Volume 7
MICHIGAN
Chicago, Illinois
Jan.31, Feb.1-2, Feb.5-7196|
Executive Session
March 7, 8 and 12,1968
I L L I N 0 I S
INDIANA
Pollution of
Lake Michigan and its tributary basin
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
-------
Errata Sheet. Proceedings (Vol.7)Conference - Pollution 3448
of Lake Michigan and its Tributary Basin, March iy68
Executive Session. Insert after page 3447.Replaces 3543.
j i
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Mr. Poole, do you have any problem
3
taking these up in order or do you want to do
4
this the other way?
5
MR. POOLE: Well, I think, as I
6
glance through them, it seems to me as you go
7
through the recommendations that the discussion
8
will undoubtedly bring out where there is IB.
9
feeling there is a need for research, and so
10
I am sorry to apparently disagree with Freeman,
11
but I would have no problem in treating the
12
research at the end.
13
MR. STEIN: How about —
14
MR. POOLE: I didn't think on Mr.
15
Poston's revised recommendations that he sent
16
out to us that he had treated research as
17
adequately in his revisions as he did in his
18
first draft. But I guess we can do it either
19
way. I am afraid that--
20
MR. POSTON: We can go back and take
21
the first draft, raaybe.
22
MR. POOLE: I am afraid if we try
23
to nail down here all of the research needs
24
that any of us will dream up that we are probably
25
-------
3264
1 The Executive Session of the Conference
2 on the Matter of Pollution of Lake Michigan, and its
3 Tributary Basins, convened at 9:30 o'clock a.m. on
4 March 7, 1968, at the Sherman House, Chicago, Illinois.
5 CHAIRMAN:
6 Murray Stein
Asst. Commissioner for Enforcement
7 Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.
U. S. Department of the Interior
8 Washington, D. C.
9 ALSO PRESENT:
10 Dr. Bregman
Deputy Assistant Secretary
ll U. S, Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
12
CONFEREES:
13
FEDERAL:
14 H. W. Poston, Regional Director
Great Lakes Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.
U. S. Department of the Interior
16 Chicago, Illinois
17 Assisted by:
18 Robert J. Schneider, Deputy Regional Director
Great Lakes Region
19 Federal Water Pollution Control-Admin.
U. S. Department of the Interior
20 Chicago, Illinois
an
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
21 STATE OF ILLINOIS:
Clarence W. Klassen, Technical Secretary
Illinois Sanitary Wate
Springfield, Illinois
23
Assisted by:
24
Douglas Morton, Sanitary Engineer
25 Illinois Sanitary Water Board
Springfield, Illinois
-------
: 3263
1 CONFEREES (CONTINUED):
2 STATE OP INDIANA:
3 John S. Mitchell, Director
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
4 Indianapolis, Indiana
5 and
6 Blucher Poole, Technical Secretary
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
7 Indianapolis, Indiana
g Assisted by:
9 Perry S. Miller, Assistant Director
Division of Sanitary Engineering
10 Indiana State Board of Health
Indianapolis, Indiana
11
STATE OF MICHIGAN:
12
Loring F. Oeming, Executive Secretary
13 Michigan Water Resources Commission
Lansing, Michigan
14
Assisted by:
15
Ralph W. Purdy, Chief Engineer
16 Michigan Water Resources Commission
Lansing, Michigan
17
STATE OF WISCONSIN:
18
Freeman Holmer, Administrator
19 Division of Resource Development
Department of Natural Resources
20 Madison, Wisconsin
21 Assisted by:
22
Theodore F. Wisniewski
Assistant to the Administrator
23
Division of Resource Development
Department of Natural Resources
24 Madison, Wisconsin
25
-------
3266
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:
2 D. E. Alton, Pollution Control Engineer
Kaiser Engineers, Inc.
3 Chicago, Illinois
4 Neil Baldwin, Assistant Editor
Chemical & Engineering News
5 Chicago, Illinois
6 Col. Roger A. Barnes, Deputy Division Engineer
U.S.A. Corps of Engineers
7 North Central Division
Chicago, Illinois
8
Dr. Lawrence Beer, Staff Engineer
9 Commonwealth Edison Company
Chicago, Illinois
10
Olga Berger
11 4631 Lawn Avenue
Western Springs, Illinois
12
John E. Bessert, National Sales Manager
13 Zimpro Division of Sterling Drug, Inc.
Olen Ellyn, Illinois
14
Harry V. Bierma, Chairman
15 Clean Streams Committee
Illinois Audubon Society
16 Chicago, Illinois
17 R. M. Billings, Assistant to Vice-President
Research and Engineering
18 Kimberly Clark Corp.
Neenah, Wisconsin
19
Mrs. Russell Bonynge, Chairman
20 Lake Michigan Inter-League Group
League of Women Voters
21 Wilmette, Illinois
22 R. J. Bowden, Chief
Calumet Area : Surveillance Unit
23 Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
Chicago, Illinois
24
L. L. Bradish, Executive Secretary
25 Cook County Clean Streams Committee
River Forest, Illinois
-------
326?
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED):
2 T. E. Branagan, Manager
Wisconsin Paper Industry
3 Neenah, Wisconsin
4 John R. Brough, Director
Air & Water Control
5 Inland Steel Company
East Chicago, Indiana
6
Dale S. Bryson, Acting Director
7 Minneapolis Program Office
Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
8 Minneapolis, Minnesota
9 Mrs. Dolores A. Burkee, Chemist
City of Kenosha
10 Kenosha, Wisconsin
11 J. Floyd Byrd, Head
Environmental Control Section
12 Charmin Paper Products
Procter & Gamble Company
13 Cincinnati, Ohio
14 J. Roland Carr, Regional Editor
Engineering News Record
15 Chicago, Illinois
16 Joseph T. Chantigney, Chairman
Great Lakes I.W.L.A.
17 Dolton, Illinois
18 Edward C. Cleave
2638 Hillside Lane
19 Evanston, Illinois
20 Robert J. Conroy, Manager
Operations Evaluation
21 Union Tank Car Company
Chicago, Illinois
22
G. F. Craun, Sanitary Engineer
23 U. S. Public Health Service
Chicago, Illinois
24
25
-------
^268
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED):
2 3ruce Cross, Bureau Chief
McGraw-Hill Publications
3 Chicago, Illinois
4 Quincy Dadisman, Reporter
Milwaukee Sentinel
5 Milwaukee, Wisconsin
6 Mrs. Miriam G. Dahl, Chairman
Common Pollution
7 Wisconsin State Division, I.W.L.A.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
8
R. G. Dalbke, Engineer
9 Kaiser Engineers, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
10
Irvin L. Dickstein, Chief
H Pollution Surveillance
Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
12 Ohio Basin Region
Cincinnati, Ohio
13
Mrs. J. Dintenfass
14 Arlington Heights League of Women Voters
Hoffman Estates, Illinois
15
Mrs* J. R. Doty, Vice-President
16 DuPage County League of Women Voters
Glen 311yn, Illinois
17
Marshall C. Elmore, Chairman
18 Pollution Committee
Lake County Pish & Game Protective Assn. of Indiana
19 Whiting, Indiana
20 S. A. Foust, Project Engineer
Union Carbide
21 Whiting, Indiana
22 J. A. Fowler, Engineer
Sinclair Refining Company
23 East Chicago, Indiana
24 Herbert D. Fritz, Management Consultant
P & W Engineers, Inc.
25 Chicago, Illinois
-------
3269
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED):
2 C. W. Oansv, Representative
American Petroleum Institute
3 Chicago, Illinois
4 George Oockstetter, Superintendent
Republic Steel Corporation
5 Chicago, Illinois
6 James F. Orutsch
Coordinator of Waste Disposal
7 American Oil Company
Chicago, Illinois
8
C. Fred Ournham, Vice-President
9 C. W. Rice & Company
Chicago, Illinois
10
Alfred F. Hanson
11 Plant Engineering
Johnson Motors
12 waukegan, Illinois
13 Art Harris, Pollution Writer
Indianapolis News
14 Indianapolis, Indiana
15 Robert A. Hirshfield, Staff Engineer
Commonwealth Edison Company
16 Chicago, Illinois
17 Paul W. Horeyseck, Associate Director
Continental Can Company
18 Chicago, Illinois
19 James W. Jardine, Commissioner
Water & Sewers
20 City of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
21
Mrs. Philip Haynes, Jr.
22 The Calumet Press
Highland, Indiana
23
Mrs. Eileen Johnston
24 President & Michigan Alumni Club Water Resources Chmn
Wilmette League of Women Voters
25 Wilmette, Illinois
-------
: "32 7 o^
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED):
2 Peter V. Judd, Manager
Midwest Regional Office
3 NUS Corporation
Chicago, Illinois
4
Richard Klenitz
5 Milwaukee Journal
Madison, Wisconsin
6
F. W. Kittrell, Senior Consultant
7 Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
Cincinnati, Ohio
8
Fred G. Krikau
9 Environmental Control Engineer
Interlace Steel Corporation
10 Chicago, Illinois
11 L. E. Langdon, Vice-President
Pacific Flush Tank Company
12 Chicago, Illinois
13 Allen S. Lavin, Attorney
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
14 Chicago, Illinois
15 Kenneth Lehner, Superintendent
Chemical Services
16 Wisconsin Electric Power
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
17
James P. Linse, Pollution Writer
18 Gary Post-Tribune
Gary, Indiana
19
Ralph Luken, Assistant Professor
20 Water Resources Commission
University of Michigan
21 Conservation Department
Ann Arbor, Michigan
22
23 Gerald Marks, Trustee
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
24 Chicago, Illinois
25
-------
3271
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED):
2 David W. Martin, Engineer - Manager
Green Bay Metropolitan Sanitary District
3 Green Bay, Wisconsin
4 Glenn W. Metcalfe
Supervisor of Sanitation
5 Chicago Park District
Chicago, Illinois
6
J. H. Miller, Chief Engineer
7 Wisconsin Steel
Chicago, Illinois
8
Mrs. Herbert Moore
9 17^2 N. Prospect Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
10
Herbert Moore
11 Consulting Engineer
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
12
A. Thomas Munizzo, Assistant Director
13 Special Services
Chicago Park District
14 Chicago, Illinois
15 H. D. McCullough, City Engineer
City of Milwaukee
16 Milwaukee, Wisconsin
17 S. W. McKibbins, Manager
Special Projects
18 Continental Can Co.
New York, New York
19
John S. McLean, Sanitary Engineer
20 Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
Washington, D. C.
21
Patrick M. O'Connell
22 Northwestern University
Svanston, Illinois
23
Richard A. Pavia, Assistant Commissioner
24 Department of Water & Sewers
City of Chicago
25 Chicago, Illinois
-------
: 3272
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED):
2 C. Peraberton, Jr., Director
Technical Programs
3 Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
Chicago, Illinois
4
John H. Pingel
5 Senior Health Physicist
U.S. AEC Chicago Operations Office
6 Argonne, Illinois
7 Thomas J. Powers
Industrial Waste Consultant
g Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
Cincinnati, Ohio
9
Ernest D. Premetz, Deputy Regional Director
10 U. S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
11 Ann Arbor, Michigan
12 Isaac B. Putnam, Chemist
Sanitary Engineer
13 U. S. Navy Department
Great Lakes, Illinois
14
Ronald E. Reder
15 Nuclear Licensing Administrator
Commonwealth Edison Company
16 Chicago, Illinois
17 Philip A. Reed, Filtration Engineer
Chicago Water Purification Division
18 Chicago, Illinois
19 Clifford Risley, Jr., Director
Chicago Program Office
20 Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
Chicago, Illinois
21
D. F. Roberts, Sanitary Engineer
22 Harza Engineering Company
Chicago, Illinois
23
E. N. Rogers, Chief Estimator
24 Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co.
Chicago, Illinois
25
-------
3273
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED):
2 Mrs. Samuel Rome
Water Resources Chairman
3 Illinois League of Women Voters
Chicago, Illinois
4
Judie Romeo
5 Assistant Midwest Bureau Chief
Chemical Week Magazine
6 Chicago, Illinois
7 Erie F. Ross, Chicago Editor
Steel Magazine
g Chicago, Illinois
9 Edward C. Rubin, Regional Manager
Chicago Pump - PMC Corporation
10 LaOrange, Illinois
11 LeRoy E. Scarce, Director of Laboratories
Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
12 Chicago Program Office
Chicago, Illinois
13
Harry E. Schlenz, President
14 Pacific Flush Tank Company
Chicago, Illinois
15
D. A. Schwartz
16 Technical Services
Nalco
17 Chicago, Illinois
18 Walter E. Scott
Assistant to Administrator
19 Division of Conservation
Department of Natural Resources
20 Madison, Wisconsin
21 C. Owsley Shephard, Special Writer
Chicago's American
22 Chicago, Illinois
23 Don Shires, Manager
Public Information
24 Inland Steel Company
Chicago, Illinois
25
-------
327^
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED):
2 Mrs. J. Shubeck
league of Women Voters
3 Arlington Heights, Illinois
4 Mrs. Milton Sibley
Precinct Captain
5 Michigan City, Indiana
6 M. W. Sibleyj Water Engineer
Rock Island Railroad
7 Michigan City, Indiana
8 Charles M. Squarcy
Assistant to Vice-president
9 Inland Steel Company
East Chicago, Indiana
10
Mrs. Cecil M. Stephens
11 League of Women Voters
Highland, Indiana
1*
Howard W. Stern, President
13 Aquatic Controls Corporation
Waukesha, Wisconsin
14
Donald L. Usborne, Engineer
15 Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
Chicago, Illinois
16
James C. Vaughn, Engineer
17 Water Purification
City of Chicago
18 Chicago, Illinois
19 T. W. VerValin
162 E. Ontario
20 Chicago, Illinois
21 Frank I. Vilen, Superintendent
Water Pollution Control
22 Kenosha, Wisconsin
23 DeYarman Wallace, Research Supervisor
Youngstown Sheet & Tube
24 Youngstown, Ohio
25
-------
3275
1 . OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED):
2 R. D. Watkins
Public Relations
3 U. S. Steel Corp.
Chicago, Illinois
4
R. V. Weil, Assistant Manager - Engineering
5 Sinclair Refining Company
Harvey, Illinois
6
J. S. Whitaker, Coordinator
7 Environmental Health
Union Carbide Corporation
g New York, New York
9 B. P. Willey, Director
Water Purification Laboratory
10 City of Chicago, Bureau of Water
Chicago, Illinois
11
Mrs. Bertram G. Woodland
12 League of Women Voters
Homewood, Illinois
13
Mrs. Robert Zilly, State Chairman
14 Michigan League of Women Voters
Stevensville, Michigan
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
3276
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
PROCEEDINGS
3
4 MR. STEIN: The Executive Session of
. the Four-State Federal Enforcement Conference on
6 Pollution of Lake Michigari and its Drainage Area
7 is open.
« We have had an extensive conference.
9 I think all views have been fairly well aired.
10 The situation is so complicated that the State
^ and Federal representatives have gone back and
12 have thought about the problem and perfected
13 their positions over the past few weeks, we are
14 here to try to arrive at conclusions and recom-
15 mendations, and I suspect, unless there is a
16 movement to the contrary, that the Conferees will
17 sit until this job has been accomplished. I
jg hope if we are expeditious we can do it today.
19 The technique we are going to try to
20 use is very similar to the one that we have used
2i in the past. We will come up with the specific
22 recommendations on the points that are raised,
23 trying to cover the material that we have to
24 cover because of the statute and perfect the
25 conclusions and recommendations.
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
At that point, a draft will be made of
3
these. We will try to get these typed. Then we
4
will distribute typed copies to all the Conferees
5
and go over them. Nothing that is said at any
6
interim point is to be considered irrevocable,
7
that is until we are satisfied with the final
8
draft, and that will be the conclusions and
9
recommendations. It is often expeditious to get
10
a draft typed that we are all in pretty general
11
agreement on and make a few adjustments later
12
when these draft papers come in.
13
Before we start, the Department of the
14
Interior was very interested, as you may know,
15
the Secretary's office, in this conference, and
16
we have a representative of the Secretary of the
17
Interior here, Deputy Assistant Secretary Bregman,
18
who will give us the views of Secretary Udall on
19
various problems which the Conferees may take up.
20
Dr. Bregman.
21
DR. BREGMAN: Thank you.
22
The Secretary asked me to make a brief
23
statement to you. He wanted to wish you good
24
luck and Godspeed in your deliberations today.
25
-------
^ : 3278
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
He would like to make some very hard, aggressive
3
and specific action recommendations as a result
4
of this conference. There are some particular
5
points he felt especially strongly about that he
6
wanted to be sure I mentioned to you, and I would
7
like to Just read a few of his comments.
8
First dealing with the control of
9
phosphates. We have heard at the conference
10
that it is feasible to build tertiary treatment
11
plants for the control of phosphates. It is
12
economical in terms of the benefits that can be
13
achieved. The technology is available. I am
14
certain that you will agree that the removal of
15
phosphates from wastes entering the lake should
16
be required, and that you will suggest a realistic
17
time period in which to do this.
18
Second is the question of thermal pollu-
19
tion. The Secretary has purposely left open the
20
question of temperature in Lake Michigan in his
21
approval of the State water quality standards in
22
the case of each of the States here. He wanted
23
the conference to discuss this question and he
24
hopes that your conclusions will take into account
25
-------
3279
l EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the large number of nuclear utilities that are
3
planned for the lake and the considerable amount
4
of heat that will therefore enter the lake at
5
specific points. I would hope that you will
6
consider a definition of appropriate mixing
7
zones, perhaps adopt a uniform definition, and
g
will ask for rather stringent limits on allowable
9
temperature increases.
10
Then comes one of our favorite subjects,
polluted dredgings. We have heard over and over
12
again at this conference that polluted dredgings
13
must not be dumped into Lake Michigan. Gentlemen,
14
this means anywhere in the lake, not just a ban
15
on dumping near heavily-populated areas with
16
particularly pollution-conscious newspapers.
17 >
Sewage from boats. There/has been
18
general agreement at the conference that dumping
19
of raw sewage from vessels into ;the lake must
20
stop. I would hope that the Conferees will
21
recommend to each of their States passage of
22
appropriate State legislation to accomplish
23
this goal. And we would hope that this would
24
be done during this year.
25
-------
. - .3280
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Surveillance. The moat effective
3
control for unexpected emergencies, such as
4
oil spills, is an adequate surveillance program
5
that will spot polluting Incidents as soon as
6
possible. The Secretary would hope to see the
7
Conferees Initiate the activity required to
8
develop such a program on a Joint Federal-State
9
basis. FVPCA and the Coast Guard already have
10
begun to discuss the development of a surveillance
11
program, and I believe that participation by
12
the States and cities would ensure its success.
13
As far as conventional wastes go,
14
tight timetables for minimizing the flow of
15
conventional wastes from municipalities and
16
industries into the lake should be recommended.
17
Agricultural wastes. We have heard
18
that many of the problems in Lake Michigan are
10
the result of agricultural runoffs that include
20
contaminants such as fertilizers and pesticides.
21
I would hope that the conference will develop a
22
plan of action for handling this type of waste.
23
There are a number of other problems,
24
I am sure, that you will be taking action on,
25
-------
3281
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and I won't try to mention them all, but feel
3
very confident of a successful conclusion of
4 ;
the conference. I am particularly heartened
5
by the faces I see around the conference table.
6
I think the residents of the Lake Michigan area
7
are indeed fortunate to have Conferees of your
8
expertise and dedication. You are, without
9
question, as able a group of State pollution
10
control administrators as any in the Nation. I
11
personally have known some of you for a long
12
time and a good deal of what I have learned about
13
water pollution I have learned from you.
14
Gentlemen, I wish you luck.
15
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Dr. Bregman.
16
(Applause.)
17
MR. STEIN; Now as to the procedures.
18
We have, at least I have, specific recommendations
19
from the regional office of the Federal Water
20
Pollution Control Administration ana some from
21
the State of Wisconsin. If there are any more,
22
perhaps we should have them, and I suggest we
23
might try to dovetail any suggestions we have
24
from all the Conferees and try to get a coordinated
25
-------
3282
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
approach and see If we can work this out.
3
Do you all have copies of the Federal
4
conclusions?
5
And we also have Wisconsin's.
6
May I suggest, Just to start, to see
7
how this goes, that we read the Federal conclu-
8
sions, and I would suggest, Mr. Holmer, with
9
the Wisconsin conclusions or suggestions, that
10
any time you feel that they should work in or
11
we would modify or substitute one of yours, you
12
might call the attention of the Conferees to
13
that, because I think you are most familiar with
14
the material in yours. But there is only one
15
way to start and that is to begin.
16
17
CONCLUSION #1
18
19 i,
1. Lake Michigan is a priceless natural
20
heritage which the present generation holds in
21
trust for posterity, with an obligation to pass
22
it on in the best possible condition."
23
Are there any comments on that? Or
24
do the Conferees think that this is an agreeable
25
-------
3283
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
way to start the conclusions?
3
MR. OEMING: Mr. Stein.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes.
5
MR. OEMING: I wonder if it might not
6
be a little more precise here if we were canvassed
7
on these rather than Just throw the question open
8
here, if you just canvassed and got an expression
9
from each of the Conferees on this? This is rather
10
than throw the question on the table.
11
MR. STEIN: All right, I think that is
12
a fair approach.
13
Again, if you get passed on that, you
14
are not passed forever. The reason I do this
15
is to give you more flexibility.
16
All right.
17
Michigan?
18
MR. OEMING: Satisfactory.
19
MR. STEIN: Illinois?
20
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K.
21
MR. STEIN: Indiana?
22
MR. POOLE: 0. K.
23
MR. STEIN: And Wisconsin?
24
MR. HOLMER; All right.
25
-------
328*1-
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: All right, fine.
3
Let's go to #2.
4
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Mr. Stein, would
5
you please make more use of the microphone?
6
MR. STEIN: Yes.
7
FROM THE AUDIENCE: It is very difficult
8
to hear you.
9
MR. STEIN: All right, we are going
10
to try to do that. Now, as I told you people
11
when you came here, this is an executive session
12
and this is going to be a working session back
13
and forth. We will do the best we can with the
14
microphones.
15
16
CONCLUSION #2
17
18
M2. Water uses of Lake Michigan and its
19
tributaries for municipal water supply, recreation,
20
including swimming, boating, and other body
21
contact sports, commercial fishery, propagation
22
of fish and aquatic life, and esthetic enjoyment,
23
are presently impaired by pollution in many parts
24
of all four of the States that border upon and
25
-------
3283
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
have common boundaries within the lake. The
3
sources of this pollution include wastes from
4
municipalities, industries, Federal activities,
5
combined sewer overflows, agricultural practices,
6
watercraft, natural runoff, and related activi-
7 „
ties throughout the drainage basin.
8
Illinois?
9
Wisconsin?
10
MR. HOLMER: I am not quite sure of
11
the purpose of the language in the third, fourth
12 „
and fifth lines, which reads, impaired by
13
pollution in many parts of all four of the
14
States that border upon and have common boun-
15
darles within the lake. This strikes me as
16
being kind of an awkward phrase, to begin with.
17
Is it the purpose of this language to
18
indicate that this is interstate pollution? Is
19
that the purpose of this language? Otherwise
20
I think it is Just awkward.
21
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston, do you want
22
to comment?
23
MR. POSTON: Well, I think this is
24
intended to set forth that we are polluting
25
-------
3286
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Lake Michigan and its pollution affects our
3
water uses, and I would say that it does say
4
that it is interstate in nature.
5
MR. HOLMER: It would read so much
6
easier if there were a period after the word
7
"pollution," for example.
8
I am not trying to raise a problem
9
of whether there is interstate pollution or
10
not, because I think this is taken care of
11
later in the--
12
MR. STEIN: Where do you mean a
13
period after "pollution"?
14
MR. HOLMER: In the fourth line,
15
"The water uses of Lake Michigan are presently
16
impaired by pollution." We had evidence that
17
this is to some extent true.
18
MR. STEIN: And strike the rest?
19
MR. POSTON: I would go along with
20
that.
21
MR. OEMING: May we have an understand-
22
ing what we are talking about, Mr. Stein? Would
23
you please--
24
MR. STEIN: Yes.
25
-------
3287
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Mr. Stein, may I try
3
to clear this up now?
4 . '-
Mr. Holmer, are you saying that the
5
paragraph two would read this way:
6
"Water uses of Lake Michigan and its
7
tributaries for municipal water supply, recrea-
8
tion, including swimming, boating, and other
9
b o;d y contact sports, commercial fishery,
10
propagation of fish and aquatic life, and
11
aesthetic enjoyment, are presently impaired
12
by pollution." The rest of the paragraph be
13
stricken?
14
MR. HOLMER: No, the last of the
15
sentence is all. "The sources," include that
16
sentence.
17
MR. OEMING: Oh, I see.
18
MR. STEIN: And we strike the rest of
19
that sentence, right?
20
MR. OEMING: And then you go on and
21
say, "The sources of this pollution include
22
wastes," and so on and so forth?
23
MR. HOLMER: Yes.
24
MR. OEMING: 0. K., I Just wanted a
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
comment.
3
MR. STEIN: Did you understand that
4
proposal?
5
Mr. Poston, are you in agreement with
6
that?
7
MR. POSTON: I will agree to that.
8
MR. STEIN: Mr. Oeming?
9
MR. OEMING: Mr. Stein, I don't know
10
as I am clear on this, but I wonder what is
11
the purpose of putting in "and its tributaries"
12
if we are speaking in the context of interstate
13
pollution of Lake Michigan. I raise a question
14
here as to the bearing of the phrase "and its
15
tributaries" on the water uses of Lake Michigan
16
and the interstate problem that we are talking
17
about in Lake Michigan.
18
MR. STEIN: Your proposal would be,
10 I • •
then, to strike "and its tributaries"?
20
MR. OEMING: Yes, "Water uses of Lake
21
Michigan."
22
MR. STEIN: This is a Jurisdictional
23
point. Do you have any problem with that?
24
MR. POSTON: Where is the —
25
-------
3289
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Let me read that. "Water
3
uses of Lake Michigan and its tributaries."
4
The point made by Mr. Oeming is that
5
here we are talking about effects of pollution
6
and interstate effects, and he does not see the
7
point, if we are dealing with this interstate
8
Jurisdictional question, why we are dealing with
9
the tributaries in Lake Michigan which are not
10
interstate in the effects.
11
MR. POSTON: I might ask the Chairman,
12
in calling this conference, for a ruling concerning
13
the Secretary's directive when he asked us to
14
consider pollution in the basin, in the Lake
15
Michigan and the whole basin, what--
16
MR. STEIN: I think what the Secretary
17
meant was that any material that got into Lake
18
Michigan, whether it was discharged directly
19
into the lake or a tributary of the lake, would
20
be covered by the conference if this were en-
21
dangering the health and welfare of persons in
22
another State.
23
What Mr. Oeming is saying, as I under-
24
stand him on this point, is that since we are
25
-------
3290
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 dealing with the effects of pollution, the
3 place where you get the interstate effect would
4 be in Laxe Michigan and not the tributaries.
5 MR. POSTON: Well-, we do have some
6 streams that are interstate, like the St. Joseph
7 River, for one, and the Menominee River.
g MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, in that
9 context, then, I would say the water uses of
10 Lake Michigan and spell out the interstate
H tributaries.
12 MR. POSTON: O.K.
13 MR. OEMING: Then I would be content.
14 MR. STEIN: All right, let's see if
15 we can--
16 MR. OEMING: If you want to be specific,
17 say the St. Joe River and others.
18 MR. STEIN: I don't know that we ca,n !
19 be that specific with all this catalogue of industries
20 for those rivers.
21 MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, I think
22 the jurisdictional problem is covered in the
23 second sentence if we are willing to concede
24 that the sources of this pollution 'include
25 wastes from activities throughout the drainage
-------
: 3291
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
basin.
3
MR. OEMING: I think so.
4
MR. HOLMER: This I think we can
5
concede, and it would not then require tributaries-
6
MR. STEIN: All right. There are two
7 . ' '
proposals, to either strike out and its tribu-
8
taries" and put "and interstate tributaries .
9
What would you suggest is the way to do this?
10
MR. OEMING: My suggestion, Mr. Chairman,
11
in the light of Mr. Holmer's interpretation and
12
yours, with the last sentence in there that you
13
could strike "and its tributaries" and you would
14
be saying the same thing.
15
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston, are you in
16
agreement?
17
MR. POSTON: Well, I still like the
18
use of that word "interstate tributaries" there,
19
Mr. Chairman.
20
MR. STEIN: All right, let us see if
21
we can find some other Conferees and try to get
22
a consensus.
23
Mr. Poole?
24
MR. POOLE: In view of Mr. Holmer's
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
remarks, I don't see that the words "and its
3
tributaries" contribute anything.
4
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen?
5
MR. KLASSEN: Illinois geographically
6
is not involved in this discussion because we
7
have nothing like this, but I would say I am
8
agreeable either way. I personally would like
9
to see the tributaries spelled out rather than
10
leaving it in general on the basin, but either
11
would be 0. K.
12
MR. STEIN: Yes. Here is the problem,
13
Mr. Klassen, as I see it. If we talk in terms
14
of general water uses and you list all these
15
water uses, that is all right. But if we name
16
the St. Joseph and the Menominee and then we
17
talk about all these damages, these damages
18
Just aren't current in those specific uses.
19
MR. POSTON: I will concede, Mr.
20
Chairman.
21
MR. STEIN: Yes. I think this is the
22
point.
23
Let me read this in order to make sure
24
MR. POSTON: In light of this, where
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
it says the related activities throughout the
3
drainage basin.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes.
5,
Let me read this again, so there is
6
no mistake.
7
"2. Water uses of Lake Michigan for
8
municipal water supply, recreation, including
9
swimming, boating, and other body contact sports,
IP
commercial fishery, propagation of fish and
U
aquatic life, and aesthetic enjoyment are presently
12,
impaired by pollution. The sources of this pol-
13
lution include wastes from municipalities,
14
industries, Federal activities, combined sewer
15
overflows, agricultural practices, watercraft,
16
natural runoff and related activities throughout
17
the drainage basin."
18
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
19
MR. STEIN: Yes.
20
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, may I say
21
that Michigan now subscribes to the statement
22
as you have read it.
23
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole?
24
MR. POOLE: We buy it.
25
-------
329*1
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Mr. Holmer?
3
MR. HOLMER: Yes.
4
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen?
5
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
6
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston?
7
MR. POSTON: Yes.
8
MR. STEIN: All right.
9
10
CONCLUSION #3
11
12
"3. Eutrophication is a threat now
13
to the usefulness of Lake Michigan and other
14
lakes within the Basin. Unless checked, the
15
aging of Lake Michigan will be accelerated by
16
continuing pollution to the extent that it will
17
duplicate the Lake Erie eutrophication condition.
18
Feasible methods exist for bringing this problem
19
under control. They need to be applied."
20
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
21
MR. STEIN: Yes.
22
MR. OEMING: May I comment? Again I
23
would wonder what is the pertinence of the
24
phrase "and other lakes within the Basin" in the
25
-------
3295
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
context that we are talking about Lake Michigan?
3
MR. STEIN: What is the meaning of
4
that?
5
MR. POSTON: I think what we are talking
6
about is there are many lakes around Lake Michi-
7
gan with a similar problem.
8
N MR. OEMING: Well, we understand that,
9
we accept this premise. I mean there isn't any
10
question that there is eutrophication in inland
11
lakes.
12
MR. POSTON: Right.
13
MR. OEMING: In the context of this
14
conference, however, what does that mean with
15
respect to Lake Michigan? Let's say Higgins
16
Lake in the center part of Michigan.
17
MR. STEIN: Your proposal, as I get
18
it, is we put a period after Lake Michigan?
19
MR. OEMING: Yes.
20
MR. STEIN: And strike "and other lakes."
21
MR. POSTON: I think we have Lake Winne-
22
bago, which is one lake that has a lot of problems.
23
MR. STEIN: Is that an interstate
24
problem?
25
-------
: ^296
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: It flows into Green Bay;
3
it is part of the Fox River system.
4
MR. STEIN: And does it contribute
5
to the.eutrophication of the lake?
6
MR. POSTON: Well, everything that
7
comes into Lake Winnebago comes right on out
8
into--
9
MR. STEIN: I understand this. What
10
we are bothered about here is the Jurisdictional
11
point.
12
I think your points are well taken,
13
but the question that is raised here is in
14
these preliminary operations when we are talking
15
about damages or effects, and we are talking
16
about interstate effects, are we stretching it
17
a little too far or in a sense weakening it by
18
not Just writing the "bare statement that eutro-
19
phication is a threat now to the usefulness of
20
Lake Michigan? And then we pick up all the
21
sources, whether they are a polluted lake--
22
MR. OEMING: That is right.
23
MR. STEIN: --or an industry or a city
24
or anything.
25
-------
32Q7
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: You are going to pick
3
them up anyway.
4
MR. STEIN: Would this be agreeable,
5
to putting a period after Lake Michigan?
6
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
7
MR. STEIN: All right.
8
Now, are there any other comments?
9
MR. OEMING: One more, Mr. Chairman,
10
for Michigan and then I will be finished.
11
MR. STEIN: Yes.
12
MR. OEMING: I wonder if it would help
13
the understanding of everybody if when we say
14
"will duplicate the lake" we qualified this and
15
said, well, ultimately or in some period of
16
time duplicate.
17
I don't feel strongly about this, but
18
I wonder if there is any point in it?
19
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen.
20
MR. KLASSEN: I do feel strongly about
21
bringing in Lake Erie. We have no testimony in
22
this conference about Lake Erie, and I wouldn't
23
like to say it is going to duplicate Lake Erie
24
because then I would be afraid we might have a
25
-------
3298
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
tendency to duplicate the recommendations in
3
Lake Erie and I thought they were pretty weak.
4
Why can't Lake Michigan stand on its own?
5
MR. STEIN: I don't know how weak that
6
is in Lake Erie.
7
MR. OEMING: I don't agree with that.
8
MR. STEIN: Maybe the people don't
9
think it is weak who have to live there.
10
MR. KLASSEN: What does Lake Erie
11
have to do with this problem? We have no
12
evidence at all.
13
MR. STEIN: I agree with you.
14
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
15
MR. STEIN: I saw that when it came
16
up, and I don't know on the basis of the record
17
here that we can make any conclusions on Lake
18
Erie. The record in this conference certainly
19
wasn't directed toward the question and we don't
20
have substantiating evidence on that. I think
21
we would be well advised to stay away from it.
22
MR. OEMING: May we have a ruling from
23
the Chairman as to what we are going to do with
24
this now?
25
-------
3299
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Can we say, "Unless
3
checked, the aging of Lake Michigan will be
4
accelerated by continuing pollution" period?
5
MR. OEMINQ: Right.
6
MR. STEIN: All right? Because the
7
other, as far as this conference, is gratuitous.
8
MR. OEMING: That is a good word.
9
MR. POOLE: Now would you read that,
10
Mr. Chairman?
11
MR. STEIN: Yes. Here is how we have
12
it, and I will entertain further changes:
13
"Eutrophication is a threat now to
14
the usefulness of Lake Michigan. Unless checked,
15
the aging of Lake Michigan will be accelerated
16
by continuing pollution."
17
And then the other two sentences follow!
18
"Feasible methods exist for bringing
19
this problem under control. They heed to be
20
applied."
21
All right?
22
MR. OEMING: Michigan now subscribes.
23
MR. HOLMER: I want to be real sure.
24
I know we are all agreed that eutrophication
25
-------
^___ 3300
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
needs to be the object of our attention and our
3
aggressive action to abate and reverse it. But
4
I am not sure that we may not in that next
5
sentence be stating more thar we can state with
6
certainty: "Feasible methods exist for bringing
7
this problem under control." I hope this is true.
8
We heard evidence that there are things that can
9
be done and certainly we want to do them. But
10
I think it is a little strong.
11
MR. STEIN: 0. K. We want to entertain
12
the points, but I think it might be helpful, if
13
you can, when you raise your points to come up
14
with a suggestion for a drafting change one way
15
or the other. You may want to think about that,
16
but I would like that point raised by Mr. Holmer
17
to be opened for discussion.
18
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
19
MR. STEIN: Yes.
20
MR. OEMING: As I understand the issue
21
here now, it is over this bringing the problem
22
under control, Mr. Holmer, and I wonder if a
23
change in wording might be inserted that feasible
24
methods exist for removal of phosphates from
25
-------
3301
1 • EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
sewage and wastes, point sources of sewage and
3
wastes.
4
MR. HOLMER: I wouldn't argue about
5
that. I am not sure whether that is all we
6
ought to say about it.
7
MR. STEIN: Do you have a suggestion^
8
MR. HOLMER: I didn't have any language
9
on this precise point. I was raising the question.
10
MR. STEIN: Well, let's try it this
11
way. Let's try to get Mr. Oeraing's suggested
12
language. And again this is a draft and this
13
is a key point.
14
How would you say that again, Mr.
15
Oercing?
16
MR. OEMING: I would strike "bringing
17
this problem under control" and insert in lieu
18
thereof "for removing phosphates from sewage and
19
from point sources of sewage and waste discharges."
20
MR. STEIN: Why do you say point
21
sources?
22
MR. OEMING: 0. K., if you don't want
23
to use point sources--
24
MR. POSTON: How about the word nutrients|?
25
-------
3302
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: For removing phosphates
3
from--
4
MR. OEMING: Sewage and waste dis-
5
charges.
6
MR. STEIN: —sewage and industrial
7
waste discharges?
8
MR. OEMING: Yes.
9
MR. STEIN: Let's try it that way.
10
MR. OEMING; Kick that one out and let
11
them shoot it down.
12
MR* STEIN: All right.
13
Are there any other comments?
14
If not, do you have any objection
15
to the last sentence, "They need to be applied"?
16
MR. OEMING: No.
17
MR. STEIN: 0. K.
18
Let me read this again in total and
19
see if we may have a possible agreement:
20
"Eutrpphica.tion is a threat now to
21
the usefulness of Lake Michigan. Unless checked,
22
the aging of Lake Michigan will be accelerated
23
by continuing pollution. Feasible methods exist
24
for removing phosphates from sewage and industrial
25
-------
3303
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
waste discharges. They need to be applied."
3
All right?
4
PROM THE AUDIENCE: Are phosphates
5
the only contributors to eutrophication?
6
MR. STEIN: Pardon?
7
MR. MITCHELL: I would hope that
8
the inference is not given to the people here
9
today that we are not concerned about removal
10
of phosphates from our inland lakes because
11
we struck out that last part of the first
12
sentence.
13
MR. STEIN: Oh, no, no, no. Here,
14
let me make this abundantly clear, Mr. Mitchell.
15
I think you put your finger on something that
16
has to be very clear.
17
We recognize that what we are doing
18
in this enforcement conference is limited by
19
the Federal Jurisdiction to interstate waters
20
if we are going to clean up the phosphate
21
problem. This necessarily has to be a primary
22
responsibility of the States.
23
We are just in a Federal-State enforce-
24
ment case dealing with the aspects of the problem
25
-------
3304
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
which endanger health or welfare of persons in
3
States other than that in which the discharge
4
originates.
5
I would say for Indiana and perhaps
6
Michigan, the bulk of your program is going
7
to be directed to the danger to the people
8
within your State, but that is not the province
9
of this conference. And I think when the State
10
people raise this question, they are entirely
11
correct, it doesn't mean that this isn't at
12
least as important a problem as we are dealing
13
with here.
14
Let me go through #3 again.
15
Michigan, are you in agreement with
16
it as redrafted?
17
MR. OEMING: I am satisfied.
18
MR. STEIN: Indiana?
19
MR. POOLE: Yes, we are in agreement.
20
MR. STEIN: Wisconsin?
21
(No response.)
22
(Mr. Klassen raised his hand.)
23
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston, are we in shape?
24
MR. POSTON: Feasible methods of
25
-------
3305
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
removing phosphates from sewage &.nd industrial
3
waste discharges, is this the--
4
MR, STEIN: Yes.
MR. POSTON: Is "discharges" on there?
6
MR. STEIN: Yes.
7
MR. OEMING: Yes.
8
MR. KLASSEN: Read the last sentence
9
the way you have it.
10
MR. STEIN: I think you mean the next
11
to the last.
12
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, that is right.
13
MR. STEIN: "Feasible methods exist
14
for removing phosphates from sewage and industrial
15
waste discharges." And then, "They need to be
16' „
applied.
17
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, I would
18
like to avail myself of the privilege of going
19
back.
20
MR. STEIN: Sure.
21
MR. HOLMER: The word "removal" is
22
a little absolute.
23
MR. STEIN: What would you suggest?
24
MR. HOLMER: Reduction or something
25
-------
3306
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
of that sort? Removal implies 100 percent and
3
nobody has said that yet except in the laboratory.
4
MR. OEMING: Gee, I don't know. I
5
wouldn't look at it that way.
6
MR. STEIN: Again, these are words
7
of art. I am not sure that there is unanimity
8
on that, on the meaning of the word "removal".
9
It didn't have that meaning, I don't think, to
10
Mr. Oeming or to me.
11
If this is unclear, I think we should
12
clarify it, but is this a real point.
13
MR. HOLMER: The word "partial" would
14
clarify it for me, but that sounds too--
15
MR. STEIN: Or you could say "sub-
16
stantial removal" if you want to.
17
MR. HOLMER: All right.
18
MR. POSTON: Do you want to say 90
19
percent or 95?
20
MR. OEMING: No, no.
21
MR. STEIN: No, no. You see, now we
22
have kicked over the traces.
23
(Laughter.)
24
Let's work this one step at a time.
25
-------
3307
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
For substantially removing or--
3
MR. HOLMER: If the other Conferees
4
have no problem with the word "removal", I
5
will withdraw.
6
MR. OEMING: I would like to satisfy
7
Mr. Holmer. If "substantial" would satisfy him--
8
MR. STEIN: Would "substantial"
9
satisfy you?
10
MR. HOLMER: Yes.
11
MR. STEIN: Let's change the participle
12
to make it read a little better. "For substantial
13
removal of phosphates." 0. K.?
14
0. K., we are in agreement on 3«
15
Let's go to 4.
16
17
CONCLUSION #4
18
19
"4. Evidence of severe bacterial
20
pollution of tributaries has been found in the
21
Fox River between Lake Winnebago and Green Bay,
22
Wisconsin^ in the Milwaukee River within
23
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; in and downstream
24
from cities along the Grand River in Michigan
25
-------
3308
_ __ - ——
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and the St. Joseph River in Indiana and
3
Michigan; and in the streams of the Calumet
4
area, Illinois and Indiana. Although the
5
bacterial quality of Lake Michigan is generally
6
good in deep water, the water is degraded along
7
the shoreline and in harbor areas.11
8
Any comment? Michigan?
9
MR. OEMING: Yes, I have a comment,
10
Mr. Chairman. In view of the discussion on
11
the previous three points, I question how
12
pertinent this statement is with respect to the
13
waters of the Grand River in Michigan below
14
Lansing, let's say, and the record that was
15
presented at the conference did not show an
16
excessive bacterial pollution in the St. Joseph
17
River, at least to the point where it affected
18
Lake Michigan.
19
And in the last sentence, this is too
20
sweeping a statement since on the Lake Michigan
21
shoreline there are no beaches which from tests
22
are even suspicious as to the degradation that
23
is talked about here.
24
MR. STEIN: You mean along the Michigan--
25
-------
3309
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Shoreline.
3
MR. STEIN: You mean in the State
4
of Michigan?
5
MR. OEMING: Yes.
6
MR. STEIN: You are not talking about
7
beaches in the whole lake?
8
MR. OEMING: Only about Michigan.
9
MR. STEIN: All right.
10
MR. OEMING: But the first portion
11
of this I question, in the light of your
12
comments and the previous discussion about
13
interstate pollution here.
14
MR. HOLMER: Was there evidence of
15
interstate bacterial pollution presented at
16
the conference? We are concerned, obviously,
17
about bacterial pollution, I am not raising
18
that question, but I am wondering whether this
19
is an appropriate conclusion of this conference.
20
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston or Mr. Schneider?
21
MR. POSTON: I think what we are
22
saying here is evidence of severe bacterial
23
pollution of tributaries has been found in the
24
Fox River and in the other locations, the
25
-------
3310
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Milwaukee River. I think this is what we
3
are saying here.
4
MR. POOLS: Well, I want to agree at
5
least in part with Mr. Oeming, that in my
6
Judgment, at least, there is severe bacterial
7
pollution in the St. Joseph River immediately
8
below the Indiana-Michigan State line, but I
9
question very seriously if this bacterial
10
pollution has much, if any, effect on Lake
11
Michigan.
12
Now, on the second point, which is
13
the last sentence, I don't think that the water
14
is degraded along the entire shoreline of Lake
15
Michigan within the State of Indiana, for
16
example. And I think that last sentence is
17
too sweeping a statement.
18
MR. STEIN: Are there any other
19
comments?
20
Is there a suggestion for modifying
21
this, changing it, or how do you want to dispose
22
of this point?
23
MR. POOLE: Well, I think I could buy
24
it, just to get something started, without
25
-------
3311
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
quibbling about the first sentence, provided
3
you doctored up that last phrase in the second
4
sentence.
5
MR. BOSTON: Could we put in some
6
modifying term, "at points along the shoreline"?
7
MR. POOLE: Water is degraded at
8
points or sections, or something like that,
9
along the shoreline.
10
MR. STEIN: "Degraded at points."
11
Could we say--is "many" points too strong?
12
MR. OEMING: "At some points along
13
the shoreline."
14
MR. STEIN: "At some points."
15
MR. OEMING: I would buy "at some
16
points."
17
MR. STEIN: All right.
18
All right, now, are there any other
19
comments?
20
MR. POSTON: Read that, would you,
21
Mr. Chairman?
22
MR. STEIN: "Although the bacterial
23
quality of Lake Michigan is generally good in
24
deep water, .the water is degraded at some points
25
-------
3312
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
along the shoreline and in harbor areas."
3
MR. OEMING: The point, I think, Mr.
4
Chairman, here that I want to be sure we are
5
clear on is that we are not contesting the fact
6
that bacterial quality in the Grand River in
7
Michigan below Lansing, let's say, is not
8
degraded or is degraded. We are not contesting
9
this.
10
The only question in my mind is, as
11
Mr. Poole has pointed out, does this degradation
12
carry over to affect the lake?
13
MR. STEIN: Well, I think the last
14
sentence--
15
MR. OEMING: And I want to be sure
16
that it doesn't say that*
17
MR. STEIN: Well, it doesn't, as I
18
read the last sentence. It says, "Although
19
the bacterial quality of Lake Michigan is
20
generally good in deep water, the water is
degraded at some points along the shoreline
22
and in harbor areas." I think we are--
23
MR. OEMING: I think we are all right.
24
MR. STEIN: I think it is clear.
25
-------
3313
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: I think it is all right.
3
MR. STEIN: As I read that, we are not
4
dealing with, except on some of your rivers
5
that I am not going to get into here, but as far
6
as Lake Michigan is concerned we are not dealing
7
with an interstate bacterial effect.
8
MR. OEMING: Yes.
9
MR. STEIN: 0. K.
10
MR. OEMING: 0. K.
11
MR. STEIN: Mr..0eming, what do you
12
think of 4?
13
MR. OEMING: I am satisfied, with the
14
insertion of the phrase "at some points" after
15
the word "degraded," to leave paragraph 4 the
16
way it is .
17
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole?
18
MR. POOLE: We are satisfied.
10
MR. STEIN: Mr. Holmer?
26
MR. HOLMER: No objection.
21
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen?
22
(No response.)
23
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston?
24
MR. POSTON: All right.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: All right, let's go on with
3
#5.
4
5
CONCLUSION #5 AND #6
6
7
"5. Pollution has contributed to the
8
growth of excessive Inshore algal populations which
9
have occurred in the vicinity of Manitowoc to Port
10
Washington, Wisconsin; Chicago, Illinois; the
11
entire eastern shore of Lake Michigan, and near
12
Manistique, Michigan. Short filter runs in water
13
treatment plants have occurred at Green Bay,
14
Sheboygan, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Waukegan,
15
Evanston, and Chicago, Illinois; Gary, and
16
Michigan City, Indiana; Benton Harbor, Holland,
17
Grand Rapids, and Muskegon, Michigan and other
18
cities. Phosphate fertilizer concentrations
19
now exceed critical algal growth values in many
20
areas. Excessive sludgeworra populations, indi-
21
eating pollution of lake bed sediments, have
22
been found at points one mile off the shore near
23
Manitowoc; Sheboygan; Port Washington, Wisconsin
24
to Waukegan, Illinois; and Chicago, Illinois to
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Muskegon, Michigan. Sludgeworms were not found
3
in shallow waters subject to wave action."
4
What do you mean by "short filter runs"?
5
MR. POSTON: This is in the water
6
treatment plants the algae tend to plug up
7
the sand beds and require frequent washing.
8
MR. STEIN: This is Just a clarifying
9
suggestion. When you talk about "short filter
10
runs in water treatment plants have occurred,"
11
I am suggesting that this may be a word of
12
art or a phrase of art which is incomprehensible
13
to any but the experts. Possibly if we are
14
going to commune with people other than--
15
MR. POSTON: Could we say "interference
16
with water treatment plant operations have
17
occurred at"--
18
MR. STEIN: Yes, I think so, "because
19
of algae."
20
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
21
MR. OEMING: Yes. Yes. 0. K.,
22
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments
23
on this with that change? I think that was
24
Just clarifying.
25
-------
3316
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POQLE: Read it.
3
MR. STEIN: All right. That sentence
4
starts this way now, instead of "short filter
5
runs in the water treatment plant":
6
"interference with water treatment
7
plant operations "because of algae have occurred
8
at"--
9
MR. OEMING: Yes. 0. K.
10
Are you ready for other comments?
11
MR. STEIN: Yes, now we are ready
12
for comments.
13
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, I am not
14
certain--! am fairly certain, let's say, that
15
the question about the entire eastern shore
16
was fully resolved at the conference from the
17
record at the conference, and I particularly
18
remember this because I questioned Dr. Bartsch
19
about his findings. And if I remember the
20
testimony correctly, he had identified algal
21
problems up as far as Muskegon, and I asked
22
him whether he knew of algal problems north of
23
Muskegon on the Michigan shore. He said he did
24
not, but that was not because they weren't there
25
-------
3317
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
but because he hadn't looked at it.
3
Now, under those circumstances, the
4 ' . • : .
entire eastern shore may be somewhat presumptuous
5
here, and I wonder if we couldn't be a little
6
more specific. We would be willing to go on
7
the eastern shore as far as--what?
8
And I would also like to see that
9
possibilities exist, beyond this. I mean I
10
don't want to rule this out, you understand.
11
MR. POOLE: Well, would anybody
12
object to just striking the word "entire" and
13
just say the eastern shore of Lake Michigan?
14
MR. OEMING: No. That would be all
15
right. That .would leave me running room here
16
to deal with other problems that haven't been
17
identified here at the conference.
18
MR. STEIN: Where is that?
10
MR. OEMING: Just "entire," just
20
strike that word.
21
MR. STEIN: All right. Are there any
22
other comments?
23
MR. POOLE: I don't think the words
24
"phosphate fertilizer concentrations" contribute
25
-------
3318
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
much.
3
MR. POSTON: I would eliminate the
4
word "fertilizer."
5
MR. STEIN: What line is that in?
6
MR. POOLE: Right after the word
7
"cities."
8
MR. STEIN: You want just to strive
9
"fertilizer", right?
10
MR. POOLE: Yes, Just "phosphate
11
concentrations."
12
MR. STEIN: All right.
13
MR. POOLE: Now, one other point,
14
and I raised this issue before, about the
15
sweeping statement that sludgeworms existed
16
from Chicago to Muskegon, Michigan. And I
17
note the sentence that has been added which
18
says "Sludgeworms were not found in shallow
19
waters subject to wave action."
20
I am still raising the question as
21
to what evidence is there that sludgeworms
22
exist all the way from Chicago to Muskegon?
23
I didn't get it; I might have been asleep during
24
that part of the testimony.
25
-------
3319
! • EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: If you were asleep, we were
3
dreaming the same dream.
4
(Laughter.)
5
MR. POSTON: I think what we have
6
reference to is in this report on the biology
7
and the chart with sludgeworm population
8
numbers per square meter which shows the
9
existence of sludgeworms in varying quantities,
10
probably not right up close next to the shore-
11
line, but all the way up here to Muskegon.
12
MR. POOLE: My question is how many
13
sampling stations did you have in that stretch
14
of the river? Were they 100 feet apart, 100
15
yards apart, 10 miles apart, or what?
16
MR. POSTON: Grover, can you give us
17
that information?
18
MR. COOK: Yes, this was based on about
19
750 sampling stations. The stations were 1
20
mile offshore, 7 miles offshore, 10 miles, and
21
then scattered in the middle part of the lake.
22
They were, as I recall, about a mile apart along
23
that shoreline.
24
MR. POOLE: You found sludgeworms at
25
-------
: : 3320
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
every one of them?
3
MR. GOOK: Absolutely. The only
4
reason we didn't find them in the shallow water
5
was because the sediments Just weren't permitted
6
to occur that would encourage the growth of
7
sludgeworms.
8
MR. KLASSEN: That is shallow water—
9
MR. COOK: Shallow water is where
10
wave action shifts the sand.
11
MR, KLASSEN: Three or four feet?
12
MR. STEIN: What depth?
13
MR. COOK: Oh, up to about 50 or 60
14
feet. From 50 or 60 feet shoreward you don't
15
find the kind of bottom that will permit the
16
growth of sludgeworms because of the shifting
17
sands. I may be wrong about that; 50 or 60
18
sounds too high. Probably 30 or 40 feet.
19
MR. STEIN: All right, are we in
20
pretty much agreement on this?
21
I think so. This is a technical
22
evidentiary point anyway, and I think it is
23
an indication of the ubiquitouaneas of„the
24
sludgeworms that they are found at every
25
-------
3321
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
sampling point, even if they are not proved at
O
every inch. It makes the point.
4
Are there any other suggestions or
5
modifications here? If not, maybe I should
6
read this again:
7
"5' Pollution has contributed to
8
the growth of excessive inshore algal popula-
9
tions which have occurred in the vicinity of
10
Manitowoc to Port Washington, Wisconsin;
Chicago, Illinois; the eastern shore of Lake
Michigan, and near Manistique, Michigan.
13
Interference with water treatment plant
14 F
operations because of algae have occurred
15
at Green Bay, Sheboygan, and Milwaukee,
16
Wisconsin; Waukegan, Evanston, and Chicago,
Illinois; Gary arid Michigan City, Indiana;
18
Benton Harbor, Holland, Grand Rapids, and
19
Muskegon, Michigan, and other cities. Phosphate
concentrations now exceed critical algal growth
21
__ values in many areas. Excessive sludgeworm
u
populations indicating pollution of lake bed
f>A
sediments have been found at points one mile
offshore near Manitowoc; Sheboygan; Port Washington
-------
3322
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Wisconsin, to Waukegan, Illinoisj and Chicago,
3
Illinois, to Muskegon, Michigan. Sludgeworms
4
were not found in shallow waters subject to
5
wave action."
6
Mr. Oeming?
7
MR. OEMING: Satisfactory.
8
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole?
9
MR. POOLE: I'll buy it because I find
10
the words "at points one mile offshore."
11
(Laughter.)
12
MR. STEIN: Right. I was going to
13
bring that up as a rebuttal to your next point.
14
Mr. Holmer?
15
MR. HOLMER: I would raise one further
16
question about this paragraph. The first part
17
of it relates to algal growth and phosphates and
18
then we skip to sludgeworms. Should we have a
19
new number?
20
MR. STEIN: Yes, I wondered about that
21
too.
22
What do you think? Why did you put
23
them together?
24
MR. OEMING: I think it would be
25
-------
, 3323
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
relative.
3
MR. POSTON: Maybe when we get all
4 .
done we could take all the numbers out.
5
MR. STEIN: Well, I am not sure
6
that you should not--
7
How about putting 6 before excessive
8
sludgeworm populations? Right?
9
MR. OEMING: Yes, I like that.
10
MR. STEIN: Let's have action.
11
Can we have a reratification? Mr.
12
Poole, do you agree with 5 and 6?
13
Mr, Klassen?
14
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, I agree, partieu-
15
larly because there are no sludgeworms, apparently,
16
between Waukegan and Chicago. That is 40 miles;
17
sounds good.
18
(Laughter.)
19
MR. STEIN: Maybe you rely on wave
20
action.
21
Mr. Boston?
22
, MR. POSTON: O.K.
23
MR. STEIN: Right.
24
Number 6.
25
-------
3324
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Number 7 now.
3
MR. STEIN: Seven, yes, Number Seven.
4
5
CONCLUSION #7
6
7
"7- The small quantity of oxygen
8
normally dissolved in water is perhaps the
9
most important single ingredient necessary for
10
a healthy, balanced, aquatic life environment.
11
The discharge of treated and untreated municipal
12
and industrial wastes with their high concen-
13
trations of biochemical oxygen demand have
14
caused oxygen depletion in many of the Lake
15
Michigan tributaries and in some harbors. At
16
present the main body of Lake Michigan has not
17
evidenced signs of oxygen deficiency."
18
Any comment?
19
Yes.
20
MR. HOLMER: Could we delete the
21
word "their" in the fourth line as being too
22
inclusive? There are some--
23
MR. STEIN: Yes. How about thatV
24
MR. POSTON: Yes.
25
-------
3325
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Strike "their" in the
3
fourth line.
4
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
5
MR. STEIN: Are we ready with that?
6
I don't think I have to reread that, if there
7
are no further changes.
8
Mr. Oeming?
9
MR. OEMING: Satisfactory.
10
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole?
11
MR. POOLE: 0. K.
12
MR. STEIN: Mr. Holmer?
13
MR. HOLMER: 0. K.
14
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen?
15
(No reply.)
16
MR. STEIN: Mr, Poston?
17
MR. POSTON: Satisfactory.
18
MR. STEIN: Namber 8.
19
20
CONCLUSION #8
21
22
"8. In addition to one existing
23
nuclear power plant, five nuclear power plants,
three of which will have twin reactors, are.
25
-------
3326
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
proposed or under construction at Lake Michigan
3
cities for completion between 1970 and 1973.
4
A special evaluation of the combined impact
5
of siting many reactors on the shores of the
6
lake, in relation to retention and flushing
7
characteristics and to accumulation of radio-
8
huclides in aquatic organisms, is.desirable."
9
Do you take this up later in the
10
specific recommendations?
11
MR. POSTON: Yes, in the recommenda-
12
tions.
13
MR. STEIN: All right.
I4
MR. OEMING: I have a question.
15
MR. STEIN: All right, Mr. Oeming?
16
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, I don't
17
question the sentence itself, the last sentence,
18
but I question whether it is in the proper place
19
here. This begins to take on the aspect of a
20
conclusion--! mean of a recommendation--
21
MR. STEIN: Right.
22
MR. OEMING: --rather than a conclusion.
23
MR. STEIN: What do you think about that?
24
MR. POSTON: It is covered in the
25
-------
3327
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
recommendations.
3
MR. OEMING: Yes. Well, when we say
4
something is desirable, it begins to take on
5
that aspect. You are trying to formulate a
6
conclusion and your 'Conclusion is well stated,
7
I mean the conclusion I think is well stated.
8
Ve might modify this some way to cover what you
9
are trying to get at without getting a recom-
10
mendation mixed up here.
11
MR. STEIN: Right.
12
Can we say something like this—unless
13
you have something else to suggest, and I am
14
just trying to get the sense of it--can we say:
15
"The combined impact of siting many
16
reactors on the shores of the lake, particularly
17
in relation to retention and flushing character-
18
istics and the accumulation of radionuclides in
19
aquatic organisms may raise significant pollution
20
control problems."
21
MR. POSTON: 0. K., I'll buy it.
22
MR. OEMING: Yes.
23
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Stein?
24
MR. STEIN: Yes.
25
-------
3328
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: On page 4 of the Wisconsin
3
statement, the third paragraph reads:
4
The use of Lake Michigan for cooling
5
waters for massive new petrochemical and nuclear
6
electrical generating plants creates thermal
7
changes which may have an adverse effect on the
8
condition of the lake."
9
MR. STEIN: What do you think about
10
that?
ll
MR. HOLMER: For one thing, I don't
12
understand flushing and retention characteristics.
13
I am not sure what that means. That may refer
14
to this business of warming the water. But if
15
it doesn't, I don't see reference to that part
16
of our problem anywhere in the conclusions.
17
MR. STEIN: That is the point. Yours
18
is a little broader, because you bring up petro-
19
chemical as well as nuclear.
20
What would you think of using Mr.
21
Ho liner's second sentence, at least?
22
MR. OEMINQ: Mr. Chairman, may I
23
comment?
24
MR. STEIN: Yes. Mr. Oemlng?
25
-------
3329
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: I kind of like what you
3
have said, using the phrase "particularly in
*
relation to."
5
MR. STEIN: Yes.
6
MR. OEMING: And then instead of
7
"may raise problems," I think "may have adverse
8
effects upon the lake."
9
MR. STEIN: Yes.
10
MR. OEMING: Pollution problems, and
11
this is getting pretty general.
12
MR. STEIN: Yes.
13
MR. POOLE: Well, my observation, if
14
I listened to Freeman correctly, was he was
15
confining it pretty much to temperature, and
16
I had interpreted this #7 as talking about nuclear
17
plants as an attempt to cover both, as far as I
18
am concerned, temperature and radionuclides in
19
the water.
20
MR. OEMING: Yes.
21
MR. STEIN: Right.
22
MR. OEMING: In that context, I like
23
this .
24
MR, STEIN: Right. Let me try to reread
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this and let's see if we can work it out:
3
"in addition to one existing nuclear
4
power plant, five nuclear power plants, three
5
of which will have twin reactors, are proposed
6
or under construction at Lake Michigan cities
7
for completion between 1970 and 1973- The
8
combined impact of siting many reactors on the
9
shores of the lake, particularly in relation
10
to retention and flushing characteristics and
11
to accumulation of radionuclides in aquatic
12
organisms, may have adverse effects upon the
13
lake."
14
Now, let me raise the point that Mr.
15
Holmer raised. Are we communicating when we
16
talk about retention and flushing characteristics
17
or what do you mean? Do you mean that is going
18
to raise the temperature? Because if it is not
19
clear to the Conferees around here, it is sure
20
not going to be clear to people outside the field.
21
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think in the report
22
it was brought out that there may be a buildup
23
or could be a buildup of radionuclides to all of
24
these sources, and because of the low volume of
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
outflow that this is a special problem.
3
MR. STEIN: In other words, you are
4
not talking about temperature here at all?
5
MR. SCHNEIDER: No, I don't think--
6
MR. OEMING: Not exclusively, are you?
7
MR. SCHNEIDER: I don't think so.
; s
MR. POSTON: Not exclusively.
9
MR. OEMING: No, I don't think so.
10
MR. STEIN: But you don't bring it up
11
at all here, right? When you are talking about
12
retention and flushing characteristics, as I
13
understand it, Mr. Holmer, they don't relate
14
it as we might have thought, and I thought this
15
at first, that they relate this to temperature.
16
They are talking about the possible radioactive
17
effect.
18
Now, I think if we are dealing with
19
both temperature and radioactivity, let's say so.
20
MR. SCHNEIDER: All right.
21
MR. STEIN: All right, let's look at
22
that again.
23
"The combined impact of siting many
24
reactors on the lake, particularly to"--
25
-------
3332
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3
MR. MITCHELL: "May create thermal
changes."
4
MR. STEIN: Well, "particularly in
5
relation to heating of water"?
6
MR. SCHNEIDER: Waste heat.
7
MR. STEIN: Waste heat, waste water
8
heat, right?
9
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, may I
10
suggest for a moment, could we suspend discussion
11
here? I think we may have some wording that will
12
clear this up. If you will Just give us a minute,
13
I want to confer with Mr. Cook. Could we come
14
back to this?
15
MR. STEIN: Yes. All right.
16
MR. OEMING: Where is Mr. Cook? Put
17
out a call for him, will you?
18
MR. POSTON: Grover?
19
MR. OEMING: Yes.
20
MR. STEIN: All right, we will get him.
21
In order not to lose any time, can we
22
take up the next one?
23
All right, let's go to #9.
24
25
-------
3333
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3
CONCLUSION #9
4
5
H9. Watercraft of all types plying
6
the waters of Lake Michigan and its tributaries
7
are contributors of both untreated and inade-
8
quately treated wastes in local harbors and in
9
the open lake, and intensify local problems of
10 „
bacterial pollution.
11
MR. OEMING: Well, I stumble over
12
"all types", Mr. Chairman. I am not sure that
13
a rowboat or an outboard motor is contributing
14
untreated s(.ewage to the lake.
15
MR. STEIN: Well, let's strike of all
16
types", 0. K.?
17
You know, I wonder why we use a general
18
term like watercraft and then not try to get
19 „ i.
specific and particularize and say of all types.
20
You know, this is a good type of redundancy.
21
(Laughter.)
22
I come from New York and the master
23
was Harry Balogh, who was the announcer at Madison
24
Square Garden years ago. One of his favorite
25
-------
3334
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
phrases was "Once again let me reiterate."
3
(Laughter.)
4
Let's go to watercrafts.
5
MR. OEMING: Plying the waters.
6
MR. STEIN: Right.
7
MR. HOLMER: Do you want the word
8
"bacterial" in the last line?
9
MR. STEIN: Do you want Just bacterial?
10
Why don't we strike that? In talking about a
11
nutrient problem--
12
MR. OEMING: Yes, I would kind .of like
13
to strike "bacterial",, make it more broad.
14
Broaden it.
15
MR. STEIN: --and intensify local
16 „
pollution problems, ,it should be, for a literary
17
sense, right? All right.
18
MR. POSTON: How does this read now?
19
MR. STEIN: It reads now:
20
"Watercraft plying the waters of Lake
21
Michigan and its tributaries are contributors
22
of both untreated and inadequately treated wastes
23
in local harbors and in the open lake, and
24
intensify local pollution problems."
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: I buy it.
3
MR. STEIN: Mr. Oeming?
4
MR. OEMING: I buy it.
5
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole?
6
MR. POOLE: We buy it.
7
MR. STEIN: Mr. Holmer?
8
MR. HOLMER: 0. K.
9
(Mr. Klassen raised his hand.)
10
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston?
11
MR. POSTON: Yes.
12
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen does too, just
13
saying- this for the record.
14
Where is Mr. Cook, off looking for the
15
sandwich island?
16
MR. POSTON: .Here he is, here is
17
Grover.
18
MR. STEIN: Number 10.
20
CONCLUSION #10
21- J
22
"10. Oil discharges from industrial
23
plants and commercial ships, and careless loading
24
and unloading of cargos, despoil beaches and
25
-------
^___ 3336
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
other recreational areas, contribute to taste
3
and odor problems and treatment problems at
4
water treatment plants, coat the hulls of
5
pleasure boats, and may be toxic to fish and
6
other aquatic life."
7
I have one kind of technical comment.
8
Is that oil selective, it Just coats the hulls
9
of pleasure boats and misses the other boats?
10
(Laughter.)
11
MR. POOLE: Strike the word "pleasure"
12
and make it Just "the hulls of boats."
13
MR. KLASSEN: Not only boats, it coats
14
the beaches too.
15
MR. STEIN: I think this is specific
16
enough.
17
Are there any other comments on this?
18
Let's poll the group. Mr. Poole, do
19
you have any comment?
20
MR. POOLE: I am happy if you strike
21
the word "pleasure".
22
MR. STEIN: Right.
23
Did you look at the new #10?
24
MR. OEMING: Yes, but I am lost at what
25
-------
3337
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
we are striking and what we are not.
3
MR. STEIN: We are striking "pleasure";
4
"the hulls of boats."
5
MR. OEMING: Oh, all right.
6
MR. STEIN: You may have one in Michigan
7
that can pick out the pleasure boats, but they
8
don't have it in the other States.
9
(Laughter.)
10
Mr. Klassen?
11
MR. KLASSEN: It is all right. I Just
12
wonder whether instead of "toxic" we could say
13
"deleterious."
14
MR. STEIN: Yes. How about that?
15
MR. KLASSEN: It might give it a bad
16
taste and still be all right.
17
MR. STEIN: Right. All right?
18
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, this is
19
fine as far as it goes, and I hope?-.somewhere in
20
here we can touch upon this problem of ship
21
wrecks or abandoned ships in the lake, and I
22
brought that out at the conference. I don't
23
think that is going to be the last time we are
24
going to face up to that problem. This is a
25
-------
: 3331
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
potential here that I think I would like to
3
see the Conferees recognize.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, I don't think
5
that is covered here.
6
MR. OEMING: I am wondering, if we
7
are going to put it in, maybe it ought to be
8.
here.
9
MR. POSTON: Yes.
10
MR. OEMING: I don't have wording on
11
this, but--
12
MR. SCHNEIDER: Are you talking about
13
the States recommending action on this Federal
14
legislation? That affects this.
15
MR. OEMING: Yes, yes, yes.
16
MR. STEIN: Really, with the discharges,
17
"careless loading"--
18
MR. OEMING: We have to deal with this
19
other in terms of potential sources, you see.
20
MR. STEIN: I think that probably should
21
be a special point.
22
MR. OEMING: All right, I am willing
23
to reserveV:that.
24
MR. STEIN: I am not trying to rule here,
25
-------
3339
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
because you really have a good point.
3
MR. POOLE: I missed part of the
4
expression. I take it you were talking about
5
oil within a tanker, is that it?
6
MR OEMING: Yes, yes.
7
MR. POOLE: Can you resolve all that
8
by just striking the word "discharges" and saying
9
"oils and industrial plants and commercial ships"?
10
MR. OEMING: Floating or sunk.
11
MR. HOLMER: On page four of our state-
12
ment, again, we dealt with this more broadly and
13
we avoided the problem of oil, per se, and ships,
14
and so on, by saying, "The danger of spills of
15
pollutant chemicals, whether accidental or
16
deliberate, is so prevalent that it must be con-
17
sidered as a source and treated as such."
18
Now, these are the conclusions and later
19
we will make recommendations relating to it.
20
Would not this sentence meet your need?
21
MR. POSTON: I think we should recognize
22
oil, because there are probably more emergencies
23
created by oil spills than any other one thing,
24
and they receive great attention.
25
-------
33*10
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
•MR. HOLMER: Well, but we will need,
3
then, to have another conclusion relating to other
4
pollutant chemicals, is my point.
fr
MR. STEIN: Yes.
6
MR. HOLMER: And I am trying to short
7
circuit the problem.
8
MR. SCHNEIDER: Couldn't you just
9
add "particularly"?
10
MR. HOLMER: I would have no objection,
11
or "notably oil", or something of that sort.
12
MR. MITCHELL: If you would read #10
13
as a general statement, oil is a pollutant
14
problem in any water, and what we are trying
15
to say is that recently it has become a more
16
prevalent danger in Lake Michigan, aren't we,
17
to emphasize it rather than to make just a
18
broad general statement?
19
MR. STEIN: That is right, I think so.
20
MR. MITCHELL: And I don't think we
21
can give the emphasis to it that will reflect
22
the concern which has been indicated just by
23
making a generalized statement.
24
MR. STEIN: Would you consider oil a
25
-------
3341
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
pollutant chemical, sir?
3
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
4
MR. STEIN: Oh, you do?
5
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, yes.
6
MR. STEIN: All right, let me try this
7
on for size, if we can do this as a conclusion:
8
"The danger of spills of pollutant
9
chemicals, particularly oil, whether accidental
10
or deliberate, is so prevalent that it must be
11
considered a significant source of pollution of
12
the waters of Lake Michigan and treated as such."
13
MR. OEMING: You did pretty well off
14
the top of your head.
15
MR. STEIN: Well, it is largely using
1<»
his words.
17
0. K.? And that may be able to handle
18
this 10.
19
MR. MORTON: He keeps saying 10. We
20
are working on #9.
21
MR. OEMING: It is a new number 10.
22
MR. STEIN: It is a new number.
23
MR. MORTON: O.K.
24
MR. STEIN: Is that all right?
25
-------
33*12
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Now, do you want to get into any of the
3
specifics? Do you want to get into any of these
4
specifics?
5
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think what we tried
6
to do with 10 was identify some of the specific
7
sources. And I think this is what you were trying
8
to do, wasn't it?
9
MR. OEMING: Yes.
10
MR. SCHNEIDER: Identify a specific
11
source as the spills from vessels.
12
MR. OEMING: Yes. Yes.
13
MR. STEIN: Now, do you want to get
14
into specific sources after that or are we
15
narrowing it too much?
16
MR. HOLMER: Our point is that we need
17
a whole system of surveillance on these potential
18
dangers throughout the basin and the development
19
of appropriate responsive mechanisms.
20
MR. STEIN: I think we are going to
21
get to that later. But I wonder, have you laid
22
the groundwork, do you think, with this broad
23
statement and we will pick up the other later?
24
The point is, if he is talking about
25
-------
3343
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
pollutant chemicals and oil, the lists, the
3
specific lists you have, relate to damages- «Just
4
due to oil, not the others, and I think Mr.
5
Holmer had a broader base. I don't know if we
6
can get narrowed down to those specifics without
7
really cutting down the broad statement, but
8
this is a--
9
MR. OEMING: Well, I agree with Mr.
10
Holmer in this sense, that there are other
11
potential problems here from spills of other
12
chemicals than oil or losses due to shipwreck
13
or other things that ought to be included in
14
this, unless you want to make a separate state-
15
ment on chemicals as differentiated from oil.
16
And I am satisfied to put them together.
17
MR. STEIN: Would you be able to find
18
this in your record for the typing?
10
Let's do it this way; let's leave it
20
the way the stenographer has it and we will go
21
over this with the second draft, 0. K., and
22
hold this in particular.
23
MR. POSTON: Can we read that one
24
final time?
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE..SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: If she can find it again.
3
That is why I made this move.
4
(The record was read by Mrs. Rankin
5
as follows:)
6
"The danger of spills of pollutant
7
chemicals, particularly oil, whether accidental
8
or deliberate, is so prevalent that it must be
9
Considered a significant source of pollution
10
of the waters of Lake Michigan and treated as
11
such."
12
MR. STEIN: Thank you. Can we poll
13
on that now?
14
Mr. Holmer?
15
MR. HOLMER: All right.
16
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole?
17
MR. POOLE: All right.
18
MR. STEIN: Mr. Oeming?
19
MR. OEMING: Yes.
20
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen?
21
Mr. Poston, may we hear an expression?
22
MR. POSTON: You would replace the whole
23
of #9 with that?
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
25
-------
33^5
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: You wouldn't want to
3
just add that on?
MR. STEIN: Well, it is another broad
5
point. If the Conferees want to take this up
6
as another--
7
MR. OEMING: I wouldn't object to
8
that, if the Chairman doesn't feel from his
9
vantage point that we mess this up too much.
10
MR. STEIN: No, no, no. Now, if you
11
want to, we should leave that first, do you
want to--is your proposal to add on what you
13
have in #10 as we have revised it?
14
MR. POSTON: Well, I was really
15
^ thinking of leaving 10 as was and then add the
16
danger of pollutant chemicals, especially oil,
17
putting that on the end.
MR. STEIN: In the end? This is just
19
a literary thing, but it seems to me, if we are
putting these both in one proposal to perfect
a draft, that the sentence we just read as Mr.
Holmer's sentence was a broader sentence than
23
this and that might come first and this would
24
logically follow. Is that all right?
25
-------
33^6
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
3
MR. STEIN: All right.
4
Now, what do the Conferees think about
5
haying that first sentence which we have been
6
polled on to be followed in #10 by the sentence
7
as modified here, which reads:
8
"Oil discharges from industrial plants
9
and commercial ships, and careless loading and
10
unloading of cargos, despoil beaches and other
11
recreational areas, contribute to taste and odor
12
problems and treatment problems at water treat-
13
ment plants, coating the hulls of boats, and
14
may be deleterious to fish and other aquatic
15
life."
16
Are we in agreement to adding that?
17
Yes. All right, everyone is in
agreement on that.
19
Are you ready to go back?
MR. OEMING: .Yes, I think we are.
21
MR. STEIN: All right.
22
MR. OEMING: I am not sure you are
• going to buy it, but we will try.
£n
MR. STEIN: All right.
25
-------
3347
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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
CONCLUSION #8 (Continued)
MR. OEMING: "The combined impact of
siting many reactors on the shores of the lake
poses a threat, particularly with respect to
thermal problems and to accumulation of radio-
nuclides in the ecosystem."
MR. POSTON: In the what?
MR. OEMING: Ecosystem.
MR. STEIN: Oh, boy.
MR. OEMING: Wait a minute, before you
strike me down on that, this is a term that
pulls in fish and wildlife and insects and the
whole business here.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Ecologic, you mean?
MR. OEMING: Yes.
MR. STEIN: You mean there isn't a word
for this that we can put in the family newspaper?
MR. OEMING: Well, in the food chain,
in the food chain.
MR. STEIN: Well, I don't know. How
do the Conferees feel about it? Do you want to
-------
33^8
i EXECUTIVE;SESSION
2
use eco?
3
MR. HOLMER: You do have a problem.
4
We are concerned about this because of the food
5
chain part of it, and ecosystem, although it
6
is a relatively new word, is very expressive.
7
MR. OEMING: Well, if you want to
8
put "the food chain" in there, I don't object,
9
if that makes it more sensitive.
10
MR. PURDY: Aquatic insects, fish—
11
MR. OEMING: Or else use aquatic
12
insects, fish, and so forth.
13
MR. SCHNEIDER: Biomass.
14
MR. STEIN: Oh, no, no, no. Here we
15
go.
16
Suggested as a substitute for ecosystem
17
was biomass. v
18
(Laughter.)
19
I don't know, I- think part of our
20
function here is to try to get this out in terms
21
that at least Klassen and I can understand next
22
week when we go home.
23
(Laughter.)
24
And I am ashamed to admit this. Let's
25
-------
l EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
go off the record.
«
(Off the record.)
4 MR. OEMING: Well, O.K., let's get
off of this, Mr. Chairman.
c
Would you buy this, the Conferees buy
this, strike the "ecosystem" term and use
8 "insects, birds, fish, and aquatic life"?
9 MR. STEIN: All right. We could use
10 biota, but that is all right.
11 MR. OEMING: Oh, you are going to go
back to biota now?
13 (Laughter.)
14 MR. STEIN: Well, that has trickled
down to us. But I think we are all right.
16 MR. OEMING: Something has trickled
17
down to me that hasn't to you.
(Laughter.)
19
MR. STEIN: Well, you are much higher
20
I in the hierarchy.
21
You know, when I took economics, they
22
used to have a hierarchy of liquidity of the
23
things that are the most valuable. Money was
24
obviously the thing you could trade, and they
25
-------
_. 3330
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
used to have the kids working on what you would
3
have that was lowest on that pyramid and they
4
came up with a doubtful Rembrandt.
5
(Laughter.)
6
But this is what happens. I do think
7
we have to guard against the danger of being a
8
bunch of specialists with a Jargon where we are
9
Just talking to ourselves and not really communi-
10
eating outside.
MR. OEMING: Yes, you are right.
12
MR. STEIN: Let's try that again; Let
13 ,
me read the first sentence and you pick up the
second:
15
"in addition to one existing nuclear
16
power plant, five nuclear power plants, three of
17
which will have twin reactors, are proposed or
18
under construction'at Lake Michigan cities for
19
completion between 1970 and 1973."
20
Now Mr. Oeming.
21
MR. OEMING: "The combined impact of
22
siting many reactors on the shores of the lake
23
poses a threat, particularly with respect to
24
thermal problems and to accumulation of.radionuelid
25
BS
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
„
in the insects, birds, fish and aquatic life.
3
MR. STEIN: Right.
4
Are there any comments?
5
MR. KLASSEN: What evidence is there —
6
we have been in this now for four or five years —
7
that the products of radiation, radionuclides,
8
do pose a threat?
9
FROM THE AUDIENCE: None.
LO
MR. OEMING: Voice from the audience.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: The AEC discharges
12
at drinking water standards, that is the dis-
L3
charges--
14
MR. STEIN: I am sorry, sir, we
15
announced before we are going to have to confine
L6
this to the Conferees.
17 '
MR. KLASSEN: I merely asked the
18 . , .
background for this statement. This has not
19
been our experience, and I wondered, before
20
we put this in, because this is, in the public
21
mind, again, posing a threat that is popular
22
and mysterious. Before I would subscribe to
23
that I would want some foundation, because this
24
has not been our experience.
25
-------
: . 3352
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN; Mr. Poston?
3
MR. POSTON: I think I might ask Dr.
4
Weinberger whether he would care to comment on
5
it?
6
MR. OEMING: Yes, he is here.
7
DR. WEINBERGER: I am sorry, I didn't
8
hear.
9
MR. POSTON: I wonder if you would
10
care to answer a question here that Mr. Klassen
11
has posed concerning the potential effect of
12
location of nuclear power plants, nine nuclear
13
power plants around the south end of the lake,
14
and particularly with respect to the hazards
15
from radionuclides, radiation that might come
16
from such a plant potential.
17 ' i.
DR. >FEINBERGER: Well, in most cases
18
one needs--
19
MR. STEIN: Why don't you come up
20
here.
21
(Off the record.)
22
MR. STEIN: All right, we are ready
23
again.
24
Now, the question--and let me get the
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
questibn--! don't think there is much doubt
3
that with any power plant, whether it is a
4
nuclear power plant or a steam power plant
5
or any plant using cooling water we are
6
worried about thermal pollution. The question
7
that Mr. Klassen raises is:
8
Given the safety factors in these
9
nuclear power plants and the kind of discharges
10
put out;, are we Justified in referring to an
11
accumulation of radionuclides in the food chains,
12
the ecosystem--! talk like this, too, but I
13
don't put this out in the record--in the biota
14
that has been Justified by the record.
15
Would you care to comment on that,
16
Dr» Weinberger?
17
DR. WEINBERGER: Murray, I have not
18
seen the record and have not seen any data
19
concerning any accumulation. For one thing,
20
I think they are talking about the construction
21
of additional plants. As I say, I have jjust
22
not seen any data. I would be happy to check
23
it out with Mr. Cook in terms of what have been
24
the measurements on that.
25
-------
333^
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
I would say there is no question —
3
MR. POSTON: There are no plants there.
4
It is new plants that we are concerned with.
5
DR. WEINBERGER: Well, as I read the
6
comment, this is why I was saying, I think the
7
concern here is over new plants. With the safe-
8
guards available and as long as one maintains an
9
adequate surveillance system, making sure that
10
the safeguards are in effect, there need not
11
be any accumulation.
12
MR. POSTON: This would apply to any
13
pollutant, really, in any plant.
14
DR. WEINBERGER: Yes.
15
MR. OEMING: Dr. Weinberger, are we
16
too strong when we say that new plants pose a
17
threat? I think this is what is bothering us
18
here. Granting that there are methods to control
19
these things, are we too strong in saying that
20
these pose a threat to the birds, fish and
21
aquatic life through the accumulation?
22
I would like your opinion.
23
DR. WEINBERGER: Larry, again I have
24
difficulty in the use of the words "pose a threat"
25
-------
3355
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 '
in that I think almost any installation would
3
pose a threat if it wasn't operated properly
4
in that sense.
5
I see the thing that I think is
6
bothering you, it implies that—it could imply
7
a threat because they don't know what to do with
8
it, and I think, as Mr. Stein has indicated,
9
that certainly if one puts in the safety.methods
10
the problem is minimal or there is no problem.
11
So again I think it is a question of phrasing
12
that is--
13
MR. STEIN: Yes. Let me try to do this,
14
and I think possibly the pet names we have used,
15
and let me try to get at the problem so we can
16
all agree and meet on this, something like this.
17
Can we say:
18
"The combined impact of siting many
19
reactors on the shores of the lake must be
20 - "
considered so that this activity will not result
21
in pollution from the excess--from wastewater
22
heat or from the discharge of excessive amounts of
23
radionuclides."
24
MR. KLASSEN: Yes. Yes, that is an
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
entirely different statement.
3
MR. STEIN: Yes. All right. Well,
4
we are trying to get the state of the art into
5
what we have.
6
MR. OEMING: Now, could we stop there
7
and read it back, have her read it back so we
8
are sure we have it right?
9
MR. STEIN: Yes.
10
MR. SCHNEIDER: I might say, this was
11
a recommendation from the AEG Committee on
12
Reactor Safeguards and they expressed concern
13
about the buildup because of the flushing action,
14
and this is their wording.
15
MR. STEIN: Yes, but this is the
16
wording we got into trouble with. You see, the
17
difficulty--
18
MR. POSTON: Maybe if we take this
19
out Mr. Klassen would be satisfied.
20
MR. STEIN: I think Mr. Klassen deals
21
with the facts, not with what we take out.
22
The difficulty, I think, that we have
23
here--and let me get off the record on this.
24
(Off the record.)
25
-------
3357
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: Just to make my position
3
clear, I think it ought to be in there, but if
4
we say the wording "pose a threat" and I agree
6
to that wording and somebody says what is that
6
threat, I couldn't tell them.
7
MR. STEIN: Right.
8
MR. KLASSEN: But your last wording call-
9
ing attention to this potentiality is good.
10
MR. STEIN: Right.
11
MR. OEMING: Now could we have it
12
again?
13
MR. STEIN: Would you read that back,
14
please?
15
(Record read as follows: "The combined
16
impact of siting many reactors on the shores of
17
the lake must be considered so that this activity
18
will not result in pollution from wastewa*e-r heat
19
or from the discharge of excessive amounts of
20
radionuclides.")
21
MR. STEIN: All right. Now, if we have
22
done that, fine.
23
MR. KLASSEN: Sounds like a lawyer's
24
statement, but it is good.
25
-------
3358
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Yes. That is my job.
3
Now we will go to 11.
4
MR. OEMING: Did you get the agreement
5
of everybody on that?
6
MR. STEIN: Yes, everyone. Do I get
7
a disagreement?
8
If not, let me go to 11.
9
10
CONCLUSION #11
11
12
"ll. Disposal of polluted dredged
13
material in Lake Michigan open water causes
14
discoloration, increased turbidity, and oil
15
slicks. Additionally, the pollutants contained
16
in dredged solids, nutrients, and toxic material,
17
which are responsible for deterioration of water
18
quality."
19
Is that a sentence, the second one?
20
MR. OEMING: Something went wrong.
21
MR. SCHNEIDER: I guess we don't have
22
that. You must have a revised copy.
23
MR. STEIN: Well, all right, I think
24
we get the idea. We don't have a complete sentence
25
-------
3359
1 EXECUTIVE"SESSION
2
and we will fix it up, but let's have a
3
comment.
4
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, I would
5
like to refer again to our statement on page
6
three. In this case we deal directly with
7
the totality of dredging, not alone the
8
pollutional aspects of it, but a couple of
9
other things.
10
"The maintenance of waterways for
11
commercial and navigational use is a constantly
12
necessary activity if siltation is not to render
13
the waterway unusable. The continued deposition
14
of dredged material in the deeper portions of
15
Lake Michigan, however, poses a distinct threat
16
to the quality of the lake.
17
"Alternative methods of disposal are
18
more expensive and pose problems of their own,
19
some of which include further pollutional hazards."
20
I' think these are all true statements
21
and are based on the record which was made here
22
at Chicago a month ago. I think they provide an
23
adequate foundation for the same kind of recom-
24
mendationsor recommendation, at least, dealing
25
-------
. 3360
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
«?>
2
with this subject when we get to that point.
3
MR. STEIN: Well, yes. You raised
4
some interesting points here. In a way one
5
of your statements, it seems to me, goes farther
6
than the statement of the Federal people. They
7
talked in terms of disposal of polluted dredged
8
material and say it causes deterioration, turbidity
9
and oil slicks. You talk about "continued dis-
io
posal of dredged material"-- without a modifier--
11
in the deeper portions of the lake poses a
12
distinct threat to the quality of the lake."
13
Now, on several of these points, and
14
maybe I am not clear on the record, I am not
15
sure, that the record abundantly supports that
16
statement. Maybe it does.
17
MR. OEMING: Well, modify it.
18
MR. STEIN: Well, no, I am just--
19
MR. OEMING: Yes. "The continued
20
deposition of dredged material containing
21
nutrients, toxic material," and whatever else
22
you want to put in there.
23
MR. STEIN: Now, let me again ask, to
24
work on your statement, Mr. Holmer, is siltation
25
-------
3361
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the only reason they do this, dredge those
3
harbors? Don't they also dredge them because
4
of some industrial waste discharges?
5
MR. HOLMER: Well, but you do it for
6
the purpose of maintaining navigational--
7
MR. STEIN: Yes. But you say "if
8
siltation is not to render the waterway
9
unusable."
10
MR. HOLMER: Oh, I see.
11
MR. STEIN: Siltation may be too
12
narrow. This may be the situation in Wisconsin,
13
but I think when you get some of these industrial
14
harbors here, they may have some other material
15
they are dredging out.
16
MR. HOLMER: We were using siltation
17
in the broad sense to include industrial depo-
18
sition, but I would be glad to substitute the
19
word "deposition" there.
20
What I was trying to do, Mr. Chairman,
21
is to indicate that I think our conclusions need
22
to relate not only to the fact that disposal
23
of polluted dredged materials causes turbidity,
24
et cetera, but that it is a necessary activity.
25
-------
: : 3362
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
I think this is also a conclusion.
3
I think it is also a conclusion that
4
the alternative methods may "be more expensive.
5
This Is something I think we need to recognize
6
and be prepared to cope with. And that it may
7
not be an easy problem to solve because of the
8
additional dangers of further pollution.
9
MR. STEIN: Yes. Let me try this.
10
I don't know, I think Mr. -Oeming is working on
11
.this.
12
Would it be acceptable to you in the
13
first sentence if we said, "The maintenance
14
of waterways for commercial and navigational
15
use i.s a consistently necessary activity" period?
16
Because this is the main point we want to make.
17
The point is that we wanted to do that
18
and maybe we don't get into this notion of what
19
is causing it. We said a constantly necessary
20
activity. I think again we have to take the
21
notion that—and let me give you my view and I
22
hope it is the view of everyone--that the Corps
23
of Engineers is Just going to have to keep up
24
with this dredging activity if we are going to
25
-------
. 3363
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
keep the harbors open. Now, I think the Corps
3
has pointed out many, many times, when we deal
4
with another polluter, like a city or an industry,
5
we give them a time to clean up. Anyone can clean
6
up pollution by closing an industry, putting a
7
padlock on the city hall. The challenge is to
8
keep the industry going and the city going and
9
yet clean up pollution.
10
I think the Corps is asking for the
11
sameiklnd of consideration. They are doing not
12
only a useful activity but an essential activity
13
in our country. They are asking for the same
14
kind of time schedule or consideration of the
15
time schedule, and the notion that the answer
16
is not Just to stop the activity, in the same way
17
as you wouldn't come out with an answer in your
18
State to Just shut down an industry. And I
19
think this first sentence possibly does it.
20
Do you have the second sentence there?
21
MR. OEMING: I have something to try on
22
you.
23 J
MR. STEIN: Right.
24
MR. OEMING: "The continued deposition
25
-------
: 3361.
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
of dredged material containing nutrients,
3
oils, solids of sewage and industrial waste
4
origin in the deeper portions of Lake Michigan,
5
however, poses a distinct threat to the quality
6
of the lake."
7
MR. STEIN: All right.
8
MR. OEMING: Then the-rest of it,
9
I am - -
10
MR. STEIN: What do you think about
11
it, do you want that last sentence or not?
12
MR. OEMING: No.
13
MR. STEIN: Do we really mean that?
14
MR. OEMING: I don't think it is
15
necessary.
16
MR. POOLE: Give that once more, please.
17
You are looking at the Holmer draft now?
18
MR. STEIN: Yes, we are.
19
MR. OEMING: We are looking at the Holmer
20
draft, Mr. Poole, and starting with the fourth
21
sentence.
22
MR. POOLE: Yes.
23
MR. OEMING: "The continued deposition
24
of dredged material"--now, we quality this--
25
-------
3365
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
"containing nutrients, oils, solids of sewage
3
and industrial waste origin in the deeper
4
portions of the lake poses a distinct" threat."
6
MR. STEIN: Anywhere in the lake,
6
isn't it?
7
MR. OEMING: Well, anywhere in the
8
lake, yes.
9
MR. STEIN: In the lake, in Lake
10
Michigan.
11
MR. OEMING: Not necessarily in the
12
deeper portions, but in Lake Michigan.
13
MR. STEIN: Yes, in Lake Michigan.
14
And we don't need the "however", do we?
15
MR. OEMING: No.
16
MR. STEIN: All right.
17
Let me read this again, as I get Mr.
18
Oeming's proposition. The whole thing would read:
19
"The maintenance of waterways for
20
commercial and navigational use. is a constantly
21
necessary activity."
22
MR. OEMING: Period.
23
MR. STEIN: Period. "The continued
24
deposition of dredged material containing nutrients
25
-------
^____ 3366
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
oils, solids of sewage and industrial waste
3
origin in Lake Michigan poses a distinct
4
threat to the quality of the lake."
5
Are we in agreement on that?
6
Mr. Klassen?
7
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, if it follows--
8
I Just want to point this out--if it follows,
9
then, that in the recommendations the Conferees
10
go on record as the target objective to dump
11
nothing into Lake Michigan. In other words,
12
not have it as a dumping ground.
13
If this conclusion says that, then I
14
am for it.
15
MR. STEIN: I don't know that it
16
necessarily says this.
17
MR. OEMING: I don't think it does.
18
MR. KLASSEN: This is what it says.
19
MR. STEIN: Well, .you know, I Just
20
heard a sotto voice from another Conferee that
21
he didn't think it said it.
22
If we can devise a conclusion like
23
this where both groups*on this are satisfied,
24
I think we have got the problem stated.
25
-------
33^7
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
The question, one of the hard issues
3
we are going to have to face, and I don't think
4
there is any question on that, is the action
5
program on what we are going to do with the
6
dredged material. We are going to face that.
7
I don't know that we can prejudge that here
8
without a prolonged discussion. I think we
9
have laid the problem out where we all can
10
agree on it.
11
May I make a suggestion on this,
12
gentlemen? And I really mean this. This is
13
going to be one of the hardest things the
14
Conferees are going to have to grapple with.
15
Let's see if we can leave it here. Again this
16
isn't the last word. And while we are here,
17
I suggest the Conferees in the recesses might
18
on this point get together, because this is one
19
we are going to have to come to later, and let's
20
see if we can get a formulation. I am sure if
21
we get stopped on this now, without some pre-
22
liminary probing in an informal way among the
23
Conferees, we may be here for the rest of the
24
day Just on this point.
25
-------
3368,
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
So procedurally, let's see If we--
3
Are we in agreement more or less with this?
4
You are going to have another crack at it after
5
we get it typed up.
6
Yes.
7
MR. HOLMER: One more plea for the
8
extra sentence. I feel we heard substantial
9
evidence to this point at the conference. I
10
append this purely as a factual statement as a
11
matter of full disclosure to the people in the
12
basin. There is no reluctance on our part to
13
insist on use of different methods of disposal,
14
but we certainly can't do so in any false
15
expectation.
16
I realize there are price tags on
17
everything we have said so far, "but this is
18
a special case and I think merits a special
19
mention.
20
MR. STEIN: All right. Let's again
21
get the Conferees.
22
What do you think of this last sen-
23
tence? Do you want it or not, "Alternate
24
methods of disposal are more expensive and
25
-------
3369
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
pose problems of their own"--
3
MR. OEMING: It is a flag. I think
4
I could buy it.
5
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole?
6
MR. POOLE: I think we can buy that.
7
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen?
8
MR. KLASSEN: Well, Mr. Oeming's
9
wording completely changed, in my opinion;,•: the
10
statement of Mr. Holmer's.
11
MR. HOLMER: No, no, no, I am talking
12
about the next sentence.
13
MR. KLASSEN: Well, I am going back
14
here. I interpret the second sentence that
15
this could prohibit the dumping of any material
16
into Lake Michigan, and I think this is one
17
of the things that these Conferees should address
18
themselves to. The way it has been changed,
19
that Lake Michigan could be used as a dumping
20
ground for material unless it was polluted
21
material, and that completely changes the whole
22
concept.
23
MR. STEIN: Of what?
24
MR. KLASSEN: Of what--
25
-------
: 3370
1 EXECUTIVE SESSIO^
2
MR. STEIN: Yes, original, you are
3
right, that is correct.
4
MR. KLASSEN: The continued deposition
5
of dredged material, that means all dredged
6
material. Now we modify it to say only
7
polluted dredged material. And I think that
8
this conference ought to go on record that Lake
9
Michigan will not become a dumping ground for
10
anything and then set up a time schedule when
11
this is going to be accomplished.
12
I don't think it is as difficult as
13
you think it is. It is just a question of
14
concept, whether we want to open the door to
15
have Lake Michigan be a dumping ground or not
16
a dumping ground.
17
MR. POSTON: I would comment on Mr.
18
Holmer's statement. He says alternative methods
19
of disposal are more expensive, and we have
20
found that sometimes you change that method
21
of disposal and find it cheaper.
22
MR. HOLMER: I think it probably is
23
too broad. I would say "may be more expensive."
«4
MR. POSTON: We have run into that.
25
-------
3371
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: "May be," he will change
3
it to "may be." All right.
4
But we still have some very fundamental
5
problems, and I think Mr. Klassen has raised one.
6
We have a real issue here. It is very clear
7
that the statement that Mr. Holmer originally
8
made has been changed, although I would say tha't
9
this statement here is consistent with the state-
10
ment that the Federal Water Pollution people
11
made when they talked about polluted dredgings,
12
although that may be a little more ambiguous.
13
Now, the question here, would you say,
14
Mr. Holmer, or did you mean that the continued
15
deposition of dredged material poses a distinct
16
threat to the lake, any dredged material^
17
MR. HOLMER: There are some dredged
18
materials the polluted nature of which may be
19
subject to question, and by using the conclusion
20
it constitutes a distinct threat we were willing
21
to concede that even what may be considered as
22
unpolluted dredgings may in fact be included
23
in that category, which, of course, is the point
24
that Clarence is making, I believe.
25
-------
3372
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
And so we made it broad here and, then,
3
of course, we have a corresponding recommendation
4
in back that we think deals with that.
5
MR. STEIN: All right.
6
I am trying to come to a conclusion
7
here and trying to get the Conferees to agree.
8
Let me give you the two alternatives.
9
"The continued deposition of dredged
10
material in Lake Michigan poses a distinct
11
threat to the quality of the lake" or "The
12
continued deposition of dredged material con-
13
taining nutrients, oils, solids of sewage and
14
industrial wastes origin in Lake Michigan poses
15
a distinct threat to the quality of the lake."
16
I think that phrase "containing nutrients,
17
oils, solids of sewage and industrial wastes
18
origin" is a phrase We have to decide whether
19
we are going to leave in or we can get along
20
by leaving it out. I take it Mr. Klassen would
21
like to leave it out. Mr. Holmer sees that in
22
this use of the term "threat" that that could be
23
left out.
24
How do the other Conferees feel?
25
-------
3373
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: I feel comfortable with Mr.
3
Oeming's statement, "because that is true, too.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes.
5
You don't feel comfortable with Mr.
6
Oeming's statement?
7
MR. KLASSEN: Well, it depends on
8
what this is leading to. If it is leading to
9
permitting dumping in Lake Michigan and having
10
Lake Michigan become a dumping ground, then,
11
no, I am not for it.
12
MR. STEIN: No. As I look at this,
13
Mr. Klassen, I don't know that this is leading
14
to—either one of them, possibly either one,
15
is getting to this conclusion. This is something
16
we are going to have to meet head on later.
17
MR. KLASSEN: Let's wait until we
18
get to the recommendations and face it.
19
MR. STEIN: But how do we want to
20
handle this? Will we buy Mr. Oeming's statement
21
now or the one without the^-
22
MR. OEMING: Tentatively.
23
MR.-STEIN: Tentatively? Let's leave
24
it there.
25
-------
3374
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: What he said is correct.
3
MR. STEIN: What?
4
MR. KLASSEN: What he said is correct.
5
MR. STEIN: All right. You are
6
always going to have a chance to sign off
7
at the end.
8
How about that last sentence, do you
9
want it? Is there any objection?
10
MR. POSTON: What is the last sentence?
11
MR. STEIN: "Alternative methods of
12
disposal may be more expensive"--
13
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
14
MR. STEIN: --"and pose problems of
15
their own, some of which include further
16
pollutional hazard."
17
MR. KLASSEN: This is right. I don't
18
know why it should be in there, because every-
19
thing we are going to do here is going to
20
cost people and industry money, so why point
21
our finger here at the poverty-stricken Corps
22
of Engineers when we are not doing the same
23
thing to industry or cities? I don't know why
24
we have got to bring money into this thing.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 MR. STEIN: Do you agree with Klassen?
3 MR. OEMING: It may Include further
4 pollutional hazard, do you want to buy that?
5 Strike that qualification about expensive and pose
6 problems of their own. You have said it if
7 you say, "alternate methods may include further
g pollutional hazards."
9 MR. KLASSEN: Yes. This is kind of
10 an academic statement.
11 MR. OEMING: 0. K., it is academic,
12 I admit, but--
13 MR. KLASSEN: You say the same thing
14 about ever municipal and Industrial waste.
15 MR. OEMING: You don't like it at all?
16 MR. STEIN: All right, let's--
17 MR. OEMING: Let's take it out.
18 MR. STEIN: All right.
19 MR. OEMING: Take it out.
20 MR. KLASSEN: It sounds like you are
21 trying to trade money for Lake Michigan.
22 MR. STEIN: Yes. All right. I think
23 we are very close to an agreement. Let me read
24 this again before we slip.
25 "The maintenance of waterways for
-------
^_______ 3376
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
commercial and navigational use is a constantly
3
necessary activity. The continued deposition of
4
dredged material containing nutrients, oils,
5
solids of sewage and industrial wastes origin
6
ir. Lake Michigan poses a distinct threat to
7
the quality of the lake."
8
May we have an expression?
9
(No response.)
10
MR. STEIN: If there is none, we adopt
11
that and we substitute this for #11 here and we
12
go on to #12.
13
14
CONCLUSION #12
15
16
"12. Pesticide pollution of Lake Michi-
17
gan and its tributary streams results from the
18
application of these materials by spraying and
19
dusting. Pesticides are used most heavily in
20
the Lake Michigan Drainage Basin in areas of
21
extensive fruit growing. These areas are: The
22
Wisconsin portion of the Green Bay watershed; the
23
Milwaukee area; the southeast quadrant of the
24
Basin, and the area along the northeast shore
25
-------
3377
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
from Manlstee to Traverse City, Michigan. The
3 .
ever-increasing use of these materials threatens
4
water uses for recreation, fish and wildlife, and
5 •
water supplies.
6
What happened to the ecosystem here?
*7
(Laughter.)
8
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
9
MR. STEIN: Yes.
10
MR. OEMING: I have a couple of ideas
11 „ „
on this one. I stumble- over:the word pollution
12 «
in the first place. Pesticides are found in
13
Lake Michigan," and I am not sure whether the
14
testimony at the hearing showed this or not, but
15
I am accepting that probably they are found in
16
Lake Michigan.
17
Strike the word "pollution and say:
18
"Pesticides are found in Lake Michigan and its
19
tributary streams resulting from the application
20
of these materials" period.
21
Now, I don't care where it comes from;
22
it is there. "The ever-increasing use of these
23
materials"--or where it exists--"The ever-increasin
24
use of these materials threatens water uses for
25
-------
. : : 3378
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
recreation, fish and wildlife, and water supplies."
3
MR. STEIN: All right.
4
MR. OEMING: I question what is added
5
here because that might be the situation today
6
and it might not be tomorrow.
7 . <-,
MR. POSTON: I think we will buy that.
8
MR. STEIN: Any comment?
9
(No response.)
10
MR. STEIN: All right. Let me reread
11
this. This has been accepted by them. This
12
reads this way:
13
Pesticides are found in Lake Michigan
14
and its tributary streams resulting from the
15
application of these materials. Pesticides --
16
MR. POSTON: Then you go down.
17
MR. STEIN: Period. Then you strike
18
everything to the last sentence. "The ever-
19
increasing use of these materials threatens water
20
uses for recreation, fish and wildlife, and water
21
supplies."
22
Is this agreeable?
23
Do we have any comment? I don't want
24
to rush you, move this, by too fast.
25
-------
3379
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
(No response.)
3
MR. STEIN: All right. Twelve.
4
MR. OEMING: Thirteen now.
5
MR. STEIN: Thirteen.
6
7
CONCLUSION #13
8
9
"13. A contaminant entering directly
10
into Lake Michigan, or dissolved in the water
11
that feeds the lake, mixes with and eventually
12
becomes an integral part of the lake water as a
13
whole--regardless of the point of origin around
14
the periphery or on the contributing watershed."
15
Why did you use the word "contaminant"
16
instead of "pollutant"? I think, as I read the
17
laws of all four States and the Federal law,
18
we have safely been using the word "pollutant".
19
"Contaminant," we just don't have it in front
20
of any of them.
21
MR. MITCHELL: What is the purpose
22
of that conclusion?
23
MR. STEIN: Do you want to answer that?
24
MR. POSTON: I think this is to indicate
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
that through the currents mixing in the lake
3
that pollution in one place affects the other
4
and that, therefore, we have interstate pol-
5
lution, pollution going from one area to the
6
other.
7
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen.
8
MR. KLASSEN: We raised this point
9
at the final day of the other conference. I
10
again ask for your definition of pollution or
11
a pollutant. What do you mean by pollution
12
or a pollutant?
13
MR. STEIN: Well, all right, what I
If.
mean by pollution, in the Federal Act, and I
15
don't think it is any different essentially
16
in any of your State Acts, in the Federal Act
17
it means any condition of any discharge into
18
a water which endangers the health or welfare
19
of any person.
20
Now, in addition here, of course, we
21
have to have an interstate, but that doesn't
22
relate to the definition.
23
Anything in the water that endangers
24
the health or welfare of any person. When we
25
-------
3381
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
want to deal with welfare, we can give you a
3
longer list of specifics and that is public
4
health, public and industrial water supply,
5
agricultural,, industrial, recreational, water
6
use of fish and wildlife.
7
MR. KLASSEN: You have answered ay
8
question.
9
MR. STEIN: Right.
10 " .
MR. HOLMER: On the top of page two
11
in our statement we tried to respond to Mr.
12
Klassen's requests for a definition as an
13
alteration of the properties of any water in
14
any way that creates a nuisance or impairs
15
water quality to a degree that affects adversely
16
the beneficial use of such water.
17
I think this is what you said, but
18
we tried to state it pretty formally, because
19
I think this ought to be one of our conclusions
20
somewhere along the way so that we are dealing
21
with an agreed—not necessarily these words, but
22
any of them.
23
MR. STEIN: I understand what you said.
24
Now, we have had problems with this, and I think
25
-------
. 33PP-.
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
although Mr. Klassen has been working with this
3
for years, at least Mr. Oeming and Mr. Poole
4
were working on a committee. And whenever we
5 .
start hammering out a definition of pollution—we
6
have not been entirely successful in getting the
7
exact wording—every State has something different
8
MR. OEMING: Yes.
9
MR. STEIN: Now, the problem, Mr.
10 o
Holmer, that I have with your definition--! don't
11
think it is the meaning, since we are all in
12
agreement—is with the phrase "nuisance" itself.
13
Not all the States, including the Federal Govern-
14
ment, have been as successful with the use of
15
the concept of nuisance to abate pollution as
16
possibly Wisconsin has. Accordingly, this raises
17
sort of extraneous problems.
18
I have worked with some of these
19
people more than others. I don't believe we
20
have a problem with Wisconsin. I think essen-
21
tially we do not have a difference between the
22
Federal and State concept as to a definition
23
of pollution. If there is, I don't see it.
24
25
-------
3383
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and I have looked at your programs and we
3
have grappled with this and worked on this
4
for a long time. We have come up with an
5
agreed definition in a suggested State act--
6
MR. OEMING: That is right.
7
MR. STEIN: --that I think Mr. Poole
8
and Mr. Oeming were on a committee. If you
9
take the definition that is most frequently
10
used, it is the one in that suggested act.
11
More States have adopted that than anything
12
else, but there is a lot of variation.
13
Now, the question is, do you want to
14
go into that or not?
15
MR. KLASSEN: The definition in the
16
model act is the one that Illinois uses. I
17
merely say that some place in here the Conferees
18
should agree, when they say pollution, what
19
we are talking about. And I think it is for
20
our own protection so that what we say can't
21
be misinterpreted, and further if we ever get
22
into anv legal action, I think that this is going
23
to be necessary as a basis for what we are
24
talking about. I think this is pretty basic.
25
-------
3384
l EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
If you suggest and say that the
3
record will show that It is the definition
4
in the model act, that is good enough for me.
5
MR. STEIN: Here is the question, Mr.
6
Klassen. There are two of us around the table
7
here, Mr. Poole and myself, who started working
g
on that model act in about f&8 or '^9. I hate
9
to tell you how long ago we started on our first
10
draft of that definition. It has been accepted
11
now. The problem is, to the possible chagrin
12
of Mr. Poole and myself and Mr. Oeming and the
13
others, and Illinois that has adopted it, we
14
have never been able to get the Congress to
15
adopt that and we are operating under the Federal
16
law. The Congress has said that pollution is
17
anything which endangers health or welfare.
18
Now, in the construction of that, I
19
put that together with that Section 2 and I coxae
20
up with substantially the definition we have
21
under the Act. I don't know if you want to
22
spell that out here or not. The problem that
23
I would have with this, and let me make this
24
abundantly clear, we have to work this out
25
-------
3385
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
under the direction given us under the Federal
3
Act and the Congress. I don't want it to be
4
construed that I am raising myself by my own
5
boot straps and wiggling in a definition that
6
we have developed through the years and put
7
out to the States that the Congress hasn't
8
developed in the back haHs of the Congress when
9
they have given us a definition to work with.
10
There is going to be no difference
11
in the operation. I think I would say this,
12
that we believe that ?the definition of pollution--
13
and it is not defined in the Federal Act--that
14
pollution in the Federal Act and pollution as
15
defined in the suggested State Act are perfectly
16
compatible and have the same meaning for the
17
purpose of the Lake Michigan case.
18
MR. KLASSEN: Fine. This is in the
19
record from the Chairman and this is all right
20
with me.
21
MR. STEIN: We will put this out as
22
a conclusion.
23
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
24
MR. STEIN: I don't think there is
25
-------
2386.
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
any doubt about that.
3
MR. KLASSEN: You satisfied icy
4
question.
5
MR. STEIN: All right.
6
But let's get on to 13.
7
MR. HOLMER: Well, whoops.
8
MR. OEMING: We were working on 13,
9
yes.
10
MR. HOLMER: The last one on page 2?
11
MR. STEIN: Yes, that is 13 now.
12
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't
13
want to prolong this by going back, but I
14
wonder in the one on pesticides whether there
15
should be the words "may threaten water uses
16
for recreation, fish," because as I recall, and
17
I think I questioned Mr. Carbine on this, they
18
had no direct evidence that it was threatening
19
so far as toxicity.
20
MR. OEMING: Yes, that was pretty, weak.
21
It was pretty weak testimony.
22
MR. STEIN: I have no objection to
23
that. Mr. Holmer raised this, you know, in
24
his dredging operations. When used as a threat,
25
-------
3387
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this has an implication of "may" in it, that
3
is a threat. It is always a question of how
4
many modifiers you put before a word like
5
"threat". I have no objection if you want to
6
put that--
7
MR. OEMING: In the context that the
8
Chairman has expressed here, I would just as
9
soon leave it the way it is.
10
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K.
11
MR. OEMING: I am satisfied, despite
12
the fact that the record was weak, and I think
13
we will get to that when we get to the recom-
14
mendations.
15
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K.
1*
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, addressing
17
myself now to 13, if we are going to use "A
18
pollutant entering directly into the lake,"
19
I think we are redundant in using the last
20
phrase, "regardless of the point of origin",
21
because we have said that it either enters
22
the lake directly or feeds the lake.
23
MR. STEIN: Yes, you are exactly right.
24
MR. OEMING: L am satisfied to leave it
25
-------
3388
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
right there.
3
MR. STEIN: All right. Can we put a
4
period after "whole", is that your point?
5
MR. OEMING: Yes, put a period after
6
"whole".
7
MR. STEIN: Right.
8
MR. OEMING: Now, if the Conferees
9
are not satisfied yet with this question of
10
what is a pollutant, I wonder if this might
11
help to get over that hump, to say that sub-
12
stances capable of causing unlawful pollution--
13
MR. POSTON: That is the same thing.
14
MR. STEIN: That is the same thing with
15
more words.
16
MR. OEMING: Is it worse or is it
17
better?
18
MR. POSTON: How about the word
19
"persistent" there?
20
MR. OEMING: All right.
21
MR. STEIN: No, no, no. I think you
22
said the same thing, but it is no longer a
23
colorless phrase.
24
MR. OEMING: . All right.
25
-------
3389
1 EXECUTIVE .SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: You know, you are using
3
your Michigan legal concept that runs with
4
the-- When we use a word, a suggested pollutant,
5
what I was trying to find was a neutral word
6
that is not going to be a phrase out of a
7
Wisconsin Statute, an Illinois statute or
8
a Michigan statute. This always creates
9
problems, and I think we have to try that
10
here.
11
MR. OEMING: How does it read now?
12
MR. STEIN: It reads:
13
"A pollutant entering directly into
14
Lake Michigan or dissolved in water that feeds
15
the lake mixes with and eventually becomes
16
an integral part of the lake water as a whole"
17
period.
18
MR. POOLE: Well, I have some difficulty
19
with that, Mr. Chairman, and I will cite you
20
the example of bacteria, which I--there are
21
too many of them, Klassen has a pollutant,
22
and I doubt seriously if bacteria entering
23
into one point would come to the part of the
24
lake as a whole and I even doubt if BOD does,
25
-------
3390
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
which is our most commonly used term in
3
respect to pollution. When I read that first
4
I think it may Just confuse the issue that
5
there are persistent pollutants.
6
MR. STEIN: How about putting the
7
word "persistent" in before "pollutant",
8
Mr. Poole?
9
MR. POOLE: I could buy that.
10
MR. STEIN: All right.
11
MR. KLASSEN: Let me ask, was one
12
reason for putting this in to attempt to Justify
13
this as an interstate problem?
14
MR. STEIN: No, it is not an attempt
15
to Justify it. I think we had the current
16
study here. I think, as far as I understood
17
this case, people were talking in terms of
18
possible cul de sac at the end of the State or
19
humps in the lake, and the notion that we have
20
heard from Drs. Bartsch and Baumgartner was that
21
a persistent pollutant getting anywhere in the
22
lake would go around that lake and the discharge
23
of water from the lake was so slow that you were
24
probably stuck with that for hundreds of years
25
-------
3391
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and it was apt to wind up anywhere, and this, in
3
their judgment, was a significant factor in this
4
lake problem and why we all had to work together
5
with it. I think, right, that is important.
6
MR. KLASSEN: I don't question that.
7
But then this is sort of a general conclusion
8
and circumstantial evidence rather than any
9
fact. This is all right, I am not quibbling
10
about this. But if this is a justification
11
for this being a four-State problem--
12
MR. STEIN: Yes, I think this is
13
substantially correct.
14
Yes, Mr. Holmer.
15
MR. HOLMER: It would ease my. reading
16
of it a little bit if we could change "eventually
17
becomes" to "may become." A lot of things
18
happen to persistent pollutants. They may be
19
deposited on the bottom and may be volatized--
20
MR. STEIN: Is this all right? Yes,
21
all right.
22
Is this agreeable? "And may become"?
23
All right?
24
(No response.)
25
-------
^__ 3392
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: All right.
3
MR. OEMING: "May eventually become"?
4
MR. STEIN: "May." You don't need
5
the "may eventually."
6
(Laughter.)
7
All right, let me try this again,
8
gentlemen:
9
"A persistent pollutant entering
10
directly into Lake Michigan or dissolved into
11
the water that feeds the lake mixes with and
12
may become an integral part of the lake water
13
as a whole."
14
All right?
15
(No response.)
IS
MR. STEIN: Let us see if we can go
17
to the next page, to 14.
18
19
CONCLUSION #14
20
21
"14. The massive die-off of alewives
22
that occurred in 1967 created conditions that
23
severely restricted recreational uses causing
24
losses in millions of dollars to the tourist
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
industry and certain municipalities. Although
3
the dead fish were not the result of pollution,
4
they caused pollution and are therefore a
5
concern to water pollution control agencies."
6
MR. HOLMER: We didn't want to mention
7
money a few minutes ago.
8
MR. OEMING: That is in a different
9
context. We are talking about the cost.
10
MR. STEIN: No, no, no, we are talking
11
about damages here.
12
MR. KLASSEN: The economic losses.
13
MR. OEMING: That is within our--
14
MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, I would
15
like to introduce here a copy of a letter, for
16
the record, from Representative John W. Burns,
17
Eighth District of Wisconsin, in which he
18
writes to me as Great Lakes Regional Office:
10
"Dear Mr. Poston: I understand that
20
you will be the Federal representative on the
21
March 7 meeting in Executive Session of the
22
Conferees to the Lake Michigan pollution
23
conference. Combating the serious pollution
24
problem caused by the die-off of millions of
25
-------
^___ . 3394
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
alewives will no doubt be on your agenda.
3
This problem merits high priority attention.
4
I urge that you and all Conferees give close
5
attention to the proposal of the Wisconsin
6
trawlers to seine Lake Michigan to remove
7
large numbers of alewives. I would appreciate
8
your reply concerning this matter."
9
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman.
10
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. HOLMER: May I Join in Mr.
12
Poston's request that this letter be entered
13
in the record?
14
MR. STEIN: It will be entered into
15
the record.
16
MR. HOLMER: And I won't have to
17
duplicate it by introducing another one?
18
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, it will be in
19 I
the record.
20
MR. POSTON: I also have here--
21
MR. STEIN: If we have any more
22
requests of letters relating to operations like
23
trawling, this might have a better place in the
24
record when we come to the specific operations
25
-------
, : 3395
1 EXECUTIVESSESSION
2
rather than the general conclusions. I
3
don't know what this letter is, but if it
4
deals with a trawler program, I think it
5
would "be more meaningful in the record when
6
we come up with how we are going to get at
7
the alewife problem rather than--
8
MR. POSTON: Do it later?
9
MR. STEIN: Yes.
10
MR. POSTON: 0. K.
11
MR. KLASSEN: I think, Mr. Chairman,
12
there is a--I didn't hear this, but a written
13
editorial, ¥ B ,B M,, February 23, about the
14
problem, and it quotes the Federal Bureau of
15
Fisheries in Ann Arbor that "hundreds of millions
16
of alewives are now lying out in the middle of
17
the lake." I don't know whether this should ;go
18
into the record or whether this should be further
19
explored. I don't know whether lying on the
20
water, in the water, on the bottom? Maybe that
21
is something that —
22
I am serious. I would like to get
23
some information on this.
24
MR. STEIN: I am serious. I don't know,
25
-------
3396
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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
after all, we are in the same--at least I am
in the same Department with these fellows. Do
we have anyone here from that Bureau?
MR. POSTON: Premetz is here from the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
MR. STEIN: Yes, I saw Mr. Premetz.
MR. KLASSEN: Maybe we ought to put
this in the record?
MR. STEIN: Yes, let's put it in the
record.
(Which said editorial is as follows:)
EDITORIAL
WBBM RADIO ?8
630 N. McClurg Court
Chicago, Illinois 60611
SUBJECT:
BROADCAST:
Alewives and More Trouble
322
February 23, 1968
6:25, 8:45 AM,
12:15, 4:50, 10:55 PM
Chances are very strong that we will
have another serious odor problem on Lake Michigan
-------
3397
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this year. Hundreds of millions of alewives
3
are now lying out in the middle of the lake.
4
That is the estimate of the Federal Bureau of
5
Fisheries in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
6
Surveys recently completed indicate
7
that this year's hatch of alewives is the largest
8
ever known. When next June comes around, we are
9
going to be in a lot of trouble.
10
Let's forget about Chicago's beaches
11
being closed. Let's forget about the awful
12
stench that comes in from the lakefrorit. Con-
13
sider only that the States bord'ering the lake
14
lost 55 million dollars in tourist trade last :
15
year because of dead alewives. At least one
16
steel plant suffered a 5 million dollar loss
17
when it had to stay idle for 10 days.
18
To avoid another alewife disaster,
19
action has to be taken now. We think the most
20
logical action is to have trawlers catch alewives
before they begin to die by the millions along
22
the shoreline.
23
Congress should act now to permit the
use of Canadian-built trawlers to help catch
25
-------
3398
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the alewives. Present laws, forbid foreign
3
built ships from being used in American
4
fishing operations. Only about 18 American
5
trawlers are available this year, and most
6
of them are too small to be effective.
7
We need Federal loans—on a 50/50
8
basis with the four States around Lake Michigan.
9
We need to develop new equipment to fight the
10
alewives invasion. We nee-d to find ways to
11
handle an alewives catch more efficiently.
12
We need barriers erected against the alewives
13
so they won't wash up on the lakefront. And
14
we need these things before next June when
15
the problem will once again become overwhelming.
16
17
MR. STEIN: Can you briefly indicate
18
and direct yourself to that statement? Just
19
what about these alewives?
20
Give your name.
21
MR. PREMETZ: Ernest Premetz, Deputy
22
Director, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
23
I think this particular article stems
24
from discussion of last year's die-off. As you
25
-------
3399
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
know, the original estimates were made on the
3
basis of fish lying on the beaches. However,
4
subsequently trawlers in the area found massive
5
quantities on the bottom and in some areas
6
they were three to six feet deep on the bottom,
7
that is dead alewives.
8
I don't know whether these are still
9
lying on the bottom or not. I would think they
10
have pretty well deteriorated, but they could be.
11
MR. STEIN: Well, thank you, Mr. Preinetz.
12
All right, let's see if we can get
13
back to #14.
14
MR. POOLE: I move adoption of #14,
15
Mr. Chairman.
16
MR. OEMING: I support it.
17
f MR. STEIN: Do I hear any other?
18
(No response.)
19
MR. STEIN: It is adopted.
20
Fifteen.
21
22
CONCLUSION #15
23
24
"15. Discharges of untreated and
25
-------
^___ 3400
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
inadequately treated wastes originating in
3
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan
4
cause pollution of Lake Michigan which endangers
5
. the health or welfare of persons in States other
6
than those in which such discharges originate.
7
This pollution is subject to abatement under the
8
provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
9
Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 4-66 et seq.)11
10
MR. KLASSEN: Second,Mr. Poole's motion.
11
MR. STEIN: What is that?
12
(Laughter.)
13
Adopt 15?
14
MR. OEMING: Where are we?
15
MR. STEIN: Fifteen.
16
MR. POOLE: Well, I will move we adopt
17
15.
18
MR. STEIN: Fifteen. Is that agreeable?
10
MR. OEMING: No.
20
MR. STEIN: All right.
21
MR. OEMING: Standing by itself, I
22
think that it is not complete enough. If you
23
will remember, Mr. Chairman, in many previous
24
conferences you have attempted to identify what
25
-------
3*101
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
you mean "by in what way you endanger the
3
health or welfare,, and I have in aiind that if you
4
are making a finding of interstate pollution the
5
pollution is evidenced by this or this, and I
6
think it would put this in better context if
7
we could do this, expand this to that point.
8
And the record is very clear in my mind at the
9
conference, from the Federal presentations and
10
everybody's, that the primary problem is nutrients.
11
Where does it say?
12
MR.'SCHNEIDER: I think it is covered
13
in Number--
14
MR. OEMING: If it is, then I will
15
withdraw my--
16
MR. SCHNEIDER: --Number three..
17
MR. OEMING: Number three?
18
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think Number three
19
and Number thirteen.
20
MR. OEMING: Thirteen?
21
MR. SCHNEIDER: Oh, no, I see what
22
you me an.
23
MR. OEMING: Yes. Well, I have in
24
mind such wording as that in large measure
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the pollution originates from nutrients or
3
such other--which fertilize the lake, and
4
then if you want to add some others, that is
5
fine.
6
But I would like to put the emphasis
7
on this so that people understand this here.
8
Otherwise, we are going to have a Lake Erie
9
on our hands tomorrow in everybody's minds.
10
MR. POOLE: I think I agree with him.
11
I will withdraw my earlier motion.
MR. STEIN: All right. Let me try
13
this.
14
I am not going to change his language.
15
MR. OEMING: The language is fine as it
16
stands, but it doesn't go far enough.
17
MR. STEIN: No, no, you are right.
18
Let me do this again.
19 „
Discharges of un.treated and inadequately
20
treated wastes originating in Wisconsin, Illinois,
21
Indiana and Michigan cause pollution of Lake
22
Michigan which endangers the health or welfare
23
of persons in States other than those in which
24
such discharges originate. In large measure
25
-------
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this pollution results from nutrients which
3
fertilize the lake. This pollution is subject
4
to abatement under the provisions of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended."
All right?
7
MR. POOLE: Read that sentence again.
g
You went too fast, "in large measure"--
9
MR. STEIN: "This pollution"--
MR. POSTON: No, "in large measure."
11 .1
MR. STEIN: In large measure this
12
pollution results from nutrients which fertilize
13
the lake."
14
MR. OEM1NG: That is very good, Mr.
15
Chairman.
16
MR. STEIN: It is exactly what you
17
said. Let's go off the record.
18
(Off the record.)
19
MR. STEIN: Let's go back on the record.
20
MR. OEMING: This was after the word
21
"originates"?
22
MR. STEIN: Yes.
23
Are you in agreement with that, Mr.
24
Poole?
25
-------
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POOLE: Yes.
3
MR. STEIN: Do you move now with
4
this amendment?
5
Is everyone in agreements
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
8
MR. HOLMER: We thought that nutrients
9
were one, but there--and I realize you have got
10
"in large measure" there, but I wonder if you
11
want to put in the persistent pesticides again
12
and maybe oil?
13
MR. OEMING: Well--
14
MR. STEIN: Now--
15
MR. OEMING: The interstate problem
16
subject to this conference, now, this is where
17
we are--
18
MR. STEIN: This is always the problem
19
that you get when you open the door to specifics.
20
MR. OEMING: Yes.
21
MR. STEIN: The problem, and I think
22
trying to resolve this, or get a formula that
23
will resolve it, I think Mr. Oeming's point is
24
that when we are dealing with the lake as a whole
25
-------
. 3^03
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and the four States and the Federal Government
3
are dealing with the nutrient problem, the
4
problems such as oil and pesticides or persistent
5
pesticides at the present time are really
6
specialty problems, and I am not sure he wants
7
to put them in the same series as the nutrients.
8
MR. OEMING: No.
9
MR. STEIN: I think this is what he
10
is driving at.
11
MR. OEMING: This is right, Mr. Chairman.
12
Well, let me put it this way, that the
13
problem that sticks out to me, and I am sure
14
everybody, is the attempt to save the lake here
15
from degradation due to these nutrients and the
16
algal growths. Now, this does not necessarily
17
exclude a special problem such as an oil loss
18
from Benton Harbor getting down into Indiana,
19
let's say, but many of these are not immediate,
20
of such immediate effect on the lake as a whole.
21
MR. STEIN: All right, I know, I am
22
trying this. Let me try this sentence to get--
23
pardon me.
24
MR. MITCHELL: It seems to me that the
25
-------
3^06
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
language "in large measure" still leaves the
3
door open for a lot of minor problems.and I
4
am not trying to change the wording.
5
MR. STEIN: All right. Are you
6
satisfied?
7
All right.
8
MR. HOLMER: I go with Oeming if--
9
MR. STEIN: All right All right.
10
If we can do that, then I think I can dispense
11
with another reading because we are all in
12
agreement with that. Is that correct? Again
13
you are going to have another crack at it.
14
We are going to have this typed up and you
15
are going to get this back.
16
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, I want
17
to be sure that we are not leaving conclusions
18
at this point. I want the conference to be
19
under no illusions on that score.
20
MR. STEIN: No. No. As a matter of
21
fact, we are not closing the door on anything.
22
MR. HOLMER: Well, what I am saying
23
is that there are a significant number of
24
additional conclusions that I think we need
25
-------
3^07
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to arrive at before we start looking at the
3
recommendations.
4
MR. STEIN: This is fine, and we will
5
be glad to take them up, but I do think that
6
we should recess for lunch. Again it is to
7
the point.
8
Do you think we can make it back by
9
1:30, gentlemen?
10
All right, we will recess until 1:30.
11
(Whereupon, at 12:00 noon a recess
12
was taken until 1:30 p.m.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
. 3^08
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
AFTERNOON SESSION, MARCH 7, 1968
3
(1:30 p.m.)
4
(Off the record discussion.)
5
MR. STEIN: We are ready to reconvene.
6
MR. POSTON: What is the status of
7
this now?
8
MR. STEIN: We are going to meet tonight
9
until about 5 or thereabouts. We will recess and
10
meet tomorrow at 9j we will run until 12j we will
11
reconvene Tuesday until we conclude. 0. K.?
12
MR. POSTON: Tomorrow morning at S?
13
MR. STEIN: Nine.
14
MR. POSTON: How about 8 o'clock?
15
MR. KLASSEN: Good, let's start at
16
8 o'clock.
17
MR. MITCHELL: Very good. Very good.
18
MR. POSTON: You know, this is a pretty
19
important Job to be fiddling around with time here
20
MR. STEIN: Do you want to start at 8?
21
MR. HOLMER: No.
22
MR. STEIN: No.
23
MR. KLASSEN: Sure.
24
MR. HOLMER: I will do it if the others
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
want to and you are willing, Mr. Chairman. I
3
prefer--
4
MR. STEIN: I think you are kidding
5
yourself. I vrill take a consensus here.
6
What do you think?
7
MR. OEMING: I will go for 8:30.
8
MR. POOLE: I will compromise on 8:30.
9
MR. KLASSEN: 8:30.
10
MR. STEIN: 8:30 tomorrow morning.
11
MR. POSTON: We got half an hour on
12
you anyway.
13
MR. STEIN: All right.
14
Mr. Holmer, let's proceed.
15
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, Section 10
16
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
17
specifies what should be in the summary and
18
recommendations that come out of this conference.
19
There are three parts to this. The first part
20
is the occurrence of pollution and the second
21
is the adequacy of the abatement measures. The
22
third is the nature of delays encountered in
23
abating pollution.
24
We have drafted a document which is
25
-------
3^10
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
before you, which deals with each of these things.
3
The conclusions that we have discussed this
4
morning do part of the Job, but it has seemed
5
to us that there are several additional sources
6
of pollution that we feel in the conclusions
7
ought to--a foundation laid that will lead to
8
the appropriate recommendations.
9
On page two of our statement, for
10
example, we refer to "A major and continuing
11
complication, resulting in pollutional discharges,
12
are combined sewers that are found in many
13
communities. The efficiency of a treatment
14
plant is irrelevant, if slgificant portions of
15
the pollutional load are, in fact, not treated
16
at all."
17
I think this is a conclusion that we
18
could very easily come to.
19
If I may, in this part of the session,
20
let me go then up on page three--
21
MR. STEIN: Let's take one at a time.
22
MR. HOLMER: Do you want to take them
23
one at a time?
24
MR. STEIN: Yes.
25
-------
3411
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: All right.
3
MR. STEIN: 0. K. Your last paragraph,
4
this reads:
5
"A major and continuing complication,
6
resulting in pollution discharges, are the
7
combined sewers that are found in many communi-
8
ties. The efficiency of a treatment plant is
9
irrelevant, if significant portions of the
10
pollutional load are, in fact, not treated at
11
all."'
12
Let me throw this open for comment.
13
Don't you think "the efficiency of the
14
treatment plant is irrelevant"might be a little
15
strong?
16
MR. HOLMER: I am willing to modify
17
it.
18
MR. STEIN: Yes. We recognize that you
19
have to do that. But I am not sure that when we
20
provide, as we are talking about here, secondary
21
treatment plus chlorination of the effluent, even
22
if we have a stormwater overflow, that what we
23
are doing is irrelevant. It might be recognized.
24
(Discuasion across the table, inaudible
25
to the reporter.)
-------
^_____ 3412
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. MORTON: It doesn't affect the
3
treatment per se, but it affects--
4
•'ii\. PC-OLE:. The results.
5
MR. MITCHELL: The results of treatment
6
are affected by it.
7
(Inaudible to the reporter.)
8
MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chairman.
9
MR. STEIN: Yes.
10
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think we did give
11
recognition to this in the second--where it did
12
mention combined sewer overflows as a source of
13
pollution.
14
MR. STEIN: Yes.
15
MR. POSTON: In conclusion #2 we did
16
say that the sources of this pollution include
17
wastes from municipalities, industries, Federal
18
activities, combined sewer overflows, and we
19
went on throughout the drainage basin.
20
MR. STEIN: All right. 0. K.
21
MR. HOLMER: On page three in the
22
bottom two sentences we refer to pesticides,
23
fertilizers and the use of chemicals to clear
24
highways. It seems to us that the use of
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
de-icers is a matter of concern to which this
3
conference ought to direct its attention. .We
4
have prepared a recommendation relating to
5
this, and in order to provide a foundation for
6
a recommendation we would need to have something
7
like this in the summary of the conference.
8
The same thing applies with respect
9
to the business of erosion from highway con-
10
struction and other construction. We had
11
substantial evidence on this point in our
12
conference. We believe there should be
13
recommendations on that point also, and so
14
we would like some summary statement with
15
respect to these two items.
16
MR. STEIN: Yes. 0. K., I think this
17
is a point.
18
Do you have any comments there?
19
MR. POSTON: Pardon?
20
MR. STEIN: Do you have any comments
21
now?
22
MR. POSTON: Well, I think we had
23
recognized in our report, I was going to go
24
back through the conclusions and see if these
25
had been brought out.
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION.
2
MR. STEIN: I don't think so. I
3
didn't recall them.
4
Haven't we covered the pesticides
5
pretty much?
6
MR. HOLMER: Yes, pesticides and
7
fertilizers I have no problem with.
8
MR. STEIN: All right. Let me try
9
this on for size:
10
"in the area covered by the conference"
11
MR. POSTON: Could we Just include
12
that as one of the iterns--
13
MR. STEIN: Yes.
14
MR. POSTON: --on item #2?
15
MR. STEIN: --the extensive use of
16
chemicals is employed to clear highways.
17
MR. HOLMER: You can almost leave
18
it there.
10
MR. STEIN: "in constructing highways
20
and buildings extension erosion has resulted.
21
The results of both these activities contribute
22
substantial pollutants to Lake Michigan.
23
MR. POOLE: I have a little trouble--
24
MR. STEIN: Yes.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POOLE: Our technical committee
3
on the south end of Lake Michigan took this
4
matter of chlorides into consideration, those
5
of us who recall the blue book, in that there
6
were chloride limitations established that
7
went up a little bit to the year 2000. Now,
8
I think they were primarily considering Just the
9
increase in sewage and the increase in chlorides
10
as you got a greater volume of sewage, although
11
I am not sure that they may not have taken this
12
use of salt into consideration. But what has
13
prompted this, as I remember that blue book,
14
we still had a chloride limitation for the year
15
2000 and it was pretty low, and if this technical
16
committee was right, I don't know whether this
17
deserves the word 'substantially11 contributing
18
or not.
19
MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman,, we have
20
got some comments here on this.
21
MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Poole, there was a
22
paper presented to the 8th Conference of Great
23
Lakes Research, March 29 and 30 of 1965, by Mr.
24
Ownbey and Mr. Willeke. The subject was "Long-Term
25
-------
3^16
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Solids Buildup in Lake Michigan." And they
3
considered this problem of chloride buildup
4
and one of their conclusions was that the
5
chloride buildup need cause no great alarm.
6
Let me read this paragraph:
7
"There are several implications in
8
the foregoing calculations. First, the pro-
9
Jected future concentrations"--of chemicals--
10
"are relatively low. Therefore, chloride
11
buildup need cause no great alarm. Second,
12
the municipal contribution is quite small.
13
Therefore, as far as Lake Michigan is concerned,
14
there would be little reason for removing
15
chlorides from municipal wastes. Third, if
16
a reduction in buildup rate is desired,
17
attention should be focused on the large
18
brine sources on the eastern shore of Lake
19
Michigan. Fourth, a large portion of the
20
total chloride comes from rural runoff, a
21
source which is difficult if not impossible
22
to control. If road salting proves to be a
23
significant factor in rural runoff, this could
24
conceivably be controlled."
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
I don't know, I think-- Is Mr.
3
RIsley here? He was supposed to be.
4
MR. POOLE: I personally don't--!
5
am not contesting the silt from highway
6
construction and other urban construction.
7
I think there are grounds for a lot of
8
improvement there and it is time we started
9
on them. I may not have this thing in
10
perspective at all, but I have had the
11
feeling that we have got a hell of a lot of
12
things to worry about with respect to Lake
13
Michigan before we get to worrying much about
14
the chlorides.
15
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. Well, I think
16
that is the gist of this paper.
17
MR. STEIN: Let's work this out.
18
You have raised two questions, Mr.
19
Holmer. One, the question of silt from these
20
construction sites, which we are all aware is
21
a pretty bad one. And the other one, the
22
chlorides.
23
I would like to get an agreement at
24
least on this putting the chemicals on the road.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
I wouldn't say it was particularly a rural
3
problem. Putting chemicals for de-icing on
4
the road I suspect might be as much of an
5
urban problem"as a rural problem.
6
But the question here is, is this a
7
significant problem that you want us to take
8
up?
9
MR, HOLMER: I think it is potentially
10
severe enough that this conference needs to make
11
a recommendation on the subject. The recommen-
12
dation is a relatively simple one, that the
13
PWPCA evaluate the potential danger from de-icers
14
and set at rest a good many of the concerns that
15
have been felt about this nationwide.
16
We have conducted research in Wisconsin
17
on this subject and have reported that within
18
the last 15 months to the Association of State
19
Highway Officials. The report indicates that
20
.there is a distinct buildup, but that there is at
21
present no clear indication of imminent danger.
22
I would think that this conference would
23
like to have the Federal Water Pollution Control
24
Administration report back to us specifically on
25
-------
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this subject with their finding if it confirms
3
what we have discovered; if it confirms what
Blucher feels about this, fine. But I don't
5
think that we want to just avoid dealing with
6
this subject which is of great popular concern
7
and I think we have got to address ourselves to
8
that.
9
MR. STEIN: I think you are right. I
10
think we have several problems here: one of the
silt, one of these de-icers, and the other of
the beaches. • You know, whatever you say about
13
pollution control in the exotic terms we use,
14
if the public doesn't feel we are handling those
15
problems, they are not going to feel we are
16
handling pollution problems.
17
Can we all say, though, and let's try
18
to get this, that we feel there really is a
19
problem from the runoff from road and building
20
construction in the silt? This isn't Just a
21
problematic operation, is it?
22
MR. PURDY: No.
23
MR. OEMING: Not in Lake Michigan.
24
MR. STEIN: What?
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Not in Lake Michigan.
3
MR. STEIN: You don't feel you have
4
something from silt either?
5
MR. OEMING: No.
6
MR. STEIN: All right. Then, let's
7
try it in this way. Can we say:
8
"There has been considerable concern
9
expressed about ;the use of chemicals to de-ice
10
roads and the effect of runoff from road con-
11
struction and building sites on water quality
of Lake Michigan. The effects"--
13
You want to stop right there?
14
MR. HOLMER: Stop right there.
15
MR. STEIN: All right. 0. K.
16
MR. HOLMER: That is enough.
17
MR. STEIN: 0. K., let's stop there.
18
MR. HOLMER: I think it makes a record.
19
MR. STEIN: 0. K. .Right.
20
Are we all in agreement with that
21
conclusion?
22
MR. POSTON: Read it once more.
23
MR. STEIN: Do you want to read it back?
24
(Record read as follows: "There has
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
been considerable concern expressed about the
3
use of chemicals to de-ice roads and the effect
4
of runoff from road construction and building
5
sites on water quality of Lake Michigan.")
6
MR. STEIN: Period. All right.
7
If there is no objection, let's try
8
to do that. I think, we have laid the foundation
9
there to what we are going to do. Right.
10
MR. HOLMER: The second thing in the
11
Water Quality Act has to do with the adequacy
12
of abatement measures. I think this has been
13
touched on directly or indirectly. This is
14
not a problem. But there are not in the con-
15
elusions any comments with respect to the nature
16
of delays encountered in abating polluting.
17
I think there are a number of very
18
important points that need to be made, and
19
they are made starting on the bottom of page
20
five and running to the top of page eight.in
21
this statement of ours. The subjects involved
22
are the fact that there are problems in recog-
23
nition of existence of pollution. For instance,
24
the problem of thermal pollution was denied,
25
-------
3^22
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
really, and there are still many questions about
3
it. Well, I think the fact that there are un-
4 .
certainties of knowledge is an important part
5
of the problem.
6
Determining the means of abating
7
pollution. The requirement for research. I
8
think we need to recognize that there may be in
9
some areas still needs for additional research
10
and experimentation, and this is a source of
11
delay.
12
Now, I would want to make it clear,
13
I am not calling for inaction. We have to
14
apply the best known methods when they are
15
necessary, but it may be that there are occasions
16
in which you would delay while awaiting the
17
results of research.
18
Another source of problem for us
19
is the limited manpower pool against which we
20
are drawing to do the things that need to be
21
done. I think we ought to recognize this, not
22
as an excuse for inaction, but as a source of
23
delay.
24
Now, still another area where we have
25
-------
3^23
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
got problems, and I think we ought to recognize
3
this in the summary of the conference, is the
4
fact that we are dealing with some large and com-
5
plex problems. One of the recommendations ought
6
to be that we separate sewers and that we devise
7
regional collection systems and that we try to
8
bring together both industries and municipalities.
9
These things take time and I think we ought to
10
recognize that we are dealing with political as
11
well as engineering realities in anything we do.
12
There are political and legal considera-
*3
tions aside from this. We need to have in our
14
States the kind of record on which we 'can proceed
15
to enforce our orders, and this is necessary.
16
There are other areas where new legis-
17
lation is required. We heard a suggestion this
18
morning that we ought to adopt legislation this
19
year. Well, that is not going to be very possible
20
in Wisconsin with the legislature not in session.
21
So this needs to be built into our system.
22
Finally, there are a couple of sources
23
of uncertainty that I think we need to recognize.
24
The first is that of defining with clarity what
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
constitutes pollution and what constitutes the
3
degree of abatement to be expected of munici-
4
palities, industries and government installations.
5
I think we are talking here about some of the
6
problems of simply collecting and evaluating the
7
data that it takes in order to,properly manage
8
a river, and we have got some problems here
9
that will take time.
10
Finally, you have got this fiscal
11
uncertainty that I am not going to beat over
12
the head again. I think it is a tripartite
13
responsibility or a quadripartite involving
14
Industry, municipalities, States and Federal
15
Government. And until that is resolved we
16
have got a built-in delay.
17
I think it would be a mistake not
18
to incorporate a statement of this kind in the
19 ;
summary of the conference.
20
MR. STEIN: Well, I don't know, do you
21
have a proposal?
22
MR. HOLM^R: Yes, Sir, four:-pages of it.
23
Do you want me to read it?
24
MR. STEIN: Your proposal is four pages?
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: Yes, sir.
3 3
MR. STEIN: To be put in or something
4
more succinct?
5
MR. HOLMER: This is as succinct as
6
it can be. (Laughter.)
7
MR. STEIN: Do we have any other views
8
on this?
9
MR. KLASSEN: I will express my views.
10
I have a tremendous respect for my colleagues
11
from Wisconsin, but I am not in favor of putting
12
this in. Frankly, this sounds like the stories
13
we hear from industry, all the reasons that
14
they can't do something.
15
I am not in favor of putting all of
16
these reasons why the Job can't be done as
17
officially recognized. As they appear and if
18
and when they appear, and I agree that they
19
might, let's solve them then. But I don't think
20
that we ought to recognize the fact that all
21
of these things could be delays.
22
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
23
MR. STEIN: Mr. Oeming.
24
MR. OEMING: I don't disagree with Mr.
25
Klassen. I respect his Judgment in this as well.
-------
3^26
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
But I think what Mr. Holmer is talking about
3
is the reason for delays up to the present
4
time. We are not talking about why there
5
should be reason for delay in the future.
6
MR. HOLMER: In some Instances I am
7
talking about the reasons why or the things
8
that we have to take into account in order to
9
minimize the corrective action. For instance,
10
legislation--
11
MR. OEMING: You cited, Mr. Holmer,
12
the statute. It is perfectly clear in the
13
statute that we are supposed to put our finger
14
on what were the natures of the delays, if
15
any, that brought us to this point. This is
16
the way I look at it, Mr. Chairman.
17
And I thought that is where the main
18
thrust of your argument went. Not that we are
19
paving the way for excuses in the future.
20
MR. HOLMER: I am trying to recognize
21
when we get to making recommendations we are
22
going to put a timetable on and we are going to
23
put it Just as tight as it can possibly be, and
24
I don't think that we are proposing- here that
25
-------
3*127
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
we in any way try to delay the achievement of
3
the preservation of Lake Michigan. I don't
4
think that is the question.
5
I think the question is, in setting
6
our timetable in our recommendations we want
7
to be realistic. There is no point in setting
8
a timetable that we can't meet. And I think if
9
we don't recognize that research is sometimes
10
necessary in areas in which we do not have the
11
information, I think we would be making a mis-
12
take.
13
MR. OEMING: Yes.
14
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston?
15
MR. POSTON: Well, I felt tha.t we have
16
talked about this, it is like many other parts
17
of presentations that have been made and is not
18
particularly pertinent to bringing this up in
19
the summary as a most important thing. There
20
are many things that were discussed in the five-
21
day period of our deliberations last month, and
22
I don't feel that every one of these points
23
need be covered, inasmuch as they will be in
24
the record for those who want to study this out.
25
-------
3^28
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Again let me try to bring
3
you back. The statute says that in the summary
4
we have to discuss the nature of the delays.
5
Now, as I see this, the nature of the delays
6
in the problem of cleaning up pollution of Lake
7
Michigan on the basis of what you said are due:
8
one, to the complexity of the problem; secondly,
9
to the notion that we are dealing with political
10
entities that have to be brought together;
11
thirdly, that in order to solve the problem
12
we may have to have new legislation; fourth,
13
that we may have to have and we haven't resolved
14
yet the problem of adequate financing; and
15
fifth, that we do not have the answers, the
16
definitive answers, to all the problems and
17
they have not been able to be related.
18
As far as I can see, this is in 'summary
19
what the nature of the delays here are--
20
MR. OEMING: That is right.
21
MR. STEIN: --and I think the statute
22
requires us to say something on that and we
23
should give consideration to that in the time
24
schedule.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
But I am wondering if we can't arrive
3
at some kind of generalized summary of the
4
nature of the delays up to now or recognize
5
that, because I suspect if we get into the
6
specifics, into details, we may run into some
7
problems.
8
What you are saying is, I think,
9
entirely correct, and unless we recognize that,
10
we are going to set up a false time schedule,
11
fool ourselves, fool the people, and in my
12
estimation a time schedule that is too tight,
13
unable to be realized, is worse than the too
14
easy time schedule, because when you get a too
15
tight time schedule and the time schedule isn't
16
met and you can't enforce it, the time schedule
17
is past and then you are rolling on and you
18
are continuing to pollute.
19
What you have to have is a reasonable
20
time schedule that is going to be met. And I
21
don't know, if you--
22
MR. HOLMER: I will accept that state
23
ment.
24
MR. STEIN: If you want to put these
25
-------
3430
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
in these generalized terms as to the nature
3
of delays, maybe we can try that.
4
MR. OEMING: May I suggest, Mr.
5
Chairman, that you have formulated here a
6
general framework for what has concerned me
7
as imposed upon us by the statute, and I don't
8
believe we are going to resolve this right
9
here at the moment. But how would it be to
10
have the Secretary take that portion out of
11
your statement here and bring it back in and
12
see if we can resolve this into a general
13
statement of--
14
MR. STEIN: All right.
15
MR. OEMING: --what are the nature
16
of the delays, rather than an exposition. I
17
think this has some difficulties with it, Mr.
18
Holmer. An exposition such as this is fine,
19
but to boil this down, and it seemed to me
20
that the Chairman did this. And finally, there
21
are a couple of things that occurred to me
22
that we might add to this yet along the same
23
lines of this statement, but would formulate the
24
kind of a job that we should do here under the
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
statute to meet this requirement.
3
MR. STEIN: Let the Secretary use
4
that as a point and we will give this to the
5
Conferees and let them work this over.
6
Now, I see Mr. Klassen shaking his
7
head. And you know, it may have taken me 20
8
years to learn this, but I know when Klassen
9
shakes his head I don't want to go ahead without
10
pausing.
11
MR. KLASSEN: Just let me make one
12
comment, Mr. Chairman, and this Is a comment
13
and a prediction.
14
The polluters are going to capitalize
15
on every one of these delays that we recognize,
16
and I am speaking specifically now of certain
17
industries that gave nothing but excuses at
18
the last time that they need more time to study.
19
We have heard this for 25 years, and I am not
20
;
for building into this some Justifications that
21
they can go back and say, "Well, you said this
22
could be a delay, so we need more time to study."
23
I am not in favor of including them in there.
24
And if I am outvoted, it is all right.
25
-------
: : 3432
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: You mean your idea is
3
to be on with cleanup of the lake, is that
4
what you are saying?
5
MR. OEMING: Mr. Klassen--
6
MR. KLASSEN: Well, we know these
7
things, but why give justification for somebody
8
that is now polluting the lake that shouldn't
9
be to capitalize and they say, "Well, you
10
recognize this yourself, so how can you criticize
11
us for not going ahead? We need to further
12
study this problem."
13
MR. OEMING: I know your concern,
14
Mr. Klassen, but how do we answer this question?
15
MR. KLASSEN: What question?
16
MR. OEMING: The framers of the statute
17
must have had in mind that we must look over our
18
shoulder and say what were the reasons? Other-
19
wise,they wouldn't have put it in there. How
20
would you propose to get over this question that
21
is in the statute--
22
MR. KLASSEN: What, timetable?
23
MR. OEMING: --as to what are the nature
24
of the delays, if any, that have occurred? .
25
-------
. 3^33
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: When the delay occurs,
3
face it then and solve it.
4
Now, I am for setting deadlines
5
and if the deadlines are not met at the time
6
the deadline is reached, then to evaluate
7
whether you are going to make an extension.
8
MR. OEMING: Well, you are--
9
MR. KLASSEN: It has been my position
10
with Illinois and Indiana. I never said I
11
was against extending deadlines but I was
12
against extending deadlines 18 months before
13
the deadline was met.
14
MR. OEMING: Yes, I appreciate, you
15
are looking at it a little differently than
16
I am in that as I read subsection 4 of the
17
statute, it says that the conference summary
18
include the nature of delays, if any, being
19
encountered in abating pollution. Now, that
20
means as of this time. It doesn't look forward
21
to setting time schedules that aren't met in
22
the future, but what are they today, what have
23
they been.
24
MR. KLASSEN: I don't know of any
25
-------
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
delays right now, I honestly don't.
3
MR. OEMING: I think I can think of
4
some.
5
MR. KLASSEN: If somebody wants to
6
outline an industrial problem that can't be
7
solved, I would like to hear about it.
8
MR. OEMING: Well, let me point out
9
to you, Mr. Klassen, that in the conference
10
itself I think it was obvious that there was
11
a good deal of reservation on the part of the
12
Conferees that the matter of taking care of
13
phosphates was a practical and reasonable
14
matter, where it may be different today. But
15
as short a time ago as a month ago this was
16
not universally accepted by the Conferees.
17
MR. KLASSEN: That is right.
18
MR. OEMING: So isn't that a delay,
19
the fact that we didn't know, perhaps, or
20
weren't ready to accept--
21
MR. KLASSEN: It was a month ago, but
22
it is not a delay today.
23
MR. STEIN: All right, let's put it
24
this way. I think we have the formulation of
25
-------
3^35
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
a statement that the Secretary will type for you.
3
Whether we adopt that, expand it with a few other
4
items that Mr. Oeming wants or eliminate it cora-
5
pletely we will determine as we go on. I think
6
we have drawn the issue and I understand the
7
views.
8
Let me make one point. There is
9
something in the statute — this has always been
10
a vexing point to me. The statute says we
11
have to determine the nature of the delays,
12
if any. Now, Mr. Klassen, I have always felt
13
that this was something that was thrown in the
14
compromise of the legislation, and every line
15
of our legislation is a compromise, possibly
16
as a sop or a Justification to the polluters
17
to indicate that the record would indicate why
18
we haven't cleaned this up until now.
19
But it is in the statute and it is
20
something we are going to have to meet one way
21
or the other.
22
MR. KLASSEN: Yes. It is not a
23
mandatory thing in the statute, only if you
24
have these obstacles.
25
-------
3436
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: No, it says the Secretary
3
must include in the summary the nature of the
4
delays, if any.
5
MR. KLASSEN: If any.
6
MR. STEIN: Now, if there are none,
7
let's say it.
8
MR. KLASSEN: All right. I haven't
9
heard any yet.
10
MR. STEIN: All right.
11
MR. OEMING: If there weren't any
12
delays, I don't know why we are here.
13
MR. KLASSEN: I am talking about
14
future delays.
15
MR. OEMING: Yes, I know you are,
16
Clarence.
17
MR. STEIN: All right.
18
Yes, Mr. Wisniewski.
10
MR.WISNIEWSKI: In view of Mr. Klassen's
20
comments that there have been no delays, should
21
we then in the summary include the statement
22
under the subject of nature of delays that
23
there have been no delays in the abatement of
24
pollution of Lake Michigan?
25
-------
3^37
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR.. KLASSEN: I didn't say that. I
3
said I know of no delays from here on that we
4
ought to recognize. There have been delays.
5
MR. OEMING: Don't you think we can
6
fix that up by saying that up to this point in
7
time?
8
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, yes.
9
MR. OEMING: This is what I am talking
10
about.
11
MR. STEIN: I think we have a statement
12
to work on. Let's either expand it or analyze
13
it and go ahead.
14
Do you have another point, Mr. Holmer?
15
MR. HOLMER: Only with respect to the
16
recommendations when we start in on them, which
17
I assume will be almost forthwith, that we may
18
want to consider the order in which we review
19
the recommendations dealing with the research
20
and information needs first and going then
21
through a logical sequence and ending up with
22
the treatment recommendations. It seems to
23
me that until you have dealt with the research
24
and information needs, the preventive measures
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
you want to take, the collection facilities
3
recommendations, you are not really prepared to
4
deal with treatment recommendations, because
5
all of these lead up to and tend to govern the
6
treatment recommendations. I make that as a
7
general preface to the recommendations.
8
MR. STEIN: Are there any other
9
comments on that?
10
MR. KLASSEN: I would like to hear
11
some of these. It is in the same category as
12
delays. If we are going to predicate the
13
recommendations on necessary research, I think
14
I know what Mr. Holmer means, if it is on
15
research on phosphates, maybe we ought to get
16
some of that basic information before we get
17
into these. I would be willing to give it a try.
18
MR. STEIN: Well, we might give that
19
a try because we have Dr. Weinberger here today.
20
If you have any questions, we can sift out the
21
additional information and the research we might
22
need before we can come into recommendations, if
23
that is what you want to do.
24
MR. HOLMER: That is what I would suggest
25
-------
3^39
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: What are the particular
3
areas where you think you may need some more
additional information and research so we can
5
get started on them?
6
MR. HOLMER: Well, we begin on page
7
9 and they deal with water--
8
MR. STEIN: Is this in your statement?
9
MR. HOLMER: On my statement, yes, sir.
10
They deal with water quality monitoring, the
question of establishing a priority for the
12
review of water consumption needs of the basin,
13
the thermal pollution recommendation, because
14
I think until you deal with what--how you are
15
going to get at the thermal pollution problem
16
on a research basis we wouldn't want to make any--
17
MR. STEIN: Well, it is a question--
18
we have a thermal pollution man here, too, and
19
I asked him to come up.
20
What do you want to deal with first?
21
Do you want to deal with thermal?
22
MR. HOLMER: I think that probably
23
another issue that may come first--and I am
24
not sure that the Conferees want to go with this.
25
-------
3440
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Maybe they may want to--.
3
MR. STEIN: No, I think you have a
4
point. Let me put this and you may have
5
several points. I think the areas we are
6
pushing at are these:
7
We were out to U. S. Steel yesterday;
8
I think these people have shown what they can
9
do in industrial pollution. I think we are
10
pretty much squared away on what can or can't
11
be done on municipal pollution. We have several
12
problems.
13
If you want a brief on information
14
on that, one is the thermal pollution problem,
15
another is the phosphate problem, possibly the
16
interim problem to deal with the alewives, which
17
I think is a straightforward program, and I
18
don't know that the facts are in doubt there.
19
But other than the thermal pollution problem,
20
and we have Mr. McLean here, or the phosphate
21
problem, and we have Dr. Weinberger here, do
22
we have any other real problems we need any
23
research on here or information?
24
MR. POOLE: How about pesticides?
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: And pesticides.
3
MR. OEMING: Yes.
4
MR. KLASSEN: Can't we take these up
5
as we come to the Federal recommendations?
6
MR. STEIN: No--well, the suggestion
7
of Mr. Holmer was--this was what I originally
8
thought we might do, is just take them in order
9
and as they came up get into these. He suggests
10
that before we even go into the recommendations
11
we have to have a discussion of this type.
12
Now, this is the question of a vote
13
you want to take. Do you want to take these
14
one at a time and as the questions come up get
15
them or go into these theoretical discussions
16
first?
17
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
18
MR. STEIN: Yes.
19
MR. OEMING: May I suggest that you
20
provide Mr. Holmer the Opportunity to make a
21
statement here about—we are talking all around
22
the subject. Can't we get him to make a state-
23
ment about what is concerning him in the order
24
of presentation here--
25
-------
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Right.
3
MR. OEMING: --or what he has in mind?
4
Can we get this down and then we can talk about
5
it?
6
MR. HOLMER: Well, I think that there
7
are--
8
MR. OEMING: Specifics, now.
9
MR. HOLMER: --with respect to such
10
things as alewives, for example, and I am Just
11
taking this, we would recommend that Michigan
and Wisconsin continue their efforts to develop
13
better control of alewives. I think we ought
14
to make such a recommendation out of this
15
conference. And that all four States and
16
Federal agencies cooperate with the Bureau of
17
Commercial Fisheries in an early warning system.
18
MR. STEIN: Yes. May I, and this is
19 %
Just procedural, rather than get right now into
20
the specifics of the recommendations procedurally,
21
what order would you like us to take these up in?
22
MR. HOLMER: I would like to deal with
23
research and information first,
24
MR. OEMING: 0. K., now.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: What kind of research
3
and information?
4
MR. HOLMER: In my order, water
5
quality monitoring comes first. I think we
6
ought to take some steps to improve our water
7
quality mbnitoring so we know where we are and
8
are going to be, and so I suggest and make a
9
recommendation here. From there go to the
10
basic question of water quantity, which I
11
think has got to underlie some of our decisions
12
with respect to collection and treatment later
13
on. Then I would get into the thermal pollution
14
problem and then into the control of alewives
15
and pesticides, fertilizer application, de-icers
16
and detergent research.
17
MR. STEIN: Are you suggesting we do
18
this before we take up the specific recommendations^
19
MR. HOLMER: I am suggesting that you
20
need informationr-
21
MR. STEIN: No, there are two ways
22
of doing this.
23
MR. HOLMER: These are specific
24
recommendations.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: I understand that, sir,
3
but I think there are two ways of doing this.
4
One, we can run down the specific recommenda-
5
tions and as these questions come up we can
6
grapple with them or we can defer in dealing
7
with the specific recommendations and take them
8
in this order first. Now, what would you like
9
to do? And I am Just talking procedure. I am
10
not talking--
11
MR. HOLMER: But in what order do you
12
take up your specific recommendations, then?
13
What is the logic in the arrangement so that
1*
we are proceeding in an orderly fashion?
15
MR. STEIN: I am not sure that this
16
isn't a seamless web and wherever you start
17
you J>ust have to grab hold of it. I don't have
18
any brief for the way we begin to get at this.
19
Here is the only feeling that I have.
20
If we deal with a theoretical discussion, we
21
are not going to have any specific proposals.
22
If we immediately start with specific proposals
23
and take them off, as far as I am concerned,
24
as we have gone now from 1 to 15, now maybe
25
-------
, . 3445.
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
we will get to 20 or 30, but I would hate to
3
get through the day and find that we were
4
still at 15.
5
And maybe this is the way to do it.
6
Maybe this is the fastest way in the end.
7
MR. HOLMER: Let me explain, Murray.
8
I am not talking about theoretical discussions
9
at this point at all. I am talking about a
10
series of specific recommendations. And I
11
think we ought to deal with specific recommen-
12
dations, we ought to go through one at a time.
13
I am perfectly willing to go with the
14
Federal. I am suggesting tha-t I think we might
15
find it more satisfactory to deal with their
16
recommendations relating to research before we
17
deal with their recommendation relating to
18
municipal wastes.
19
MR. STEIN: I have no objection to
20
that if the Conferees would agree to that.
21
Now, I would like to hear an expression.
22
MR. POSTON: We tried to group these
23
recommendations, as you can see, and we started
24
out with municipal pollution, municipal waste,
25
-------
3446
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
combined sewer wastes, industrial waste, Federal
3
installations, general headings, power plants,
4
dredging, watercraft, land use practice, surveil-
5
lance. This is one of the items that you in-
6
eluded under research. And then finally research,
7
alewives and progress evaluation.
8
MR. OEMING: Well, as much as I don't
9
like to take sides here, I am satisfied in my
10
own mind at this point in the discussion that
11
the question of research that is needed could
12
logically come from the discussion of other
13
recommendations. That is, this would boil down
14
to the need for research, unless there is some-
15
thing I miss here, Mr. Holmer, that you feel
16
that there is an important element here that
17
ought to precede for some specific reason, and
18
I haven't heard that yet.
19
MR. HOLMER: Well, if you will look
20
at the Federal recommendations on research, 24,
21
25* 26 and 27, they recommend that research be
22
accelerated in ways to reduce the rate of
23
eutrophication; non-point nutrient sources be
24
identified and quantified, and control methods
25
-------
3447
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
be developed; present research be strengthened
3
in ways to remove nutrients, and so on.
4
Now, if these are to be our research
5
recommendations, then is there an inconsistency
6
here with the earlier recommendations that
7
relate to these subjects? I find it a little
8
awkward to .do both, you see, without having
9
laid out the precise areas of research that we
10
need to do so that we know that our recommenda-
11
tion is not going to be changed when we get to
12
the research recommendation.
13
MR. POSTON: Well, I think we have
14
some difficulties in assigning these research
15
projects to researchers and that in this —
16
MR. HOLMER: You mean ways?
17
MR. POSTON: To get people that will
18
take on the particular Job that you are talking
19
about.
20
MR. STEIN: No. No, we are going to--
MR. POSTON: It may be a State agency
22
or Federal agency, some other agency that would
AV
finally do this.
24
MR. STEIN: Let's get an expression.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: "to be controlled by"--
3
MR. OEMING: By 1977.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes, "controlled."
5
All right. May we go on to 7?
6
MR. HOLMER: Sir.
7
MR. STEIN: All right.
8
MR. HOLMER: I have two additional
9
recommendations that I think would be useful
10
coming out of this conference. One is that
11
each State water pollution control agency
12
formally adopt policies encouraging the dis-
13
charge of treatable industrial waste following
1*
needed preliminary treatment to municipal
15
sewer systems.
16
And the second, that each water pol-
17
lution control agency adopt policies encouraging
18
unified collection systems serving contiguous
19
urban areas where feasible.
20
Now, these are related.
21
MR. STEIN: Just procedurally, isn't
22
your second point related to industrial wastes
23
rather than on the combined wastes?
24
MR. HOLMER: I would be glad to take
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
going to spend up until that 5 o'clock hour
3
you were talking about Just on--<
4
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Stein, let me apologize
6
to my fellow Conferees. I wanted to expedite
6
our proceedings. I haven't and I withdraw it.
7
MR. STEIN: All right, let's go.
8
Let me make a suggestion. I have read 24, 25>
9
26, 27. The way they have read this, if you
10
take these up first, I don't know that we
11
would be any farther ahead. As a matter of fact,
12
I am not sure we wouldn't have lost four yards.
13
It is like running against a defense of the Green
14
Bay Packers.
15
But let me suggest this. I think we
16
are going to have the best of both possible
17
worlds. We all know what the research impli-
18
cations are. Let's take them up one at a time.
19
If you can tab a research implication in any
20
of these recommendations that we cannot go
21
ahead with this without flagging that and going witl
22
it, let's bring it up. Now, let me try this
23
and you follow in your stuff.
24
Recommended actions. One--
25
-------
3^50
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION.
2 MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
3 MR. STEIN: Yes.
4 MR. OEMING: Now I have to get in
6 here before you get into recommendations.
6 I have, I think, two questions that
7 bear upon your consideration and the Conferees'
Q
consideration of these specifics and recommended
9
actions.
Number one, I would like to have an
expression of the Conferees whether we are
12
going to deal with effluent criteria, effluent
standards, in dealing with the problem of Lake
14
Michigan or are we going to deal with water
quality standards to protect the uses of Lake
16
Michigan, and the implementation of these
17
standards to be done as necessary to get the
18
end result that we are seeking in Lake Michigan.
19
Perhaps I had better drop it there
20
and then I have a next question depending upon
21
the answer to this one.
22
MR. STEIN: I don't know. Do you
23
people want to try that?
24
MR. POOLE: Would you restate it, please?
25
-------
34-51
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: The question is are we
3
going to water quality standards in the lake
4
or are we going to work with effluent standards.
5
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Pardon me, sir,
6
is the loud speaker on?
7
MR. STEIN: I haven't got the faintest
8
idea.
9
But I tell you, if you have ever been
10
to a pollution control meeting for the past 50
years and you haven't heard that question raised,
12
you haven't been to a pollution meeting. You
13
haven't missed one. This is the fundamental
14
question we always discuss.
15
MR. KLASSEN: Is there an official
16
Federal interpretation on this, Mr. Chairman?
17
MR. STEIN: No.
18
MR. KLASSEN: Can we use either?
19
MR. STEIN: Use either or both. I
20
am ready to hear from you people on this.
21
Let me give you my view on this since
22
none of them have spoken up.
23
You know, Larry, this has been a
24
question that has been raised at every pollution
25
-------
3^32
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
control meeting that I have ever been to in
3
my life. I think if you raise this in the
4
philosophic way you have raised it, I have
5
never heard it resolved yet and I am not sure
6
you have. It is my view that we move in and
7
we take these one question at a time and
8
knock these off, because if you are going to
9
get into this question of stream standards versus
10
effluent standards and what we are going to do
11
on the theoretical basis, we can have a long
12
discussion, come to some kind of Mexican stand-
13
off, and then the first issue we get in we are
14
going to contradict ourselves.
15
MR. KLASSEN: May I ask one question?
16
And this is not theoretical, this is practical.
17
It was asked of us by the Federal Water Pollution
18
Control.
19
You are making recommendations here
20
for effluent standards. Does that mean that
21
you are assuring the Conferees that if these
22
effluent standards are met .that the water quality
23
standards that you have approved will be met?
24
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston?
25
-------
3^53
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: No, I don't think that
3
is the intent here at all.
4
MR. OEMING: Well, gentlemen, we are
6
in a maze now.
6
MR. KLASSEN: Isn't this the pertinent
7
question?
8
MR. OEMING: This is the pertinent--
9
MR. STEIN: No, I think your question
10
is pertinent. There may "be another answer to
11
it, and I don't know that this answers the
12
question. Either the effluent standards have
13
to be met as a minimum.--
14
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
15
MR. STEIN: Now, if the water quality
16
standards are not met, you may have to do some
17
more.
18
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
19
MR. HOLMER: Well--
20
MR. STEIN: But as a minimum you
21
would have to meet these effluent standards to
22
get started.
23
MR. KLASSEN: After they have spent
24
money on this, the water quality standards that
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the States have proposed that have been accepted
3
might not be met.
4
MR. STEIN: Well, I would hope that
&
their effluent standards were related--
6
MR. KLASSEN: This was my question.
7
MR. STEIN: —to the water quality
8
standards.
9
MR. KLASSEN: The way these have been
10
worked out by the Federal Water Pollution Control,
11
is there assurance, and this is the same ques-
12
tion Federal Water Pollution Control asked the
13
State of Illinois on our effluent standards,
14
can we be assured that the effluent quality
15
standards that the State of Illinois proposed
16
will meet the water quality standards? We made
17
the recommendations before. Now you are making
18
them. I am asking you the same question.
19
MR. STEIN: What question do you ask
20
us you couldn't be sure in every case? And I
21
never knew, Clarence, that you ever thought we
22
were smarter than you.
23
MR. KLASSEN: You are reading something
24
into that.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
(Laughter.)
3
MR. STEIN: No, I am not reading a
4
thing.
5
MR. KLASSEN: You gave an honest
6
answer to it.
7
MR. STEIN: I am not reading a thing
8
into this.
9
MR. KLASSEN: You gave an honest
10
answer.
11
MR. STEIN: I think when we have run
12
millions of automobiles out, we are reasonably
13
sure that when an automobile comes off a pro-
14
duction line that it is going to run. I wish
15
we were as definitive on water. All we are
16
doing is the best we can.
17
Now, as I Judge these, and I haven't
18
discussed this with our technical people, I
19
assume that what they are saying, that if-these
20
effluent standards are met the water quality
21
standards are going to be met. They absolutely
22
don't know any more about water quality control
23
than Mr. Holmer, Mr. Poole, Mr. Oeming, Mr.
24
Klassen, Mr. Stein. We can't provide the
25
-------
^____ 3456
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
definitive answer. I am not sure that they
3
can. This is their closest and "best guess.
4
MR. KLASSEN: Good.
5
MR. STEIN: Now, the way I would
6
suggest running this to cut through this
7
Gordian knot is that if these effluent stan-
8
dards you feel are not reasonable to meet
9
the water quality standards, then we should
10
take these up and deal with them. But I don't
11
think you can ask the Federal people, as they
12
wouldn't ask you, to make a prediction or come
IS
up with a judgment on a tolerance which is
14
more than anyone can do given the state of the
15
art today. What can you do? We can only do
16
our best.
17
Hopefully, they have their water
18
quality standards; they feel these effluent
19
standards can reasonably meet them. If they
20
do that in 100 percent of the cases, I will be
21
surprised.
22
MR. KLASSEN: You have answered my
23
question and I think if this is what we all
24
understand, I think this is what we do understand,
25
-------
: : 3457.
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this kind of-~
3
MR. STEIN: Yes.
4
MR. KLASSEN: This kind of a—
6
MR. STEIN: Yes.
6
MR. KLASSEN: I think you gave a
7
very fair statement of it.
8
MR. HOLMER: But would it not be
9
better in the long run for us to be dealing
10
with the obligation each of us as States has
11
assumed to achieve the water quality standards
12
which were approved just before this conference
13
for some of us by the Secretary of the Interior?
14
Do we know whether it is necessary
15
to do all of these things in all of the waters
16
of the basin in order to achieve these standards,
17
would be one question that automatically comes
18
up. Is it going to prove necessary to do more
19
in some places in order to achieve those water
20
quality standards?
21
Wisconsin is prepared to do more if
22
that is what is required.
23
MR. STEIN: All right.
24
MR. HOLMER: Because we believe in the
25
-------
3^58
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
water quality standards.
3
MR. STEIN: All right. As I read
4
the first one, and you know, I don't want to
5
get--again, this is the crucial point here.
6
The question is they talk, and I am not sure
7
they go on with this advanced waste treatment,
8
I am not sure I know what advanced means, but
9
if you are going to provide waste treatment to
10
provide this kind of treatment.
11
Now, the problem is, if any less is
12
going to be provided you are going to meet the
13
water quality standards. If any more is needed
14
you are going to have to get that more to meet
15
the water quality standards. Isn't that correct?
16
MR. HOLMER: But my point is I am not
17
interested in whether the discharge has got
18
one part per million of elemental phosphorus.
19 I
I am concerned about getting the phosphorus in
20
the shoreline down to the place where we don't
21
have nuisance algae.
22
I feel the same way about BOD. We
23
want to protect the quality of the water, not to--
24
MR. STEIN: This is the old business.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Now, how are we going to be able to determine
3
whether any polluter or any discharger is
4
meeting a program? It seems to me the fastest
5
way we can determine this, and you determine
6
this in all your State programs when you issue
7
a permit, is what they are producing and what
8
kind of effluent they are producing. Now, if
9
you get a situation where you believe that they
10
don't have to meet this to meet the water quality
11
standards, I think we have to face that situation.
12
Again if we get to a situation where given this
13
this isn't quite enough and they are going to
14
have to even do more than this to achieve this,
15
then we are going to have to meet that.
16
But it seems to me if we are going to
17
kick off a program where we can measure results,
18
we have" to deal with the individual polluters,
19
decide what kind of improvement these polluters
20
are going to make and when they are going to do
21
it and check to see if they have done it, because
22
otherwise you won't know what they have done.
23
MR. HOLMER: Well, but this is our
24
responsibility to see that the burden and the
25
-------
3460
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
responsibility for doing this is discharged
o
in accord with the proper management of the
various basins involved in our problem.
MR. STEIN: In other words, you
g
don't want us to give you--we are not supposed
7 to have any specifics on what the individual
g
polluters are going to do. We are going to
9
leave it up to you and maybe after five years
if we find the waters are not meeting those
qualifications and these guys have primary
12
treatment or no treatment at all, that this;is
13
the Judgment we move in.
14
How does that put us ahead of where
15
we are today, Mr. Holmer? Don't you think that
16
we and the public are entitled to know specifically
17
what each of these sources of pollution are
18
going to do and when they are going to do it?
19
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, may I
20
take you on for a while?
21
MR. STEIN: Sure.
22
(Laughter.)
23
MR. OEMING: Let's start here with
24
the basic Federal statute which says that the
25
-------
3461
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
States were supposed to adopt water quality
3
standards on interstate waters.
4
PROM THE AUDIENCE: Would you use
5
the microphone, please?
6
MR. OEMING: I don't know whether
7
I can or not.
8
The States have all adopted water
9
quality standards for Lake Michigan. The
10
Federal statute, so far as I can read it,
11
does not say that accompanying these standards--'
12
it says a plan of implementation, doesn't it?
13
They want a plan of implementation with the
14
standards.
15
The States have also adopted plans
16
of implementation along with their standards,
17
have submitted those to the Secretary of the
18
Interior, and the Secretary has approved those,
19
with a few exceptions here and there which
20
do not necessarily complicate this issue at
21
this time.
22
I am asking you and the Conferees
23
whether the recommendations on specific ef-
24
fluent restrictions now mean that'whatever you
25
-------
: : .3462
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
subscribe to here must now go back and be
3
incorporated in the standards? My question
4
primarily—the basic question is what is the
5
relation of the standards and plans of imple-
6
mentation which have now been approved by the
7
Secretary of the Interior for Lake Michigan,
8
what relationship does that bear to this
9
conference?
10
I think that is the basic question
11
that needs to be answered.
12
MR. STEIN: Well, here, you know,
13
this is a wonderful question; I am glad you
14
asked it.
15
Mr. Klassen, when the Congress enacted
16
the provisions dealing with standards, they
17
specifically did not repeal the enforcement
18
provisions. Governor Kerner of Illinois asked
19
for an enforcement case. We under the Federal
20
statute had no option but had to respond to
21
that case. In order to get a response to that
22
case, these people have come up with recommended
iA
actions to clean up the streams. The kind of
24
„ Judgment they are going to make on each individual
25
-------
3^63
1 . EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
polluter—and by the way, if these individual
3
polluters do not measure up at the conference
4
stage, we can go to a hearing and then to court,
5
and the way we Judge these polluters is exactly
6
the way you, Mr. Poole, Mr. Holmer and Mr.
7
Klassen do it, whether each of them are putting
8
out a specific effluent requirement so they
9
will not pollute.
10
In order that they will be on notice,
11
that you will be on notice, that we-will be on
12
notice, I think we have to give these waste
13
dischargers a clear indication of what we
14
expect of them. I would hope"that the Federal
15
people have come up with recommendations which
16
are consistent with the standards and the
17
standards will be met and there will be no
18
conflict. If there is, maybe we should hear it.
19
But you have to recognize that we
20
have the first stages of an enforcement action
21
initiated, not by us, but by a governor of a
22
State, that if at the first stage of this
23
enforcement action satisfactory results are
24
not achieved we are going to a hearing and we are
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
going to court. And if you do not want to
3
put your cities and industries on notice
4
right now what you are going to expect of them
5
and what the Federal Government is going to
6
expect of them, I think we are doing them a
7
tremendous disservice.
8
MR. OEMING: I say that--
9
MR. STEIN: I say that if we are
10
asking them to spend millions of dollars they
11
are entitled to know what we are asking them
12
to do at the earliest possible opportunity,
13
and this is the time.
14
MR. OEMING: Mr. Stein, I don't
15
disagree with what you say, but I say that this
16
is in the plans of implementation at present.
17
Otherwise it wouldn't have been approved by
18
the Secretary.
19
MR. STEIN: Well, if there is no
20
difference in this plan of implementation,
21
all we have to do is sign off on it.
22
MR, OEMING: There are differences,
23
however, here in these proposals.
24
MR. STEIN: If there are differences,
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
these are the ones to be brought up.
3
MR. OEMING: 0. K. This is what I
4
am talking about.
6
MR. STEIN: But I think the thing
6
is to get down to specifics.
7
MR. OEMING: All right.
8
MR. STEIN: All right, let's deal
9
with the first one.
10
MR. HOLMER: Are we going this way?
11
MR. STEIN: Well, go on. We are; not
12
cutting you off.
13
MR. HOLMER: I thought you were going
14
to go from here now into the--
15
MR. STEIN: Twenty-four? No. As
16
I understood the consensus, it was to go the
17
other way. Now, I may have misread this.
18
MR. HOLMER: Going into Item One of
19
the recommendations?
20
MR. STEIN: Yes, that is what I under
21
stood was the consensus of the Conferees of all
22
the States. I think you were in favor of going
23
the other way, but as I polled the others they
24
wanted to start with Number One.
25
-------
3^66
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: Yes. But I am wondering
3
if we are through with Larry's question.
4
MR. OEMIKG: I am not through, but
5
I am holding it tack.
6
MR. STEIN: He is not through; he
7
said, he is holding it back. And I think if
8
we proceed, these things will come out. So far
9
we have achieved unanimity not only in this
10
case, with another case. My notion is if we
11
get started, all these questions will come out.
12
We are not going to "bypass anything.
13
I am ready to take this up in any order that is
14
suggested. As I gather from the Conferees, at
15
least four of them want to take this up from
16
Number One, and I have no brief in not taking
17
up the research first, but this is their judgment.
18
MR. HOLMER:' I am not arguing that.
19
I just wanted this question of stream standards
20
and effluent standards (inaudible to the reporter)
21 * i
MR. OEMING: Yes.
22
MR. STEIN: I am not sure that we
23
have, sir. What I am suggesting is that we can
talk about these stream standards and effluent
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
standards, as I have talked for the past quarter
3
of a century, and we could sit at these meetings
4
and talk, but we are always going to be faced
5
with this. If we are going to get through with
6
our business and get through with this, recog-
7
nizing his point—and I don't disagree with
8
what Larry says philosophically—what I am
9
suggesting is procedurally we take this up
10
when we meet them.
11
MR. MITCHELL: May I ask a question?
12
If a polluter was able to achieve
13
either standard but not both, how would you
14
enforce?
15
MR. STEIN: The difficulty,! think,
16
Mr. Mitchell, is if we ever get into a situation
17
where both weren't compatible and you could
18
achieve one but not the other, it would have
10
to be construed in favor of the polluter. I
20
wouldn't doubt that. I would think bb'th these
21
approaches would have to be compatible.
22
' MR. MITCHELL: Certainly that is
23
what I thought Mr. Oeming was saying too. I
24
thought you were suggesting that they ought
25
-------
• ; 3^68
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to be compatible and that certainly the
3
State standards, which everyone had approved
4
and everyone had been working with, that any
5
effluent standards certainly ought to be
6
somewhere in compatibility with those statements
7
and--
8
MR. STEIN: I think we are in agree-
9
ment with that. The question here is*-
10
MR. MITCHELL: Then I heard you say,
11
though, that we ought to advise industry of what
12
these standards are, and I thought when we
13
passed our State plans, had all the hearings,
14
we were setting the record pretty clear that
15
the State did want to clean up the pollution
16
and the inference was that our State plans
17
didn't give that impression to industry. I
18
don't think it is true.
19
MR. STEIN: If I gave that impression,
20
I didn't mean to. The notion is here, with
21
these requirements here, if these are not
22
compatible with your State plans, with your
23
State standards and your State implementation
24
plans, we should point this out. But I think
25
-------
3.^69
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
industry is required to ^degree of certainty,
3
and I think if we do not give them the same
4
story from the standards we approve and the en-
5
forcement conference, we are falling down on
6
our Job. And I think the only way we can get
7
at this to see if these things coalesce is by
8
getting at the details.
9
I think the sooner we start, the
10
better we might be.
11
MR. OEMING: I am ready to start.
12
MR. STEIN: All right.
13
14
RECOMMENDATIONS #1 AND #2
15
"l. Advanced waste treatment be pro-
16
17
vided by municipalities serving a population of
18
5,000 or more or receiving for treatment wastes
19
in quantities exceeding 200 pounds per day of
20
BOD. Such treatment to achieve 90 percent five-
21
day BOD removal or an effluent containing a
22
maximum of 20 parts per million removal and an
23
effluent containing not more than 1 part per
24
million of elemental phosphorus. This action
25
-------
3^-70
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to be accomplished by December 1972."
3
MR. OEMING: I am ready.
4
MR. POOLE: Mr. Chairman, the first
5
one is where we come to considerable variance
6
with what my idea of the State standards and
7
the implementation plan have been.
8
First, and before I get into what I
9
consider a variance, I do not want to associate
10
advanced waste treatment with 90 percent removal
11
of BOD.
12
MR. STEIN: May I make a suggestion
13
on this? I always have problems with this. Can
14
we strike, for the sake of argument—and if you
15
want put it backr-let's say "waste treatment be
16
provided," because this "Advanced" is a color
17
word and I don't know that it adds anything one
18
way or the other. I am Just trying to get us
19
closer together.
20
Instead of talking about advanced waste
21
treatment, let's say "Waste treatment be provided
22
by the municipalities." I agree with you on
23
that. 0. K.?
24
MR. POOLE: All right.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
The second part of it I think is more
3
important where there is a variance. We said
4
in our plan of implementation that we would
5
require secondary treatment, and if activated
6
sludge was used we would expect 90 percent BOD
7
removal*, if trickling filters were used we would
8
expect 80 percent BOD removal, and that we would
9
decide which type was applicable depending upon
10
the given situation. We did not say anything
11
about 20 parts per million BOD.
12
We said phosphates would be removed
13
when feasible, or something to that extent.
14
A month ago we talked about 80 percent removal
15
of phosphates. Now this says 90 percent or, as
16
I read it, not more than one part per million
17
of elemental phosphorus.
18
So these recommendations are quite
19
different from what was in the Indiana plan
20
that has been approved, and I think perhaps
21
maybe this might have some bearing on the
22
question that Mr. Oeming raised.
23
MR. STEIN: Maybe I should have read
24
this first. I think you have got several points
25
-------
3472
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and it seems to me I have heard some of this
3
before somewhere.
4
Let's take the first one up, this
5
trickling filter, 80 or 90 percent. What is
6
your view on that?
7
What is wrong with Poole putting
8
in trickling filters when he needs it, and if
9
he is going to put in trickling filters, why
10
have we got this 90 percent?
11
MR. POSTON: Well, I think our people
12
feel that we need to get maximum treatment now.
13
MR. STEIN: No, no, no. Now, here,
14
you know the issue as well as I do. You get
15
a lot of trickling filters around and you have
16
arguments that dealing with a small city if
17
you are going to get a 90 percent removal, to
18
some people in the audience, you almost are
19
going to have to go to an activated sludge
20
operation or something of that kind. They realize
21
when one of those plants go sour, you will have
22
a lot of trouble, and a lot of smaller communi-
23
ties can run a trickling filter, they can run
24
between 80 and 85 percent and get a lot less
25
-------
3^73
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
trouble. What is the issue if the States want
3
to get the implementation plans and the water
4
quality set to where in their Judgment a city
5
that has a trickling filter plant or they think
6
it might be better if they operate a trickling
7
filter plant, that it might be the best opera-
8
tion?
9
An activated sludge plant, I might
10
point out, just doesn't operate on an automatic
11
pilot, and if the town is committed, as many
12
towns are, to having the fire chief do this in
13
his spare time or the mayor's brother-in-law
14
run the plant, maybe some of the States feel
15
he miught do better with a trickling filter
16
doing 85 percent.
17
This is the issue. I think we have
18
all heard these arguments before. The notion
19
is why are we asking for a routine 90 percent?
20
MR. POSTON: In general, 90 percent
21
is attainable in an activated sludge plant--
22
MR. STEIN: That's right.
23
MR. POSTON: --and most towns with a
24
population of 5,000 might go to that. Whereas
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
we have recognized in the second recommendation
3
that for towns under 5,000 population we would
4
permit an 80 percent removal of five-day BOD--
5
MR. STEIN: Do you mean to say that
6
in Indiana that you are not--and I Just want
7
to understand the recommendation--that you are
8
not going to permit a trickling filter plant
9
in a town of over 5,000, 6,000, 7,000?
10
MR. POOLS: Well, I think we might
11
not on the Lake Michigan watershed, "but I
12
wouldn't say that for the State as a whole.
13
That is, if they come in with a trickling
14
filter plant.
15
Where there is a critical water
16
situation, you say no, go to the activated
17
sludge because it would give you a higher
18
percentage of removal.
19
I am not quibbling so much about
20
the 90 percent for the towns above 5,000 that
21
he has here as I am about the remainder of it, and
22
I want to point out that the remainder of it
23
was not in the Indiana standards and plans.
24
I don't know whether it is in those for the
25
-------
• 3^73
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
other three States or not. You have come down
3
to a 20 parts per million BOD and if you happen
4
to have a 400 in the raw, you go to 90 percent
5
removal right away instead of 80. And if I
6
followed, and God knows I don't profess to be
7
an expert on phosphate removal, but the thrust
8
of the testimony that I got a month ago was
9
that there are now ways to remove, on an average,
10
80 percent of the phosphates.
11
There was also in the Michigan
12
testimony, as I recall it, their results on
13
two plants that were dealing with raw phosphates
14
in the neighborhood of 50, 60 parts per million,
15
and as soon as you impose that one part per million
16
elemental phosphorus on these plants, if I
17
followed Purdy right, you have got something
18
considerably above 90 percent removal, and I
19
had only heard the 90 percent removal after I
20
got this last Monday.
21
MR. STEIN: What would you suggest?
And again to try to move this forward. Mr.
23
Poole, would you suggest other numbers for
24
the 20, 90 and 1? Would that help it?
25
-------
3^76
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POOLE: I would like to know what
3
some of the other people think.
4
MR. STEIN: Mr, Oeming?
5
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, my question
6
is what is the significance of BOD removal on a
7
town of 5>000 up on the head waters of a tribu-
8
tary stream in Indiana, Michigan, or Wisconsin
9
in relation to the water quality standards that
1°
have been accepted and approved in Lake Michigan?
11
MR. POSTON: Are you looking at me?
12
MR. STEIN: Yes, or anyone you want
13
to call on.
14
MR. POSTON: I think, first off, that
15
when we made these changes I think this was done
16
because the Conferees wanted more specificity
17
and this was the reason we got into putting some
18
more qualifications.
19
It was my understanding relative to
20
phosphorus removal that it can be done effectively.
21
And I think I might agree with you, Mr. Oeming,
22
that insofar as interstate or pollution from a
23
community 100 miles upstream or maybe even
24
considerably less than that might not affect
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the lake Insofar as bacteria are concerned
3
or BOD, but I think we generally had the
4
conclusion that the people in the States
5
wanted to have a quality water as well as
6
those people that live around the lake.
7
MR. OEMING: Well, that may be.
8
But we are still dealing with an interstate
9
water quality problem here and not aimed
10
within the State, and if I sense these States
11
around here, they are all adopting water
12
quality standards for intrastate waters.
13
I question now, in view of what you
14
say, why this should be in here, this BOD
15
removal, at all municipalities. If we are
16
aiming our guns here at Lake Michigan, which
17
I think we are, then we ought to stay there.
18
And secondly, Mr. Poston--
19
MR. POSTON: I think it is going to
20
be necessary to have an adequate waste treatment
21
plant to remove the nutrient problem, phosphates
22
specifically, back upstream, whereas it might
23
not be necessary to handle the bacterial prob-
24
lem upstream because of its remoteness from the
25
-------
3^78
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
lake.
3
MR. OEMING: Look, I am not arguing
4
about the phosphate removal. We have got to
5
remove phosphates. I am going to argue about
6
90 percent in a minute •.
1
But Michigan has accepted the premise
8
that phosphates have got to be removed whether
9
it is 100 miles upstream or at the lakeshore.
10
So let's get away from that argument.
11
What I am arguing,first of all,is what
12
relationship does a 500-pound load in the upper
13
tributaries, a BOD load,now, in the upper
14
tributaries, have to the water quality in
15
Lake Michigan?
16
MR. POSTON: Well, I think, of course,
17
some of it depends upon the proximity to the
18
lake.
19
MR. OEMING: Yes, yes, yes.
20
MR. POSTON: If you get up there
21
far enough, it is all satisfied by the time you
22
get to the lake.
23
MR. OEMING: Yet you want a uniform
24
requirement here all over the tributaries
25
-------
3479
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
predicated on what, on Lake Michigan quality?
3
This is my question.
4
MR. STEIN: Let me ask you, Mr. Oeming,
5
do you have a suggestion on modifying or
6
amending this?
7
MR. OEMING: Yes.
8
MR. STEIN: Go ahead. Let's try that.
9
MR. OEMING: My suggestion is that
10
treatment be provided sufficient to achieve not
11
less than 80 percent removal of phosphorus,
12
total phosphorus.
13
MR. STEIN: That's 80 of phosphorus,
14
all right.
15
MR. OEMING: Total .phosphorus. Now,
16
we ought to know what we're talking about.
17
MR. STEIN: All right.
18
MR. OEMING: We're talking about total
10
phosphorus.
20
MR. STEIN: All right.
21
MR. POSTON: Phosphorus.
22
MR. PURDY: What is the difference,
23
total phosphorus--
24
MR. STEIN: All right. First, let's
25
-------
3^80
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
go down.
3
"Waste treatment be provided by
4 ' ,
municipalities serving a population of 5>000
5
or more in quantities exceeding 800 pounds
6
of BOD."
7
Do you have any objection to that
8
first sentence?
9
MR. OEMING: Yes.
10
MR. STEIN: What is your objection?
11
MR. OEMING: Well, I Just had the
12
answer from Mr. Poston that if the BOD is
13
satisfied before it gets to the lake it has
14
no influence on it, it becomes an intrastate
15
problem.
16
Well, if he didn't say it, then he
17
ought to correct it.
18
MR. STEIN: What would you suggest
19
we use for the first sentence?.
20
MR. OEMING: Strike it out.
21
MR. PURDY: I don't think you can set
22
uniform ones.
23
MR. OEMING: I don't think you can set
24
a uniform BOD requirement as it relates to the
25
-------
3481
1 EXEJUTIVE SESSION
2
water quality in Lake Michigan or in the
3
receiving stream.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes. But. what I am
5
trying to get is a draft that we can work
6
with. Let's try this.
7
MR. OEMING: Well, "Waste treatment
8
be provided"--
9
MR. STEIN: --"be provided by
10
municipalities serving a population of 5,000
11
or more. "
12
Right? Let's go on.
13
"To achieve 90 percent five-day BOD
14
removal"?
15
MR. OEMING: No.
16
MR. STEIN: No? To achieve what?
17
MR. OEMING: To achieve 80 percent
18
removal--
19
MR. STEIN: --of phosphorus?
20
MR. OEMING: --of total phosphorus.
21
MR. STEIN: That is all?
22
MR. OEMING: Well, you can put a
23
minimum in there. I would say this should be
24
a minimum of 80 percent.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: A minimum of 80 percent
3
phosphorus removal?
4 . .- .
MR. OEMING: .Removal.
5
MR. STEIN: And no requirement that
6
they—and an effluent which will not affect
7
the water quality standards of Lake Michigan--
8
MR. OEMING: 0. K.
9
MR. STEIN: --as approved by the State
10
of Michigan and the Secretary of the Interior?
11
MR. OEMING: All right.
12
MR. STEIN: No, I am Just trying to
13
get a proposal.
14
MR. OEMING: That's implied.
15
MR. STEIN: Yes. All right, let's go
16
on with the next. Eighty percent of total
17
phosphorus.
18
Let me see if I can put Mr. Oeming's
19
proposition in words sro we have something to
20
work with. 0. K.? In other words, you wouldn't
21 ' '
draw a distinction between 5,000 or under 5,000?
22
MR. POOLE: Oh, yes, I would want to,
Zo
on the time limit only.
MR. STEIN: Oh. But let's do that
25
-------
3^83
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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
later .
ttrr
\\
aste treatment be
municipalities to achieve at
reduction of
effluent whi
total phosphorus
ch will
provided by all
least an 80 percent
removal and an
not degrade the water
quality standards . for Lake Mi
by the appropriate S
the Interior
Is
MR
MR
yes .
Go
MR
MR
MR
where?
MR
MR
MR
tt
*
this--
. OEMING
. STEIN:
on , Mr .
. HOLMER
. STEIN:
. HOLMER
. OEMING
. STEIN:
. HOLMER
tate and
chigan as approved
the Secretary of
: This is what I am saying.
0. K.
Holmer .
: Eighty
What I wanted to--
percent of what?
Total phosphorus.
: Well,
but the total from
: From the raw sewage.
Prom raw sewage.
: Of current loadings or
future loadings? What if we
excluding these from
MR
. CEMING
sewage?
develop means of
: Well, we say at least,
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Mr* Holmer.
3
MR. POSTON: You still ought to treat-
4
MR. HOLMER: At least 80 percent?
5
MR. OEMING: Yes.
6
MR. HOLMER; My point la, though, it
7
may be possible to find other means of excluding
8
phosphorus from the loadings, in which case I
9
am not sure that 80 percent removal would be
10
necessary. If we get down to 20 percent of
ll
what we have now, would we require another 80
12
percent?
13
MR. OEMING: I got over that hump,
14
Freeman, when we convinced ourselves that we
15
could remove 80 percent of the phosphorus from
16
the raw sewage and we should do it.
17
MR. HOLMER: All I am saying is that
18
if there is an easier and a better way than me-
ld
chanical suppuration method--
20
MR. OEMING: Oh, I see.
21
MR. HOLMER; --it may be that we
22
would want to go that route rather than to get
23
at it--
24
MR. STEIN: Yes. I am trying to put
25
-------
3485
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Mr. Oemlng's proposition in words.
3
Now, as I always understood this problem,
4
and maybe I don't, but the notion was that the
5
best way to deal with phosphorus is to keep
6
all--it is like radiation. The more you can
7
keep out, the better you are. 0. K.
8
Now, the point is, as much as you
9
can keep out at the source and not let get
10
into the system, you are ahead. But if we have
11
a feasible means of removing 80 percent of
12
the phosphorus of anything that goes in, isn't
13
the objective to get as close to zero as possible?
14
MR. HOLMER: I would say so.
15
MR. OEMING: Yes.
16
MR. HOLMER: And I would say this is
17
our objective.
18 *
MR. STEIN: Now, if that is true,
19
what is wrong with his proposal? Let's suppose
20
he keeps them out at the source and you still
21
remove 80 percent, you are getting more phos-
22
phorus out and wo are getting closer to zero.
23
Remember in his proposal you are not
24
specifying primary, secondary, 90 percent, 80
25
-------
3486
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
percent, aerated sludge, trickling filter.
3
What we are saying is waste treatment be
4 . . .
provided by municipalities to achieve a
5
minimum of 80 percent total phosphorus
6
removal and an effluent which will not cause
7 ' .
deterioration of Lake Michigan water quality
8
standards as approved by the appropriate
9
States and by the Secretary of the Interior.
10
So as I understand it, this is-- Isn't
11
that a good way to start?
12
MR. HOLMER; What I am looking for
13
is a recommendation that will stand the test
14
of time and the change of circumstances. I
15
am not sure that 80 percent will be enough.
16
MR. STEIN: At least, we said.
17
MR. POSTON: I am not either.
18 s
MR. HOLMER: What?
19
MR. POSTON: I am not either. That
20
is why--
21
MR. STEIN: No, the proposition says
22
at least 80 percent.
23
MR. HOLMER: And this is why I would
24
suggest language such as to require programs, In
25
-------
3^-87
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
exclusion of treatment, to reduce current dis-
3
charges of phosphorus so that we start with
4
the current base and use the 80 percent on that
5
tc a level which will reduce the phosphorus
6
content, of shoreline water so as to preclude
7
the growth of algae in nuisance quantities.
8
This is our objective] this is what we are
9
trying to get at.
10
If you put 80 percent, you are in
11
the same problem with this that we really are
12
with BOD; we are defining an effluent standard
13
and not defining the goa.l we are shooting at.
14
We want to reverse the eutrophication. If 80
15
percent doesn't work., then we ought to go to
16
90 percent and whatever else is needed.
17
MR. STEIN: Well, here, let's get to
18
Mr. Oeming. The point is, when we talk of the
19
amount of phosphorus to preclude the growth of
20
algae, in some cases it might be ?0, it might be
21
30, it might be 10. Well, I don't know. This
22 I '
is a question the Conferees--
23
MR. HOLMER: I don't know--
24
MS. STEir-T: The point is that if we
25
-------
3488
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
agree that no phosphorus is delightful, why
3
do you want to let this stuff go in?
4
MR. HOLMER: I don't want to let it go
5
in. But I don't believe in taking phosphorus
6
out for the sake of taking phosphorus out. Our
7
purpose is to stop eutrophication of the lake and
8
this nuisance that we are complaining about.
9
MR. STEIN: Let me put this back
10
to you. Of course* this is a point that the
11
Federal Government and the State Governments
12
can engage on. Again, Freeman, if we come up
13
with the proposition that you can remove phos-
14
phorus enough, without a number, sufficient
15
to remove the algae, and the algae are not
16
removed and we then have to move against
17
your specific cities or industries, who
18
will ask, "Why the devil didn't you tell
19
us at the conference what we had to do?"
20
are you going to say that we Jur.t left it
21
up to them? Don't you think they are
22
entitled to know within a ball park figure
23
of the minimum they have to do before they
24
are faced with our coming in and getting
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
them in a court action? We are in a Federal
3
enforcement case here.
4
And do you realize what you are
5
asking us to do? You are asking us to turn
6
these cities loose through the conference
7
stage of this operation to say that they are
8
going to Just reduce phosphorus, enough not
9
to produce algae, and then if that doesn't
10
work we are going to come in on them, when
11
they didn't have any specifics on what they
12
had to do? I don't know.
13
MR. HOLMER: But you are ignoring
14
our responsibilities as States to issue the
15
orders to these communities.
16
MR. STEIN: Not at all.
17
MR. HOLMER: And to enforce the
18
interstate water quality standards. It seems
19
to me that we can all agree here informally that
20
80 percent is what we ought to do first and I
21
am sure we will all do at least 80 percent.
22
MR. STEIN: Well, if we are going
23
to do 80 percent, maybe we. had better put it
24
down.
25
-------
3*190
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: Well, but this may not
3
do the Job.
4
MR. STEIN: We said at least 80
5
percent.
6
MR. POOLE: (Inaudible to reporter)
7
tacked on this phrase I had worded about
8
meeting the water quality standards that I
9
thought was intended to cover this if 80 percent
10
wasn't enough.
11
MR. STEIN: That is right.
12
MR. HOLMER: All right. Then let
13
us look at one other problem, and that is the
14
far upstream tributaries. We are going to
15
require it anyway, but I am not sure it is an
16
appropriate action for this conference to say
17
that any effluent standards, including this
18
phosphorus one, ought to be imposed as a number.
19
I think this is a mistake for us to make at
20
this point in this respect as in the other.
21
MR. OEMING: Well, it seemed to me,
22
Mr. Chairman, that out of this conference one
23
significant piece of information came out, at
24
least one, and that was the first time that
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
there was sound evidence that we could remove
3
80 percent, not 90 "but 80 percent. Dr. Wein-
4
berger testified, the State of Michigan testi-
5
fied as to this, and I felt that there was
6
pretty general agreement now that methods were
7
available. And such being the case, within
8
the context of at least the Michigan standards,
9
we can say that we want 80 percent removal.
10
Even though we didn't say so, we said we wanted
11
to remove phosphorus, but I think we can now
12
say 80 percent and make it stick. And I
13
wouldn't like to see it left open unless the
14
Conferees feel differently. It seems to me
15
that our obligation is to specify now what we
16
mean by removing phosphorus.
17
And I look at another thing that came
18
out of the conference and that was to the effect
19
that we want to get all the phosphorus we can
20
out, whether it is 80 percent or something elsej
21
but we are tempering here with what we know,
22
that if we can get 80 percent and if that isn't
23
going to be enough we will have to go back and
24
ask for more. I don't see how we can deal with
25
-------
3^92
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this any other way to take care of the problem
3
in Lake Michigan.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, I would
5
agree.
6
You know, for years, Mr. Holmer,
7
we have been dealing with, say, Mr. Oeming,
8
Mr. Poole and Mr. Klassen on this. Whenever
9
we have come up with Mr. Oeraing on a require-
10
ment, the first thing that Larry has said to
11
me is give me a number, what do we have to do.
12
And I think the States and the cities and the
13
industries, if we are going to ask someone to
14
spend something, do something, are entitled
15
to this kind of operation and a number to do it.
16
The difficulty that I have is asking
17
big industry to spend maybe tens of millions
18
of dollars or a city to spend hundreds of
19
millions or even a small one.when they are
20
putting this restriction on them and then
21
saying, "You know, you haven't really done
22 - •"" ••
the Job. This is not enough."
23
While we are here, I think we have to
24
resolve this, resolve this with the States,
25
-------
3^93
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
because we have been pushed for years by
3
Michigan, and I hope Larry won't mind me
4
using him, to give them specific numbers
5
on what the Federal Government means and
6
what we are going to be satisfied with. I
7
have been persuaded that is what you need.
8
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Stein, the Water
9
Quality Act of 1965 says that the Secretary
10
of the Interior should make recommendations
11 •'
to the water pollution control agencies. This
12
is a recommendation to the water pollution
13
control agencies, I realize, in essence,
14
although it applies directly to the industries.
15
MR. STEIN: No, here is what happens.
16
Let me explain this law.
17
He makes recommendations to the
18
agencies first. If the agencies don't do
19
it under their law, we proceed against the
20
polluters directly.
21
Now, the Secretary can make this
22
recommendation unilaterally or he can make
23
a recommendation in consonance with the
24
States. Every time we have had unanimous
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
agreement by the States, the Secretary, whom-
3
ever we have had as Secretary through the
4
years, has adopted those recommendations.
5
Where the States aren't unanimous about this,
6
he just under the law is obligated to come up
7
and make his own recommendation.
8
But the point is, Mr. Holmer, and
9
let me make this clear, we recognize, and I
10
know you are acutely aware, the State is not
11
the polluter. You are representing your State
12
here. If the recommendation comes up that is
13
not being met at the next stage, we don't
14
proceed against the State, we proceed against
15
that city and we proceed against the industry.
16
It is my notion that we should be
17
clear and precise with that city and industry
18
that is going to have to spend the money as to
19
what we expect them to do at as early as possible a
20
stage; and as Mr. Oeming has constantly pointed
21
out to me, this means numbers; and if we don't
22
give them numbers they may .come a cropper.
23
MR. HOLMER: This is a legitimate
24
course for the Department of the Interior to
25
-------
^__ : 3^95
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
take if and when the situation is reached
3
where the water quality standards governing
4
Lake Michigan are not achieved. Now, the
6
responsibility for achieving those water
6
quality standards rests with the agencies of
7
the States around this table.
8
MR. STEIN: Mr. Holmer, again, don't
9
try that whipsaw. I have been around for a
10
long time. There are two provisions in this
11
law, enforcement and standards. Every time we
12
talk about the enforcement procedure you
13
switch to the standards. Don't tell us we
1*
are going to abrogate or get put of the en-
15
forcement business Just because the Congress
16
adopted the standards. The Governor of
17
Illinois asked us to come in under an enforce-
18
ment action; we are proceeding under an enforce-
19
ment action. If you think you are going to
20
quote another section of the law or another
21
program to cut out the Governor of Illinois'
22
request and the Secretary's response to it, I
23
think we Just can't respond to that kind of
24
operation.
25
-------
3^96
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: We share the aspirations
3
of the Governor of Illinois for a clean Lake
4
Michigan in full measure. We think that the
5
standards for Lake Michigan that were approved
6
by the Secretary are good ones and ought to be
7
achieved. And I think that the recommendations
8
ought to insist that they be achieved.
9
Now, if we fail as States, I have no
10
brief for the States against the Secretary's
11
moving in, against the individual polluters
12
in the States under the enforcement procedure.
13
I think this is entirely appropriate and de-
14
sirable.
is
MR. STEIN: This isn't the question.
16
Again you backed away. The point is we are
17
in an enforcement action. The Governor of
18
Illinois has invoked the enforcement action.
19
Here we are. We are coming up to you and the
20
States.
21
The Secretary has to make recommenda-
22
tions to you and your industries and your
23
cities. We hope that you will Join with us
24
unanimously in getting meaningful recommendations,
25
-------
34-97
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
because if we don't do this, I don't know that
3
we are doing all the States and the cities and
4
industries here a service.
5
I don't know. Now, where do we go
6
in this first operation? Mr. Oeming has a
7 ' . ' -
proposal. Are you in favor of what he said
8
or don't you like that at least 80 percent?
9
MR. HOLMER: If the other States go
10
on the 80 percent phosphorus removal with the
11
understanding we may go higher, this is all
12
right with me.
13
MR. STEIN: Yes, I think that "at
14
least" means higher.
15
MR. OEMING: That is what I meant
16
to sayj you go higher when you get the technology.
17
MR* HOLMER: I think we ought to
18
be stronger than that.
19
MR. STEIN: Well, how?
20
You know, I left the table to consult
21
with Dr. Weinberger. I like to be as strong as
22
I can, and he is the best technical guy I know.
23
I think I stretched the strength to the breaking
24
point with the 80. If we could do better, you
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
know I would toe delighted to hear it.
3
MR* KLASSEN: Are you downgrading
4
Poole and me when you said he is the best
5
technical man you know?
6
MR. STEIN: No, that is a different
7
kind of a technician.
8
(Laughter.)
9
You know, he is younger than we are.
10
When we grew up, I never even heard of phosphates,
11
hardly, except in a fertilizer.
12
Well, if we are agreed with that—now,
13
how do you feel about this?
14
MR. POSTON; I think that this leaves
15
out some of the larger communities around the
16
lake that are located right on the shore insofar
17
as biological treatment is concerned.
18
MR* STEIN3 What would you suggest?
19
MR. POSTONt Well, I think what I
20
really like is Number #1 as stated, and if you
21
insist on the 80 percent phosphate removal,
22
and if the others do, I would go with the
23
insertion of 80 percent,
24
MR. STEIN: What do you want, you
25
-------
3^99
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
want that 90 percent also?
3
MR. POSTON: For treatment plants
4
located along the lake, I think they have got
5
to remove--
6
MR.' STEIN: What do you think of that?
7
MR. OEMING: We have covered that,
8
Mr. Chairman, in the last phrase in the statement,
9
the joint Stein-Oeming statement here--
10
MR. STEIN: Thanks.
11
(Laughter.)
12
MR. OEMING: --when we said to meet
13
the water quality standards.
14
MR. PURDY: We said secondary treatment
15
in our standards.
16
MR. OEMING: We said secondary treat-
17
ment in our standards, Mr. Poston. What more
18
do you want? How many times do we want to go
19
through this to further identify it?
20
MR. POSTON: As Mr. Stein indicated,
21
this is a separate action different than the
22
standards.
23
MR. STEIN: No.
24
MR. OEMING: Oh, I am afraid that I have
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to have some problems with this, because you
3
may be asking the States to go back and start
4
hearings all over again..
5
MR. POSTON: There hasn't been any
6
reference to your standards in this so far.
7
MR. OEMING: Oh, yes, there has.
8
MR. STEIN: There were. I said to
9
meet the water quality standards approved by
10
the States and the Secretary of the Interior.
11
As far as I understand that, the standards
12
include the implementation plan.
13
MR. OEMING: It is incorporated by
14
reference here.
15
MR. STEIN: Is there any disagreement
16
on this?
17
MR. POSTON: 0. K. I didn't get that.
18
MR. OEMING: Yes, it is interpolated,
19
Wally.
20
Mr. Chairman, before you proceed with
21
this, we didn't cover two other items.
22
MR. STEIN: Yes.
23
MR. OEMING: One of them is. we
24
skipped over this differentiation of populations.
25
-------
3301
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
And I am a little bit fuzzy on this. I don't
3
have a very firm recommendation for you. But
4
this is a question that ought to be resolved
5
with respect to primarily, now, lagoons, sewage
6
lagoons. And Michigan has struggled with this
7
problen: under 5,000, what do you do about
8
sewage lagoons?
9
Now, the second question is the termi-
10
nation date here. Now, some of the States may
11
not have difficulty, but let me remind you that
12
Michigan sits on four of the Great Lakes and
13
we already are fighting the battles on the east
14
side of the State; we are starting them on the
15
west side of the State. Logistics work against
16
a uniform date here. When I say logistics, I
17
mean the whole gamut of engineers, financing,
18
construction, and to try to make 50--isn't it 50?
19
--50 communities meet one December date with
20
the procedural problems involved poses some
21
real difficulties.
22
MR. STEIN: 0. K. Let's see if we
23
can handle these one at a time.
24
Are you worried about lagoons, not
25
-------
3302
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
in the degree of treatment but in the phosphate
3
removal?
4
MR. OEMING: Yes. And here is--let
5
me cite this--
6
MR. STEIN: What happened to Leon?
7
Where is that professor?
8
Come here. He keeps leaving.
9
MR. POOLE: I want to make a suggestion
10
before he leaves today.
11
MR. OEMING: Let me state how we tried
12
to handle this first and if this strikes any
13
sparks here.
14
We have notified all the communities
15
in Michigan, not only in the Lake Michigan
16
basin but all communities, as follows:
17
"That persons making a new or
18
increased use of the waters of the State for
19
waste disposal purposes will be required, co-
20
incident with the. new or increased use, to
21
utilize such technology and processes which
22
are known for the removal of phosphorus com-
23
pounds, and that as a long-term objective
24
all existing waste discharges will be required
25
-------
3503
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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
to provide facilities for the removal of
phosphorus compounds by: June 1, 1977."
That is in the standards also. And
we call attention to the fact that 1977 is an
outside date.
Now, this conforms with the guidelines
issued by the Secretary and are in the approved
standards, this outside date of June 1, 1977.
It doesn't mean that we are going to wait that
long.
Now, then, with areference to these
smaller communities where lagoon systems appear
to be a real answer to many of our problems,
the policy is this, that:
"Generally these requirements may be
reasonably met by waste stabilization lagoons
in small communities and others where lagoons
will provide equal or greater assurance of .
meeting established water quality objectives for
the receiving waters other than nutrients and
may be provided by other types of treatment
facilities for such conditions. Waste stabili-
zation lagoon process does not provide a high
-------
3504
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
degree of removal of phosphates. Therefore,
3
such installations may not be adequate fo*
4
discharge of the effluent at certain locations
5
such as inland lakes and impoundments. When
6
practical methods are developed for efficient
7
removal of phosphates in the lagoon process,
8
by modification of design features or by
9
process control methods,owners of any such
10
facilities will be required to incorporate
11
and utilize such features and methods."
12
Now, we have got these sheep and
13
goats here. I am trying to resolve this.
14
MR. STEIN: Do you want to comment
15
on this?
16
DR. WEINBERGER: Well, Larry, let
17
me ask the question about the modification of
18
lagoons. Would this include perhaps the
19
addition of a chemical treatment phase beyond
20
it?
21
MR. OEMING: Yes, it could.
22
DR. WEINBERGER: All right.
23
MR. OEMING: It could, yes.
24
DR. WEINBERGER: I think the statement
25
-------
•.. • 3505
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Larry has made is--
3
MR. STEIN: Let me ask--we are having
4
this problem, and this may relate to all, Leon,
5
with these lagoons and small installations—do
6
we have a reasonable method of phosphate removal
7
to offer them now? I am not talking about a
8
conventional treatment plant. I am talking
9
about a man running a lagoon.
10
DR. WEINBERGER: Murray, I think there
11
are two questions, really. I think one, recog-
12
nizing the kind of installation where you approve
13
a lagoon in the first place, suggests that the
14
type of phosphate removal that we might be
15
recommending, such as chemical precipitation,
16
might not be the way to go right now. So that
17
I would say that although there is a technique
18
available, it may not be applicable for a lagoon
19
where they don't have the kind of operation needed
20
for a chemical treatment.
21
Do I make that clear?
22
MR. OEMING: You got it clear to me.
23
DR. WEINBERGER: 0. K.
24
MR. OEMING: Mr. Purdy wants to ask
25
-------
• 3306
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
something here.
3
MR. PURDY: In Michigan our lagoons
4
are operated as storage lagoons so that they
5
are not flow-through lagoons, and they are
6
discharged in the spring and fall, and there
7
are certain locations that this type of 100
8
percent control during the warm dry weather
9
months offers more protection to other water
10
quality objectives than what a conventional
11
treatment plant would offer. So from this
12
standpoint, there are certain places we would
13
like to be able to continue to approve the
14
lagoon as an acceptable treatment device.
15
DR. WEINBERGER: Yes. Again I am
16
not—I don't think that is the question, really,
17
because I think you are talking there probably
18
in terms of organic loading--
19
MR. PURDY: Yes.
20
DR. WEINBERGER: --for doing this and
21
a lack of dilution.
22
MR. PURDY: Yes,
23
.DR. WEINBERGER: I think what one is
24
talking about here now is specifically with
25
-------
3307
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
regard to the phosphate removal.
3
MR. OEMING: Yes.
4 ...
•DR. WEINBERGER: What I am suggesting
5
is that for those situations where a lagoon Is
6
normally employed, you do not have the kind of
7
operation, operating personnelr-
8
MR. OEMING: You are never going to have,
9
DR. WEINBERGER: --that with the kind of
10
chemical treatment that we could use we can
11
immediately say, you can put that in tomorrow
12
and it will be operating. We cannot make that
13
statement, Murray, because I think what is going
14
to be involved there, if you make that recom-
15
mendation, these communities are going to have
16
to get themselves a better operator and a whole
17
series of operating things.
18
I want to make the distinction between
19
a technique for doing it.
20
MR. OEMING: So what we are saying
21
here, what we are looking at, is some exclusions
22
now because of the lagoon problem. This is what
23
I am concerned with and the phosphate requirement.
24
DR. WEINBERGER: I don't know whether
25
-------
3308
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this is appropriate, Murray, for me to make
3
this comment.
4
MR. STEIN: No, it's all right.
5
DR. WEINBERGER: We, of course,
6
will move immediately into this matter exploring
7 •'.-•_
how one for those particular installations can
8
come up with a scheme for--
9
MR. OEMING: Good.
10
DR. WEINBERGER: --removing the
11
phosphates.
12
MR. OEMING: All right.
13
MR. STEIN: I think his statement is
14
correct. Let me see if I can put this in
15
blunter terms.
16
As I see it, the lagoons deal with
17
small communities. The amount of phosphates
18
you are going to get out of them with their
19
flow, particularly a holding operation, are
20
relatively small.
21
MR. OEMING: Yes.
22
MR. STEIN: 0. K. Now, really,
23
while theoretically we may have a chemical
24
precipitation of removing these phosphates from
25
-------
3309
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
these lagoons, we have to recognize the
3
practicalities of the matter; this is a
4
relatively sophisticated system and lagoons
5
are employed by small communities and the
6
likelihood of this system being operated
7
efficiently there is not too good. Therefore,
8
in the total program, the kind of statement that
9
Larry had that when the technique comes up we
10
pick the lagoons up, that this does not--in other
11
words, when we are talking about phosphate
12
removal, we are really talking about phosphate
13
removal from a conventional treatment plant. Is
14
that correct?
15
All right.
16
MR. POOLE: Say for the small communi-
17
ties you set a final date beyond 1972. I would
18
assume that by the time we reached that date we
19
would be able to handle the lagoons. Is that a
20
fair assumption?
21
DR. WEINBERGER: Yes, sir.
22
MR. OEMING: 0. K.
23
MR. STEIN: Yes.
24
'MR. OEMING: This falls within my
25
-------
3310
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
question.
3
MR. STEIN: 0. K. I think we are
4
pretty close to an agreement here.
5
Now, your second point, Larry, is on
g
that "all people finishing in December 1972?"
7
How soon do you think it would take you, and
8
we have done this in perhaps some other Indus -
9
trial States where you had this problem, to
10
come up with a schedule of date for date and
11
community by community?
12
MR. OEMING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
13
look at it generally in this way, that our
14
program is aimed at the larger communities
15
right now. Let's say Traverse City has got a
16
problem. And this one has now got a date of
17
'71, hasn't it? Seventy-one. Some of them are
18
going to be advanced.
19
But as we go along, we are going to
20
schedule these, we have got to schedule them,
21
and I can't tell you at this time which ones
22
will come first and which ones come last here,
23
you see. I can do it in a short time, but I
24
am not prepared here.
25
-------
3511
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
The only thing I can say is that 1972
3
as a fixed date for 50 communities to meet this
4
represents some practical problems.
5
MR. STEIN: I recognize that now.
6
May I Just raise two questions to you?
7
One, what do you think a practical
8
terminal date would be? And I am not asking
9
for this now. We are coming back. You may
10
want to think about it. What a practical
11
terminal date would be?
12
And secondly, how long it would take
13
you to come up with a schedule for all your
14
communities, none of them to be beyond what
15
you consider a practical terminal date?
16
MR. OEMING: Could we do this, Mr.
17
Chairman? Could we come back here to this
18
conference with a series of dates for these,
and it looks like this might be extended,
20
might go--the last one might be '73 or possibly
21
, I don't know, but starting immediately
22
some of them will be in advance of this and
23
some of them will go beyond this, but a
24
scheduling of the 50 communities we are talking
25
-------
3512
l EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
about here.
3
MR. STEIN: Yes.
4
MR. OEMING: This is the kind of
thing that--
6
MR. STEIN: Yes.
7
MR. OEMING: And taking into con-
8
sideration, Mr. Chairman, the procedural
9
problems. ¥e have to issue notices--
10
MR. STEIN: I recognize--
11
MR. OEMING: --We have to hold
12
hearings, we have to do all these things.
13
MR. STEIN: No one is suggesting
14
here that any of the States do not just proceed
15
under the normal procedures. I think we should
16
have an idea of how long this is going to take
17
you.
18
MR. OEMING: Yes, we could do this.
19
MR. STEIN: And a reasonable date.
20
Let me ask the Federal people something.
21
Are you satisfied that the implementation plans
22
of all the four States here reasonably meet the
23
secondary treatment requirement?
24
MR. POSTON: You mean--
25
-------
3513
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: That you put In.
3
MR. POSTON: --the implementation
4
of the standards?
6
MR. STEIN: The implementation plan,
6
yes.
7
MR. POSTON: That they put in?
8
MR. STEIN: Yes.
9
MR. POSTON: I think so.
10
MR. STEIN: 0. K., then we are set.
11
MR. POSTON: Which is 1972.
12
MR. STEIN: Yes, we said that.
13
MR. POSTON: This is where we got this
14
date.
15
MR. STEIN: No, no, I am not talking
16
about the date now. Let's take one thing at
17
a time. I am talking about the treatment.
18
You see, what we did, we incorporated
19
by reference the standards as approved by the
20
State meeting the standards as approved by us.
21
Now you are convinced that this is going to
22
substantially meet what you are asking in
23
proposals 1 and 2?
24
MR. POSTON: You mean you are asking
25
-------
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
me whether--
3
MR. STEIN: When you said--
4
MR. POSTON: --secondary will be the
5
90 percent?
6
MR. STEIN: Yes.
7
MR. POSTON: Equivalent to 90
8
percent?
9
MR. STEIN: Yes, whether they will
10
have to do that substantially. And I am not
11
saying in every case. To meet those water
12
quality standards in Lake Michigan.
13
MR. POSTON: I think that is right.
14
MR. STEIN: Right. Then we are about
15
in agreement, aren't we?
16
MR. POSTON: Pretty close.
17
MR. STEIN: All right.
18
MR. POSTON: I would like to suggest,
19 »
Mr. Chairman, that at the completion of these
20
we ask the secretary to take dictation or have
21
our reporter give dictation to a secretary and
22
that she bring this back to us at an early time.
23
MR. STEIN: Oh, yes, you are going to
24
get this to go over again.
25
-------
. ; 3315
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: Tonight or will this be
3
tomorrow?
4
MR. STEIN: I don't know. I am going
5
to Jaave to talk to--I have known Virginia a long
6
time and she is about the hardest worker I know,
7
but she is human. She has got the hardest Job
8
here. I am not pushing her to the wall. You
9
can be assured you are going to get this typed
10
as rapidly as it is humanly possible. But I
11
am not going to do anything and make a commit-
12
ment on when she is going to get this typed
13
stuff out to you, tonight or tomorrow, until
14
I talk to her privately.
15
Do you have any more on the first two?
16
Let me leave this with the d.ate. Let
17
me suggest this, and I think Mr. Oeming raises
18
a point. On this'72 date may I suggest that all
19
the States may want to come back'with ,a terminal
20
date and a notion whether they can give; .dates
21
for each community that they are dealing with.
22
In other words, I am not prejudging, but let me,
23
Just to make this clear, do this by example.
24
Let's suppose December '72 is the date.
25
-------
. 3516
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
«
2
If you can finish .everything by December '72--
3
by the way, I think this does not necessarily
4 ' •
relate to Illinois or Indiana. Possibly the
5
recommendation should state that the dates set
6
for Illinois or Indiana that we set in the past
7
stand, because —
8
MR, OEMING: Oh, I see.
9
MR. STEIN: --they don't have this
10
problem. This is just Wisconsin and Michigan.
11
These people pretty much have their dates and
12
are fairly well engaged right down -to the nines*
13
There may be some disagreements, but we have a
14
date tabbed for each source.
15
But Wisconsin and Michigan, I think,
16
have the problem. 0-ne, let's suppose--and I am
17
just supposing--that you should have a terminal
18
date when you are going to finish it all,
19
December '72 or whatever. Then to give you the
20
flexibility whether you can have a date that
21
you are going to have sufficient work done for
22
each community and industry of when they are
23
going to do it or when you can have that
24
information, if that is possible. Do I make
25
-------
3317
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION ;
2
myself clear?
3
MH. KOLMER: Well, we expect that
4
this will be done by '72.
5
MR. STEIN: ' 0. K. Then I don't think
6
you have this problem.
7
MR. HGLMER: We don't have it.
8
MR. STEIN: No. Then I think this
9
is Mr., Oeraing. And we have done this with you
10
before, Larry, in Detroit. But I don't think
11
you have the problems if you expect it can be
12
done by '72.
13
In other words, do what you have done
14
in Detroit, either decide, give us a date for
15
each city and industry, or tell us when you
16
expect to have a date for the Conferees for
17
each city and industry. 0. K.?
18
MR. OEMING: All right.
19
MR. STEIN: All right.
20
MR. KLASSEN: For the purpose of the
21
record, there are territories in Illinois in
22
this conference that are not covered by the
23
Illinois-Indiana conference.
24
MR. STEIN: Are you having trouble
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
with the '72 date?
3
MR. KLASSEN: No.
4
MR. STEIN: And are there areas in
5 ••'•••
your State too, Mr. Poole?
6
MR. POOLE: No. The only place,
7
John and I were just looking here, that we
8
would have trouble with the '72 date is •
9
possibly on a few of the little towns in the
10
St. Joseph basin. I haven't counted up how
11
many of those there are, but this may cause
12
a little problem.
13
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, why don't we
14
when we come back see if we can zero in on that.
15
Let's see if we can go to #3-
16
Pardon me. Do you want to say
17
something?
18
MR. POOLE: I want to say something
19
about phosphates before you get off of them
20
while Dr. Weinberger is here.
21
Within the past month since the
22
conference was started we are beginning to
23
get a lot of inquiries from our consulting
24
engineers on how do you do this and what do
25
-------
3519
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
you do, et cetera, and so forth and so on. And
3
I would like to suggest that Mr. Poston--and I
4
think Dr. Weinberger is going to have to take
5
the primary initiative on this--consider arranging
6
a seminar, presumably here in Chicago, for the
7
consulting engineers of the area. It may
8
take a two-day seminar, I don't know--where
9
they bring in people from the manufacturers and
10
equipment people and the universities, or
11
wherever they are, where they can get down
12
and talk about the nuts and bolts of this thing.
13
Personally, I think it would be a very
14
good idea and will speed the whole program up a
15
good deal.
16
MR. KLASSEN: I want to endorse that,
17
Mr. Chairman.
18
MR. OEMING: I endorse it 100 percent.
19
MR. KLASSEN: That is a real good
20
idea I can endorse.
21
MR. STEIN: Any time he can come up with
22
an idea that can put Dr. Weinberger to work,
23
I will endorse it too.
24
MR. KLASSEN: Personally, I think this
25
-------
3320
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
is necessary.
3
MR. STEIN: Yes, this is good.
4
DR. WEINBERGER: Speaking for Mr.
5
Poston and myself, we will do that.
6
MR. POOLE: I don't know about a
7
time, but I would hope it could be done within
8
the next 60 days. That is, the sooner we get
9
it done, the quicker we get the show on the road.
10
DR. WEINBERGER: We will make every
11
effort to have it done within 60 days.
12
MR. POSTON: What specifically?
13
DR. WEINBERGER: Phosphate removal.
14
MR. POSTON: Yes, I know, but for
15
consulting engineers on design?
16
MR. POOLE: Yes. And I think what
17
we should do, and I don't know as it has to be
18
limited to the consulting engineers of the four
19
States, but what I will propose to do is to
20
encourage our firms to send representatives
21
here to this conference or seminar, or whatever
22
you want to call it.
23
MR. STEIN: I think for the sake of
24
the stenographer and the record, we had better
25
-------
3321
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
take a 10-minute recess.
3
(Recess.)
4
MR. STEIN: May we get back?
6
I didn't notice that 4 here before,
6
but I see that is what we covered before.
7
8 RECOMMENDATION #3
9
What do you think about this 3>
10
continuous disinfection?
11
MR. HOLMER: Just a minute, Mr.
12
Chairman, I am lost.
13
MR. STEIN: Yes, that is on recom-
14
mended actions. Take your time.
15
MR. HOLMER: I have a question whether
16
we should aim for December of '69 or May of '69.
17
We would be inclined to move the date forward to
18
coincide with the recreation season, which is the
19
most important time of the year for this to occur.
20
If the other Conferees find this date necessary,
21
that is all right with us.
22
MR. STEIN: All right. May of '69.
23
Where is Mr. Klassen?
24
(Across-the-table discussion inaudible
25
to the reporter.)
-------
: 3522
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: The proposal Is that we
3
get this into the recreation season by May '69,
4
chlorination. This is proposed by Wisconsin.
5
Do the other States feel they can meet this?
6
Or else we have lost another year.
7
I think the point is abundantly
8
clear, if we wait until December that is not
9
the recreation season and the full effect--
10
MB. HOLMER: If you wait until then,
11
you may as well make it May '70.
12
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, we are better
13
off, we have got a little leeway here. I wouldn't
14
want to push it back, but to all intents and
15
purposes if we are going to get the recreation
16
season in 1969* what do you think of this
17
recommendation?
18
MR. OEMING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
19
don't like to put Michigan on the spot here of
20
having to go back and say to our communities,
21
"Well, you have got another year now." We have
22
got them all coming.
23
MR. STEIN: To what? No, we are
24
pushing them up a year.
25
-------
: 3523
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Well, wait a minute,
3
we are doing it now. And I don't want them to
4
come and say, "Well, you fellows in Chicago
6 ^
decided we could wait until '69 so we are not
6
going to use chlorination."
7
MR. STEIN: No. What date do you
8
want?
9
MR. OEMING: We are doing it now.
10
MR. STEIN: In other words, then, you
11
don't have any problem?
12
MR. OEMING: Yes, but when you start
13
monkeying with dates here--
14
MR. POSTON: You are saying they
15
might want to shut them off until such time?
16
MR. OEMING: Yes. It costs money
17
for some of these communities to put chlorine
18
in and they will say, "We can save this now
19
because the recommendation from Chicago says
20
we can go until '69.
21
MR. STEIN: No, no, "not later," it says,
22
Mr. Klassen, Wisconsin has proposed
23
we move the December '69 to May '69 for chlori-
24
nation.
25
-------
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN:. We are chlorinating
3
now. I would say that Mr. Oeming's argument
4
has some validity, but we would invoke our
5
own Illinois requirements on them and require
6
that they continue to chlorinate and not dis-
7
continue to '69.
8
MR. STEIN: Yes. But we are talking
9
about this date. Can we change it from December
10
to May? Will you love me in December as you did
11
in May?
12
(Laughter.)
13
MR. KLASSEN: Well, you can change it
14 x-o
as of March 7, '68, as far as I am concerned,
15
because we are doing it now.
16
MR. STEIN: How about you, Mr. Poole?
17
MR. POOLE: I am Just looking at the
18
St. Joseph. I think everything in the Lake
19
Michigan basin is doing it now, and we have
20
got three or four in the St. Joseph basin.
21
There are only two that I would have any
22
reservations on. The City of South Bend has
23
us in court on our order for them to chlorinate.
24
The time is overdue and It Just depends on how
25
-------
3525
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
rapidly we can move it through the court.
3
The City of Ligonier has primary treatment
4
and no chlorination and I don't know what
&
the status of Ligonier to add the--
6
But those are the only two that I
7
can see.
8
MR. STEIN: Well, about a court
9
case, you know, none of us can argue, but
10
that shouldn't affect our putting a date.
11
MR. POOLE: I don't think this creates
12
any insurmountable problems.
13
MR. STEIN: If we put it May?
14
MR. POOLE: That would make no
15
difference.
16
MR. STEIN: All right, let's put it
17
May.
18
MR. KLASSEN: You have the same
10
problem, however, Mr. Chairman, because the
20
two Federal installations in Illinois, Great
21
Lakes and Fort Sheridan, are now both
22
chlorinating, and I hope you see that they
23
continue and not postpone until '69.
24
MR. STEIN: We will do our best.
25
-------
^___ 3526
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Here are the Army engineers.
3
MR. KLASSEN: I have already talked
4
to the Colonel and he assured me they were
6
going to continue, although they are out of
6
our Jurisdiction, of course.
7
MR. OEMING: May 1970?
8
MR. SCHNEIDER: No, May '69, isn't
9
it?
10
MR. OEMINGi May '69?
11
MR. POSTON: That was the last I heard,
12
May of '69. Is that right, Murray?
13
MR. STEIN: Yes, May of '69.
14
MR. POSTON: The recommendation is
15
unchanged except for the date, May of '69?
16
MR. STEIN: Right, May of '69.
17
Now, I think that we have to incor-
18
porate that with the above. But is there--
19
MR. OEMING: Let's not tell them that.
20
MR. STEIN: --any problem on that?
21
MR. HOLMER: Mr Chairman, I
22
am reluctant to have us take action on
23
that recommendation about which I am so
24
ill-informed.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: No, I think this
3
recommendation really relates to just two
4
States.
5
MR. HOLMER: Well, but it Is
6
recommended that is the preface to this.
7
MR. STEIN: Yes.
8
MR. HOLMER: And--
9
MR. STEIN: No, I would have put
10
this another way. The dates and deliberations
11
of that conference have not appeared in the
12
record of this conference. All I think we
13
have to put in is a statement. The way I
14
would put that—in any statement — is that
15
any recommendations that we have on the
16
schedules, because they are earlier, are
17
not meant to modify or supersede the recom-
18
mendations made for the Illinois or Indiana
19
communities in an earlier conference. We
20
really didn't cover those in these. That
21
was already done. In other words, this
22
conference is not covering that.
23
MR. KLASSEN: This area again is
24
not in the Illinois-Indiana conference.
25
-------
3528
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: I know, but the ones
3
that are.
4
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
5
MR. STEIN: Right.
6
MR. POSTON: What does this mean now
7
to lagoons?
8
MR. STEIN: I hope nothing.
9
(Laughter.)
10
MR. POOLE: Pour?
11
MR. MILLER: Lagoons?
12
MR. STEIN: Lagoons? On chlorination
13
or--
14
MR.POSTON: I thought we were talking
15
relative to chlorination.
16
MR. STEIN: All right, here we go.
17
Do you want to chlorinate the effluent from the
18
lagoon?
19
MR. MILLER: Why not?
20
MR. KLASSEN: Sure.
21
MR. STEIN: All right.
22
MR. OEMING: Who has done that? Are
23
you doing that?
24
MR. KLASSEN: Sure.
25
-------
3529
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POOLE: We have done it on most
3
of ours, any of them that are critical. I
4
wpuld have to have Mr. Hert up here to answer
6
that question.
6
MR. OEMING: We aren't very successful
7
in doing this job.
8
MR. KLASSEN: Why is the question
9
raised?
10
MR. STEIN: That is what I wonder.
11
MR. POSTON: Well, because the lagoons
12
were brought up here and relative to phosphate
13
removal.
14
MR. STEIN: Here, let me put it this
15
way. Isn't it more critical on the phosphatg
16
removal en lagoons than the chlorination from
17
lagoons, really, as a pollution control measure?
18
Do we really have to cover this question of
19
chlorinating effluent from lagoons?
20
MR. HOLMER: Well, 3 refers to treat-
21
ment plants as it is worded. The question didn't
22
arise with us.
23
MR. STEIN: Is this really a problem,
24
chlorination from lagoons, except that the
25
-------
3530
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Federal Government has to worry about?
3
MR. POSTON: Well, I think it is a source
4
of bacteria.
5
MR. STEIN: Do you mean that--do you
6
think it covers lagoons or not?
7
MR. OEMING: Well, I think we get
8
over this hump--
9
MR. POSTON: This is the question
10
I am asking.
11
MR. OEMING: I think we get over
12
this hump, Mr. Chairman, going back again,
13
that if you are talking about discharges to
14
Lake Michigan, I doubt whether you are con-
15
ceined about whether Portland up in the head-
16
waters of the Grand River disinfects the year
17
round. We are concerned, but from the stand-
18
ooint of this conference you are not.
19
MR. STEIN: That is right. That is
20
why I would say I could see--
21
MR. OEMING: So this eliminates lagoons
22
pretty much.
23
MR. STEIN: That is why I said I
24
see how we would be concerned with phosphates
25
-------
3531
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
possibly from lagoons.
3
MR. OEMING: Yes.
4
MR. STEIN: But it seems a little
5
remote to me, unless you have some itty bitty
6
communities on the lake that I don't know
7
about with a lagoon. The likelihood is that
8
they would be upstream, wouldn't they?
9
MR. OEMING: Why don't we say dis-
10
charging to Lake Michigan and that will get
11
over a lot of the lagoon humps here.
12
MR. STEIN: I think we would be
13
better to leave it this way and leave it up
14
to State interpretation without getting into
15
that thicket. You know, we are tilting at a
16
windmill here. This doesn't have any substance.
17
I can see where it can be a very
18
critical problem for many of the States where
19
some of the lagoons need to phlorinate, but
20
I can't Conceive that the chlorination of
21
effluent from lagoons one way or the other is
22
going to terribly affect pollution of Lake
23
Michigan.
24
If I am wrong on that, I would like
25
-------
3332
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to hear it.
3
MR. OEMING: I can't get excited about tha
4
MR. STEIN: That is right. We have an
5
intriguing question, but let's back away. 0. K.?
6
All right. Now> combined sewers.
7
MR.. HOLMER: Murray, before you--
8
9 RECOMMENDATION #4
10
MR. POOLS: What did we do about 4?
11
MR. STEIN: Oh.
12
MR. OEMING: You must be looking, at
13
something different here. 4?
14
MR. SCHNEIDER: 4. What we are going to
15
say, and I thought I handled that before, we are
16
going to say that unless you want to raise this
17
issue that the actions of this conference do not
18
supersede the time schedules established by other
19
actions for the--
20
MR. OEMING: That I can vote on. That
21
I can vote on, but I can't vote on this.
22
MR. STEIN: That is right.
23
MR. OEMING: Yes.
24
MR. STEIN: --which have been estab-
25
lished by previous actions, and we are Just not
-------
, 3533
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
covering that.
3
MR. OEMING: Either the requirements
4
or the time schedules.
5
MR. STEIN: Either, yes. We Just
6
don't cover that.
7
MR. POSTON: Would that be as a
8
recommendation then or--
9
MR. STEIN: No, that is Just a
10
statement.
11
MR. POSTON: A statement. And it
12
will be put right at this point?
13
MR. STEIN: We can put it at any
14
appropriate.point.
15
MR. PURDY: How about putting it
16
in a conclusion?
W
MR. STEIN: Or a conclusion.
18
MR. OEMING: That probably ought to
19
be in the conclusions, Wally.
20
MR. POSTON: ' Pardon?
21
MR. STEIN: A conclusion. Because I
22
do not think we can ask either Wisconsin or
23
Michigan to rule on this.
24
MR. OEMING: No.
25
-------
: 3534
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: And I don't know that
3
they should. I think we have definite dates,
4
there is a procedure, things are going back
5
and forth, we are engaged. I think that the
6
democratic process will work itself out, and
7
if pollution control were to be moved forward
8
by you two States getting into this, that would
9
be fine. I suggest it wouldn't and you are Just
10
going to buy into our headache and there is no
11
reason to do that.
12
0. K.?
13
MR. HOLMER: Before we leave 1, 2, 3
14
and the conclusions--
15
MR. STEIN: Yes.
16
MR. HOLMER: The introduction to this
17
simply says "it is recommended that." I would
18
prefer, if it isn't too much trouble for my
19
fellow Conferees, that it read:
26
"it is recommended that the water
21
pollution control agency of each State take
22
action to assure the following local actions:"
23
In other words, the recommendation
24
applies to the State pollution control agency,
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and I want us to feel the direct burden of
3
this responsibility.
4
MR. STEIN: 0. K. Right. As far
5
as we are concerned, there is no problem there
6
because the law says that after these recom-
7
mendations are made the Secretary has to make
8
these recommendations to the state water pol-
9
lution control agency. He has no option. In
10
other words, he must take these recommendations
11
and make them to you. He doesn't make them to
12
anyone else.
13
If there is no objection, can we do that?
14
MR. OEMING: Sure.
15
MR. STEIN: Pine. All right.
16
MR. HOLMER: I would have the same,
17
then, to introduce "Combined Sewers."
18
MR. STEIN: Right.
19
MR. MILLER: What is the wording?
20
MR. STEIN: The same statement every
21
time it appears.
22
MR. MILLER: What is the statement?
23
MR. STEIN: Do you want to repeat that?
24
MR. HOLMER: "The water pollution
25
-------
3336
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 control agency of each State take action to
3 assure the following"—
4 MR. OEMING: Why don't they drop it
5 there?
6 MR. STEIN: Yes.
7 MR. HOLMER: "to assure the following:"
8 MR. STEIN: "to assure the following",
9 right, period.
10 MR. HOLMER: Colon.
11 MR. STEIN: Or colon. Right. Good.
12 Now, may we go on to 5;
13
14 RECOMMENDATION #5
15
16 "5. Adjustable overflow regulating
17 devices be installed on existing combined sewer
18 systems, and so designed and operated as to
utilize to the fullest extent possible the
capacity of interceptor sewers for conveying
21
combined flow to treatment facilities. The
22
treatment facilities shall be modified where
23
necessary to eliminate bypassing. This action
A J
to be taken as soon as possible and not later
25
-------
^__ , : 3537
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
than December 1970."
3
MR. POOLE: I have trouble with the
4
second sentence, Mr. Chairman. I don't know
5
whether that means that you seal off every bypass
6
on every treatment plant or not. And if it does,
7
I don't know how you operate them all.
8
MR. STEIN: That sounds like an engineer-
9
ing question, Mr. Poole. Let me ask our engineers,
10
MR. KLASSEN: Suggestion: Could you say
11
non-emergency?
12
MR. POSTON: Well, I think we had
13
authorized bypassing--
14
MR. KLASSEN: Oh, we don't authorize.
15
MR. POSTON: I didn't think we had
16
any unauthorized bypassing.
17
MR. HOLMER: Would "minimize" be better
18
than 'eliminate?
19
MR. STEIN: Yes, to minimize.
20
MR. KLASSEN: The only time you bypass
21
is in an emergency. Why not say a non-emergency
22
bypass?
23
MR. STEIN: Well, "to eliminate non-
24
emergency bypassing1? Or "to minimize" might be
25
-------
3538
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
"better.
3
MR. OEMIKG: I think so.
4
MR. STEIN: How about'minimize'?
5
Will you buy that, Blucher?
6
MR. POOLE: Yes, I can buy that.
7
The only thing, I didn't want somebody to be
8
coming around saying you had to pour concrete
9
in all the bypasses that you have at the sewage
10
plants .
11
MR. STEIN: I used to know a fellow
12
who operated in Kansas City who would have
13
loved that program.
14
(Laughter.)
15
He paved a creek there.
16
(Across-the-table discussion, inaudible
17
to the reporter.)
18
MR. STEIN: Are we ready to move on?
19
MR. SCHNEIDER:' Well, I think Illinois
20
is already requiring ponding of this bypass so
21
that you really don't have any bypass to the
22
stream. Is this the case in some of your areas
23
now?
24
MR. MORTON: That is correct.
25
-------
3339
1 || EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: We already have some
3
of them.
4
MR. POOLE: You can do that in some,
5
but I am thinking of the Mishawaka sewage plant,
6
which is right up on the bank of the river and
7
is in the city park and the corporate limits
8
of the City of South Bend is immediately west
9
of it. There is no place there to put a pond.
10
MR. STEIN: Are we satisfied with 5?
11
As you well know, this is one of the most
12
difficult problems we have in the field, and
13
the notion that you are going to come up with a
14
program that is going to be perfect in this area
15
is nice, but we have to recognize the facts of
16
life. Don't you think you have gone as far as
17
you can?
18
All right, let's try 6.
19
20
RECOMMENDATION #6
21
22
"6. Effective immediately, combined
23
sewers be separated in coordination with all
24
urban reconstruction projects, and prohibited
25
-------
• 3540
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
in all new developments, except where other
3
techniques will be applied that will prevent
4
pollution. Pollution from combined sewers to
5
be eliminated by July 1977."
6
MR. KLASSEN: Are we on 6, Mr.
7
Chairman?
8
MR. STEIN: Yes, we are, sir.
9
MR. KLASSEN: Another practical problem
10
is a number of urban developments right in the
11
hearts of cities, and Poole raised this, I Just
12
don't know how you eliminate combined sewers.
13
MR. POSTON: I think that is the
14
reason we put in this phrase, "except where
15
other techniques will be applied that will
16
prevent pollution." In other words, we have
17
an extensive combined sewer overflow problem
18
research and demonstration project, and the
19
purpose of this is to find other ways to handle
20
these problems.
21
With that in mind, and with the
22
conversations that were held here before, we
23
felt that this would take care of a particular
24
area where you would have a little likelihood
25
-------
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
of separation, a built-up industrial area such
3
as here in Chicago.
4
MR. KLASSEN: I don't want to get to
5
nit-picking on words, but other techniques
6
will be applied or can be applied? I could
7
visualize areas here in Chicago where the only
8
alternative would be to collect and treat. And
9
as Mr. Poole pointed out, we have situations
10
like this, they are in the heart of a city,
and I don't know just how you would do that.
12
MR. STEIN: Yes, all right. Let me
13
try this. I think this may be a little better.
14
But other techniques can be applied
15
to control pollution.
16
MR. KLASSEN: That is right.
17
MR. STEIN: Because you are not going
18
to prevent--
19
MR. KLASSEN: The idea is good, of
20
course.
21
MR. STEIN: "Can be applied to control,"
22
right?
23
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
24
MR. STEIN: And then we are in better
25
-------
^___ 35*12
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
shape. Because we all recognize the special
3
problems that crop up in every city. You are
4
going to do the best you can.
5
I grappled with this. You know,
6
in Washington we spent $100 million on the
7
stormwater problem and what we have done is
8
ameliorate it. We selected the outfalls and
9
cut them down, cut the percentage of the overflows
10
down, but we didn't prevent it. We didn't cut
11
it out} and this was the best we could do, at
12
least at the time we thought it was the best
13
we could do, because the alternative we had was
14
ripping up the city and not allowing an auto-
15
mobile to drive through for 15 years, which might
16
have been a better solution, I don't know.
17
So you had to do the best you could,
18
and the notion that you are going to completely
19
prevent pollution with this, maybe we are
20
stretching it.
21
0. K.
22
MR. OEMING: Along the same lines,
23
Mr. Chairman, would you mind substituting
24
"controlled" instead of "eliminated"?
25
-------
3543
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: "to be controlled by"—
3
MR. OEMING: By 1977.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes, "controlled."
5
All right. May we go on to 7?
6
MR. HOLMER: Sir.
7
MR. STEIN: All right.
8
MR. HOLMER: I have two additional
9
recommendations that I think would be useful
10
coming out of this conference. One is that
11
each State water pollution control agency
12
formally adopt policies encouraging the dis-
13
charge of treatable Industrial waste following
14
needed preliminary treatment to municipal
15
sewer systems.
16
And the second, that each water pol-
17
lution control agency adopt policies encouraging
18
unified collection systems serving contiguous
1^
urban areas where feasible.
20
Now, these are related.
21
MR. STEIN: Just procedurally, isn't
22
your second point related to industrial wastes
23
rather than on the combined wastes?
24
MR. HOLMER: I would be glad to take
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
it up there.
3
MR. STEIN: By the way, I thoroughly
4
agree with your--
5
MR.'HOLMER: I want to be sure that--
6
MR. STEIN: I thoroughly agree with
7
your point, but I think that is the best way
8
of handling industrial wastes where it can "be
9
done.
10
Your second point, let's have this
11
again.
12
MR. HOLMER: This has to do with the
13
adoption of policies encouraging unified
14
collection systems serving contiguous urban
15
areas where feasible, metropolitan sewerage
16
systems. You recommended this in your original
17
MR. POSTON: We have that in our
18
book here, but for some reason it got left
19
out. It is #15 in the book here. I think
20
that should be included.
21
MR. HOLMER: We did too.
22
MR. STEIN: Yes. Now, where do you
23
think—again, this doesn't seem to me to fit
24
under "Combined Sewers".
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: No, it is a separate one
3
by u.tself.
4
MR. SCHNEIDER: Land use practices,
6
probably.
6
MR. STEIN: .Of land use practices?
7
No, it isn't.
8
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think that is the
9
only place--
10
MR.HOLMER: Why don't you retitle
"Combined Sewers" "Recommendations Relating
12 „
to Wastewater Collection ? A coined phrase.
13
MR. STEIN: Well, isn't your other
14
one really an industrial waste? As far as I
15
can see--and Freeman, this is one I agree with
16
you on.
17
MR. HOLMER: It may be a municipal
18
waste.
19
MR. STEIN: I think that may be the
20
most important recommendation—your first one,
21
I would like to hold it--probably the most
22
important single recommendation we can make
23
on industrial wastes is the one you Just made,
24
even more important than all the treatment we
25
-------
3546
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
are coming to.
3
MR. POSTON: This is a little different
4
thought here.
5
Read that.
6
MR. STEIN: This should be a separate
7
heading.
8
MR. POSTON: Right.
9
MR. STEIN: Does this read exactly
10
this way or did you change it?
11
MR. HOLMER: I don't know that we
12
changed it much. ¥e probably changed it some--
13
MR. STEIN: Yes, because I--
14
MR. HOLMER: Relating to syntax.
15
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think this further
16
deals with septic tanks, doesn't it?
17
MR. POSTON: Right.
18
MR. SCHNEIDER: And this one doesn't.
19
MR. STEIN: Yes. . Here, let's do this
20
as a--on a procedural matter, Freeman, not that
21
-we are going to take this up. Let's finish the
22
combined sewer first. Let's take your industrial
23
wastes up first on the next issue.
24
Does anyone have anything under this
25
-------
3347
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
combined sewers?
3 / x
(No response.)
4 MR. STEIN: No?
Then let's go on to industrial wastes.
£
What is your first suggestion?
7 MR. KLASSEN: On 7?
a
MR. STEIN: No, no, Freeman has one
9
before we start on 7.
10
11 RECOMMENDATION
12
| A
MR. HOLMER: "That each water pollution
14
control agency formally adopt policies encouraging
discharge of treatable industrial wastes (follow-
16
ing needed preliminary treatment) to municipal
17 .„
sewer systems.
18
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments on
19 that?
20
MR. OEMING: Yes. Well, I like the
21
idea, except that I would like to suggest to
22 „
try Mr. Holmer out on striking the words adopt
23 M „
policies and Just say formally encourage the
24 „
discharge of treatable --
25
-------
35^8
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: All right, that is
3
agreeable to me, sure.
4
MR. STEIN: All right. Why don't
5
you straighten it out on yours, because I may
6
ask you to read this again, Freeman. What
7
page are you on?
8
MR. HOLMER: I am on page 13 of mine,
9
3.1. If you just start with "encourage" in
10
the second line--
11 M
MR. OEMING: Strike "adopt policies"?
12
MR. HOLMER: Why don't you Just start
13
with "encourage."
14
MR. OEMING: All right. All right.
15
All right.
16
MR. HOLMER: And then follow with
17
the last three lines?
18
MR. STEIN: "Formally" too. "Encourage
19
discharge." All right. Let me read this again:
20
"it is recommended that each State
21
water pollution control agency encourage discharge
22
of treatable industrial wastes (following needed
23
preliminary treatment) to municipal sewer systems."
24
MR. OEMING: 0. K.
25
-------
35^9
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Any objection?
3
(No response.)
4
MR. STEIN: If none, let's see if
5
we can do that as #7 under "industrial Wastes".
6
0. K., let me go on to 8.
7
8
RECOMMENDATION #8
9
10
"8. Industries not connected to
11
community sewer systems and producing wastes
12
in quantities exceeding 800 pounds of BOD."
13
It seems to me we are going over the
14
same ground.
15
MR. OEMIUG: Yes.
16
MR. S;TEIN: "industries producing
17
lesser quantities," and so forth and so on.
18
I don't know,if we are going to run into
19
all this,that it pays even reading this since
20
we have come to a conclusion first.
21
Does anyone suggest a substitute?
22
MR. KLASSEN: Except there is one
23
thing involved here, Mr. Chairman, that industry
24
raises that we will have to answer. What do we me ah
25
-------
3550
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
by secondary treatment?
3
MR. OEMING: Well, I think this goes
4
deeper than that.
6
MR. KLASSEN: In New York it's 70
6
percent, Alabama it's 75, Indiana 80, Illinois
7
85, now we have got 90.
8
MR. STEIN: I will give you my view
9
of this on the record from grappling with this
10
problem every week of the year in every State
11
in the Union.
12
Gentlemen, the sooner we drop primary
13
treatment,secondary treatment, advanced treatment
14
and tertiary treatment and talk in terms of the
15
treatment for the specifics that we need the
16
better off we are going to be. We have meaning-
17
less--not only meaningless, they are elastic
18
terms, and any time you are dealing with rubber
19
%
words you are in trouble. So I think we--
20
MR. OEMING: I think, Mr. Chairman, we
21
should go back to somewhat the same wording,
22
except we aren't talking about phosphorus--
23
MR. STEIN: Right.
24
MR. OEMING: --that we had in recommenda-
25
tion #1. We have been over that same ground.
-------
3531
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
The same arguments apply here as applied to
3
this 8'06 pounds of BOD for municipalities
4
and the relationship between this and the stan-
5
dards and all this.
6
Why couldn't we Just say that the
7
States proceed to implement the standards in
8
accordance with their approved standards and
9
plan of implementation?
10
MR. STEIN: Well, we can say,"industries
11
not connected to community or municipal sewer
12
systems"--maybe "community" is the word, but
13
the word we used in the Federal Act is "municipal"-
14
"industries not connected to public sewer systems
15
or municipal sewer systems discharge wastes,
16
provide treatment--collection of wastes and
17
treatment so as not to result in a degradation
18
of the water quality of Lake Michigan as pro-
19
vided in the standards approved by the appro-
20
priate States and by the Secretary of the Interior.
21
MR. OEMING: Amen.
22
MR. STEIN: All right?
23
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
24
MR. STEIN: All right.
25
-------
: 3532
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: Does this mean, then,
3
that we will have no requirement for any
4
stream, tributary, intrastate streams and
5
tributary, until such steps occur or until
6
damage occurs?
7
MR. OEMING: No. No. Now, you are
8
in touch with the States in this region, you
9
have got telephones, you get our plans of
10
implementation.
11
MR. SCHNEIDER: No, what he is talking
12
about is intrastate streams.
13
MR. STEIN: Yes.
14
MR. OEMING: 0. K., this is what I
15
am talking about.
16
MR. STEIN: The point is, what we
17
are dealing with is with pollution of the
18
Interstate waters of Lake Michigan. Now, I
19
don't know--let me pick a city of yours, Just
20
for fun. You don't care?
21
MR. OEMING: Sure, go ahead.
22
MR. STEIN: I don't know what Traverse
23
City discharges, but let's say Traverse City
24
discharges into a tributary in Lake Michigan
25
-------
! -EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and let's suppose they were discharging their
3
wastes in raw without any treatment. I don't
4
think I would have to wait very long if they
5
were doing that to know that the small flow
6
that that had from Traverse City down that
7
tributary was going to affect Lake Michigan,
8
and I would say you are in violation.
9
MR. OEMING: Yes.
10
MR. STEIN: And I don't know that there
11
is any mystery. What we are going to have to do,
12
presumably the States have an implementation
13
plan, don't they, on these industries to provide
14
treatment--
15
MR. OEMING: Yes.
16
MR. STEIN: --to meet necessary
17
standards. Is it true or not?
18
MR. OEMING: Yes.
19
MR. STEIN: Now, either you are going
20
to meet it or you are not.
21
MR. OEMING: Sure,
22
MR. STEIN: All right. Is there any
23
question?
24
Is this any different--let me ask you--
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
is this any different than when they have
3
put in a plan?
4
MR. POSTON: Well, I don't think we
5
know what is in the plan in certain communi-
6
ties--
7
MR. OEMING: Oh, for heaven's sakes,
8
Wally, you have approved our plans.
9
MR. POSTON: --that are on intrastate
10
streams.
11
I might give you an example. What
12
are the industries on the Fox River going to be
13
required to do that discharge into Green Bay,
14
what is going to be required?
15
MR. HOLMER: They are going to be
16
required to regulate their discharges so as
17
to achieve the superior State water quality
18
standards on Green Bay.
19
MR. POSTON: "They are going to be."
20
MR. HOLMER: Well--
21
MR. OEMING: They have got to be. We
22
said--
23
MR. POSTON: We don't have that there.
24
MR. HOLMER: We have our intrastate
25
-------
3355
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
standards through the period of public hearing
3
and we are going to issue orders to achieve those
4
standards and these are designed to achieve our
5
interstate standards.
6
MR. OEMING: We have got this re-
7
sponsibility.
8
MR. POSTON: When will this--what?.
9
MR. OEMING: We have got this re-
10
sponsibility, Wally, whether it comes out of
11
a sewer into Lake Michigan or out of a tributary
12
stream, we have got the responsibility. And
13
I don't think there is any indication here on
H .
anybody's part that they don't accept this
15
responsibility to see that those standards
16
are met.
17
MR. STEIN: Well, I think we have
18
argued this before. What-I think Mr. Oeming
19
proposes is a parallel for the industrial wastes
20
and what we decided on in municipal wastes.
21
Tell you what we do, let's type it
22
up this way. If you have second thoughts and
23
you can't do it, we are going to do this again.
24
But I think, and I am always ready
25
-------
; 3536
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
fcr a discussion, but, gentlemen, this is the
3
same--you know, we are the second lap around
4
on the merry-go-round on the same argument,
5
and let's try to go on.
6
Next #9-
7
8
RECOMMENDATION #9
9
10
"9. Continuous disinfection be provided
11
for industrial effluents containing collform
12
bacteria in excess of 5,000 per 100 milliliter,
13
and those \fhere pathogenic bacteria and viruses
14
may be present by December 1969."
15
MR. OEMING: Well, I think you are
16
putting yourself in a strait jacket, that is my
17
only question about this, because it is not only
18
the concentration of coliforms, but it is the
19
quantity that is involve'd here. Now, 10 gallons a 4
20
ute at 5 thousand coliforms doesn't bother me,
21
but 10 million gallons at 5 thousand does bother me,
22
And so the impact bothers me.
23
MB. STEIN: Yes.
24
- MR. OEMING: You are putting yourself
25
-------
. ._ : ; 3357
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
in a istraitjacket, it seems to me.
3
MR. STEIN: What do you think about
4 . '
it? Don't you think the way--
5
MR. POSTON: What is your suggestion?
6
MR. OEMING: Well, this is the diffi-
7
culty with trying to do things like this.
8
MR. STEIN: We have handled this before.
9
I am not giving you something that hasn't come
10
up before.
11
MR. OEMING: All right.
12
MR. STEIN: The way we do this is:
13
"Continuous disinfection be provided
14
for industrial effluents containing"--
15
MR. POSTON: Coliform.
16
MR. STEIN: --"coliform"--or "patho-
17
genie organisms"--! don't know what he means by
18
"and viruses"--"pathogenic organisms which may
10
have a deleterious effect on those coming into
20
contact with the receiving waters."
21
MR. OEMING: —"with the waters of Lake
22
Michigan."
23
MR. STEIN: Yes. In other words, where
24
this is a hazard they have to do it, unless you
25
-------
3558
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
want--
3
MR. POSTON: Well, I think this is what
4
we are after too.
5
MR. STEIN: No, I understand that, but
6
the question is, there are two ways to determine
7 '
whether it is a hazard. Here is what Larry is
8
saying. Either you are going to do it where you
9
find any pathogenic organisms in it at all and
10
make them disinfect or where it is going to be
11
a significant amount of pathogenic organisms.
12
What Larry is saying, in excess of 500 per ?.100
13
milliliter is not the test of significance.
14
MR. OEMING: No.
15
MR. STEIN: And I think he has a point.
16
MR. OEMING: Your test is the better
17
test.
18
MR. STEIN: That's right.
19
MR. POSTON: Which test is that?
20
MR. OEMING: The one that Mr. Stein
21
proposed here or advanced.
22
MR. STEIN: You see, given this test,
23
theoretically you could have a guy putting out
24
100 million gallons a day at 450 coliforms per
25
-------
3559
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
100 railliliters and not require him. to dis-
3
Infect, and then you could have a guy putting
4
out 3 gallons a day per 55 hundred and require
5
him to disinfect. You know, It doesn't make
6
much sense.
7
MR. OEMING? Could we go back to your
8
statement, Mr. Stein? I liked what you said,
9
again, the one that you read here.
10
MR. STEIN: Yes. We are protecting
11
public health with this, aren't we, people,
12
right?
13
MR. POSTON: Yes.
14
MR. STEIN: All right. Let's go.
15
"Continuous disinfection be provided
16
for industrial effluents containing pathogenic
17
organisms which will deleteriously affect those
18
coming into contact with Lake Michigan waters."
19
MR. OEMING: Right.
20
MR. STEIN: And then you make a
21
judgment. Right.
22
MR. KLASSEN: One other suggestion, Mr.
23
Chairman. In order to keep these consistent with
24
the Department of the Interior technical advisory
25
-------
3360
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
committees and previous ones, we ought to use
3
fecal coliform. We were told this is the term
4
and the technical advisory committee at the
5
Indiana-Illinois conference spent a lot of time,
6
and you have one of your experts, here on that,
7
Mr. Kittrell, who I think argued this point.
8
This is all right with us, but just to keep--
9
MR. STEIN: No, I changed that to
10
put "pathogenic organisms" to get away from the--
11
Instead of "coliform, viruses," cut them all out.
12
I used the phrase "pathogenic organisms". The
13
difficulty is--
14
MR. POSTON: How do you analyze for
15
pathogenic organisms, then?
16
MR. STEIN: What?
17
MR. POSTON: How do you make this analy-
18
sis or determination?
19
MR. STEIN: Well, you use your standard
20
methods. And you guys are going to change it all
21
the time.
22
Let me go off the record here.
23
(Off the record.)
24
MR. STEIN: What we are doing is trying
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to give you people the flexibility. Again,
3
you see, if you are talking about detail, we are
4
talking about a principle here, when you are
5
going to determine that an industry has to dis-
6
infect its effluent. When you are going to have
7
to determine that an industry has to disinfect
8
its effluent is when they are going to have
9
wastes in the effluent which are causing a
10
hazard to health, right? And this is the
11
determination you make by your standard methods.
12
Isn't this all the same?
13
MR. KLASSEN: No.
14
MR. POSTON: No, I don't think so.
15
MR. KLASSEN: No, it is not. Patho-
*6
genie bacteria is not in the same category.
17
MR. OEMING: No.
18
MR. KLASSEN: And I Just say--
19
MR. STEIN: I didn't say pathogenic
20
bacteria.
21
MR. KLASSEN: How does it read? Do you
22
cut out coliform?
23
MR. STEIN: That's right. I said
24
"Continuous disinfection be provided for industrial
25
-------
3562
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
effluents containing pathogenic organisms
3
which may have a deleterious effect on persons
4
coming into contact with Lake Michigan water.
5
MR'. KLASSEN: That puts the onus
6
and the requirement on the State water pollution
7
control agency, and while I am no bacteriologist,
8
Just the isolation of typhoid organisms in water
9
is a real tricky job.
10
MR. OEMING: Clarence, your argument
is with the term "pathogenic" versus "fecal."
12
Would you say that fecal would represent pretty
13
much the pathogenic strains that you are con-
14
cerned about?
15
MR. KLASSEN: I would defer to Mr.
16
Kittrell or somebody. We were required to put
17
it in our-- Here he is.
18
MR. STEIN: Kit, do you want to answer
19
that? How would you do that?
20
MR. KITTRELL: I am not sure Just
21
what the question is.
22
MR. STEIN: I see what Clarence's
23
point is. Clarence's point, if we don't give
24
you the escape hatch on coliform bacteria and
25
-------
3563
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
we make him Isolate a pathogen, he may be in
3
a little Jam, as we all are.
4
Then he raises the further question,
6
isn't the term "coliform" obsolete, do we use
6
"fecal coliform" now?
7
MR. KITTRELL: Well, I wouldn't say
8
that the total coliform determination is ob-
9
solete by any means. It is still very commonly
10
used in combination with the fecal coliform
11
determination.
12
In the case of Lake Michigan standards,
13
the technical committee accepted the use of the
14
fecal streptococci because they had a long
15
record of the use of fecal streptococci here in
16
order to have a good background of information
17
on it.
18
MR. STEIN: Let me try this again.
19
"Continuous disinfection be provided
20
for industrial effluents containing pathogenic
21
organisms or indicator organisms--or organisms
22
indicating such--or indicator organisms which
23
indicate the presence of such pathogens which
24
may have a deleterious effect on persons coming
25
-------
, 3564
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
into contact."
3
All right?
4
The difficulty that I have, Clarence,
5
is we are in a state of flux on the terminology;
6
they start fooling with coliform bacteria, then
7
they are in fecal strep, then they are fecal
8
coliforms, and we talk about coliform. I am
9
looking for the generic term. If you don't want
10
Just "pathogenic organisms", you sea, the patho-
11
gen is the indicator, and whatever they come up
12
with in their latest methods, this is the one
13
we use, if this is our principle.
14
MR. HOLMER: You didn't use a number,
15
though?
16
MR. STEIN: No, no. I don't think--
17
MR. OEMING: You can't, no, by itself.
18
MR. STEIN: You see, what Mr. Klassen's
19
objection to my original formulation was when
20
I talked about pathogenic organisms, we can't
21
always find the pathogenic organisms. I Just
22
expanded that to say pathogenic organisms or
23
indicator .organisms showing the presence of
24
such pathogenic organisms.
25
-------
^ 3363
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KITTRELL: I would Just like
3
to insert "the probable presence."
4
MR. STEIN: Probable. Well--
5
MR. KLASSEN: As a lawyer what kind
6
of a case could you build up against the "probable
7
presence of indicator organisms"?
8
MR. STEIN: I would suggest we don't
9
use "probable". At least the theory is
10
statistically you have to have these pathogens
11
possible when you get enough of the. iridieators.
12
I have always been arguing that, anyway.
13
MR. KLASSEN: We were told by Federal
14
water pollution to put in the term "fecal coli-
15
form" and we did it, we like it.
16
MR. STEIN: All right. Well, again
17
why don't you think about that? I would strongly
18
recommend, on the basis of the past 10 years
19
experience, seeing them go from "coliform" to
20
"fecal coliform" to "fecal strep" to "staphy-
21
looocci," that we use the generic term
22
"indicator organisms," because next week I am
23
afraid the scientists may shake us loose with
24
a new test.
25
-------
- 3566
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Let's go on, see if we can move
3
on to the next.
4
5
RECOMMENDATION #10
6
7
MR. STEIN: "Detailed action plans
8
for adequate treatment of all industrial wastes
9
be developed within six months by each industry
10
on the attached list and submitted to the State
11
water pollution control agency for approval
12
prior to reporting to the Conferees. Such
13
plans shall identify the principal character-
1*
istics of waste material now being discharged,
15
the quantities, the proposed program for con-
16
struction or modification of control facilities
17
and a timetable for accomplishment giving target
18
dates in detail. Treatment facilities to be
19
constructed by December 1972. Industries shall
20
be added or removed from the attached list at
21
the discretion of the Conferees."
22
MR. KLASSEN: I would like to first of
23
all request that all of the Illinois industries
24
on this list be deleted, because in every instance
25
-------
356?
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
they are already committed to a date prior to
3
December 1972. This will Just give them an
4
added reason to delay.
6
MR. STEIN: Are there any other
6
comments?
7
MR. POOLE: Well, yes, I talked to
8
Mr. Poston about this. I was a bit flabber-
9
gasted with- the Indiana list. The printed
10 o
document had 8 or 12, I forget which, and there
11
was half of them that were wrong. We corrected
12
that in our presentation, and he has come up
13
here now with a bunch of industries that we
\
14
didn't even know we had and some others that
15
we are sure are hooked onto municipal sewer
16
systems.
17
I don't know how to resolve that.
18
That is, we had in our reports and implemen-
19
tation plan all of the industries that main-
20
tained their own outlets which we considered
21
were of any significance, and I believe in
22
most of them, like Klassen, we had lesser
23
dates than 1972.
24
MR. STEIN: How about this fundamental
25
-------
3368
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
statement? Are we in agreement on that?
3
MR. OEMIKG: No, I am not.
4
MR. STEIN: You are not? All right.
5
May I make a suggestion on the list?
6
This is one of the areas, as you know, where
7
both the Federal and State people or any people
8
can get in a lot of trouble. A list is only
9
good if it is deadly accurate, and you can't
10
make any mistake, I mean none. If you are not
11
100 percent, forget the list technique.
12
Now, the only way we can work
13
something like that, if you are going to use a
14
list,is before we publish any of them, the
15
State and Federal people in every individual
16
State are going to have to be in complete
17
agreement on that,because this is something
18
that the press and the TV people have been
19
talking to me about ever since I have been
20
here. Any list, and you can have a list of
21
521 names, all you have got to do is have one
22
man listed in the wrong spot and that casts
23
a doubt on your whole list if you are right
24
on 520. No one likes to be classified as a
25
-------
3569
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
polluter or possibly other people downstream
3
from a polluter don't like to see him get an
4
award or be a nonpolluter if he is a polluter.
5
I would strongly recommend that if we
6
have these problems on this list that the State
7
staff and the Federal staff get together before we
8
put out any other one, be sure they are right.
9
MR. KLASSEN: But the Conferees
10
reading this have to agree to the removal,
11
and this is why none of the--I am not in
12
quite the same category as Indiana--none of
13
the industries listed here should be on this
14
because they are all committed to a date that
15
precedes December 1972.
16
MR. STEIN: Well, let me again, and
17
I dont want to be stuffy, but I think the pro-
18
cedural way of handling this, we are not going
19
to remove anything until we have established
20
a list. The Conferees have not endorsed any
21
list yet. In other words, we don't have a list,
22
Now, maybe your communities should not ever
23
get on this list, but--
24
MR. KLASSEN: How do we keep off the
25
-------
3570
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
list? That is all I would like to know.
3
MR. STEIN: That is what I say, before
4
we promulgate any list, and we are all going to
5
reconvene here, I suggest that if we agree with
6
this list technique that the States and our
7
people get together and we be sure we are 100
8
percent right, and if we are not going to be
9
100 percent right on the list let's use another
10
technique of control, because that is the best
11
administrative boomerang we have if you are
12
not completely accurate.
13
MR. POOLE: I agree with you, Mr.
14
Chairman, except that if we expect to wrap this
15
thing up by Tuesday of next week, I think that
16
overnight some of us might think about a re-
17
vision of phraseology of this paragraph 9 that
18
would cover all of the industries that are
19
contributing in any way to pollution without
20
the list and give us an opportunity to come in
21
with the list at a little later date.
22
MR. STEIN: What do you think of
23
that approach? That is what we used in the
24
southern end of the lake.
25
-------
3371
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Let us suppose that we get this
3
business and we get detailed plans, action plans
4
for all the industries, and the States come up
5
with a progress report in "x" amount of time,
6
and if someone wants to promulgate a list on
7
the basis of the progress report, this is fine.
8
MR. HOLMER: I have two problems
9
with this recommendation even with your
10
interpretation.
11
This is the Lake Michigan enforcement
12
conference, and on the attached list there are
13
a lot of industries whose impact on the waters
14
of Lake Michigan is questionable. We are back
15
to that same old problem again.
16
And the second is I am bothered, as I
17
know Mr. Poston is, by the use of this word
18
"adequate" in some of our plans of implemen-
19
tation, and so on--
20
MR. STEIN: Let's get your first
21
point. Your first point is, Mr. Holmer, as
22
we have done in other cases, if the States
23
are going to come up with progress reports,
24
you are going to provide the industries that
25
-------
3572
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
you are reporting on, right, with the impact?
3
In other words, any list, if you want to use
4
that term loosely, will be yours.
5
I think if an industry is left off
6
or a city is left off that the Federal people
7 • . • •
think should be on it, I would hope, at least
8
at the discussion stage, and this is just a
9
technical question, then they should get on,
10
But I think the best way we have
11
worked this in the past is to have each of the
12
States come up with the cities and the indue-
13
tries that they are going to report on. Right?
14
You make your own determination. If there is
15
a disagreement with that, then we will talk to
16
you.
17
In other words, your first point
18
will be taken care of. If you don't believe
19
anyone has an impact on the lake, you don't
2"
put them on the list and they are not on the
21
list. 0. K.
22
MR. HOLMER: And then we have a dis-
23
cussion.
24
(Laughter..)
25
-------
3573
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: And I hope this discussion--
3
this is a factual one--I hope this discussion
4
would take place before we ever go to a progress
5
meeting.
6
MR. HOLMER: Right.
7
MR. STEIN: Because I see absolutely
8
no point in bandying around a city's name or an
9
industry's name in one of these conferences when
10
it is not relevant, because it never does them
11
any good and this thing should be handled before-
12
hand.
13
And your second point on that "adequate"-
14
where do we have that?
15
MR. HOLMER: The top of line nine.
16
MR. OEMING: The first line, item 9.
17
MR. STEIN: What do you suggest?
18
MR. HOLMER: Well, I have some very
19
different language which would require facilities
20
to achieve the interstate standards, but—
21
MR. PURDY: We said that.
22
MR. OEMING: That is accepted. We
23
said that.
24
MR. STEIN: We've already--
25
-------
. 3574
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: That is determined?
3
MR. OEMING: Yes.
4
MR. POOLS: I don't find any
5
trouble with the word "adequate" myself.
6
MR. STEIN: Did you find trouble
7
with it?
8
MR. POOLE: No, I don't.
9
MR. STEIN: Why don't you read that
10
in connection with the standards? And I am
11
not sure that that is a problem. In other
12
words, I think what the detailed action plans,
13
adequate or whatever—you know, I don't like
14
that word myself, that is a colorless word--
15
but I think that has to be related to the
16
meaning of the standards. And if you can come
17
up with anything better, fine. But I think
18
these mean detailed plans for treatment which
19
will have them meet the water quality standards
20
have to be prepared.
21
And I would suggest we rework that
22
and we come in with a--if we are going to think
23
in terms of a progress meeting, and I don't want
24
to anticipate, and if we do and if we have it in
25
-------
3373
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
six months, the States will come up with the
3
cities and the industries, and as far as I am
4
concerned if any historian or any one of the
5
press wants to put that together and make
6
a list, they are welcome. Right? I think
7
that is the best way to handle that.
8
9
RECOMMENDATION #11
10
11
MR. STEIN: Now, 11:
12
"in addition to recommendations of
13
this conference, the industries in the area"--
14
MR. OEMING: We ran through that with
15
the municipalities, used the same statement,
16
Mr. Chairman. Remember?
17
MR. STEIN: That is a conclusion.
18
MR. OEMING: You don't want to vote
19
on that.
20
MR.' STEIN: No, no, let's make that--
21 '
MR. POSTON: We put this in the con-
22
elusions.
23
MR. OEMING: That is in the conclu-
24
sions.
25
-------
. 3376
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Yes. All right.
3
Now, I have one more thing to suggest.
4
You may want to do it here.
5
Freeman, we can take up your second
6
point as a special point on that planning point
7
now before we recess. That may be Just as well.
8
MR. HOLMER: Yes.
9
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
10
MR. STEIN: Yes, pardon me»
11
MR. OEMING: Go ahead, Freeman.
12
13
RECOMMENDATION #3.3
14
15
MR. HOLMER: "it is recommended that
16
each water pollution control agency adopt
17
policies encouraging unified collection systems
18
serving contiguous urban areas where feasible."
19
MR. OEMING: Could we change that
20
wording as we did in the other, "encourage"
21
instead of "adopt policies"? Strike "adopt
22
policies" and say "encourage unified."
23
MR. STEIN: And let some editor find
24
a heading for that, like Regional Planning or
25
-------
3377
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Regional Systems or something of that type.
3
0. K.?
4
I think that is important enough
5
to be set out by itself. We will put that
6
under--oh, at the end, in one of the end
7
numbers. Make it 33 now for the time being.
8
We will switch the numbers later.
9
MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, I think
10
one of the advantages of this is to also foster
11
the elimination of septic tanks, and I wonder
12
if we could get that wording in there too.
13
MR. STEIN: Where is that?
14
MR. POSTON: Similar to our Recom-
15
nendation #15-
16
xMR. HOLMER: Let's see, I had one on
17
those.
18
MR. SCHNEIDER: In other words, Just
u
put this back in.
20 ^
MR. POSTOX: This ,/15 covers both of
them, 15 in the book.
22 '
MR. OEMING: Oh, in there.
23
MR. MILLER: I don't know why they
left that #15 out.
25
-------
3578
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. SCHNEIDER: Just forgot it, that's
3
all.
4
MR. MILLER: Well, we regrouped these
5
and then didn't put in any heading.
6
MR. STEIN: Here is what they had, and
7
maybe they combined it. Let's--again, we may be
8
getting off and it may be getting late.
9
In 15, and you may want to expand
10
yours, Freeman, they say:
11
"As a matter of policy, planning
12
provide for the maximum use of areawide sewerage
13
facilities"--and your language may be better--
14
"discourage the proliferation of small inefficient
15
treatment plants in contiguous urbanized areas,
16
and foster the elimination of septic tanks."
17
Do you want to add something on
18
septic tanks to the language we just adopted
19
for yours or not?
20
MR. HOLMER: No. On page four we
21
said something about it in our identification
22
of pollution, but we did not follow through
23
with a specific recommendation, for this reason:
24
The impact of septic tanks on Lake
25
-------
3579
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Michigan, per se, is relatively limited, and
3
so we didn't. What I said on page four is,
4
"There is, throughout the basin, extensive use
5
of domestic sewage disposal by septic tank"--
6
MR. STEIN: Well, I am not--
7
MR. HOLMER: I think it is a simpler
9
issue, in a sense, from metropolitan districts.
9
MR. STEIN: All right, if you don't
10
want it in there, that is fine. O.K.
11
Mr. Poston, would you make a note
for when we come back, if you want to bring
13
up the septic tank issue we will do it.
14 . •
MR. OEMING: I think, Mr. Chairman,
15
one comment on this that I don't want to over-
16
look here is that by following 15 you would
17
get hold of some of these nutrients that escape
18
you through the septic tank business. That is
the only relationship I see that makes it a part.
_, MR. POSTON: Yes.
21
__ MR. STEIN: No, I am hot suggesting
£Z
__ that we eliminate the septic tank recommendation.
£a
MR. OEMING: No.
fA
MR. STEIN: What Mr. Holmer is
25
-------
3580
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
suggesting, it doesn't fit with this areawide
3
planning.
4
MR. OEMING4- Yes.
5
MR'. STEIN: And he would rather we
6
take this up in another point.
7
MR. OEMING: Oh, all right.
8
MR. STEIN: I am just delaying con-
9
sideration for it and not tacking it onto his
10
proposal that we have adopted.
11
0. K.
12
Now--
13
MR. POSTON: Are we supposed to--
14
MR. POOLE: May I--
15
MR. STEIN: Wait a minute.
16
MR. POOLE: You are getting ready to
17
adjourn, I guess.
18
MR. STEIN: Yes. We won't take any
W
more points up, but we will hear everything that
20
everyone has to say.
21
MR. POOLE: Well, I noted in the
22 '
revised recommendations or in the printed
23 .
recommendations there were three that dealt
24
with oil. I think they were numbered 18, 19 and 20
25
-------
3381
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
And the revised recommendations touch it very
3
lightly, if at all, and I Just wondered,. I
4
think this may have "been an oversight in Mr.
5
Poston's office, and I was going to suggest
6
that they might come "back to us in the morning
7
with some suggestions for recommendations on
8
oil that might shorten things up tomorrow.
9
MR. STEIN: Rather than answer that,
10
come back with a report. 0. K.?
11
Are there any other comments or ques-
12
tions?
13
MR. SCHNEIDER: What are we supposed
14
to do vrith this municipal, now?
15
MR. POSTON: Septic tank.
16
MR. STEIN: You raise that in another
17
point. Put it in the form of a recommendation
18
to put in.
19
MR. KLASSEN: No night session?
20
MR. STEIN: Now, before we go off,
21
tomorrow's meeting will be at 8:30, but a change
22
of place. The Crystal Room. I think It is on
23
this floor in one of these rooms.
24
MR. COOK: Right next door.
25
-------
3582
EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: We stand recessed until
3
8:30 tomorrow morning, Crystal Room.
4
(Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., an adj.ourn-
6
ment was taken until 8:30 a.m. the following
6
morning.)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
3583
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
MORNING SESSION, MARCH 8, 1968
3
(8:30 a.m.)
4
5
MR. STEIN: We will convene.
g
We are on page 2, old 11, now 12,
7
Federal installations.
8
9 RECOMMENDATION #12
10
11 MR. STEIN: Let's go.
12
"Federal installations in the basin
13
provide degree of treatment at least as good
14
as that recommended herein for other comparable
15
waste sources; and, specifically, that the
16
Great Lakes Naval Training Center &nd Fort
17
Sheridan provide advanced waste treatment to
18
achieve an effluent containing not more than
19
20 ppm of 5-day BOD and not more than 1 ppm
20
of elemental phosphorus. Disinfection to be
21
accomplished by December 19°9» and treatment
22
facilities to be constructed by December 1972."
23
My suggestion on this is that we
24
have a greater degree of specificity that
25
-------
3384
* EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
we are asking for from the Federal people than
we did with the State people. In looking this
over this morning in the clear light of day,
5 ' •
I hope, I looked up at the 10 above and I think
6
that might be that "detailed action plans for
7
adequate treatment of all industrial wastes be
8
developed- within 6 months." I am not talking
9
about the time or anything. That may be the
10
approach and cut through these lists and deal
11
with something we have done before.
12
If we are thinking--! hope we will
be--in terms of periodic progress, meetings,
14
which is what we are going to have to do in
15
order to move this ahead and check on and
16
let people know we are making progress,
17
during the first progress meeting or two,
18
the States will 1) develop a list of in-
19
dustries and cities indicating the degree
20
of treatment they are going to ask from
21
those cities and industries, 2) we will
also do that with the Federal installations,
23
3) draw up the schedule we are going to have,
and 4) determine the status of the progress.
25
In other words, I think this is not
-------
3385
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
something in conflict. I think all you States
3
have done this before and this would be possibly
4
the way of handling this.
5
Is this agreeable?
€
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, I think
7
generally it is agreeable. I would like to
8
Just clarify a point or two. You are expecting--
9
this is the State program, what the State is
10
requesting of industry and municipalities?
11
MR. STEIN: Yes.
12
, MR. OEMING: Not their plans as such?
13
MR. STEIN: No, not the—
14
MR. OEMING: 0. K.
15
MR. STEIN: It is the kind of report,
16
and again I don't want to flag or say too much,
17
but:the kind of report that Mr. Klassen, Mr.
18
Poole and you have given us in varying--! don't
19
think Wisconsin has been involved in as complex
20
a case where we had as many cities, but this
21
would be very comparable to the report that
22
you have got.
23
Now, particularly with, I think--let
24
me give you this because maybe this is the kind
25
-------
3586
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
of operation we have had. I think Mr. Klassen
3
has given us some excellent reports on cities,
4
as you have, and I think Perry Miller and
5
Blucher Poole have developed as good a format
6
as I have seen in Industrial waste reporting
7
for this purpose. And if you would look at the
8
reports that they have given on the lower end
9
of Lake Michigan, this would be fine. In other
10
words, then we would know what each city and
11
what each industry was going to do. Every time
12
we came out with a list the list would be up to
13
snuff, and it would be a list put in by the
14
States and we put in the Federal list. If we
15
have any questions on your list, we would have
16
it here; you would check with us. Secondly,
17
as we were developing this, when we came to
18
the meetings I hope we would have an exchange
19
of information so we would get all the ideas in
20
and then be able to go ahead.
21
MR. OEMING: That is understood.
22
MR. STEIN: All right.
23
MR. OEMING: The other question I have
24
is that when you said from all industries, all
25
-------
3387
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
municipalities and the Federal establishments.
3
Now, this still refers to those that we consider
4
have an impact on the lake.
5
MR. STEIN: Right, covered by the
6
case. Now, I think, again, there may be a
7
question about any single industry or any
8
single city, but this should be worked out
9
on the staff and if there is the question,
10
we will zero in on this at a progress meeting.
11
In other words, something like #10 or a variant
12
of that will apply to the cities that we have
13
on the industries, but this will apply to
14
what we did with 1 and 2, this will apply to
15 I
Federal installations and it will apply to
16
industry. All right? And we will straighten
17
that up with the next number.
18
MR. OEMIN6: One more, Mr. Chairman.
19
I don't want to take too much time.
20
MR. STEIN: All right.
21
MR. OEMING: But I want to be sure we
22
understand each other, and I think it would be
23
helpful. This is a suggestion.
24
That I don't believe we should come
25
-------
: 3388
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
in with Just a list that we think has an
g
impact on the. lake. I would think that that
listing, however we produce it here, should show
whether the State considers this to have an
6
intrastate significance or not. Now, if you
7
want to make it that broad, we are willing to
g
go that far.
9 MR. POSTON: I think this is a good
point, Larry, and I think it is very good.
11 MR. STEIN: Yes.
12
MR. OEMING: Because now everybody
13
will understand each other, there won't be all
14
these questions, if you left somebody off, why
15
don't we talk about this one. Let's set it
16
all down and tell whether the State feels it
17
has intrastate or interstate significance.
MR. STEIN: Right. I don't want to
19
anticipate^-the reason I am laying the ground-
20
work here, Larry, because I heard a few rumblings
21
from Mr. Klassen before when he talked about
22
dumping of dredgings. If we are going to have
23
an even-handed administration of the law, the
24
question that I am going to have to ask or
25
-------
3589
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
anyone, I hope, would have to ask is, if you
3
are talking about dredging are we talking
4
about the same kind of interstate implications?
5
And if this doesn't have an interstate impli-
6
cation, why are we interested in that if we
7
are not interested with a city or an industry
8
that is putting in a lot more waste? You see?
9
So I am trying to cut across this
10
kind of thing and let the State do the report-
11
ing on that.
12
0. K.
13
MR. OEMING: Our wording,-then, will
14
be developed and you will try to get that.
15
MR. STEIN: It will be very close
16
to this wording.
17
MR. OEMING: We will have to get that
18
by each industry, it will have to be--
19
MR. STEIN: By each city--
20
MR. OEMING: No. The way this reads
21
it sounds like each industry and each munici-
22
pality has to bring in a plan. What we are
23
saying is the States--
24
MR. STEIN: No, we will say, action
25
-------
. 3390
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
plans will be developed by each State out-
3
lining--
4
MR. POSTON: The thought was that there
5
would be industry reporting to you and then you
6
would come back with a brief--
7
' MR. STEIN: Yes.
8
MR. OEMING: Well, No. l--let me
9
clear this, now. I don't want to get off the
10
track here. What you are asking the States
11
to do is to look at their problems, their
12
municipal-industrial problems, and come in and
13
tell the Conferees here what their program is
14
to correct them, not the industry**; program yet,
15
because in six months you can't do this.
16
MR. POSTON: That's right.
17
MR. OEMING: The procedures get
18
involved here.
19
MR. STEIN: Yes.
20
MR. POSTON:.' This is not what--
21
MR. STEIN: This is right.
22
MR. OEMING: Just so we understand
23
each other.
24
MR. POSTON: Yes. No question.
25
-------
3591
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: If you want to take
3
the time, we can do this* I would say within
4
six months each State water pollution control
5
agency shall identify the municipal and
6
industrial sources of wastes contributing
7
pollutants to the lake; shall indicate whether
8
they have an inter- or intrastate effect;
9
indicate their plans for abating such pollution
10
from these sources together with a timetable;
11
treatment facilities are to be constructed
12
not later than 1972, and that is about it.
13
And then we revise the list and I
14
guess continuous disinfection and the other
15
things all apply.
16
All right, if we--
17
Pardon me.
18
MR. MORTON: This is still Federal
19 :
installations you are referring to?
20
MR. STEIN: No, no, no, let me go
21
on to the next phase.
22
The Federal Government will provide
23
a comparable list for Federal installations.
24
MR. MORTON: The reason I raise the
25
-------
3592
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
question is because of the dateline of
3
December '72 and I don't think we can stand by
4
on that score in view of the fact that we had
5
special legislation passed by the State Legis-
6
lature in October of 1967 which requires an
7
earlier date for action.
8
MR. POOLE: As I understood the
9
Chairman, this would apply to us and also that
10
this list you will coine in with will be more
11
like the one you had in your water quality
12
standard reports and then you may have a date
13
after each specific installation?
14
MR. STEIN: That is correct.
15
MR. POOLE: And then we can come to
16
a decision as to whether that longest date is
17
too long or not, is the way I interpret what
18
he has said.
19
MR. STEIN: That is correct.
20
MR. KLASSEN: In other words, Mr.
21
Chairman, Just to clarify this for Illinois,
22
on #9 we are to submit, then, the list of
23
industries that are involved? I asked yester-
24
day that all of the industries be removed from
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the list if we are going to hold to the '72
3
date, because we have a shorter time.
4
MR. STEIN: No, we would expect
5
each industry with its time—
6
MR. KLASSEN: Right.
7
MR. STEIN: --but if any industry
8
came in with a time longer than 1972, I
9
would expect that some very pointed questions
10
would be asked by the Conferees.
11
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
12
MR. OEMING: But we have to justify
13
it.
14
MR. STEIN: That is right.
15
May we go on then?
16
MR. SCHNEIDER: Did we get his question
17~
settled about the intrastate?
18
MR. STEIN: Yes, I- indicated in
19
that that the State would indicate whether it
20
was intra- or' interstate.
21
MR. SCHNEIDER: I see. So it will be
22
a complete listing, then?
MR. OEMING: And it will include those
24
that we consider adequate, now.
25
-------
359^-
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Adequate, surely.
3
MR. SCHNEIDER: And it will also
4
indicate whether it is intrastate or not.
5
MR. OEMING: That is right, yes.
6
MR. SCHNEIDER: 0. K.
7
8
RECOMMENDATIONS #13 AND #14
9
10
MR. STEIN: Now let's go on with 12,
11
which is now 13, we are on page 3-
12
"The Federal Water Pollution Control
13
Administration meet with the Atomic Energy
14
Commission and other interested parties to
15
develop guidelines for pollution control from
16
nuclear ^powerplants,, with special attention
17
given as to how radioactive wastes and heat
18
discharges affect Lake Michigan and its
19
tributaries. A report is to be given to the
20
Conferees within six months."
21
Let me read the next one, too. Maybe
22
we can take these both. I don't know why we
23
have got two here.
24
"The Federal Water Pollution Control
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Administration and the State pollution control
3
agencies, in cooperation with power companies,
4
conduct a special study as to how thermal dis-
5
charges affect the aquatic environment of the
6
lake, especially as they might relate to en-
7
couraging undesirable growths of algae. Results
8
of the study are to be provided the Conferees
9
in one year."
10
Are there any comments on this?
11
MR. OEMING: Excuse me, go ahead,
12
Clarence.
13
MR. KLASSEN: Very definitely. And
14
on the first one, I don't know why the States
15
have been dealt out of —
16
MR. STEIN: That is right.
17
MR. KLASSEN: --this developing of
18
guidelines. The State of Illinois has a
19
legal responsibility--
20
MR. OEMING: Yes.
21
MR. KLASSEN: --under a radiation
22
protection act, and I don't know about the
23
rest of the States, but the State of Illinois
24
wants to be included in developing these
25
-------
3396
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
guidelines.
3
MR. OEMING: Michigan does too.
4
MR. STEIN: That's why I read them
5
both together.
6
MR. SCHNEIDER: Wonderful.
7
MR. STEIN: That is why I said let's
8
take them both.
9
MR. OEMING: Since when did you get
10
so backward?
11
MR. STEIN: Wait a minute. Is that
12
your comment?
13
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, that is my comment.
14
MR. STEIN: Let's go, if we are going
15
to continue.
16
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, the thing
17
that troubles me, I think, is that we are going
18
to have before us within the next two or three
19
months under our procedure statements of new
20
use on some of these plants.
21
MR. STEIN: Right.
22
MR. OEMING: And we have got to act
23
on them under our statute within 60 days. Now,
24
what do we do? I mean with this six months
25
-------
iin.
3397
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
report and then some decisions to be made
3
here, how do we act on this?
4
MR. STEIN: Let me make this comment, agaj.n,
5
to cut through this. I am all in favor of
6
reports when we have to do a report. I think
7
Mr. McLean went home, didn't he? I went
8
through this temperature stuff when it came
9
up last time very thoroughly with our experts
10
in Washington, and I think the notion is
11
pretty clear, at least I feel competent to
12
give you this because it is not that complicated.
13
Here is what they say. That with the
14
thermbcline in the lake--that is going down to
15
a strata where you can get relatively cool
16
water—the question of temperature control for
17
Cooling water in the lake should not be a very
18
difficult one if we use the proper approach and
19
proper planning. Now, cooling towers are one
20
thing, but we sometimes get an esthetic reaction
21
to cooling towers and they are expensive. The
22
notion is that you can do this in a lake without
23
having cooling towers if you take your water
24
down at the proper strata and run it through.
25
-------
3598
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Their notion is, too, if you are
3
going to go without cooling towers and use
4
the cooler stratas of water and rely on mixing^--
5
and I have been through this in various parts
6
of the lake with them—they say that you should
7
have a maximum rise of three degrees tempera-
8
ture within a 200-foot radius of the outfall.
9
And if you are going to use it for mixing,
10
you do this and you raise it up, it is not
11
going to work anyway because you^-need this.
12
Now, if we know this now and these
13
are the facts, I think we are on our way
14
toward a conclusion on thermal pollution
15
which may be very important to the lake.
16
They also agree that this will
17
materially affect the lake from heat damage and
18
deleterious effects on algal growth, and so
19
forth.
20
Now, are there any comments on that?
21
I don't know, if we are that far ahead, why
22
do we need a year's study?
23
MR. POSTON: I think if you are Just
going to have 200 feet out there, that is one
25
-------
3599
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
thing, but I question whether a billion
3
gallons of water a day pumped into one place
4
is going to dissipate 20 degrees of tempera-
5
ture in 200 feet.
6
MR. PURDY: This is ray point, Wally,
7
that the last big reactor that I know about
8
will use about 2,000 cubic feet per second
9
of water for cooling purposes. Now, 200 feet
10
out from the outlet you might just as well
11
say the outlet.
12
MR.' POSTON: Yes.
13
MR. PURDY: This is nothing.
14
MR. SCHNEIDER: This is as big as
15
the flow from the Grand River.
16
MR. OEMING: Bigger.
17
MR. PURDY: This represents the
18
average flow from the Grand River. The fact
19
is a study is being made now to relate how
20
the flow from the Grand River and the heat
21
flow from the Grand River dissipated in Lake
22
Michigan, because the Grand River had roughly
23
a 20-degree temperature increment over that
24
of the lake naturally during certain periods
25
-------
3600
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
of the year and its flow is about 2,000 cubic
3
feet per second. And some of the initial
4
studies indicate that you can find the Grand
5
River in Lake Michigan by temperature along
6
some 6 miles from the mouth.
7
So when we talk about 200 feet, it
8
is nothing.
9
MR. STEIN: Well, all right.
10
MR. POSTON: I would submit also
11
that in certain areas of the lake that it
12
isn't over 25, 35 feet deep where they will
13
take this out and the thermocline will be
14
below that.
15
MR. STEIN: Well, they can put a
16
pipe out then.
17
MR. POSTON: No, it is too far--
18
.MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, without
19
getting into design details-here, I think my
concern is whether or not these two recbmmen-
21
dations represent an obstacle that is sufficient
22
to await the results of these studies before
23
any development goes on.
MR. STEIN: Let me try to reframe
25
-------
36oi
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
it if you have these points on this stuff.
3
And again what we are going to be faced with,
4
and Mr. Oeming points out, is just that in
5
Michigan and Minnesota on the atomic energy
6
reactor there the people are faced right now
7
with the notion of whether they are going to
8
permit the discharge of the wastes or have
9
a closed system.
10
May I suggest this, to try to get
11
around this, that the States and the Depart-
12
ment of the Interior set up a special committee
13
on dealing with both nuclear discharge and the
14 .
thermal pollution aspects of powerplants and
15
reactors, that this group meet with the Atomic
16
Energy Commission and other interested parties
17
to develop, if possible, guidelines for pollu-
18
tion control from nuclear powerplants, and
19
this group pay special attention to thermal
20
discharges which affect the aquatic environment
21
of the lake. . , Now a representative of
22
the group or perhaps the State representative
23
of this group should be able to appear at any
24
hearing that comes up in any State and
25
-------
3662
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
reflect the latest thinking of the group when
3
the hearing comes up within the next year.
4
I think if you are going to fool with this
5
on a case-by-case basis, we are going to
6
be faced with real hard questions of whether
7
we are going to have a closed system or an
8
open system and permit this material to run
9
back into the lake at all, or what kind of
10
thermal pollution we are going to have. Each
11
one is going to be a battle.
12
I would suggest that the four States
13
and the Department of the Interior get together
14
and that we have a relatively unified position
15
during the next year as we are hopefully
16
developing the guidelines.
17
MR. OEMING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
18
think your suggestion is a good one, that is
19
to establish a committee that would be a very
20
active committee.
21
MR. STEIN: Yes.
22
MR. OEMING: It has got to be
23
active because we have impending right now
24
construction.
25
-------
^__ 3603
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Right.
3
MR. POSTON: Now, let's get at this
4
in detail a little bit. Would you say that
5
the FWPCA head this up and then each of the
6
States provide a man for this committee?
7
MR. STEIN: We would do that. I
8
would suggest when we come back next Tuesday
9
we all have -nominees, and this committee be
10
active for discussions with the AEC to develop
11
guidelines, discussions among themselves as
12
to what studies are needed, and mutual dis-
13
cussions so they can get you the latest
14
information reflecting all the views for
15
any decisions or hearings you may have during
16
the next year. At the first progress
17
meeting they should at least give us a report as
18
to what they found and how long it is going
19
to take them before they are going to be able
20
to come up with relatively definitive suggestions
21
or recommendations to the Conferees.
22
MR. OEMING: This would be helpful
23
to me.
24
MR. STEIN: All right.
25
-------
3604
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. QBMING: I don't know how the
3
rest of them feel.
4
MR. STEIN: If this is agreeable, ,
5
we will try to get a knowledgeable man and
6
you put one on. I suspect that given the
7 • '
contacts we have to make and the travel and
8
the money involved, it might be best if a
9
Federal man were chairman, although I don't
10
object if a State man is chairman'.
11
MR. OEMING: No, 1^-
12
MR. STEIN: That is just a chore.
13
MR. KLASSEN: How is this going to
14
fit in with Senator Muskie's committee and
15
his investigations and hearings?
16
MR. OEMING: He is on another tack, it
17
seems to me, Clarence--
18
MR. STEIN: Yes.
19
MR. OEMING: --on the statutory powers
20
of the AEC, and so on.
21
MR. STEIN: Yes.
22
MR. OEMING: What we are trying to
23
do here is resolve the questions now that are
24
immediate to the States--
25
-------
3605
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Yes. Here, let's go--
3
pardon me.
4
MR. OEMING: --and to get some sense
5
here so when a State comes back and says we
6
are going to require so-and-so, there is some
7
assurance that everybody is agreed that this
8
is all right.
9
MR. KLASSEN: Today.
10
MR. OEMING: This is what I am talking
11
about, today.
12
MR. STEIN: Let's go off the record.
13
(Off the record.)
14
MR. STEIN: To get back on the record,
15
I think our view as pollution control agencies
16
is broader than that. We know we are.interested
17
in both thermal pollution and the nuclear dis-
18
charge. For us, we don't have that problem.
19
In other words, you are going to consider both
20
aspects in any plant.
21
MR. KLASSEN: This brings my next
22
question. On these hearings that you are
23
talking about, which, of course, are all right to
24
get at the issues, is this going to be limited
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to thermal pollution or are we going to get into
3
nuclear?
4
•MR. STEIN: Nuclear.
5
MR. OEMING: Yes.
6
MR. STEIN: I hope so. This is a
7
State hearing. Wait a moment, now, Clarence.
8
The hearings I was talking about are State
9
hearings and you set the rules for those. What
10
I was suggesting is that this committee would
11
be valuable in bringing the latest material and
12
evidence to you.
13
We are not setting the rules for those
14
hearings. Presumably when any plant comes in to
15
you, into the State of Illinois, whether it is
16
a nuclear reactor or any other one, and they
17
are going to discharge a waste, they are going
18
to have to get a permit from you. If you want
19
to hold a hearing, this committee will be avail-
20
able to give you the information.
21
But you are setting the rules in the
22
hearing in Illinois, not us.
23
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K., that is all I
24
want to know.
25
-------
3607
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
at it.
of that.
now.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. OEMING: That is the way I look
MR. KLASSEN: That will take care
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. OEMING: We are agreed on that
MR. STEIN: Yes.
RECOMMENDATION #15
MR. STEIN: Fifteen, dredging. Here
we go. If we get by this, we will make it.
"Dumping of polluted dredgings into
Lake Michigan basin waters be prohibited. All
dredgings are to be considered polluted unless
the Department of the Interior and the States
involved certify otherwise."
MR. KLASSEN: Two questions.
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
MR. KLASSEN: "Be prohibited": one,
by whom? Second question, does this supersede
-------
3608
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the agreement between the Corps of Engineers
3
and the Department of the Interior?
4
MR. STEIN: Well, here, I will answer
5 ' • ' •
your first question first because I think I can
6
answer that.
7 ' - ••'"'.
As far as I know, the Corps of Engineers
8
has statutory authority to do this dredging, and
9
as a consequence to dispose of the dredging s.
10
As far as I know, that is a Federal
function. I don't think that the State has
12
any power to prohibit them. We certainly in
13
the Department of the Interior don't. The
14 .
only one that can govern the Federal dredging
15
of the Corps of Engineers is the Congress that
16
puts out the law, and anything else you are
17
going to say on that might be rhetoric, but those
18
are the facts.
io
0. K.
20
Now, I do not think that we are here
21
to supersede the agreement between the Depart-
22
ment of the Interior, at least the Federal
23
people aren't, and the Corps of Engineers. If
24
we were, we would be exceeding our authority.
25
-------
3609
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
This agreement was made at the Secretarial
3
level, and I don't think it is for us to even
4 - .
consider that.
5
MR. KLASSEN: In other words, this
6
is a policy type of recommendation by. these
7
Conferees, what we are saying here.
8
The other question I asked is,
9
according to my interpretation of this, this
10
"certify otherwise", in other words it would
11
take "all dredgings are considered polluted
12
unless the Department of the Interior and the
13
States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and
14
Indiana, the five, certify otherwise"?
15
MR. STEIN: No, I--
16
MR. KLASSEN: That is the way you
17
read it.
18
MR. STEIN: That is the way I read it.
19
You know, I saw a preliminary draft of this--
20
and again I ask you, Clarence, if we are going
21
to finish by noon, let's try to be very lenient
22
on this drafting.
23
I think what they meant, the way I think
24 _ •. .
it would have to be to make sense, that the
25
-------
3610
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
appropriate State and the State involved, was it.
3
I don't know that you can put It "all dredgings
be considered polluted," but "dumping of polluted
dredgings into Lake Michigan waters be prohibited,"
B
if you want to make that as a policy statement,
7
and that the Corps of Engineers is to have the
8
advice of the appropriate State and the Depart-
9
ment of the Interior as to the pollutional
10
character of any dredgings. But I would not
11
imagine that we would go around for the other
three States if someone wanted to put something
13
in Illinois waters.
14
MR. KLASSEN: That is what this state-
15
ment says.
16
MR. STEIN: Yes, it does, but I don't
17
think it was meant that way.
18
MR. KLASSEN: It is going to be redrafted
19
for consideration?
20
MR. STEIN: Yes.
21
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K., I will wait for
22
the redraft, then.
23
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments?
24
MR. OEMING: Yes.
25
-------
^___ . 3611
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
3 .
MR. OEMIHG: Go ahead, Mr, Mitchell.
4 ' . . . •
MR. MITCHELL: You made one statement
5
that if carried a little bit farther doesn't seem
6
to be quite correct in my thinking, that the
7
Corps of Engineers has a right to dump polluted
8
dredging without worrying about any other agency's
9
obligations and responsibilities under the law,
10
was what you said, or at least could be inferred
from what you said. I am sure that that is not
12
what you meant, is it?
MR. STEIN: No, I don't think I said
14
that. The key question that--and I think Mr.
15
Klassen was asking a key question here--the key
16
question was prohibited by whom, who has the
17
active statutory authority. I was just directing
18
myself to that as a legal operation.
19
Now, we have, and we go before the
20
same committee of the Congress, worked with the
21
Corps of Engineers for years. The Corps of
22
Engineers is very sensitive to that, and they
23
don't operate without taking other agencies
24
or States views into consideration.
25
-------
3612
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
The only thing we are talking in
3
terms of was the question of the bare legal
4
power. And I answered this. That is how I
5
answered Mr. Klassen.
6
But I fully agree with you that we
7
have to work this out, and the Corps has been
8
responsive to that as far as I can see, very
9
responsive to that, in the disposal of the
10
dredgings in this area.
11
MR. KLASSEN: I also think, Mr.
12
Chairman, the fact that we don't object to
13
your statement doesn't necessarily mean that
14
we agree with it, because in the State of
15
Illinois we don't think that the Corps of
16
Engineers can dump anything in the waters
17
in Illinois without a permit from the State
18
of Illinois. So this is your interpretation,
19
and I don't say it is incorrect or not, but
20
I just want this on the record.
21
MR. STEIN: Right. Well, I think,
22
Mr. Klassen, this is truev I hope we can solve
23
this question by avoiding this, because this
24
has been—not just in this area—this has been
25
-------
. • ; 3613
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
on the record for many,many times. We have had
3
States when I worked for the Public Health
Service that said we couldn't send a doctor
5
in there to practice unless he was licensed
6
in that State, and they firmly believed that.
7
I don't think they ever sustained it.
8
But this is not the kind of productive
9
Federal-States rights issue to resolve a question
10
on. I think we can work this out.
11
Now, I have several questions to ask--
12
MR. OEMING: You were going to
13
recognize me.
14
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
15
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman and members
16
of the conference,! think I am a little concerned
17
about what we are talking about in the way of
18
implementation, the effective date here.
19
MR. STEIN: That is right.
20
MR. OEMING: I was impressed with
21
the presentation made by the Corps. If we
22
were accepting presentations from others, we
23
would say this was a good proposal, a program
24
proposal to take care of this matter. And as I
25
-------
3614
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
understand it, the Corps of Engineers proposes
3
to have a report ready by December of this
4
year, at which time they will have some firm
5
recommendations to make as to how they are going
6
to handle this dredging problem.
7
Are we saying here that we are washing
8
this whole thing out and saying immediately we
9
will not go for any more dredgings?
10
MR. STEIN: That is the question I
11
was going to ask. If we are giving the cities
12
a deadline and the industries a time schedule,
13
as we have to do with everyone, I think we have
14
to afford the Corps the same operation.
15
Now, may I make this suggestion on
16
dredging? It is not a simple one. I think
17
the Corps is moving ahead.
18
Can we ask the Corps to do what we
19
are asking the States and the Federal Government
20
with the other installations to do? At the
21
first progress meeting in six months r and the
22
Corps, we know, is working on this very hardT
23
we will ask them to make a presentation to the
24
Conferees on their program of dredging and
25
-------
3615
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
dumping in Lake Michigan. We then will have
3
and the Conferees will have an opportunity to
4
deal with that in detail, you make your
5
determination whether you have some recommen-
6
dations or you can do it.
7
As far as I can see, gentlemen, it is
8
the same kind of thing we are doing with the
9
States and their industries and their cities/ and
10
I think the Corps is entitled to exactly the
11
same consideration
12
MR. OEMING: This, then, would mean
13
to me, Mr. Chairman, that "dumping of dredgings
14
into Lake Michigan waters be prohibited" would
15
have to be modified, to some extent, then.
16
MR. STEIN: We wouldn't come to that
17
now.
18
MR. OEMING: Yes.
19
MR. STEIN: In other words, the answer
20
would be here, analogous to one of the others,
21
that the Corps at the first six months progress
22
meeting will give us a detailed report on their
policies and what they are going to do about
w4
dredging in the lake.
25
-------
3616
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Yes.
3
MR. KLASSEN: I can't buy that open
4
end--
5
MR. STEIN: All right.
6
MR. KLASSEN: --blank check type of
7
thing, to hear in six months what the Corps
8
policies are. I think it is our responsibility
9
to lay down what we as Conferees think the
10
Corps policies ought to be and let them work
11
in our ball park instead of our working in theirs.
12
MR. STEIN: What do you think,that
13
dumping of polluted--
14
MR. KLASSEN: Give them six months
15
to come in with a progress report, but tell
16
them what we would like to see them do.
17
MR. OEMING: The objective being to
18
ultimately get rid of--
10
MR. KLASSEN: The objective.
20
21
MR. STEIN: All right. Now. is this
22
sufficient as a target objective for you in 15,
23
considering the modification of the second sen-
24
tence that we talked about? Is this 0. K.?
25
-------
^__ 3617
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: What is the modification?
3
MR. STEIN: The modification is that
4
the pollutional characteristics of the dredgings
5
will be considered in—rather, the Corps will
6
consult with the appropriate State and the
7
Department of the Interior as to the pollutional
8
characteristics of the dredgings.
9
MR. KLASSEN: Well, that is pretty
10
fuzzy, they are going to consult.
11
What we are concerned with, under
12
Illinois law we can prohibit anything going
13
into the lake that is going to be, let's say,
14
detrimental to the Chicago water supply. At
15
the present time it is questionable whether
16
we could prevent the Corps from taking dredgings
17
from Indiana and dumping it out there. This
18
right now is my concern. We don't want this to
19
take place while they are making this report.
20
MR. POOLE: Well, I think I could answer
21
that one.
22
We have got an understanding with the
23
Corps that there will be no dredgings from the
24
Indiana Harbor Canal in 1968 disposed of in the
25
-------
3618
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
lake. So the six months thing I don't think
3
will be in effect or in that specific a problem.
4
MR. STEIN: Mr. Mitchell
5
MR. MITCHELL: Gen. Tarbox's statement
6
Indicates, Mr. Klassen, that the Corps plans
7
on placing no polluted dredged material in Lake
8
Michigan from Calumet and Indiana Harbors
9
during calendar year 1968.
10
MR. KLASSEN: Let me ask an official
11
question of the Federal Water Pollution Control
12
Administration. What is your current agreement,
13
if any, with the Corps of Engineers on this subject)?
14
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poston?
15
MR. KLASSEN: Written or verbal.
16
MR. POSTON: At this time the Corps
17
of Engineers have divided all of the dredging
18
areas in Lake Michigan that they think might
19
require dredging, and they have separated them
20
into areas that are considered to be nonpollu-
21
tional dredgingSj and areas that have polluted
22
materials, and they have gone to the local
23
agencies and to the States and asked for land
24
locations where they can discharge this
25
-------
3619
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
dredged material on land. And at some of these
3
p laces the polluted dredged materials will
4
be put on land. This is the second classi-
5
fication.
6
The third classification is polluted
7
dredged materials as to where they think they
8
are going to have to dredge, and we have indi-
9
cated to them that they are polluted dredged
10
materials and our recommendations have been
11
that they should not be dumped in the lake.
12
MR. STEIN: Mr. Morton.
13
MR. POSTON: Col. Barnes is here. I
14
think--
15
MR. STEIN: Wait.
16
Do you have a question?
17
MR. MORTON: No.
18
MR. POSTON: He might want to comment
19
on that.
20
Is that about the status?
21
COL. BARNES: There is one category
22
I think you have left out, and that was the
23
category where the material was polluted where
24
it was essential to the economy as determined
25
-------
3620
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
by the Governor of the State that that—or by.
3
the State, rather, local people, that the
4
harbor had to be dredged and we had no place
5
to put it..
6
Now, we have recognized the problems
7
in the Chicago area and are going to stick by
8
what we have previously said we are going to do
9
in this area.
10
MR. POSTON: Well, I referred to this
11
as the third category, the last category, and
12
we have not given any approval on that.
13
COL. BARNES: I know you have not.
14
But that still—O.K.
15
,MR. KLASSEN: I think this is important,
16
Colonel. You said the Governor or the State or
17
the local people, and then stick by what you
18
stated for the Chicago area. Could you restate
19
what you stated for the Chicago area? I would
20
like to know this.
21
COL. BARNES: We have no plans to
22
dump any. polluted materials in Lake Michigan into
23
the Chicago area, either in Indiana waters or-
24
in Illinois waters.
25
-------
3621
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: Over what period?
3
COL. BARNES: In '68. Beyond that
4
we don't know yet. But we will probably have
5
the results of our pilot program by then and
6
can better Judge what we are going to do in '69.
7
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K.
8
MR. STEIN: Are we satisfied?
9
MR. POSTON: Mr. Klassen, I think
10
there is some rock excavation in the Calumet
11
Harbor that is to be dredged.
12
MR. STEIN: Yes.
13
MR. POSTON: Removed.
14
MR. STEIN: Gen* Tarbox spoke about
15
that at the last meeting.
16
MR. POSTON: Right.
17
MR. STEIN: Did you hear that?
18
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
19
MR. STEIN: But they consider that
20
nonpollutional.
21
MR. MORTON: You mentioned Calumet
22
Harbor. By that do you mean Calumet Harbor
23
in Illinois or Calumet Harbor in Indiana?
24
MR. STEIN: I think he meant Illinois.
25
-------
. . 3622
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: I think he meant Illinois.
3
MR. STEIN: You never like to para-
4
phrase anyone else, but as I recall what Gen.
5
Tarbox said, there were a couple of rock out-
6
croppings that he is shaving off and getting
7 ' • • • ' . •
in and these are relatively innocuous. But
8
other than that, no material is being dumped,
9
as far as I understand, won't be dumped for
10
this year, and that is as far as the Corps
11
program is going.
12
So I think we can adopt this procedure
13
and get the report from the Corps, and during
14
the interim time you are not going to have your^
15
water supply endangered because nothing is going
16
in. 0. K.?
17
18
RECOMMENDATION #16
19
20
MR. STEIN: Let us move on to 16, water-
21
craft.
22
"The four States adopt uniform
23
requirements controlling the discharge of
24
wastes from watercraft. It is further
25
-------
3623
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 '
recommended that all marinas and other
3
installations serving watercraft be required
4
to provide the proper disposal facilities.
5
This recommendation shall take effect by
6
March 1969."
7
MR. POOLE: Mr. Chairman.
8
MR. STEIN: Yes.
9
MR. POOLE: . I am in sympathy with
10
the first two sentences of the recommendation.
11
The Indiana Boating Law specifically exempts
12
Lake Michigan from our boating requirement.
13
Now, our legislature doesn't meet until January
14
1969 and it adjourns from about the 10th until
15
about the middle of March.
16
So here is Poole again raising this
17
question of dates, but we Just can't make/that
18
date.
19
MR. STEIN: What date do you want?
20
MR. POOLE: We' need an authorization
21
from the Governor to recommend amendments to
22
the Indiana Boating Law, and this will be done.
23
We are going to recommend it to the appropriate
24
committee next Wednesday. But we can't comply
25
-------
- 3624
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3 with the sense, of this recommendation.
4 MR. STEIN: How would you change
5 it? Whit amendment would you suggest?
6 MR. MITCHELL: I don't think that
7 this committee ought to tell a legislature
8 that they have to pass the law. You might
9 require the States tb propose such legis-
10 lation.
11 MR. STEIN: Yes.
12 MR. MITCHELL: And we can propose
13 it come Wednesday morning.
14 MR. STEIN: Well, I would agree
15 with you, because this is going to come up
16 again.
17 Well, shall we say that the first
18 two sentences are a policy operation and that
19 the four State water pollution control agencies
20 make appropriate legislative recommendations
21 either to their—I don't know how you do it--
22 either to the Governor or the legislature.
23
24
25
-------
3623
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
0. K.?
3
MR. OEMING: Well, it could be the
4
other way, Mr. Chairman.
5
MR. STEIN: Yes.
6
MR. OEMING: You could .say that the
7
States take such steps as are necessary to
8
control the discharge from watercraft and to
9
see that the marinas are provided with
10
facilities to take care.
11
MR. STEIN: Here is what we are
12
getting at, and we listened to these people.
13
I think there is a point on this uniformity
"
on your lake.
15
MR. OEMING: Oh, yes, uniformity.
16
MR. STEIN: The boaters say, you
17
know, they take a boat from one State to
18
another and they are on the lake, and I think
19
for the ease of all administration we would
20
be--
21
MR. OEMING: Put uniform" in there.
22
MR. STEIN: Yes.
23
MR. OEMING: 0. K. But my point,
Mr. Chairman, is that it may not be necessary
25
-------
^______ 3626
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to require by statute the marinas to do this.
3
Now, we are not in Michigan. We are
4 '
meeting with the marinas. They will provide
5
the facilities, there isn't any question about
6
it, and whatever you say you are going to re-
7
quire.
8
I think whatever steps are necessary
9
to get it, whether it is by statute or by--
10
MR. STEIN: I understand what you
11
mean. The difficulty that Mr. Poole has is
12
this. You take the first two sentences: you
13
may not have to do it by statute; they do. The
14
point is, if he has to do it by statute and we
15
impose a date on him, we can easily set a date
16
when we do this by administrative order, but
17
how do you do that with a legislature, Larry?
18
MR. OEMING: Yes. Well, I was getting
19
off the legislative kick onto being required to
20
take whatever steps are necessary, whether it
21
is statutory—
22
MR. STEIN: How would you do this?
23
Would you strike the last sentence?
24
MR. OEMING: No. That is, "it is
25
-------
3627
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
further recommended that the States take
3
whatever measures are necessary to assure
4
that marinas provide"--
5
MR. STEIN: No, no, "This recommen-
6
dation shall take effect by"--
7
MR. OEMING: Oh, the "take effect"
8
thing? Well, this they have got to iron out.
9
Ours is taken care of. I don't have any problem
10
there.
11
MR. POOLE: I am not quibbling.
12
The quicker it can take effect the better
13
I will be pleased, except I--
14
MR. OEMING: I would like to see
15
1970, as far as we are concerned, because that
16
is what our regulation says now.
17
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, may I
18
make a suggestion?
19
MR. STEIN: Yes.
20
MR. KLASSEN: That they immediately--
21
and I am implementing the first sentence--
22
immediately the four States get together to
23
see if we can--and I think we can--come up with
24
some uniform regulations, and I am saying
25
-------
3628
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
regulations in the broad sense, so that all four
3
States have the same regulations.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes. Kow about that?
5
Let's try this, that the four States
6
get together. And I think the important thing
7
here really is uniformity.
8
MR. OEMING: I think so.
9
MR. STEIN: The four States get
10
together coming up with uniform regulations.
11
How long would this take, six months,
12
do you think, to do this?
13
MR. KLASSEN: Oh, no, no, no. I think
14
we could do it in the next 30 days.
15
MR. STEIN: All right, within the
16
next 30 days. Is this reasonable?
17
MR. PGOLE: No, my calendar is full
18
the next 30 days except for next Tuesday.
10
MR. STEIN: Yes, I know. Well, I
20
hope not next Tuesday.
21
All right, we will give you 60 days.
22
But why don't you come up in the next 60 days
23
with uniform requirements?
24
Now, at the end of those 60 days,
25
-------
, 3629
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
would you in addition to coming up with the
3
uniform requirements on this--how about Illinois,
4 - - .
since you are so far advanced, taking the
5
chairmanship of this and let's have a--you
6
don't want it?
7
MR. KLASSEN: Oh, yes, yes. Modesty
8
Isn't one of our virtues.
9
MR. STEIN: I know that. All right.
10
(Laughter.)
11
MR. POSTON: Is the--
12
MR. STEIN: And the Federal people
13
will be there with you, I hope—
14
MR. KLASSEN: Well, don't leave this
15
yet, Mr. Chairman.
16
MR. POOLE: We are not going to.
17
MR. STEIN: Wait. Wait.
18
MR. KLASSEN: The next thing, the
19
Federal people be there to tell us what the
20
Federal Government is doing on interstate
21
traffic.
22
MR. STEIN: Yes. They can say that
23
real fast.
24
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K.
25
-------
' 3630
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
(Laughter.)
3
MR. STEIN: Yes.
4
MR. POSTON: Go ahead.
5 .
MR. POOLE: I don't want you to
6
depart too far here from sentences 1 and 2
7
of Recommendation 15, now, by Just rubbing
8
all that out and saying the States get
9
together--
10
MR. STEIN: No, no, no, no.
11
MR. POOLE: --and unify a program.
12
MR. STEIN: No, no, no, no.
13
MR. POOLE: That is the first thing.
14
The second thing is that you can't!
15
participate in it as one State representative.
16
I want to propose that we turn around and
17
recommend the same damned thing to you as far
18
as commercial vessels are concerned as we are
19
recommending to the States on this general
20
watercraft thing, because I am firmly convinced
21
that the only feasible and practicable way to
22
control commercial vessels is through the
23
Federal establishment.
24
MR. OEMING: Amen.
25
-------
. 3631
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
MR. STEIN: All right. Now, if
3
all the States agree with that, this is---1 am
not sure you do.
6 MR. OEMING: I do.
6
MR. STEIN: I haven't heard from
Wisconsin.
g
MR. KLASSEN: Not only agree, but--
9
MR. HOLMER: I beg your pardon?
10
MR. STEIN: Do you agree with these
other three States that the Federal Government
12
should try to assume the regulation of commercial
vessels?
14
MR. OEMING: Vessels in interstate
15
commerce is what we are talking about, commercial,
16
cargo carriers.
17
MR. STEIN: Do you want to put that
18
in here?
19
MR. POOLE: I thought we discussed
20
this earlier as to whether or not that you as
21
Federal Conferees can be involved in a recom-
22
mendation that involves Federal legislation.
23
MR. STEIN: No, but we—
24
MR. POOLE: And if you can't--
25
-------
3632
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Yes, I want to put It in as one of
3
the recommendations of the four State Conferees.
4
MR. STEIN: Right. All right.
5
You can put this in,"Commensurate requirements
6
controlling the discharge of wastes from com-
7
mercial vessels be adopted by the Federal
8
Government." And I don't know that you have
9
to put this in terms of legislation. Maybe
10
we can do-- Now, we can say that within 60
11
days the States and the Federal Government
12 j
will report on what our program is to do it.
13
Now, you can either do this by regulation or
14
by seeking legislation or something of that kind.
15
Let me again give you the problem that
16
we have in the Federal level with this. One,
17
this has to be legislation and getting a bill
18
through the Congress. Secondly, it is relatively
19
easy to control an American boat or an American
20
ship, but what we are dealing with on the Federal
21
level--and, Mr. Poole, you know I have been
22
working for this • every time I try at this--
23
what you are dealing with on the Federal level
24
is you are dealing with foreign boats, and we
25
-------
3633
1 . EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
always have this battle with the merchant
3
marine, any time you begin getting strin-
4
gent on American flag vessels for whatever
5
reason, waste disposal, sanitary facilities,
6
safety facilities, you suddenly find a
7
fleeing of the registry from the United
8
States registry to another registry, and
9
you wonder what you have accomplished.
10
And then you may be thrown back on the
11
notion that the only way you are going to
12
get this is by treaty, and this is a very,
13
very involved question for us.
14
MR. POOLE: I understand that. But
15
I don't want the_ f our States here to come up
16
with legislation and have to follow through
17
and in addition to the City of Chicago having
18
a representative over on the St. Lawrence
19
Seaway to catch the boats that are coming into
20
the Port of Chicago for the States of Indiana
21
and Michigan and Illinois and Wisconsin to have
22
representatives sitting over there to catch
23
them that happen to be coming in. This is
24
why I say that regardless of the complications--
25
-------
3634
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: All right,
3
MR. OEMING: This is as--
4
MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, the
5 ' .'..'•
Recommendation #15 on watercraft is intended
6
to imply that the type of ordinance or regu-
7
lations would eliminate anything but holding
8
tanks or incinerators, some type of treatment
9
or holding that would eliminate discharge to
10
the lake. And I wanted to make sure whether
11
everybody else understood this.
12
MR. STEIN: Well, that is Recommendation
13
#16, and if it implies that I don't read it in that
W
at all.
15
MR. OEMING: It has got to be restated.
16
MR.vSTEIN: What is in here that would
17
give us even the glimmer of that indication?
18
MR. POSTON: The fact that we require
19
land facilities was the--
20
MR. OEMING: I think it needs to be
21
restated if that is what you mean.
22
MR. STEIN: No. If you mean that,
23
and I don't know that the Conferees want to
24
come to that Judgment now, I would like the
25
-------
3635
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Conferees of the States, and this was the
3
point of that two-month meeting that Mr.
4
Klassen points out, I would like the States
5
to get together when you talk about uniform
6
requirements and see if you can meet this
7
issue. But I don't read the implication in
8
here.
9
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, apropos
10
of all this, I Just want to report here that
11
at the conference Michigan stated that it would
12
have regulations in effect by June of '68.
13
The regulation has now been adopted, and we
14
may be a little bit before the fact here, I
15
don't know what this means, what this implies
16
in the way of a change in our regulations, but
17
I just want to throw this out so that we--
18
And we are adopting what Wally Poston
19
has said, no discharges overside from—well,
20
except at the present time we have excepted
21
macerator chlorinators. This is what you are
22
even--
23
MR. KLASSEN: You have excepted not
accepted?
25
-------
3636
1 EXECUTIVE SES'SION
2
MR. OEMING: We have not accepted.
3
MR. KLASSEN: You have not accepted.
4
MR. OEMING: They will not be approved
5
as of now.
6
MR. KLASSEN: In other words, what
7
you are saying, and I think this is something--
8
I know there are a lot of boating people here
9
that have been waiting for these Conferees to
10
come up with something. As I understand
11
Michigan's position, you favor the so-called
12
model boating ordinance without approval of
13
the macerator chlorinator?
14
MR. OEMING: That is correct.
15
MR. KLASSEN! So do we.
16
MR. POSTON: Without discharge overside?
17
MR. KLASSEN: Without discharge overside.
18
MR. POOLE: I think so do we, except that
19
I';don't: know what is going to be available five
20
years from now, and--
21
MR. KLASSEN: That is right. That is
22
right, neither do we.
23
MR. STEIN: How about, are you the
24
same way?
25
-------
3637
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Yes.
3
MR. STEIN: I don't know that—
4
MR. KLASSEN: The model act leaves
5
it open.
6
MR. STEIN: Yes.
7
MR. KLASSEN:: This is why, Mr. Chairman,
8
I don't think this is going to take long for us
9
to get together.
10
MR. STEIN: Right.
11
MR. KLASSEN: Because I think all
12
the States--! don't want to speak for all of
13
them--but are pretty much in agreement that
14
sometime in the future there may be some approved
15
methods--
16
MR. STEIN: Yes.
17
MR. KLASSEN: --but right now there is
18
not, and the macerator chlorinator that has been
19
promoted by the boating people is not acceptable
20
to the four States.
21
MR. STEIN: Right.
22
. MR. KLASSEN: I think this is something
23
that they ought to know.
24
MR. STEIN: This is true for Wisconsin,
25
-------
3638
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
isn't it, sir?
3
MR. HOLMER: Yes.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, as I under-
5
stand it--and here is why I don't know whether
6
you want to adopt the principle--as I read that
7
model ordinance and read your approach, you are
8
given several options. One, in the future if
9
you believe that something is developed you can
10
exercise it.
11
MR. OEMING: Yes.
12
MR. STEIN: As of now you have not
13
adopted any option except the holding tank.
14
MR. KLASSEN: That is correct.
15
MR. STEIN: But your law and your
16
regulation permits you to adopt another option
17
if and when a device comes in.
18
MR. OEMING: Right.
10
MR. STEIN: Now, I think possibly
20
we should leave it that way.
21
MR. KLASSEN: Right.
22
MR. STEIN: Because if this is the
23
philosophy, and I know you have worked this out
24
very hard, unless you want to change it here
25
-------
3639
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to say no dumping overboard, because this
3
makes a switch.
4
MR. KLASSEN: I think you stated it
5
properly.
6
MR. STEIN: Right.
7
MR. OEMING: You stated it properly.
8
MR. STEIN: 0. K. Then let's see
9
if we can go on.
10
11
RECOMMENDATION #17
12
13
MR. STEIN: "17. The United States
14
Department of Agriculture be requested to
15
submit a report within six months on programs
16
for preventing pollution from agriculture."
17
MR. KLASSEN: Wastes.
18
MR. STEIN: Does this mean stuff like
19
spraying of Dutch Elm, for Dutch Elm disease
20
and stuff, or what do you mean?
21
MR. OEMING: No, I didn't think so. I
22
think you are talking about siltation, aren't
23
you, Mr. Poston?
24
MR. PURDY: Fertilizers?
25
-------
^_ 3640
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Is this pesticides and
3
insecticides as well as siltation? What do
4
you mean there?
5
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think we meant
6
principally siltation, land—use practices.
7
MR. OEMING: I think you should
8
say so. I think you should say so, then.
9
MR. STEIN: Do you cover pesticides
10
in here?
11
MR. OEMING: Yes. That is why I
12
raise the question here. You don't want to
13
overlap. I have got another idea on pesticides.
14
MR. STEIN: Yes.
15
MR. OEMING: But aren't you looking
16
at siltation here primarily?
17
MR. STEIN: For siltation?
18
MR. POSTON: Well, it is land use
19
practices and we tried to give it a general
20
heading.
21
MR. STEIN: From agricultural land
22
use practices. All right, then, let's put it
23
down, because otherwise you are going to--right?
24
MR. COOK: No, it is more than that.
25
-------
3641
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Let's get straight on
3
what we mean here.
4
MR. STEIN: What do you mean? Right.
5
MR. COOK: Feed lots, dairy practices,
6
siltation.
7
MR. POOLE: Duck ponds.
8
MR, COOK: Duck ponds, the whole
9
broad coverage except pesticides.
10
MR. KLASSEN: Spraying for Japanese
11
beetles?
12
MR. OEMING: No, I am not so sure.
13
MR. STEIN: No, they don't mean that.
14
Except spraying. They mean everything except
15
pesticides, this is what was meant there.
16
All right.
17
MR. MITCHELL: What type of report?
18
A report of what the problem is or repoTt of
10
what their proposals should be? 'We ought to
20
spell that out.
21
MR. OEMING: If I were the Department
22
of Agriculture I wouldn't know what to do if I
23
got this.
24
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think this was
25
-------
3642
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
brought up, we don't know. In the first
3
meeting we really don't know what programs
4
they have, if any, and we would like to find
5
out.
6
MR. KLASSEN: Who are they going to
7
report to, us?
8
MR. STEIN: Us. But again, Mr. Oeming
9
points out if he were given a directive like
10
this, what would you come in with?
11
MR. KLASSEN: I--
12
I MR. MITCHELL: That is right.
13
MR. KLASSEN: It is your recommenda-
14
tion. I don't know. And I don't know what the
15
Department of Agriculture, the Federal Department
16
of Agriculture, has to do with feed lots in the
17
State of Illinois.
18
MR. OEMING: As far as we are concerned,
19
we have control over those.
20
MR. KLASSEN: So dovwe.
21
MR. OEMING: So if we want to exercise
22
it, we have got it. The Department of Agricul-
23
ture, we don't worry about them.
24
MR. KLASSEN: I think this is a little
25
-------
36^3
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
vague.
3
MR. STEIN: All right, do you want
4
to work on that now or can we have something
5
on Tuesday perfecting this? Let.'s do that.
6
MR. OEMING: Let's perfect that.
7
MR. STEIN: All right.
8
Eighteen. I think we all know what
9
we mean, but we had better perfect it.
10
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, Tuesday
11 .
is getting lengthier by the minute here.
12
(Laughter.)
13
MR. MITCHELL: I would rather discuss
1*
an item like this, it is only 9:30> in a little
15
bit more detail.
16
MR. STEIN: All right, I am ready.
17
MR. MITCHELL: It seemed to me, if
18
I am trying to interpret what the FWPCA wants,
19
is they would like for the experts in the Depart-
20
ment of Agriculture to come back and point out
21
some future ideas and programs that might be
22 ,
accepted by States and Federal Government to
23
start cutting down on some of the pollution
24
problems that are currently being caused by
25
-------
3644
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
agriculture? Then that is a little bit more
3
specific in telling them what you want.
4
MR. POSTON: .Sediments, pesticides,
5
fertilizers.
6
MR. OEMING: Oh--
7
MR. STEIN: Oh, no. Wait, wait, wait.
8
The difficulty is, I thought we said we weren't
9
going to cover pesticides here, they were coming
10
later. Now, if we are talking about sediment
11
and siltation and land runoff, can we be specific?
12
Let me try this:
13
"The United States Department of
14
Agriculture be requested to submit a report
15
to the Conferees within six months on agricul-
16
tural programs which the--on programs which the
17
State water pollution control agencies--on
18
programs to prevent pollution from agricultural
19
land use such as siltation, feed lot operation:—
20
what else do you have?
21
MR. KLASSEN: Could you get in there
22
the word "practices" to cover all of this
23
"agriculture practices"?
24
MR. STEIN: Agriculture practices--
25
-------
: 3645
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
3
MR. STEIN: --such as siltation,
4
feed lot operation—what else?
6
MR. COOK: Dairying.
6
MR. STEIN: Dairy farming--dairying.
7
What?
8
MR. MORTON: A dairy is a feed lot
9
operation as far as--
10
MR. STEIN: Is it?
11
MR. COOK: Two different operations,
12
MR. STEIN: All right.
13
MR. COOK: Murray, may I say a word?
14
Actually, Secretary Freeman right
15
now has ordered a report of this nature and
16
it will be out within six months and this was
17
in our thinking when we developed this recom-
18
mendation. It will cover the whole field of
19
agriculture.
20
MR. STEIN: All right.
21
Are you satisfied, Mr. Mitchell?
22
I think they are a little more specific. All
23
right.
24
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
RECOMMENDATION #18
3
4
MR. STEIN: "The United States
5
Department of Transportation and State highway
6
departments be requested to submit reports within
7
six months on programs for preventing pollution
8
from highway construction."
9
MR. OEMING: I would leave it up to
10
the U. S. Department of Transportation. They
11
are the ones who are riding herd on the State
12
highway departments and they have got a good
13
handle on them.
14
MR. STEIN: I have no objection if
15
you want the State--
16
MR. MITCHELL: I am sure our State
17
highway department has the same feelings that
18
we have on the pollution control board, they
19
like to have a voice in the things as they go
20
along.
21
MR. OEMING: But they have got the
22
voice through the Transportation now, haven't
23
they, through the U. S. Department of Trans-
24
portation?
25
-------
^_____ 3647
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: How do you want this?
3
MR. OEMING: I don't know how we can
4
insert ourselves in here as a peacemaker between
5
the two of them.
6
MR. KLASSEN: I am wondering, Mr.
7
Chairman, why are we injecting highway depart-
8
ments in water pollution., In each of the
9
States, if there is any water pollution from
10
highway construction, this is the State's re-
11
sponsibility.
12
MR. OEMING: That is right.
13
MR. KLASSEN: Why are we getting them
14
in the act?
15
MR. OEMING: The highway commissioner
16
sits on my commission.
17
MR. KLASSEN: What?
18
MR. OEMING: The highway commissioner
19
is a member of my commission.
20
MR. STEIN: Yes. Now, why don't--
21
if we are dealing with this--
22
MR. KLASSEN: What is the problem?
23
MR. STEIN: No, let me raise this
24
question. I think Mr. Klassen has a very good
25
-------
3648
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
point. Can we say the States will submit
3
a report to us on their programs for this?
4
Because this is part of the State program unless
s
you have it,
6
MR. KLASSEH: Why are we picking on
7
highway construction any more than--
8
MR. BOSTON: Well, this has to do with
9
sediment. Construction of roads, farming, and
10
urban developments are sources of sediment.
11
This is the intent for land—use practices,
12
MR. KLASSEN: Is this a problem in
13
Lake Michigan?
14
MR. OEMING: Wait a minute. Have we
15
had any testimony that sediment siltation from
16
highway construction is a problem? I don't
17
remember anything in the conference testimony.
18
MR. KLASSEN: Why was this brought
19
in?
20
MR. OEMING: Why is this a problem?
21
MR, POSTON: Because this is one of
22
the sources of sediment in our streams.
23
MR. OEMING: Well, I guess my lot is,
24
too, in Lansing, but—
25
-------
^__ . 36*19
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 MR. KLASSEN: So are parking lots.
3 MR. POSTON: Not until your lot is subject
to construction is it any source of--
5 MR. OEMXNG: Oh, I could get ridiculous,
6 but I am not going to here.
7 MR. PURDY: Gardening.
8 MR. OEMING: Yes.
9 MR. STEIN: Let me ask you this. I
10 know in the Potomac River, for example, that
11 the highway construction and the subdivision
12 construction together make a significant con-
18 tribution to the appearance of that river and
14 the silt. Are they significant here? Is this
a significant problem here or not? I don't
i
-------
3650
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
We haven't got the silt out and the people
3
aren't--
4
MR. OEMING: Well, you have a different
5
problem there; that is a different kind of
6
situation.
7
MR. STEIN: Yes. The people aren't
8
sure we have cleaned up the river because they
9
still see it run muddy.
10
Is this a significant problem in
11
Lake Michigan or not?
12
MR. KLASSEN: Let me say this from
13
my standpoint, if highway construction is a
14
significant problem so far as Lake Michigan
15
pollution is concerned, we ought to direct
16
ourselves to that and really take some action.
17
But frankly, I haven't heard anything to indicate
18
highway construction is this. If it is, let's
19 I
do something about it. If not, let's not waste our
20
time on it and get on to something else.
21
MR. STEIN: All right.
22
May I make this suggestion? Let's
23
eliminate #18 here and the Federal water
24
pollution control agency representatives will
25
-------
• 3651
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
make a report, because I haven't seen this
3
or the evidence to support this, at the first
4 '
progress meeting in six months on this siltation
5
problem from lots and highways and either say
6
it is significant or it is not significant.
7
If it is significant, we will take it up then.
8
0. K.?
9
MR, POOLE: I think that is quite
10
in order, Mr. Chairman, with the conclusion
11
that we added yesterday, which was that concern
12
has been expressed about de-icing, and so on*
13
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, I think this
14
de-icing is in the same category. Unless I
15
can see some real evidence that de-icing is a—
16
that salt is a deterrent to Lake Michigan, and
17
I have seen evidence the other way, I think we
18
have to be persuaded. I haven't seen the evidence
19
yet.
20
MR. POOLE: No. Well, I didn't finish,
21
The conclusion was about de-icing and the effect
22
of highway and building construction on the quality
23
of water in Lake Michigan.
24
MR. STEIN: Right.
25
-------
• : 3652
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POOLE: So now if you are asking
3
for a report in six months--
4
MR. STEIN: Right.
5
MR/ POOLE: --we are deepening our
6
recommendations and arming our conclusions.
7
MR. STEIN: Right. Thank you.
8
9
RECOMMENDATION #19
10
MR. STEIN: "Each State water pollution
12 ,i
control agency establish a permanent --
13
MR. OEMING: You should read 19 also,
14
Mr. Chairman, in connection with that.
15
MR. STEIN: All right, I will.
16
Each state water pollution control
17
agency establish a permanent program to determine
18
how much, when, where, and what kinds of pesti-
19
cldes are being used. Findings to be reported
20
to the Conferees annually."
21
MR. KLASSEN: May I make one suggestion
22
here. Let's include what we are really after
23
to determine the levels in the water of these
24
pesticides. This is what we really want to know.
25
-------
3633
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
3
MR. STEIN: Yes.
4
MR. OEMING: Maybe this would save
5
time here. Michigan is deeply involved in this
6
pesticide program, you heard the Director of
7
Conservation from the State, and others are
8
concerned with it. But we are in a thicket
9
here as to what we do--how much escapes to the
10
streams, all these things. This is a very
11
complicated problem. And I am not certain that
12
we are ready yet to propose any legislation.
13
There is some legislation proposed, but I don't
14
know where it is going.
15
I would suggest that this is the kind
16
of subject that would lend itself to further
17
exploration by a technical committee established
18
by this Board of Conferees to consist of one
10
member from each of the States and headed by a
20
member of the Federal Water Pollution Control
21
Administration regional office in Chicago. And
22
here is what I have in mind.
23
MR. STEIN: Why do you want to get the
24
regional office in Chicago?
25
-------
365**
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Well, I don't care.
3
MR. STEIN: The reason I was thinking,
4
I see one non-Federal expert on pesticides
5
sitting in the audience, and I don't know tco
6
many in the country. If this is going to be
7
meaningful, we are probably going to have to
8
comb the country to find a real good man for
9
you.
10
MR. OEMING: I have an idea, Mr.
11
Chairman, and some of the members aren't aware
12
of this, probably, but we did such a thing at
13
the Lake Erie conference with respect to deter-
14
gents, you will recall, and I felt that was
15
very productive. It was the most productive
16
effort in this line, in this kind of ah.area.
17
And I don't care much whether you head it--who
18
you head it up by. But I am looking at this, that
19
this kind of a technical committee would go into
20
the matter, explore with the various people who
21
are working in this field with relation to the
22
significance, the water pollution significance
23
here. And I am very impressed, and I want to
24
recommend highly to you an article by Mr. Page--
25
-------
3655
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Dr. Page Nicholson of the Federal Water Pollution
3
Control Administration that came out in November
4
of '67. This highlights, it seems to me, all of
5
the aspects that we are concerned with as a board.
6
He certainly should be called upon.
7
There are people that I sought to have
8
called at this conference, and I am still unhappy
9
about this.
10
MR. STEIN: Who?
11
MR. OEMING: There was a Dr. Reinert
12
of the University of Michigan who is deeply in-
13
volved in the fish problem in Lake Michigan, and
14
I couldn't get him to this conference. That is,
15
Mr. Poston asked--! asked Mr. Poston to ask him,
16
Poston wrote him and we got somebody else that
17
Just generally talked about the thing.
18
Now, I think--
id
MR. STEIN: Doesn't this Reinert work
20
for us?
21
MR. OEMING: --that it is time we got—
22
MR. STEIN: He doesn't work for us.
23
MR. OEMING: He is in the commercial
24
fishery down there. He works for the Department
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
of the Interior and you passed this on to
3
Carbine and Carbine did not see fit to send
4
him here to tell us what he knows. And I
5
know he knows something that would have been
6
helpful to this board.
7
MR. STEIN: Let me just go off the
8
record.
9
(Off the record.)
10
MR. OEMING: The point I am trying to
11
make here, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to make
12
an issue of this, but the point I am trying to
13
make is that the record at the conference is
14
woefully weak in this area. All we have is a
15
concern expressed. We did not get any informa-
16
tion that we could act upon. And I don't feel
17
that these recommendations are very productive.
18
It seems to me that what is productive
19
is somebody to sit down and get their teeth into
20
it and put this into perspective by calling the
21
experts, everybody in the country, which the
22
detergent people did. They went through and
23
called everybody who they thought knew anything
24
about detergents.
25
-------
3657
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3
I want the same thing done here.
4
MR. POOLE: That is why I would
6
endorse that. As you recall the Lake
6
Erie, we had a technical committee, but
7
it was authorized to ask anybody that it
8
wanted to come in and participate. And it
9
seems to me that that pattern you had for
10
Lake Erie is quite applicable to the pesti-
11
cide situation.
12
MR. STEIN: Is this agreeable With
13
the people here? If this is--
14
Yes.
15
This is a question we have all the
16
time and that is why I didn't want to limit
17
this. It might be wise, as we did in your
18
commit"tee that we had on the water quality
19
standards in the lower end of Lake Michigan
20
where we had Kittrell, who almost put full
21
time on the job, and to get a man like Page
22
Nicholson up here to do something like
23
this.
24
25
-------
3658
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3
But let's say that a technical
4 . '
committee to work on pesticides, chaired
5
by the Federal Water Pollution Control
6
Administration, and having representatives
7
from each State will be established.
8
Findings and determinations on the pesti-
9
cide problem and a program to control it
10
will be reported to the Conferees by this
11
committee. A first report will be made
12
to the Conferees in six months. The com-
13
mittee, among other things, will determine--
14
will explore the amounts of pesticides in
15
the waters of Lake Michigan--in the Lake
16
Michigan drainage basin and a--
17
MR. OEMING: And evaluate the water
18
quality problems.
19
MR. STEIN: --and evaluate the
20
water quality programs in connection there-
21
with.
22
23
24
25
-------
3659
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Now, let's go on to surveillance, 20.
3
MR. OEMING: Did you say PWPCA is a
4
member of that committee?
5
MR. STEIN: 'Chairman,11! said.
6
MR. OEMING: 0. K., I missed it.
7
MR. STEIN: Yes. Because we are
8
probably going to have to break one of our
9
experts loose to handle this.
10
MR. OEMING: 0. K.
11
MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, we would
12
like to insert in here something relative to
13
septic tanks.
14
MR. STEIN: All right, yes.
15
MR. POSTONi We have a paragraph here.
16
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, this is from the
17
Wisconsin recommendation, 2.1 on page 11, and
18
it seems to me that it is a lot broader and
19
could be very well incorporated a* another
20
recommendation.
21
MR. STEIN: Yes, go on. Mr. Oeming
22
was raising a question about septic tanks
23
yesterday.
24
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, I will read it
25
-------
3 660
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the way I would propose to change it, Mr. Holmer.
3
"it is recommended that each of the
4
State water pollution control agencies have
5
drafted, and seek introduction in 19&9* parallel
6
legislation designed to achieve controls of use
7
of unincorporated land areas and of lands bor-
8
dering on streams and lakes in the basin. Such
9
legislation should relate to the creation of
10
subdivisions," and I would think wherever located,
11
"regulation of water supply and sewage disposal
12
systems," and I have inserted, "the latter with
13
particular reference to control and elimination
14
of septic tanks." And then next, "minimizing
15
flood hazards and the control of erosion and
16
runoff."
17
Pardon?
18
MR. OEMING: We have got no problem.
19
You have no problem with us. We have got it
20
already, so--and Wisconsin has too, I think.
21
MR. STEIN: Did you propose that?
22
Is that agreeable to you, Mr. Holmer?
23
MR. HOLMER: We think it's a good
24
recommendation.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: How about the other States?
3
MR, POOLE: We will buy that, but I
4
remind you of an experience I had several years
5
ago when I was on the National Research Council
6
Committee on Sanitary Engineering and the
7
Director of the National Research Council came
8
in and said that the space agency had asked them
9
to start thinking about the disposal of waste,
10
in space and he wanted this committee to do it
11
and Gordon Fair said, "That is simple, Just open
12
the hatch and put it into orbit," and we dis-
13
missed it with that and then we got into a two-
14
hour argument about septic tanks.
15
(Laughter.)
16
I don't want this conference here to
17
deteriorate into what that meeting did.
18
MR. STEIN: You have one of the
19
Nation's experts on septic tanks working for
20
you. I haven't seen him for awhile *
21 •
MR. POOLE: Which one is that?
22
MR. STEIN: Who is your colleague?
23
You know, the deputy who handled that during
the war. What was his name?
25
-------
3662
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: Joe Queen.
3
MR. STEIN: No. Who was that other
4
fellow working there?
5
MR. PC-OLE: Helder?
6
MR. STEIN: Heixle*. Heide.r,, -ye.s .
7
MR. KLASSEN: I think this is a good
8 .
recommendation. However, it will take some real
9
modifications and different thinking in many of
10
our legislatures, because now we are invading
private property that may or may not in any way
12
have anything to do with water pollution.
13
But I am willing to give it a try
14
MR. STEIN: All right. Let's see if
15
we can have this drafted for the consideration
16
of the Conferees on Tuesday. I don't think
17
this one should present too much of a problem
18
and we are pretty definite on it.
19
May we go on?
20
21
RECOMMENDATION
22
23
MR. STEIN: Surveillance. "Each State
24
«rater pollution control agency monitor tributaries
25
-------
366-3
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
near the point of discharge to Lake Michigan
3
and report results to the Conferees annually,
4 -
Measurements should be made of all constitu-
5
tuents necessary to determine water quality,
6
including pesticides, and quantities of inputs
7
to the lake."
8
MR. OEMING: My first question, Mr.
9
Chairman, is shouldn't this "including pesti-
10
cides" be included in this committee activity
11
here, that they ought to determine? As I read
12
Page Nicholson, there are some problems here.
13
MR. STEIN: Shall we strike that for
14
now?
15
MR. OEMING: Include that in the other
16
committee.
17
MR. STEIN: Yes, let's strike that
18
from this one here. That raises some technical
19
problems right now.
20
Are there any—
21
What we have done, gentlemen, is we have
22
struck "including pesticides" because of
23
technical difficulties at this time until
24
the committee comes in with its recommendations.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Are there any other comments on this
3
one?
4
If not, let's go on to 21;
5
6
RECOMMENDATION #21
7
8
MR. STEIN: "The Department of the
9
Interior establish a monitoring program for
i°
Lake Michigan that will include determinations
11
of those characteristics and constituents that
12
will indicate trends in water quality."
13
I am not sure what that means.
14
MR. OEMING: I am not so sure either.
15
Can you tell us, Mr. Poston, what
16
you mean by this, what you have in mind?
17
MR. POSTON: What we had in mind was
18
sampling in the lake to give you quality of
19
lake water from time to time. This would be
20
done this year and--
21
MR. OEMING: You are doing it now,
22
aren't you?
23
MR. POSTON: No.
24
MR. OEMING: Aren't you?
25
-------
3665
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: No.
3
MR. OEMINQ: 0. K.
4 • .- . • .
MR. STEIN: This would seem to me
5 . • . '
to make more sense. I don't want to quibble
6
with this. But we have a couple of vague
7 •
recommendations here that anyone can drive a
8
truck through. I don't know what tributaries
9
the States are going to monitor, etc. If you
10
mean that we should set up a really joint
11
monitoring program in which we are going to
12
come to an agreement with the States that they
13
are going to set up monitoring points on certain
14
tributaries and look for some stuff; the Federal
15
Government is going to get out in the lake and
16
do it; we are going to exchange information—I
17
think we have got one thing. But, .1 believe
18
if this is going to be meaningful and we are
19 , • '
all not going to go off in different directions,
20 :
we must work together. Again, this seems
21
like a technical committee's Job in which
22
we get a plan worked out, you know, where each Statje
23
is going to come forward and where you are going
24
25
-------
3666
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to monitor .what we: are.-going, to find .so .
3
that the results -will dovetail and ; be
4
meaningful/.
5
Yes, sir.
6
MR. MITCHELL: I Just read Mr. Holmer's
7
recommendation on page 9> 1.1. It is almost
8
identical to what you Just said, Mr. Chairman.
9
MR. STEIN: All right.
10
MR. OEMING: You know, I like that a
11
little better, Mr. Chairman, "for improvements
12
in the water quality monitoring," because this
13
implies that there isn't any and we know there
14
is a lot of monitoring in the States and--at
15
least in the States.
16
. MR. STEIN: Well, this is Just FWPCA.
17
Can I say there that--
18
MR. OEMING: ' No, it isn't, Mr. Chairman.
19
MR. MITCHELL: 1.1 there.
20
MR. OEMING: "Including State repre-
21
sentation."
22
MR. PURDY: "including State represen-
23
tation," you see.
24
MR. STEIN: Oh. Yes.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Can we make this a committee, a
3
Conferee action?
4
MR. OEMING: I don't see any reason
5
why not.
6
MR. STEIN: Yes, that the Conferees
7 •
have a Joint committee for this, the cities and
8
the States, to develop recommendations for
9
improvement in the water quality monitoring
10
program of the State agencies in Lake Michigan
11
and the Federal—water quality monitoring
12
programs of the State agencies and the Federal
13
Government in Lake Michigan, work out a co-
14
ordinated program and submit such recommen-
15
dations to the Conferees for comment at the
16
next--in six months at the next progress meeting.
17
0. K.? This would be fine.
18
Thank you. All right.
10
20
RECOMMENDATION #22
21
22
MR. STEIN: Now 22. "The Coast Guard
23
be requested to step up aircraft pollution
24
patrols on Lake Michigan, report all suspected
25
-------
3609
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
pollution cases Immediately to the Federal Water
3
Pollution Control Administration, and report semi-
4
annually to the Conferees on surveillance activities
5 • ' . •
What does this mean?
6
MR. POSTON: The Coast Guard does
7
considerable helicopter surveillance, and we
8
considered that they might be amenable to
9
making some visual observations at times of
10
other flights and on special flights since
11
they are interested in oil pollution spills
12
and could report back to the agencies through
13
the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency.
14
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, I am hesitant
15
on this again, and you know I don't want to be
16
too defensive with the Federal agencies, but
17
the implication here is the Coast Guard doesn't
18
do this now. As far as I know, they are report-
19
ing every oil spill they see.
20
You may want to improve this or
21
something, but the Coast Guard is charged
22
with enforcing all the laws of the United
23
States as they relate to water and they are
24
pretty alert, as far as I can see, on oil spills.
25
-------
3669
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
What more do we want them to do?
3
MR. OEMING: Well, they wai.t--
4
MR. POOLE: They could step up.
5
MR. POSTON: Step it up, yes.
6
MR. STEIN: Well, again--
7 ' • " ' ' '...'•
MR. POSTON: Do you know what they
8
do?
9
MR. STEIN: What?
10
MR. POSTON: Do you know what they
11
do?
12
MR. STEIN: No, but I haven't heard any
13
testimony as to what they do or what they don't
14
do.
15
MR. POSTON: That is what I would
16
like to know.
17
MR. STEIN: Well, but you say
18
"requested to step up." Now, if you want a
W
report from the Coast Guard and we are going
20
to request them on their program and a co-
21
ordinated program with us, this is fine. But
22 • -' . • ' . • '
I would hate to make a recommendation on some-
23
thing for a step-up when we haven't really
24
had any testimony or heard what they are doing.
25
-------
36EO
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: How would it be, Mr.
3
Chairman, if we Just requested the Coast Guard
4
to inform the Conferees as to their present--
5
MR/ STEIN: And future.
6
MR. OEMING: --present and future
7
plans for monitoring and reporting?
8
MR. STEIN: Right.
9
MR. POSTON: 'O.K.
10
MR. STEIN: Right. 0. K.?
11
12 ,
RECOMMENDATION #23
13
14 H
MR. STEIN: "23. The State water
15
pollution control agencies arrange for water
16
quality analysis, including planktonic algae
17
counts, to be performed daily at the following
18
water filtration plants: Green Bay, Milwaukee,
19 .
Evanston, Chicago (both plants), Gary, Michigan
20
-.City, Benton Harbor, and Grand Rapids. Results
21
be reported annually to the Conferees."
22
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, I think
23
there is a question here, not in most of these,
24
at least> that I know of, but at least
25
-------
. : ; 367*
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
differentiating between Grand Rapids and
3
Benton Harbor capabilities. Now, presently
4
Grand Rapids is doing tests. They are not
5
doing them daily, and I question whether
6
there is a need for daily at this time.
7
Certainly, as far as we are concerned, we
8
are willing to ask and secure or urge them,
9
Benton Harbor, tc do the same testing.
10
Now, when we say "required-let1 s
11
say, "arrange," that says "arrange for";
12
I guess we are all right there. But I would
13
question the daily--
14
MR. STEIN: How frequently do you
15
think it would have to be done?
16
MR. OEMING: I would like to start
17
out here, Just as a starting point, that twice
18
weekly, and let's see where we get with this
19
first.
20
MR. STEIN: To be--can we--
21
MR. PO&TON: Why not Just leave out
22
"daily," then, and Just say, "be performed
23
at the following"--
24
MR. STEIN: Can we say "be performed
25
-------
3672
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
at least twice weekly"?
3
MR, OEMING: Something like that.
4
MR. STEIN: How about that?
5
MR. OEMING: That would be all right.
6
MR. STEIN: Let's try that.
7
MR. OEMING: Would you say "at least
8
twice weekly"?
9
MR. STEIN: "At least twice weekly."
10
MR. OEMING: This would be a minimum.
11
And then I would suggest one more, and maybe we
12
are getting into too much detail--
13
MR. STEIN: No.
14
MR. OEMING: --but as the counts
15
increase to vary the--or there is a variation
16
in species to increase this, if you want to
17
be specific, Wally.
18
MR. STEIN: No, I don't think we
19
need that.
20
MR. OEMING: All right.
21
MR. STEIN: Is this agreeable to
22
everybody?
23
Yes, Mr. Morton.
24
MR. MORTON: I would like to make a
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
comment similar to Michigan's in that the
3
City of Evanston may have difficulty making
4
that frequency desired. Now, the City of
5 .
Chicago already does this, has for many years,
6
so this is not a problem specifically.
7
MR. STEIN: Yes.
8
MR. MORTON: But Evanston--
9
MR. STEIN: Can Evanston do it twice
10
a week?
11
MR. MORTON: I would question it on
12
all parameters. They do some parametersr-
13
MR. OEMING: No, this is a gross —
14
MR. MORTON: ^*and what they feel neces-
15
sary in order to process their water, but not as--
16
MR. OEMING: Well, Mr. Morton, I
17
guess maybe you have got a point here as to
18
how extensive this must be in the analysis.
19
What we are talking about is gross counting
20
with some identification, not complete identi-
21
fication.
22
But this is what Grand Rapids is
23
doing. I don't know, I suppose Chicago is
24
doing more than anybody else in this area,
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
but I would think that we would have difficulty
3
requiring maybe some of the--a smaller plant
4 . ••
like Benton Harbor to do a complete identification.
5
A gross counting would certainly help,
6
and this is the basic thing, a gross counting
7
and with some identification of the more sig-
8
nificant, of the more specific--
9
MR. STEIN: Let's try this, if there
10
is no serious objection, and see how it works.
11
At least it will give us something to go on.
12
I know when you are dealing with these small
13
plants that you are going to have a little
14
slippage--
15
MR. OEMING: Yes.
16
MR. STEIN: --in this testing with
17
the best of intentions.
18
Is this agreeable? Is there any
19
objection to this one?
20
If not, let's go on.
21
Research.
22
MR. OEMING: You are going to say "at
23
least twice weekly"?
24
MR. STEIN: "At least twice weekly."
25
-------
3675
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: All right, fine.
3
MR. SCHNEIDER: There was one other
4
that we had talked about putting in, #19 in
5
the original report. That wasn't--
6
MR. STEIN: What page is that?
7
MR. SCHNEIDER: I think 66.
8
MR. OEMING: Yes, that is right. Yes,
9
you were talking about it.
10
Maybe that is not the one. I had
11
better not say.
12
MR. SCHNEIDER: 17, 18 and 19 were all
13
combined in other recommendations.
14
MR. OEMING: Yes.
15
MR. SCHNEIDER: We eliminated or forgot.
16
Well, 19 wasn't. It was Just left out.
MR. OEMING: 18 isn't, remember?
18
MR. SCHNEIDER: No, that is right, 18
19
isn't, but we will talk about that later. But I
20 * . .
think 19 ought to be considered now.
21
RECOMMENDATION 19 PROM FWPCA REPORT
22
MR. STEIN: All right, 19 reads:
ni "State water pollution control
24
agencies compile an inventory of all sites
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
where potential exists for major spills of
3
oil and other hazardous material; and require
4
that measures be taken where necessary to
5
prevent the escape of this material to the
6
waters.
7
MR. OEMING: Lake Michigan, as long
8
as you are talking about Lake Michigan, I don't
9
want to be running into Lansing, that isn't
10
going to get in the lake.
11
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, if you had a
12
major spill on a tributary--
is
MR. OEMING: It depends on where it
14
is, Bob. I mean we get a little unrealistic
15
to find out there is an oil tank up 80 miles
16
with dams-in between and all this stuff. That
17
isn't ever going to get there.
18
MR. STEIN: Do we understand that
19
this applies to pollution of Lake Michigan?
20
MR. PQSTON: We already have a questionnaire
21
out to you folks through Mr. Pemberton in which
22
he is compiling this information now.
23
MR. OEMING: Well, that is one thing.
24
But we are talking about Lake Michigan here now.
25
-------
367f
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
We will answer your questionnaire.
3
MR. POSTON: 0. K. Put in Lake
4
Michigan, then.
5
MR. OEMING: Well, this is what I suggest
6
MR. STEIN: "And other hazardous material
1 - .'•'•'.
which may affect the waters of Lake Michigan"?
8
MR, OEMING: Yes,
9
MR. STEIN:. All right. And, then we
10
will go on with that. 0. K.?
11
MR. OEMING: That is in Mr. Holmer's—
12
Freeman, isn't that one of yours?
13
MR. HOLMER: Well, ours is 2.3> but
14
I have no objection--
15
MR. OEMING: Is that close enough?
16
MR. HOLMER: --to using 19.
17
MR. STEIN: 0. K. We're about set.
18
, Now, any others? When are yo,u going
19
to take up this 18 here?
20
MR. SCHNEIDER: I thought that that
21
could go in--oh, it probably ought to go in now.
22
23 RECOMMENDATION 18 FROM PWPCA REPORT
24
MR. STEIN: All right. Let me read
25
-------
3678
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this. We have run into this problem before.
3
Let me -give you the problem.
4
"The discharge of oil from any source
5
into any waters of the Lake Michigan basin be
6
stopped entirely.
7
This brings us back to that zero
8
tolerance. The way we resolved it in the lower
9
end of the lake was "all visible oil." Is that
10
what you mean?
11
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, I think we would
12
like to establish some kind of a principle here.
13
Could we leave that in and then simply add
14
another sentence, "in the absence of more
15
definitive surveillance techniques a visual
16
observation should be the basis for enforcement
17
of the recommendation"? Would that be--
18
MR. STEIN: Well, again you are
10
raising this question of zero tolerance on
20
this operation. Every time we get a new
21
technique everyone who was in compliance is
22
not in compliance. Here is the issue.
23
You go to these big steel companies
24
and the petroleum companies and they are putting
25
-------
3679
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
in tens of millions of dollars to get an
3
operation where they will not produce any
4
visual oil or meet our requirements, and
5
as far as they are concerned they want a
6
little certainty and figure if they have
7
done this they are going to be off the hook.
8
maybe for 10 or 20 years and we are not going
9
to bother them. What we are doing here is
10
what we have always done with the zero tolerance
technique, we say, "o. K., you fellows, spend
12 • '.
$25 million, cut out all the visual oil, but
13
as soon as we can improve our technique you
14 .
are not going to be in compliance again and we
15
are going to be around and we are going to ask
16
you to do a little more." Now, this is from a
17
regulatory agency point of view.
18
We have all lived with this for the
19
past 20 years and been burned by it, I think
20
we possibly should avoid going down that road,
21
becaus.e we have tried it, and on its face it
22
looks good, but it doesn't work. I would like
23
to hold, if we could, in principle, away from
24
that zero tolerance, that any time you are going
25
-------
369G
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to run up with a new technique every industry
3
and city that was in compliance automatically
4 - ' ' '
runs out of compliance.
5
MR. POOLE: I support you, Mr. Chairman.
6
A literal interpretation of 17, I pointed out
7
before, would mean a filling station can't even
8
dump one oil change, a filling station anywhere
9
on the watershed.
10
MR. POSTON: Seventeen?
11
MR. SCHNEIDER: He means 18.
12
MR. OEMING: Eighteen.
13
MR. POOLE: That "stopped entirely"
14
has always bothered me.
15
MR. STEIN: Could we do it the same
16
as we had it in the lower end of Lake Michigan?
17
And we have worked through this with Illinois
18
and Indiana now and I think they can live with
19
it and I hope the rest of the States do. It
20
reads something like, "The discharge of visible
21
oil from any source into any waters--into the
22
waters of Lake Michigan is prohibited," or some-
23
thing of that kind.
24
MR. OEMING: I am happy.
25
-------
366-1
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POOLE: Yes.
3
MR. STEIN: All right. Let's see if»-
4
MR. POSTON: Leave off the word
"entirely."
6
MR. STEIN: Yes, that--
7
MR. OEMING: "Visible oil."
8
MR. STEIN: "Visible oil." And that
9
"entirely," you know, is again that zero tolerance
10
there. "Entirely" here is like when you say
"no smoking" and then you put up "positively."
12
(Laughter.)
13
You know.
14
All right. "Be eliminated." All right.
15
Now may we go on?
16
Yes.
17
MR. SCHNEIDER: You know, you raised
18
the point yesterday about these interstate
19
carriers, the tankers.
20
MR. OEMING: The tankers that are sunk.
21
MR. SCHNEIDER: And I have something
22
here that I think might go to the recommendation
23
that you had in your report.
24
MR. OEMING:. Yes.
25
-------
^__ 3682
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. SCHNEIDER: That an immediate
3
inspection program be conducted, and I don't
4
know by whom, of all vessels used for the
5
transport of liquid petroleum products to
6
determine either their seaworthiness or whatever
7
else you have to determine, and then that any
8
such vessels found to constitute an oil spillage
9
hazard be barred from Lake Michigan.
10
MR. POOLE: By whom?
11
MR. STEIN: Who is going to inspect
12
those?
13
MR. SCHNEIDER: I don't know.
14
MR. PURDY: Well, your lake carriers
15
are inspected annually anyhow as far as their
16
seaworthiness, aren't they?
17
MR. SCHNEIDER: I believe so. But
18
maybe there is some--
19
MR. STEIN: Well, we had a--
20
MR. SCHNEIDER: This was the point
21
down in Puerto Rico, as I understood, that
22
this was an old decrepit vessel that broke up
23
on a reef down there or something.
24
MR. STEIN: Well, this isn't going
25
-------
3683
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to get at that problem, though, Bob.
3
How, let me tell you, we are moving very
slowly--and I ask you to do this--you people all
5 ' -..'.-'• ' . •
recognize the problems we have with our Oil Pol-
6
lution Act. We are moving slowly in perfecting
7
techniques on oil pollution control, and there
8
is legislation that has passed the Senate; now
9
before the House Committee. I think we should
10
move on this carefully.
ll
The best way that we can see to
12
do this--and this is one of our proposals--
13
is to keep a list nationally of these
14
boats and indicate the bad actors our staff
15
finds in some of these people. The reason
16
is that the guy who is going to leak oil
17
in San Diego, New Orleans, Philadelphia
18
or Baltimore is going to do it in Chicago. Once
19
we have surveillance of that, we have a.pretty
20
good idea of someone you can get at.
21
I think on this question of boats being
22
decrepit that good housekeeping and a good attitude
23
are Just as important with relation to these oil spills
24 r
from boats. A man can run a relatively decrepit bokt
25
-------
3684
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION.
2
and be careful and do a reasonably good Job.
3
A man can have the most modern operation or
4 • . •
facility, and with his attitude he is going
5
to have oil spills in every port he is in.
6
So £ wonder if we could approach
7 ' .
that a little more carefully.
8
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, maybe I
9
haven't communicated"here what I had in mind.
10
What is concerning me is two things,
11
a vessel gets sunk out here, not through
12
carelessness or because it is an old vessel,
13
but it gets sunk and it has got oil in it.
14
And witnes.s the Morazan problem, we have been
15
fussing with this and I hope that this gets
16
taken care of this summer.
17
The second is an accident like we
18
had in the Detroit River could happen here
19
where a vessel sinks, it has got cyanide on
20
it or it has got some destructive material in
21
it. Now, we don't seem to be able to get
22
hold of this. It has taken a little time.
23 vl
We are hopeful we will get hold of this Morazan
24
problem with this several thousand gallons up here,
25
-------
3685
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
But I am looking for some mechanism
3
to get some responsible people rather than
4
filing suits,and it takes so damned long to
5
get the suit filed and get it heard. We are
6
filing a suit on this Morazan thing.
7
But this is not going to prevent a
8
hazard if that boat should break up out there
9
and that oil get on our beaches this summer.
10
This is what I am aiming at.
11
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, isn't that in
12
the old pollution act now the Secretary--
13
MR. STEIN: Well, we can do this. No,
14
this is what is proposed. We don't have that
15
in legislation now.
16
MR. OEMING: I see.
17
MR. STEIN: I think we are going to
18
have to have a lot of legislation, work on
19
legislation in getting this through. A bill has
20
passed the Senate.
21
The issue here is this--and I think
22
it is very little different than on taking one
23
of your highways in Michigan or something--if
24
a man is driving a car or a big truck and it
25
-------
3686
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
stalls in midst of the road, you have got two
3
problems. It .just may be due to his negligence
4
when you have one or it may be due not to any
5
negligence at all. If he gets stalled, what
6
you try to do is at his own expense get him to
7
drag that away so traffic can continue. If he
8
can't do that, then you recognize that the
9
impediment on the life of the city is so much
10
that you put out the city's police funds and
11
you get out a tow truck and you take his auto-
12
mobile away. But if the guy wants to get his
13
car back, he has to pay for it. 0. K.
14
The analogy is something like that
15
when any vessel sinks, with cyanide, oil, or
16
anything. The first move is, M0. K., you have
17
done this, this may be due to your fault or
18
not, we are not getting into this. You have done
19
this, remove it, remove it at your expense. If
20
you can't remove it at your expense, then we
21
consider the consequences of that act so grave
22
to other people that there is going to be a
23
mechanism where a Federal"--it will have to
24
be Federal, I guess--nwhere a governmental
25
-------
. 366?
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
agency will take the action under its own
3
expense to remove it and then we will have
4
some machinery to get the money back. 0. K.
5
I don't want to go into any particular
6
point, but from the Federal point of view we are
7
going to need legislation to do this.
8
Sir?
9
MR. MITCHELL: What is the Federal
10
legislation today in regard to if you have a
11
major oil spill? Is there any responsibility
12
by the tanker or the company that owns the
13
tanker if there is a major oil spill?
14
MR. STEIN: Do you mean under Federal
15
law?
16
MR. MITCHELL: Yes. What is it?
17
MR. STEIN: No, in order for the oil
18
spill to be abated under the Federal law, it
19
has to be a discharge due to a wilful act or
20
gross neglect, and this is--
21
MR. OEMIN6: They are hung on that
22
"wilful."
23
MR. MITCHELL: Can new legislation be
24
proposed to change that?
25
-------
3638,
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 I
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. As
3
I said, with a legislation like that, you have
4
to be a better lawyer than I am to win a case.
5
MR-. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, I am ready
6
to pass on and pass over this.
MR. STEIN: All right.
8 ,
MR. OEMING: I just hoped that we
9
might come up with something.
10
MR. STEIN: The bill is through the
11
Senate and the new legislation takes that out
12
and also provides that we can go on our own
13
if we can't get the ship to do this, clean it
14
up and then try to get reimbursed later on,
15
the same way as you tow away a car.
16
MR.>MITCHELL: And you are suggesting
17
that the Conferees should not make any decision
18
in regard to this new legislation, we should
19
Just ignore it?
20
MR. STEIN: No, no, I would suggest
21
that the best effect that you can have on this
22
legislation, sir, is the kind of effect that
23
every one of your States^ and especially Illinois
24 ' '". ' • . •
has had before. You know well1 how to talk to
25
-------
. : : 3689
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
legislators> and I don't think that the
3
enforcement conference or the mechanism
4
of an enforcement conference is the best way
5
to get your impact on the legislative process
6
felt. You know very well how to do that. Now,
7
if you want to use this, this is all right,
8
but I think this is through the Senate, you
9
know who the House Committee people are.
10
MR. POOLE: I couldn't see, Mr. Chair-
11
man, we have much the same issue as commercial
12
watercraft, where it would hurt anything for at
13
least the State Conferees to put themselves on
14
record with a recommendation that the current
15
Federal Oil Pollution A.ct be at least materially
16
strengthened.
17
MR. STEIN: All right.
18
MR. POOLE: Something of that sort.
10
MR. STEIN: All right. Now, if you
20
want to say that--
21
MR. POOLE: We have been pretty free
22
here with recommendations for legislation for
23
the States every time we come up with a problem tha
24
the States don't have.
25
-------
3690
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: All right.
3
MR. POOLE: So I for one would favor
4
a recommendation.
5
MR. STEIN: Let me put it down that
6 ,
the State Conferees believe that the protection
7
of the waters of Lake Michigan from oil pollu-
8
tion require the material strengthening of the
9
existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
10
0. K.?
11
MR. POOLE: Yes.
12
MR. STEIN: Is that fair?
13
MR. POOLE: Yes, I was going to say
14
oil, but I guess it is--
15
MR. STEIN: Oil, I guess, yes, let's
16
revise that, say oil. Although it has been
17
Incorporated. But by Tuesday we"jwill have the
18
proper titles, 0. K.?
19
May we go on to research? Because we
20
have got one major point yet.
21
Mr. Klassen?
22
MR. KLASSEN: I have been working on
23
something here, Mr. Chairman, to go back again,
24
I don't want to delay this, but the boat show
25
-------
3631
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
opens tonight in Chicago and I think that
3
we have some kind of an obligation to give a
4
statement regarding this watercraft, and I have
5
one proposed here. I don't know whether you
6
want to get into it now, but it would give a
7
statement of the Conferees, at least it would
8
be for some guidance as to what we are thinking.
9
I don't know whether you want to--
10
MR. STEINr Why don't--
11
MR. KLASSEN: This has to do with my
12
charge as committee chairman for this.
13
MR. STEIN: All right.
14
(Laughter.)
15
MR. MITCHELL: We had a quick meeting.
16
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
17
MR. STEIN: Here, let's do this now,
18
this is 13.
19
20
RECOMMENDATION #13
21
22
MR. STEIN: "The four States within
23
60:days meet and agree upon uniform rules and
24
regulations for controlling wastes from watercraft,
25
-------
3692
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION;
2
These rules and regulations will generally
3
conform with the Harbor Pollution Code adopted
4
by the City of Chicago in the Model Boating
5
Act which prohibits outside--
6
MR. KLASSEN: Overside.
7
MR. STEIN: --overside disposal but
8
specifically prohibiting the use of the•macerator
9
chlorinator. Since each of the four States
10
operates under different statutes, Conferees
11
will recommend to their respective boards,
12
legislatures, and so forth, approval of the
13
proposed uniform rules and regulations to be
14
effective by April 1969."
15
How is that date with you, Blucher?
16
MR. KLASSEN:: Recbffimended.
17
MR. POOLE: I don't mind making it
18
effective then.
19
MR. STEIN: All right. 0. K.
20
MR. OEMING: Ours is going to be
21
changed.
22
MR. STEIN: Do you want us to meet
23
with you or Just the States on those?
24
MR. KLASSEN: Oh, no, no, no, we will
25
-------
: 3693
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
invite the Federal Government.
3
Off the record.
4
(Off the record.)
5
MB. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
6
MR. STEIN: Yes.
7
MR. OEMING: This poses a little doubt
8
in my mind here as far as Michigan is concerned.
9
I would hate something like this to come out and
o
give the impression to the boating fraternity
.1
that the Michigan regulations which have now
L2 • • '
been adopted may be changed again. We have
.3
gone through the battle here and we have got
14 .
them adopted, and I don't want this to imply
15
that as a result of this conference we are
16
going to go back and change things.
L7
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
18
MR. STEIN: All right. Could we say--
L9
let me have this.
20
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
21
MR. OEMING: "These rules and regula-
22
tions will generally conform with the Harbor
23
Pollution Code . adopted by the City of Chicago
24
and the regulations adopted by the Michigan Water
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Resources Commission."
3
MR. STEIN: And the regulations
4
adopted by the Michigan--what do you call
5
yourself, Water Resources?
6
MR. OEMING: Water Resources Commission.
7 . .
You can say the State of Michigan if you want,
8 ;
if you want something to hang it on.
9
MR. STEIN: --Water Resources Commission
10
and the Model Boating Act."
ll
Let me read this again:
12
"Representatives of the Conferees ""•-
13
and I Just didn't put--do you want the four
14
States in there? That is why he put the Federal
15
Government.
16
MR. KLASSEN: This is why I brought
17
it up here, so the Conferees could act on this
18
statement, because I think we are obligated
19
to make some statement.
20
MR. STEIN: All right.
21
"Representatives of the Conferees within
22
60 days meet and agree upon uniform rules and
23
regulations for controlling wastes from watercraft.
24
These rules and regulations will generally conform
25
-------
3695
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
with the Harbor Pollution Code adopted by the
3
City of Chicago, the regulations adopted by
4
the Michigan Water Resources Commission, and the
5
Model Boating Act which prohibits overside
6
disposal, but—we don't have the sentence right.
7
MR. KLASSEN: "And specifically"?
8
MR. STEIN: MAnd," not "but."
9
MR. KLASSEN: "And."
10 «
MR. STEIN: "And specifically prohibits--
11
right?
12
MR. KLASSEN: That is right.
13
MR. STEIN: --"jprohibits the use of
14
the macerator chlorinator. Since each of the
15
four States operates under different statutes,
16
Conferees will recommend to their respective
17
boards, legislatures, and so forth, approval of
18
the uniform rules and regulations to be/effective
19
by April 1969^"
20
Is this fair?'
21
MR. OEMING: Our effective date is
22
January 1970, isn't it?
23
MR. PURDY.: Yes.
24
MR. KLASSEN: Well, could we say
25
-------
. 3696
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
"unless otherwise"--
3
MR. STEIN: Then why have the date?
4 ' . - .
MR. HOLMER: You can't depart from
5
a legislative act.
6
MR. KLASSEN: No, you can't.
7 •••'-• • •
MR. STEIN: "Approval of the proposed
8
rules and regulations" and then let it be period.
9
Let them ask you about your individual dates.
10
Do you think you want a date in there,
11
Clarence?
12
MR. KLASSEN: Well--
13
MR. STEIN: If we could get it, I
14
always--
15
MR. KLASSEN: What do the rest of
16
them think about this?
17
MR. POSTON: I think we ought to have
18
a date.
19
MR. MITCHELL: It could be the date
20
on seeking introduction not on the date of
21
accomplishment of the passage of legislation.
22
MR. POSTON: Effective date. I think—
23
MR. KLASSEN: Well, it didn't say
24
legislation, it said regulations. We don't
25
-------
3697
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
need legislation in Illinois.
3
MR. POOLE: We can't adopt regulations,
4
Clarence, without legislation. Where you have
5
got a law that specifically exempts "boats on
6
Lake Michigan we can't come in and adopt a
7
regulation covering boats on the Take.
8
MR. STEIN: I think you would be
9
better off without this date here. The only
10
date you can come.up with is the date they
11
are going to write their recommendation.
12
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
13
MR. STEIN: So let me read--
14
MR. POOLE: I want to ask Mr; Oeming
15
about whether the Michigan regulation: specifically
16
prohibits macerator chlorinators--
17
MR. OEMING: No.
18
MR. POOLE: --or whether this is
10
Just a policy of the State of Michigan.
20
MR. OEMING: No. It says that you
21
would approve the reeirculating device such
22
as holding tanks or the incinerators and that
23
any other device will be subject to the approval
24
of the Commission. And at the present time we
25
-------
; 3698
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
are not approving macerator chlorinators.
3
MR. STEIN: Yes. But the statement
4 •-.-••
we have here, and I am just asking as a drafts-
5
man now, says it specifically prohibits the
6
use of the macerator chlorinator. You don't.
7
MR. PC-OLE: No.
8
MR. OEMING: No.
9
MR. STEIN: "And does not approve the
10
use of"--
11
MR. KLASSEN: "Does not approve,11
12
all right. That is good.
13
MR. STEIN: "And does not approve."
14
MR. KLASSEN: I think we are obligated
15
to let the boating fraternity know where we
16
stand on this, because a lot of them are wanting
17
to put this in.
18
MR. STEIN: All right. Let me read
19
this again, and I think we've got it:
20
"Representatives of the Conferees within
21
60 days meet and agree upon uniform rules and
22
regulations for controlling wastes from watercraft.
23
These rules and regulations will generally conform
24
with the Harbor Pollution Code adopted by the City
25
-------
3699
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
of Chicago, the regulations adopted by the
3
Michigan Water Resources Commission, and the
4
Model Boating Act which prohibits overside
5
disposal and does not approve the use of the
6
macerator chlorinator. Since each of the
7
four States operates under different statutes,
8
the Conferees will recommend to their respective
9 ^ '
boards, legislatures, and so forth, approval
10 „
of the proposed uniform rules and regulations.
11
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
12
MR. STEIN: All right?
13
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
14
MR. STEIN: We are in shape.
15
Thank you, Mr. Klassen.
16
MR. OEMING: That will fix you up in
17
good shape.
18
MR. STEIN: We have one major issue that
19
we are going to have to get. Let's get on with it.
20
And I don't mean research; it's alewives.
21
22 RECOMMENDATIONS #24-28
23
MR. STEIN: "'24. Research be accelerated
24
in ways to reduce the rate of eutrophication."
25
-------
37PO
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: I wonder about that.
3
MR. STEIN: What does that mean?
4
MR. OEMING: Yes.
5
MR. STEIN: What does that mean,
6
gentlemen?
7
MR. OEMING: Aren't we trying to
8
reduce it by what we are trying to do here
9
in others? I don't know.
10
MR. POOLS: I wonder what is wrong
11
with 25 in the printed book instead of four
12
specific-- •
13
MR. STEIN: What page on the printed
14
book?
15
MR. MITCHELL: Sixty-seven.
16
MR. POOLE: Doesn't 25 cover every-
17
thing that is in these four and more?
18
MR. P03TON: Supposed to be, yes, sir.
19
MR. STEIN: 'Why don't we use that?
20
MR. SCHNEIDER: This was suggested--
21
MR. POSTON: Well, more specificity
22
was requested last time.
23
.MR. OEMING: Was it?
24
MR. STEIN: I don't know that we got
25
-------
3701
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
more specificity.
3
MR. PQOLE: I don't either. The only
4 '. .-..-.
thing, 25 confines the research to the paper
6
and steel industries and they broadened that
6
in 28, as I JT^emember it. I don't know how much
7 """ . . .
research is needed in the steel industry.
8
MR. STEIN: Neither do I.
9
Well, we can strike out those
10
particulars.
11
Let me try this. How about 25 and
12
strike out "particularly of the paper and steel
13
industries"?
H
MR. MITCHELL: One of the things that
15
I have been asking Mr. Poole about is the
16
increased use of the method of recirculatir.g
17
the effluents, and I feel that it looks like
18
a lot of industries are now trying to do that.
19
We have noticed it somewhat in Indiana. And
20
I don't know whether we need research to find
21
out cheaper ways or better ways of making this
22
available or to prove to people that it is.more
economical or what, but it seems to me if more
and more people went to recirculation it certainly
-------
: 37P8
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
would reduce a lot of our pollution problems.
3
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, I think they
4
are recognizing that on the housekeeping features.
5
Now, again, I don't know, I defer TOO Mr.
6
Poole and the experts on that, in the question of
7
research. For example, right in Chicago,
B
Wisconsin Steel has gone to that, U.S. Steel
9
had so much water they didn't. I think the
10
idea of recirculation is here.
11
Now,you have to adapt that to the
1*
particular plant, the particular process. I
13
am not sure that we ever would have solved
14
this sugar beet waste problem, which you don't
15
have here, unless we got a recirculating system.
16
Do you want to put it in specifically?
17
MR. MITCHELL: I was suggesting that
18
the two largest industries we have in the Lake
19
Michigan area are paper and steel, and I would
20
not want to think that--if we need research to
21
assist them in continuing the trend of recircu-
22
lation, we ought to come forth with some research,
23
we ought not to eliminate them from the need
ffH
for research.
25
-------
3703
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: No, I don't think we are
3
eliminating them.
4
MR. MITCHELL: Someone suggested we
5
take them out.
6
MR. -STEIN: No, I was suggesting
7
making the list and other—here is what it
8
says, "improved treatment and other measures for
9
handling Industrial wastes," without a bill
10
of particulars. Because once you single out
11
two industries, then here they have got several
12
more industries, they have got pulp and paper,
13
oil, and food processing. The difficulty is,
14
once you get on the list you are really
15
limiting yourself rather than doing it.
16
MR. MITCHELL: I understand.
17
MR. STEIN: Right.
18
How is 25 this way, then? Do you want
19
to put anything on recirculation? "including
20
recirculation''' I would like to put in there.
21
MR. POOLE: I don't think it would
22
hurt. It is a thing that I think we all are
23
encouraging.
24
MR. STEIN: All right, let's do that.
25
-------
3704
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Strike "particularly the paper
3
an. iieel industries" and say "improved
4
treatment and other measures for handling
5
industrial wastes, including recirculation."
6
MR. POOLE: 0. K.
7
MR. STEIN: Right? I think that
8
is an improvement.
9
Right. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
10
MR. KLASSEN: May I make one other--'
11
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
12
MR. KLASSEN: --suggestion, Mr.
13
Chairman, an addition.
14
I would like to see the thought in
15
here that we emphasize the utilization of present
16
knowledge, intensify the use and utilization
17
of present knowledge, and not give the image that
18
we need a lot more research. I am not too sure
19
we do.' I would like to see some of the present
20
knowledge put into practice that we know about.
21
MR. OEMING: Agreed.
22
MR. POSTON: Do you want to put that
23
in a conclusion?
24
MR. -STEIN: No, let's put that right
25
here.
-------
• 3705
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
All right, let's start this again.
3
Let's say, put:
4
"Present knowledge on pressing
5
problems on Lake Michigan--pressing problems
6
of the Lake Michigan basin be vigorously
7
employed in the control of water pollution."
8
MR. POOLE: Would you do that again,
9
please, Mr. Chairman?
10 „
MR. STEIN: Present knowledge on
11
pressing problems of the Lake Michigan basin
12
be immediately employed to abate water pollution.
13
MR. POOLE: Where are you putting
14
that, at the end?
15
MR. STEIN: Right at the beginning.
16
MR. POOLE: Oh.
17
MR. OEMING: Why don't we then drop
18
down and say, "Areas in which research appears
19
to be needed to include"?
20
MR. STEIN: No, don't start--then say:
21
"Areas in which research is needed-^"
22
go right on from there, right?
23
MR. OEMING: All right.
24
MR. STEIN: Right? And then we have
25
-------
3706
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
that in perspective.
3
Is that all right? Do you see
4
where that is?
5
All right, I think that will meet
6
what Mr. Klassen has pointed out.
7 . .
Are we in agreement with that,
*
gentlemen?
9
MR. OEMING: Now, may I suggest one
10
more thing, Mr. Chairman?
11
MR. STEIN: Yes.
12
MR. OEMING: In talking with Dr.
13
Weinberger yesterday, he indicated that he
14
was preparing some research and going into
15
some studies on nutrient removal from waste
16
stabilization'lagoons. Is that important
17
enough to put in here?
18
MR. STEIN: No, I don't — this is a--
19
let me put it this way.
20
MR. OEMING: I guess you have got
21
it in here, nutrients from wastewaters.
22
MR. STEIN: Nutrients, we are going
23
out with those duck farmers on Long Island in
24
a couple of weeks, and if we can solve it there
25
-------
37Q7
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
we will get it here. He knows how to do it.
3
It is a question of economics.
4
MR. OEMING: 0. K.
5
MR. STEIN: A guy dealing with a
6
little old lagoon, you know.
7
MR. OEMING: 0. K., skip it.
8
MR. STEIN: All right. Let's try
9
this next one.
10
MR. OEMING: Alewives?
11
MR. STEIN: Alewives.
12
MR. OEMING: Wait a minute, "industrial
13
waste treatment --well, that is in.
14
15
RECOMMENDATION #29
16
17
MR. STEIN: Alewives.
18
MR. OEMING: Alewives.
19
Mr. Chairman.
20
MR. STEIN: Yes.
21
MR. OEMING: If you .will permit me,
22
I would like to offer a substitute for this 29.
23
And let me read it. I am sure that you can't
24
evaluate it today, but I would like to toss it
25
-------
37Q8
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
into the record.
3
MR. STEIN: Go ahead.
4
MR. OEMING: "it is recommended that
5
the Great Lakes Basin Commission and the Great
6
Lakes Fishery Commission, in conjunction with
7
the affected States and appropriate Federal
8
agencies, develop a long-range program for
9
control and management of the alewife. How-
10
ever, in order to cope with the immediate
11
problem, it is recommended that the Federal,
12
State and local governmental agencies involved
13
should give their complete support to the
14
recommended program that is currently being
15
coordinated and developed by the Great Lakes
16
Basin Commission to make every effort to reduce
17
the damages that could be done by the most
18
likely massive die-off of alewives this coming
19
spring and summer."
20
I offer this tentatively as a sub-
21
stitute, Mr. Chairman, with the provision that
22
you may wish--I don't want to quarrel about this
23
now too much, but I would like you to have a
24
chance to look this over when it is typed up and
25
-------
^__ 3709
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
see whether you could accept this as a sub-
3 .
stltute.
4
And let me tell you a little of
5
the background of this. First of all, the
6
Great Lakes Basin Commission is mentioned
7
here, they are active in this area in trying
8
to pull things together to take care of
9
these problems. Mr. Mitchell, who is the
10
co-chairman of a committee on the Great Lakes
11
Basin Commission, has assisted in the develop-
12
ment of the wording that I have presented
13
here, which started with my Department of
14
Conservation Director, who is also on the
15
Great Lakes Basin Commission and is active
16
in this matter.
17
This is the background.
18
MR. STEIN: Yes.
19
MR. OEMING: And I would like you
20
to accept it in this way.
21
MR. STEIN: Right.
22
MR. POSTON: Do you want copies of
23
that made and distributed here?
24
MR. OEMING: Well, it is up to you,
25
-------
3710
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
how you want to—
3
MR. STEIN: Let's get the proposals
4
on the table.
5
Here is what we have had, and I
6
have been listening to the testimony on the
7
alewives that we have had before, been working
8
with the problem and talking to the powers-that -
9
be in Washington.
10
Now, I think we have two problems
11
as we see it here. One, we have a long-range
12
solution problem here, probably to get the
13
ecology put into balance.
14
MR. OEMING: Balance.
15
MR. STEIN: Whether it is coho salmon
16
or something else, I don't doubt that this
17
eventually will be worked out.
18
The notion, though, as I again under-
19
stand the testimony, we are going to have an
20
alewife problem, probably a severe one this
21
summer7 in '69$ '70 might be another peak year.
22
And for three years, at least, or perhaps more,
23
until this happens. Unless we take some real
24
action to handle the alewives, we will have
25
-------
3711
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
these tremendous nuisance conditions this
3
summer. As the Conferees have pointed out
4
already, the death of alewives may not be
5
caused by pollution, but when they die they
6
sure cause a pollution problem.
7
Here is what we had in mind, and I
8
think unless we get to work within the next
9
couple of weeks, we are going to miss the
10
season. There are six critical weeks, as I
11
understand it. The thought was this, that if
12
we could seine these alewives while they were
13
alive before they died, we would be better off.
14
Getting these alewives out would do two things.
15
We wouldn't have dead alewives and as an
16
incidental thing, we would be lowering the
17
phosphate content of the lake.
18
The point is, what do you do with the
W
alewives? Who gets the alewives? And I think
20
we have to deal with present equipment. I was
21
Just on the phone yesterday. Either we use
22
American trawlers--and I don't know that we
23
have enough. If we have to do it, we may have
24
to use foreign trawlers, such as Canadian trawlers.
25
-------
3713
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
To do that, you may have to get an amendment
3
to the Jones Act, and Senator Proxmire of
4
Wisconsin has an amendment in and they are
5
awaiting the deliberations of the Conferees
6
to determine what the Department of the Interior
7
is going to say on that, whether we have to
8
get it or not.
9
Here was the thought. In exploring
10
this, and I am absolutely not sure of the
11
definitive figures, but I think we have a ball
12
park estimate, that it costs about $550 to
13
keep a trawler in the water a day. There is
14
a six-day week period. Perhaps we can do
15
this for $500 thousand. Here is the approach.
16
The Federal Government, perhaps, the
17
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration--!
18
don't know who else-r-will make the effort to
19
get this out of its operating funds, possibly, and
20
can come up, say, with something around a
21
quarter of a million dollars. Now, if the
22
four States will match to bring It up to a
23
half a million, and you may have to go higher,
24
but I don't know that we can go higher out of
25
-------
3713
1 : EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
our operating funds, it won't be too much,
3
it is about $63 thousand a State, and this
4
will mean much less than some of the proposals
5
I have heard from the various States. If
6
we can assemble a trawler fleet augmented by
7 ;:. ' . ' • •
barges, because I don't think they will be
8
able to ride up to the grinders all the time
9
and come back and make the trip, there will not
10
be enough capacity in those meal grinders to
11
take care of the alewives, and even if there
12
were we would produce so much meal we would
13
wreck the meal market.
14
So the notion is, one, we put as
15
many alewives into these meal grinders as we
16
possibly can. The States would have to supply
17
us with sites to put the alewives in a land
18
disposal unit and cover it, and this may wind
19
up as a fertilizer, and then we would have to
20
work--again think of this program as trawler
21
to barge and then the barge to a disposal system,
22
either a grinder or a site. Any of the alewives
23
which would get through the network, and I don't
24 • . • '.....
know that we could be perfect on this, would be
25
-------
3714
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the responsibility of the cities and the
3
counties to pick up. They would have to
4
have standby equipment in the same way as
5
they have snow removal equipment. This
6
would be part of the program so when the
7
alewives--some of them are going to get
8
through—would begin hitting the beaches,
9
no one would wring their hands in anguish
10
for responsibility.
11
Where do we pick up the alewives?
12
I think we would have to rely on the State
13
fish and game departments and the Pish and
14
Wildlife Service. What I am suggesting here
15
is that if we are going to handle the alewife
16
problem this year, we immediately appoint a
17
committee. I don't care who the coordinating
18
committee is so long as you have one. Perhaps
19
we can be ready to appoint the members by
MV
the time we come here next Tuesday. The
21
Federal-State committee should get together
22
within, I would say, two weeks after next
23
Tuesday with a proposal whether you can get
up the State money. Maybe you will want to
25
-------
3715
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
look at this this weekend. Whatever you
3
do, it is going to cost money, either
4
State money or Federal money. Then come up with a
6
program where we are going to be able to work
6
on a reasonable variant of this program to
7
handle the alewife program this season.
8
Mr. Mitchell?
9
MR. MITCHELL: I think what you have
10
Just suggested has already been done by the
11
Great Lakes Basin Committee, and. Mr. Chuck
12
Stoddard, who is the Regional Coordinator
13
for the Department of the Interior, and I were
14
appointed co-chairmen with five States and
15
all four of these States plus Ohio, and we
16
met and we formed a working task force which
17
was headed up by Joe Puncachar from the Fish
18
and Wildlife Service, who works in the Com-
19
missioner's Office directly under the Commissioner,
20
and this work group came up with a six-point
21
program to take care of the dead alewife problem
22
for the summer, as well as they could work out
23
a program, and on your desk back in Washington
24
and on my desk and others back home since we
25
-------
. 3716:
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
have been here an invitation has been sent to
3
them for a conference to be held here in this
4 ' . ' •
hotel on March 20th to begin the implementation
5
of such a proposed program.
6
Briefly, the program consists of
7
these points, although some of the details are
8
yet to be worked out, and so that everybody
9
knows exactly what this means back home in
10
specifics, but one is, and one thing we cannot
11
overlook, that the long range has to be given
12
high priority or we will be having massive die-
13
offs forever. That has to be done.
14
MR. STEIN: I think that is correct.
15
But the question is, sir, where is the money
16
going to come from this year?
17
MR. MITCHELL: That is right. Well,
18
there is more than Just--first of all, we need
19
a good monitoring program to find out where
• they are and in which direction they are heading,
and each State is being asked to supply and each
22
Federal agency is being asked to supply a portion
23
of this monitoring program, which will be co-
24
ordinated by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and my people in my State are working with
3 7
our National Guard people to determine if we
4
can supply two weeks of aerial monitoring and
5
each State is being asked these questions now
6
back home.
7
And then the second one is that
8
Chicago had such good success in using diverting
9
techniques to keep the alewife from coming
10
into the intakes that we are asking the Chicago
ll
people and one of the Fish and Wildlife people
12
to come up with a technical bulletin that will
13
be sent to all intakes people so that they can
14
apply some of the same successful methods.
15
And the other one is that we need to
16
then--we do, though, have some disagreement with
17
the comments that you made in regards to whether
18
you should make an effort of. picking up live
19
alewife or dead alewife. There are six billion
20
pounds of alewife out in Lake Michigan, which
21
is about 95 percent of the total fish population,
22
and all estimates from the fisheries people is
23
that any trawling effort would just hardly be
noticeable, that probably the best effort ought
25
-------
^___ 3718
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to be applied if after you have monitored
3
you find out where the dead fish are and in
4
which direction the winds are carrying them
5
and that you then set up a priority system
6
of what areas you must prevent this if at all
7
possible, and then that you coordinate your
8
skimming operations of dead alewives in front
9
of these high priority areas.
10
• 5.MR. STEIN: How would you--
11
By the way, I made no statement,
12
I said this is a reasonable variant because
13
we had to do that. But how would you do the
14
skimming, with nets or other devices?
15
:MR. MITCHELL: No, with trawlers.
16
MR. STEIN: With trawlers?
17
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
18
MR. STEIN: Here is what I am getting
19
at, Mr. Mitchell, and I look at this from the
20
question are we' going to prevent it this summer.
21
The question is, either we get all
22
these devices and a coordinating committee and
23
we ask all the people to do it and maybe it will
24
work, or else what we do, we recognize we have a
25
-------
3719
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
crisis here,and we probably will have on Lake
3
Michigan, we pool our resources and our funds
•4 ' • • • - • '
and get a fleet together and put some active man
5 •-..'•-'
in charge that can call the shots. And again
6
we have no brief as to who that is.
7 . .
I think your key point is we are
8
going to have to have someone in the Federal
9
Pish and Wildlife Service or the!State fish
10
service who is going to have to tell us where
11
to go out and get these fish where it is going
12
to be the most productive, because this isn't
13
the kind of information or the kind of know-how
14
that is ordinarily available to water pollution
15
people.
16
MR. MITCHELL: The Bureau of Commercial
17
Fisheries has indicated they would be glad to
18
be chairman of the monitoring operation and
19
try to coordinate this information so that
20
we could make' those decisions.
21
MR. STEIN: What I am asking, sir,
22
is how can we best get the people assigned and
23
the money assigned to the problem? You think
24
that would be best done by this other group in
25
-------
3720
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
a non-water pollution control group? Because
3
if someone else wants to put up that money
4
other than Water Pollution Control and the
5
Federal Government,we would be delighted. But
6
I haven't seen any volunteers.
7
MR. MITCHELL: No, you are the first
8
from the Federal establishment to volunteer
9
any money.
10
(Laughter.)
11
MR. MITCHELL: In fact--
12
MR. STEIN: And I haven't seen any
13
State come up with any money.
14
MR. MITCHELL: And I want to be sure
15
you come to our meeting with your money because
16
I think maybe--
17
MR. STEIN: No, the question is, sir,
18
the question I am making, if we are talking about
19
coming here with money, this means our money
20
is available only on a matching basis, sort of
21
like at a charity drive. If you want to put
22
up the money to match us, we will match you.
23
But the point is, I am not sure that
24
we should not start this almost immediately and
25
-------
3723.
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
come forward with the plan and try to assemble in
3
the suite and put them together. Is your view
4
that you want to wait and go through this
5
mechanism of the meeting or we have to kick
6
something off right now?
7
MR. MITCHELL: No, the working group
8
headed by Mr. Puncachar is meeting next, I
9
think, Tuesday and Wednesday, I am not sure,
10
in Ann Arbor to finalize the specifics of the
11
plan. And I am certain that knowledge that
12
money is available from the PWPCA to match
13
money with the States can be reconciled and
14
developed in--
15
MR. STEIN: Not available; it may be
16
available.
17
MR. MITCHELL: All right, may be
18
available.
19
MR. STEIN: Yes. We are ready to talk
20
to you with an active program. I think the key,
21
and the figure we don't have from anyone, Mr.
22
Mitchell, is really what this is going to cost
23
this summer.
24
MR. MITCHELL: The Bureau of Commercial
25
-------
3722
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Fisheries has tried to analyze what this would
3
cost if we would talk about skimming of dead
4
alewife in front of high priority locations.
5
MR. STEIN: How much?
6
MR. MITCHELL: And they are talking
7
about less than $500 thousand. It was 300--
8
MR. STEIN: All right. Now, what
9
are you going to do with the fish after you
10
skim them?
11
MR. MITCHELL: Then, as you have
12
already indicated, we are already in process
13
in Indiana, and I presume the other States
14
are doing the same, contacting the people who
15
have these high priority places and saying,
16
"if you want the skimming operation you will
17
have to provide the sanitary landfill to take
18
care of the fish that are collected."
19
And the other stage is that, with
20
Michigan's errorts, analyses have been made
21
of the various types of beach cleaning equip-
22
ment that seem to work, because there are
23
still going to be some come to the beaches.
24
MR. STEIN: That is right. Will that
25
-------
^723
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
be a state and--rather, local and city respon-
3
sibility?
4
MR. MITCHELL: It would be proposed
5
that some State agency purchase the equipment,
6
assign an operator, and then sublease it on
7
an hourly or unit-sized basis so that each
8
community can afford the best equipment to
9
keep their beaches clean. This is being worked
10
out and cost figures are being obtained of
11
what this would be.
12
MR. STEIN: All right.
13
MR. MITCHELL: And so I would suggest
14
that no doubt if you get this money--
15
MR. STEIN: Yes. By the way, do you
16
have a suggestion of anyone now who could really
17
run this and be the operating chief of this for
18
this year?
19
MR. MITCHELL: Well, I would assume
20
that this would be finalized next Tuesday and
21
Wednesday. Right now Mr. Puncachar, of the
22
Pish and Wildlife Service, is heading up the
23
work task force.
24
MR. STEIN: Maybe he is the man.
25
-------
^___ 372*1
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. MITCHELL: Maybe he Is.
3
MR. STEIN: But I think we should
4
put a man in charge and start making plans.
5
I know we may have the problems unless we
6
do this, and I suggest this next week. There
7
are two factors: 1) that we put someone in
8
charge; 2) if we are going to get up some
9
Federal and State money for a coordinated
10
effort, we get to work and get it up Now,
11
I know and have worked with you long enough
12
in the States that I haven't seen it any
13
easier for you to wave a magic wand and get
14
the check finally out.
15
Unless we start right now, Mr.
16
Mitchell, and Unless your States start right
17
now, we are going to miss this year. I am
18
sure there isn't any time to waste. I think
19
the plans we have outlined are very close to
20
each other. If we come back here next Tuesday
21
and endorse a man who is going to coordinate
22
these plans and we try to see with all the
23
four States here and the Federal Government
24
what kind of statement we can make on getting
25
-------
3725
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the funds and matching this and getting to
3
work, I think we will be in much better shape.
4
Because I think if we are going to do this,
5
Mr. Oeming, Mr. Klassen, Mr. Holmer, Mr.
6
Poole and yourself are going to have to go
7
back when yo\\ finally get through here, knock
8
on your Governor's door or your State comp-
9
troller's door and tell him what the bite is
10
going to be.
11
MR. MITCHELL: I would hope, though,
12
that we would not in that with two separate groups
13
MR. STEIN: No, we don't want--
14
MR. MITCHELL: —recommend the State
15
agencies going back home and trying to get
16
approval--
17
MR. STEIN: No. This is precisely
18
what we do not want to do.
19
Here is our problem, sir. We would
20
be delighted if your agency, if this is the
21
appropriate agency, would do it. But here is what
22
we are faced with. The people who bore the
23
brunt of this last year when we had the alewlfe
24
problem were the pollution control agencies.
25
-------
3726
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
There is no way we can absolve ourselves from
3
this responsibility.
4
It seems to me we have got two
5
problems. Either we are going to do the Job
6
ourselves or be darned sure that someone else
7
is going to move ahead and do the Job. But
8
we can't sit back and let something dissolve
9
in coordinating committees and have one of
10
these smelly summers again, because the people
11
are not going to come to these fancy commissions
12
or resources or planning groups, but they are
13
going to come to the water pollution agencies and a:
14
us how about it.
15
MR. MITCHELL: It is the same con-
16
elusion the Great Lakes Basin Commission reached,
17
and I think—well, Mr. Poston has been to our
18
meetings--
19
MR. POSTON: Yes.
20
MR. MITCHELL: You were at the meeting
21
when we discussed this, I believe, and Mr.
22
Stoddard, who represents this group on there
23
as co-chairman of the committee, and I am
24
certain that we can work out a solution that
25
-------
, 3727
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 ,
certainly would take advantage of your offer.
3
MR. STEIN: I don't want to bandy
4
names around, but I have known Chuck Stoddard
5
for a^long time and he is an active go-go guy.
6
He may be your man.
7
Is he here? I haven't seen him.
8
MR. MITCHELL: No, he is not here.
9
MR. STEIN: Why don't the States
10
and you get together? I am certain that
11
the sooner we put a man in charge to
12
assemble this, the sooner we are going
13
to be able to get up a definitive budget:
14
the sooner we are going to be able to go back
15
to our respective agencies and get the money;
16
and the sooner we are going to be able to
17 ''
assemble the trawler fleet. If we don't start
18
now, every day lost is going to be tough,
19
because we are going to have to make the hard^
20
crunchy decision whether we have enough American
21
trawlers or we have to go somewhere else and
22
get them. If we do, we are going to have
23
to try to get a, bill through the Congress and
24
we are going to have to get certain real
25
-------
3720
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
commitments on these land disposal sites and
3
the States are going to have to be satisfied that
4
we have got enough earth-moving equipment there
5
to cover up the alewives when they hit the site.
6
And I don't think, given all those tests, that
7
there is any time to be lost.
8
MR. MITCHELL: We already have a man
9
assigned to this full time in Indiana who is
10
trying to work out our responsibility.
11
MR. STEIN: Yes. I think what we all
12
have to agree on is the--I don't think we are
13
going to have trouble getting a Federal man or
14
a State man. What we need is a central man
15
that we can all agree on and who is going to take
16
this job on.
17
Could you contact this group and see
18
if we can be almost ready to go by next Tuesday,
19
at least with some assignments, and I would hope
20
budget so we can begin talking money? Because
21
without money we are not going to do it.
22
MR. OEMING: This matter, then, Mr.
23
Chairman, is laid on the table until Tuesday
24
to permit Mr. Mitchell to give some evaluation to
25
-------
. 3729
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the questions you have raised here, that have
3
been raised, and we discuss it further on
4
Tuesday, is that the--
5
MR. STEIN: Mr. Mitchell, would you
6
and Indiana and your group come back with a
7
proposal, and I think the proposal, the long-
8
range one, won't be hard to work out. But the
9
other proposal should be a definitive proposal
10
of who is going to coordinate the thing, what
11
you expect the Federal Government and the States
12
and the communities to do in order to get this
13
alewife problem solved,and maybe we can all
14
subscribe to that when we come back on Tuesday.
15
0. K.?
16
MR. MITCHELL: I beg to differ with
17
you on the long-range program; it won't be
18
easy to work out. The long-range program
19
requires considerable amount of Federal
20
appropriation for lamprey control and for
21
stocking of predator fish which has not been
22
forthcoming, and if we don't get it forthcoming
23
we are not going to solve the problem.
24
MR. STEIN: Sir, here is what I meant,
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and I am sorry. .I meant the recommendation
3
won't be hard to work out.
4
MR. MITCHELL: All right.
5
MR. STEIN: Because we are In agreement.
6
MR. OEMING: I think this is the best
7
way to leave this.
8
MR. STEIN: But as operators, let me
9
put it this way: You understand, sir, that
10
for the long-range problem, as far as we in
11
water pollution are concerned, the long-range
12
solution of the alewife problem will rest in
13
other people's hands other than the water
14
pollution, agencies, and it is very easy to
15
make a recommendation when someone else is going
16
to do the work and get the money.
17
The way we are going to be Judged is
18
if we are going to stop pollution this year,
19
next year, and the year after. Where pollution
20
is, there we have to put in the work, there
21
we have to put up the money, and there we have
22
to work as operating agencies. This is where
23
we are going to have to show our mettle as
24
water pollution people, and I think we are going
25
-------
. : 3733:
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to have to do that very soon*
3
All right.
4
MR. OEMING: Good enough.
5
MR. STEIN: if we are set on that,
6
let me get the last point, progress meetings.
7
8
RECOMMENDATION #30-32
9
10
MR. OEMINGt Do you want six-months
11
progress meetings, is that It?
12
MR. STEIN: I would suggest until we
13
get this case squared away and we have so much
14
In Lake Michigan that we have progress meetings
15
every six months until the Conferees decide—
16
MR. OEMINO: Otherwise?
17
MR. STEIN: --they want them for a
18
longer period. We have used this in other
19
cases.
20
Our experience has been In St. Louis
21
and in, oh, the lower end of the lake and In
22 .
other places that after the first two or three
23
progress meetings we don't have to have them
£r9
that frequently anymo.ce*-.- ., But I think with all
25
-------
. ; 3732
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the problems and the pressures we are going to
3
have here, we should have progress meetings to
4
be held on a. six-months basis unless the Con-
5
ferees decide they want to hold them on a
6
different basis and the conference to be re-
7
convened at the call of the Chairman. 0. K.?
8
Yes, sir.
9
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, I have been
10
unaccustomedly quiet this morning, as you may
11
have observed.
12
There were some here yesterday who
13
I believe misunderstood Wisconsin's motivation
14
and intent in endeavoring to strengthen the
15
recommendations of this conference and the
16
summary of its conclusions and findings. This
17
seemed to center about the desire of Wisconsin
18
to comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control
19
statute to include some reference to reasons
20
for delays.
21
I find that phrase appearing here in
22
Recommendation #30, and I want to assure my
23
fellow Conferees that Wisconsin hopes never
24
to use those three words and would be perfectly
25
-------
3733
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
happy to see them deleted from Recommendation
3
30, but I think I would not make such a motion.
4
I find this recommendation perfectly acceptable.
5
But I did want to clarify our intent
6
to proceed vigorously and aggressively with
7
our program to protect the quality of the
8
waters of Lake Michigan, and nothing we did
9
yesterday was intended in any way to deter us
10
from that goal.
11
MR. STEIN: Right. By the way, I
12
think that should be clear; I think I understood
13
what you said. The statute talked about reasons
14
for delays, and as far as I understand it means
15
reason for delays in the past, which was Just a
16
factual statement. I didn't have any problem
17
with this. Anyone who wants to equate that as
18
being a reason for delay in the future and as
19
excuse for delay in the future I think is mis-
20
reading the statute and misreading the intent or
21
the plain words of what any Conferees said.
22
I don't know that we need the progress
23
reports in dealing with reasons for delays in the
24
progress meetings. I would Just say that 30
25
-------
3734
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
should read that:
3
"Progress meetings be held at least
4
semi-annually unless the Conferees agree on
5
another schedule."
6
And 31:
' l
"The conference will be reconvened
8
at the call of the Chairman."
9
I don't know that we should give a
10
charter in the progress meetings as reasons
11
for delays. This is one of the places I don't
think it should be. Right.
13
MR. KLASSEN: The only difference is,
14
Mr. Chairman, in this if there are any reasons
15
for delay, the State in their report is assuming
16
the responsibilities for those reasons and not
the entire conference.
18
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. KLASSEN: That is the main dif-
20
ference.
21
_. MR. STEIN: Right. And they will be
Za
„. questioned on that too.
*o
24 MR. KLASSEN: That is right.
MR. STEIN: If there are reasons.
25
-------
; ; 3735
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
But I think--
3
MR. KLASSEN: I think it ought to
4
be in 30.
5
MR. STEIN: You do?
6
MR. KLASSEN:. Yes.
7
MR. STEIN: You want this detail in 30?
8
MR. KLASSEN: Well--
9
MR. STEIN: Well, all right.
10
MR. OEMING: We give them anyhow.
11
MR. KLASSEN: We give them anyway.
12
MR. STEIN: All right. I have no
13
objection to that, if you want it.
14
MR. OEMING: Acts of God, war some
15
place.
16
MR. STEIN: All right.
17
MR. POOLE: Now, what are you going
18
to do? Are you revising 30 and 31 and 32 or
19
are you leaving them as they are?
20
MR. STEIN: Let me read them as we
21
are going to have them for you;
22
"30. Progress meetings be held at
23
least every six months unless the Conferees
24
decide on another schedule for such meetings.
25
-------
^_ 3736
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
At these meetings progress reports will be
3
submitted by the Conferees"--and I think this
4
isn't Just the States because we have got Federal
5
installations--"by the Conferees that list the
6
pollution sources, remedial phases completed,
7
reasons for delay, and dates that abatement of--
8
completion of abatement work are expected."
9
"31. The conference will be reconvened
10
at the call of the Chairman."
11
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
12
MR. STEIN: Yes.
13
MR. OEMING: I would offer for the
14
consideration of the Conferees and you as
15
Chairman one additional either comment, con-
16
elusion or recommendation, and that is that the
17
Conferees urge full implementation of the fund—
18
or full funding of the authorizations in the
19
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
20
MR. STEIN: How about the four States
21
making that recommendation? The provision we
22
have is, as you know, by restriction,
23
MR. OEMING: Yes, I understand your
24
problem.
25
-------
373?
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Right.
3
MR. OEMING: But I throw this out
4
for the consideration of the Conferees. You
5
can handle it some way--
6
MR. STEIN: No, we have handled this
7
"before, but is this something' that the four
8
States want to join in?
9
MR. POOLE: Yes.
10
MR. HOLMER: Yes.
11
MR. STEIN: We will draw one up like
12
that. We have had these in other conferences
13
for your consideration.
14
MR. OEMING: I think the Governors
W
have all presented this argument, we have too
16
in our presentation.
17
MR. STEIN: Right.
18
MR. OEMING: Do you agree?
10
MR. KLASSEN: What?
20
MR. OEMING: Are you agreed that we
21
should have as the four States a recommendation
22
that urges full implementation of the authori-
23
zations in the Federal Act for grants?
24
MR. STEIN: All right.
25
-------
3736
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: As an added to, but
3
not gear the whole program-^-
4
MR. OEMING: Oh, no, no.
5
MR. KLASSEN: --to Federal grants,
6
yes. All right.
7
MR. OEMING: No, no, this Just stands
8
by itself, that we are urging.
9
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
10
MR. OEMING: All right.
11
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen?
12
MR, SCHNEIDER: Are you- talking about
13
construction grants or as a whole?
14
MR. OEMING: Construction grants.
15
Construction grants.
16
MR. STEIN: All right,
17
MR. POSTON: I have a recommendation
18
here for #22 on surveillance, and I would like
19
to read it to you.
20
21
RECOMMENDATION #22
22
23
MR. POSTON: "Representatives of the
24
four States and the Federal Water Pollution Control
25
-------
3739
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Administration agree to meet within 60 days
3
for the purpose of developing a. plan to
4
undertake a lakewide surveillance program
5
designed to provide a continuing assessment
6
of water quality. Such information would
7
provide a baseline from which improvements
8
or other—or further deterioration of the--
9
MR. STEIN: You don't need that.
10
MR. POSTON: --open waters of Lake
11
Michigan would be measured.
12
MR. OEMIKG: You don't need that
13
last part, Wally.
14
MR. STEIN: You don't need it. How
15
about cutting out the self-serving statements?
16
(Laughter.)
17
MR. STEIN: We have had so many
18 r
baselines for improvement through the years
19
and gotten millions of dollars from State
20
legislatures or the Congress to show a baseline
21
for improvement and the lake has gotten worse
22
all the time. Let's not jinx ourselves.
23
MR. OEKING: Would it weaken you to
24
drop that?
25
-------
3740
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 MR. POSTON: No, no.
»
MR. OEMING: Just say we are going
to meet and have a--
6 MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. POSTON: This surveillance program
1
would consider the use of aerial reconnaissance
g
and other scientific techniques as new tools in
9
this undertaking, new techniques such as infrared
and color film photography.
11 MR. STEIN: Haven't we got this here?
12
What this adds is this is the pitch, and I
i*
suspect you would get this out, but we did
14
make a recommendation that we would hope that
15
the States and we would work out a coordinated
16
monitoring program.
17 MR. OEMING: That is right.
18
MR. STEIN: But they would have
19
monitoring at the major tributaries--would you
20
mind waiting? Thank you.
21
But we would have monitoring at the
22
tributaries, the States would do that, and we
23
try to do the open lake and try to dovetail it.
24
Now, it seems to me that the use of
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
infrared photography or any other improved
3
technique or the notions you have are the
4
kind of details that the technical committee
5
might come up with, and I don't know that you
6
would want to be specific on those unless you
7
had s ome.
8
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, I would buy
9
about half of this, the first portion:
10
"Representatives of the four States
11
and the FWPCA agree to meet within 60 days for
12
the purpose of developing a plan to undertake
13
a lakewide surveillance program designed to
U
provide continuing assessment of water quality"
15
period. Or "coordinated."
16
MR. POOLS: I have Just l>een listening
17
to this, Mr. Chairman.
18
MR. STEIN: Yes.
19
MR. POOLE: I am not prepared to get
20
it all cluttered up with infrared at this moment.
21
I am certainly willing to consider it.
22
MR. STEIN: Yes.
23
Well, if you go back to surveillance
24
on 20, are you suggesting that as a substitute
25
-------
371*2
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
for what we have already done?
3
MR. POSTON: We said we would handle
4
this by a committee, didn't we?
5
MR/ STEIN: Yes. What is the dif-
6
ference with this and what we have already
7
decided, Mr. Poston? What is the difference?
8
MR. KLASSEN: It speeds it up, for
9
one thing.
10
MR. POSTON: Speeds it up,
11
MR. STEIN: You mean you have added
12
the 60 days?
13
MR. KLASSEN: Added the 60 days and
14
recognized some techniques that could be used.
15
MR. OEMING: I don't want to be
16
bombed with techniques yet.
17
MR, STEIN: No, this is the question.
18
Don't you think the committee should--
19
MR. OEMING: I think we are able to
20
Judge techniques. We don't have to be told what
21
techniques we should consider.
22
MR. STEIN: All right.
23
MR. KLASSEN: Assuming the committee
24
gets moving on it.
25
-------
, 37*13
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: If there is any substantial
3
difference between that and what we have already
4
decided for 20, we will put it in. The only
5
thing I can decide at the present time is the 60
6
days, and I aia not sure who wrote that, but he
7
might have an interest in an airplane company.
8
(Laughter.)
9
MR. OEMING: You are suspicious, Mr.
10
Chairman.
11
MR. STEIN: 0. K.
12
Are there any other comments?
13
MR. POSTON: I would like to go back
14
to this one on dredging and get clarified in
15
my mind what came out of that.
16
MR. OEMING: Oh, me.
17
MR. KLASSEN: We are going to have a
18
restatement ready for Tuesday, is my understanding,
19
MR. STEIN: Right.
20
MR. OEMING: Yes.
21
MR. STEIN: You are going to have a re-
22
.statement ready for Tuesday. Right?
23
MR. KLASSEN: Right.
24
MR. POSTON: Who is going to do that?
25
-------
37:44
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Well, that is what I was
3
going to suggest. I think we have got these,
4
I would hope that we would "be able to get the
5
points in draft form from Mrs. Rankin. I don't
6
know if we can get these from her today.
7
But I will tell you what our plans
8
are. I am going to try to be here about noon
9
on Monday. Mr. Poston, I would suspect by
10
this time, by working with Mrs. Rankin and
11
the girls, that you would have a list of the
12
recommendations. I am going to try to go over
13
them, and as you know in these things I wear
14
many hats and my oldest hat is just by being
15
a draftsman. I am not going to change anything,
16
but I am going to try to draft it the way we
17
have. And as you know, I can argue something,
18
but when I adopt my drafting hat, I just draft.
19
And we will attempt by Monday after-
noon to have a draft of this completed.
21
Now, if any of you come into town on
22
Monday afternoon, get in touch with the regional
23
office, that may be your best base, to see where
we are, and as soon as we get this material
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
available, we will be able to get the draft
3
to the Conferees and hopefully you will be
4
able to look at these on Monday when you
5
come in or tonight. I would hope, if we have
6
done our work well, there will be no surprises.
7
In other words, I am going to give
8
you back what you said and no additions or
9
modifications. I am going to try to put it
10
in a clear and succinct form and get it back
11
to you.
12
0. K.?
13
MR. OEMING: Pine.
14
MR. STEIN: All right.
15
What time do you want to reconvene
16
on Tuesday? Ten o'clock?
17 '.
Ten o'clock. Indiana has a problem.
18
They can't get here before.
19
MR. OEMING: I thought he had a problem
20
about 10.
21
MR. KLASSEN: Well, I would prefer
22
to meet at 11, but--
23
MR. STEIN: All right. Let's not--
24
MR. KLASSEN: We won't quibble over
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
an hour. I1 will either be here or be repre-
3
sented at 10, but if I am not here, I will be
4
here shortly 'after.
5
MR. OEMING: We are going to meet
6
at 10 o'clock on Tuesday?
7
MR. STEIN: Ten o'clock on Tuesday
8
in this hotel, the room to be announced. They
9
have a couple of big conventions in town next
10
week, lumbermen or something, but they will
11
squeeze us in somewhere.
12
Gentlemen, let's see if we can do
13
this, I hope we can, in one day, but I would
14
like a commitment. And I would hope .that the
15
next session would be the last one we need to
16
get our conclusions and recommendations out and
17
we will not have to adjourn. I will ask that
18
we either be prepared to do this, agree or
19
disagree, or I am going to ask you to sit until
20
we come to that Judgment and not go home. 0. K.?
21
Thank you. With that we are recessed
22
until 10 o'clock Tuesday.
23
(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., an adjourn-
24
25
ment was taken until 10 aim., Tuesday, March 12, 19
58.
-------
1 The Sxecutiva Session of the Conference
2 on the Matter of Pollution of Lake-Michigan, and its
3 Tributary Basins, reconvened at 10 ofclock a.m., on
4 March 12, 1968, at the Sherman House, Chicago, Illinois,
5
CHAIRMAN:
6
Murray Stein
7 Asst. Commissioner for Enforcement
Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
8 U. S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
9
10 CONFEREES:
11 FEDERAL:
12 H. W. Poston, Regional Director
Great Lakes Region
13 Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
U. S. Department of the Interior
14 Chicago, Illinois
15 Assisted "by:
16 Robert J. Schneider, Deputy Regional Director
Great Lakes Region
17 Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.
U. S. Department of the Interior
18 Chicago, Illinois
19 . STATE OF. ILLINOIS:
20 Clarence W. Klassen, Technical Secretary
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
21 Springfield, Illinois
22
Assisted by:
23 Benn J. Leland, Sanitary Engineer
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
24 Chicago, Illinois
25
-------
1 CONFEREES (CONTINUED):
2 STATE OP INDIANA:
3 John E. Mitchell, Director
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
4 Indianapolis, Indiana
5 and
6 Blucher Poole, Technical Secretary
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
7 Indianapolis, Indiana
8 Assisted by:
9 Perry E. Miller, Assistant Director
Division of Sanitary Engineering
10 Indiana State Board of Health
Indianapolis, Indiana
11
STATE OP MICHIGAN:
12
Loring F. Oeraing, Executive Secretary
13 Michigan Water Resources Commission
Lansing, Michigan
14
Assisted by:
15
Ralph W. Purdy, Chief Engineer
16 Michigan Water Resources Commission
Lansing, Michigan
17
STATE OF WISCONSIN:
18
Freeman Holmer, Administrator
19 Division of Resource Development
Department of Natural Resources
20 Madison, Wisconsin
21 Assisted by:
22 Theodore P. Wisniewski
Assistant to the Administrator
23 Division of Resource Development
Department of Natural Resources
24 Madison, Wisconsin
25 _ _ „
-------
'37H
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:
2 Herbert D. PaIk
Municipal Management Consultant
3 P & W Engineers, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
4 . . .
S. A. Poust
5 Union Carbide
Whiting, Indiana
6
James W. Jardine
7 Commissioner of Water & Sewers
City of Chicago
8 Chicago, Illinois
9 James E. Kerrigin
Assistant to Director
10 Water Resources Center
University of Wisconsin
11 Hydraulic & Sanitation Laboratory
Madison, Wisconsin
12
Ragner Kummen
13 775 Van Buren
Gary, Indiana
14
R. C. Mallatt, Coordinator
15 Air & Water Conservation
American Oil Company
16 Chicago, Illinois
17 P. J. Marschall, Consultant
Abbott Laboratories
18 Wllmette, Illinois
19 J. H. Miller, Chief Engineer
Wisconsin Steel
20 Chicago, Illinois
21 Eugene A. PiIon, President
Lake Excursions, Inc.
22 Milwaukee, Wisconsin
23 Stan Twardy, Coordinator
Air & Water Conservation
24 Standard Oil
Chicago, Illinois
25
-------
275©
1 OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (CONTINUED):
2 R. V. Weil
Assistant Manager - Engineering
3 Sinclair Refining
Harvey, Illinois
4
Howard Zar
5 University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
3151
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
(Due to inclement weather, Mr. Mitchell,
3 Mr. Poole, Mr. Miller, Mr. Oeming, and Mr. Purdy
were not present when the session reconvened. The
4 record will show at what point in the proceedings
they arrived.)
5
MR. STEIN: I would recommend that
6
without making any prejudgments here, it may
7
be productive—and I have no notion when these
8
people come in, they may be very late--we may
9
put the time to good use if you would go over
10
this and if there are any suggestions that we
11
can put in, we will.
12
Again, let me indicate that what we
13
tried to do here, I hope, was come up with a
14
draft reflecting the Judgment of the Conferees,
15
and we did not try to put any new thoughts in
16
or add anything new or change anything. So if
17
this could be stated better, and I see some
18
parts in here where it could be stated better
19
now, or it could be clearer or it could put
20
our ideas forth better, we would be glad to
21
have that, and then we can wait until the other
22
Conferees come over before we adopt them.
23 . .'
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, this is
24
off the record.
25
-------
3732
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
(Off the record.)
3
4 .
CONCLUSION #16
5
6
MR. STEIN: We did make certain minor
7
changes in the conclusions. I think this was a
8
relatively straightforward typing job. The
9
recommendations are the ones that we will go over,
10
except the last conclusion, and I would like to pre
ll
sent to you—I am not sure Illinois would have
12
the problem, probably this is an Indiana problem--
13
the one that reads:
14
"l6. Federal enforcement actions
15
already in effect on the Menominee"--Menominee?
16
Where did that come from? Oh--"the Menominee
17
and the Calumet River area remain in full force
18
and effect and are thus supplemented but not
19
supercended"--"seded" that should be--"by this"--
20
I would say "by this conference" there, first
21
of all.
22
It don't think Wisconsin or Michigan
23
or Illinois will have any trouble. The word is
24
full force and effect!' I don't know what —
25
-------
3733
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: I have a problem with
3
the word "superseded" even now. Do you want
4
to change "c" to "s"?
5
MR. STEIN: Pardon?
6
MR. HOLMER: . S-u-p-e-r-s-e-d-e-d.
7
MR. STEIN: Right, thanks.
8
That is the only one, I think, on
9
which you may have an issue. I think as far
10
as Illinois is concerned, and I think Wisconsin
11
is concerned, on the Menominee and the Calumet
12
River cases we have a reasonable solution.
13
Particularly in the Menominee, 1 don't look
14
for a reconvening of that. But other than
15
that, I don't think they are--
16
MR. LELAND: Did you change "superseded
17
by this"--
18
MR. STEIN: -"by this conference," yes.
19
MR. LELAND: Instead of "enforcement
20
action"?
21
MR. STEIN: Yes, "conference" instead
22
of "enforcement action." And I don't know if
23
Indiana would have trouble with that "full force
24
and effect" or not.
25
-------
3754
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
We might have a more colorless one by
3
saying, and I think this is Just a general
4
statement, "and the Calumet River area are
5
supplemented but not superseded by this con-
6
ference," and leave out the other stuff.
7
What do you think of that?
8
All right, leave it..
9
Strike "remain in full force and
10
effect and are thus" and put in "are supple-
11
mented but not superseded by this conference,"
12
and Jxist let's make that a flat statement,
13
because I ara anticipating we obviously don't
14
have the record here to make any judgments on
15
that Calumet conference. The others don't
16
present a problem of that type.
17
So with that change, let's see if
18
we can do that.
19
Now, any other? In looking over the
20
other one, I think a key recommendation, and I
21
ask it possibly from almost a literary point
22
of view, I am not sure that that #1 is abundantly
clear. Number .One under Recommendations.
24
(Off the record.)
25
-------
3755
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3
RECOMMENDATION #1
4 •
5
MR. STEIN: Looking this over, we
6
might consider putting a period in Recommendation
7
#1 after the word "quality" and then put "such
8
waste treatment will provide" and a period after
9
"Wise on sin" and this to start a new sen.tence. And
10
I think that will stop that mouthful. 0. K.?
11
MR. HOLMER: The last sentence, "This
12
action is to be accomplished."
13
MR. STEIN: Yes. Now, because of the
14
change, we don't have verbs in all of these.
15
Some read full sentences, some "to be." We
1*
can go through that and adjust that as we go
17
along, if you wish.
18
But you will find this throughout the
19
recommendations. Some of them are complete sen*
20
tences and 'some are phrases without the complete
21
verb.
22
All right. "Is to be," let's do that.
23
In other words, we have a period after "quality,"
24
then "Such waste treatment will"--"that" is
25
-------
: 37-5'fr
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
crossed out—a period after "Wisconsin. This
3
action is to be accomplished."
4
0. K. I think that reads a lot better.
5
MR. POSTON: How about total phosphorus?
6
Phosphorus is really--
7
MR. STEIN: Phosphorus instead of
8
phosphates?
9
MR. POSTON: Yes.
10
MR. STEIN: All right. Years ago
11
Klassen used to run these glossaries. I wish
12
you would dp that lately so I can understand
13
your terms.
14
0. K. Let me read the first one
15
again just for size the way we have it:
16
"Waste treatment be provided"—if we
17
are going to follow your view, and maybe we
18
should be consistent about this, Mr. Holraer,
19
we should say "Waste treatment is to be"?
20
MR. HO.LMER: I would prefer it.
21
•MR. STEIN: All right.
22
"--is to be provided by all munici-
23
palities to achieve at least 80 percent reduction
24
of total phosphorus and to produce an effluent
25
-------
3757
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
which will not result in degradation of Lake
3
Michigan's waters. Such waste treatment will
4
provide compliance with the water quality
5
standards for Lake Michigan as approved by
6
the Secretary of the Interior and the appropriate
7
State water pollution control agencies of Illinois,
8
Indiana, Michigan or Wisconsin. This action
9
is to "be accomplished as soon as possible, but
10
not later than December 1972.
11
MR. KLASSEN: Murray, you left out
12
"Lake Michigan's water"--you left out "quality."
13
Did you--
14
MR. STEIN: Inadvertently. I am sorry.
15
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
16
MB. STEIN: 0. K.
17
Now, if we can go down to 2, let's
18
see if we can try to perfect that.
19
20
RECOMMENDATION #2
21
22
MR. STEIH: Let's put a period after
23
"'•Ms cons in" at least and say "This action,"
24
same thing, Instead of that dash.
25
-------
3758
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
All right?
3
MR. KOLMER: In the first line after
4
"systems" I would insert a "to" and then if you
5
go to the third line, after "and" instead of "that
6
will" if you put another "to," then you have got
7
your verb forms in a little more clearly.
8
MR. STEIN: Where is the—
9
MR. HOLMER: The first one would be
10
after "sewer systems."
11
MR. STEIN: Yes. Yes, that is right.
12
MR. HOLMER: And then "and to meet
13
the water quality standards for Lake Michigan"
14
in the third line.
15
MR. STEIN: --"and to meet." Yes, that
16
is better.
17
All right. Have we all got that?
18
MR. COOK: Murray, would it be a
19
good idea to have someone sit in and correct
20
copies for Poole and Oeming when they come in?
21
MR. STEIN: Yes, someone should work
22
along with us.
23
We.may have more time than you imagine
24
on It.
25
-------
: 3759
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
(Laughter.)
3
MR. POSTON: I think you need an "are
4
to. "
5
MR. STEIN: --"are to," how about that,
6
"sewer systems are to"?
7
MR. HOLMER: All right.
8
MR. LELAND: Which line are you on?
9
MR. POSTON: Line 1 of #2, "industries
10
not connected to municipal sewer systems are to
11
provide"--
12
MR. STEIN: Well, then we have got
13
something, you know. Is that all right?
14
MR. HOLMER: It tracks fairly well.
15
MR. STEIN: All right.
16
MR. LELAND: You want a "to" in the
17
third line also?
18
MR. STEIN: Yes, we have got the "to"
19
in the third line, "and to."
20
All right, I think that is clear
21
enough.
22
23
RECOMMENDATION #3
24
25
-------
^_____ 3_7_6Q
l EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Then let's go on to 3.
3
MR. HOLMER: The second line, the word
"identify," I think we have done that. I think
5 it
what you want'is a list. In other words, Within
six months each State water pollution control
7
agency shall identify the municipal and industrial
S „
sources --
9 MR. STEIN: Yes.
10 MR. HOLMER: Wouldn't the verb "list"
in lieu of "identify" be more sensitive of our
12
feelings?
13 MR. STEIN: All right, let's put "list."
14
Let me give you a notion of what I think
15
we have to do since we are in this list business.
16
I think we have to .list all the sources in the
17
basin. Those that are not contributing to the
18
degradation of the waters we put off and we make
19
it clear, in other words, that there is no
20
argument, that if you have an upstream city
21
that is not contributing to the degradation, we
22
all agree with it. And I think this is where we
23
can create a lot of public confusion and also
24
not move the program forward.
25
-------
3761
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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
In other words, if we are in agreement
that this city is not within the scope of the
conference as a degradation, the first meeting
we agree and as far as I am concerned they are
off and we are through with that city or industry
completely.
Then we have another list contributing.
With that list they are either going to have to
do some work or they have already put in
satisfactory treatment facilities. As we come
back to these progress meetings, that list will
be whittled down until they are gone.
But the first list^ what we have to
come to an agreement with—and this is the worst
kind of thing we can do for ourselves and the
public—is for one party to put out a city on
a list saying, yes, they are in it, and the
other one saying they are not in it, and the
innocent bystander is the city and the industry
concerned. I think we should make that definite
and whittle down this list as soon as we can,
and I think the first ones to do that are the
State agencies.
-------
3762
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
If anyone has a complaint about the
3
State evaluation of this, let's hear them. And
4
if they don't, we will have something to go with,
5
and I think hopefully at the first meeting will
6
be the big cut, we will get that list down to
7
manageable proportions. I suspect that when
8
we get that down, cut that down, that will be a
9
real good indication of the progress we are
10
making.
11
MR. HOLMER: Then shouldn't the list
12
be identified as one of discharges of wastewater
13
rather :than--
14
MR. STEIN: Sources of waste contributing
15
pollution to the Lake Michigan basin.
16
MR. HOLMER: Contributing pollution.
17
We have a lot of municipalities and
18
industries who are doing a good Job, and I am
19
sure every other State does,, and they hate to
20
find themselves listed as polluters when they--
21
MR. STEIN: All right, contributing
22
wastewater. Right?
23
MR. HOLMER: Yes, or discharging
24
wastewater.
25
-------
: 370
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Discharging wastewater.
3
All right.
4
All right.
5
MR. LELAND: --"shall list the
6
municipal"--
7
MR. STEIN: --"and industrial sources
8
of waste discharging wastewater."
9
MR. LELAND: --"sources of waste dis-
10
charging wastewater"?
11
MR. STEIN: --"list the municipal
12
and industrial sources"--cross out "of waste"--
13
"discharging wastewater." 0. K.?
14
All right.
15
MR. POSTON: I don't think that sounds
16
very good.
17
MR. STEIN: Why?
18
MR. POSTON: "The list of municipalities
19
and industries would be better.
20
MR. STEIN: Right.
21
MR. POSTON: "Discharging wastewater."
22
MR. STEIN: Yes. "municipalities
23
and industries," all right, "discharging waste-
24
water." That is better.
25
-------
3764
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
And hopefully, the first list will
3
include a tremendous number of municipalities
4
and industries which, as far as this enforce-
5
ment conference, are free and clear.
6
0. K.? And I think the rest of that
7
might be all right.
8
9
RECOMMENDATION
10
11
MR. STEIN: Pour, it should be "is
12
to be provided." "This action is to be
13
accomplished.
14
15
RECOMMENDATION #5
16
17
MR. STEIN: And 5 reads, "Unified...
18
serving contiguous urban areas ought to be
19
encouraged."
20
21
RECOMMENDATION #6
22
23
MR. STEIN: "Adjustable overflow
regulating devices are to be installed."
25
-------
3765
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 „
MR. SCHNEIDER: Shouldn't #4 be
3
"disinfection is to be"?
4
MR. STEIN: Yes, I said that.
5
MR, SCHNEIDER: Oh.
6
MR. STEIN:--"are to be installed and
7
so designed."
8
And the last sentence, "This action
9
is to be taken as soon as possible."
10
11
RECOMMENDATION #7
12
13
MR. STEIN: 7. "Effective immediately,
14
combined sewers ape to be."
15
And last sentence, "Pollution from
16
combined sewers IP to be."
17
18
RECOMMENDATION #8
19
20
MR. STEIN: And 8, after "municipal
21
sewer systems" "is to be."
22
23
RECOMMENDATION #9
24
25
-------
3766
1 . EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: And on 9, "Continuous
3
disinfection is to be provided."
4
5
RECOMMENDATION #10
6
7
MR. STEIN: Now, "This group will"--
8
and I hope that "will" is a declaratory will.
9
We all recognize that when we say we will meet
10
with the Atomic Energy Commission, maybe we had
11
better put "representatives" after "Commission."
12
MR. HOLMER: I have a little problem
13
on the bottom of page 2--
14
MR. STEIN: Yes.
15
MR. HOLMER: --with the words "for deal-
16
ing with."
17
MR. STEIN: What number?
18
MR. HOLMER: Number 10,Just the last
19
line.
20
MR. STEIN: Yes.
21
MR. HOLMER:--"set up a special committee
22
for dealing with." That is kind of a loose phrase
23
MR. STEIN: All right.
24
MR. HOLMER: I have a quick suggestion.
25
-------
3767
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
IB this to do the research on sources or is it
3
to set up regulations?
4
MR. STEIN: I think it is to--
5
MR. HOLMER: Or to do both?
6
MR. STEIN: I hope it is not to--I
7
don't know that you are going to have the
8
technical people--
9
MR. HOLMER: No.
10
MR. STEIN: --to do the research.
11
As I visualize it, there are two problems,
12
main problems, that you are going to have here -
13
now. One is to determine what, if any, should
14
be the requirements for heat discharges from
15
the plants, and the second, what, if any, you
16
are going to allow to be the radioactive content
17
of the wastewater or you want to have a closed
18
system.
10
I would suspect that ore this you
20
would want to--you would necessarily have to
21
sit as a group or have them evaluate the advice
22
of the experts in the field.
23
MR. HOLMER: 0. K. I would make a
24
suggestion, then.
25
-------
: T768
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Yes.
3
MR. HOLMER: That deleting the "for
4
dealing with both" and simply call it a special
5
committee on the nuclear discharges and thermal
6
pollution.
7
MR. STEIN: All right, that is better.
8
Right. Thanks.
9
MR. COOK: Murray, I have the word
10
on these other people, if you wane it.
11
MR. STEIN: Yes.
12
(Off the record.)
13
MR. STEIN: Let's get on with #10.
14
Now, "This group," I would suggest
15
"This group will meet with the representatives
16
of the Atomic Energy Commission." I think
17
this is all right. What I would say, the "will"
18
here is declaratory. Obviously you need two
19
for a meeting* I have no doubt that they will
20
meet with us, you know, but I think if we put
21
it this way it will be strong enough so we can
22
be sure of the meeting. 0. K.?
23
MR. KLASSEN: Just another off the
24
record.
25
-------
3769
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
(Off the record.)
3
(During the off-the-record discussion,
4
Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Poole, Mr. Oeming and Mr. Purdy
5
arrived.)
6
MR. STEIN: Let us Just finish this one,
7
then we can go back.
8
MR. HOLMER: I have several other
9
changes to suggest in 10.
10
MR. STEIN: Yes.
11
MR. HOLMER: At the beginning, would
12
it not be better to say the States and the
13
Department of the Interior will appoint members
14
of a special committee?
15
MR. STEIN: All right.
16
MR. HOLMER: --"will appoint members of"
17
instead of "set up."
18
MR. STEIN: All right.
10
We will go back after this one, gentle-.
20
men, and pick them all up. This will save time.
21
MR. HOLMER: On the next page, the
22
sentence that starts at the top of the page,
23
instead of calling it a group, let's say the
24
committee. We do in the next sentence.
25
-------
3770
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2 MR.STEIN: "This committee," all right.
»
MR. HOLMER: And in the last sentence,
4
"representatives of the committee" again "will be
available" instead of "this group." It sounds
g
awfully informal, you know.
7 MR. STEIN: Yes. You are right. O.K.
8
Gentlemen, I think--
9
MR. QEMING: Mr. Chairman, may I make
a statement?
11 MR. STEIN: Yes.
12 MR. OEMING: The State of Michigan
13
regrets the inconvenience caused this conference,
14
but it was due to circumstances beyond our
15
control this morning.
16
MR. STEIN: We recognize that.
17
MR. POOLE: The State of Indiana the
18
same. We got behind a stalled truck on Dan Ryan,
19
traffic was backed up for 50 blocks.
20
MR. STEIN: Well, you made it all the
21
way up to here?
22
MR. POOLE: Yes.
23
MR. STEIN: I was worried about that.
24
(Off the record.)
25
-------
3771
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: What we have done up to
3
now, we have gone over the Conclusions and up
4
to 10 in the Recommendations, but I suggest the
5
fastest thing we can do is go back. I would
6
suggest in order to give you time to think this
7
through--! don't think there are any changes.
8
Do you want then to be read?
9
MR. OEMING: If you give me about 10
10
minutes--
11
MR. STEIN: Yes.
12
MR. OEMING: —I think I can check off
13
quite a few of these, Mr. Chairman. I don't
14
know about Mr. Poole. But if we run into a
15
snag, why don't you just hold up instead of
16
trying to read it?
17
MR. STEIN: All right. Let me put
18
it this way. We changed the last conclusion, right|?
19
MR. OEMING: The last? Yes.
20
MR. STEIN: Now, go back here. Let
21
me say this. "Federal enforcement actions
22
already in effect on the Menominee River and
23
the Calumet River area"--strike "remain in full
24
force and effect and are"--"are supplemented
25
-------
; 3772
l EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
but not superseded by this conference." And
3
that will, I think, get us around first base.
4
Now, may I make a suggestion? I
5
do not think there are any other surprises,
6
even changes, in format in the other conclu-
7
sions. While you and Mr. Poole go over that,
8
we will stand recessed until you catch up with
9
the recommendations. O.K.?
10
MR. OEMING: I would appreciate that
11
very much, Mr. Chairman.
12
MR. POOLE: Yes.
13
MR. STEIN: Yes. We will stand
14
recessed until you give us the word. I think
15
you will find this precisely as we—if we
16
didn't, we made a mistake.
17
We will stand recessed until these
18
people are ready.
19 I
(Recess.)
20
MR. STEIN: Do we have any questions
21
on these conclusions?
22
.MR. OEMING: Yes.
23
24
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3
CONCLUSION #10
4
5
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, I have
6
Just one on the Conclusions themselves, and
7
it is a minor one. On page 3 under item 10
8
where we say "coat the hulls of"--and if I
9
remember correctly, the Chairman raised the
10
question why are we only concerned about pleasure
11
boats. Let's say coat the hulls of boats.
12
MR. STEIN: Boats, yes.
13
MR. OEMING: We have gone back to
14
pleasure here again.
15
MR. STEIN: Yes, that is right,
16
strike "pleasure."
17
MR. OEMING: And as far as Michigan
18
is concerned, the conclusions are acceptable
to us through 16 as now placed before us.
20
{Mr. Miller arrived.)
21
MR. STEIN: How about Indiana, is that
22
all right?
23
24
25
-------
377$
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3
CONCLUSION #16
4
5
MR. POOLE: Let me read what I have
6
for 16:
7
"The Federal enforcement actions
8
already in effect on the Menominee River area and
9
the Calumet River area are supplemented but not
10
superseded by this conference."
11
MR. STEIN: Right.
12
MR. POOLE: That is the way it is?
13
MR. STEIN: We took out all the color
14
words. Right?
15
MR. POOLE: That is all right. I
16
Just wanted to make that clear.
17
MR. STEIN: All right, let us go over
18
these recommendations. We have been down to 10
19
without any substantive operation, but let me
20
give you the changes. Largely these are literary
21
changes,
22
23
RECOMMENDATION #1
24
25
-------
37*5
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN:' Recommendation 1. "Waste
3
treatment", insert "is to." After "total" the
4
word is "phosphorus," "80 percent reduction of
5
total phosphorus" instead of "phosphates."
6
All right?
7
MR. POOLE: All right.
8
MR. STEIN: 0. K.: put a period after
9
"quality." It starts, "such waste treatment,"
10
strike "that"
11
MR. OEMING: Strike the word "that"?
12
MR. STEIN: Yes, go down to "Wisconsin"
13
in the next-to-the-last line, put a period.
14
Capital "This" and after the word "action" the
word "is."
15
16
MR. OEMING: Do you want to discuss
17
these one at a time, Mr. Chairman?
18
MR. STEIN: Yes, any time you--
19
MR. OEMING: All right.
20
My notes from last week show that
21
we considered this matter of "but not later than
22
December '72," and you remember I pointed out
23
that we got some 250 communities, we got a
24
factor into this thing, plus 50 over 5,000,
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and I think we agreed upon "This action is
3
to be substantially accomplished by December
4
1972." That is the way my notes read.
5
Now, I am satisfied with that because
6
we have got some tailenders here that I am
7
pretty sure that logistically I can't--! Just
8
from a practical standpoint can't do this.
9
MR. STEIN: All right. Is that
10
agreeable?
11
MR. OEMING: Do you recall this, Mr.
12
Chairman?
13
MR. STEIN: I recall it.
14
Is this all right?
15
MR. POOLE: Well, this would suit me
16
better, because we discussed it before we came
17
up here, and I think we can meet our 10 that
18
is over 5*000, but there are 15 below 5,000,
19
most of them down in the 1,000 to 1,500 popu-
20
lation bracket. And I don't know whether we can
21
work all that 15 in or not.
22
MR. STEIN: All right, let us —
23
MR. OEMING: May I comment a little
24
further on this?
25
-------
3777
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
In order that it doesn't appear that
3
we are mishmashing around with this, if you
4
want to apply the same principle here with
5
respect to reporting on municipalities, I am
6
willing to do that, if you think this leaves
7
us too wide open. That is, the number of the
8
program that I am working on is to hit the
9
big ones first, the big producers of phosphorus
10
first. These are the ones that we want to get
11
out of the lake as fast as possible, and then
12
we will hit the smaller ones later. And if you
13
want a reporting in here, if the Conferees feel
14
that--
15
MR. STEIN: We have a reporting in
16
there.
17
MR. OEMING: 0. K. Then if you do,
18
then I think that this vjould be consistent
19
now with your reporting on these things.
20
MR. STEIN: Let me put this as an
21
understanding. Let's see if we can do that.
22
It may be stronger if we leave it this way,
23
with the understanding that for small communl-
24
ties when you have the reporting you may want
25
-------
3778
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to go over, or do you want to do this?
3
MR. OEMING: Now, which way?
4
MR. STEIN: I don't care.
5
MR/ OEMING: I would like to see it
6
"is to be substantially" and then the Conferees
7
can take a whack at our program if they don't
8
like it.
9
MR. STEIN: All right. Let me read
10
the sentence as you have done it:
11
"This action is to be substantially
12
accomplished by 1972."
13
MR. OEMING: December, yes.
14
MR. STEIN: By December you want?
15
All right.
16
MR. OEMING: Yes, that is all right.
17
MR. STEIN: --by December 1972."
18
MR. OEMING: Yes.
19
MR. STEIN: All right.
20
The point is, and I think.we are
21
going to--this is fair game, gentlemen, when
22
we come up with these progress reports and if
there are some of the big polluters you don't
24
have a schedule for in any way by 1972, and I
25
-------
3779
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
am not talking about intervening events like
3
acts of God like today, we know there are some
4
slippages, but I think the question will be
5
properly raised whether this is a substantial
6
accomplishment.
7
MR. OEMING: I think this is right.
8
This is my understanding.
9
MR. STEIN: All right.
10
Look at #2 at the end--oh, wait. Let
11
me go on.
12
If that is correct, the last sentence
13
reads:
14
"This action is to be substantially
15
accomplished by December 1972."
16
17
RECOMMENDATION #2
18
19
MR. STEIN: "2. Industries not con-
20
nected to municipal sewer systems are to". And
21
the next sentence will be "and to", strike "that
22
will." After "Wisconsin" put a period.
23
Now, do you need--
24
MR. POSTON: I have a suggestion, Mr.
25
-------
3780
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Chairman, and that is that we eliminate #2
3
by including in the first line of the first
4
recommendation "provided by all municipalities
5
and industries with separate outlets," and
6
that way we would eliminate the need for #2,
7
we would provide the same for industries as
8
we require for municipalities.
9
MR. STEIN: No, I am not sure we have
10
all the implications of that. You know.
11
MR. POSTON: I think what we are
12
after is the same kind of--
13
MR. OEMING: I changed my mind, I
14
changed my vote.
15
MR. STEIN: Wait, here, let me make
16
this clear. In this kind of stuff we are
17
really not writing a novel or a scenario,
18
and repetition, so you are sure of yourself,
10
is not to be decried. I would look at that
20
very, very carefully before you--
21
MR. OEMING: Yes.
22
MR. STEIN: --see what you are buying.
23
I am a little afraid of that, and I think we
24
might have too--
25
-------
^___ 3781
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
What do you people think?
3
Wisconsin? Would you prefer keeping
4
it separate?
MR. HOLMER: I think they are separate
g
enough that--
7 MR. STEIN: All right.
8 MR. HOLMER: --even if they said
g
almost the same, I would like to do it separately.
10 MR. STEIN: All right.
11 MR. POSTON: I think what I am really
12
trying to do is make assurance that we get
13 ~~~
phosphate removal out of industry's waste.
14 MR. LELAND: Let's put it in there
15 then.
16 MR. POSTON: Pardon?
17
MR. LELAND: Put it in the second one
18
too.
10 MR. POSTON: Pretty hard to word. It
20
can be put in there.
MR. STEIN: Well, if we are talking in
22
terms of degradation of water quality, and the
23
big issue is on the cities, my notion again--!
24
may be mistaken on this, but whenever we have
25
-------
3782
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
dealt with an industrial waste process, whether
3
it is phosphates or anything else, we have to
4
kind of tailor this. I think we can come up
5
with this 80 percent phosphate bench mark for
6
municipalities and know what we are doing.
7
I am not sure, gentlemen, in dealing
8
with industrial wastes you may want to go higher
9
or lower, depending upon the kind of operation,
10
and give ourselves a little more flexibility
11
and rely on those standards.
12
You know, this is the--well--
13
MR. OEMINO: Mr. Chairman, are we
14
past that point?
15
MR. STEIN: Yes. How about your
16
last sentence?
17
MR. OEMIN.G: Yes, I think we might be
18
pretty much inconsistent here if we didn't adopt
19
the same sentence that we have for municipalities.
20
MR. STEIN: Are you going to have any--
21
all right.
22
MR. OEMING: Well, I think you have
23
got to depend here upon the Conferees--
24
MR. STEIN: All right.
25
-------
3783
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: --looking at our
3
schedules, and so on.
4
MR. STEIN: All right.
5
The last sentence will read, "This
6
action is to be substantially accomplished by
7
December 1972."
8
MR. OEMING: That is right. We
9
understand that in this case, the same as with
10
municipalities, we bring in the problems that
11
we see and tell the Conferees what we are doing.
12
MR. STEIN: Yes. All right.
13
MR. POSTON: In the case, then, of
14
industry inland, would it be anticipated that
15
we would remove phosphates out of these wastes?
16
MR. PURDY: They have got to meet the
17 .
water quality standards for Lake Michigan.
18
MR. STEIN: You have got to read that
19
in line with the approach we have taken, and
20
we have been through this, in line with 3. The
21
point is, if you feel that an industry is not
22
contributing to the degradation of Lake Michigan
23
and they are in the basin, put them on the first
24
list and we all agree with that, as far as I am
25
-------
3784
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
concerned they are out of the case. Or if
3
they have proper treatment, you know. I don't
4
think there is--
5
MR. OEMING: I have a question of
6
Wally.
7
MR. STEIN: Yes.
8
MR. OEMING: Does this concern you,
9
Wally? I mean it is my concept that we would
10
report for Michigan industries whether we have
11
a phosphate problem at an "x" industry.
12
MR. STEIN: Right.
13
MR. OEMING: And if we do have, this
14
affects Lake Michigan, we have got to report on.
15
it.
16
MR. STEIN: Right.
17
MR. OEMING: We are obligated to do so.
18
MR. STEIN: Yes.
19
MR. POSTON: Well, I--
20
MR. HOLMER: If they have got one
21
part per million, you are not going to insist
upon 80 percent removal.
M«*
MR. STEIN: And you may have, I don't
know, I don't want to pick on any industry--let's
-------
3^85
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
get off the record.
3
(Off the record.)
4
MR. STEIN: So I think with in-
5
dustrial processes you have this. We all
6
know of both kinds of plants on what we have
7
to do with phosphates. In a way, we are
8
deluding ourselves if we believe that we
9
are going to an industrial plant area and not
10
make a plant-by-plant analysis of the phos-
phate problem, and what is reasonable for
12
them to do in that area.
13
If a guy is putting out a pound of
14
phosphates a week, why would you want him to
15
get 80 percent removal? or if a guy is putting
16
out 5,000 pounds an hour, 80 percent removal
17
isn't going to begin to meet the problem. Right.
18
All right.
19
20
RECOMMENDATION
21
22
MR. HOLMER: In 1, I have been fretting
23
about the phrase "all municipalities." This
includes all incorporated places, and I don't
25
-------
3786
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
want to go back up to 5,000 by any means.
3
MR. STEIN: No, no, we have a
4
definition of municipalities. Do you want to
6
strike "all"?
6
MR. HOLMER: Well, what--
7
MR. STEIN: In the act.
8
MR. HOLMER: What is the definition?
9
I have forgotten.
10
MR. STEIN: Oh, it means that any--
11
and peculiarly enough they include State as a
12
municipality^-any city, county, parish that
13
has Jurisdiction to run a sewage collection
14
and disposal facility. In other words--
15
MR. HOLMER: Yes.
16
MR. STEIN: In other words, they would
17
have to be eligible to come in for a Federal
18
grant to be: a municipality.
19
MR. HOLMER: Well, if that is the
20
understanding--
21
MR. STEIN: Yes.
22
MR. HOLMER: --I have no objection
23
to "all," then.
24
MR, STEIN: That is right. I think
25
-------
378?
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the definition applying in the Federal act
3
will apply, and I don't think you are going
4
to be hit with these little outfits that don't
5
have any.
6
Yes .
7
MR. LELAND: Are you eliminating
8
utility operations?
9
MR. STEIN: No, utility operations,
10
if they have that jurisdiction, are included.
11
They are not public.
12
Well, here, if you are going to do
13
this--do you want to strike "all"?
14
MR. HOLMER: With your explanation,
15
it doesn't bother me any more.
16
MR. STEIN: Again, gentlemen, here
17
is what I want to say. I have been through
18
this--and I will say much more with our own
19
staff than you people--if you are going to
20
get the notion that we are going to write a
21
document here which is going to be designed
22
to take care of all possible operations, I
23
think we are deluding ourselves. What we have
24
to do is recognize that we are going to take
25
-------
3789
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Joint action by the Conferees and have to
3
utilize these in a reasonable manner. If
4 '
we don't, we are going to fall apart and a
5
court is going to tell us we are Just not
6
going to do it.
7
So I think on some of these points,
8
we are kind of straining at gnats here, because
9
anyone who tries to impose some of these
10
interpretations is going to come a cropper.
11
No one does that and stays in public office
12
very long.
13
Let's go to 3.
14
15
RECOMMENDATION #3
16
17
MR. STEIN: "Within six months each
18
water pollution control agency shall--strike
19
"identify" and put the word "list"--"shall list
20
the municipalities and industries"--then strike
21
the rest of that line and put--"discharging
22
wastewater," and that is it.
23
MR. POOLE: Read that again, because
24
I have it marked up.
25
-------
, = 3789
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: The sentence reads, first
3
sentence:
4
"Within six months each State water
5
pollution control agency shall list the municl-
6
palities and industries discharging wastewater
7
to the Lake Michigan basin."
8
MR. POOLE: 0. K.
9
MR. STEIN: All right, that's the
10
way, and then read on. No further changes.
11
MR. OEMING: We make a complete list and
12
then we say which ones are causing—contributing,
13
in our view, to the Lake Michigan problems?
14
MR. STEIN: Right. And hopefully the
15
first go-around will really cut the list down
16
to size.
17
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Are stormwaters
18
included in your definition of wastewater?
19
Probably not, I would suggest—
20
MR. STEIN: Let me ask a question
21
here. I wouldn't think--! would hope that a
:22
community upstream with stormwater isn't, but
23
let's suppose that--
24
MR. WISNIEWSKI: I was thinking of
25
-------
3790
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Chicago, for example, that has got stormwater
3
running into Lake Michigan.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes. Yes, they are
5
included.
6
MR. KLASSEN: Runoff from parking lots
7
very often is highly polluted.
8
MR. STEIN: Yes, sure, right.
9
MR. WZSNIEWSKI: Do you want to then
10
list discharging wastewater or stormwater?
11
MR. STEIN: Well, wouldn't wastewater
12
include stormwater?
13
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, I think so.
14
MR. WISNIEWSKI: If we agree on it.
15
MR. STEIN: Right. 0. K.
16
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
17
MR. STEIN: Yes.
18
MR. OEMING: At the bottom of page 1,
19
under 3, we have a repetition here now and we
20
also have a conflict with 1 and 2, "Treatment
21
facilities are to be completed as soon as possible
22
but not later than 1972." Why does that have to
23 I
be in there? We have already--
24
MR. STEIN: It doesn't. Strike the
25
-------
379*
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
sentence.
3
All right.
4
All right, let's go on to #4.
5
6
RECOMMENDATION #4
7
8
MR. STEIN: #4, Just some literary:
9
"Continuous disinfection is to be
10
provided," "is to" after "disinfection," and
11
the second sentence, "This action is to be."
12
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, as I
13
remember, we beat this around a good deal as
14
to, first of all, the chlorination of lagoons,
15
and I think you indicated that something ought
16
to be in here about where the bacterial quality
17
affects Lake Michigan. Is my recollection correct?
18
MR. STEIN: Yes, we did that on 9, on
IV
industrial waste effluent.
20
MR. OEMING: Yes, but with respect to
21
this chlorination of all sewage effluents —
22
MR. STEIN: Now, here is the point,
23
as I understand it. When we are dealing with
24
this, first of all, the lists we are going to
25
-------
^_______ 3792
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
be dealing with are Just the places that affect
3
Lake Michigan. In other words, this will not-—
4
everything here, and we haven't repeated that
5
phrase over and over again.
6
MR. OEMING: I appreciate that.
7
MR. STEIN: In other words, if you
8
get a lagoon upstream and you by this list say
9
that it is off the list, as far as we are con-
10
cerned it is out of the case.
11
MR. OEMING: All right.
12
MR. STEIN: Now, if it deleteriously
13
affects Lake Michigan, then we have got to
14
think of it.
15
MR. OEMING: Yes.
16
MR. STEIN: 0. K.?
17
MR. OEMING: I guess I am always
18
thinking about people taking things out of
19
context.
20
MR. STEIN: No, no, no. Otherwise we
21
have to repeat this every--
22
MR. OEMING: I know.
23
MR. STEIN: All right. This was not
24
intended that if you have a lagoon on the St.
25
-------
3793
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Joseph River way upstream or something and you
3
are not going to find a bug that is going to
* •
reach the operation that it is the concern of
5
this conference anyway.
6
MR. OEMING: I see. All right, I
7
am satisfied with your interpretation.
8
MR. STEIN: Right. 0. K.
9
Now, 5.
10
MR. LELAND: Murray?
11
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
12
MR. LELAND: Chlorination in the Calumet
13
River area is already or should be an accomplished
14
fact. You have covered it in the conclusion in 16.
15
MR. STEIN: Yes.
16
MR. LELAND: You don't have to repeat
17
it here or make reference to it?
18
MR. STEIN: We haven't talked about
19
the Calumet--if you meet the requirement--
20
Again let me say this. As I see this,
21
a compliance with this operation is this. You
22
come in with a list of cities and industries.
23
A tremendous number of the cities and industries
24
are not going to affect Lake Michigan, and you
25
-------
3794
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
say these cities and industries are out. Other
3
cities and industries—you are going to have
4
two operations--either they are going to do this
5
or they have already done it.
6
Now, you and Mr. Klassen have come in
7
many times in the case and you have said they
8
have had secondary treatment since 1960 or
9
they are already providing chlorination. If
10
that's the case, all we need is the first report
11
and as far as I am concerned they are off the
12
list.
13
MR. LELAND: All right.
14
MR. STEIN: And pur idea is to get
15
this list narrower and narrower and smaller
16
and smaller, as we have done in every case,
17
putting these Judgments against it.
18
I suspect,.again, as I say, the biggest
19
cut in the list will come at the first progress
20
meeting, when we will be able to get the thing
21
down to manageable proportions and know what we
22
are dealing with. And this has always been the
23
way we have worked with this.
24
All right.
25
-------
. 3795
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3
RECOMMENDATION #6
4
5
MR. STEIN: "Adjustable overflow
6
regulating devices are to."
7
And the last sentence, "This action
8
is to be."
9
All right?
10
All right. Let me take a break as
11
we go along with this to give you the schedule.
12
As you know, we are always blessed at
13
these conferences by having the ever-popular
14
international expert, Clarence Klassen, who
15
has one of his innumerable speaking engagements
16
today, and in order to try to dovetail this,
17
I think the plans fit very well—he is going
18
to talk to some fashion show or something this
19
noon.
20
MR. KLASSEN: As usual, you are not
21
dealing in facts, Mr. Chairman, but go ahead.
22
(Laughter.)
23
MR. LELAND: It is more interesting
24
this way.
25
-------
5 3796
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: We will recess between
3
12 and 1:30, "because I think it is important
4
to have him here and then we will be able to
5
do this.
All right, let's--
7
MR. KLASSEN: For the record, I am
8
speaking to the National Waterworks Association
9
on the new f luoridatiorr law, which is one of
10
the few States in the Union that now requires
11
fluoridation. I don't believe there is anybody
around the table that has this. This is not a
13
fashion show, Mr. Chairman. I wish it were.
14
MR. POOLE: Breaking in on that,
16
would you take all these letters that these
16
Wisconsin women have been writing to my
17
Governor who are opposed to f luoridation
18
and want us to rule it out as an action of this
19
conference?
20
MR. KLASSEN: Will we take them? We
21
have got them.
22
(Laughter.)
23
MR. POOLE: Send me copies of your
24
replies. I don't know how to answer them.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: I am always willing to
3
accommodate another expert, Mr. Chairman.
4
MR. STEIN: All right.
5
MR. WISNIEWSKI: There are more
6
people drinking fluoridated water in Wisconsin
7
than any place else in the country.
8
MR. OEMING: Mr> Klassen, don't tell
9
them that Michigan has required fluoridation.
10
MR. KLASSEN: I didn't. I said except
11
Michigan.
12
MR. OEMING: 0. K.
13
MR. STEIN: Let's go on to 7.
14
15
RECOMMENDATION #7
16
17
MR. STEIN: Let's go to 7, first line,
18
"combined sewers are to be separated."
19
The last sentence is "Pollution from
20
combined sewers is to be controlled."
21
All right?
22
(No reply.)
23
24
25
-------
3798
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3
RE COMMENDATION #8
4
5
MR. STEIN: Now, 8, we have after
6
"sewer systems," "to municipal sewer systems
7
is to be encouraged."
8
9
RECOMMENDATION #9
10
11
MR. STEIN: The next one, 9, "Con-
12
tinuous disinfection is to be provided."
13
All right?
14
15
RECOMMENDATION #10
16
17
MR. STEIN: The first sentence in 10,
18
"The States and the Department of the Interior"--
19
strike "set up"--"will appoint members of a"--
20
MR. OEMING: Now, Just a moment, Mr.
21
Chairman, I don't have that. Will what?
22
MR. STEIN: --"will appoint members of
23
a special" instead of "set up," strike "set up"
24
and insert in lieu thereof, "will appoint members
25
-------
3799
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Of."
3
Strike "for dealing with both" and
4
put "on" instead, "on nuclear discharges"--
5
I will read this sentence. And then it reads,
6
"The committee will meet with representatives."
7
And the last sentence reads "Repre-
8
sentatives of the committee."
9
MR. POOLE: You are going too fast
10
for me, Murray. Committee will meet with
11
representatives of AEC--
12
MR. STEIN: Yes.
13
MR. POOLE: —or Just with AEC?
14
MR. STEIN: With representatives of
15
the Atomic Energy Commission.
16
MR. OEMING: Well, Mr. Chairman,
17
we are going a little fast here. Maybe I
18
missed it.
19
MR. STEIN: Yes.
20
MR. OEMING: Is there any implication
21
here or indication as to what we have in mind
22
in the way of composition of this committee? I
23
mean who is to be on it? Are we Just going to
24
leave it you can appoint--
25
-------
33QQ
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: The Conferees will —
3
MR. OEMING: I got it. I missed it.
4
MR. STEIN: The Conferees will —
5
MR. OEMING: Sorry. Pass ine over.
6
MR. STEIN: All right.
7
MR. POOLE: The last sentence reads,
8
"Representatives of the committee will be
9
available to appear"?
10
MR. STEIN: Yes, "of the committee."
11
In other words, the idea is if they are going to
12
take a year or so to do this, they had better
13
make their views felt.
14
All right.
15
With that, gentlemen, vie are all
16
caught up. You came in at a good time,- because
17
11 deals with dumping, you know, of dredgings.
18
RECOMMENDATION
20
21
MR. STEIN: All right, 11.
22
MR. KLASSEN: Are we open for comments
23
on this?
24
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
25
-------
3801
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: This doesn't seem like
3
a very positive statement to me. We want to
4
have the target objective of this group to
5
stop Lake Michigan being used as a dumping
6
ground, and that polluted dredgings as of now
7
is to be discontinued. To me this is real fuzzy.
8
We are Just going to advise the Corps of Engineers
9
and they are going to tell us in six months what
10
their program is, and this is--I think this is
11
a backward step.
12
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
13
MR. STEIN: Yes.
14
MR. OEMING: May T point out once
15
again that I think we should bear in mind
16
in whatever we say here that there now exists
17
an agreement between the Secretary of the
18
Interior and the Secretary of the Army which--
19
MR. KLASSEN: That is right, the
20
Secretary of the Army.
21
MR. STEIN: Secretary of the Army.
22
MR. OEMING: Secretary of the Army,
23
at top secretarial level here. And I question
24
what these Conferees can do outside of that
25
-------
. 3808
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
agreement. If I recall the agreement correctly,
3
and I think it was understood there would be
4
copies here today* it spells out a program for
5 . • •
investigation and a report by December of this
6
coming year and it spells out that this does not
7
involve the discontinuance of dredging. Am I
B
wrong or right?
9
MR. STEIN: You are right.
10
MR. OEMING: In 1968. Now, are we
11
in a position here to abrogate this agreement
12
no matter how we feel about dredgings, I mean
13
the dumping of dredgings?
14
MR. STEIN: This is what I understood
15
the consensus was when I left here, and this is
16
why this was drafted this way.
17
I have one other point to make that I
18
think I made last time and I think the Corps has
19
made this to me many, many times. They have
20
said, in dealing with polluters, we are going
21
to ask for the cessation of pollution, say, by
22
1972, or in other ways 1977 or chlorination by 1969
23
Here they have been doing a practice, say for
24
50, 60 years. All right. We are asking them
25
-------
3803
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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
to come up with an abatement program. What they
say is, "Aren't we entitled to the same kind of
consideration you in the States or the Federal
Government give to any other municipality or
any other industry?"
The notion is, that is right, there
is the agreement. I would think, and the
object of this, this is such a technical question
that we think the Corps should be asked to come
before the Conferees with its program, and that
is in six months, to indicate what is going to
be done. In the interim—and I think everyone
knows what has happened with the dredging as
well as I do and what part public opinion has to
play in it—where there is any question of
dredged material going anywhere, according to
this recommendation the State and the Interior
will be on publi'c record to the Corps and other
interested people—and other interested people
means the press and the public and anyone who wants
to knpw--what their view of that material is.
The way I look at it, if we have a
faster way or a more definitive way of getting
Department
-------
1
2
38 04
EXECUTIVE SESSION
at the problem, unless we get that first report
3 from the Corps, there may be a way of doing
4 this, but I think I was reflecting what the
5 Conferees were saying. In. other words, we
6 are not coming up, and it is clear, with a
7 definitive judgment on this until we get the
8 first report from the Corps.
9 Now, we are not coming up with
10 definitive judgments on a lot of other things,
like pesticides, agricultural runoff, as I
12
read this, policy on thermal nuclear plants,
until we get this. And as I got the consensus
14
of the Conferees, this was about the best we
could do with this dredging at this stage of
16
the agreement. If we can do more. I would
like to know this.
18
I know that Illinois is prepared to
19
go farther.
20
MR. OEMING: Yes, I understand.
21
MR. STEIN: I don't think there is any
22
question on that. You have to recognize, as far
23
as the Federal Government is concerned,there is-an ^gree-
24
ment, and I am not sure that any of the States
25
-------
3805
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
are prepared at the present time, given the
3
existing facts, prepared to go much farther
4
than this. If you are, I will entertain
5
anything we can do or put the Illinois views
6
in as separate views if you feel that strongly
7
about it, Mr. Klassen.
8
MR. KLASSEN: Well, Just one point.
9
So far as Illinois is concerned, our State
10
law and our present operation, we can prohibit
11
anything going into Lake Michigan in Illinois
12
waters. It isn't our particular concern about
13
this, because we know when the permits are
14
applied for and there are no permits issued by
15
the Department of Public Works until the water
16
pollution control agency countersigns this.
17
So I think we have a tight control even over
18
the Corps of Engineers where--they might not
19
agree, I understand; I am not involved in this--
20
but that they have got to get a permit from the
21
State of Illinois. I think there is some
22
question about it, but this hasn't been made
23
an issue.
24
What the State of Illinois is concerned
25
-------
__J806
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
about, what kind of a control the other States
3
have over the prevention of polluted material
4
going into Lake Michigan by the Corps or by
5
anybody. This is what our concern is.
6
We are set up to handle our own
7
problem and to prevent this.
8
MR. POOLE: Well, we don't have any
9
specific control as you do in your law, but
10
I have assumed, maybe wrongly, that the Indiana
11
Pollution Control Law covered Indiana waters.
12
MR. KLASSEN: You are right.
13
MR. STEIN: Well, I don't know that
14
anyone else of the other States wants to comment
15
on this. I do think, Mr. Klassen, that we are
16
going to have a lot of these very, very difficult
17
problems to handle if we are going to solve Lake
18
Michigan, and that dredging is one of them. The
19
big strides that are made here are in the kind
20
of treatment that is going to meet water quality
21
requirements plus chlorination, and I think this
22
in large measure will result in a very high
23
degree of waste treatment, plus the removal of
24
phosphates.
25
-------
3907
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
On the other problems, like in this,
3
we are showing the way, even in the kind of
4 ' . .
treatment we are asking here. But I think in
5
stuff like dumping of dredgings--we are striking
6
out in a very new field,.we are feeling our way
7
along, we are trying to do this with four States
8
and the Federal Government--! don't know how
9
much farther we can move now before we try to
10
get the Corps report and a pretty exhaustive
11
study on their program to see if this is satis-
12
factory to meet all the States programs.
13
Mr. Mitchell, did you have something
14
you wanted to say?
15
MR. MITCHELL: This thing probably
16
worried me more over the weekend than any other
17
recommendation, because we left rather hazy
18
about it.
19
MR. STEIN: Yes.
20
MR. MITCHELL: Probably more hazy than
21
all of them, and I was wondering who was the
22
poor guy who was going to have to write the
23
recommendations for us this morning.
24
When I read this one, if I would guess,
25
-------
3808
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
that the public expects we as Conferees to say
3
something rather definite about dumping of
4
polluted dredged materials into Lake Michigan,
5
and yet I recognize the importance of the
6
Corps problem of time to work out the difficult
7
problem that it is. And so I would guess that
8
the statement as it is now presented to us
9
doesn't seem to me to be definite enough.
10
MR. STEIN: What would you suggest
11
we do?
12
MR. MITCHELL: Well, I wrote one up
13
here. I don't know if I like it entirely myself,
14
but I might throw it out for consideration.
15
MR. STEIN: Go ahead.
16
MR. OEMING: Before you read it--
17
MR. MITCHELL: All right.
18
MR. OEMING: --let me see if I can get
19
a preamble here; you don't'have to use it as a
20
preamble.
21
But aren't we dealing here with
22
getting the stuff out of the lake on a long-
23
term basis, some term? You say 1972 for
24
industries, 1972 for phosphates, out whatever
25
-------
3809
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
date you want. And then you have got an
3
interim problem here.
4 ' '
Now, Illinois thinks they have
5
resolved this. I don't believe that Michigan
6
has resolved this. And I think in order to be
7 • •
consistent with the present agreement that we
8
ought to deal with it in this sense.
9
I read what Mr. Mitchell has, and I
10
think we are getting closer to what my thinking
11
is, that we should set a goal to get the
12
dredgings out of the lake--
13
MR. STEIN: Yes.
14
MR. OEMING: --which would conform
15
to the program that has been presented to
16
these Conferees by the Corps. They are working
17
on a solution and they will ultimately have
18
something, so why can't we put a target date on
19
that?
20
MR. STEIN: We could.
21
MR. OEMING: And then try to deal with
22
this interim problem in some way.
23
MR. STEIN: Yes.
24
MR. OEMING: And I think Mr. Mitchell
25
-------
3810
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
maybe
3
MR. STEIN: We. will be glad to
4
entertain it.
5
Let me say for this, and I put
6
this down this way, the notion was, as I got
7
the views when we left here, that we
8
really didn't have the information to set this
9
target date now. i thought that at least the
10
implication here was that at the first progress
11
meeting in six months when we got the program
12
of the Corps you might want to set your target
13
date then. If you think that we are ready to
14
talk more definitely than that now, I would be
15
delighted. But I didn't get that from the
16
last meeting.
17
Mr. Klassen?
18
MR. OEMING: You are right.
19
MR. KLASSEN: One point, we have been
20
pointing everything to the Corps of Engineers
21
and dredgings. but there are other problems.
22
We were recently approached prior to an appli-
23
cation, there is no application filed, they
demolished the Lake County Waukegan Courthouse,
25
-------
3811
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and we were approached about If an application
3
was made to put this demolition material in the
4
lake to build a breakwater whether we would
5
approve it and we said no. Now, this has
6
nothing to do with the Corps of Engineers. But
7
we intend to keep anything out of the lake in
8
Illinois that is going to in any way affect
9
the quality of the water, and the material from
LO
that courthouse is plaster, brick, pipe, old
11
radiators, door casings--
MR. LELAND: Floor tiles.
L3
MR. KLASSEN: —floor tile—Mr. Leland
14
made the inspection—and we said no.
15
MR. STEIN: Right.
16
MR. KLASSEN: We Just want to make
17
sure that the other States are taking the same
18
attitude.
19
MR. STEIN: Yes. Here again--
20
MR. KLASSEN: This does not involve
21
dredging of the Corps of Engineers.
22
MR. STEIN: Right.
23
Before we let Mr. Mitchell go forward
24
with that, I think this is precisely what this is
25
-------
3812
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
that we have down here was intended to cover,
3
because I would not doubt that if the Corps or
4
anyone else wanted to put this dredging in the
5
lake and you would come up and you would give
6
what you just said was your diagnosis of the
7
pollutional effects of that material, I would
8
hope that you would not have a different view
9
than Mr. Poston and the Federal people on the
10
pollutional effects of the material. I think
11
in the existing state of affairs, particularly
12
around in the Illinois waters, this would work
13
for this year.
14
Now, the question here, I am not
15
sure whether the other States have gone through
16
the public debate that we have had in Illinois
17
on this dredging and they are far enough along
18
with their program. What this intended to do
10
was to have holding action for a six-months
20
operation where we could have this kind of
21
discussion. Now, if we can set a date or be
22
more definite, fine, but I think we are still
23
going to have to go through this.at possibly
our first meeting and at the same time have this
25
-------
3813
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
designed so we are protecting Illinois existing
3
program.
4
Mr. Mitchell, do you want to offer
5
anything?
6
MR. MITCHELL: Well, I assume from
7
your discussion here that you are suggesting,
8
and I am attempting to agree with you, that we
9
cannot set a final date because we lack too
10
much information.
11
MR. STEIN: That is right.
12
MR. MITCHELL: But I think maybe up
13
to the sentence I talk about a date it makes
14
a little bit better--
15
MR. STEIN: All right.
16
MR. MITCHELL: "The prohibition of
17
the dumping of polluted material or dredging
18
into Lake Michigan should be accomplished as
19
soon as possible consistent with the laws of
20
the States involved and the need to provide
21
maintenance dredging to prevent economic hard-
22
ship for the port and the region. The Depart-
23
ment of the Interior and the States involved
24
must certify all material or dredging free
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
from pollutants before any dumping is permitted."
3
MR. KLASSEN: Would you change it
4
to "deposition" instead of "dumping"?
5
MR. STEIN: Well, here, I have a few
6
Just theoretical problems with this.
7
What you are doing is saying con-
8
slstent with the laws of. the State, which may
9
give a loophole, and then you say we should
10
certify the pollutional aspects and possibly
11
the States should do it and the Department of
12
the Interior. In one place you are easing up
is
or someone might say you might be easing up
14
consistent with the laws of the State.
15
The second thought, you are asking us
16
to make a certification that I am not sure we
17
can do under our existing law. I guess anyone
18
can certify anything. But the point is, is this
19
going to have any force and effect?
20
I have worked with the Corps of
21
Engineers for many, many years on pollution
22
problems, and whatever you have felt, I have
23
always felt they have been cooperative. My
24
notion is in working with the Corps, it is
25
-------
3815
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
something like working with you people, in
3
working out an agreement with them or us on a
4
program to abate the pollution, I think we will.
5
be farther ahead than any kind of arm's length
6
certification from Interior or any other program
7
to the Corps. Now, this is Just, again, my
8
experience.
'•
I think your first sentence, probably
10
with modifications, is a better formulation
11
than this. Could you read that again?
12
MR. MITCHELL: I add the--I didn't
13
recognize your fear about the laws of the State.
14
I was trying to accomplish something for Illinois
15
because they have this law which prohibits it
16
now, and I thought if we try to have an enforce -
17
inent with a date in it, we ought to allow them
18
to recognize their own law that they have which
19
prohibits it now.
20
MR. STEIN: Would you read it again?
21
MR. MITCHELL: I will be glad to read
22
it again:
23
"The prohibition of the dumping of
24
polluted material or dredging into Lake Michigan
25
-------
3816
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
should be accomplished as soon as possible
3
consistent with the laws of the State involved
4
and the need to provide maintenance dredging
5
to prevent economic hardship for the port and
6
the region."
7
MR. STEIN: May I look at that again?
8
Let me just try this on for size, be-
9
cause I think your first sentence is better.
10
"The prohibition of the dumping of
11
polluted material"--"polluted" is the word?--
12
"polluted material into Lake Michigan should
13
be accomplished as soon as possible. It is
14
recognized that the State of Illinois has a
15
legislation and a positive program in this area.
16
The other States should develop commensurate--
17
should develop programs—shall develop programs
18
on this as soon as possible."
19
MR. KLASSEN: Could I suggest a-slight
20
wording change?
21
MR. STEIN: Yes.
22
MR. KLASSEN: You said "polluted
23
materials."
24
MR. STEIN: Yes.
25
-------
3817
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. KLASSEN: Should it be "polluting
3
material"?
4
MR. STEIN: "Polluting materials."
5
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
6
MR. STEIN: I was reading his stuff.
7
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
8
MR. MITCHELL: That's better.
9
MR. STEIN: Then we can say:
10
"it is recognized — the need must be
11
recognized to provide maintenance dredging to
12
prevent economic hardship for the ports and
13
the region. The Corps of Engineers and the
14
States will be requested to report to the
15
Conferees within six months concerning their
16
programs. At that time the Conferees shall
17
consider adopting a coordinated approach toward
18
the discharge of dredging, together with a
19
target date for putting the program into
20
operation."
21
Is this--
22
MR. OEMING: I am willing to let it
23
rest there for a moment until you get that
24
typed up and take a look at it.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: All right.
3
We have Just got one other big
4
problem and it is 12 o'clock. Let's get that
5
typed up and we will do that. We will have
6
that for you after lunch, because the other
7
big problem is the alewife problem, and I think
8
from there on we have free sailing, I hope,
9
most of the afternoon.
10
Sir?
11
MR. HOLMER: Is that six months from
12
the date of the recommendation?
13
MR. STEIN: Well, we can make that
14
a time. Now, I would--
15
MR. HOLMER: I don't want to conflict
16
with the Secretary of the Interior again.
17
MR. STEIN: We will talk about that
18
when we come back. Generally the six months
ID
runs from the time the Secretary sends this
20
out,because we have no notion that the Secretary
21
is going to adopt this at all. Right?
22
We will stand recessed until 1:30.
23
(Whereupon, at 12:00 noon an adjourn-
24
ment was taken until 1:30 p-m.)
25
-------
3819
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
AFTERNOON SESSION
3
(1:30 p.m.)
4
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene..
5
6
RECOMMENDATION #11 (Continued)
7
8
MR. STEIN: The first sentence, that
9
"should," how about changing that to "shall,"
10
Mr. Mitchell? 0. K.?
11
MR. MITCHELL: Fine.
12
MR. OEMING: Fine.
13
MR. STEIN: Let's put, "The State of
14
Illinois has a legislative and positive action
15
program in this area."
16
MR. MITCHELL: I wish Mr. Klassen was
17
here to discuss that, but I read that bill and
18
as I read it that bill itself doesn't prohibit
19
dumping, it Just gives Mr. Klassen the authority
20
to veto the Board of Public Works. It doesn't
21
say it shall prohibit it or anything, so I don't
22
know that we should mislead people as to what
23
that bill actually says.
24
MR. STEIN: Well, no. Let's wait until
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Mr. Klassen comes in. But I am just trying to
3
perfect the language here if he doesn't buy
4
this.
5
The other States "will" instead of
6
"shall".
7
MR. OEMING: Let's wait until Murray
8
finishes.
9
MR. STEIN: Let's just get this
10
grammatically.
11
MR. OEMING: Yes.
12
MR. STEIN: The Corps of Engineers
13
and the States, capital S.
14
All right? Wait a minute.
15
MR. POSTON: I understand that the
16
Corps will not complete their studies until
17
about December 1968. Six months would run us
18
up to about October, and I wonder, they will %
19
have some preliminary results, but not all of
20
the results of their financing.
21
MR. STEIN: Don't you think the
22
Corps can give us a reasonable approach? In
23
other words, they have got to put everything
24
back. Why don't they give us what they have?
25
-------
3821
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POSTON: I am sure they would
3
be willing to give us what they had.
4
MR. STEIN: Otherwise we would be
5
moving the whole thing back another three
6
months.
7
MR. OEMING: We are out of phase here.
8
MR. STEIN: Yes. Perhaps they can
9
adjust.
10
MR. POSTON: I wanted to make you
11
aware of this potential.
12
MR. STEIN: Yes, we are well aware
13
of the potential, but I think we bent over
14
quite a way toward the Corps. I think in the
15
six-monUte deadline they can bend toward us,
16
and maybe we can arrive at an accommodation.
17
Why don't you read this, Benn?
18
"Prohibition shall be accomplished,"
19
instead of "should," right? "|t is re cognized " —
20
now, here is the question —"that the State of
21
Illinois has a legislative and positive action
22
program in this area."
23
Is this true?
24
MR. LELAND: Yes. Senate Bill Number
25
-------
3832
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
We also have--
3
MR. STEIN: Why did you raise the
4
question?
5
MR. MITCHELL: The issue that I
6
raised here, Mr. Chairman, is that as I
7
interpret our law in Indiana and, as I under-
8
stand, Michigan's or Wisconsin's or anybody's
• .
law prohibits pollution of the waters of our
10
States, which I consider a positive legislation.
11
As I read the Illinois laws, it gives Mr.
12
Klassen or any successor the veto power
13
over the Board of Public Works against the
14
dumping of any material into Lake Michigan,
15
and I don't know that that is any more than
16
Just a veto power over the dumping of any
17
.material. And that from a pollution viewpoint,
18
all of our laws are fairly equal.
19
MR. LELAND: It is Just that in
20
addition to the Central Water Board Act we
21
have this specific legislation dealing with
22
this specific problem, but that--
23
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, that is right.
24
But it does give your Board or Mr. Klassen
25
-------
. 3823
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the veto power over the Board of Public Works.
3
MR. LELAND: In the issuing of these
4
permits.
5
MR. MITCHELL: In the issuing of
6
permits, yes.
7
MR. LELAND: There is also an executive
8
order of the Governor on this matter which at
9
the moment is even overriding that, but that is
10
another--
11
MR. MITCHELL: That is not legislative.
12
MR. LELAND; No.
13
MR. STEIN: Maybe we should strike
14
those two sentences.
15
MR. POOLE: Well, you could say it is
16
recognized the State of Illinois has specific
17
legislation and identify that.
18
MR. LELAND: Yes, that--
19
MR. STEIN: Has specific legislation?
20 -.$
MR. POOLE: Yes. But I think we have
21
a positive program, that is the Department of
22
Natural Re--
23
MR. LELAND: Take out the positive
24
program. Has specific legislation in this area.
25
-------
3824
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
(At this point, Mr. Klassen arrived.)
3
MR. STEIN: In this area.
4
Let's strike the other. The next
5
sentence--we don't need it, right--"The other
6
States will"?
7
MR. HOLMER: I am concerned about
8.
the second sentence which is not a recommen-
9
dation at all but a statement.
10
MR. STEIN: It is just a factual
11
statement .
12
MR. HOLMER: I realize. I am wondering
13
if this is the appropriate place for it. I was
14
reading the alewife description a little later
15
on, and there is a lot of narrative there--
16
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, the point is,
17
I think in some of the recommendations what
18
we have done, in order to get over the hump,
19
is to put in some narrative in order to give
20
a credence to the recommendations.
21
MR. HOLMER;: wen, if this is
22
regularly done, fine. I Just wanted to be
23
sure we weren't doing it unknowingly.
24
MR. STEIN: No. Here, let's try this.
25
-------
3825
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Let's say, "it is recognized that
3
the State of Illinois has specific legislation
4
in this area." And then strike it and go down
5
to, "The need must be recognized to provide
6
maintenance dredging to prevent economic hard-
7
ship for the ports and the region," and so forth.
8
Is this all right? Let me read that.
9
You have got "the Corps of Engineers
10
and States will be requested to report and you
11
struck out above that "the States will develop
12
programs."
13
MR. STEIN: Yes.
14
MR. POOLE: I don't think that should
15
interfere with them reporting. That is, I have
16
been trying to keep this thing short as much as
17
possible. We were approached several years ago
18
by a large industry that wanted to take some of
19
its potent waste and barge it out in the lake,
20
and we said nothing doing. And there is a lot
21
of this, and as Mr. Klassen pointed out this
22
morning, we say the same thing on demolition of
23
a building, it is not dredging. And this is
24
why I like the first line of what is here now.
25
-------
3826
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Yes. I think we are In
3
shape.
4
Let rce try this, read it to you:
5
"The prohibition of the dumping of
6
polluting materials into the lake shall be
7
accomplished as soon as possible. It is
8
recognized that the State of Illinois has
9
specific legislation in this area. The need
10
must be recognized to provide maintenance
11
dredging to prevent economic hardship for the
12
ports and the region. The Corps of Engineers
13
and the States will be requested to report to
14
the Conferees within six months concerning
15
their programs. At that time the Conferees
16
shall consider adopting a coordinated approach
17
toward the discharge of dredging, together
18
with a target date for putting the program
19
into operation."
20
MR. HOLMER: Is the "discharge of"
21
necessary?
22
MR. OEMING: Disposal of dredging.
23
•MR. HOLMER: I think we wanted to deal
24
with dredging.
25
-------
3827
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Yes, what is your—
3
MR. HOLMER: I don't know, I would
4 ' ' '
take out the three words, "the discharge of."
5
I don't think it adds anything.
6
MR. STEIN: Toward dredging?
7 ' . ' '
MR. HOLMER: Yes.
8
MR. LELAND: No.
9
MR. OEMING: Well, it seems to me
10
that the main thrust of our Job here is as to
11
what are we going to do with the dredging when
12
we have got it.
13
MR. STEIN: Right.
14
MR. OEMING: The only modification
15
I would make would be toward the disposal of
16
dredged materials.
17
MR. STEIN: Disposal of dredged
18
material?
19
MR. HOLMER: Discharge bothers me.
20
'MR..STEIN: All right, toward the
21
disposal of dredged material, how about that?
22
MR. HOLMER: All right.
23
MR. OEMING: This is good now. It
24
encompasses everything. You are not limited.
25
-------
. 3826
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Yes. All right. That
3
is good.
4
MR. OEMING: Yes, dredged materials,
5
the disposal of dredged materials.
6
MR. STEIN: All right, are we set now?
7
Let me read this again so we are not entirely--
8
How did that speech go, Clarence?
9
MR. KLASSEN: It was good. I didn't
10
get down to describing the bikinis, though. I
11
had to leave.
12
MR. STEIN: I know it was good. What
13
did you do beyond that? I haven't heard you
14
make a speech that wasn't good yet.
15
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K., I will agree
16
with what you say, Mr. Chairman.
17
MR. STEIN: That is all right.
18
(Laughter.)
19
MR. STEIN: It shows you to what
20
extent you have to go to get agreement around
21
here.
22
(Laughter.)
23
MR. STEIN: Here is where we stand
24
on this.
25
-------
. 385T9
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Clarence, this is a key point for
3
you.
4
"The prohibition of the dumping of
5
polluting materials into Lake Michigan shall be
6
accomplished as soon as possible. It is recog-
7
nized that the State of Illinois has specific
8
legislation in this area. The need must be
9
recognized to provide maintenance dredging
10
to prevent economic hardship for the ports and
11
the region."
12
MR. KLASSEN: What is the purpose
13
of that sentence?
14
MR. OSMING: I have another thought
15
here. Are we weakening this statement so much
16
and diluting it by not putting in here that
17
this interim business—let me have that. I
18
keep feeding the newspaper men. "The need
19
must be recognized to proyide maintenance
20 " •
dredging in the interim to prevent economic
21
hardship." I hate to see this--
22
MR. STEIN: All right.
23 6
MR. OEMING: --qualified quite so much.
24
MR. STEIN: How about that? All right.
25
-------
3830
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. MITCHELL: .1 will buy that.
3
MR. LELAND: Why not say provide
4
interim maintenance?
5
MR. STEIN: No, in the interim.
6
MR. OEMING: That is right, an
7
interim period here while we are fussing with
8
this thing.
9
MR. STEIN: All right.
10
"The need must be recognized to
11
provide maintenance dredging in the interim."
12
All right? They are going to have
13
maintenance dredging all the time. It is
14
maintenance dumping in the interim, but that
15
is all right.
16
— Jlto provide maintenance dredging
17
in the interim."
18
MR. OEMING:
MR. STEIN: Aren't we going—wait a
20
minute.
21
MR. KLASSEN: Do we have to put that
22
there?
23
MR. STEIN: Wait a minute, Larry.
24
Are we going to have to have maintenance dretlglng
25 '
-------
3831
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
from here on out?
3
MR. OEMING: No. I guess it is
4
modifying the wrong place. I am trying to
5
get this in here that we aren't modifying
6
the initial premise here that the prohibition
7
shall be accomplished as soon as possible and
8
that we are going to continue to have maintenance
9
dredging, but from now until as soon as possible
10
there is going to be interim dredging and
11
interim dumping.
12
MR. MITCHELL: We are going to have
13
long-time dredging and interim dumping.
14
MR. OEMING: And you are going to
15
have long-time dredging and maybe not interim
16
dumping, I don't know.
17
MR. POSTON: I wonder, Mr. Chairman,
18
if we might strengthen it a little by adding
19
a sentence at the end which would say it is
20
the intent that the target date be not later
21
than, say, July '69.
22
MR. STEIN: I wouldn't want to put
23
it off that long until we got our information.
24
MR. OEMING: Well, Mr. Chairman, do
25
-------
3832
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
you get what I am driving at here? I would
3
like to see this in here somehow so that we
4
tighten this up. I am not trying to loosen
5
it. If what I have said is loosening it,
6
then I don't want it.
7
MR. KLASSEN: I still wonder why we
8
need to recognize "to prevent economic hardship."
9
If it is a fact, why do we have to put it in
10
there? It looks like we are giving a sop to
11
somebody or making excuses or opening the
12
door or something.
13
MR. STEIN: Let's try this. Let's do
14
that first sentence, "The prohibition of dumping
15
of polluted materials into Lake Michigan shall
16
be accomplished as soon as possible. In the
17
interim, it must be recognized that we must
18
provide maintenance dredging to prevent economic
19
hardship for the ports and region."
20
MR. KLASSEN: Of course this is the
21
same thing we criticized Wisconsin for.
22
MR. STEIN: No.
23
MR. OEMING: Who criticized Wisconsin?
24
MR. KLASSEN: I did.
25
-------
3833
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Well, I was going to say.
3
MR. KLASSEN: You did too.
4
MR. OEMING: I did?
5
MR. KLASSEN: You said we couldn't
6
agree and now we are back on the same thing,
7
offering reasons why we can't get the Job done.
8
MR. STEIN: No, we can get the Job
9
done.
10
Let's read the whole thing now.
11
MR. KLASSEN: Maybe I misinterpreted.
12
MR. STEIN: Let's read this as we
13
have it, as I suggested:
14
"The prohibition of the dumping
15
of polluting materials into Lake Michigan
16
shall be accomplished as soon as possible.
17
In the interim, it is recognized that we must
18
provide maintenance dredging to prevent economic
19
hardship for the ports and the region. Cog-
20
nizance is taken that the State of Illinois
21
has specific legislation in the area. The
22
Corps of Engineers and the States will be
23
requested to report to the conference within
24
six months concerning their programs. At
25
-------
3834
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
that time the Conferees shall consider
3
adopting a coordinated approach toward the
4
disposal of dredged material together with
5
a target date for putting the program into
6
operation."
7
MR. OEMING: I am still annoyed
8
here.
9
MR. STEIN: Don't fight with Illinois,
10
for goodness sakes. They may have a change
11
in the government next week.
12
(Laughter.)
13
MR. OEMING: I want the record to
14
show that I didn't criticize Wisconsin, Mr.
15
Klassen.
16
MR. KLASSEN: Let the record show that.
17
(Laughter.)
18
MR. STEIN: What do you think of
19
that?
20
MR. OEMING: I like it.
21
MR. KLASSEN: What measures you
22
have to go through to get agreement, Mr. Chairman.
23
MR. STEIN: Yes. Maybe we had better
24
get this. Why don't you, before we do this, and
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this is a very important one, get a girl in
3
to type this up.
4
(Off the record.)
5
MR. STEIN: Well, do you want to buy
6
that, "The prohibition of the dumping of polluted
7
material into Lake Michigan is to be accomplished
8
as soon as possible. The Corps of Engineers
9
and the States will be requested to report to
10
the Conferees within six months concerning
U
their program. At that time the Conferees
12
shall consider a coordinated approach toward
13
the disposal of dredged material together with
14
a target date for putting the program into
15
operation."
16
That is a good suggestion. What do
17
you think of that?
18
MR. MITCHELL: We buy it.
19
MR. HOLMER: I would like to march
20
forward with Illinois.
21
MR. OEMING: I agree with Illinois.
22
(Laughter.)
23
MR. STEIN: 0. K. I think we are in
24
shape. That is a very good suggestion. 0. K.?
25
-------
3836
1 EXECUTIVE. SESSION
2
MR. POOLE: Mr. Chairman, I hate
3
to go on record as agreeing with Illinois,
4
but I will.
5
(Laughter.) :
6
MR. KLASSEN: Well, you understand,
7
I am taking out the fact that everybody knows
8
that Illinois has a legislative program.
9
MR. STEIN: Yes, I recognize that.
10
Let me give you this again completely.
11
Here is the way this reads:
12
"11. The prohibition of the dumping
13
of polluting material into Lake Michigan shall
14
be accomplished as soon as possible. The Corps
15
of Engineers and the States will be requested
16
to report to the Conferees within six months
17
concerning their programs. At that time the
18
Conferees shall consider adopting the coordinated
approach toward the disposal of dredged material,
together with a target date for putting the
21
program into operation."
22
(Off the record.)
23
--"toward the disposal of dredged material,
24
together with a target date for putting the program
25
-------
383?
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
into operation."
3
All right. We will look at that again.
4
Let's go on to 12.
5
6
RECOMMENDATION #12
7
8
MR. STEIN: All right, 12. Let's go
9
on to that alewife business.
10
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, I have
11
one suggestion. I like it very well except
12
the last sentence.
13
MR. STEIN: Yes.
14
MR. OEMING: I would like to throw
15
this suggestion on the table.
16
In the last line where the word
17
"this" appears, put in "a" and then insert
18
after "program": "which would accomplish the
19
above objective," then go on "with funds and
20
personnel."
21
So it would read--
22
MR. STEIN: All right.
23
MR. OEMING: --"to assure the success
24
of this program, the Conferees recommend that
25
-------
3838
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the States concerned and the Federal Government
3
support a program which would accomplish the
4
above objective with funds and personnel."
5
(Across-the-table discussion,
6
inaudible to the reporter.)
7
MR. STEIN: All right, that is all
8
right. That is good.
9
Are there any other comments or
10
suggestions?
11
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, what is
12
your interpretation of this in the way of a
IS
positive program? I am asking for information,
14
really.
15
MR. STEIN: The information deal is,
16
we all know this, as far as I can see everyone
17
can come forth with a plan, and not that I
18
deprecate the planners, but, you know, this
19 %
is a wonderful operation. Every time I come into
20
Chicago they come forth with a new plan. One
21
time I find they are going to have ski slides,
22
the next time they are going to be swimming off
23
the Wrigley Building, the next time I come and
24
hear they are going to have deep tunnels. You
25
-------
3839
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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
know, these are great things, and I am all
for the planning.
The notion is, I think everyone has
worked out a plan. As far as I can see, the
Great Lakes Commission has got a reasonable
plan to clean this up, and if we put in
another plan, we are just going to get into
conflict with it. The issue is, we have got
to put the plan in operation.
We would like, if we could possibly
do this, to have this run completely locally
and not have any Federal funds or people in it.
But I don't think it is possible. So we are
prepared to put in a considerable amount of
Federal money, if the States will match it.
In addition to this, we would like some-
one locally to set the people up who ar? going
to run the program, and if you cafl't do it,
we have the people available. In other words,
we have biologists, we have engineers who have
had experience with commercial fishing and who
have been in many commercial fishing runs. If
you want to have them, we will put them in for the
-------
38*0
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
chore. But if you put a man into this^
3
we will be glad to put in staff men to do it.
4
In other words, we would like it to be a local.
5
program.
6
It seems to me that if we are going
7
to lick the interim alewife prob.lem we have to
8
have several elements to it, and these elements
9
are concerned here. One, if the Great Lakes
10
Commission task, force can work up a program,
11
fine, we will be glad to cooperate. The elements
12
of that program seem to be the skimming of
13
alewives when they are in the water before
14
they get to shore, the proper disposal of the
15
alewives on shore in properly disposed sites
16
where they are closed and where they are
17
covered, and with the notion that the States
18
will get together with the localities, including
19
the counties and the cities, where they will have
20
a program to take care of the alewives that get
21
past the skimming net lines.
22
What we are prepared to do is put
23
in money matching the States up to a limit,
24
you know, but I think we can more or less
25
-------
3841
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
match, and also where the States can break
3
loose personnel to run the program, and we
4
would be delighted if you could, to provide
5
either the staff or the supervisory personnel
6
or both. In other words, we think this
7
program is so important that we are not quibbling
8
with the program of the Great Lakes Commission,
9
which looks reasonable and has these elements
10
in it. We are ready to buy their planning.
11
What we are doing is we are saying we are
12
putting our money in, we are putting our
13
personnel in. We hope you will match us with
14
the money because if you don't, I don't think
15
the program is going to get off the ground.
16
I think we may be more flexible because of our
17
large program and being able- to disengage
18
personnel to work on this program than possibly
19
the States were, but we have to get disposal
20
sites from the States to put the alewives in
21
and also an agreement from them that they are
22
going to take the alewives off when they hit
23
the beaches.
24
The only string we have
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
on the money thatwehave, is that you at least
3
have to match it. As far as personnel is con-
4
cernedj we are ready to let anyone designated
5
by the State agencies run this and we will
6
provide the staff, but if you can't provide
7
supervisory personnel, we stand willing and
8
able and I think we have the people to step
9
in and accept the supervisory jobs if you
10
want them. The point is, we believe this should
11
be a State and a local function. The only way
12
we would step in here is if requested by the
13
States concerned where you could not find the
14
men.
15
Blucher Poole has been with us.
16
You know, we have graduate sanitary engineers
17
who have had advance expedience in commercial
18
fishing, and particularly our guys in the
19
Pacific Northwest. If you want this, I will
20
Just get those guys out here for the period
21
of getting the alewives out.
22
MR. POOLE:(Inaudible) you mean?
23
MR. STEIN: Yes.
24
MR. POOLE: I recommend him most highly,
25
-------
38*3
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Yes, I think he would be
3
the man for the Job. Because we have some
4
people who are both sanitary engineers and have
5
a tremendous background in commercial fishing,
6
and if this is the man you want and you don't
7
have personnel of your own, we will Just get
8
him here for you.
9
MR. KLASSEN: I mentioned to translate
10
this, you know, into action. When you say "we"
11
do you mean the Department of the Interior?
12
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir.
13
MR. KLASSEN: And "you" meaning—this
I4
leaves me a little--
15
MR. STEIN: Well, here, let me tell
16
you this. I have talked about funds--
17
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
18
MR. STEIN: --to the Assistant Secretary,
19
that is Max EdwardsT-
20
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
21
MR. STEIN: --and to the Commissioner,
22
Joe Moore, and they have indicated that we can
23
agree to put in funds. As I understand it, the
24
program for seining and the putting this on shore
25
-------
38*5
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and the States even have to put up 75 thousand
3
dollars each, I am not sure that I can go above
that 250, in other words. But more or less a
&
50-50 match.
6
MR. KLASSEM: What concerns me, you
7
say nyounj I represent the Water Pollution
8
Control Agency, and I presume, then, it will
9
be up to us to translate this in our own State
10
whether our Department of Conservation, Depart-
ment of Public Works, or who does it. These
12
are the things we are going to have to—
13
MR. STEIN: This is a hard question,
14
Mr. Klassen.
15
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
16
MR. STEIN: The difficult time I
17
had with this is when I got back with all these
18
planners, I recognized we needed personnel and
19
we needed money, and the pitch that I went back
20
to our people with is we will Just have to take
21
this out of operating funds.
22
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
23
MR. STEIN: Now, the question here is
24
where we get this, I think when this Great Lakes
25
-------
3844
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
will amount to about a half a million dollars
3
and run over a six-weeks period.
4
MR. KLASSEN: What is a matching,
5
50-50?
6
MR. STEIN: Yes. Now, they have
7
indicated that we can start working on that
8
operation. If we talk about 50-50, and I
9
hope the States won't quibble among themselves
10
on this, this means a quarter of a million
11
dollars for the Feds, a quarter of a million
12
dollars for the States. This means maybe 65
13
to 75 million bucks per State. The issue--
14
MR. KLASSEN: Thousand.
15
MR. STEIN: What?
16
MR. POOLE: You said million.
17
MR. STEIN: Thousand.
18
MR. KLASSEN: We realize you are a
19
Federal man, but that is all right.
20
MR. STEIN: Yes.
21
(Laughter.)
22
MR. STEIN: I scaled that down.
23
The problem is that this may run
24
over a half a million dollars. If it does
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Commission comes up with it, we are Just going
3
to have to approach this with an open conscience
4
and free will and see that the States and we
5
come forward and get the money and the personnel
6
and put them together.
7 ' • •
The problem is time is running out.
8
I talked to the Federal co-chairman over this
9
weekend a long time about this, Ray Clevenger,
10
and it is his view, and I concur in this,
11
unless we put this together during this month
12
and we are ready to go in April, we are dead
13
for this season. We are ready to come and meet
14
with you as far as we can, but this depends
15
on the Commission.
16
Mr. Mitchell and his group have
17
a plan, we are not arguing with that plan a
18
bit, we are ready to support it'Whole hog,"
19
but I think the question is to put that plan
20
into operation. There are several things
21
that it is going to take to put the plan
22
into operation: one of money, one of personnel,
23
one of sites that the States are going to give
24
us to put those alewives in, and another is
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
cooperation and equipment from the localities
3
to do their Job. If the States can produce
4
this, we are prepared to put in what personnel
5
you need and the money you need, and I think
6
to match you, in doing the Job in the skimming
7
and the coordination of the program.
8
MR. KLASSEN: What is the status of
9
the Great Lakes Commission program, John?
10
MR. MITCHELL: Well, tomorrow the
11
working group meets--and by the way, there is
12
a representative from the Pish and Game Com-
13
mission and Department of Conservation on the
14
working group—and they are going to discuss
15
the seven points in the program and allocate
16
the various responsibilities for 100 percent
17
implementation of those seven points, with a
18
cost factor, and then those State representatives
19
are going to go back and explore how much of
20
that commitment they can meet through their
21
State government and how much the local govern-
22
ment can meet of that and then come back the
23
20th in the Crystal Room here at this hotel
24
to make final decision on apparently how much
25
-------
3848
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
coordination they can get. Now, it works
3
out that if every State can't participate
4
because of some financial difficulties, then
5
we go ahead with the program in the other
6
States. And then if every local community
7 .
can't participate, we Just go ahead with the
8
other communities that can. It is very
9 I
flexible.
10
And let me briefly--first of all,
11
it has to be the long-range program of main-
12
taining or trying to ascertain the need and
13
develop the need for an ecological balance
14
of fishlife. That has to be number one or we
15
will be cleaning up fish the rest of our lives.
16
The second thing is the monitoring
17
program. And, of course, the Federal Govern-
18
ment, through the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
19
simply can't do the monitoring of where these
20
dead alewives are and where they are going all
21
by themselves and each State has got to help
22
with their boats and their aircraft.
23
The third is the diverting techniques
24
where we can assist the people who have water
25
-------
3849
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
intakes to divert.
3
Then we need to go in, and each
4
State is going to be asked to establish their
5
various areas into three categories of priority.
6
Number one priority would be high-use areas,
7
public beaches. The second would be semi-public
8
use areas, which would be beaches in front of
9
housing developments and homes in cities and
10
towns along the beach. The third would be non-
11
public areas which might be industrially-owned
12
and which would have no serious problems con-
13
nected with the alewife on the beaches.
14
And then the operation for skimming
15
would be done with those States that can help
16
support it financially and then they would
17
move in, the local responsibility would be
18
to help unload the skimmed alewives and a place
19
for landfills. Now. if some local community
20
who has a public beach says, "We don't have
21
a landfill," then you really can't skim because
22
you have got to have some place to put it.
23
So if the local community provides
24
the landfills and the State provides the cost
25
-------
3850
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
share and the Federal Government provides
3
the cost share, if all three provide it, then
4
hopefully we can get to all the priority one
5
areas. Time is a factor. You simply may not
6
be able to get to any of the number two areas.
7
Then you need to have this beach
8
cleanup program of those areas that you were
9
not able to get to and those areas in which
10
you were not able to successfully skim 100
11
percent. And we are in Indiana exploring the
12
possibility of buying some of this beach cleaning
13
equipment and then subleasing it to the local
14
communities simply because no local community
15
can afford it--it is very expensiver-and to
16
try to then keep it moving up and down our
17
beaches, because we have only 44 miles of
18
shoreline and we.have only 6, if I remember
19
right, 6 high-priority areas out of the whole
20
area, 6 public beaches.
21
MR. STEIN: Let me make one point
22
before you go on.
23
The Federal funds that I am talking
24
about are contingent upon all of the States
25
-------
3851
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
participating. And, Mr. Mitchell, you pointed
3
out that some States might and some States
4
could not. Now, if any States cannot, I am
5
not sure that we can get Federal funds.
6
MR. MITCHELL: I am glad to hear
7
that, because I didn't understand that.
8
MR. STEIN: The Federal funds are
9
contingent—this is like a fund raising operation.
10
We will put the money in, but unless the States
11
are interested enough to put their money up,
12
I have no assurance that we can give you any
13
Federal money.
14
If any State wants to wash out on
IS
this, this is, of course, the State's privilege.
16
But the string on the Federal money is that
17
the States are going to shox/ the interest in
18
this because we want to help the States out,
19
and if they are not interested enough in
20
cleaning up their own house, maybe you want
21
to have another stinking summer.
22
MR. MITCHELL: From my glimpse around
23
the area, I don't think any States are considering
24
anything but doing their damnedest to raise
25
-------
385g
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
the money--
3
MR. STEIN: Yes, but--
4
MR. MITCHELL: --and I have already
5
heard Mr. Klassen express--
6
MR. STEIN: But what I am trying to
7
do is say the limitation that I have--and this
8
is what I was asked to do so there would be no
9
misunderstanding--the limitation that I have
10
on the availability of Federal funds Is that
11
the States are going to put up their own money
12
or else we are not participating.
13
MR. MITCHELL: We will do our best.
14
MR. STEIN: All right.
15
MR. KLASSEN: It sounds like this
16
is the only going program. And, John,- I will
17
take your evaluation of it. You feel that this
18
program is far enough along that with the
19
answers to the States participation and money
20
through the State representative on the Great
21
Lakes Basin Commission that this thing will go?
22
MR. MITCHELL: Well, after the meeting
23
tomorrow, at which we will try to assess how
24
much each one of these efforts is going to
25
-------
3853
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
cost and then how much it means for each
3
State to commit itself, not only just to
4
the cleanup out in the water but maybe the
5
beach cleanup and maybe the monitoring
6
program and that sort of thing, then each
7
State is going to be asked to go home and
8
check signals with their Governors and any
9
other budget groups that are necessary to
10
be able to come back here on March 20th with
11
firm answers.
12
The best information we have is
13
that this seems to be a reasonable approach.
14
We learned something last year, I think, in
15
the last minute attempt that we all had to
16
make in trying to clean up our beaches. But
17
based upon the information we have,this seems
18
to be the reasonable approach.
19
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K.
20
MR. MITCHELL: I hope that we can
21
improve it.
22
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments
23
on 12?
24
I think that is it. You might
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
glance at 11.
3
Do you want to go to 12?
4
MR. HOLMER: I have a further
5
question. How far does this 500 thousand
6
dollars, assuming we are all in the pot,
7
go toward the program of skimming as the
8
task force has looked at it up to this point?
9
Is this two-thirds of it or--
10
MR. MITCHELL: No, I think--
11
MR. HOLMER: —half of it or what?
12
MR. MITCHELL: It depends upon how
13
much of the areas the States are going to
14
consider as priority one areas. Now, the
15
skimming operation is not going to be able
16
to include every mile of shoreline of Lake
17
Michigan.
18
MR. HOLMER: That is right.
19
MR. MITCHELL: It simply cannot be
20
done for 500 thousand dollars. But they thought
21
if they would make priority one, priority two,
22
and priority three, they were hoping that they
23
could do it for priority one, as I understand it.
24
And this is the reason the work group
25
-------
385S
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
is meeting tomorrow, to come back with
3
their priorities and to see if their earlier
4
estimate was nearly correct or not. And I
5
really can't answer that any more than that
6
right now.
7
MR. HOLMER: 0. K. It is the
8
priority one areas--
9
MR. MITCHELL: Which are high public
10
use areas.
11
MR. HOLMER: --we hope for sure?
12
MR. MITCHELL: Which is where you have
13
your pollution problems.
14
MR. HOLMER: All right.
15
MR. STEIN: Then we are agreed on
16
12.
17
18
RECOMMENDATION #11
19
20
MR. STEIN: Let's go back to 11 and
21
Just glance at that. You have all had this
22
and this looks good to me.
23
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, just a
24
little cleaning-up language.
25
-------
. 38 §6
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Yes.
3
MR. OEMING: The second sentence:
4
"The Corps of Engineers and the States are
5
requested to report to the Conferees."
6
MR. STEIN: All right.
7
MR. OEMING: And then at the end
8
of that sentence where it says "concerning
9
their program maintenance" put a comma "at
10
which time the Conferees will consider."
11
We haven't said when the Conferees were going
12
to consider. Are we going to consider it -at
13
that time? Then I think we should say so.
14
MR. STEIN: You want to--
15
MR. OEMING: Put in the phrase "at
16
that time--at which time the Conferees."
17
Mr. Poston, after the word "maintenance"
18
in the fourth sentence put a comma and then "at
19
which time the Conferees will consider."
20
MR. LELAND: Is it program maintenance
21
or maintenance program?
22
MR. OEMING: It is maintenance program,
23
I guess.
24
MR. STEIN: Why do we need "maintenance"?
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
They are programs.
3
MR. OEMING: Programs.
4
MR. STEIN: Strike "maintenance."
5
MR. OEMING: All right. Strike
6
"maintenance." Now it becomes "concerning
7
their program, at which time the Conferees
8
will consider adopting."
9
MR. STEIN: Right. All right, very
10
good.
11
MR. HOLMER: Mr. Chairman, on your
12
way to 13, on the second line of 12 I think
13
there was a Freudian slip, because this is
1*
certainly an odoriferous problem and I am glad
15
that they ended it with "mum."
16
MR. OEMING: "Phenonemum."
17
(Laughter.)
18
(Off the record.)
19
20
RECOMMENDATION #13
21 :—-~
22
MR. STEIN: Let's go to 13, and you
23
have a redo of 13. It reads, "The four States
24
will within 60 days."
25
-------
3850
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Do you have it?
3
All right. Do you want to read 13?
4
MR. POOLE: Well, I have got three
5 '
drafts of this now. Which one are we going
6
to use?
7
MR. STEIN: Let me read the draft
8
you are going to use:
9
"The four States within 60 days will
10
meet and agree upon uniform rules and regulations
U
for controlling wastes from watercraft. These
12
rules and regulations will generally conform"—
13
let's straighten that out--"will conform generally
14
with the Harbor Pollution Code adopted by the
15
City of Chicago and the Model Boating Act."
16
Should that be caps?
!7
MR. OEMING: Yes, I guess so.
18
MR. STEIN: I guess so. --"and the
19
Model Boating Act, but specifically prohibiting
20
the use of the macerator chlorinator. Since
21
each of the four States operates under different
22
statutes, Conferees will recommend to their
23
respective boards, legislatures, and so forth,
24
approval of the proposed uniform rules and
25
-------
3839
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
regulations to be effective by April 1969.
3
Commensurate requirements controlling the
4
discharge of wastes from commercial vessels
5
will be the responsibility of the Federal
6
Government."
7
O.K.?
8
O.K.?
9
MR. POOLE: Where did the idea creep
10
in that the rules and regulations had to specifical|ly
11
eliminate the macerator chlorina.tor?
12
MR. STEIN: I thought we talked
13
about that the last time. This is what—by
14
the way, this is the specific language that
15
Mr. Klassen put in last time and was agreed
16
to by the Conferees.
17
MR. PURDY: No, it isn't.
18
MR. STEIN: Wait a moment. As I
19
pointed out, this is not a--as the last time,
20
this is not a case of last resort. Now, let's
21
work this out.
22
MR. POOLE: I thought the last time
23
we agreed the rule does not approve the use
24
of the macerator chlorinator. All I am
25
-------
3860
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
objecting to is to writing things like that--
3
MR. KLASSEN: That is right.
4
MR. POOLS: --in a law or a regulation--
5
MR. STEIN: Yes, that does hot--
6
MR. KLASSEN: Approve, that was the
7
language we agreed on.
8
MR. STEIN: That does not approve?
9
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, does not approve,
10
does not presently approve.
11
MR. STEIN: Does not presently
12
approve?
13
MR. KLASSEN: Yes. We took the words
14
"specifically prohibited" out.
15
MR. STEIN: I guess you are right,
16
Mr. Poole.
17
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, we have
18
another problem. What is the meaning of the
19
term April 1969? Is that when all of the
20
regulations or legislation is to become
21
effective or what?
22
MR. STEIN: Didn't we have a discussion
23
on that?
24
MR. POSTON: Yes.
25
-------
3863.
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: Yes, because you
3
remember that we are already in a box on
4
this because Michigan has just adopted its
5
regulations and they become effective on
6
January 1, 1970, isn't it? 1970.
7
MR. MITCHELL: I think the date was —
8
MR. OEMING: And that is an alter-
9
ation, isn't it?
10
MR. MITCHELL: When the date was
11
last mentioned we suggested that we couldn't
12
make the rules effective, that we could, though,
13
make such recommendations, and I think we got
14
the recommendations part in here but we forgot
15
to take out the date.
16
I could recommend tomorrow, which
17
we are going to recommend tomorrow, this change.
18
MR. OEMING: We recommend, sure.
19
MR. MITCHELL: And we don't need a date
20
for a recommendation, this late, anyhow. We
21
can use it within a month.
22
MR. STEIN: Did we put a period after
23
regulation?
24
MR. OEMING: Where did this come--Mr.
25
-------
^__ 3862
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Klassen had a draft of this, and you took it
3
with you. What happened to it?
4
MR. PURDY: This is different.
5
MR. POOLE: Let me read the draft
6
I took with me that somebody handed to me.
7
MR. STEIN: Go ahead. That is what
8
we have been looking for all weekend.
9
MR. POOLE: "The representatives
10
of the Conferees within 60 days meet and agree
11
upon uniform rules and regulations for controlling
12
wastes from watercraft. These rules and
13
regulations will generally conform with the
14
Harbor Pollution Code adopted by the City of
15
Chicago, the regulations adopted by the
16
Michigan Water Resources Commission, and the
17
Model Boating Act which prohibits 'overside1
18
disposal and does not approve the use of the
19
macerator- chlorinator."
20
MR. KLASSEN: That is the one we
21
couldn't find.
22
MR. POOLE: "Since each of the four
23
States operates under different statutes,
24
Conferees will recommend to their respective
25
-------
3863
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
boards, legislatures, et cetera, approval of the
3
proposed uniform rules and regulations."
4' •-.'••
MR. STEIN: Right. That is what
5
we have--let's get that duplicated.
6
(Laughter.)
7
Mr. Poole, you are worth your weight
8
in gold. Depending on characters like Klassen
9
and myself, we Just didn't have the record on
10
that.
11
MR,. KLASSEN: We are off the gold
12
standard now.
13
MR. STEIN: That is 13. But let's
14
get that back. That is exactly right.
15
MR. OEMING: We agreed on it once.
16
MR. STEIN: We agreed on it once.
17
Our problem was, it is like the dinosaur,
18
we lost it and we were trying to reconstruct it.
10
(Laughter.)
20
'MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am
21
happy to announce, and this will indicate the
22
activity of the States, I am happy to announce
23
that we have all agreed that April 10 is a
24
mutually agreeable date. I Just canvassed
25
-------
38 6»
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
all of the participants. We can meet in
3
Chicago April 10.
4
MR. STEIN: Good.
5
MR. KLASSEN: So we are not going
6
to take the 60 days.
7
MR. STEIN: Wonderful. But we will
8
give you that anyway.
9
MR. KLASSEN: I will send you a
10
letter.
11
MR. STEIN: All right. Now--
12
MR. HOLMER: Maybe the Secretary
13
won't recommend it.
14
MR. STEIN: Do you want to bet?
15
MR. KLASSEN: We will go ahead anyhow.
16
(Laughter.)
17
MR. OEMING: Fourteen, Mr. Chairman?
18
MR. STEIN: Fourteen. We will have
19
thirteen back.
20
Fourteen.
21
22
RECOMMENDATION #14
23 —
24
MR. HOLMER: In the next to the last
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
line of 14, I think after the word "elimination"
3
if you pick up from the last line the words
4
"in urbanized areas" so that it reads "and to
5
the elimination in urbanized areas of septic
6
tanks affecting Lake Michigan's water quality"
7
I think it would be smoother.
8
MR. STEIN: All right, let's see
9
what these people think.
10
MR. POSTON: The last sentence?
11
MR. POOLE: John and I agreed on
12
the legislative proposals we were going to
13
present to one of our committees tomorrow
14
and now you have rung in about four more on
15
us, so that is my only comment.
16
MR. STEIN: What do you suggest?
17
MR. POOLE: I think we will present
18
the three we agreed on Friday.
19
MR. STEIN: What are the three you
20
agreed on?
21
MR. POOLE: Watercraft, pesticides
22
and dumps, open dumps. Isn't that it?
23
MR. STEIN: Do you want to cut out
24
sewer septic tanks?
25
-------
3866
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POOLE: Well, I don't care in
3
the waning days of my time in Indiana to get in
4
a fight in the Indiana Legislature about
5
septic tanks, which we pretty well delegated--
6
MR, STEIN: Well, I would hate to outlast
7
your waning days; you have been waning for 25
8
years.
9
(Laughter.)
10
MR. POSTON: A little stronger every
11
day.
12
MR. POOLE: We pretty well delegated
13
the septic tank problem to local.zoning and
14
planning commissions and to local health
15
departments.
16
MR. STEIN: How do you want to handle
17
this one?
18
MR. MITCHELL: I think the problem
19
here is if you read that one sentence,"Such
20
legislation should relate to the creation of
21
subdivisions, to the control of siltation, to
22
the regulation of water supply and sewage
23
disposal systems, and to the elimination of
24
septic tanks in urbanized areas," you are saying
25
-------
. 3867
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
we need a Statewide zoning control act.
3
MR. STEIN: Do you want to put a
4
period after "disposal"--
5
MR. MITCHELL: And I don't think
6
anybody is quite ready to make that move yet.
7
MR. STEIN: Do you want to put a
8
period after "disposal systems" to strike--
9
MR. POOLE: What kind of legislation
10
would you propose on the control of siltation,
11
Just to get practical for a minute here? I
12
racked my brains in preparing our reports to
13
submit to the Secretary on what we would say
14
about the control of siltation, and about
15
all we could say was we would cooperate with
16
the soil conservation districts in any way we
17
could.
18
MR. STEIN: I can't answer that,
19
and since we can't answer it, do you want to
20
otrike that one? Is the way to handle siltation
21
at the present time to propose legislation or
22
do we wait that agricultural report? Let's
23
strike it.
24
MR. OEMING: I don't have any idea
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
"how you do it.
3
MR. STEIN: No, and I can't tell you
4
anything that I can suggest.
5
Let's strike the control of siltation,
6
unless anyone has any other. I am agreeable.
7
"Such legislatiori"--all right.
8
What else?
9
We have a suggestion "to the elimi-
10
nation in urbanized areas of septic tanks."
11
MR. OEMING: Mr. Poole has trouble
12
with that, but I wonder if you have as much
13
trouble if you read that "in urbanized areas,"
14
Blucher?
15
MR. POOLE: Oh, I don't have so much
16
trouble if you read it and go on "affecting
17
Lake Michigan's water quality."
18
MR. OEMING: Yes. That should be--
19
MR. POOLE: I only know of one place
20
that we have.
21
MR. STEIN: Do you want to put "in
22
urbanized areas'1 after "elimination"?
23
MR* POOLE: I don't know as we need
24
any legislation. The one problem we have got,
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
they need money, that is all it boils down
3
to. It is an unincorporated area.
4
MR. HOLMER: I think you could
5
delete "in urbanized areas" because if a
6
septic tank affects Lake Michigan water
7
quality I would like to eliminate that too.
8
MR. STEIN: Well, wait a minute.
9
MR. HOLMER: Whether it is urbanized
10
or not.
11
MR. STEIN: Let's go back on this
12
one, on the whole operation.
13
I am not sure that we aren't putting
14
ourselves in a bind by talking about legislation.
15
MR. POOLE: Well, we are. As soon as
16
you get into subdivisions, you get into zoning
17
and planning.
18
MR. STEIN: Wait a minute. "Each
19
of the State water pollution control agencies
20
institute programs designed to"--how about that?
21
MR. OEMING: All right.
22
MR. STEIN: Because the legislation--
23
institute programs or accelerate programs.
24
Have you got programs like this?
25
-------
3870
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POOLE: We thought we had.
3
MR. OEMING: Sure.
4
MR. STEIN: All right, put "accelerate."
5
--"accelerate programs." And then we can put
6
that siltation back in, "designed to achieve
7
pollution controls of the unincorporated land
8
and particularly land bordering," etc. "Such
9
programs should relate to the creation of
10
subdivisions, the control of siltation, the
11
regulation"--you can leave out that too--"of
12
water supply and sewage disposal systems, and
13
the elimination of septic tanks." And then
14
I don't think we will have a problem. The
15
problem is the legislation here.
16
MR. OEMING: Yes.
17
MR. STEIN: All right?
18
MR. MITCHELL: What happened to our
19
pesticide legislation?
20
MR. OEMING: That's coming.
21
MR. POOLE: That's coming.
22
MR. MITCHELL: No, it doesn't say
23
anything about legislation.
24
MR. POOLE: No, they are not going to
25
-------
387*
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
raise the--
MR. STEIN: No legislation.
4
MR. POOLE: Not going to raise that
5
question.
6 MR. STEIN: We are not raising the
7
question of legislation.
8 MR. MITCHELL: We did decide to
9
propose some pesticide control legislation.
MR. STEIN: Pesticide comes later.
MR. MITCHELL: Doesn't say anything
12
about legislation, though.
MR. STEIN: No. No. If you want to do
14
this when we get to the pesticides, we will
15
get to it.
16
MR. MITCHELL: 0. K., all right.
17
.1 MR. STEIN: But let's take up
18 .
pesticides later.
19
MR. MITCHELL: All right.
20
MR. STEIN: Let's look at 14 now.
21
We may be able to buy this. Here
22
is the way this reads:
23
"Each of the State water pollution
24
control agencies accelerate programs designed
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
to achieve pollution control of unincorporated
3
land and particularly of lands "bordering on
4
streams and lakes in the basin. Such programs
5
should relate to the creation of subdivisions,
6
to the control of siltation, the regulation of
7
water supply and sewage disposal systems, and"
8
--cross out the "to"--"the elimination of septic
9
tanks in urbanized areas affecting Lake Michigan's
10
water supply."
11
That I think we can all buy, can't
12
we?
13
MR. POSTON: Water quality.
14
MR. STEIN: Water quality.
15
Yes.
16
MR. HOLMER: In the middle or the
17
third line, I am not quite sure what the un-
18
incorporated land reference does. In other
19
words, isn't it to achieve pollution control
20
of lands bordering on streams and lakes in
21
the basin? Obviously our programs are going
22
to be Statewide, but I am not sure why we
23
pick on unincorporated land.
24
MR. STEIN: Yes. I think to achieve
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
pollution control of lands bordering on
3
lakes and streams in the basin. 0. K.?
4
All right. All right?
5
MR. OEMING: No.
6
MR. STEIN: No?
7
MR. OEMING: No, we have a problem,
8
Mr. Chairman.
9
MR. STEIN: All right.
10
MR. OEMING: How do you get pollution
11
control of unincorporated land?
12
MR. STEIN: We struck it.
13
MR. HOLMER: It was taken out.
14
MR. OEMING: What did you decide?
15
MR. STEIN: Here is the way it reads:
16
"Each of the State water pollution
17
control agencies accelerate programs designed
18
to achieve pollution controls of lands bordering
19
on lakes and streams in the basin."
20
MR. OEMING: You put it back in again.
21
That is what I am saying, how do you get pollu-
22
tion control of lands?
23
MR. POOLS: Ask Wisconsin. They
24
proposed it.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER:. All right.
3
MR. POSTON: I have got a suggestion,
4
that we go back to--
5
MR. STEIN: Let Wisconsin explain.
6
0. K.
7
MR. HOLMER: For instance, the
8
regulation of water supply and sewage disposal
9
systems, we are firmly convinced that unless
10
you control subidivisions you are going to
11
have people too close together, the resulting
12
use of private sewage disposal systems is
13
going to create problems.
14
MR. PURDY: You control the use of
15
the land so as to get pollution control.
16
MR. HOLMER: Oh. Oh, Murray, the
17
problem is that I think, as you read "pollution
18
control" you have left off "use of," and it is
19 »
the control of the use of land, and I think
20
you have been saying control of lands bordering
21
on streams and lakes in the basin. It is
22
control of the use.
23
MR. MITCHELL: Does Wisconsin have
24
State zoning powers?
25
-------
__ 3875
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: Yes, sir,
3
MR. MITCHELLi Such aa you described?
4
MR. HOLMER: Ours are reserve powers*
5
The law requires that the counties adopt zoning
6
ordinances. If they fail to do so, we may adopt
7
ordinances for them.
8
MR. MITCHELL: For that county?
9
MR. HOLMER! Yes.
10
MR. STEIN: All right. Here is what
ll
I think you mean, and I don't know whether you
12
are going to buy it, but I understand what you
13
mean now. Now let's try this:
14
"Each of the State water pollution
15
control agencies accelerate programs designed
16
to achieve pollution controls by regulating
17
use of lands bordering on streams and lakes in
18
the basin."
19
That is the proposal. All right?
20
MR. OEMING: I don't have any problem
21
with this, but—
22
MR. STEIN: All right. All right.
23
But I am trying to put in words what I think
24
Mr. Holmer said. This is what he is proposing,
25
-------
3876
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
and if the States can see their way clear
3 ,
to this, I think, this is a great step. I
4
don't know if you can.
5
MR. MITCHELL: The only thing I
6
take issue with is that we have a tremendous
7
upsurge in public responsibility for zoning
8
by local government in Indiana, and we have
9
got no indication whatsoever that our local
10
zoning people aren't going to be able to ade-
11
quately control the use of lands. At one time
12
in our history, about four or five years ago,
13
we had some concern, but right now we are
14
moving much faster than even any seven—what,
15
the 712 funds r-what do they call thentt
16
MR. PC-OLE: 7Q1*
17
MR. MITCHELL:--?Ql funds
18
are available. So I would be reluctant to
19
go back to our legislature and tell them we
20
believe in Statewide zoning.
21
MR. STEIN: No, I don't believe this
22
proposes this, sir.
23
MR. OEMING: Let's get over
24
Let me try this on you.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. PCSTON: How about my suggesting
3
one?
4
MR. STEIN: All right.
5
MR. POSTON: I would go back to the
6
beginning, what we started out with here, and
7
say that as a matter of policy planning provide
8
for the maximum use of areawide sewerage
9
facilities, discourage the proliferation of
10
small inefficient, treatment plants in contiguous
11 ' .
urbanized areas and foster the elimination of
12
septic tanks.
13
MR. POOLE: I can buy that.
1*
MR. MITCHELL: I have read that some
15
place.before.
16
MR. POSTON: Yes.
17
(Laughter.)
18
MR. STEIN: Is this the way we want
19
to go?
20
MR. POSTON: That is where we started.
21
We have been clear around the barn.
22
MR.STEIN: Well, naturally. Is this
23
all right?
24
MR. HOLMER: Well, there are two things
25
-------
38TI
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
wrong with it,
3
(Laughter.)
4 ' . • •
"I pointed out Tooth of them at our
5
February session. One of them, we are opposed
6
to all inefficient plants, not only .the small
ones, and the other has, instead of "elimination"
I think it ought to be 'replacement of septic
9
tanks." I Just don't want to eliminate them
10
without having some sort of replacement for
11
them that meets our requirements.
12
MR. STEIN: All right.
13
MR. OEMING: Let me try one on you,
14
Mr. Chairman.
15
MR.' STEIN: Yes.
16
MR. OEMING: "Each of the State water
17
pollution control agencies accelerate programs
18
designed to ac.hieve control of pollution
9
emanating from unincorporated land and
0 •>••'.
particularly of lands bordering on streams
21
and lakes of the basin."
22
Isn't that what we. are talking about?
23
MR. STEIN: Is that agreeable?
24
I think some of these guys have got
25
-------
3879
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
a bug on about septic tanks and if they want
3
to put in anything specific, I don't want to
4
hold them back, particularly those that put
5
nutrients into the lake,
6
MR. OEMING: Well, I guess I had
7
better withdraw from this discussion because
8
I. don't have any problem^ We have control
• .
over the septic tank building law on lakes
10
and streams.
11
(Across-the-table discussion inaudible
12
to the reporter.)
13
MR. POOLE: I am not trying to defend
14
septic tanks, Judge. I am Just trying to keep
15
this within bounds.
16
MR. STEIN: That is right. I have
17
no objection with that if this is what you
18
want to say.
19
MR. POOLE: Well, I like yet #15 in
20
the printed book better than anything that has
21 ,*•
been proposed, because when you attempt through
22
Indiana legislation to regulate the use of land
bordering on streams and basins, and particularly
£r9
when you ask the pollution abatement agency to
25
-------
3890
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
attempt to do this, you are spelling out a
3
tremendous chore, in my Judgment.
4
MR. STEIN: Yes, I agree with you.
5
MR. POOLE: The only way we could
6
possibly do it, the Natural Resources Depart-
7
ment has the power for flood plain zoning and
8
we have been—this is John's department, but
9
they are working in that direction. But this
10
is something you just don't do overnight in
11
a State.
12
MR. STEIN: Gentlemen, let me try
13
this.
14
Let me have your attention. I think
15
I have zeroed in and eliminated all the objec-
16
tions and got this in, and this is really a
17
revision of that 15 in the book, which would
18
be 1^ here.
19
"Each of the State water pollution
20
control agencies accelerate programs to provide
21
for the maximum use of areawide sewerage
22
facilities, discouraging the proliferation of
23
small treatment plants in contiguous urbanized
24
areas, and foster the replacement of septic
25
-------
_ 3881
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
tanks . "
3
Get a girl in and see if we can
*
get that
5
I don't think I have added anything,
6
but I think what I have done is gotten all the
7 .
views and I think this is what you are really
8
saying.
9
Didn't we get a piece of paper here?
10
Look at this v 13 while we are looking at this
ll
12
(Recommendation 14 was read as follows:
13
"Each of the State water pollution control
14
agencies accelerate programs to provide for
15
the maximum use of areawide sewerage facilities,
16
discouraging the proliferation of small treat-
17
ment plants in contiguous urbanized areas, and
18
foster the replacement of septic tanks.")
MR. SCHNEIDER; No, we want elimination
20
'MR. MITCHELL: Not replacement.
21
MR. STEIN: Then you take this up
22
with Mr. Holmer.
23
MR. POSTON: You want to eliminate
24
septic tanks.
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR.HOLMER: I don't want to eliminate
3
them without an adequate substitute.
4
MB. MITCHELL: We don't want to keep
5
replacing old ones with new ones either.
6
MR. HOLMER: That's right. That's
7
right.
8
(Laughter.)
9
MR, HOLMER: All right, but why don't
10
you say the replacement rather than the elimi-
11
nation and then say what you want it replaced
12
by, which is adequate treatment, which, I think
13
is what Murray was doing.
14
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, you think we are
15
going to eliminate them and not have anything
16
to replace them by?
17
MR. HOLMER: You didn't say so.
18
(Laughteri)
19
MR. MITCHELL: All right.
20
MR. STEIN: ¥e want to add a phrase
21
onto that?
22
MR. POOLE: Say"have replacement
23
with sewers.
24
MR. HOLMER: "with adequate treatment."
25
-------
3883
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN:' "With adequate collection
3
and treatment. ?
4 • • •
MR. POOLE: Yes, collection and
5 B
treatment.
6
MR. STEIN: "And the replacement of
7
septic tanks with adequate collection and
8
treatment.
9
MR. OEMING: Right.
10
MR. STEIN: All right. All right.
11
Now we are in shape.
12
MR. POOLE: Of course we still tell
13
them in Indiana when we are fighting with them
14
that they can build a privy if they don't want
15
to subscribe to the sewer system, but I guess
16
that's too backward for Wisconsin.
17
(Laughter.)
18
(Off the record.)
19
20
RECOMMENDATION #13
21
22
MR. STEIN: All right, did we look
23
at this 13? I don't think there is any problem,
24
is there?
25
-------
388*1
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
(Discussion off the record.)
3
MR. STEIN: All right, it should read,
4 • •••'••
"The representative of the Conferees within 60
5
days will meet"—no, "representatives of the
6
Conferees within 60 days will meet and agree."
7
All right.
8
0. K.
9
MR. POOLS: Move for adoption.
10
MR. STEIN: All right.
11
MR. OEMING: I second.
1*
MR. STEIN: We are going to get 14.
13
14
RECOMMENDATION #15
15
16
MR. STEIN: Let's go on to 15. That
17
is on pesticides.
18
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
19
MR. STEIN: Fifteen.
20
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, I have a
21
couple of small changes I would like to suggest.
22
In the first sentence, a technical
23
committee on pesticides, do you want to put
24
"should" or not? Just "be established," I guess
25
-------
^___ 3889
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
that is all right.
8 MR. STEIN: Or "will be."
MR. OEMING: "will be established"--
5 MR. STEIN: All right.
6 MR. OEMINGi --"to be chaired by a
7
member of the Water Pollution Control Administra-
8 „
tion with representatives from each State.
g
Now, here, "The Committee shall
10
evaluate the pesticide problem and recommend
to the Conferees a program to monitor and
12
control it.
MR. STEIN: Wait. --"evaluate the
14
pesticide problem and recommend to the Conferees"--
15
MR. OEMING: --"a program to monitor
16
and control it," always referring back to the
17
program, monitor the program and control it.
18
Then go on and say, "The first report
19 „
will be submitted in six months to the Conferees.
20
MR. POOLE: Would you read that again?
21
MR. OEMING: Yes, sir, I will.
22
The second sentence, Mr. Poole,
23
strike "and," insert: "the committee shall"--
84
MR. POOLE: You said "will" before,
Z5
-------
3886
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
but that is all right. Go ahead.
3
MR. OEMING: All right.
4
MR. POOLE; That's all I got written
5
down.
6
MR. STEIN: No, he said that in the
7
first sentence.
8
MR. OEMING: "The committee shall
9
evaluate," strike "of", and then go on, "the
10
pesticide problem and"--insert--"recommend to
11
the Conferees a program to"—and insert--
12
"monitor and control it." Strike the rest of
13
the sentence.
14
MR. STEIN: And then we have the
15
last sentence, "The first report"^-
16
MR. OEMING: --"will be submitted in
17
six months."
18
MR. STEIN: All right.
19
MR. POOLE: We would kind of like
20
to see you add another sentence.
21
MR. STEIN: What is that?
22
MR. POOLE: Well, "it is recommended
23
that the States seek legislation to license
24
commercial applicators," which I believe Michigan
25
-------
388?
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
already has.
3
MR. OEMING: Yes. The only question
4
I have, Mr. Poole, and I would have no objection
5
to this because I can't object, we already have
6
it, but is this a proper recommendation for a
7
pollution control group like this? I mean what
8
relationship can we say this has to the pollution
9
control program, the fact that you are licensing
10
it? If you can tell me that, then I am satis -
11
fied.
12
MR. MITCHELL: Well, I think our
13
feeling has been all along, how do you know
14
the magnitude of the problem until you know
15
the magnitude of the use, and through the
16
licensing of commercial applicators we would
17
hope to some way determine with how much: of the
18
various things these pesticides are being used.
19
MR. OEMING: All right.
20
MR. STEIN: All right.
21
MR. POOLE: I will go a step farther.
22
In one of our--
23
MR. OEMING: You don't have to.
24
MR. POOLE: Well, we almost got sued
25
-------
3888
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
last year over turning over to the newspapers
3
that an applicator was responsible for a fish
4
kill, and it got real sticky.
5
MR. OEMING: 0. K.
6
MR. STEIN: I think you can drop
7
"it is recommended."
8
"The States seek legislation to
9
license commercial applicators." That is all
10
we need, right?
11
MR. LELAND:--"shall seek"--
12
MR. STEIN: "The States shall seek
13
legislation to license commercial applicators."
14
Right?
15
Let me read that again. Can we have
16
the girl in?
17
(Discussion off the record.)
18
MR. STEIN: "A technical committee
19
on pesticides will be established, to be
20
chaired by a member of the Federal Water
21
Pollution Control Administration with repre-
22
sentatives from each State."
23
Let me start again.
24
"A technical committee on pesticides
25
-------
3889
! EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
will be established to be chaired by a member
3
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminlstra-
4
tion with representatives from each State. The
5 • •.'•.'•
committee shall evaluate the pesticide problem
and recommend to the Conferees a program of
7
monitoring and control. The first report will
8
be submitted in six months to the Conferees.
9
The States shall seek legislation to license
10 „
commercial applicators.
MR. HOLMER: Could we add two words,
12 „„
"and users ?
13
MR. STEIN: Oh, boy. Well, all right.
14
Let's listen.
15
MR. HOLMER: We have a particular
16
problem in which we are aware of a user of
17
pesticides who uses them in the course of a
18
business. Now, I realize that commercial
19
in this context of using pesticides could be
20
used very broadly, but this happens inside a
21
city limits, for example, and it bothers, us
22
some.
23
MR. STEIN: Well, this is all right.
24
By the way, I have no objection to this if the
25
-------
_____ 3890
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
States want to do it. But, you know, when
3
you deal with a user of pesticides, and I
4
assume you have some tall buildings in
5
Milwaukee, you are dealing with the lady
6
who has an apartment on the 14th floor of
7
that building. Now, I don't know. If you
8
want to put this in--
9
MR. HOLMER: I am really asking the
10
question and I am not going to push it.
11
MR. STEIN: But I want you to know
12
what you are taking on. And if you can regulate
13
that lady up there, I am with you.
14
MR. HOLMER: I wasn't--
15
MR. STEIN: I never have been able
16
to do that because I have one like that at home.
17
MR. HOLMER: I meant commercial users.
18
I didn't mean individual users. I meant commercial
19
users.
20
MR. LELAND: Commercial applicators
21
and users.
22
MR. MITCHELL: What would really be
23
the difference between a commercial applicator
24
and a commercial user?
25
-------
I EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. HOLMER: Well, I was thinking
3
of the guys flying the planes or otherwise.
4
Well, we can certainly take care of
5
this in Wisconsin.
6
MR. STEIN: Do you want to say
7
commercial applicators and users?
8
MR. HOLMER: I would leave off the
9
users.
10
MR. STEIN: All right. All right.
11
I think you are biting off quite a bit.
12
All right, leave off "users". Let's
13
see if we can have that.
14
Let's go on to 16. The Department
15
of Agriculture.
16
MR. LELAND: Have we got a new 14
17
coming in and 15?
18
MR. STEIN: Yes, you are going to
19
have 14 and 15. They are rewrites, but they
20
are the same.
21
22
RECOMMENDATION #16
23
24
MR. STEIN: Sixteen.
25
-------
3898
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. POOLE: Well, I can buy 16.
3
MR. STEIN: Alliright, any objection
4
to 16?
5
MR. POOLE: All I want to say is that
6
I don't know whether we want to pitch feed lot
7
operators or dairying back in the hands of the
8
Department of Agriculture. We have treated
9
them .lust as any other industry.
10
MR. KLASSEN: We have too.
11
MR. OEMING: I think I would subscribe
12
to what Mr. Poole says. We don't differentiate
13
or exclude them from our statute, feed lot
14
operators or dairying operators. This has a
™
sense of doing that, doesn't it?
16
MR. STEIN: Yes, I think you have
17
got a point, you are right.
18
"Such as siltation and bank stabili-
19
zation," and let's leave it at that, 0. K.?
20
MR. OEMING: Yes.
21
.MR. STEIN: All right, let's strike it.
22
(Discussion off the record.)
23
MR. STEIN: Here is the way this reads:
24
"The United States Department of
25
-------
3893
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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Agriculture be requested to submit to the Conferees
a report within six months on agricultural
programs to prevent pollution from agricultural
land use such as siltation and bank stabilization."
MR. OEMING: Period.
MR. STEIN: Period.
RECOMMENDATION #17
MR. STEIN: Seventeen.
MR. KLASSEN: I will move its adoption.
MR. POOLE: Second.
MR. MITCHELL: Pass.
MR. STEIN: All right. If no objec-
tion, we go on to 18.
RECOMMENDATION #18
MR. LELAND:-'-"shall compile"?
MR.-STEIN: "Shall" before "compile,"
"shall compile."
"A report shall be" or "will be"?
"Will be."
-------
3894
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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
All right? Is that all right on 182
MR. OEMING: I haven't got the "wills"
_*> - ss
and the "s~rrails" in here right, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: All right. "state pollu-
tion control agencies shall compile."
Next sentence, "A report will be
submitted."
MR. OEMING: Good.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Who is going to report
on the storage of materials and oils on Federal
property?
MR. KLASSEN: No. 6.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Great Lakes Naval
Base, and so forth.
MR. STEIN: All right, could we have
them? All right.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Training stations,
naval base.
MR. STEIN: Let's add, "state water
pollution control agencies and the U. S. Depart-
ment of the Interior." Right? All right. That
is a good point.
All right. On 18, we have got the
-------
3895
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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
U. S. Department of the Interior.
RECOMMENDATION #19
MR. STEIN: Nineteen.
"Shall" before "arrange"
"Results will be." All right?
RECOMMENDATION #20
MR. STEIN: Twenty is the Coast Guard.
"will be requested."
And 21, "the discharge of visible
oil shall be eliminated."
MR. HOLMER: Wait a minute.
MR. STEIN: Are we down to 21? I
don't want to move too fast.
MR. HOLMER: In 20, the aircraft
monitoring, does that stand by itself? We
are not monitoring the aircraft.
MR. OEMING: Monitoring by aircraft?
MR. STEIN: "Monitoring by aircraft."
All right.
-------
3896
,. 1 EXECUTIVE-'SESSION
2
3
RECOMMENDATION #21
4
5
MR. STEIN: Down to 21.
6
MR. OEMING: Are you ready on 21?
7
MR. STEIN: Yes, air.
8
MR. OEMING: I would like to suggest
9
a change: "The discharge of visible oil from
10
any source in such a manner as to reach the
11
waters of Lake Michigan shall "be eliminated"--
12
MR. STEIN:--"from any source "---go
13
ahead.
14
MR. OEMING: *--"in such a manner as
15
to reach the waters of Lake Michigan."
16
MR. KLASSEN: What is the difference
17
there?
18
MR. OEMING: We are going back to this
19
basin again. Are you concerned or is this
20
conference concerned about what happens ;at
21
Laingsburg, half a dozen dams--
22
MR. KLASSEN: All right, but I didn't
23
see any difference in your wording.
24
MR. OEMING: Oh. yes,"in such a manner
25
-------
3897
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
as to reach Lake Michigan."
3
MR. KLASSEN:"As to reach the waters
4
of Lake Michigan"?
5
MR. OEMING: That's right.
6
MR. STEIN: .Same thing.
7
MR. KLASSEN: Same thing.
8
MR. STEIN: What do you care?
9
MR. POOLE: You a re going to cut the
10
word "basin" out, aren't you?
11
MR. OEMING: That's right/ "basin"
12
comes out of there.
13
MR. STEIN: All right.
14
MR. KLASSEN: Oh.
15
MR. STEIN: If we cut out "basin" we
16
could have done the same thing. But let's leave
17
it this way.
18
Do you have any objection to this?
19
This reads, "The discharge of visible
20
oil from any source in such a manner as to reach
21
the waters of Lake Michigan shall be eliminated."
22
MR. OEMING: That's right.
23
MR. STEIN: All right.
24
25
-------
3898
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
3
RECOMMENDATION #22
4
5
MR. STEIN: Twenty-two, "shall be
6
immediately employed."
7
--shall be employed immediately."
8
0. K., let's not split an infinitive.
9
MR. MITCHELL: Where is it?
10
MR. OEMING: Just interchange "employed"
11
and "immediately."
12
MR. STEIN: That is not really an
13
infinitive but let's do it, anyway.--"shall
14
be employed immediately."
15
MR. POOLE: Shall what?
16
MR. MITCHELL: You guys have got me
17
lost.
18
MR. STEIN: "Present knowledge of
19
water pollution control shall be employed
20
immediately to abate water pollution."
21
MR. POOLE: 0. K.
22
MR. STEIN: We are on 22.
23
MR. LELAND:--"and research," leave
24
out the--
25
-------
3899
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: Where is that?
3
MR. LELANB: In the second line,
4 . :
"and," and take out the "that."
5
MR. STEIN: Strike out "that" at the
«
end of the second line and put "shall" after
7 ... '
the word "research" on the third line?
8
MR. LELAND: No, "shall be vigorously
9
pursued."
10
MR. STEIN:--"and research" instead
11
of "that," right.
12
How do you have that?
13
MR. LELAND: No.
14
So it will read, "and research on
15
pressing water problems shall be vigorously
16
pursued."
17
MR. STEIN:--"on water pollution
18
problems shall," after "problems" on the
19
third line.
20
Here is how it reads:
21
"Present knowledge of water pollution
22
control shall be employed immediately to abate
23
water pollution in the Lake Michigan basin and
24
research on pressing water pollution problems
25
-------
3900
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
shall be vigorously pursued,"
3
Are we all right on 22?
4
5
RECOMMENDATION #23
6
7
MR. STEIN: How about 23, does that
8
satisfy you, Larry, on those boats?
9
MR. POOLE; No,
10
MR. STEIN: No? Let's hear it.
ll
MR. OEMING: You have got to give me
12
a chance to think a minute.
13
MR. POOLE: I suggested, "it is
14
recommended by the State Conferees that Federal
15
legislation for the control of oil be strengthened.
16
I don't want to be so presumptuous as to spell
17
out everything that the Federal legislation should
lo
cover. But this seems to me to be pretty weak.
19
MR. OEMING: Yes.
20
MR. STEIN: All right.
21
"it is recommended by the State
22
Conferees that Federal legislation for the
23
control of oil pollution of Lake Michigan
be strengthened"? Or oil on Lake Michigan,
25
-------
3901
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
oil pollution? Oil pollution of Lake Michigan
3
be strengthened—oil pollution on Lake Michigan
4
be strengthened. Right?
MR. OEMING: You said "on Lake
6 Michigan," didn't you, Mr. Chairman?
7 MR. STEIN: Yes.
8 MR. OEMING: All right.
MR. STEIN: "it is recommended by
the State Conferees that Federal legislation
for the control of oil pollution on Lake
12 Michigan be strengthened." Right? "it is
13
recommended." And then let's go on to 2k.
14
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman.
15
MR. STEIN: Let me read 23 once more:
16 ..
It is recommended by the State
17
Conferees that Federal legislation for the
18
control of oil pollution on Lake Michigan be
19 „
strengthened.
20
Yes?
21
MR. KLASSEN: In no place here do we
22
have a requirement that the Federal Government
23
move toward the control of wastes from inter-
24
state watercraft. Is this the place for it or
25
-------
3902
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
under 15?
3
MR. STEIN: No, we had that, we
4
had that before. Let's go back on the boats
6
way before, Clarence.
6
MR. KLASSEN: You had it, but now
7
you have substituted 13.
8
MR. STEIN: No, no, no, no.
9
MR. KLASSEN: All right, if it is
10
in there, 0. K.
11
MR. STEIN: No, no, no.
12
MR. KLASSEN: That is all right.
13
If you are sure it is in there—
14
MR. OEMING: Let's check this out,
15
Clarence, What are you talking about now?
16
MR. KLASSEN: On 13, we revised 13,
17
we omitted "Commensurate requirements controlling
18
the discharge of wastes from commercial vessels
19
be the responsibility of the Federal Government."
20
MR. STEIN: No, I had that on my 13.
21
MR. KLASSEN: But it wasn't on the
22
one that we Just passed.
23
MR. LELAND: We have a new 13.
24
MR. KLASSEN: We have a new 13.
25
-------
3903
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. LELAND: It wasn't on the one
3
passed out.
4
MR. STEIN: Well, they didn't type
5
the last sentence on 13.
6
MR. KLASSEN: Will it be included?
7
MR. STEIN: I hope so. I have, and
8
let's put this down, "Commensurate requirements
9
controlling the discharge of wastes from com-
10
mercial vessels is to be the responsibility
11
of the Federal Government."
12
MR. OEMING: Yes.
13
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K.
14
MR. STEIN: That is in 13.
15
All right. Twenty-four.
16
MR. HOLMER: Twenty-three.
17
MR. STEIN: Back to 23.
18
MR. HOLMER: I wonder if it would not
19
be appropriate for us to Join in with the
20
President's recommendation that legislation of
21
this sort be extended to cover other pollutant
22
chemicals as well as oil? This was a part of
23
last week's message, and it always concerns me;
24
I realize that oil is our most nagging and
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
persistent problem, but I wonder if we should
3
not also make the record clear that we would
4
support strengthened legislation governing the
5
control of pollution from other chemicals?
6
MR. STEIN: Well--
7
MR. POSTON: You are talking about
8
spills now, I assume?
9
MR. HOLMER: Well, yes.
10
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Oil isn't the only
11
thing that floats.
12
MR. MITCHELL: No, but right now
13
the oil control act is the weakest act that we
14
are considering.
15
MR. STEIN: I follow.
16
MR. MITCHELL: And there may not be
17
any other legislation in regard to the others,
18
I don't know. But we were wanting to point
19
out that this oil control act is very weak
26
and at the present--
21
MR. HOLMER: Hasn't been enforced
22
anyway.
23
MR. STEIN: No, no, it is not a question
24
of--let me tell you this. You know, I am in
25
-------
3905
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
charge of the enforcement--
3
MR. HOLMER: I agree. I agree.
4
MR. STEIN: No, let me give you this,
5
and I told you this before.
6
MR. HOLMER: I know.
7
MR. STEIN: In order for the discharge
8
to be enforceable, it has to be due to gross
9
neglect or wilful.
10
MR. OEMING: Wilful.
11
MR. STEIN: Now, if you can prove--
12
and you know, you have got your own lawyers in
13
your States--if they can prove a case on wilful
14
or gross neglect, as I said before, they are
15
better lawyers than I am.
16
MR. OEMING: You can't do it.
17
MR. STEIN: This isn't a question of
18
a will to enforce. We got the law, and you
10
take this up with the fellows you have back working
20
with you in your States and see what they can
21
do with that. I can't do very much.
22
MR. OEMING: I Just want to support
23
you in that, Mr. Chairman -
24
MR. STEIN: I know.
25
-------
3906
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: We had wilful in our
3
act. Under wilful violations we collect a
4
fine, and the attorney general could never
5
enforce it.
6
MR. STEIN: Of course not. You see,
7
what they are getting at is a specific thing.
8
We have something in the Oil Pollution Control
9
Act that in effect makes the enforcement of
10
that act difficult in the extreme. The success-
11
ful cases we have had since that amendment
12
are zero. I think this is what we are
13
trying to get at.
14
Now, the question here again is if
15
you want to dilute that by putting something
16
else in, and this is up to you. I don't care.
17
18
RECOMMENDATION #24
19
20
MR. STEIN: Let's go to 24.
21
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, I would
22
like to suggest that you delete the second
23
sentence and let it stand as the first sentence.
24
MR. STEIN: All right. I thought
25
-------
3907
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
that might be a suggestion.
3
MR. HOLMER: Yes, indeed.
4
MR. STEIN: If no objection, we will
5
do that.
6
MR. MITCHELL: Good.
7
MR. KLASSEN: Amen.
8
MR. POQLE: I will buy that.
9
MR. HOLMER: A second suggestion,
10
with respect to the first sentence and in
11
view of the President's proposal to follow
12
the Wisconsin procedure--
13
(Laughter.)
14
MR. STEIN: He may have had:.New York
15
in mind.
16
(Laughter.)
17
MR. HOLMER: Quite possibly. And
18
Illinois and Michigan.
19
MR. STEIN: Yes.
20
MR. KLASSEN: Thank you.
21
MR. HOLMER: But I wonder if it would
22
not be appropriate for us State Conferees to add
23
a second sentence or an additional clause that
24
would acknowledge the fact that he has made a
25
-------
3908
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
proposal which we would find very helpful.
3
MR. POOLE: I haven't read
4
the proposal yet. I couldn't subscribe
5
to that.
6
MR. STEIN: I would--
7
MR. POSTON: You couldn't?
8
MR. POOLE: No.
9
MR. STEIN: Let's go off the
10
record.
11
(Off the record.)
12
MR. HOLMER: Then let's skip it.
13
Let's go to 25-
14
MR. STEIN: Let's go to 25
15
16 RECOMMENDATIONS #25 AND 26
17
MR. STEIN: Twenty-five.
18
And 25 a boiler plate, I hope.
19
All right
20
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman, in connection
21
with 25, this reconvening every six months, what is
22
the mechanism here? Who initiates this or do we
23
decide this?
24
MR. STEIN: Here is the way we've done
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this.
3
Let's go off the record on this.
4
(Off the record.)
5
MR. STEIN: I think again it is like
6
these other things, you have to rely on the
7
past performance and good faith. I do not
8
think we have ever called a meeting without
9
thoroughly canvassing you and getting your
10
approval on the date. And this is the way we
11
intend to continue.
12
MR. OEMING: I was thinking who do
13
we look to, and I think we look to you as
14
Chairman of the conference.
15
MR. STEIN: Yes, that's right,
16
around six months. We have one of these
W ' .
massive tickler files in Washington and
18
around five months something is going to come
up which says you have got to do something
*v
about reconvening that Lake Michigan conference
21
and then I will get on the telephone and if I
22
can get Wally in town or something, I will say
23
to him, "How about calling your States and seeing
24
when they want to reconvene?" And then he will
*v
-------
3910
1 ' EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
be on the phone with you, as usual. We have
3
been through this many times before--
4
MR. OEMING: Yes, we've been through
5
it. I Just wanted to--
6
MR. STEIN: And we make an adjustment
7
on the date.
8
Now, the advantage of doing it this
9
way is I think we can give you every reasonable
10
assurance that your wishes will be met in
11
selecting the date and you won't have or any
12
of us have an arbitrary date Imposed on us
13
to go to a meeting, that is all.
14
MR. OEMING: It would be about September,
15
wouldn't it, September or October? After the
16
Secretary gets his recommendations off, then
17
we count the six months, don't we?
18
MR. STEIN: I think, gentlemen, if
10
you are talking about September or October of
20
this year and you are thinking of holding a
progress meeting in this case right before the
22
first Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
23
I think we are Just whistling in the dark. You
24
know we are going to wait until after election.
25
-------
3911
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
I don't think it is going to be possible
3
to hold a progress meeting until after election.
4
MR. OEMING: All right. That gives
5
me enough.
6
MR. STEIN: 0. K.
7
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, is it
8
necessary to put in the record to file with
9
you a comment that the Illinois Conferee
10
agrees with these or is this the consensus?
11
MR. STEIN: No, I am going to bring
12
these in as unanimous.
13
MR. KLASSEN: O.K.
14
MR. STEIN: Unanimous agreement.
15
Now, I think the advantage, as you all know,
16
of unanimous agreement, we have never had
17
any Secretary, and we haVe had a variety of
18
Secretaries deal with these, change a unanimous
19
agreement before. And I think the essence
20
of the program to clean up Lake Michigan is
21
to get this unanimous agreement, because this
22
business of getting a complicated program like
23 '
this working where two or more parties are in
£r9
disagreement or where a State or the Federal
25
-------
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
Government or anyone is telling the other
3
to go fly your kite isn't going to get the
4
program going.
5
6 And speaking here on the conclusions
7 of this, I think that the great thing we have
8 achieved here, I hope this won't be under-
9 estimated, is the unanimity among the States
10 and the Federal Government on the program.
11 This la a very difficult program, and the
12 fact that as diverse a group as we have have
13 been able to achieve that.unanimity I think
14 reflects possibly the importance that we all
15 accord the goal of saving Lake Michigan and
16 the recognition that if we don1t come up with
17 this unanimous program we may have some very
18 dire consequences.
19
I want to thank all you people. There
20
have been tremendous accommodations by all
21
parties to come up with this agreement. This
22
has not been easy. It has taken a long time,
23
24
25
-------
3913
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
I say, in all deference, and this may be
3
a partisan statement, the reason we have been
4
able to achieve that in a complicated situation
5
like this is that what we are doing is sitting
6
around the table with a bunch of pros who have
7
been working in large measure with each other for
8
the past quarter of a century. I am not sure
9
that this could be done, really, in a situation
10
like this without that professional expertise
11
and the long personal relations that we have
12
all had. We have dealt with some of the most
13
fundamental problems in water resources, the
14
kind of problems that I think a lot of people
15
talk about at meetings, skirt, and maybe have
16
long-range planning programs and research
17
programs for, and we have met them and come to
18
an accommodation with them. And I would like
19
to congratulate all the Conferees for their
20
flexibility and constructive suggestions. I
21
think without it we never could have arrived
22
at this stage.
23
As a matter of fact, I think I would
24
match this program for the saving of Lake Michigan
25
-------
^___ : 3914
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
in concrete form with any pollution program
3
not Just anywhere in the country but anywhere
4
in the world. But I do think we need it.
5
Yes.
6
MR. MITCHELL: I would like to add
7
to that statement, though, Mr. Chairman, that
8
I know there are some support groups who have
9
been with us all through our hearings, the
10
League of Women Voters for one and some others.
11
It is easy, really, for us who sit around tables
12
and set up these guidelines, but unless the
13
people back home really want to do the Job and
14
spend the money that is going to be required,
15
we will never get it done. I would hope that
16
these support groups won't consider that Just
17
because we have issued a report that stops here.
18
We hope that they will be able to carry the ball
19
a little bit farther to really get the support
20
for these bond issues and other things that
21
have to be forthcoming.
22
MR. STEIN: This is the essential
23
part. And let me say, I can put this very
24
succinctly, I agree with John Mitchell completely.
25
-------
3915
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
The kind of pollution control people
3
get is the kind of pollution control they demand.
4
And without your demanding it and going out and
6
working for it, you are not going to get it.
6
Any official agency sitting around the table
7
and coming out with this alone Just doesn't
8
do the Job, and this is the answer to the
9
question.
10
The Federal Government really, by and
11
large, except for those Federal installations,
12
or the States, the few State installations, we
13
are not the polluters, and this is what you
14
have to understand. Pollution really
15
in essence gets cleaned up by the municipalities
16
and the cities who are creating the pollution
17
and the citizens groups and the people In the
18
area creating the climate where they feel they
19
have to go ahead. It is not us.
20
Are there any other comments or
21
questions?
22
MR. POSTON: I might say--
23
MR. OEMING: Mr. Chairman.
24
MR. POSTON: Go ahead.
25
-------
^__ 3916
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: May the State of
3
Michigan have a chance?
4
MR. STEIN: Try to stop you.
5
(Laughter.)
6
MR. OEMING: Well, I would Just
7
like to say on behalf of the State of Michigan
8
that we are extremely gratified with the way
9
in which the Chairman has conducted this
10
conference in his tact and his ability to
11
draw out all of these different viewpoints
12
and pull them together into something that
13
we can all subscribe to, the States and the
14
Federal Government. This is no mean accomplish-
15
ment in itself, Mr. Chairman. I mean to be
16
able to pull people like Klassen and Poole
17
and Oeming and Holmer together and pull some-
18
thing out of them that everybody can subscribe
19
to as a good program is not easy, and a great
20
deal of credit belongs to you here. I mean
21
this sincerely.
22
MR. STEIN: Thank you. That is the
23
first nice thing anyone has said to me since
24
my mother kissed me when I graduated from high
25
-------
3917
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
school.
3
(Laughter.)
4
MR. HOLMER: I want to say amen to
5
that.
6
MR. STEIN: I think some of the
7
press and the TV"people are going to be here
8
and we are supposed to have a press conference.
9
You are all welcome, if you want to appear
10
before them to answer their questions. As
11
far as I am concerned, the State people can
12
have first crack at this, because —
13
MR. OEMING: I am sure you can
14
handle it in fine shape, the way you have.
15
MR. STEIN: Any way you want to do it.
16
Now, let me say one thing in passing.
17
I do think we have a little time, and I put
18
this to you, on most of our problems, possibly
19
even the nuclear reactor and powerplant prob-
20
lems. We do not--and I repeat this—we do not
21
have any time on that alewife problem if we
22
are going to meet it this year. We are what,
23
in March now?
24
MR. POSTON: Right.
25
-------
3918
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. STEIN: My Information, and I
3
have talked to many people about this, unless we
4 '
have not Just plans but an operating program
5
and a staff in the field by April, I don't
6
think we are going to assemble the boats, the
7 .
personnel, the money, the sites and the local
8
cooperation to cope with the alewife problem
9 : . . '
this year. I would say don't wait for any
10
recommendations to come out from us. We will be
11
overtaken by events if we do this.
12
Let me make this clear, because I
13
said this informally in answer to questions
14
from members of the press, but let me indicate
15
this to you. I think we can get up some Federal
16
money, but the string on this is to be able to
17
have the State money match it. I hope the
18
States will not quibble and will be forthcoming
19
with that so we can make it go.
20
Now, in addition to that, we are going
to need a staff to make this program go. We
22
would hope that you would designate the people
23
from this area to run the program. If necessary,
w4
we will supply a supporting staff and if you
25
-------
3919
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
require it and you can't break anyone loose,
3
we will supply supervisors for you. But we
* '' ' ' '.'•'"'
are not asking for this. We will Just do this
5
on demand. We think the alewife program is
6
so important that we are ready to break these
7 ' - .
people loose. We would like you people to do
8
it.
9
Now, the question again, and let me
10
make this clear, the concomitants of getting
11
the Federal money are that the States come
12
forth with their money, that the States come
13
forth with a viable program, that is a skimming
14
program, sites to dispose of this and a local
15
program to handle this on the beaches.
16
If you can't blast or Jar loose any people
17
from your State programs to run this operation,
18
we will supply the people. But whether it is
19
your interstate agency or your State program,
20
I would recommend that the more local people
21
you can put in charge the better we will like
22
it. We will take the support positions. How-
23
ever, if you can't, call on us. 0. K.?
24
MR. OEMING: You have given us a good
25
-------
3Q20
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
message here--
3
MR. STEIN: All right.
4
MR. OEMING: --to carry back to
5
our people, Mr. Chairman.
6
MR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, in response
7
to Mr. Poole's request for a work shop on ad-
8
vanced waste treatment, particularly relating
9
to phosphate removal, I would report that we
10
have plans underway to do this about mid-April.
11
We will be in touch with you relative to getting
12
out invitations to consulting engineers in your
13
particular State--
14
MR. POOLE: Good.
15
MR. POSTON: --for this purpose.
16
MR. STEIN: Are there any further
17
questions?
18
If not, again I want to thank you.
19
You know, you say this sometimes repeatedly,
20
I say this, not Just myself, but some of the
21
people around the table, and we have been in
22
many hearings in many pollution cases, but
23
I do not think that in all the years that I
24
have been in pollution control, and I suspect
25
-------
3922
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
this is true for some of the others, that
3
we have ever been dealing with as complex
4
and as important a case as this. This is,
5
I might say, even more complex than the Lake
6
Erie situation, because that was gone, you
7
know. What do you do? This is the hard
8
kind of operation, where you really have to
9
strive for a program and dealing with a lot
10
of States and a lot of problems. We also have
11
dealt with a Federal Government which has a
12
strong point of view and four States which
13
have been noted for their excellent water
14
pollution control programs and the-independence
15
of their thought.
16
(Laughter.)
17
I will say that in dealing with this
18
problem this has been> and I know this may be
19
trite, one of the most rewarding experiences
20
that I have had. We have worked our way through
21
and have come up with a program that exceeds my
22
fondest expectations. I defy anyone to come up
23
with a better program than the Conferees have
24
produced here. This is, indeed, an accomplishment.
25
-------
3928
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION
2
MR. OEMING: I have got to say
3
something more. This exemplifies the
4
partnership that I thought was in the Federal
5
Water Pollution Control Act between the
6
Federal Government and the States, what has
7
happened here, in my book.
8
MR. STEIN: With that, we stand
9
adjourned for this session of the conference.
10
Thank you all very much.
11
(Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Executive
12
Session was adjourned.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
» U.S. COVHMICBT PRINTUieorFICe: I Mi O-*U-WT'(VOC 7»
------- |