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 recall that we had any testimony indicating it was . 18 MR. OEMING: Not to Lake Michigan. 19 MR. STEIN: No. 20 MR. OEMING: I can't say that Lake 21 Michigan— 22 MR. STEIN: I can't recall it. I know 23 in some areas--as I say, I think we have done a 24 fairly good Job of cleaning up the Potomac River. 25 ------- 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» ------- |