
24
which are alleged to be impaired, we pointed out
25
in our report that swimming has not been impaired
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 In Lake Michigan whatsoever.
3 Now, the question I raise is how do
4 these conclusions and recommendations bear on the
5 tributaries? It would seem that they might well
6 be appropriate to direct discharges Into the lake
7 and In the tributaries possibly to those parameters
8 where the discharge Is to a tributary where the
9 parameter Is not changed In any way by the forces
10 of nature before entering Lake Michigan and do not
11 produce an Injury.
12 MR. STEINt Are there any other comments
13 on that?
14 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, my only comment is
15 MR. VOOT: In other words/ Bob, as you
16 will recall, when your report was presented,
Mr. Oemlng raised the question about how might
18
any depletion of oxygen at Lansing affect the
19 oxygen content of Lake Michigan. And as I recall,
your conclusion was that you didn't think that
21
this would be affected.
22
MR. SCHNEIDERS I am sure in that case
23
the stream probably recovers before It discharges
24
to Lake Michigan, but—
25 MR. VOOT: This is the point that I
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 wanted to make, is it appropriate for all of these
3 recommendations to be equally applicable to the
4 tributaries as to Lake Michigan?
5 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, I think that the
6 biochemical oxygen demand that is exerted, say,
7 at 50 miles upstream does have effects on Lake
8 Michigan, and that the by-products of it, phos-
9 phates, for example, are still carried into the
10 lake.
11 MR. VOGT: All right, we won't dispute,
12 we won't have any question at all as to phosphates.
13 So, therefore, I think we need to be more specific
l4 in our conclusions. And if you are referring
15 specifically to phosphates, as far as Michigan is
16 concerned, this is not an item of dispute.
17 MR. STEIN: Are there any further—
18 MR. SCHNEIDER: No, I don't think we
19 are saying here that there is an oxygen deficiency
20 in the lake because of a particular depletion of
21 the oxygen sag $0 miles upstream, for example. But
22 I think we are saying that the tributaries are
23 polluted in regard to these parameters.
24 MR, VOOT: Which parameters again? See,
in other words, you have to be specific again.
-------
3149
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. SCHNEIDER: I think it goes down—
3 MR. VOQT: And as you mentioned, phos-
4 phates being one of them,, we agree that phosphates
s discharged at Lansing ultimately end up into Lake
6 Michigan. I think it is clear that some of the
7 other parameters which might well affect a trlbu-
8 tary a short distance downstream from a point of
9 discharge would not adversely affect Lake Michigan.
10 MR, POSTON: I think, Mr. Chairman, that
11 our major concern here ia the nutrient problem in
12 Lake Michigan, and that dissolved oxygen, while
13 we still have concern for all waters of Michigan
14 usable for desired water uses, our major concern
15 here in interstate pollution is the nutrient
16 problem.
17 MR. VOGT: I think that this coincides
18 with our statement in the conclusions of our
19 report, which I would Just like to read here,
that, "The Michigan agencies recognize the pol-
21
lution problems on waters tributary to Lake
22
Michigan and have in operation aggressive programs
23
for their full and timely correction. The present
24
deficiencies in waste treatment at Inland loca-
25
tlons do not contribute to pollutional conditions
-------
3150
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 in Lake Michigan except as a residual phosphate
3 loading carries on down to the lake."
* So that in effect it appears that we
5 were saying the same thing.
6 MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments?
7 MR, HOLMER: Well, certainly Wisconsin
8 would reserve the right to question whether some
9 of our phosphorous-laden waters which start on
10 the upper Fox and run through Lake Wlnnebago
11 could be demonstrated to reach Green Bay and
12 hence Lake Michigan. But certainly we would not
13 contest as a natter of principle the application
14 of conclusions of this Conference to the trlbu-
15 tary waters under terms that Mr. Vogt has been
16 talking about. In other words, the applicability
17 to the quality of Lake Michigan la the key
18 criteria.
}Q
MR. STEINt May I make a suggestion
20
here? And this is one, as I see It, that may
21
facilitate this.
22
A lot of the conclusions here may
23
relate to tributary streams of shoreline areas.
24
I think that the views of the States have been
25
made clear on this.
-------
3151
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 Now, I think we can reserve that
3 until we define this. We would like to have this
4 statement Just largely for olarifioation and
5 better understanding of the comment. But we oan
6 continue this general comment all the time.
7 On this question of jurisdiction, obviously,
8 in an interstate pollution problem there are certain
9 aspects of the case which are the important ones.
10 The other points may be intrastate operations now.
11 This is a question that the Conferees
12 are going to have to resolve. As the Secretary
13 pointed out to me before I left, after he looked
14 at this report, he said that it looks as if what
15 happens on these lakes is that we get severe
16 situations around the end and sides and we begin
17 to pick them to death and then we can't get at it
18 at the middle sometimes before it is too late.
19 Now, the question here in these
20 descriptive operations, I think, will be to
21 determine, I would suggest, whether these state-
22 ments are correct or clear. As to whether there
23 is a Jurisdictional matter for this Conference
24 to consider, we can take up when we formalize
25 these into conclusions and recommendations of the
-------
3152
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 Conferees to see what our Jurisdiction is. But I
3 think we can keep raising this Jurisdiotional
4 question on every one of these. The point is
5 well taken, but let's see if we can confine It
6 to this go-around, because this is a point that
7 can be repeated over and over again.
8 This is an essential point, I might
9 add, that the Conferees will have to come to
10 grips with when we promulgate our conclusions
11 and recommendations.
12 No. 4.
13 (No response.)
14 MR. STEIN: No. 5.
15 MR. POOLS: Mr, Stein.
16 MR. STEIN: Yes.
17 MR. POOLS: I Just want to reserve the
18 opportunity to examine some of the background
19 data on this business of sludgeworms all the way
20 from Chicago to Muskegon, Michigan. I have seen
21 a good many of the Indiana beaches to the east
22 of Gary that I certainly wasn't aware of their
23 being any sludgeworms there. I am Just making
24 that point.
25 MR. STEIN: Right.
-------
3153
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 Now again let me make It olear. We are
3 just going through this right now In a preliminary
4 fashion. You can come back to any point. By-
5 passing over any point, you haven't waived any
6 right to discuss or any rights In any way. We
7 are Just trying to go through this as we went
8 through the other reports for an attempt at
9 clarification, to see how close we can get
10 together. The way It looks to me, we are getting
11 pretty, pretty close.
12 No. 5.
13 MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chairman, I have a
14 comment on the conclusion as it appears In the
15 report. There la a typographical error. Benton
16 Harbor should have been moved Into the next—or
17 down the line,
18 MR. STEIN: Where does it come?
19 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, it says Michigan
20 City and Benton Harbor, Indiana. That should
21 have been down the line. It should have been
22 ' Muskegon and Benton Harbor, Michigan,
23 MR. STEIN: 0. K.
24
Any other comment?
25 , »
(No response.)
-------
3154
! ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. STEIN: If not, let's go to No. 6.
3 (No response.)
4 MR. STEIN: No. 7.
5 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman.
6 MR. STEIN: Yes.
7 MR. HOLMER: The last sentence of Item 7
8 says, "A special evaluation of the combined impact
9 of siting many reactors on the shores of the lake,
10 in relation to retention and flushing characteristics
n and to accumulation of radionuclides in aquatic
12 organisms, is desirable."
b I assume that this is intended as a
u declaration of Federal responsibility?
15 MR. STEIN: Qo ahead.
16 MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, I think this
17 was intended that this be a joint responsibility
18 here. It appears that many people have concern
19 about this, and I know Senator Muakie has indicated
20 he will hold hearings out in this area concerned
21 with these particular problems. We have had a
22 request from the Assistant Secretary that we
23 develop plans for special studies and we have had
24 some talks with some of the people concerned with
25 these particular power plants and I feel that the
-------
315!
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 States should be Involved In this special atudy
3 as well.
4 MR. HOLMER: We are certainly very
5 Interested and desirous of assuring ourselves
6 that no harm can result from the proposed installa-
7 tlons, but these are, after all. Federally-
8 approved installations, and while we want to
9 cooperate with you in the collection of data in
W order to protect our own interests, the leader-
11 ship for such investigation certainly must be
12 accepted as a Federal responsibility.
13 MR. STEIN: I think that point is well
14 taken, Mr. Kolmer. And as some of the people
15 at the table know, that is probably—at least I
16 spent a good deal of time in this battle on
17 nuclear energy and radioactivity in water. And
18 very often, because of the nature of the program,
19 we have to do the testing and provide the incen-
20 tive.
21 But in the cases that we have moved on
22
this, I have always found that we have had unanim-
23 ity with the State agencies concerned with water
pollution control. And I might say that our hand
25
in protecting these waters from radioactive
-------
3156
1 ROB2RT J. SCHNEIDER
2 contaminants has been materially strengthened
3 by joining with the States, and I hope you will
4 Join with us in this activity, because some of
5 these battles get pretty complex and pretty
6 tough and we would like to have your aid.
7 For example, I think when we did this
8 in the Colorado Basin States, we and the seven
9 States there were unanimous on every point, and
10 I think unless we stayed together we wouldn't
11 have achieved the victory out there and the clean*
12 up out there that we did. We need your help, we
13 hope you work with us, but we recognize this aa a
14 responsibility and we won't let it go by the board.
15 MR. HOLMER: Thank you.
16 MR. VOQT; Mr. Chairman, even though
these nuclear energy plants are licensed by AEC,
18
we in Michigan have still felt that we had respon-
19
sibility in connection with any waste discharges,
20
and certainly we want to participate in any evaluation
21
of this nature,
22
MR. SCHNEIDER: John, aren't you already
23
sponsoring a study of one of the tributaries aa
24
an example of what the heat effect, at least, would
25
be upon the lake?
-------
3157
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 I understood from Mr. Oeming in conver-
3 sations with him that there is a study being con-
4 ducted under sponsorship of the Public Utilities
5 Commission in Michigan.
6 MR. VOGT; Offhand, I am not aware of
7 this. Bob. The nuclear energy plants that we have
8 now are right on the lake rather than tributary
9 to a—
10 MR. SCHNEIDER: No, but I think this
11 is one of the points that I made in my presenta-
12 tlon, that the discharge from these nuclear plants
13 is of the same magnitude as some of these tributary
streams, and apparently there is one of your larger
15 tributaries that have about the same temperature
16 differential that could be expected from a nuclear
17 powerplant. In other words, it was Intended, as
18 I understood, to study the—
19 Well, go ahead, Ralph.
20 MR. PURDY: This is Purdy from Michigan.
21
One of thecompanies1..new proposed:;nuclear.realtors
as a part of their initial statement and proposed
23 use and information to be furnished to the Water
24 Resources Commission, has contracted for a study
to be made of the effect of, say, the heated
-------
3158
I ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 discharge of the Grand River. The Grand River runs
3 at a higher temperature than Lake Michigan. It
4 also has an average flow about equivalent to that
5 of the new proposed reactor. And so study is being
6 made on the effect of this heat and where it goes
7 into Lake Michigan at the present time and this
8 information will be presented to us in our evalua-
9 tion of the problems that might be caused and the
10 restrictions that might have to be placed upon the
11 heat of discharge from this new reactor.
12 MR. SCHNEIDERS I think in addition to
13
the temperature effects there are other effects
14
that can be anticipated in terms of the growth
of slime, and so forth, in the conduits or pipes,
16
and whatever application of chemicals is used to
17
control this may have an effect upon the water also,
18
considering the large volumes of water that will be
19
used.
20
MR. PURDY: This study will include the
21
effects on the aquatic environment also.
22
MR. STEIN: If there are no further
23
comments, may we go to 8?
24 /
(No response.)
25
MR. STEIN: 9?
-------
3159
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 (No response.)
3 MR. STEIN: 10?
4 (No response.)
5 MR. STEIN: 11?
6 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman.
7 MR. STEIN: Yea.
8 MR. HOLMER: In this list of items which
9 is recited up through 11, there is no mention of
10 the potential Increase in the salt content of the
11 lake as a result of its use as a snow control
12 measure, we recognize that there is apparently
13 no adverse effect at this point, .but I would hope
14 that somewhere in this report, before it is con-
eluded, that there would be some reference to a
16
concern for this and advance protection against
any danger.
18 MR. STEIN: Mr. Schneider, was that
19
overlooked or could that be an addition that we
20
could put in, a concern.for the—
21 MR. SCHNEIDER: I think there were
22
some studies made on it by our office and I
23
think that we could have a concern here, yes.
24
MR. HOLMER: This is all that we can
25
offer from Wisconsin. We have engaged in a pretty
-------
3160,
! ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 careful study of the problem because we - use* a lot
3 of it, mountains of it. It undoubtedly finds its
4 way into the streams and into the lakes and we are
5 concerned. To this point the concern is not
B demonstrable to a degree that would warrant the
7 abandonment of its use, but we are afraid of the
8 kind of drift that brought us to where we are, and
9 so we would want to express some concern about it.
10 MR. STEIN: I think that point is well
ii taken and that is something that has to be guarded
12 against in the lake.
13 How about No. 11?
14 (No response.)
15 MR. STEIN: 12?
l6 (No response.)
17 MR. STEIN» 13?
18 (No response.)
19 MR. STEIN: That finishes the Conclusions.
20 Now we will move on to the Recommendations.
21 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, are you
22 waiting for comments on 1?
23 MR. STEIN: Yes.
24 MR. KLASSEN: General comments on
25
several of these, and I will refer specifically
-------
3163
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 to their numbers. We feel these are too general
3 and some rather vague, and specifically on
4 Recommendation 1, and I will file these with you
s as a document for this report.
6 (Which said document submitted by
7 Mr. Klassen Is as follows:)
8
9 MJLHOIIANDUM
10
" SUBJECT: LAKE MICHIGAN 4 STATE CONFERENCE -
12 January 31* 1968
13 DATE: February 1, 1968
14 PROM: C. W. Klassen, Technical Secretary
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
15
16
We have had an opportunity to pre-revlew
17
the general recommendations of the Federal Water
18
Pollution Control Administration In connection with
19
the Four State Conference on Lake Michigan pollution.
20
We would like to offer the following comments
21
numbered In accordance with the recommendations
22
presented.
1. Reference Is made "to the extent necessary".
•4
It appears that this statement should be more
25
specific. Also reference Is made to standards
-------
3162
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 However, no standards were recommended and
3 In view of the uaage of the word standards
4 In the Water Pollution Control Act of
5 we believe that this Is a reference to water
6 quality criteria.
7 5. The words "maximum treatment" is used.
8 We believe this requires further definition
9 as to what is meant by maximum treatment of
10 all Industrial waste.
11 8. The words "maximum practicable^1 are Used.
12 We believe this requires further definition
13 as to what is meant by the terminology*
14 9- The word "maximum^1 is used. It appears
15 that a more positive level of protectloh
16 desired is necessary rather than just the
17 terms maximum protection.
18 10. We do not understand the purpose or the
value of maintaining accurate recordd of
quantities of pesticides utilized on a
21
county basis. Other than pure statistics, we
22
do not understand the intent and purpose of
23 this item.
24
11. The statement "initiation of corrective
25
action where needed" appears to need
-------
3163
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 clarification. Particularly of the words
3 where needed.
4 16. in connection with the reference to
5 control over the discharge from watercraft,
6 we would be interested in knowing the status
7 of the proposed Federal regulations involving
8 interstate vessels on the Great Lakes.
9 18. Reference is made to prohibiting discharge
10 of oil. We are interested in knowing how the
11 presence of oil, or absence of It, will be
12 measured. What concentrations are indicated?
13 Would this mean 15 mg/1, 10 mg/1 or zero mg/1.
14 19. The statement "where necessary" appears
15 to need clarification.
16 21. Reference is made to polluted dredginga.
17 This needs definition and particularly the
use of the word polluted or the meaning of
19 the word pollution. Illinois recommends that
20
there be no dredginga of any nature or any
solid material deposited In the lake.
22
24. Where on Lake Michigan are hydroelectric
23
plants located and specifically where are any
24
which would Influence water temperature In
25
Lake Michigan.
-------
3164
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 Urtder specific recommendations reference
3 Is made to substantial reduction of nutrients.
4 What is meant by this terminology and what level
5 of measurable nutrient? The statement substantially
6 eliminate pollution from combined sewers needs
7 clarification as to what is meant by substantially.
8 • It is recognized that moat of these points
9 will be discussed in connection with the prepara-
10 tion of final recommendations. However, we desire
11 to point out the need for clarification at this
12 time.
13
14 (Signed) Clarence W. Klassen
15 C. W. Klassen, Technical Secretary
16 Illinois Sanitary Water Board
17
18 MR. KLASSEN: In reference to the words
19 "to the extent necessary," it appears that this
statement should be more specific.
21 Also reference is made to standards,
22
that Is the last word. However1, there are no
23
standards recommended in the report. Are we to
24
assume, in view of the usage of this word
25
"standards", that they will be the criteria that
-------
3165
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 are referred to In those approved by the Secretary?
3 Or will this Conference come out with standards to
4 reiterate it?
5 MR. SCHNEIDER: No, it refers to the water
6 quality standards approved by the Secretary.
7 MR. STEIN: This is a question of
8 drafting. I don't know if you are going to feel
8 any better about this, Mr. KLassen, but so far
10 I have gone right down the line with you on your
11 comments for the record. That is well taken. But
12 I think what you have indicated would require a
13 tightening up of these so we are specific and we
14 have a blueprint to move on from here.
15 Do you want to confine yourself to one
16 now or do you want to bring up the others?
17 MR. KLASSENi No, as you come down to
18 these. There are only four or five of them.
19 MR. STEIN: All right.
20 MR. VOOT: Mr. Chairman.
21 Also I have a question as to the defIni-
22
tlon of advanced waste treatment. I infer from
23
other comments in the Recommendations that this
24
is referring primarily to the removal of phosphates.
25
Is that correct, Bob?
-------
3166
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, I think we are
3 thinking in terms of additional removal. If you
4 remove phosphates you will get additional removal
5 of other constituents.
6 MR. VOGT? But back over here where you
7 get into your specific recommendations, I infer
8 from the language there that you are really pri-
9 marlly interested in the removal of phosphates
10 when you refer to advanced waste treatment. I
11 have a feeling that this needs to be clarified.
12 . MR. STEIN: I think again that point -
13 to.,be well taken. Sometimes I am not sure that
14 we are not hoist by our own petard when we talk
15 about primary treatment. Maybe we are all right
16 there. But then when we talk about secondary
17 treatment, tertiary treatment, advanced waste
IP
treatment, and not being sure precisely what we
is
mean or every State or every person having a
20
slightly different idea, it may be wise when we
21
are talking about this to try to be as specific
22
as possible.
23
You know, we talked about secondary
24
treatment in one State and then the State came
25
out with a definition of secondary treatment
-------
I 3167
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 which didn't coincide with our people, and I
3 have been out there adjudicating the flap ever
4 since. I think the more we talk in terms of
5 percentages or items like phosphate removal or
6 pounds per day and the more specific we can get,
7 the better off we are going to be in carrying out
8 these programs.
9 May we go to 2?
10 MR. POOLE: Mr. Chairman, on No. 2, I
11 am generally in accord with the 90 percent BOD
12 removal and the 80 percent phosphate removal, but
*3 I want to point out that if we are going back
14 onto the watersheds we have a few small trickling
15 filter plants in the State of Indiana that the 90
percent removal is going to be pretty tough on.
17 We have indicated in our report to the Secretary
that trickling filter plants had to do at least
19
80 percent removal and activated sludge plants
20
90 percent removal, and we would decide on the basis
21
of the given situation which system was applicable.
22 MR. POSTON: Mr. Poole, I think we like
23
to deal from a position of strength, and this is
24
what we think will do a good Job. And that is the
25
figure.
-------
3168
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. STEIN: I tell you, Mr. Poole's
3 comment is not the first time I have heard a
4 comment like that. We are going to have to
5 meet that problem, obviously, with a practical
6 program when we get down to really dealing with
7 pollution abatement. I don't think any statements
8 are going to make the problem go away.
9 I do think, Mr. Poole, that your
10 statement is pertinent indeed.. The problem
11 here is in dealing with a tremendously able e.nd
12 conscientious administrator like Mr. Poole,
13 when you talk about at least 90 percent, that is
14 what it means, and when you have a little old
15 plant where you may have a trickling filter and
Ifi
80 percent, but it is not really affecting thie>'
17
if the# are in technical violation of this, you
18
have a problem.
19
I think, Mr. Poole, your point is well
20
taken, and I would hope that the Conferees come
21
to grips with that realistically as early as
22
possible, because if you don't do it now, when
23
we get to working out the program we are sure
24
going to meet it.
25
MR. VOOT: Mr. Chairman, I would Just
-------
3169
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 like to support Blucher's comments in this
3 respect. This is basically our position in
4 Michigan too.
5 MR. STEIN: M*y we go to 3?
6 MR. POOLEi I have a comment on 3,
7 . Mr. Chairman.
8 MR. STEIN: Yes.
9 MR. POOLE: I have some reservations
10 about flat recommendations for year-round
11 chlorlnation in the St. Joe basin. We have
12 said that Gary and Hammond and East Chicago or
13 any other place that has a bearing on either a
14 beach or a public water supply—well, no, on a
15 public water supply should go to year-round
16 chlorination. In the St. Joe basin we had
17 said chlorination from April through October,
18 and I believe Mr. Klassen yesterday or the day
19 before raised the question about this chlorination.
20 MR. STEIN: Michigan has no problem
21 with this, I take it.
22
MR. POOLE: No, I understand that.
23
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments
24
or questions?
25
Let's go to No. 4.
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER 317°
2 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman.
3 MR. STEIN: Yes.
4 MR. HOLMER: I would assume that thia
5 sentence should read "Organic wastes and sanitary
6 sewage discharged by Industries receive the same
7 degree of treatment as recommended for municipal
8 wastes" rather than "the same treatment."
9 MR. STEIN: Yes. That Is what is meant,
10 isn't it?
11 MRi SCHNEIDER: Right. I think that
12 that would make sense.
13 MR. KLASSEN: I just want to raise the
i4 point here, I don't believe that we should tie
1s down industrial waste treatment, for example, to
16 a 90 percent BOD removal. Wouldn't It be possible
17 to—no, let me say, it is possible to have an
18 industrial waste with a BOD, we'll say, of 2,000
19 so you have a 90 percent removal and you are still
20 going to end up with a pretty strong effluent.
21 I think we ought to get something more
22 specific than this to know what kind of a Job is
23 going to be done.
24 MR. STEIN: Possibly. Don't they say
25
at least 90 percent? Ninety percent is the minimum.
-------
a 3171
1 I ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHNEIDERS Well, I can tell you
what we intended. Number one, In talking in
terms of advanced waste treatment, we expect that
you oan get better removal than 90 percent in
that type of treatment, and in many industrial
wastes I am sure you can get better than that.
MR. STEINi Do you really mean what
you Just said, Bob?
MR. SCHNEIDERt What is that?
MR. STEINi Do you really mean what
you just said, that you intended that in No. 1
to be the answer to this? Because if you did, I
think Mr. Klaaaen's point is well taken, that
these sure have to be tightened up. I will give
you my notion. In reading this No. 4, if I
thought that to go above 90 percent or something
in the municipal treatment I automatically had to
refer back to No. 1 to get the answer, I guess I
misunderstood. And I think we had better go
through these with the notion of clarifying them.
MR. VOOTi Mr. Chairman, it seems to me
that this discussion that is going on here
emphasizes the problem or points up the problem
that we get into when we Just specify any degree
-------
3172
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 of treatment. It seems to me what we are really
3 interested In is to prevent injuries and to pro-
4 tect legitimate uses of these waters. And, there*
s fore, it seems to me that we need to do whatever
6 is necessary to protect the uses in that particular
7 stretch of the stream or in Lake Michigan.
8 And one of the practices that we follow
9 in our orders is not necessarily to specify a
10 degree of treatment, but, rather, to impose a
11 loading on a particular discharger, whether it
12 be industry or whether it be a municipality. And
13 in terms of poundage allocation. And in this way
14 you are actually—then they do whatever treatment
is is necessary to get down to that load.
18 . MR. STEIN: That is always preferable.
17 I certainly agree with you on that, and we have
18 worked with Michigan on this problem many, many
19 times. I think, though, what Mr. Schneider was
20 giving was the area that we would tie going for in
these conclusions. Again, if you are a State
22
agency? I am in favor of coming up with the
23 poundage of load rather than a degree because
94
then you know where you are and.the City and
25
industry knows where they stand.
-------
I 3173
! ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 May we go on to 5?
3 MR. KLASSEN: On 5, Mr. Chairman, I
4 have a comment and that is the words "maximum
5 treatment." I think that this requires further
6 definition as to what is meant by "maximum treat-
7 ment." is this maximum as technically possible
8 or—I think I know what the implication is here
9 as much as is necessary.
10 MR. STEIN: Yes.
11 MR. KLASSEN: But I do feel that
12 maximum should be a little more definitive.
13 MR. STEIN: I think you are right, but,
14 Clarence, I think what we are doing is hitting a
15 variant on the same point. They will probably
16 answer that this comes back to that advanced
17 waste treatment in No. 1.
18 Now, I think we should flag all these
19 things, but you know, this sometimes reminds me
20 of when my younger girl went to elementary school
21 and she took a math test, she would make a mistake
22 and repeat that in every example and the grade
23 would go down.
24 I think your point is well taken and It
25 should be flagged. I think what they meant when
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 they referred to this Is that you apply that
3 advanced waste treatment, No. 1, to all of
4 these things to bring it up. I do agree with
5 you that we need a sharpening up of these things,
6 and wherever you make the point, it is well taken;
7 we will have to work on that.
8 MR. KLASSEN: I think the same thing,
9 Mr. Chairman, so I won't have to repeat myself,
10 applies, the same point, the same argument, to
11 No. 8; "maximum practicable," Is another type of
12 thing. It refers to a different area.
13 MR. STEIN: Right.
14 MR. KLASSEN: But when we have maximum,
15 maximum practicable, is this economically practical
16 03? what?
17 MR. VOOT: Mr. Chairman.
18 In connection with the Industrial waste
19 discharged to municipal sewer systems where at
20 all possible, I think this is basically sound.
21 I am sure Bob had in mind that if the industrial
22
wastes were not compatible to the biological process
23 and would seriously interfere with the biological
24
process at the municipal plant, then this would
25
not be required.
-------
3175
1 N ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, that la right.
3 MR. POOLE: I just wanted to endorse
4 what Mr. Vogt and Mr. Klassen said. I was going
5 to raise the same question they did.
6 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman.
7 MR. STEIN: Yes.
8 MR. HOLMER: I would like to say that I
8 intended to raise the same questions that the
10 preceding three Conferees raised.
11 (Laughter.)
12 MR. STEIN: And I am sure they didn't
13 consult. These Just come to mind. I think both
14 those points are very well taken.
& . No. 6.
1C
(No response.)
17 MR. STEIN: 7.
18 MR. KLASSEN: On 6.
19 MR. STEIN: Yes.
20 MR. KLASSEN: I think that really needs
21 a little tightening up. I know this wasn't done
22
by design, but when we say "Wastes from Federal
23 activities"—this is a little vague—"be treated
24
to degrees at least as good as that recommended
25
for other sources, now, if this isn't a
-------
3176
I ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 combination of vagaries, I have never read it.
3 What other sources? A degree as good as, this
4 doesn't mean— I know what is going to be
5 expected of the Great Lakes Naval Training Center at
B Port Sheridan, but I think this really needs
7 sharpening up in order to make the Federal
8 agencies themselves look good. I am not here
9 to —
10 MR. STEIN: I agree with you. I think
11 I know what they mean.
12 MR. KLASSEN: I do too,
13 MR. STEIN: But we have to rewrite
14 that.
15 7. la there any comment on 7*
16 combined sewers?
17 MR. BOSTON: Well, I think I have had
18 some question about combined sewers and elimination,
19 I think here again we feel that we have a demon-
20 stration and research program on ways to treat
21 the combined sewer overflows, such as Milwaukee,
22 and here in Chicago they have the deep tunnel
23 plan, and in such cases where there are other
24 provisions taken to handle this overflow problem,
we do not intend that separation sewers be required.
-------
3177
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. KLASSEN: Would you say that again,
3 Mr. Poston?
4 MR. POSTON: We don't Intend that sewers
5 be separated—for example, In Milwaukee or Chicago
6 they have a deep tunnel plan. They have a plan
7 that they are experimenting with in Milwaukee,
8 and if these prove satisfactory and will treat
9 this storm overflow, we don't feel that it is
10 necessary to separate the sewer for that particular
11 area where there are other devices employed.
12 MR. KLASSEN: I also feel that this
13 again is—this is a real Important question in
14 the Chicago area, like it is all over. Talking
15 about combined sewers, I think that new combined
16 sewers ought to be prohibited, not necessarily In
17 newly-developed urban areas but in existing urban
18 areas. According to this it might leave the impres-
19 aion, and I know that isn't what you want to leave,
that new combined sewer-s could be built in existing
21
urban areas. Here it says "be prohibited in all
22
newly-developed urban areas." We have prohibited
23
combined sewers in Illinois since 1929.
24
I think that needs sharpening up,
25
Mr. Chairman.
-------
3178
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. STEIN: I would agree with you, air.
3 8.
4 MR. KLASSEN; Well, I have already
5 commented on 8. I think when you talk about
6 maximum practical amount, this again needs aone
7 little more definitive language. We are talking
8 about tremendously large expenditures, and I
9 don't like to leave It open to conjecture and
10 whatnot on somebody else's part because we know
11 that these are going to be laid under our eyes
12 when they question some of these things and say,
13 well, this Is what the Conferees recommend. I
14 know the Importance of these. This Is why we are
15 a little particular on the language. These are
16 going to be used by people and when they might
17 question degrees of treatment In these things,
18 they are going to say, well, this Is what the
19 Conferees agreed to, and I Just want to make sure
that the language In here Is something that Is
21
not going to alter our getting this Job done In
22
a hurry.
23 _
MR. VOGT; Mr. Chairman, I presume No. 8
24
is referring to overflow regulating devices on
25
existing combined sewers?
-------
3179
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yea.
3 MR. VOGT: Is that correct?
4 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes.
5 MR. VOGT: 0. K.
6 MR. STEIN: Maybe that should be made
7 clear.
8 No. 9.
9 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, I think we
10 owe to the agriculturists a little more specificity
11 here as to the means to be used. We agree that
12 improvement is desirable, but I think we need to
13 tell them how.
14 MR. STEIN: Is there any comment on
is that? When I first saw this report, that was
16 the first comment I made, I think. I agree.
17 And I think that will have to be done.
18 MR. POSTONi I don't think we really
19 know how all the pesticides can be handled. I
20 think as a result of this meeting it is clear
21 to me that we not only need an Inventory to tell
22 where these pesticides are put out and sampling
23 needs to be done, but we need some licensing
24 laws, probably, in the State or Federal level
25 to control the application of these pesticides.
-------
3180
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. KLASSEN: Being on the State level,
3 I think I am glad you added that "or possibly
4 Federal laws" to tell a farmer when and how he
5 could apply fertilizer.
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. POSTON: Well, I was thinking primari-
8 ly of the contractors who would do this, maybe,
9 with airplanes or do It on a large scale.
10 MR. KLASSEN: This Is only about 15
11 percent of the application In Illinois, Mr. Boston.
12 I am talking about the other 85 by Individual
13 farmers.
" MR. STEINt Yes. Both Mr. Holmer and
15 Mr. Klassen as well as Mr. Poston have outlined
16 the problem. I think if there-is anything we can
17 do on this—and there may be things we can do—
18 we have to come up with a fairly specific program;
19 because I don't know that No. 9 tells anyone to
20 do anything or you have got any kind of program
21 that you can move forward on unless we come up
22 with something.
23 I recognize the limitations in working
24 with the pesticide program, one for which we
25 don't have standard techniques that we can put
-------
3181
1 ROBERm J, SCHNEIDER
2 forward) and secondly, It is hard to tell a
3 farmer what to doj and by the same token, when
4 wr deal with these pesticides or other poisons,
5 remember it is just as hard to tell that house-
6 wife who is in an apartment on the 14th floor of
7 one of your buildings what to put down the sink.
8 And a Federal or State law doesn't necessarily
9 handle this question.
10 This is a very difficult problem, and
11 I think if we are going to make any impact on
12 it we have to come up with some specific and
13 meaningful discussions on the way to move.
" MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman.
15 MR. STEIN: Yes.
16 MR. MITCHELL: It seems to me that one
17 item that has been left out or maybe overlooked
18 here is what contribution is being made by runoff
19 from our land in terms of a nutrient being sent
20 to the lake. I don't know that this problem has
21 ever been specifically looked at by any agency
22 of the Federal Government, although there is a
23 lot of work being done to control erosion through
24 the small watershed program and upstream report
25 station programs. It seems to me it might be
-------
3182
1 ROBERT J, SfHTEIDER
2 worthy for us to give consideration to Joining
3 together some forces here to give a real serious
4 look at this erosion problem.
5 MR. STEIN: I think, Mr. Mitchell, that
6 point is well taken. If we are talking in terms
7 of—these are the figures I have heard here—if
8 we are talking in terms of two-thirds of phosphates
9 coming from municipal and industrial sources and
10 one-third coming possibly from land runoff, and
11 we think phosphates are the critical element that
12 will have to be controlled, if we go around and
13 don't pay any attention at all to that one-third,
14 maybe we haven't done our Job.
15 MR. WISNE3WSKI: Mr. Chairman.
16 MR. STEINs Yes.
17 MR. WISNIEWSKI: I would like to make
18 a point of the fact that agriculture is not the
19 only source of pesticide contamination of surface
20 waters and that we should give some consideration
21 to including in our recommendations a reference
to the use of pesticides for forest and non-foreat
and non-crop lands by the people in their house-
24
holds, by the resort owners that are spraying for
25
mosquito control, and many of them are using the
-------
3183
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 non-degradable pesticides.
3 We find In studies, for example, that
4 some of our resort lakes which are far removed
5 from agricultural operations do contain in the
6 flah within the lakes substantially higher
7 quantities of pesticides than some of the areas
8 that are right in the agricultural area. This
9 may just be coincidence, but we do find it.
10 MR. STEIN: I think that point is well
11 taken.
12 You know, in the Federal establishment,
13 the Forest Service is in the Department of
14 Agriculture. I do think they consider them
is agricultural, although there may be some differ-
16 ences of opinion,
17 MR. KLASSEN: I think we have neglected
18 the farmer pretty much, Mr. Chairman, and I think
19 maybe, and I know from our own legislative experl-
20 ence they kind of back away as to how you can
21 control, but we have got a gun control law now
and they are going to control how much you can
23 spend abroad. It seems that to control pesticide
24 and fertilizer application by the farmer certainly
25 isn't as complicated as either of those two. I
-------
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 think this la something that the Federal Govern-
3 ment should address Itself to as well as the States.
4 I know In our State the last two sessions
5 of the legislature this came up and It was swept
6 under the rug. They appointed .a committee or a
7 commission.
8 MR. STEIN: Clarence, we may be able to
9 regulate or control how much you can spend abroad,
10 but we will never be able to regulate how much a
u broad can spend.
12 (Laughter.)
13 MR. KLASSEN: I don't agree with you.
14 MR. STEIN: No. 10.
15 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman.
16 MR. POOLE: Mr. Chairman, I personally
17 think No. 10 needs to be firmed up considerably
18 and be made more specific. It seems to me that
19 if I gathered anything from this last six days
20 it Is that we have got a common nutrient problem
21 in Lake Michigan and that we may be on the verge of
22 a common pesticide problem which goes clear back
23 to the watersheds and isn't confined solely to
24 the borders of the lake.
25
I for one would favor that that
-------
3185
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 recommendation be changed and that it include that
3 the States consider legislation to start the
4 regulation of pesticides. We can at least license
5 the commercial applicants, which admittedly don't
6 handle all of the stuff, but we have got to start
7 somewhere and it seems to me there is one place
8 to start.
9 MR. KLASSEN: Yes, I agree with Mr. Poole.
10 It is seldom we agree, but I agree with him on this.
11 (Applause.)
12 I think that what I said before, a
13 recommendation coming from these Conferees would
14 be real helpful in the legislatures of these four
15 States because I know what we are up against.
16 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, I would
17 certainly endorse what they have said. My
18 concern with items 10 and 11 is a little different.
19 In both cases the reference is to the
20 State water pollution control agency, and in many
21 of the States this may be appropriate, but certainly
it might be a Department of Agriculture in one case
23 or a Department of Natural Resources. Certainly in
24 our own State we might do better in 11, for example,
25
by having our conservation agency, which is another
-------
3186
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 division In our Department, have that responsl-
3 blllty. So I hope we won't specify in the
4 - recommendations.
5 MR. STEIN: I think that comment Is
6 very well taken.
7 Are there any other comments on 11?
8 MR. KLASSEN: On 10 or 11 I merely add
9 to what has been said. We have tried to get data
10 on the amount of pesticides and fertilizers used
H In at least two of our counties not too far from
12 where we are now. If anybody has any.,idea :how
13 you can go about this—I asked one of the other
14 speakers, an agricultural man—I have got two points
15 on this, are we just going to collect this Informa-
18 tlon, which Is all right, we need it, but if anybody
17 has got any ideas on this, I would sure like to know
18 it because we have tried it and have not been too
19 successful.
20 MR. STEIN: 12?
21 (No response.)
22 MR. STEIN: 13?
23 (No response.)
24 MR. STEIN: 14?
25
(No response.)
-------
318?
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. STEIN: 15?
3 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman.
4 MR. STEIN: Yea.
5 MR. HOLMER: Our law requires us to
6 foster the creation of sanitary districts with one
7 goal, being the elimination of septic tanks. How-
8 ever, we would prefer not to eliminate septic tanks
9 until there is an appropriate treatment replacement.
10 (Laughter.)
11 Also we would have an objection to the
12 proliferation of all inefficient treatment plants,
13 not only the small ones. In other words, this is—
14 MR. STEIN: Yes.
15 MR. HOLMER: We agree that generally
16 consolidation is a desirable proposition.
17 MR. STEIN: I think those points are
18 well taken.
19 Are there any other comments?
20 MR. MITCHELL: I didn't think Holmer
21 could talk so seriously about that situation.
22
(Laughter.)
23 MR. STEIN: 16.
24 MR. KLASSEN: 16, Mr. Chairman.
i-
25
I agree basically with what ia said here.
-------
3188
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 However, along with this I think deadlines ought
3 to be—maybe I am allergic to deadlines—deadlines
4 should be established on this when there will be
5 these uniform regulations as now provided by the
6 City of Chicago Code. That is one comment that I
7 think we will have to address ourselves to.
8 The other, and this is more a point of
9 information, knowing the status of any proposed
10 Federal regulations involving Interstate vessels
11 on the Great Lakes. I must agree with some of the
12 comments made by the small boat owners that there
13 should be some, direction toward regulating these
14 large lake vessels and interstate traffic. This
15 is a Federal responsibility. And Just what is
16 the status of any proposed Federal regulations on
17 interstate vessels? Can somebody tell me?
18 MR. POSTON: Mr. Klassen, at your
19 request we have had a copy made of S.2525, which
is Senator Muskie'a bill on the Federal Water fblliUcn
21
Control Act to control pollution from vessels
22
within the navigable waters of the United States.
23
This bill I think has passed—or, no, has been
24
introduced and this is as far as it has gotten at
25
this time.
-------
3189.
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 I will now pass this to you for your
3 information.
(Which said S.2525 is as follows:)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
3190
90rn CONGRESS
r*H fl^
2525
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER 11 (legislative day, OCTOBER 10), 1&67
Mr. MUSKEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Public Works :'
A BILL
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
to control pollution from vessels within the navigable waters
of the United States.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.,
3 That the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (70 §ta%
4 498), as amended, is amended—
• t • •
5 (a) by redesignating sections 11 and 12 as sections?
6 13 and 14 and renumbering succeeding sections; and
7 (b) by inserting after section 10 two new sections
8 to read as follows:
II
-------
3191
1 "CONTKOL OF POLLUTION PEOM VESSELS USING THE
2 NAVIGABLE WATEES OF THE UNITED STATES
3 "SEC. 11. (a) The Secretary, after taking into consid-
4 eration technological feasibility, economic costs, the types of
5 .vessels, their operating patterns, and such other factors
6 as he deems appropriate, shall prescribe in the Federal
7 Register—
8 " (1) Regulations establishing standards for the
9 control of sewage discharges from-any vessel or class
10 of vessels into the navigable waters of the United States
11 for the purpose of preventing the pollution of such
12 waters. The Secretary shall prescribe standards that
13 apply, to the extent feasible, uniformly to each class of
14 vessels under similar circumstances. Such regulations
15, shall prescribe reasonable schedules for compliance, after
16 taking into consideration the cost, of compliance. 'The
17 schedules for compliance shall 'distinguish between new
18 and existing vessels, and shall give special consideration
19 to vessels conforming to any State requirement or recom-
20! mended levels of control set forth in the Handbook on
21 Sanitation and Vessel Construction, Public Health Serv-
22 ice, 1965.
23 '" (2) Regulations governing the discharge of ballast
24 and bilge water into the navigable waters of the United
25 States from vessels engaged in commercial activities.
-------
3192
8
1 " (3) Regulations governing the discharge from any
2 vessel of litter, sludge> garbagie, or other substances of
3 any kind or description, other than oil or dredge spoil,
4 which originates on board a vessel or which is tran's-
5 ported thereon into the navigable waters of the Uiiited
6 . States. Where the Secretary :of the Army acting through
7 the Chief of Engiiieers: determines, after the effective
8 date of any regulations issued urider this paragraph, that
9 'the discharge of such substances from a vessel may con-
10 stitute a potential obstruction to navigation, a permit to
11 discharge such substances shall'be issued solely1 by the
12 Secretary of the Army or his designee in accordance with
13 existing authorities and consistent with such regulations.
14 "(b) Regulations to carry out the provisions of this
15 section shall prohibit Discharges in ' quantities, under condi-
16 tions, and at times and locations deemed appropriate by tli^
1^ Secretary, after taking^ into consideration the deleterious
IS effects of such discharges on the public health, recreation,
19: and fish and wildlife.
20 " (6) Regulations to 'carry out'the 'provisions of this
21 section:
22 '.'.' (i). may exempt classes of vessels from all or part
23 of: a :re^gulation: for such periods of time and under sucn:
24= • conditions as the Secretary1 deems appropriate.
25 ff (2) shall -apply to' vessels owne:
-------
3193
4
1 by the United States unless the Secretary of Defense
2 finds that compliance would not be in the interest of
3 national security.
4 "(d) Before any regulations under this section are
5 issued, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of
6 State; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare;
7 the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary of Defense;
8 the Secretary of Commerce; other interested Federal agen-
9 cies; and the States and industries affected. The Secretary
10 shall also correlate any regulations issued under this section
11 with efforts to control or eliminate other sources of pollu-
12 tion .under this Act and other provisions of law. After regu-
13 lations are issued, the Secretary shall afford all interested
14 persons and public and private agencies and organizations a
15 reasonable opportunity to comment thereon before they be-
16 come effective.
17 " (e) Any manufacturer of a device which is designed to
18 control the discharge of sewage from vessels or classes of
19 vessels in accordance with the standards prescribed under
20 subsection (a) of this section may request the Secretary to
21 issue a certificate of conformance for such device on such
22 terms and conditions and for such period as the Secretary
23 deems appropriate. The manufacturer shall perform such
24 tests as the Secretary may require and make the results
25 thereof available to the Secretary. The Secretary of the De-
-------
5
1 partment in which the Coast Guard is operating shall from a
2 safety standpoint prescribe regulations relating to the design,
3 construction, alteration, and repair of, and the materials used
4 in, any such device. Whenever the Secretary of the Interior
5 determines that the device will control the discharge of
6 sewage from vessels or classes of vessels in accordance with
7 such standards, and the Secretary of the Department in
8 which the Coast Guard is operating determines that the
9 device is satisfactory from a safety standpoint, the Secretary
10 of the Interior shall issue the certificate. Any device manu-
11 factured under said certificate which is in all material respects
12 the same as the certified device shall be deemed to be in
13 conformity with such regulations. The manufacturer of a
14 certified device shall maintain such records and provide such
15 information and reports as the Secretary deems appropriate
16 and shall permit any employee of the Secretary to have
17 access to and copy such records during business hours. All
.18 information reported to, or otherwise obtained by, the Sec-
19 retary or his representatives pursuant to this subsection which
20 contains or relates to a trade secret or other matter referred
21 to in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code shall
22 be considered confidential for the purpose of that section,
23 except that such information may be disclosed to other officers
24 or employees concerned with carrying out this subsection. It
S. 2525 2
-------
3195
6
1 shall be unlawful for the manufacturer of a certified device to
2 sell a device pursuant to such certificate if the device is not
3 in all material respects the same as the certified device or to
4 violate the terms and conditions of such certificate.
5 "(f) After the effective date of any regulations issued
6 hereunder, it shall be unlawful for any vessel to pollute the
7 navigable waters of the United States or to make any dis-
8 charge from any vessel into such waters, except in accordance
9 with such regulations.
10 " (g) Any person who knowingly violates the provi-
11 sioiis of this section or any regulations issued thereunder or
12 the conditions of any certificate issued thereunder shall, upon
13 conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500 or
1* by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.
1^ " (h) Any vessel violating the provisions of this section
16 or any regulations issued thereunder shall be liable for a
1^ penalty of not more than $10,000. Clearance of a vessel liable
1° for this penalty from a port of the United States may be with-
1- held until the penalty is paid or until a bond or other surety
20 satisfactory to the Secretary is posted. The penalty shall con-
2* stitute a lien on the vessel which may be recovered by action
22 in rem in the district court of the United States for any dis-
2 trict within which the vessel may be found. This penalty shall
** not apply to a vessel owned and operated by the United
States, or a State, or, except where such vessel is engaged
-------
3196
7
1 in commercial activities, a foreign nation, or to any vessel
2 ,- subject to the provisions of subsection (i) of this section.
3 '"(i) In the case of any vessel which is required by
4 the Federal Boating Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 1754), as
5; amended (46 U.S.C. 527-527h), to have a number and
6 which violates the provisions of this section or any regula-
7 tions issued thereunder, such number may be suspended by
8 the appropriate enforcement agency administering the 1958
9 Act in each State for such period of time as that agency
10 deems reasonable, and (the owner or operator of such vessel
11 shall, in addition to any other penalty incurred under this
12 section, be liable to a penalty of $100 and such vessel shall
13 be held liable and may be proceeded against in the district
14 court of the United States where such vessel is found.
1^ "(j) Anyone authorized by the Secretary to enforce
16 the provisions of this section may (1) board and inspect
17 any vessel within the navigable waters of the United States,
18 except a vessel owned and operated by the United States
19 or a State, or, except where such vessel is engaged in com-
20 mercial activities, a foreign nation, to insure compliance with
21 the provisions of this section, (2) with or without a warrant
22 arrest any person who violates the provisions of this section
23 or any regulation issued thereunder in his presence or view,
24 and (3) execute any warrant or other process issued by
25 an officer or court of competent jurisdiction.
-------
3197
8
The provisions of this section shall be enforced
2 by employees of the Secretary of the Interior and by person-
3 nel of the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
4 Guard is operating, and the Secretary may utilize by agree-
5 ment with or without reimbursement law enforcement of-
6 ficers or other personnel and facilities or other Federal agen-
7 cies to carry out the provisions of this section, including the
8 enforcement thereof. Law enforcement officers of any State
9 enforcing a numbering system approved under the Federal
10 Boating Act of 1958, as amended, shall also enforce the pro-
11 visions of this section which are applicable to vessels covered
12 by that Act. The Secretary is also encouraged to enter into
13 agreements or other arrangements with any State in carry-
14 ing out the provisions of this section, including the enforce-
15 ment thereof.
16 " (1) As used in this section—
17 " (1) the term 'person' includes an individual, com-
18 Panyj partnership, corporation, or association who is the
19 owner, charterer, operator, master, officer, or employee
20 of a vessel, and any individual on board such vessel, but
21 does not include a person on board a vessel owned or
22 operated by the United States or a State, or, except
23 where such vessel is engaged in commercial activities, a
24 foreign nation.
-------
3198
9
1 " (2) the term 'United States' includes the Com-
2 monwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and
3 the Virgin Islands.
4 " (3) the term 'discharge' includes spilling, leaking,
5 dumping, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, throw-
6 ing, or depositing.
7 . " (4) the term 'sewage' includes wastes from sani-
8 tary facilities on hoard vessels, such as toilets, wash
9 basins, and laundries, and other contaminated waters.
10 " (5) the term 'manufacturer' means any individual,
11 corporation, partnership, or association engaged in the
12 manufacturing or assembling of a device to control the
13 discharge of sewage from vessels, or in the importation
14 of such device for resale, or who acts for or is under
1^ the control of any such individual or organization in con-
16 nection with the distribution of such device, but shall not
17 include any dealer of such device.
18 " (m) In the case of Guam actions arising under this
1^ section shall be brought in the district court of Guam, and
20 in the case of the Virgin Islands such actions shall be brought
21 in the district court of the Virgin Islands. In the case of
22 American Samoa such actions shall be brought in the district
23 court of the United States for the district of Hawaii and
24 such court shall have jurisdiction of such actions.
-------
3199
10
POLLUTION FBOM VESSELS WITHIN A ZONE
2 OF THE HIGH SEAS CONTIGUOUS TO THE TEBBITOEIAL
3 SEA OF THE UNITED STATES
4 "SEC. 12. (a)' After the effective date;of any regula-
5 tions prescribed under this section, it shall:-be'unlawful to
6 discharge from any vessel sewage, ballast and bilge water,
7 sludge, garbage; or other substances of any kind or descrip-
8- tion into the waters of the' Contiguous Zone established
9 .under Article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea
10 and the Contiguous Zone which may pollute or contribute
11 to the pollution of the waters of the territory or the tern-
12 torial sea of the United States, except m ease of an emer-
13 gency imperiling life or property, or unavoidable collision,
'1* stranding; or accident, or except under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary.
• "(fe) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations goverh-
' ing the discharge from any vessel of sewage, ballast arid
• bilge! water, sludge, garbage, or other substances of any
kind or description; other than dredge spoil, "which originate
? on board such1 vessel or whidh.are transported thereon into
ithe waters of said contiguous zone in such quantities and
• :under such' conditions^ and at £uch trnies and places as, in
' ; has judgment aftefc consultation-;with'other:mterested-Fed-
eral agencies/''will' not be deleterious to;fhealth> or ^marine
life or dangerous to persons or property within the territory
-------
3200
11
1 or the territorial sea of the United States. Where the Secre-
2 tary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers
3 determines, after ,the effective date of any regulations issued
4 under this paragraph, that the discharge of such substances
5 from a vessel may constitute a potential obstruction to navi-
6 gation, a permit ,to discharge such substances shall be issued
7 solely by the Secretary of the Army or his designee in
8 accordance with existing authorities and consistent with such
9 regulations.
10 " (c) The penalties prescribed by section 11 of this
11 Act for violations of that section or regulations issued there-
12 under shall apply to violations of this section or regulations
13 issued thereunder. The provisions of said section 11 with
14 respect to enforcement, jurisdiction, and definitions shall be
15 applicable to this section.
16 "(d) Regulations prescribed pursuant to this section
17 shall apply to vessels owned and operated by the United
18 States unless the Secretary of Defense finds that compliance
19 would not be in the interest of national security."
-------
90TH CONGRESS
iBT SESSION
S. 2525
A BILL
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, to control pollution from
vessels within the navigable waters of the
United States.
By Mir. MUSKID
OOTOBEB 11 (legislative day, OCTOBER 10), 1967
Bead twice and referred to the Committee on Public
Works
-------
3202
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. KLASSEN: I Just wondered about the
3 date of Introduction, this year?
4 MR. PQSTON: October 10, 1967.
5 MR. POOLEt Mr. Chairman.
6 MR. STEIN: Yea.
7 MR. POOLEs I am aware that Federal
8 Conferees can't agree to recommendations that involve
9 Federal legislation, but as far as the State of
10 Indiana is concerned we see no reason why the
11 State Conferees can't include a recommendation
12 when we come out of this Conference that there be
13 Federal regulations to regulate and control consmer-
14 cial vessels.
15 MR. STEINs Yes. That procedure has
16 been adopted in Conferences before. You can be
17 sure the Chairman won't stand in your way.
18 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I didn't
19 quite understand Mr, {Classen's comment about
20 putting deadlines on when laws should be enacted.
21 I had difficulty with our legislature telling
22
them they had certain deadlines. Did you mean a
23 deadline before the Federal Government would enact
24 the act?
25
MR. KLASSEN: No. No, on each State
-------
3203
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 regulation. Chicago has their enforcement date,
3 I believe May 1st of this year. As has been
4 appropriately pointed out, this is a start, it
5 is a pattern. Do the other States:
6 1. Do the other States need State
7 legislation for their water pollution control
8 agencies to pass these regulations?
9 2. Can the State water pollution agency
10 pass the regulations?
11 If so, this ought to be uniformly done
12 so that the same applies in all four States, what-
13 ever this date might be.
14 MR. MITCHELL: Are you suggesting that
15 maybe the four States get together and see if they
16 can agree on a uniform regulation and then go back
17 to their Individual States and try to get it enacted?
18 MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
19 MR. MITCHELL: I think that is a good
20
suggestion.
21 MR. STEIN: 1?.
22
MR. VOGT: I have & question here,
23
Mr. Chairman. Perhaps Mr. idassen can answer
94
this.
25
Does Chicago require facilities for
-------
3204
1 ROBERT. J.. SCHNEIDER
2 dewatering holding tanks, Clarence?
3 MR. KLASSEN: I think that there either
4 are or will be facilities In Chicago for dewatering
s these holding tanks. And Just as kind of a policy
6 on this thing, we feel that regulations should
7 assure that no sewage shall be disposed of In any
8 manner as to reach the waters of Lake Michigan
9 except through sewage treatment facilities which
w have been approved by the appropriate State agency.
11 And this means so far as Chicago is concerned
12 that it would be pumped out of these tanks into a
13 sewer that is tributary to the treatment facilities
14 in Chicago. Wiis would apply also to the other
15 cities.
16 I believe that these facilities are being
17 provided.
18 MR. VOGT: Currently the State of Illinois
19 doesn't have a requirement for this, is that correct?
20 MR. KLASSEN: Hot Statewide at the
21
present time. As a matter of fact, we are—-I was
22
going to mention this later—as of yesterday calling
23
a special water board meeting the 19th to review
24
the recommendations from this Conference to se©
25
what action that we have to take in order to be
-------
3205
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 In complete conformance with these. We do have a
3 regulation already in existence on all Federal-State
4 impoundments. But we have stated this, that we
$ subscribe to the Chicago ordinance approach that
6 there be holding tanks and no discharge from any
7 facilities aboard a watercraft until and unless
8 this has been approved by the particular State
9 agency.
10 And while I am on that, I don't want to
11 open up this whole question again of yesterday,
12 but reference was made to the National Sanitation
13 Foundation and the regulations that are going to
14 be adopted. These have not been adopted, in spite
15 of what one of the men has said. I know this
16 because I am a voting member of the committee that
17 adopts these. I have voted against adopting these.
18 They are hot regulations for States to adopt. They
19 are regulations, I think as possibly Mr. Poole
mentioned, for testing. I don't think we ought
21
to let ourselves be confused by statements that
22
we should follow the National Sanitation Founda-
93
tion standards that are on the verge of being
24
approved.
25
The National Sanitation Foundation is
-------
3206
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 doing a tremendous job. We depend on them, but
3 they have no standards at the present time that
4 have been approved, and I want this to stand in
5 the record.
6 MR. STEIN: 18.
7 MR. POOLE: I find a little difficulty
f
8 with the last two words, "stopped entirely."
9 MR. STEIN: Oh, this is that zero
10 tolerance. We have dealt with the same problem
11 in the southern end of Lake Michigan. We said
12 "no visible oil." I think we will meet that.
13 This is not a new one and your point is well
14 taken.
15 No. 19.
16 (No response,)
17 MR. STEIN: No. 20.
18 (No.response.)
19 MR. STEINs No, 21.
20 MR. HOLMER: This is not entirely in
21
accord with the report of the Corps of Engineers,
22 as I heard it earlier in this Conference.
23 MR. STEINi Yes, I think you are right.
24
This raises some questions: What do you mean by
25
polluted dredgings? Do you put any dredgings?
-------
320?
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 I think the Conferees are going to have to meet
3 both those questions.
4 MR. HOLMER: Right.
5 MR. STEIN: Whether any dredgings at all
6 are put Into the lake; If so, under what circum-
7 stances and when. I think these have to be met
8 before we can draw up a tight proposal on dredgings,
e-
9 and I hope we will all be able to work very closely
10 with the Corps of Engineers to try to get something
11 that we can all live with.
12 You know, I think again we have a very
13 special case here with the operating agency. It
14 is very fine for the States and the Federal Govern-
15 ment to come up with one, or, rather, the Department
16 of the interior, but we have to recognize that the
17 Corps is going to have to operate with this. I
18 would hope that a reasonable procedure could be
19 worked out that the Corps could live with in the
-i
20
same manner as we try to work out a reasonable
21 '
procedure with you where your cities and industries
22
come into it.
23
MR. KLASSEN: Would this involve a new
24
agreement between the Department of the Interior
25
and the Secretary of the Army?
-------
3208
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. STEIN: I don't know.
3 MR. KLASSEN: They have an existing
4 agreement that was, I think, signed in July of
5 last year that one of the Corps of Engineer's
6 speakers referred to, but in reading this agree-
7 ment the final word isn't with the Federal Water
8 Pollution Control Agency, unfortunately, it is
9 with the Corps of Engineers. And the way the
10 agreement now stands, the Corps can decide if it
11 is to dispose of material.
12 I am Just wondering, in view of your
13 statement, if this will take a new agreement
14 between the Secretary of the Interior and the
15 Army?
16 MR. STEIN: Well, I am not sure what
17 it will take. But in this case if we can work
18 out a program that the States think is acceptable,
19 that we think is acceptable and the Corps thinks
20
is acceptable, I am sure, whether we have to take
21
State, Federal or any other action, we are going
22
to take whatever action is necessary to put that
23
program into effect.
24 22.
25
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, I have a
-------
3209
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 couple of questions here.
3 I couldn't tell from the last line on
4 page 66 requesting the reports to be submitted to
5 the appropriate agencies for review if this included
6 the Federal agencies or if we were Just referring
7 to State agencies.
8 MR. SCHNEIDER: No, we were referring to
9 State agencies and I changed that in my statement
10 when I read them.
11 MR. HOLMER: Now, with respect to the
12 substance of this recommendation. We have upgraded
13 our inspections from an annual schedule to a semi-
14 annual schedule. Now it is suggested that we go
15 to a quarterly basis. Certainly we want to improve
16 our performance as rapidly as we can.
17 Is this recommendation justified in
18 terms of specific benefits that have been
19 demonstrated in any way that the increased frequency
is necessary In addition to the monthly reports?
21 And furthermore, I think we might also have to
22
reckon with the definition of what constitutes
23
an inspection. You can drive by some plants and
24
call it an inspection, and I would suspect that
25
we want to define what we expect to find with an
-------
3210
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 inspection.
3 But more importantly, or the toughest
4 question I had was, how do I meet my Joint finance
5 committee and explain.why we have got to increase
6 our budget in order to make quarterly rather than
7 semiannual inspection?
8 MR. SCHNEIDERi Well, I think Michigan
9 Is already inspecting on a quarterly basis, and
10 maybe Mr. Vogt could tell you the results of his
11 program.
12 MR. HOLMER: All right.
13 MR. VOGT: I think I will have to correct
14 that a little bit, Bob. This was our goal to on
15 an average get into plants quarterly. We are not
16
reaching that at the present time. And also we
17
set a goal as an average. In other words, we don't
18
mean that we have to get into every plant on a
19
quarterly basis. And I think this is common
20
knowledge amongst ray counterparts here from the
21
States—that they find, as do we, that in some
22
instances it is more Important to get into some
23
plants more frequently than this. In other cases,
24
once or twice a year would be very adequate.
25
So I was going to comment about this
-------
32ii
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 recommendation along this line where it says
3 "conduct inspections of all waste treatment plants
4 at least quarterly." I think this would be a goal
5 which we could not support and it is going beyond
6 what we really need to do,
7 MR. STEINj I think that these points
8 again are well taken. We have to work within the
9 resources of the State agencies and come up with
10 a realistic program. It is also my notion that
11 when you come up with a program that isn't met
12 you are in worse shape than coming up with no
13 program at all, because then you get built-in
14 neglect and violations right in your operation.
15 I think we will have to look at this very carefully.
16 23. What does that mean, that we are
17
going to come up with improvements? In other
18
words, I wouldn't know how to follow that up.
19
Don't you think we can get some people to come up
20
with something specific on that?
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think we can. We
22
can get together with our technical program people
23
who are--
MR. STEIN: I think that is a job.
25
In a good many of the things, Bob, as
-------
3212
I ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 far as I see—we are coming to the end of this—
3 a lot of the Judgments here are semantic Judgments.
4 The points that you raise are very, very good ones.
s However, I think if the Conferees are going to set
6 something like this up—I am not suggesting that we
7 necessarily do this—a meaningful suggestion is
8 that we give this to a technical group with repre-
9 sentatives from each State and the Federal Qovern-
10 ment. In three to six months or something they can
H come up with a specific program for improving the
12 monitoring and programs geared to changes in water
13 quality. Then we will go over this and see what
14 we can do to put it into effect. Otherwise I am not
15 sure we are on our way.
16 MR. SCHNEIDER] Well, I think this can
17 be handled through our ongoing program.
18 MR. STEIN: This may be. But then again
19 we have to give someone a specific charge to do
20 the job.
21 MR. SCHNEIDER: I agree.
22 MR. STEIN: All right. 24.
23 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, in our
24 Judgment this is not a possibility, although I
25 suspect there is a substance to this recommendation
-------
3213
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 which deserves our attention. It seems quite
3 obvious to us that you cannot regulate stream-
4 flow ao as to assure the availability of optimum
5 etreamflow for all legitimate uses concurrently.
6 And while I am sure the Intent is to assure that
7 there Is optimum—an effort to optimize the benefits
8 from regulations of the flow, I think It needs to
9 be restated, Bob, In some way that doesn't have
10 the conflict between the desire for flood storage
11 as opposed to the need for regularity of hydro-
12 electric flow as opposed to the need for seasonal
13 diversion for irrigation and the need for regularity
14 of other kinds of flows, and so on.
15 I think this as stated is impossible
16 of attaining.
17 MR. STEIN: Again that point is well
18 . .
taken.
19
Do you have any comment on that?
20 MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, we have had
21
complaints in connection with the rellcenslng
22
program.
23
MR. STEIN: Yes. But here is the issue.
24
I think Mr. Holmer has this, and I face this
25
all the time.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 in what we are doing in making provisions for
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3214
ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
If you want to regulate a plant to
insure the availability of optimum streamflow
and you go to a power company, the fellow brings
you into his office. Right there framed is a
license from another Federal agency, the Federal
Power Commission^ to do what he is doing, and he
says, "Aren't I operating legally and what does
this mean?" And of course he ia.
The notion that anyone in a State or a
Federal water pollution control agency can overturn
an existing license for a man who is engaged in a
legitimate business is something that you might
desire, but you can't do.
Now, in the licensing procedures, the
Federal Power Commission is how very interested
water flow. But I think Mr. Holmer's statement
is well taken. Where someone has a license from
the Federal Power Commission, that license is
going to be obtained and the best we can do is
try to get voluntary compliance or make represen-
tations when the license comes up for renewal.
Is this a fair statement?
MR. HOLMER: I think I have another
-------
3215
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 element of this. One of the purposes of this
3 regulation, I suspect, Is to have low flow
4 augmentation to tend to Insure the quality of
5 the water/. And if this is a part of it this Is
6 going to conflict with certain other uses such
7 as flood prevention, for example, quite apart
8 from the licensing, although the licensing is
9 another aspect of this and a good Illustration.
10 MR. STEIN: I think you are right.
11 But doesn't he mean insure the availability of
12 optimum streamflow for all legitimate uses?
13 I think flood control is the kind of legitimate
14 use you would have. Obviously water quality or
15 the use of extra water for water quality has to
16 compete with other water uses. This is Just a
17 fact of life and if the Conferees ignore this
18 you are going to find yourselves up against
19 something that just won't go away,
20 No. 25.
21 MR. HOLMER: I hesitate to come on
22
again on this one, but let me stress what I tried
23
to eay this morning, namely that I think we need
24
to be very careful in connection with the review
25
of this recommendation that we do at least three
-------
3216
1 ROBERT.J. SCHNEIDER
2 things:
3 First, to review these recommendations
4 very carefully to be sure that they are reasonably
5 Inclusive of the principal areas in which research
6 is needed so that we do cover the waterfront.
7 Second, that we establish some set of
8 priorities with relation to them as to which seem
9 to us to be in most Immediate need of attention.
10 And third, that we establish an assign-
11 ment of responsibility and a timetable to the
12 jurisdiction agency or industry whom we expect
13 to undertake the activity.
14 MR. STEIN: Right. I think you have a
15 point. Again we have this question of my making
16 a list whether you are going to be Inclusive or
17 exclusive. I think we have thla danger and the
18 priority system may be the one that works.
But, you know, if you come up with a
20
tremendous list of projects, the chances of your
21
getting any begin to diminish as your list grows.
22
Conferees might want to determine whether
23
they just want to have this—I have no conclusion
24
on this—just want to have an exhaustive list, or
25
they may want to pick three or four or five in
-------
3217
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 order of priority that we hope to get moving in
3 the near future and give the others honorable
4 mention somewhere else. No matter where
5 you put something on the list,you are going to
6 have people with a special interest in that phase
7 of it who are going to start pushing, and this
8 makes it more difficult to get your other projects
9 going.
10 This is something the Conferees really
ll should think of very carefully,
12 MR. HOLMERi I agree to the idea of a
13 short list, because I think your point is quite
14 relevant. All I am asking is that we be sure that
15 in our own Judgment we have evaluated a sufficiently
i6 long list that our short list is the high priority
17 one.
18 MR. STEINs Yes, I would agree with that.
19 I am not going to ask for comments on
the specific cities because that would take a
21
long time and, as indicated, some of this material
22
has to be updated. But if anyone wants to comment
23
now, we are not asking for this, that in general
24
the municipalities provide secondary biological
25
treatment or its equivalent and treatment for
-------
3218
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 phosphate removal by 1972.
3 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman.
4 MR. STEIN: Yes.
5 MR. MITCHELL: Are you now moving to
6 26, the recommendations?
7 MR. STEIN: Yes, specific recommendations,
8 just the 1, 2, 3.
9 MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chairman, he is
10 referring, I think, to the numbered recommendations
11 in the statement, I think you have a copy there,
12 NO. 26, that the—
13 MR. POSTON: Read it.
14 MR. MITCHELL: There were two recommenda-
15 tions that were added the other day, 26 and 27.
16 MR. POSTON: Can you read them?
17 MR. SCHNEIDER: No. 26, "The treatment
18 required by the above recommendations shall be
19 provided in facilities placed in operation by no
20 later than July 1972, unless the State water
21 pollution control agencies require a lesser amount
22 of time."
23 And then No. 27, "The Conferees reconvene
24 at least annually to assess progress."
25 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, have you
-------
3219
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 taken the necessary action that these new
3 recommendations will replace the ones in the
4 report?
5 MR. STEIN: No, I think the Conferees
8 are going to have to do this. It Is your report.
\ .
7 MR. KIASSEN: It is your report.
8 MR. STEIN: I don't quite understand
9 thii, and I have a clarification question first.
10 You mean your recommendation is to
11 handle the combined sewer problem by f?2?
12 MR. BOSTON: It says by «77.
13 MR, STEIN: Where? Not in the new one.
14 Where? You have got—
15 MR. SCHNEIDER: Under the Specific
16 Recommendations it called for handling the com-
17 blned sewer problem by 1977.
18 MR. STEIN: Right. Now, as I understand
19 your proposal, again we have to do this, that the
kind of treatment we are going to have for municl-
palities and industries, including phosphate or
22
other appropriate nutrient removal, will be com-
pleted in all cases by not later than '72, right?
24 MR. SCHNEIDER: That is right.
25
MR. STEIN: And the combined sewer
-------
3220
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 problem would be the work would be completed
3 by '77.
4 MR. SCHNEIDER: That is right.
5 MR. STEIN: We also have a problem, as
fi you know, the question of whether the four-State
7 Conference is going to subsume the two-State
8 Conference. We do have time schedules set up
9 for the Indiana and Illinois industries and
10 this has to be met too.
11 But I would suggest we confine ourselves
12 to the '72 and '77 dates first. I am not sure
13 that either one of those dates really, unless there
14 is a generalized comment, concern Indiana or Illinois
because you are well within those now except for
16 the phosphates.
17 MR. MITCHELL: I would like to make a
18 comment, Mr. Chairman. And so that it won't be
19 misunderstood, I have taken the opportunity to
write it and I would like to read it and it is
21
in regard to the '72 deadline and in regard then
22
to the nutrient removal, if I may read it.
23 MR. STEIN: Surely.
24
25
-------
3221
1 JOHN E. MITCHELL
2
3 STATEMENT BY
4 JOHN E. MITCHELL, CO-CONFEREE
5 DIRECTOR OP DEPARTMENT OP NATURAL RESOURCES
6 STATE OP INDIANA
7
8 MR. MITCHELL: This four-State Enforce-
9 ment Conference on the pollution of Lake Michigan
10 has spent six long days In listening to a tremen-
11 dous amount of information, statistics, and recom-
12 mendatlons. Much of the testimony was being made
13 public for the first time and will contribute to
14 the successfulness of the Conference.
15 All of us came to this Enforcement
16 Conference knowing that Lake Michigan Is a sick
17 lake. We did not know how sick. As a result of
18 the six days of work we have studied the symptoms,
19 with the aid of such experts as Dr. A. P. Bartsoh,
20 Dr. Donald Baumgartner, and Dr. Weinberger, and
21 we can say the patient, Lake Michigan, Is not only
22 sick but seriously 111.
23
We needed to know more about our patient
24
and we needed to know how to determine the causes
25
of the sickness. As a result of this Conference
-------
3222
1 JOHN E. MITCHELL
2 we have been told that nutrient pollution IB the
3 number one pollution problem and the number one
4 cause for the Increase of eutrophicatlon or aging
5 process of the lake.
6 The most Important knowledge that we
7 have gained as a result of this Conference Is
8 the knowledge as to how to cure the Illness. Many
9 of us came to the Conference with adequate knowledge
10 of how to reduce organic> bacterial, harmful chem-
11 leal, and thermal pollution. But we did not have
12 adequate knowledge as to how to control the nutrient
13 pollution. Today we have a greater amount of
14 Information and the future looks much brighter as
15 a result of this Conference.
16 We were told that municipalities were
17 the greatest contributors of the nutrients and
18 it now appears that a high priority should be
19 given to the removal of the nutrients at our
20
municipal sewage treatment facilities.
21
This Conference has brought information
22
to our attention that Indicates we must move rapidly
23
to cure this disease of our sick lake. Deadlines
24
must be established for adequate control of nutrient
25
pollution.
-------
3223
1 JOHN E. MITCHELL
2 We have had many speakers from the
3 national, State, and local governments that have
4 Indicated their deep concern in saving Lake Michigan.
5 Everyone from all levels of Government have
6 pledged to join efforts to make sure we get the
7 Job done.
8 But all of this knowledge, all of this
9 concern, and all of this agreement will be for
10 naught unless adequate finances are made available
11 by all levels of Government,
12 I do not believe we can avoid giving
13 consideration to the financial situation that
14 exists. In a general way, we now know the amount
15 of the sickness, we now know how to diagnose the
sickness, and we now know how to cure the sickness.
17
No longer will we be limited by a lack of concern
18
or by a lack of knowledge. The only limitation
19
we face is a possible lack of adequate finances
20
to do the job.
21
It seems to me all levels of Government
22
must contribute their fair share to "save our lake."
23
As Conferees and as representatives of the Federal
24
Government and the Pour States and their Governors,
25
we cannot be satisfied with our efforts if we only
-------
3224
1 JOHN E. MITCHELL
2 describe the cure and set the deadlines and expect
3 the municipalities to be the ones to pay the bill.
4 if we are to be fully realistic in our
5 recommendations to Secretary of the Interior Udall,
6 it is my belief that we should recommend that all
7 timetables for municipalities in regards to
8 additional treatment facilities for nutrient
9 removal must be tied to the availabilities of
10 State and Federal funds.
H . If we are going to give high priority
12 to the saving of the lake, then we must also give
13 high priority for adequate financing. It is only
14 reasonable that deadlines be coordinated with
15 availability of funds from the governments that
16 are establishing the deadlines in the first place.
17 The report of this Conference must clearly
18 point out to the citizens of our four States and
19 the citizens of the whole Uhlted States that know-
20
how Is available to save Lake Michigan and that
21
everyone must share in the responsibility to
22
provide the funds needed to do the Job.
23
24 MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for
25
a very clear and concise statement of the problem.
-------
3225
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 Does anyone have any other comments on
3 this? Because, as you know, the deadline question
4 Is a very, very serious one and the one we are
5 going to come up with.
6 MR. HOLMER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
7 MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
8 MR. HOLMER: One minor quibble and then
9 a more Important subject.
10 We have one project at Green Bay which
n Is already under way which looks to a September 30,
12 1972, date for the earliest possible completion.
13 This was another one of those specifics we ought
14 to direct our attention to.
15 But the question Mr. Mitchell raised is
16 a much more fundamental one and it is one that
17 perplexes me Just a bit. We have been told that
18 the reason for the deferral of full Federal appro-
19 priations of the funds authorized for these works
20 is the fact that we are engaged in a costly war
21 and that we should, therefore, resist the tempta-
22 tlon to engage in extensive public works.
23 We agree with the urgency of this
24 program and the desirability of an early deadline,
25 whether it be July '72 or some other, for the
-------
3226
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 first deadline dates, and Wisconsin,! can assure
3 you, will cooperate fully with the other States
4 in this region in accomplishing that goal.
5 It will, however, if we are to achieve
6 this goal, require a substantial expenditure of
7 public funds for public works, and if these are
8 not forthcoming from the Federal Government they
9 will necessarily have to come from State and
10 local Governments.
n I am wondering about the consistency of
12 the Federal position if it is to produce a report
13 which requires such early action in the face of
'->
14 an adopted policy of the national Government, and
i5 it leaves me in a grave quandary, as I am sure it
16 does you.
17 MR. STEIN: Are there any further comments
18 or questions?
19 MR. KLASSEN: Just on that, I am not
20 necessarily one to defend ;the Federal Water Pollu-
21 tlon Control Agency, but I would express myself on
22 this.
23 It is your job to clean up the waters of
24 this country, but not your Job to provide the
25 •
money, and I don't think we ought to mix the two.
-------
322?
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 If the Federal Government can't give us the funds,
3 then the local people ought to pay for it, And
4 Illinois hasn't geared its program to a program of
5 Federal control, because this gets to be a real
6 elusive thing. I must disagree, I don't think
7 just because the Federal Government has presented
8 a report here that the same agency that presents
9 this has got the responsibility to give us the
10 money,
11 One other question while I have got the
12 microphone, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask you as
13 Chairman and as a Conferee, we have, since it has
14 been referred to, this Federal Water Pollution
15 Control report with recommendations. We also
16
have, and I am reading, a statement by Mr. Schneider
17 representing the Federal Water Pollution Control Adml
18 that has different recommendations in it. Basically
19 they are essentially the same, but there are changes.
And I am asking you which are to be
21
considered the official recommendations from the
22
Federal Water Pollution Control Agency, the ones
23
in the book or the ones that Mr. Schneider presented?
24
And if it is the latter, have you taken action to
25
make such a statement for the record?
-------
3228
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 MR. STEIN: Let me indicate this:
3 One, what you have from us—and I would
4 like to raise this question with you and canvass
5 the Conferees—what you have from us is an investi-
6 gator's report. We are sitting here with you as
7 Conferees to try to work out a joint position if
8 we can on conclusions and recommendations. We
9 have recommendations not only from our investigating
10 team, as delivered by Mr. Schneider, we also have
11 had suggestions and recommendations from the four
12 States, all of them pertinent. And we have also
13 listened to testimony, as Mr. Mitchell has pointed
14 out, for six days.
15 I think in effect what the Conferees have
16 now is a blank sheet of paper where they can write
17 their own recommendations and conclusions and see
18 if we can come to an agreement on them. None
19 of these reports or none of these ideas have any
more status than the others or than those of any
of the people in the audience who have participated,
22
as far as I am concerned.
23
The question that I would like to ask
24
you, Mr. Klassen, in view of the complexity of
25
this, do you think that we can oome to these
-------
3229
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 conclusions now or we may need some more time
3 to reconvene?
* MR. KLASSEN: No. This Is my reason,
5 again, for asking this question, because when I
6 go back to my Board to consider these, I want to
7 know which—they are going to ask which are the
8 Federal recommendations. I will answer the other
9 question In Just a moment.
10 As I interpret your answer, we have
11 two sets of Federal recommendations, these from
12 the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency and
13 these from Mr. Schneider.
14 MR. STEIN* No, no, no. There are none
15 from the Federal Water Pollution Control Admlnlatratlpn,
16 You have conclusions and recommendations, at the
17 most, from our Investigating team.
18 Mr. Poston.
19 MR. POSTON: I think what was done here,
Clarence, was the report was developed and Instead
21
of presenting the whole report to us It was briefed
22
down. We included statements by Dr. Bartsch,
23
Dr. Baumgartner and Dr. Weinberger to clarify,
24
and this report was sent out prepared prior to
25
this Conference to give technical information
-------
3230
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 aa we saw it on this basin ahead of time. The
3 fact that there have been some changes In the
4 recommendations I think was done by Mr. Schneider
5 in order to isake them clear.
6 MR. KLASSSN: I think Mr. Schneider's
7 statement has Improved on the report. Really.
8 This ia why I am wondering. I guess I won't get
9 the answer.
10 MR. SCHNEIDER: I think the only—
11 MB. KLASSEN: I will read both of them,
12 then, and—
13 MR. STSIN: Let's see if we can get thla
14 clarified.
15 I do think that a good many of the crlti-
16 cisnus of the conclusions and recommendations in
17 the report, and they were well taken, largely
18 related to lack of clarity, semantics, and so forth.
I think we had a notion of what was meant, but I
20
do agree with the Conferees that if we are going
21
to come up with a meaningful program we have to
22
have tightly-knit conclusions and recommendations.
23
I also do think that when this report
24
was put out, the Conferees alone, and this may
25
include us and others, may have had the same notion
-------
3231
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 and may have formally or informally conveyed
3 their feelings to Mr. Schneider, and he did, as
4 you pointed out, come up with a clarification.
5 We recognize two things. We do have a
6 substantial Job of redrafting to do in the kind
7 of stuff that will be meaningful, and I think the
8 bulk of the comments were directed to that. We
9 also have some very hard substantive problems to
10 meet.
11 Now, I am asking—I will again start my
12 question—Mr. JCLassen, do you think we can meet
13 this today or you will need some time to consider
u It?
15 MR. KLASSEN: Definitely not here today.
16 I think that anything as Important as a program
17 such as this, we had better make awfully sure
18 that what v/e come up with and all agree to or
19 disagree to is something of which we have complete
20 knowledge. I believe that the Conferees—I am just
21 speaking for myself—need some time to digest
22 particularly this last statement and some of these
23 other things before we can properly evaluate and
24 make a decision on what your redraft is going to
25 dp. I want to see your redraft of these
-------
3232
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 recommendations again before I will comment on It.
3 Obviously you are not going to do that today.
4 Let me express one final hope and that
5 is with reference to Recommendation 27, that I
6 think It is excellent that the Conferees will
7 reconvene at least annually. I hope when we
8 reconvene that the ground rules will permit a
9 vote by the Conferees at a progress meeting.
10 (Laughter.)
11 MR. STEIN: I am with you. You know, I
12 hope your schedule will permit you to stay for the
13 full session of the progress meeting.
l* (Laughter.)
15 DR. BORUFF: Mr. Chairman.
16 MR. KLASSEN: If I know where it is
17 going to meet, I will be there.
18 (Laughter.)
19 MR. KLASSEN: I am not accustomed to
20 meeting on buses, frankly.
21 And I might say, since you raised the
22 point, that only one Conferee was there the next
23 day, and I don't see how you could get a consensus
24 of the Conferees, because the only Conferee there
25
was the Federal Conferee. Mr. Egan, Mr. Poole
-------
3233
! ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 and myself were not at the second day meeting.
3 MR. STEIN: Mr. Egan communicated with
4 us. We were in Chicago. You know, Chicago is a
5 big city and I am a big city boy and I know how
6 to use the telephone and so does Mr. Egan. I
7 never thought a bus was too bad and I always
8 thought U. S. Steel was still united States
9 territory and we could do business there.
10 MR. KLASSEN: This is true. But this vote
11 was not taken at a regular session.
12 MB. STEIN: No vote was taken, sir.
13 DR. BORUPP: Mr. Chairman.
14 MR. STEIN: Yes.
15 DR. BORUPP: May I get the train on
16 another track?
17 As a member of the Illinois State
18 ' Sanitary Water Board, speaking as only one member,
19 I would prefer that Mr. Klassen take these
20 recommendations, not only of the Federal Conferee
21 but the other Conferees, back to the Board and have
22 time to discuss them, then Mr. Klassen to come
23 back to a meeting of the Conferees for your final
24 deliberation.
25 MR. STEIN: May we call on Indiana?
-------
323*
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 Mr. Poole?
3 MR. POOLE: Well, we certainly endorse
4 Dr. Boruff's suggestion. That Is, I haven't had
s a chance to digest the recommendations that have
6 been made by the various States. I work for a
7 Board, and while I have one Board member here, I
8 would like to do the same thing Di*. Boruff suggests.
9 MR. STEIN: Michigan, Mr* Vogt?
10 MR. VOGT: I firmly believe that any
11 final conclusions should be deferred at this
12 time. I am also a member of a Commission and our
13 next Commission meeting is on February 21 and 22.
!4 And I think it would be very important for me and
15 for Mr. Oemlng, who was the Michigan Conferee for
16 the first four days, to discuss these points with
17 our Commission, because whatever Michigan agrees
18 to as a Conferee, it Is extremely important that
19 our statutes and our Commission policy will be
20 able to implement the decision.
21 MR. STEIN: Mr. Holmer?
nij
** MR. HOLMER: As an evidence of Wisconsin's
23 desire to move this forward, I will meet with my
24 Board on Friday, but that was set sometime ago.
25
But certainly, reporting to a Board, we will want
-------
3235
! ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 to discuss these natters with them and we will
3 be glad to reconvene at your convenience.
4 MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston?
5 MR. POSTON: Mr, Chairman, it appears
6 that I should concede here, because everybody--
7 and I am very anxious to be cooperative and I will
8 do this—concede that we should wait until others
9 have had full opportunity to review all of these
10 recommendations and to discuss them with their
11 Boards. We stand ready and willing to provide
12 any other information that they may want or
13 definition of recommendations we have made. I
14 think that there have been a great number of things
15 that have been conceded here as fact and I think
16 there is a lot of agreement amongst the Conferees
17 as to what our problem is and how to come to
18 these solutions.
19 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
20 Mr. Poston, you have been associating
21 with Mr. Klasaen and myself too long. You can no
22 longer concede except by using a few thousand
23 well chosen words.
24 (Laughter.)
25 In view of the State commitments and
-------
3236
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 the commitments of the Federal Government, I
3 would like to suggest a. date certain for getting
4 back. I know you are going to have these board
5 meetings. I don't want to make this too aoon
6 because I think we have to make haste slowly
7 here. As I pointed out, we had better get a
8 program that is going to work and that we can agree
9 on and not start off with a program that isn't
10 really thought through.and we are not in concert
ll with. I think the States and the Federal Govern-
12 ment are relatively close together. This is very
13 complicated and we need to come here to do it.
l4 1 am going to suggest March 7th in
15 Chicago.
16 MR. KLASSEN: What day is that?
17 MR. STEIN: That is a Thursday.
18 MR. KLASSEN: That will be 0. K. with me,
19 MR. STEIN: Is that clear?
20 Now, we will announce the date and place
21 later. That March 7th meeting will be an
22 executive seaaion. That does not mean/. g«ntlemen,
23 that this will be a closed session. Executive
24 session to us means that only the Conferees will
talk and discuss and we will try to hammer out
-------
3237
1 ROBERT J. SCHNEIDER
2 Conclusions and Recommendations. Hie press
3 s.nd others are Invited to be In. We probably will
4 be facing each other at a table and you nay not
5 have the audience accommodations there, but we
6 do our business In public. You are entitled to
7 know what we do. You are entitled and everyone is,
8 to know who Is making which move, because I think
9 that Is the only way we can get pollution
10 cleaned up.
n One more thing. We have a statement for
12 the record presented by Mrs. Robert G. Erlckson
13 of Racine, Wisconsin, who Just couldn't arrive today,
14 and without objection we would like to put that in
15 the record at the conclusion of the statements
16 of the people from Wisconsin as if read.
17
18 WISCONSIN PRESENTATION (CONTINUED.)
19
20 MR, HOLMERs TOtere are three statements,
*
21 Mr. Chairman, one a personal statement by
22 Mrs. Eriokaon and one on behalf of the John Muir
23 Chapter of the Sierra Club, and one by Mrs.
24 Tom Helmbrecht, Homemaker. I would, of course,
want those Included.
-------
3238
PERSONAL STATEMENT OF MRS. ROBERT G. ERICKSON
2 MR. STEIN: They will all appear without
3 objection as if read.
4 (Which said statements are as follows:)
5
PERSONAL STATEMENT-FOR THE CONFERENCE ON LAKE MICHIGAN
7 POLLUTION FEBRUARY 7, 1968
8
9 Presented by Mrs. Robert G. Erickson
10 Closer to home I should like to comment
11 on Green Bay pollution:
12 Governor Knowles merely called a Conference
13 .on this problem last year.
14 The outstanding statement of this meeting
15 referred to pollution from the Fox River:
16
"It is as though the untreated waters
17 from a city of a million people poured everyday
18 from the Fox River into Green Bay." This does
19 not refer so much to biological pollution but to
chemical pollution and to almost complete lack of
21 oxygen. It is no wonder that the end of Green Bay
22
approaches Lake Erie's problems'.
23
In addition Green Bay is one of the
24
most heavily polluted water areas in regard to
25
DDT.
-------
3239
1 PERSONAL STATEMENT OF MRS. ROBERT 0. BRICKS ON
2 Let ua begin now to attack these
3 problems; let us stop this out-pouring from the
4 Pox River; Let us have all our municipalities
5 clean up their sewage; Let us have all our industries
6 clean up their waste matter; Let us have industry
7 consider pollution control one of the expected and
8 normal costs of doing business; Let us as consumers
9 be willing to pay this cost; let us stop now the
10 dumping into Green Bay of dredged sediments by the
11 Army Corps of Engineers; Let us don off all other
12 sources of pollutions; Let us stop the use of DDT
13 and related compounds; Let us finally bring back
14 Green Bay to what we can remember as children when
15 in Door County one could see the bottom in 30 feet
16 of sparkling blue water.
17 Will you help in this quest for clean
18 water?
19
20
21 STATEMENT FOR THE CONFERENCE
22 ON LAKE MICHIGAN POLLUTION
23 FEBRUARY 7, 1968
24
Presented by Mrs. Robert 0. Brickson, Racine, Wis.
25
-------
3240
1 SIERRA CLUB," JOHN MUIR - CHAPTER
2 The John Mulr Chapter of the Sierra Club
3 representing the State of Wisconsin urges immediate
* control of Lake Michigan pollution.
5 Next to the oxygen in the air we breathe,
6 clean fresh water is man's most vital resource.
7 97 percent of the earth's supply of water is in
8 the salty oceans still untapped for man's use.
8 Over 2 percent of the earth's water is locked in
10 ice - permafrost, ice caps, and glaciers. This
11 leaves less than 1 percent of the earth's supply
12 of water available for man. This water is in the
13 form of lakes or streams or underground sources.
14 Our Great Lakes system is the largest
*5 surface supply of fresh water in the world. The
16 quality of this supply is of the utmost importance
17 to all of us.
18
The chapter deplores the fact that Lake
19
Michigan has been used as a waste dumping ground.
20
We urge the support of all local, State, and
21
National officials, as well as all industries and
22
individual citizens to cooperate fully in clearing
23
up the Lake in the shortest possible time.
24
The chapter urges that a map of Lake
25
Michigan be published, detailing all known sources
-------
3241
1 MRS. TOM HELMBRECHT
2 of pollution ao that citizens and conservation
3 organizations as well as governmental agencies
4 can bring these issues before the public.
5 Let us stop pollution before it is
6 too late,
7
8
9 MRS. TOM HELMBRECHT
10 HOMEMAKER
11 MAYVILLE, WISCONSIN
12
13 Mrs. Tom Helmbrecht
14 704 Short Street
15 Mayville, Wisconsin
16 53050
17 22 January 1968
18
19 Mr. Stewart Lee Udall
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
22 Washington, D.C. 20240
23
24 Dear Mr. Udall:
25
By invitation of the Wisconsin Department
-------
3242
1 MRS. TOM HELMBRECHT
2 of Natural Resources, I submit the following
3 statement to the chairman of the January, 1968
4 Conference on Lake Michigan pollution, being
s directly affected as a State and Federal taxpayer,
* resident of the State of Wisconsin:
7 That the Job must be done is not an issue.
8 That it will be expensive is not an issue.
9 Two questions at Issue appear to be:
10 What methods will be used, and who will bear the
11 expense?
12 Recently, there has been a tendency, at
13 least in our state, to shift much of the responsi-
14 bility for polluted waters to domestic type sewage
15 by pointing an accusing finger at municipal sewage
18 treatment plants. It should be recognized that
17 when secondary municipal treatment plants are
18 polluting, often they are being loaded beyond
19 their capacity by Industrial type wastes.
Talcing statistics from the Wisconsin
21 Blue Book of 1966 and from recent studies by the
22
State Department of Natural Resources, the present
23
total waste effluent from four of Wisconsin's
24
leading paper mills Is heavier in BOD than the
25
waste produced by l/6th of the State's population.
-------
3243
1 MRS. TOM HELMBRECHT
2 There were 188 paper mills, of various sizes, In
3 the State ten years ago. The past ten years are
4 known to have been record years for Industrial
5 growth here.
6 Now consider the waste from food and
7 milk processing plants which Is prohibitively
8 high In BOD, according to State testing. Studies
9 have shown that the Purity Cheese Company alone
10 produces a waste equivalent in strength to five
11 times the population of Mayvllie, the city In
12 which It Is located. There were 2,067 food and
13 milk processing plants In the State of Wisconsin
14 ten years ago.
15 These are statistics from the two types
16 considered to be Wisconsin's leading Industries.
17 Ten years ago, there were 19 types of classified
18 Industries in Wisconsin, totalling 7,793 establlsh-
19 ments. Some, of course, produce no more than
20 domestic type waste, but such Industries as those
21 mentioned above, as well as the tanneries, chem-
22 leal and power industries, must be considered
23 highly responsible for the polluted condition of
24
our waters.
25
It would therefore seem unfair to point
-------
3244
1 MRS. TOM HELMBRECHT
2 the finger at the residential polluter for
3 financial purposes. He should, of course, bear
4 his share of the expense. Perhaps, since the
5 industries employ him and add to the State and
6 National economy, he might even be asked to share
7 some portion of industry's financial responsibility.
8 But if Industry is to be subsidized, let the fact
9 be so stated. Note also that industry would be
10 hard put to function without the working man, the
11 group which pays most in taxes proportionate to
12 the amount of his earnings. It would seem unfair
13 should he be led to believe that he is personally
I* responsible for the greater share of existing
15 pollution.
16 I am not an expert in dynamics of pollu-
17 tion. Neither am I chemist, biologist .nor trained
18 engineer. She "how" of pollution abatement should
19 be delegated to the experts.
20 I am an expert taxpayer by reason of
21 experience. In this capacity, I ask that the
22 States involved with the problems of pollution In
23 Lake Michigan consider, as part of their strategy,
24 exerting tighter controls over Industries which
25 utilize municipal sewage treatment plants for
-------
3245
1 MRS. TQM HELMBRECHT
2 heavy industrial waste.
3 I request that Industries contributing
4 such waste to a municipal plant exercise controls
necessary to prevent waste beyong reasonable
6 standards from entering municipal systems. I
7 suggest further that capital expenditure and
8 support of maintenance should be provided by
9 industries contributing a heavy waste load, in
10 proportion to the part of any municipal system
H which is designed to treat their waste.
12 Respectfully, I submit this statement,
13 and wish you success.
14
15 Very truly yours,
16 (Signed) Jan Helmbrecht
17 Homemaker
18
19
MR. STEIN: I think we have come a long
20 way. I ask you all to keep the spotlight on us.
21 I will ask the States and the Cities to do their
22
homework so we can come back with meaningful
23 Recommendations and Conclusions and hope to get
24 an action program which yet will save Lake Michigan,
25
With that, we stand recessed until
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MURRAY STEIN
March 7th in Chicago at a place to be announced,
probably 9:30 in the morning.
(Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the
Conference was adjourned until March 7th, 1968.
(The following material was submitted
after the close of the Conference:)
ILLINOIS PRESENTATION (CONTINUED)
SALTIS BUILT HOMES, INC. 10529 CERMAK RD.
562-2230 WESTCHESTER, ILL. 60153
March 1, 1968
Mr. Clarence W. Klaaaen
Illinois Conferee
Pour-State Lake Michigan Conference
Chicago/ Illinois
Dear Sir:
My name is Walter S. Baltls. I am a
former Trustee of the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicagolandj Chairman of
its Engineering, Drainage and Stream Pollution
-------
3247
1 WALTER S. BALTIS
2 Committee until December 2, 1964.
3 Since 1964, I have charged in formal
4 meetings of the Sanitary District, that they
5 are deliberately and willfully emptying extremely
6 high and dangerous levels of pollution into the
7 Chicago River.
g The extreme pollution is at the outfall
9 of the Racine Avenue Pumping Station, which is a
10 combined storm and sanitary pumping station with
11 a capacity of 12,000 C.P.S., handling the total
12 storm and sewage load of a 30-square-mile area
13 in Chicago, having a population of 70Q,000, in-
14 eluding industry.
15 The total sewage load, by a policy set
16 in 1957, provided tjhat at least 1 pump be in
17 operation continuously to pump raw sewage as it
18 developed to the Stickney giant for treatment.
19 This policy was strictly adhered to until 1964.
20 Since that time, up £0 20 billion gallons of raw
21 sewage yearly deliberately and willfully were
22 dumped into the Chicago River by shutting off
23 the pumps at Racine Avenue Pumping Station, there-
24 by stopping the flow of sewage to the treatment
25 plant. In other words, the plant could have very
-------
3248
1 WALTER S. BALTIS
2 easily handled the treatment of the 20 "billion
3 gallons of sewage that was deliberately and
4 willfully stored in the sewers and interceptors
5 then dumped into the Chicago River during the
6 slightest rainfall.
7 The 20 billion .gallons of sewage yearly
g is equivalent to the total daily sewage load of
9 a city of 228,000 population, including industry.
10 This means that over 20,000 tons yearly of un-
11 digested sewage that should have been processed
12 causes extreme pollution and creates an additional
13 health hazard by depleting the reservoir capacity
14 of the Chicago River, and adding to the extreme
15 pollution of Lake Michigan whenever the flow of
16 the Chicago River must be reversed, due to heavy
17 rainfall in the Metropolitan Chicago area. Further
18 the U. S. Corps of Engineers has to do the extra
19 dredging of the sludge for dumping into Lake
20 Michigan to provide a passable navigation channel.
21 Further, any reversal of the Chicago River and its
22 branches to Lake Michigan must be eliminated at
23 once, as the potential health hazard and well-
24 being of the people of the Metropolitan Chicago
25 area are in this instant in complete Jeopardy
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
224$
WALTER S. BALTIS
whenever the flow of the Chicago River must be
reversed and thereby causing extreme pollution
of Lake Michigan.
(Signed) Walter S. Baltis
Walter S. Baltis
10529 W. Cermak Road
Westchester, Illinois 60153
Phone--562-2230
WSB/Jn
DEFENDERS OF SOIL, WOODS, WATERS AND WILDLIFE
THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA
INCORPORATED
BUILDING A BETTER OUTDOOR AMERICA
NATIONAL OFFICES 1326 WAUKEGAN ROAD
GLENVIEW, ILLINOIS 60025 PHONE 312-724-3880
Washington Office Room 509, 719-13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone 202-347-5880
February 5, 1968
Honorary President
Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson
National President
J. Justin Rogers
_;ast Honorary Presidents
A. D. Sutherland
Dr. M. M. Hargraves
Arthur Godfrey
Seth Gordon
John Charles Daly
Laurance S. Rockefeller
-------
3250
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WILLIAM A. RIASKI
National Vice-Presidents
Thomas E. Dustin
Claude B. Harris
Allan L. Kelly
Jake N. Lieke
Grover C. Little, Jr.
National Secretary
James A. Thomas
National Treasurer
DelLorice Olson
Executive Board
Chairman
George L. Carey
Vice Chairman
Oscal A. Becker
Gus E. Condo
G. A. "Jerry" Ellis
Vernon D. Hagelin
Reynolds T. Harnsberger
DelLorice Olson
J. Justin Rogers
Lyle C. Rogers
James A. Thomas
Hollis Weber
Charles I. Wiles, Jr.
Richard S. Yater
National Staff
Executive Director
William A. Riaski
Conservation Director
Joseph W. Penfold
Wilderness Consultant
Sigurd P. Olson
Information Director
Royal B. McClelland
Past National Presidents
Dr. Preston Bradley
Paul Clement
Dr. William B. Holton
Judge John W. Tobin
William H. H. Wertz
L. H. Dunten
William H. Pringle
George P. Jackson
Alden J. Erskine
L.C. "Jack" Binford
Burt G. Brickner
Reynolds T. Harnsberger
General Counsel
Howard S. White
IWLA Endowment
Honorary President
Dr. Preston Bradley
President .
A. J.- Erskine
Vice-President
0. A. Alderman
Secretary-Treasurer
Burton H. Atwood
Directors
0. A. Alderman
Burton H. Atwood
Alden J. Erskine
Wendell P. Haley
Claude B. Harris
Jack Horn
Richard P. Kuck
Hollis Weber
Dr. J. F. Wolff, Jr.
-------
3251
! WILLIAM A. RIASKI
2 Mr. Murray Stein, Chief Enforcement Officer
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
3 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 202*1-2
4
5 Dear Mr. Stein:
6
Enclosed you will find copies of the
7
League's statement which I was scheduled to
8
deliver on Friday, February 2, at the Four State
9
Conference on Lake Michigan Pollution in Chicago.
10
Shortly before the time I was to give
11
the statement, Mr. Clarence W. Klassen, Chief
12
Sanitary Engineer, Illinois Sanitary Water Board,
13
broke into a conversation I was conducting with
14
a representative of U. S. Senator Gaylord Nelson
15 n
to say: Rlaski, I will not allow you to make
16
that statement here today. It is not pertinent
17 M
to this conference .
18
I felt the statement was "very pertinent"
19
to the subject of the conference and this was re-
20
inforced a few moments later by remarks made by
21
William Clark, Attorney General, State of Illinois,
22
in which he lamented that after forty years of
23
frenetic effort on the part of the Illinois Sani-
24
tary Water Board, there was not a single stream
25
-------
: . : 3252
1 WILLIAM A. RIASKI
2 in the State which could be labeled "safe for
3 swimming or water skiing."
4 Had the shining deeds of accomplishment
5 of the four State pollution abatement agencies
6 represented been of consequence worthy of con-
7 sideration, I am positive any words of contra-
g diction on the part of the League would most
9 certainly have been greatly overshadowed in the
10 minds of those present at the conference. Un-
11 fortunately for the four agencies, they were not
12 allowed to have this comparison made; hence they
13 were denied the plaudits which they most certainly
14 feel they deserve!I I
15 As I have therefore been denied my
16 right of free speech, I therefore request the
17 attached statement and this letter be entered
18 into the printed record so interested persons
19 and organizations which have a real and active
20 interest in clean water for America will at least
21 have an opportunity to read it.
22 Mr. Stein, for the past forty-five years
23 there has been entirely too much "lip service11
24 devoted to prattle about "clean water" while
25 during the same period there has been far too
-------
3253
1 WILLIAM A. RIASKI
2 little real effort devoted to this cause by
3 many of the State agencies whose duties at
4 least implied their responsibility for action
5 in this field.
6 I would appreciate receiving, as soon
7 as possible, the list of those folks and the
g organisations they represented who registered
9 as being in attendance,
10 With best wishes, I am
11
Conservationally youra,
12
13 (Signed) William A. Riaski
14
William A. Riaski
is Executive Director
16 WARjcha
17 ends.
is CCt Joe G. Moore, Jr., Commissioner, FWPCA
Charles M. Rogers, Chief Info. Officer, FWPCA
19 Clarence W. Klaaaen, Chief Sanitary Engineer,
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
20 Blucher A, Poole, Technical Secy*, Indiana
Stream Pollution Control Board
21 Loring F« Oeming, Exec. Secy*, Michigan Water
Resources Commission
22 Freeman Holmer, Director, Wisconsin Department
of Resource Development
23 Joseph W. Penfold, Conservation Director, IHLA
24 encl,
25
-------
STATEMENT OF
THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA
AT THE
FOUR STATE CONFERENCE ON
POLLUTION OF LAKE MICHIGAN
Bal Tabarin Room
Sherman House
Chicago, Illinois
February 2,1968
Mr. Chairman: I am William A, Riaski, Executive Director of The Izaak Walton
League of America, the National Headquarters of which is located in Glenview,
Illinois. The League is a 46 year old nation-wide organization of citizens
dedicated to the wise and proper use of America's natural resources.
It may be of some interest to you to know that the League, at the behest of
President Hoover, in 1927 conducted the first nation-wide survey of water
pollution in the United States* Mr. Hoover at the time was Secretary of
Commerce and the Honorary President of the League. The League was then but
five years old but throughout its life it has had an active and intense in-
terest in water pollution abatement.
In 1927, there was no Federal agency specifically charged with abating water
pollution. The Illinois Sanitary Water Board came into existence shortly
thereafter due to the activities of the Illinois State Division of the League.
Various other State Divisions of the League were likewise active in this con-
nection and similar pollution abatement agencies resulted in many states. All
suoposedly were created to abate water pollution but with a few exceptions, the
records of these State agencies were most notable for their mediocrity between
1927 and 1962, The period between 1962 and 1968 has yet to reveal ouch more
in the way of actual accomplishment though it has been noted some have finally
indicated considerable interest in the job they were supposed to have been
doing for, lo, these many years.
At the time this statement was being composed ten days ago, the proposed water
quality standards submitted by Illinois and Michigan to the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration had not been approved by it. I am rather positive
this was not due to the fact the proposals submitted by these States were un-
realistically high!11 Each of these States borders on Lake Michigan and, in
addition, some watershed in each drain into the Lake.
On March 3, 1965, I attended an Illinois-Indiana Interstate Water Pollution
Conference at McCormick Place in Chicago. It, too, dealt with Lake Michigan.
Unfortunately, McCormick Place has since been destroyed by a disastrous fire.
I have often wished as hot a fire could have been built under the State Water
Pollution agencies represented here today* Had this been the case, I'm certain
it would have gotten them off their "fannies" and into action, and might have
resulted in enough solid progress in abating water pollution, so there would
have been little need for this particular conference.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is a rather new organization
though amongst its ranks it does number quite a group of folks who have had
considerable previous experience in the field of water pollution abatement.
m-o-r-e
-------
3255
- 2 -
I shall reserve my judgment as to the merits of the organization for a few more
years for I most certainly realize the lethargy which it has encountered at
the State level*
I do want to mention one particularly bright spot in the water pollution abate-
ment picture. It happens to be a local development but, insofar as actual ac-
complishment is concerned, I have yet to hear of anything in this country which
will begin to match it.
Mr. Vinton U, Bacon, the General Superintendent of the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago, has motivated his organization into not only insti-
tuting a wide variety of pilot projects aimed to reduce pollution but some have
demonstrated real worth. His plans envisage applying these results on a broad
scale and some are in the construction stage already.
In addition, he has instituted court action against major polluters not only in
Illinois but in Indiana as well.
The water quality standards established under Mr. Bacon's direction in Cook
County far exceed those established by the Illinois Sanitary Water Board.
Furthermore, he has taken forceful steps to implement the Sanitary District's
standards.
The Izaak Walton League of America does not intend to let Mr. Bacon's excellent
work go unrecognized. The League is presenting to him its highest award for
his resolute action in not only clearly and loudly warning of the great dangers
inherent in water pollution but, far more importantly, doing something con-
structive to abate water pollution.
During this conference this room has been filled with folks who, because of
their professional training, skills and experience, are well prepared to take
effective action to reduce water pollution.
For the forty-six years of the League's existence, this has often been true at
other meetings in regard to water pollution.
In the past, the ingredient which has been sadly lacking was the necessary
motivation to put these trained people in a position where their abilities and
skills could be effectively applied in a manner which would produce the needed
results.
Everywhere the citizens of the United States are now demanding action in
abating water pollution. The Izaak Walton League of America has been most
gratified to note the steadily increasing number of individuals and organiza-
tions which have cooperated with it in working for Clean Water. I am certain
this has proven to be both time consuming and costly for them just as it has
for the League. The only reward most of them will receive will be their own
self satisfaction if they are successful in their mission.
However, each and everyone of them certainly deserves the League's commenda-
tion for their high minded and spirited interest in not only their own families
but in everyone in the United States regardless of race, creed or political
belief. Clean Water is a universal benefit and it is likewise extremely ia-
portant to the continued success and growth of this Nation.
m-o-r-e
-------
3256
- 3 -
Frankly, the League is well pleased with the recommendations made to this
conference by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. No doubt
I could make some specific suggestions as to how some of its recommendations
might perhaps be strengthened and how some others could be added to its list.
Uncounted billions of words have been written and spoken about Clean Water
in the past 46 years. The needed ingredient is "action" and not more words
regardless of how sincere they might be. Therefore, I shall not try to add
to your recommendations further details for, in essence, the League will
measure not just the intent of the words of which the recommendations are
constructed, but rather the goals which are achieved.
The Izaak Walton League of America is of the opinion it is high time firm and
positive steps are taken to produce Clean Water for America.
Many times you have told us you know how to do it!!! Alright, let's get the
job done and not waste more time talking about the best way to do it.
The Izaak Walton League of America is honored to have been able to present its
views and it calls upon each and every one of you to take immediate steps to
produce Clean Water for America*
William A. Riaski
Executive Director
The Izaak Walton League of America
1326 Waukegan Road
Glenvlew, Illinois 60025
4535-M/68
-------
1 C. W. KLASSEN
2
3 STATE OP ILLINOIS
4 SANITARY WATER BOARD
5 SPRINGFIELD
6
THE BOARD
7
FRANKLIN D. YODER, M.D.,M.P.H.,
8 Chairman, Director of Public Health
9 William T. Lodge Technical Secretary
Director of Conservation Clarence W. Klassen
10 Chief Sanitary Engineer
Robert M. Schneider Department of Public Health
11 Director of Agriculture
Address Letters to:
12 Francis S. Lorenz State Sanitary Water Board
Director of Public Works Springfield, Illinois
13 & Buildings 62706
14 A. L. Sargent, Municipalities
15 C. S. Boruff, Industries
16 February 9, 1968
17
LAKE MICHIGAN - Four State Conference
18 January 31* 19^8 - Chicago
19
Mr. William A. Riaski
20 Executive Director
The Izaak Walton League of America
21 National Office
1326 Waukegan Road
22 Glenview, Illinois 60025
23
Dear Mr. Riaski:
24
25 I received a copy of your February 5
-------
3258
i 3-;.;:w;; KLASSEN .
2 letter to Mr. Stein relative to the League's
3 statement which you prepared for the Four State
4 Conference on Lake Michigan pollution meeting
5 in Chicago, when I returned to Springfield on
6 February 8th following the conference.
7 I want to be on record concerning this
g letter and your statement. Three of the prepared
9 statements were not pertinent to the subject
10 before this conference, namely Lake Michigan,
U and therefore I did indicate to you that because
i: of this fact I could not sponsor this statement
13 on Illinois time. I personally feel it is
14 extremely unfortunate that such a fine organi-
15 zation as the Izaak Walton League of America
16 did not prepare a productive statement which
17 could be a positive instrument to accelerate
18 the cleanup of Lake Michigan. To substantiate
19 this feeling, I would like to suggest that the
20 League prepare such a statement and I will submit
21 it to the Chairman and request that it be included
22 in the record. I feel that the Izaak Walton
23 League should be on record in the conference. I
24 am referring to the National Izaak Walton League,
25 inasmuch as for all of the four States, including
-------
3259
1 C.: Wv KLASSEN
2 Illinois, the particular State division did
3 present excellent statements.
4 May I also suggest that if you desire
5 to include any criticism of the Sanitary Water
6 Board please feel perfectly free to do so. I
7 want to emphasize this point because of the
8 information apparently that you had given Senator
9 Nelson that your statement was excluded by me
10 because it was critical of the Illinois Board.
11 This is positively not the case.
12 I am hopeful however that all of the
13 statements critical or otherwise will be based
14 on correct facts. In this connection, I would
15 like to call your attention to two items in your
16 original prepared statement that are not in this
17 category.
18 The first of these examples is the
19 second sentence in the third paragraph on page 1,
20 "The Illinois Sanitary Water Board came into
21 existence shortly thereafter due to the activities
22 of the Illinois State Division of the League."
23 This is not a correct statement. The original
24 Sanitary Water Board law enacted in 1929 was
25 prepared by my predecessor, the late Harry P.
-------
3360
1 -Cv W>* KLASSEN •
2 Fergeson with the assistance of the late Anna W.
3 Ickes, who was then a member of the Legislature
4 and who introduced and sponsored this legislation.
5 I was Mr. Fergeson's assistant at that time and
6 I am intimately acquainted with all of the details
7 of this legislation. The present Sanitary Water
8 Board law under which we operate was enacted in
9 1951 and this was the result of a legislative
10 commission and was not the result of any activity
11 of the Izaak Walton League. At the signing of
12 this piece of legislation, Governor Stevenson
13 invited any persons interested in this legislation
14 to be present. This was and still is a policy
15 of the Governor. The then chairman of the State
16 Division of the League was invited, was present,
17 was in the picture taken during the signing and
18 this has often been interpreted by the League as
19 proof of activity in sponsoring this legislation.
20 I was present at the signing. Then like now the
21 Governor in signing used many different pens and
22 passed these out as souvenirs to all of those
23 present. I believe I am correct that the then
24 chairman of the League had this framed as further
25 proof that this was the pen that signed the Sanitariy
-------
3363.
1 Cv:.W.-: KLASSEN
2 Water Board law and was In possession of the
3 League. I also had one of these pens*
4 Another incorrect statement Is the
5 fifth paragraph on page two which reads, "The
6 water quality standards established under Mr.
7 Bacon's direction in Cook County far exceed
8 those established by the Illinois Sanitary
9 Water Board. Furthermore, he has taken forceful
10 steps to implement the Sanitary ^District's stan-
il dards."
12 i am assuming that you are implying
13 standards in Cook County established by the
1* Metropolitan Sanitary District. This is not
15 correct. The Metropolitan Sanitary District
l6 has not established any water quality standards
I7 even though they were required by a recent Act
18 of the Legislature to do so. The Sanitary District
19 trustees have by official resolution taken action
20 to enforce the water quality standards established
21 by the Sanitary Water Board. This action was taken
22 several months ago and since that time the Illinois
on
Sanitary Water Board standards applying to Chicago
24 Metropolitan Sanitary District have been approved
25 by Secretary Udall. I am sure you are aware
-------
^262
l C. W. KLASSEN
2 that all of Cook County is not under the Juris-
3 diction of the Metropolitan Sanitary District.
4 In that portion of Cook County namely, in the
5 Chicago Heights-Lansing area that is not under
6 the Jurisdiction of the Chicago Sanitary District,
7 all municipal sewage is receiving complete treat-
g ment and disinfection and a number of the plants
9 already have tertiary treatment. The industries
10 that are not already complying with the new cri-
11 teria are under order by the Sanitary Water Board
12 "to accomplish this by December 1968. Therefore,
13 your statement that the water quality standards
14 established in Cook County far exceed those es-
15 tablished by the Illinois Sanitary Water Board is
1$ not a correct statement for reasons given above.
17 I again want to urge you to prepare a
18 statement on behalf of the National Izaak Walton
19 League that pertains to the cleanup of Lake
20 Michigan so that this can be included into the
21 record of this conference. A copy of this letter
22 is also being sent to Senator Nelson because of
23 his statement made on the Senate floor, February
24 5th, which indicated that a statement by the
25 Izaak Walton League had not been permitted to
-------
3263
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o, W. KLASSEN
be included in the record because <-»*' its
criticism of the State
Control agency.
CSK:mh
cc - Murray Stein
Senator Nelson
Joe Chantigney
Joe G. Moore, Jr.
Charles M. Rogers
FWPCA
Blucher A. Poole,
Stream Pollution
Water Pollution
Sincerely,
(Signed) C. W. Klassen
C. W. Klassen
Technical Secretary
, Commissioner, FWPCA
, Chief Info. Officer,
Tech. Secy., Indiana
Control Board
Lor ing F. Oeming, Exec. Secy., Michigan
Water Resources Commission
Freeman Holmer, Director, Wisconsin
Department of Resource Development
Joseph W. Penfold
IWLA
SWB Chicago
, Conservation Director
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1968 O—312-667 (VOL. 6)
------- |