I I .; .



 -• 3
1 I .: :
  •
        ISBli


            STRATEGY

            FOR THE
        i -Vy'-fr :~ -:'••:•''
            SECTION  15
        ill PROGRAM
                         •••/:;.;•


                         -^
           U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


-------
A STRATEGY FOR THE SECTION 15 PROGRAM
   Harold F.  Wise and Associates
         1771 N Street, N.W.
      Washington, D.  C.   20036
              for the
       WATER QUALITY OFFICE

  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


       Contract #68-01-0170
             May 1972

-------
                                EPA Review Notice
                This  report has  been reviewed by the Water Quality
                Office,  EPA, and approved for publication.  Approval
                does  not signify that the contents  necessarily reflect
                the views and policies of the Environmental  Protection
                Agency,  nor does mention of trade names or commercial
                products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
                use.
                                       n
Eir7TRONMENTiE PROTECTION iGEJTCY

-------
                            ABSTRACT
A series of investigations were conducted to develop  a  strategy  for
a program of demonstration projects  for water pollution control  in the
Great Lakes under Section 15 of the  Federal  Water Pollution  Control Act
(as amended through 1970).  The investigations  covered  the basic pollu-
tion problems of the Great Lakes, barriers to their solution,  current
research, development, and demonstration activities,  and the needs and
priorities of state and local agencies.

The investigations showed that, under current programs, serious  gaps
occur in the development and implementation  of complete, basin system
solutions to pollution problems in the Great Lakes.   These gaps  arise
especially in coping with less concentrated  sources of  pollution, in
providing complete treatment and control systems, and in developing
institutional arrangements for implementing  areawide  or basinwide
solutions.  Because the Section 15 authorization  permits the demonstra-
tion of approaches that are not possible under current  programs, it
makes possible a variety of projects to demonstrate approaches to fill
these gaps.

The recommended Section 15 Program includes  strategic objectives,
guidelines and criteria for reviewing projects, processes for  imple-
menting the strategy, and 15 suggested demonstration  projects  for
initial consideration.
                               i 1 i

-------
                            CONTENTS


Section                                                        Page

   I      Conclusions                                            1

  II      Recommendations                                        3

 III      Introduction                                           7

  IV      Legislative Mandates                                   9

   V      Overview of Great Lakes Pollution                     13

               The Lakes
                   Lake Superior                                13
                   Lake Michigan                                14
                   Lake Huron                                   14
                   Lake Erie                                    15
                   Lake Ontario                                 15
               Overview of Pollution Components                 16
               Accelerated Great Lakes Program Suggestions      19
               Summary of Most Frequent Pollution               24
                   Abatement Gaps

  VI      Research, Development and Demonstration Program       27

 VII      Field Surveys                                         31

VIII      A Strategy for the Section 15 Program                 41

               Strategic Objectives                             41
               Guidelines and Criteria                          43
               Relationship to Joining Agreement                47

  IX      Administrative Processes for Implementing the
          Strategy                                              49

               Administrative Processes                         49
               Organization and Manpower                        56

   X      Suggested Demonstration Projects                      59

  XI      Acknowledgements                                     101

-------
                            EXHIBITS

                                                           Page No.
1.   Pollution Components                                     17
2.   Accelerated Program Elements                             20
3.   Potential Project Areas in the Accelerated Program       23
4.   Summary of Most Frequent Pollution Abatement Gaps        25
5.   Distribution of RD&D Funds by Subprogram                 28
6.   Distribution of RD&D Funds by Geographical Area          29
7-   Summary of Item 1 from State Questionnaires              32
8.   Summary of Item 2 from State Questionnaires              35
9.   Summary of Item 3 from State Questionnaires              37
10.  Declining Values of Simple or Catalytic Demonstrations   45
11.  Flow Chart:  Administrative Processes for Implementing   50
     the Strategy
12,  Initial Program Funding by Projects                      61
13.  Continuing Program Funding by Projects thru FY 1976      62
14.  Project Schedule                                         64
15.  Summaries of Suggested Demonstration Projects:           69
     Initial Program, FY 1973
16,  Summaries of Suggested Demonstration Projects:           85
     Continuing Program FY 1974 through 1976
                                VI

-------
                            SECTION I

                           CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions were drawn from the investigations  and
analyses conducted in this study:

     1.  The language of Section 15 provides  discretionary latitude
     for demonstrating a variety of approaches,  both  technical  and
     institutional to water pollution control in the  Great Lakes
     that are not possible under other programs.

     2.  The Great Lakes present water pollution problems  that  are
     geographically extensive, naturally unique, and  highly inter-
     dependent; and there are important gaps  in  the development of
     systematic solutions left by present efforts.

     3.  The RD&D program in the Great Lakes  Basin  is producing
     important new technical solutions, but these tend to  be
     oriented toward treatment subsystems for point sources at  the
     expense of system-wide, institutional and implementing
     techniques, and non-point sources.

     4.  The status of institutional arrangements and the  scarcity of
     resources at the state and local level present difficulties
     that hinder the conceptualization and development of  innovative
     demonstration projects to address these  gaps.

-------
                               SECTION II

                             RECOMMENDATIONS
Strategic Objectives

Two strategic objectives are recommended as the core concept of the
Section 15 Program:

     1.   The Section 15 Program should support projects, that provide
demonstrations of the value of innovative, system-oriented approaches
to the solution of water pollution problems in the Great Lakes Basin.
Projects should be

     0   demonstrations, in that they will develop and publicize
         information that will encourage wider use of the new
         methods developed;

     °   innovative, in that they are approaches not found
         within the scope of existing technologies, practices,
         policies, regulation, or legislation; and

     0   system oriented, in that they address some of the
         crucial pollution problems that persist in basin
         systems and institutional problems that persist
         in area wide political systems after the
         application of other efforts in a piecemeal and
         fragmented fashion.

     2.  In managing the Section 15 Program, EPA should develop
active, catalytic and institutionalized mechanisms for identifying
future pollution problems and overcoming barriers to their control.
The program should be:

     0   acti ve, in that EPA exercises the discretionary
         latitude provided by the authorizing legislation
         through a strong participation role that will
         stimulate, cultivate and channel grant activities
         rather than merely reacting to proposals and
         priorities submitted by others:

     0   catalytic, in that through the active role, EPA can
         make coordinated use  of leverage, the incentives
         and the resources inherent in other EPA and
         Federal programs; and

     0   institutionalized, so that the program mechanisms
         developed will have the force of regular,
         continuing activity supported by sufficient

-------
          full  time  personnel  and  manpower  to  be  able  to  act
          as  the  trailblazer  for substantially larger  efforts
          to  control  pollution  of  the  Great  Lakes  in the  future.

 Guidelines and Criteria

 The  following  guidelines are  recommended for  Section  15  projects:

      1.   Projects should be sought that will  demonstrate new technol-
 ogies  in  areas not  covered by  Section 6 demonstrations or in systems
 that combine several component techniques.

      2.   Projects should be sought that develop and implement solu-
 tions  to  pollution  problems within a basin-wide system context.

      3.   Projects should be sought that fill  specifically identified
 gaps  in basin-wide solutions.

      4.   Projects should be sought that develop (not just design)
 area-wide and  intergovernmental institutional arrangements needed
 to implement pollution control solutions.

     5.   Projects should be sought that will  demonstrate the
 effectiveness of new policies on regulations.

     6.   Projects should be sought that will  demonstrate the need
 for  new legislative authorities at both state and national levels.

 Processes for Implementing the Strategy

 The  following administrative processes should be established to imple-
 ment the recommended Section 15 strategy:

      1.  Review suggested demonstration projects with EPA managers;

     2.  Distribute Section 15 program materials and project opportunities
 to State and  Local Agencies;

     3.  Coordinate with other agency programs;

     4.  Discuss  potential  projects with potential recipients;

     5.  Provide  support for developing institutional  arrangements;

     6.  Provide  support in developing technical and basin-wide
demonstration projects;

     7.  Review and approve proposals;

     8.  Monitor  and assist in demonstration project performance;  and

     9.  Document, publicize and disseminate results.

-------
Suggested Projects

It is recommended that an initial package of 15 specific projects  be
used to start the internal and external review process leading to  project
approval.  The 15 projects were selected reflecting needs, state and
local interests and meet Section 15 short and long term objectives.
In the short run highly visible results are desirable; in the long
run more efficient big systems are required.

The overall approach is to cover three principal  areas:

     a.   technology demonstrations

     b.   institutional and financial projects

     c.   projects to develop system plans and procedures.

The recommended Section 15 program is divided into an initial funded
program geared to the $20.0 million already authorized.   The continuing
program growing to $400.0 in FY 1976 reflects the implementation of
plans initiated in FY 1973.

It is recommended that the near term project visibility and sound
feasibility study efforts can spark state interest in Section 15 and
lay the foundations for a truly effective effort in the Great Lakes
to realize national and international objectives.

-------
                           SECTION III

                          INTRODUCTION
Section 15 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
through 1970, authorizes $20 million for

     "projects to demonstrate new methods and techniques and to
     develop preliminary plans for the elimination or control  of
     pollution within all or any part of the watersheds of the
     Great Lakes."

The purpose of the present study was to develop a strategy for the
Section 15 Program and to delineate the administrative processes
needed for implementing that strategy.  The strategy developed herein
is intended, as is Section 15, to strengthen rather than duplicate
other efforts to control pollution in the Great Lakes.  As a result,
it can be used not only for effectively administering Section  15's
$20 million and any subsequent funding that may be provided; it can
also be used to structure programs for additional funds that might
become available for specific application to pollution control in the
Great Lakes.

In developing a strategy and the administrative processes for the
Section 15 Program, it was necessary to investigate and analyze a
number of factors.  The key tasks undertaken in this study were:

     -  to compare legislative mandates for Section 15 and other
        water quality programs;

     -  to identify and review the basic pollution problems and
        barriers blocking achievement of higher water quality  standards
        in the Great Lakes;

     -  to review the emphasis and results of current research,
        development and demonstration activities; and

     -  to survey EPA regional offices and state agencies in the
        Great Lakes Basin to determine their views on problems,
        priorities, and potential demonstration projects.

These four activities provided the data and analysis from which the
recommended Section 15 Program was developed.  The legislative mandate
for Section 15 was considered important because it provides the oppor-
tunities and limitations for the program to be developed.  In  addition,
the comparison with other programs permitted identification of the
types of projects and approaches that were not possible under other
sections.   It also contributed to the development of needs and possibili
ties for coordination between Section 15 activities and other programs.

-------
The identification of basic pollution problems in the Great Lakes
was important as background for the other investigations.   Review  of
the R, D & D program, interviewing and devising questionnaires for field
surveys, and developing the emphasis and objectives of the strategy, all
depended on a sound understanding of the Great Lakes system and the com-
ponents of pollution.  In addition, the existing literature provided
insights into the current approaches and the gaps remaining for solution.

Since the Section 15 Program is to provide demonstrations  of new methods
and techniques, it was important to understand the current activities for
developing and demonstrating such techniques.   For this  reason, the EPA
research, development and demonstration projects in the  Great Lakes were
reviewed and analyzed.

The authority provided by Section 15 allows  agreements with state, their
subdivisions and other public agencies.   Since they are  required to
provide matching resources, their priorities are important in establish-
ing the emphasis of the program.   Demonstration projects will be developed
and managed by or in close cooperation with  these agencies.  For these
reasons, the survey of agencies in the eight Great Lakes states was impor-
tant to the development of the Section 15 Program.

The findings from the investigations and analyses in the four areas
discussed above are presented in Sections IV,  V, VI, and VII.

These findings were used to develop four elements of the recommended
Section 15 Program:

     -Strategic objectives;

     -Guidelines and Criteria for Demonstration Projects;

     -Administrative Processes for Implementing the Strategy;

     -Statements of Suggested Demonstration  Projects.

The Strategic Objectives provide an overall  concept of what the
recommended Program is to accomplish.   Guidelines and criteria then give
a more concrete and detailed means for identifying and evaluating  demon-
stration projects.   Based on findings  from the Field Survey, it was
concluded that a regularized and institutionalized set of  Administrative
Processes would benefit both the Section 15  Program and  other Great Lakes
efforts.  These are included along with  15 suggested Demonstration Pro-
jects for initial use in the system of recommended processes.

The four elements of the recommended Section 15 strategy and program are
presented in Sections VIII, IX, and X.

-------
                              SECTION IV

                         LEGISLATIVE MANDATES

In approaching the task of developing a strategy for the Section 15
Program, we found it helpful to explore the legislative mandate it
provides in comparison to that of programs set up by other sections of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended through 1970).  This
analysis provides two useful results:  first, it shows the new opportuni-
ties inherent in Section 15; and second, it establishes the possibilities
for interaction and coordination between Section 15 activities and other
EPA programs.

Section 15 provides authority for projects to demonstrate new approaches
to water pollution control in the Great Lakes.  Demonstrations can cover
both the removal of pollutants and prevention of pollution.  They are to
show "engineering and economic feasibility and practicality."  $20 million
is authorized, to be spent at up to 75% federal share, through agreements
with "any state, political subdivision, interstate agency or other public
agency or combination thereof."

This Act also authorizes funds in other sections for research, develop-
ment and demonstration, for basin planning, and for construction or
wastewater treatment facilities.  In contrast to Section 15 the legisla-
tion and administration of these programs places restrictions on the
expenditure of funds.

Section 8, for example, in providing grants for construction, establishes
a formula for allocating funds among the states.  Within each state,
funds are to be allocated to projects according to priorities established
in state plans.  Although the Administration has some discretionary funds,
they provide only a modest opportunity to supplement activities determined
by state and local planning.  The Federal share of construction costs is
limited to 55 percent at the maximum.  In addition, certain types of
facilities, such as storm and combined sewers, are not allowable expenses
under Section 8 grants.

The research, development and demonstration projects authorized under
Section 5 and 6 may cover a variety of technical areas specified in the
Act and embodied in the subprogram elements used in adminstering the
program.  These elements will be discussed in further detail below.  For
the purposes of this analysis, the important point is that the specific
elements represent the many disciplines, components, and pollution
sources into which scientific and engineering investigations can be
divided.  The grants and contracts through which these funds are adminis-
tered are generally restricted to the boundaries of the specified areas.
Grants  may cover up to 75 percent of project costs depending 0n the
section, but are generally limited to less than $1 million.

-------
 Special  authority  is  provided  to support both pilot-scale and full-
 scale demonstration projects on storm and combined sewer discharges,
 advanced waste  treatment  and wastewater purification, and industrial
 waste treatment and control.   Industrial demonstration grants are
 limited  to 70 percent federal  share and $1 million.

 Section  3(c) provides  for grants to planning agencies for comprehen-
 sive basin planning.   Grants are made at the Governor's request, may
 not exceed 50 percent of  the expenses and are limited to 3 years.  The
 funds provided  for the 3(c) program have totaled only $11 million
 nationwide during  the  last five years.

 What opportunities does Section 15 provide that are not available under
 other sections? The  answer arises from our comparison.  Section 15
 allows the demonstration  of new approaches beyond those reflected 1n state
 established construction  priorities, beyond those developed and demon-
 strated  within  the specified scientific and engineering subprograms, and
 beyond the few  basin  planning  efforts that have been funded in the Great
 Lakes.   These opportunities are discussed more specifically below.

 Section  15 implicitly  recognizes that the approaches available 1n other
 programs may not be adequate for controlling pollution in a basin of the
 scope and complexity  of the Great Lakes system.  It recognizes that the
 water quality of the  Great Lakes is of broad national interest that may
 not be fully considered in setting state and local priorities.  In
 response, it provides  opportunities to demonstrate the value of
 approaches receiving  low  priority at the state and local level.  Section
 15  also  implicitly  recognizes that a piecemeal approach to wastewater
 management and  treatment, while an important immediate step, cannot
 provide  the systematic solutions required by such a large, complex
 environmental system  as the Great Lakes.

 In  response, Section  15 provides opportunities to supplement the piece-
 meal  approach with system studies, plans, and demonstration projects that
 broaden  the focus beyond  the boundaries of specific point sources,
 specific treatment technologies, and local jurisdictions.  For example,
 Section  15 projects can address the full complexity of the multiple
 causes of pollution, both point and non-point, within a basin system; or
 the institutional barriers to  arriving at areawide solutions in a politi-
 cally responsible fashion; or  the design of new treatment and control
 measures  combining the results of new technologies and regulatory tech-
 niques.   Projects that appear  to offer such opportunities will be sugges-
 ted later in this report.

Section 15, however,  does  not  now  provide  a program of sufficient  size
to stand  alone.   It is clear  that  $20  million  of demonstration projects,
by themselves, would  make  little impact  on  the  pollution  problems
besetting the Great Lakes. Section  15  projects  must  be  used in  addition
to, in coordination with,  and  as  a  testing  ground  for,  the use of
                               10

-------
authorities and resources available under present legislation,   Section
15 provides opportunities to weld together specialized technical
advances to yield new systems.   It provides opportunities  to fund new
types of facilities in combination with treatment facilities and demon-
strations supported by Section 8 and Section 6 grants.  And it  provides
opportunities to channel these resources in ways that develop and
strengthen implementing institutions.

In comparing the legislative mandates of Federal water quality  programs,
the provisions of pending legislation were also considered.  Section  15
is included in fact, but substantial changes are made in the construction
grants, planning requirements, and research programs.  In  general, these
changes do not negate the conclusions drawn above.   In fact, they provide
opportunities for Section 15 to serve as an interim testing ground for
administration of the new programs that are called for.
                                11

-------
                            SECTION V

                OVERVIEW OF GREAT LAKES POLLUTION

In order to discuss and analyze Great Lakes pollution problems, 1t
was necessary to become familiar with the characteristics of the Lakes
themselves, the major components of pollution entering them, and the
types of programs being considered,  This section presents a summary
of the basic facts gained from a review of the literature on pollution
of the Great Lakes and programs for its control.   The key product of  the
effort is the identification of gaps -- pollution problems not being
adequately addressed by current programs.

The Lakes
Lake Superior.  This basin lies at the southern border of the Canadian
Shield and consists predominantly of glacial  debris.   The groundwater
level is discontinuous due to a frequently thin glacial cover.   For the
present the quality of the groundwater is satisfactory for all  uses.
The groundwater table is generally shallow, with underlying crystalline
rocks.  As the glacial till does not allow efficient filtration, the
basin groundwater is especially susceptible to contamination,

There are approximately 2,OOQ glacial lakes within this watershed.
Many of these lakes are associated with bog formations, hence discharged
water is relatively low in oxygen content.  They are, therefore, unable
to assimilate large quantities of organic wastes or to provide the  lake
with high dissolved oxygen inputs.

There are 16 major tributaries and over 100 streams that discharge  into
the lake from both the U. S, and Canada.  Streams in the south and  the
north, however, are characterized by steep gradients and/or falls and
rapids.  In these streams the oxygen content is normal.

Lake Superior is the largest of the Great Lakes, having 95,000 square
miles of water surface, 3,000 cubic miles volume, and an average outflow
of 73,000 cubic feet per second.  Its water quality, at this time,  is
superior to all of the other Great Lakes.

Despite its size, Lake Superior is said to be more sensitive to pollution
and eutrophication than the other lakes.  Although still oligotropic
virtually throughout, short summer seasons and low water temperatures
have kept photosynthetic outputs low, contributing relatively little
oxygen via photosynthesis.  It is felt that the input of organic wastes,
which consume oxygen 1n decomposition, and the addition of nutrients,
such as phosphates and nitrates, which would lead to a relative over-
production of algae and hence add additional  decaying matter > could
seriously affect the oxygen content in the lake.

-------
Surface currents divide the lake into an eastern and western dispersion
system.  During the summer months an epilimnion develops containing
5% of the total lake volume.  During these months eutrophlc surface
conditions and settlement of non-decomposed organic matter to the lake
bottom could occur relatively easily.  During the winter months, on the
other hand, no thermocline exists and lake-wide mixing is said to take
place.

The through-flow of the lake is small compared to the total lake volume,
so persistent pollutants will  tend to accumulate rather than discharge,

Lake Michigan.  Lake Michigan lies in a large valley at the end of the
Canadian shield.  There are a total  of 8,100 lakes within the basin area.
The total drainage area of the basin encompasses 67,000 square miles.   The
20 major tributaries flowing into the lake drain 80 percent of the land
area.  Of these, 70 percent are monitored for water quality.

In the northern portion of the basin, groundwater is drawn from glacial
materials, while in the south, water is drawn from the sedimentary rocks,
Generally,  the groundwater has proved sufficient in meeting the demands
of domestic, municipal  and industrial use.   In recent years, however,
shortages in ground water resources  have occurred in a few urbanized and
industrialized areas, such as  Green  Bay,Wisconsin, and cities in the
Grand River Basin.   Municipalities in these areas are investigating the
use of or are actually using surface water from the lake itself.

Lake Michigan's volume is 1,170 cubic miles, less than half of Superior.
Average outflow is  approximately 48,000 cubic feet per second through
the Straits of Mackinac.  Maximum depth of the lake is over 900 feet;
average depth is 276 feet.

During the summer,  the thermocline reaches  in some instances, 200 feet
making the hypolimnion susceptible to eutrophic conditions, because the
oxidation of nutrients  is inhibited  by the  lack of oxygen normally
available through  mixing.  Mixing during the winter months is complete.
Although tributaries, the Green Bay, and some shore areas are heavily
polluted and nearly eutrophic, the main body of lake does not show
serious oxygen deficiency.  Reduction of BOD and phosphate inputs might
readily reverse the current trend towards increasing eutrophication,

Lake Huron.  Available information on Lake  Huron is minimal.  There are
approximately 1.2  million people in  the Lake Huron basin, concentrated
in Saginaw, Bay City, Midland  and Alpena.

Huron has a surface area of 23,000 square miles and a maximum depth of
250 feet.   The water quality of the  main body of the lake itself is very
good.   Areas  near  municipalities, however,  are polluted and Saginaw Bay
is seriously polluted from industrial effluents, food processing indus-
tries  and municipal  sewage.   Oxygen  deficiencies, bacteria and algae
                              14

-------
growth characterize the bay.

Uke Erie.  Lake Erie basin is the most heavily populated of the five
lake basins with approximately 12 million people.  The value added in
manufacturing in the U. S. portion of the Uke Erie basin amounts to
approximately $17 billion annually.

The surface area of the lake is 9,000 square miles, the volume 110 cubic
miles, maximum depth 210 feet, but average depth is only 58 feet.  It is
the shallowest of the five lakes.

Lake Erie has the highest overall pollutant input, but the smallest
volume and poorest assimilation capacity.  According to one report of the
IUC (1970), nuisance growths of algae, hundreds of square miles  in extent
occur during midsummer, giving an indication of its nutrient overload.
During this season, large areas of the lake bottom are at zero oxygen
concentration or anaerobic.  A replacement time of approximately 10 years
for stable contaminants in the waters is estimated.  Bottom sediments are
polluted and may release contaminants in the future.

Clean water fauna has been replaced with scavenger and trash fish.

Nevertheless, the impression persists that if municipal and industrial
BOD/COD discharges, phosphate inputs and toxins were drastically reduced
- at the level of currently available technology - the lake could
recuperate  to a mesotrophic state, beaches could be used and the lake
waters would be suitable for municipal water supplies to the extent that
there are no sources of bacterial contamination.

Major pollutant sources on the lake are Detroit, Ann Arbor, Monroe,
Cleveland, Ashtabula, and Erie; as well as the Maumee and Cuyahoga
drainage basins.

Lake Ontario,  This basin includes currently a population of approxi-
mately 3 million.  Value added through manufacture in 1963 totaled more
than $6 billion.  About 40 percent of the land area is in agricultural
production, including livestock.   Paper mills, chemical industry and
primary metals are important industries - and polluters.

The lake area comprises 7,600 square miles, maximum depth is 840 feet
and average depth is 300 feet.  Despite the fact that Lake Ontario
receives all the residual pollutants of the other lakes, it has  not
shown the advanced eutrophlcation of Lake Erie and, even during  the
summer months, the bottom waters  usually stay above 70 percent oxygen
saturation.   A major reason for this is the larger lake volume and hence
greater oxygen availability.  Yet, despite this advantage, Lake  Ontario
is the second only to Lake Erie in extent of pollution.

Lake Ontario produces an abundance of sedentary Cladaphora, which break
loose, and are washed ashore to decompose on the beaches, rendering them
unsuitable for recreational  use.
                              15

-------
The problem of alewife pollution is quite severe and is an Indication
of water quality so deteriorated that it no longer supports a balanced
variety of commercially valuable fish.

Besides the contribution from Lake Erie, major polluting centers are
Buffalo-Niagara, Rochester (oil, chemicals, steel, pulp, and paper) and
the Toronto-Hamilton metropolitan area.

Although the pollution level  of Lake Ontario is not as acute as that of
Lake Erie, certain tributaries, municipal and industrial shore areas are
severely degraded and border on toxic and anaerobic conditions.

The large volume throughout of the St. Lawrence River appears to prevent
serious deterioration of the  seaway below the quality of the input waters
with the exception of two severe local industrial  polluters (General
Motors and Reynolds).   Turbulence is high,  facilitating aeration.

Overview of Pollution Components

Appendix A gives an overview  of the pollution problems for each lake.
An effort was made to describe the pollutant inputs to the lakes via
tributaries and shore-located industries and municipalities separately
from the present pollution levels of the lakes.

The compilation is not intended to be exhaustive.   Such information may
be found in individual reports, where they  exist.   However, within the
limits of the reports  that were made available, an effort was made to
structure the information in  such a way  as  to isolate types of pollu-
tants and pollution practices that are mainly responsible for current
conditions.

Some of the reports reviewed  are three or four years  old.  This, however,
appears to have little effect on the components of the general  problem,
which are relatively few and  repetitive  over various  areas.

Pollution components are defined as pollutants or  pollution causes.  It
is assumed that the reader is familiar with direct and secondary effects
of pollutants,  such as eutrophication, algae growth,  and fish kills.
These effects  are mentioned parenthetically as their  description is not
the objective  of the report.

Exhibit 1  summarizes the pollution components considered and briefly
describes  their importance and effects.
                               16

-------
                            EXHIBIT 1

                      POLLUTION COMPONENTS

BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD), CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD),
     DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO)

     BOD loads stem primarily from municipal sewage, pulp, paper, and
     food processing industries.  COD results from reducing agents dis-
     charged by chemical and other plants.  After equilibration, the
     resultant DO level  may or may not support certain forms of life.

PHOSPHATE

     Phosphates are a natural component of sewage.  However, the primary
     sources are commercial and industrial detergents and agricultural
     run-off.  Although phosphate precipitation facilities are available
     and are being installed, it is not clear whether phosphate removal
     at treatment plants is more economical than restriction of phosphate
     detergent use.  Current agricultural practices are a cause of phos-
     phate run-off.  Phosphates are current!  thought to be a controlling
     nutrient in algae growth.  Algae overproduction leading to increased
     organic BOD requirements, contributes to accelerated eutrophication.

NITROGEN

     Although recognized as a nutrient, it is not as controllable as  phos-
     phate.  Nitrogen equilibrates with the atmosphere and may be assimi-
     lated by algae from the air.  Sources are municipalities, industries
     and agriculture.  Ammonia tends to neutralize chlorine and render  it
     ineffective for disinfection.

BACTERIA

     Coliform bacteria stems from sewage, storm and combined sewer over-
     flows and non-point run-off.  Current measurements determine coliform
     fecal coliform and, sometimes, fecal streptococci.  Viral counts are
     generally not available.  Coliform counts closely correlate with
     amounts of sewage inputs.  Disinfection is an effective procedure
     and, if applied in conjunction with adequate primary and secondary
     treatment and control of storm and combined overflows, would make
     many beaches available for water contact recreation.

SEDIMENTS

     There is a natural  influx of sediments from river and shore erosion.
     However, disproportionately large contributions are made from
     agricultural areas, possibly due to inappropriate drainage and farm-
     ing techniques.  Significant amounts come from urban and highway
     construction projects.
                               17

-------
     High sediment rates are known to destroy bottom fauna and spawning
     beds.  More frequent dredging of harbor channels is required.
     Turbidity interferes with various water uses and reduces light
     penetration.

PESTICIDES

     Pesticides are present in some of the lakes and are found in fish
     in varying concentrations.   Their average levels do not appear to be
     high.  But as their behavior, interactions or concentrations in the
     food chain are not well  known, their impact is  difficult to assess.
     Information on the behavior of DDT and mercury  compounds, which can
     kill organisms or interfere with their reproduction, suggests  that
     close attention to these compounds is necessary.  Pesticides'  levels
     and influx are related to agricultural  practices.    Control on DDT,
     PCB's and mercury has  been  established.

DREDGED MATERIAL

     Much of the dredged material  consists of fine sediments and organic
     sludges which contain  adsorbed pollutants.  Depending on river
     conditions, dredged spoil can be highly  polluting  and toxic.   Dispo-
     sal of polluted spoils in the lakes  is  being discontinued in favor
     of filling in diked areas.

OIL, GREASE, PHENOLS

     Oil and phenols are contributed by many  industries.  Municipal
     wastes are the niajor source of oil  and grease.   Although there
     had been continuous discharges from oil  industries which now have
     ceased, large amounts  of oil  still  come  from the oil component of
     general industrial  discharges.  Oil  discharge is also due to the lack
     of enforcement of appropriate disposal  practices for used oils, as
     well as enforcement of transportation and transfer techniques.  Oil
     decomposes slowly,  is  toxic,  interferes  with waterfowl  survival, and
     spoils beaches.   Phenols add an unpleasant taste and odor to the
     water.

DISSOLVED CONSTITUENTS

     Any number of compounds  can be included  under this category.
     Frequently, measurements are  available  for chlorides, sulphates,
     sodium, calcium,  iron, mercury, cyanides, and other organic com-
     pounds.  Effects  of the various compounds vary widely.  Sodium
     chloride stays readily in solution and  is easily flushed, but  is a
     major contributor to total  dissolved solids. Sulfides and sulphates,
     if soluble can seriously affect water pH and organisms.   Many  com-
     pounds are known  to be highly toxic.   Cyanide is one of the most
     toxic substances  still being  discharged.
OTHER
     In  this  category  parameters  such  as  acidity,  radioactivity  levels,
     and heat inputs  are  noted.
                                18

-------
Accelerated Great Lakes Program Suggestions

The EPA Chicago Regional Office is well aware of the urgency for
immediate and sustained pollution correction and abatement measures  in
the Great Lakes.  It has pinpointed specific priority areas and called
for effective measures to deal with municipal, industrial, agricultural
and urban pollution in both the major river basins and the lakes in  its
proposal for an Accelerated Great Lakes program,

This plan focuses on systematic management of Federal Environmental
Programs and increased administrative initiative towards progressive
solutions.  In dealing with the five lakes and their major sub-basins,
program elements were defined and the twelve most polluted areas
considered for action items.  Exhibit 2 gives an overview of the basic
program elements.  Exhibit 3 summarizes the high priority areas and
issues isolated by the accelerated program.  This program and its inherent
priorities reflect considerable thought on the part of responsible
officials as to the immediate needs of the Great Lake Basin.
                                19

-------
                            EXHIBIT 2

                  ACCELERATED PROGRAM ELEMENTS

Control of Municipal  and Industrial  Wastes

     Current Programs:

        Regulation under Federal  and State Water Quality Standards
        Construction  grants  and assitance
        180 day compliance notices

     Many communities and industries lag behind.   A piecemeal approach
     impedes achievement of objectives.

     Accelerated Program:

        Focus on twelve high priority areas
        Compliance with existing  regulations
        Greater degree  of coordination
        Plan improvements
        Synchronization of grant  financing with regulatory requirements
        Additional federal funding

Assistance to the Impacted Industries

     Current Programs:

        No existing programs

     Accelerated Programs:

        Analysis of economic impact  of enforced regulations
        Identification  of program of most impacted firms for planning
          for assistance

Eutrophicatlon Control

     Current Programs:

        Present State and Federal regulations call for 80%-90% removal
          of phosphates.
        Some states and municipalities have legislation to limit
          phosphate detergents

     Accelerated Programs:

        Specifically  address phosphate problem
        Control  agricultural runoff
        Study basin to  evaluate future needs  for phosphate reduction
        Additional  federal funding  for sediment control  and incorporation
          of phosphate  removal  facilities into grant programs
                               20

-------
Combined Sewers

     Current Programs:

          Control of combined sewer flow by 1977
          Federal administration programs to show
            -  improved technology
            -  water retention systems

     Accelerated Programs:

          Additional planning and funding
          Combined sewer control and control administration
          Correction and completion of limited number of highly effective
             projects
          Develop systems plans with municipalities  and metropolitan  areas
          Federal funding for high impact projects

Agricultural Run-off and Sedimentation

     Current Programs:

          No specific programs
          Soil Conservation Service and Rural  Environmental  Assistance
             Programs provide assistance but are not focused on critical
             areas

     Accelerated Programs:

          Comprehensive soil conservation program directed towards
             critical areas
          Emphasis on Great Lakes conservation programs
          Demonstration projects including at least:  Sandusky River,
             Muskegon River, and Maumee River
          Initiative towards urban and highway construction  runoff  control

Disposal of Polluted Dredging Spoils

     Current Programs:

          Diked disposal areas:  25% local contribution which may be
             waived if city is on schedule with implementation of water
             quality standards and has water quality management plans
          Program slowed down because municipalities have not met •
             requi rements

     Accelerated Programs:

          Wave 25% requirement
          EPA collaborate with States and US Corps  of Engineers to  locate
             suitable sites
                               21

-------
Research and Basin Studies
     Current Programs:
        Small EPA research facility on Grosse  lie
        International Field Year
     Accelerated Programs:
        More directed research
        Coordination with Canada
Agreements  with Canada
     Current Programs:
        Joint statement of interest
     Accelerated Programs:
        Agreements  on compliance
                              22

-------
                            EXHIBIT 3

 POTENTIAL PROJECT AREAS IN THE ACCELERATED GREAT LAKES  PROGRAM

 1.  Detroit Regional Sewer Treatment Plant
       Detroit, Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland Counties

 2.  Monroe Beach Area, Lake Erie
       Bacterial pollution, insufficient capacity
       Interceptor not built, but plant is funded

 3.  Eighteen Municipal Discharges
       St. Clair, Black, Pine, Belle, Salt, Clinton  and  Raisin  Rivers

 4.  Detroit Regional Storm and Combined Sewers
       Demonstration project
       Enforcement

 5.  Ten Industrial Priority Discharges
       Increased surveillance and enforcement

 6.  Water-way Surveillance
       St. Clair River, Lake St.  Clair, Detroit  River
       Trend study in Monroe area tributary on beaches

 7.  Power Plants, Western Lake Erie
       Increased efforts towards  pollution abatement

 8.  Eight Second Priority Industrial Discharges
       Monitor and enforcement

 9.  Minor Detroit River and Lake Erie Municipalities
       Improvement of waste treatment

10.  Six Third Priority Discharges
       Monitor and enforcement

11.  Huron River Interceptor
       EPA collaboration and integration of municipalities

12,  Construction Runoff
       Areas of urban expansion
        -Lake St. Clair
        -Lake Erie
        -Macomb County
        -Wayne County
        -Monroe County

       Enforce minimization of land development  and  highway construction
       runoff

13.  Reduction of Air Pollution Fallout
       Reduction of mercury and other heavy metal injections  via  munici-
       pal incinerators, coal-fired power plants, and industries


                               23

-------
Summary of Most Frequent Pollution Abatement Gaps

Exhibit 4 presents a summary of the results of Appendix A.   Pollution
abatement gaps were identified on the basis of quantitative data and
water quality standards, where available, or on the basis of generally
agreed upon criteria of undesirability found in the literature.

Although pollution sources  are many and the extent and levels of pollu-
tion are high locally in certain river basins  and Lake Erie, the major
sources causing pollution are relatively few and occur repeatedly.

The review of the pollution problems  in the Great Lakes Basin and the
suggestions found in the Accelerated  Program provide  the basis for
identifying gaps in on-going programs.   Noting such gaps  does not auto-
matically lead to an obvious structure for the demonstration projects
that might be financed under Section  15, but it is clearly  a useful
input in formulating a balanced program.

One thing tends to be omitted by approaching Section 15 in  this way:
a broad view of the system  of relationships  between human activity  and
nature that result in poor  water quality.   The total  pollution problem
is a combination of highly interrelated causal  factors.  The variety  of
pollutants combined with a  variety  of natural  conditions  compound the
complexity of the final  situation.   It seems  likely that  some system
approach may be required in  addition  to a  piece by piece  attack.   It  will
be seen that Section 15  has  a particular advantage over other sections
of the Federal  Water Pollution  Control  Act in  mounting  areawide and
systems approaches  to Great  Lakes Basin problems.
                               24

-------
                            EXHIBIT 4
        SUMMARY OF MOST FREQUENT POLLUTION ABATEMENT GAPS
Absence of sewer system
Insufficient sewage treatment capacity
Combined sewers
Storm overflows - No holding or treatment capacity for combined
     storm/sewage waters
No disinfection provisions
Lack of in-plant BOD-COD removal facilities
High dissolved mineral and salt contents
Discharge of toxins
Foams in effluents
Odor, taste, and color
Excessive algae growth interfering with recreation, esthetics, water
     intakes, shipping
Lack of adequate phosphate removal facilities
High rural contribution of phosphates and nitrogen from agricultural
     run-off and livestock
High sediment run-off and channel erosion due to drainage practices
High sediment run-off from urban and highway construction projects
Dredging and open lake dredge spoil dumping
Lack of removal of industrial suspended solids
Lack of neutralization of industrial acids and bases
Presence of oil, grease, phenols in:
     Discharges
     Minor spills and losses in transshipment and handling
     Urban contribution relatively high - lack of appropriate disposal
          practices and/or removal at sewage plant
Variable and inconsistent enforcement practices
                               25

-------
                           SECTION VI

         RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

In developing a strategy for a program to demonstrate "new methods and
techniques" it was necessary to review the existing research, develop-
ment, and demonstration program similarly aimed at developing new
technology.

Our review of the RD&D program was based on computer print-outs of
projects in the Great Lakes, and on discussions with R&D representatives
at both regional and headquarters level.  The objectives were to deter-
mine the types of problems that were and were not being addressed under
the current program so that the Section 15 program could be designed to
extend and complement rather than duplicate.

As might be expected, the computer print-outs of RD&D projects were less
than perfect.  It is clear from the information provided that not all
RD&D pertinent to Great Lakes pollution problems was included.  Nor were
all the projects included specifically Great Lakes in the orientation,
Nevertheless, the data do provide a rough indication of the areas of
emphasis in the current program.  Exhibits 5 and 6 show the percentage
distributions by subprogram and by location of RD&D funds.

From these data, several conclusions may be drawn.  The first is that
the program in the Great Lakes tends to be strongly concentrated on
point source control, especially municipal wastes.  This emphasis in
funding results from several large municipal treatment demonstration
projects.  The research program on point source control is highly
"component" oriented in that projects tend to focus on treatment of
Dingle classes of pollutants.  Many of the demonstrations are similarly
directed; there are a few demonstration projects that address the total
processing of municipal effluents.  One of these is the demonstration
of a wastewater management system using spray irrigation in Muskegon
County, Michigan.  This project, because it is not typical, illustrates
the type of endeavor that is needed to broaden more typical RD&D
activities.

A second conclusion to be drawn is that the Chicago/Calumet River area
is by far the primary location of research and demonstration projects
of the Great Lake Basin.  Milwaukee scores a distant second just ahead
of the rest of the pack.

These observations are not made to imply that this allocation of
resources is incorrect.  It undoubtedly reflects the distribution of
both the worst problems and the greatest capacities to develop solutions,
The point is that substantial areas are receiving little or no attention
under the existing program structure.  The areas receiving less attention
are non-point sources, non-treatment control and restoration techniques,
institutional arrangements and other "soft" approaches, and the less
                               27

-------
                            EXHIBIT 5
            DISTRIBUTION OF RD&D FUNDS BY SUBPROGRAM
                                                              Percent
Code        Subprogram                                        of Funds
11.         Municipal  Pollution  Control  Technology              71
12.         Industrial  Pollution Control  Technology             13
13.         Agricultural  Pollution  Control  Technology            0
14.         Mining Pollution  Control  Technology                   2
15.         Other Sources  Pollution Control Technology            5
16.         Water Quality  Pollution Control Technology            2
17.         Waste Treatment & Ultimate Disposal Technology        6
18.         Water Quality  Requirements Research                   1
                                                  TOTAL          100
                               28

-------
                            EXHIBIT 6
         DISTRIBUTION OF RD&D FUNDS BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
Area
Fox River, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Super! or/Duluth
Black River, Lake Ontario
Erie, Pennsylvania
Cleveland, Ohio
Maumee River, Ohio
Detroit, Michigan
Saginaw River, Michigan
Chicago/Calumet River
                                             TOTAL
Percent
of Funds
   3
  14
   0
   0
   0
   5
   9
   7
   8
  54
 100
                                29

-------
dense municipal and industrial  regions.

A brief review of the size distribution  of RD&D projects 1s also
informative.   The Federal  share of the projects is less than $500,000
for almost 90 percent of the  projects.   Only a few demonstration pro-
jects receive funds nearing $1  million and none above $1.5 million.  At
the other extreme,  almost  one third of the listed projects received
less than  $50,000.

In summary, the RD&D program  in the Great  Lakes  supports  a few large
demonstrations and  many  small research projects.   They tend to be
oriented toward specific techniques  for  the  individual  pollutants that
arise in municipal  wastes.  Major  metropolitan  areas,  especially Chicago,
receive the largest portions.
                              30

-------
                            SECTION VII

                            FIELD SURVEYS

The field surveys  conducted in this study were intended to elicit the
views and priorities  of  the agencies that would participate in Section 15
projects.

Interviews and questionnaires were used as a primary source of data on the
status and views in the  eight Great Lakes States  (Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,  and New York) and the
EPA regional  offices.  The  purposes of these investigations were:

      -  to establish the current and prospective status of organizational
         arrangements for water quality management in the Great Lakes;

      -  to establish how the States rank their basic pollution problems;

      -  to find what they  identify as key barriers to solving their
         basic pollution problems;

      -  to determine the States' list of needed  and desirable demon-
         stration  projects  or studies that might  be funded through
         the  Section  15  Program.

An additional implicit function of these discussions was to familiarize
state officials with  the opportunities available  under the Section 15
Program and to stimulate their interest in participating.

In each state, discussions were held with those officials most directly
involved in water  pollution control efforts.  Because of the variety of
organizational structures found at the state level, representation
from various  agencies differed from state to state.  In some states,
discussions with top water  pollution control officials and state planning
officials was sufficient to cover the mixture of  pragmatic, technical,
financial and institutional questions asked.  In  other states, authority
for these activities was less concentrated, requiring interviews with
state health  and natural resource officials as well.  The simple act
of identifying key personnel and arranging meetings often provided
much insight  into  the current organizational arrangements and the dif-
ficulties that Section 15 administrative arrangements would need to
overcome.  The insight derived into the organizational structure and
political climate  proved valuable in framing and  suggesting state spon-
sors for the  package of  demonstration projects recommended below.

The first question on this questionnaire left with the various States
asked them to rank the problems impeding their realization of water
quality standards.  Although Exhibit 7 shows that the response is not
yet complete, the  pressing problems reported by the states are munici-
pal storm or  combined sewers.  Steel and paper industrial wastes are
next important.  The third problem is probably bacterial control.
After these three  common problems, the rest tended to be problems unique
to the individual  states.
                                 31

-------
                            EXHIBIT 7
       SUMMARY OF  ITEM 1 RESULTS FROM STATE QUESTIONNAIRES,
                      AS OF APRIL 15, 1972
(RANKING  OF PROBLEMS IMPEDING ACHIEVEMENT OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS)

Prevention of Pollution:
Municipal Wastes:
-Sanitary
-Storm
-Combined
Industrial Wastes:
-Steel
-Chemicals
-Petroleum
-Pulp & Paper
Agriculture
-Pesticides
-Silt
-Nutrients
Mini ng
-Taconite
-Others
Dredcpng
-Operations
-Disposal
Thermal
-Control
-Utilization
Removal of Pollutants
Removal of Polluted
Sediments
-Heavy Metals
-Nutrients
-Pesticides
-Oxygen Demanding Waste
Nuisance Plant
-Rooted Aquatics
-Bacterial Control
-Algae
Beach Grooming
-Removal of Debris
-Bacterial Control
Dead Fish Removal
-Alewifes
Lake
Calumet Michigan
4
2 2
1 1
FO.X Duluth-
River Milwaukee Superior
3 4
2
1


3
3
4
2
3
1
4
1
3
2
4
                                32

-------
Saginaw SE Lake
Duluth River Michigan Erie
3
4 1 1
2
3
3 3
3
Mautnee
Cleveland River Ashtabula Other
1
2
3
4 1
3
1 1
2

5 3
2
2

2

33

-------
The states were next questioned on what are the key barriers blocking
solutions to pollution problems.  The questionnaire results are  summarized
in Exhibit 8.  Lack of financial resources is important obviously.
Institutions are also cited as a key barrier.  The impact of pollutants
and their economic consequences need investigation before actions can
be taken with confidence.  Finally, certain technical capabilities  are
lacking.

An even better understanding of some issues can be drawn from the Inter-
views with state officials, rather than from the questionnaires.

Financial shortages were viewed as a more substantial barrier at the
state and local level than at the Federal level.  State and local officials
have been operating under the difficulties presented by raising  the 60
and 70 percent matching resources required by Section 8 grants.  In some
cases, construction priorities are established on the availability of
local funds rather than on the severity of the pollution problem. Finan-
cial shortages especially plagued control of combined and storm  overflows.
Operating in this context, state officials although aware of the resources
that could be provided by pending legislation, tended to be less certain
that they would be forthcoming in adequate amounts.  Section 15, even
with its modest 25 percent matching requirement, presented financial dif-
ficulties in some locations.

Institutional arrangements for intergovernmental coordination were gen-
erally viewed as a major barrier to implementation of pollution  control
projects.  This concern tended to be greater in areas where institutional
fragmentation was greater or where pollution control solutions were being
thought of in an areawide or basinwide context.  Yet, despite general
agreement that institutional arrangements presented barriers, there was
little consensus on the types of arrangements that would be workable
or on the means for bringing about needed changes.

The states were next asked to suggest their own list of needed and desir-
able demonstration projects for Section 15 funding.  The questionnaire
results are summarized in Exhibit 9.  This material served as one of
several major basis for developing our recommended package of suggested
projects for Section 15.   A quick cross reference is provided by noting
the relationship of each state's suggestion to the final recommended
package of Section 15 projects.

Five of the twenty-one state-suggested projects should be funded under
R & D or construction grants; or are already found in on-going demon-
stration projects.

The rest of the state suggested  demonstrations are an interesting mix
of both very big projects and quite specific ones.  Illinois, Wisconsin
and Minnesota have each suggested a large scale multiparameter problem
with broad basin and/or institutional  features.  Ohio has recommended
some elements of a  total  Maumee  River clean up program.   The other
state-suggested projects  are more component oriented and could logically
become  a  part of the finally recommended package.  Indiana and New York
did not complete a  questionnaire.
                                 34

-------
                            EXHIBIT  8
       SUMMARY OF  ITEM 2 RESULTS FROM STATE QUESTIONNAIRES,
                      .  AS OF APRIL 15, 1972
         (KEY BARRIERS' TO SOLVING IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS)
ILLINOIS
        Lack of financial resources to eliminate the combined sewer
        system.

        Lack of economic studies that indicate that a zero industrial
        discharge regulation can be implemented at reasonable cost.

        Studies underway on the quantification of surface drainage into
        Lake Michigan are not completed so correction measures cannot
        be designed at this point.
WISCONSIN
     0  Need regional management institutions to solve the municipal
        and industrial waste treatment problems in the Fox River.

     0  Need the institutional mechanism and financial assistance  for
        the interstate problem in the Duluth-Superior metropolitan area.

     0  Lack of financial resources to eliminate the combined sewer
        system in Milwaukee.
MINNESOTA

     0  Disagreement on various treatment and disposal methods for
        handling taconite processing discharges is delaying effective
        action against the Reserve Mining Company.

     0  Lack analysis to establish degree to which a relatively low
        volume stream can be used for industrial (pulp) discharge
        transport and natural treatment versus hydropower production.

     0  Need techniques to eliminate existing sludge deposits behind
        dams to insure quality standards over existing flow regimes.

     0  Require better plant operations (particularly in smaller in-
        stallations) or an alternative to conventional chemical treat-
        ment methods to reach nutrient reduction (phosphorus) objectives.


^  A barrier is not a problem but an impediment to a problem's solution;
  it is not the combined sewer problem but the lack of money to eliminate
  the problem.
                                35

-------
EXHIBIT 8 (Cont.)            EXHIBIT  8
      0  Techniques could be used to reduce high velocity runoff  com-
         pounding the combined sewer problem in areas of high  topo-
         graphical relief.

      0  Need techniques for bog drainage management to lower  natural
         nutrient levels.
 MICHIGAN

      0  Lack of financial resources to tackle the massive combined
         sewer overflow problems in Southeast Michigan.

      0  No control techniques to cope with the release of phosphorus
         from bottom sediments in Lake Erie.

      0  No program to control nutrients and silt from agricultural and
         non-agricultural uses, particularly in the Saginaw River Basin.

      0  Lack of means to remove or neutralize pesticides' residuals
         in the aquatic environment.
 PENNSYLVANIA

      0  Lack of institutional arrangements.

      0  Need more adequate areawide plans for water quality management.


 OHIO

      0  Institutional and financial barriers to Cleveland municipal
         and industrial cooperation.

      0  Present silt prevention techniques inadequate.

      0  Inability to take certain offending lands out of farm use.


 INDIANA          (Questionnaire not returned.)


NEW YORK         (Questionnaire not returned.)
                                36

-------
                            EXHIBIT 9
       SUMMARY OF ITEM 3 RESULTS FROM STATE QUESTIONNAIRES,
                        AS OF APRIL 15, 1972
      (IDENTIFY NEEDED AND DESIRABLE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS)
ILLINOIS
        An economic analysis of the impact of zero industrial
        discharge requirement for Lake Michigan.
          (Disposition:  A part of Suggested Project #13)

        Combined sewer overflow problem needs financing, not
        studies.
          (Disposition:  This is a construction and not a
          demonstration project)

        Use controlled sampling to test for salt (used in  ice
        removal), detergents and phosphates.
          (Disposition:  A part of Suggested Project #11)

        Develop methodology using various physical and socio-
        economic data to accurately project the effects of new
        water facilities upon area development.
          (Disposition:  This can be handled as an R & D project)

        Make a cost-benefit comparison of alternatives (such as
        flood plain zoning, metering, slope protection, reforesta-
        tion, etc.) to construction solutions for water quality
        problems.
          (Disposition:  A part of Suggested Project #10)

        Study means of achieving bi-state cooperation.
          (Disposition:  A part of Suggested Project #11)

        Consider resolving the conflicting efforts of all  govern-
        mental agencies in the Lake Michigan Basin or even that
        portion in the State of Illinois (involving the SCS, C of  E,
        EPA, Illinois EPA, NE Illinois Planning Commission and Chicago
        Municipal Sanitary District).
          (Disposition:  A part of Suggested Project #11)
WISCONSIN
     0  Revise and resubmit the Fox River project.
          (Disposition:  Covered by Suggested Projects #2 and 10)
                               37

-------
EXHIBIT 9 (Cont.)


MINNESOTA
        Restoration  and maintenance  of  the  St.  Louis  River complex,
          (Disposition:   Covered  by  similar Suggested Project 11
          in Maumee  River Valley)
MICHIGAN
     0  Treatment,  storage  and  treatment,  or  other  demonstrations  of
        new and cost-effective  techniques  to  cope with  combined  sewer
        overflows.
          (Disposition:   A  part of Suggested  Project  #1)

     0  Ditto above relative  to stormwater discharges.
          (Disposition:   A  part of Suggested  Project  #11)

     0  Thermal monitoring  programs.
          (Disposition:   A  part of Suggested  Project  #5)

     0  An on-land  disposal system for  treated  sludge or  partially
        treated effluent.
          (Disposition:   Demonstrations with  digested municipal  sludges
          and partially  treated waste waters  are currently  underway)

     0  Control of  animal wastes.
          (Disposition:   A  part of Suggested  Project  #15)

     0  Removal of  nutrients  from  bottom muds or retard their  nutrient
        regeneration  process.
          (Disposition:   A  part of Suggested  Project  #14)

     0  Assess magnitude  and  effects of non-sanitary  discharges  from
        commercial  shipping vessels.
          (Disposition:   This is R & D, and not a demonstration  project)
PENNSYLVANIA
        Development  of  innovative  areawide  institutional  arrangements
        for the  Erie  area  that  are  compatible with  state  laws.
          (Disposition:  A part of  Suggested Project  #10)

        Development  of  a program to identify potential  and  presently
        unrecognized  or undocumented water  quality  problems  in  Lake Erie:
          (Disposition:  This is R  & D,  and not  a demonstration Project)

        Demonstration of land irrigation with underdraining.
          (Disposition:  A part of  Suggested Project  #15)
                               38

-------
EXHIBIT 9 CCont,)


OHIO

     0  Cleveland combined sewer project
        (Disposition:  This is a construction, not demonstration project)

     0  Disposal of steel mill wastes
        (Disposition:  A part of Suggested Project #11)

     0  Siltation control through land use regulations in Mauraee River,
        (Disposition:  A part of Suggested Project #11)


INDIANA       (Questionnaire not returned)


NEW  YORK     (Questionnaire not returned)
                                   39

-------
The overall assessment of Section  15  activity  in  the  states,  as  judged
by the list of suggested  demonstration  projects,  the  poor  documentation
behind such suggestions and  personal  interviews in  the  state  capitals,
is discouraging.   Little  or  no  thought  has  been given to exploiting
Section 15, except in  the Fox River proposal from Wisconsin  .  Recep-
tivity and interest exists but  it  will  certainly  need to be cultivated.
                                 40

-------
                          SECTION VIII

              A STRATEGY  FOR THE SECTION  15 PROGRAM
A number of conclusions have emerged from the analyses discussed
above.  In summary, we conclude that

      1.   The  language of Section 15 provides discretionary latitude
          for  demonstrating a variety of approaches both technical
          and  institutional to water pollution control in the Great
          Lakes that  are not possible under other programs;

      2,   The  Great Lakes present water pollution problems that are
          geographically extensive, naturally unique, and highly inter-
          dependent;  and there are important gaps in the development of
          systematic  solutions left by present efforts;

      3.   The  RD&D program in the Great Lakes Basin is producing impor-
          tant new technical solutions, but these tend to be oriented
          toward treatment subsystems for point sources at the expense
          of system-wide, institutional and implementing techniques,
          and  non-point sources;

      4.   The  status  of institutional arrangements and the scarcity
          of resources at the state and local level present difficulties
          that hinder the conceptualization and development of innovative
          demonstration projects to address these gaps.

In developing  a strategy based on these findings, we have attempted to
devise a program that takes full advantage of the opportunities provided
by Section 15  to address pollution problems that will need to be solved
by future programs.  The recommended Section 15 Program should become a
continuing mechanism  for identifying future problems and potential
solutions, both technical and institutional, and for proving their
feasibility and practicality.   This subsection presents the Strategic
Objectives and the Guidelines  and Criteria that comprise the recommended
Section 15 strategy.

Strategic Objectives

Two strategic objectives are recommended as the core concept of the
Section 15 Program:
     1.   The Section 15
          demonstrations
          approaches
          the Great Lakes
    Program should support projects that provide
	of the value of innovative, systern-oriented
to the solution of water pollution problems in
     Basin.  Projects should be
              demonstrations, in that they will  develop and publicize
              information that will encourage wider use of the new methods
              developed;
                                41

-------
            -innovative, in that they are approaches not found within
             the scope of existing technologies, practices, policies,
             regulation, or legislation; and

            -system oriented, in that they address some of the crucial
             pollution problems that persist in basin systems and
             institutional problems that persist in areawide political
             systems after the application of other efforts in a piece-
             meal and fragmented fashion.

     2.  In managing the Section 15 Program, EPA should develop active,
         catalytic and institutionalized mechanisms for identifying
         pollution problems and overcoming barriers to their control.
         The program should be:

            -active, in that EPA exercises the discretionary latitude
             provided by the authorizing legislation through a strong
             participatory role that will  stimulate, cultivate and
             channel grant activities  rather than merely to react to
             proposals and priorities  submitted by others;

            -catalytic, in that through  an action oriented  role, EPA
             should make increased use of the leverage, the incentives
             and the resources inherent  in other EPA and federal
             programs; and

            -i nsti tuti onali zed, so that  the program mechanisms developed
             will have the force of regular, continuing activity supported
             by sufficient full time  personnel  and manpower to be able  to
             act as the trailblazer for  substantially larger efforts  to
             control  pollution of the  Great Lakes in the future.

The rationale for recommending these  objectives  emerges from recognition
both of the uniqueness  of the  Great Lakes  and of their pollution control
problems, together with the  opportunities  provided by Section 15.   The
inclusion of a  special  section for the Great Lakes  in national  legisla-
tion is implicit recognition  of their  uniqueness  and value  to the country,
As current efforts  succeed in  controlling  the major municipal  and
industrial  point sources of pollution, further means of control  will  need
to rely on new  approaches  addressed to the less  concentrated sources  of
pollution and to the problems  that "fall between  the cracks" in  the
current institutional  arrangements.   Section 15  provides  opportunities
for demonstrating such  approaches.   Other  programs  are aimed at  major
individual  pollution causes  and problems.   Section 15 should be  the
vehicle for trade-off planning and integrated solutions.
                               42

-------
Guidelines and Criteria

Identifying, cultivating and approving project proposals is a crucial
function in implementing the recommended strategy.  For this reason, we
have developed a series of guidelines and criteria to be used 1n this
activity.  The guidelines are intended to describe characteristics  of  the
various types of projects that should be sought.  The criteria, on  the
other hand, represent qualities that are desirable, to one extent or
another, in all types of projects.

The following guidelines are recommended for developing Section 15
projects:

     1.  Projects should be sought that will demonstrate new technolo-
         gies in areas not covered by Section 6 demonstrations or 1n
         systems that combine several component techniques.

     2.  Projects should be sought that develop and implement solutions
         to pollution problems within a basin-wide system context.

     3.  Projects should be sought that fill specifically identified
         gaps in basin-wide solutions.

     4.  Projects should be sought that develop (not just design)
         area-wide and intergovernmental institutional  arrangements
         needed to implement pollution control solutions.

     5.  Projects should be sought that will demonstrate the effective-
         ness of new policies or regulations.

     6.  Projects should be sought that will demonstrate the need for
         new legislative authorities at both state and national  levels.

     7.  Projects should be sought having a scale sufficient to provide
         visible impact, either through the immediate performance of
         the demonstration itself, or through less immediate but more
         extensive benefits.

These guidelines are not presented in order of priority.  The projects
that will together make up the Section 15 Program should reflect a
balance among these characteristics.  Individual projects may, as should
be encouraged, include two or more of these key characteristics,  The
value of adopting such guidelines is that they provide a specific means
for separating projects that will contribute to the recommended strategy
from those that should be supported by other programs.

The rationale for each of the guidelines is closely related to the
detailed findings from our investigations.   The first three relate  to  the
RD&D program.   Section 15 projects, rather than adding effort within the
structure of the RD&D program, should be used to extend its coverage and
expand its emphasis.   The emphasis should be on demonstrations of tech-
                                43

-------
niques that are not eligible costs under Section 6, or on demonstrations
of pollution control systems or basinwide system solutions rather than
on components or subsystem solutions.

Guidelines 4, 5 and 6 focus on "soft"  rather than hardware demonstrations.
We found substantial agreement that the lack of adequate areawide and
intergovernmental  institutions was a serious barrier to the implementation
of technically and economically sound  solutions.  Several references were
made in the course of our discussions  to studies that described the
current institutions and prescribed, in more or less specific terms, new
institutional arrangements that would  be more effective in water quality
management.  What is missing, it seems, is  the administration of the_
prescription.  The development of new  institutional arrangements to imple-
ment pollution control  activities depends on an active and aggressive
implementation of institutional  change.  This requires skill  in locating
people with the power and authority to act, convincing them of the value
of the new approach, and developing patterns of interaction between them.
Section 15 provides the opportunity to support projects that include
both the type of pragmatic prescriptive study and the entrepreneurial
approach needed to administer institutional change.

In addition to new institutional  arrangements, it is clear that existing
policies, regulations,  and legislative authorities  are not always
adequate for coping with present and future pollution problems.  The
adoption of new approaches on a wide scale  may require changes in these
"soft" constraints.  In such situations, a  Section  15 project can be
justified on the grounds that it demonstrates the value and practicality
of an alternative policy, regulation,  or authority.

The last guideline is based on the practical need to demonstrate new
approaches at a scale that will  provide results visible to the public,
to those controlling the purse strings, and to potential  users of the  new
approach.

There is an inherent tradeoff in  demonstration activities between Immedi-
ate results and the extent to which benefits are increased by innovation
or coordination.   This  trade off is illustrated in  Exhibit 10.  Because
resources of value can  earn a return when employed  in the economy over
a period of time,  benefits are less valuable in later years than in
earlier years by an amount determined  by the discount rate.  Using the
12 percent discount rate, the highest  used  by the Office of Management
and Budget, the present value of $1 is $1 if it is  received today, $.89
if received 1 year from today, $.80 if received 2 years from today, and
so forth.  Exhibit 10 shows the decline in  the present value of the
impact of projects through two families of  declining curves, one for
12 percent and a second for 20 percent.  The 20 percent discount rate  is
intended to reflect the urgency that might  be associated with achieving
the benefits of pollution abatement efforts.  The Catalytic Index repre-
sents  the increase in impact that results from the  effectiveness of the
                                44

-------
                        DECLINING VALUES OF SIMPLE OR CATALYTIC
                      DEMONSTRATION, ASSUMING ON-LINE VISIBILITY
                      DISCOUNTED AT 12 PERCENT  (THE SOLID LINE)
                      DISCOUNTED AT 20 PERCENT  (THE DOTTED LINE)
Catalytic

  Index
             0
                                              Year on Line
               Note:  A simple expenditure of EPA funds on, for example a Construction
               Project, which does not significantly increase the effectiveness  of
               other EPA Projects, is assigned a catalytic value of 1.   Another
               project, for example, an R&D Project might increase the  effectiveness
               of subsequent EPA expenditures or could attract multiples of EPA
               funding from other agencies to warrant a catalytic index of 2,  3  or  4.
                                           45

-------
innovation or the "catalytic" inducement on use of other funds.  Thus
one can see the trade-off between getting early impact without much
increased impact, Point A for example, and later impact with substantial
increases in impact, Point B.

The value of this concept is that even without elaborate cost/benefit
analysis, it helps crystalize the trade-off between immediacy and impact,
Recognizing this trade-off, the projects sought for Section 15 should
fall as far into the upper-left area of Exhibit 10 as possible.  That is
to say, they should be of large scale, either in immediate impact, or in
the increase in impact gained at the expense of time.

In addition to the seven guidelines presented above, demonstration
projects should score well on a substantial number of the following
criteria:

     -visibility of results
     -extent of potential application
     -cost-effectiveness
     -adequacy of technical plans
     -•engineering feasibility
     -adequacy of institutional arrangements
     -adequacy of political support
     -availability of state and local matching funds
     -availability of other Federal funds for supplementation
     -conformity with strategies and priorities of other EPA programs

Each project proposed can be evaluated in light of each of these
criteria.  Some projects may score poorly on two or three criteria and
yet  appear attractive because of high scores on others and compatibility
with the guidelines.

Many of these criteria are measures of soundness that are not unique
to Section 15 projects.   Others, however, reflect needs that are more
specifically related to the recommended strategy and the investigations
on which it is based.  Demonstration projects must ultimately be measured
by the extent and rapidity of diffusion and acceptance of the innovation.
Visibility is a key element in this performance, although it can be
augmented by both publicity and dissemination of technical  reports.
Institutional arrangements and political support are also important
criteria given the finding that their absence frequently impedes pollution
control efforts.   This is especially true for projects that do not, in
themselves, address  these issues.

The current $20 million  limitation of Section 15 funds makes crucial the
availability of matching funds, and of other Federal funds  that can be
coupled with the  Section 15 funds.  Other Federal funds that can be used
to substantially  increase the incentive to state and local  governments to
participate and to accept projects having a broader context or different
emphasis than they might otherwise welcome.  In a broader context,
                                46

-------
however, the real value of the $20 million is the opportunity 1t
affords to prove that EPA has a strategy and a program for the
Great Lakes that could effectively use funding many times larger
than this initial seed money investment.

Relationship to Joint Agreement

On April 15, 1972, the President and the Prime Minister of Canada
signed an Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America
on Great Lakes Water Quality.  The agreement contains water quality
objectives and general statements on the standards, regulations,
and programs that shall be directed toward achievement of the agreed
upon objectives.

The Agreement specifies powers, responsibilities and functions of
the International Joint Commission including the establishment of a
Great Lakes Water Quality Board and a Research Advisory Board.  Although
the IJC will have no pollution abatement programs of its own, it will
perform the tasks of information gathering and dissemination, and
advising and coordinating the activities set forth in the Agreement.
The IJC activities will provide the base for additional future commit-
ments of the two countries to additional water quality objectives and
pollution control activities.

The Section 15 Program, under the strategy presented in this report,
would make substantial contributions to the achievement of the water
quality objectives of the Agreement.  This would occur in a number
of ways.

One contribution of the Section 15 Program will result from the
pollution abatement efforts of Section 15 projects and the increased
effectiveness of subsequent projects that use methods and techniques
demonstrated by Section 15 projects.  It will be seen below that 6 out
of the 15 suggested demonstration projects proposed to get the Section 15
Program started are related to the proving out of techniques that can
help stop,pollution on both sides of the U.S. - Canadian Border.  In this
sense, Section 15 is one of the many U.S. programs contributing to abate-
ment of pollution in the Great Lakes.

There are also several planning and programming contributions that can
emerge from the Section 15 Program as developed herein.  Because of the
extent of the Boundary Waters, the IJC and the two Parties are concerned
with objectives and strategies for the Great Lakes Basin as a whole.
Section 15 provides the opportunity for the U.S. to contribute new
information and approaches from the perspective of the entire basin
system.  More precise information on the consequences of pollution
control activities, both their benefits and their costs, will enable
the IJC to develop and gain commitment to sounder objectives and
strategies for the Great Lakes.  Section 15 could even be used to
contribute to specific investigations undertaken or coordinated by
the IJC.
                                47

-------
Again it will be seen below that the Section 15 Program as proposed
in this report can make a significant contribution to the Joint
agreement program.  A group of four projects are suggested that will
(1) develop a Great Lakes System overview for construction grants
management, (2) develop cost-effectiveness curves indicating the costs
of approaching 85 and 100 percent pollution control  (to estimate total
program costs and also R & D directions), (3) undertake a small, total
lake restoration project to pilot test technologies  and prove out costs
and (4) develop a non-point source project to acquire experience on
the various implementation alternatives.

Even after the planning and technical  problems are solved, it is clear
that implementation will be through state, provincial  and local units
of government.  Section 15 provides EPA an opportunity to strengthen
(at,least in the U.S.), implementation efforts by active-oriented,
cooperative projects to develop new institutional arrangements for
areawide water quality management.

The projected Section 15 Program as envisaged in this  report Includes
four specific projects aimed at addressing institutional  problems.  These
projects will involve (1) short-term local coordination institutions
at the metropolitan level, (2) middle-term state coordination institu-
tions, involving water managers, state planners, resource managers
and other environment activities,'(3)  the concept and  character of
intra-state regional institutions and  (4) a multi-agency  basin clean
up project to obtain inter-federal  and interstate experience in
cooperation, communications and organization.

In Article X of the Agreement, the Parties commit themselves to seek
the appropriation of funds, the enactment of additional  legislation
and the cooperation of the state and provincial  governments, to carry
out the programs provided for in the Agreement.   The Section 15 Program
outlined in this report provides EPA a means of  meeting  these commit-
ments.  The appropriation of funds  and enactment of  legislation hinge
on the demonstration of a strategy, a  management capability, and
specific, successful methods and techniques for  control  of pollution
of the Great Lakes.   The recommended Section 15  Program provides a
visible, attractive strategy and as described in Section  IX, the
administrative mechanisms needed to manage a broad attack on Great
Lakes pollution.  The Section 15 Projects will  demonstrate success
of specific, innovative methods and techniques for more effective
pollution control.   In addition, through  an active,  catalytic approach,
the Section 15 Program can strengthen  the mechanisms for  working with
the state and other federal  agencies.
                                48

-------
                           SECTION IX

      ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY


A number of administrative actions are needed to implement the Section  15
strategy outlined in this report.  They are important not only to the suc-
cessful management of Section 15, but also in the strengthening of internal
mechanisms in EPA for developing innovative approaches and coordinating
broad, system-oriented efforts.  By institutionalizing these mechanisms
in the Section 15 program, EPA will have them available to rely on as
larger programs are established.

The recommended actions are discussed below in two sections.  The first-
presents administrative processes, the actual steps to be taken in
developing and managing Section 15 projects.  The second recommends  the
organization and manpower needed by EPA for performing these steps.


Administrative Processes
A flow chart depicting the recommended processes is shown in Exhibit 11.
Although the various processes are shown in logical sequence, iterations
and concurrencies are likely to be needed in actual practice.  As  the
program gains momentum, it is expected that each process, if not in
continuous operation, is performed at least regularly as  conditions
change and new needs and opportunities emerge.  The recommended processes
are outlined in more detail in the discussion to follow.

      1.  Review Suggested Demonstration Projects with other Programs

The purpose of this step is to draw on the knowledge and  expertise of
regional staff responsible for other EPA programs to compare suggested
projects with known gaps and pollution control, with barriers to pollution
control and possible innovations that provide opportunities  for potential
Section 15 projects.  In administering their programs, these other staff
members have access to different types of information and contacts.   These
sources should be tapped to provide basic guidance in developing Section
15 projects.

In the course of our investigation, we discussed Section  15  with these
other staff groups.  We found that each program staff group  could con-
tribute a specific type of information.  The Research and Monitoring
staff should provide guidance on the types of technical demonstrations
needed to supplement their efforts.  The Standards and Enforcement people
should identify localities where immediate progress in abatement efforts
has been blocked or delayed.   The Planning Branch should  identify the
major basin-wide gaps that need consideration and the status of areawide
and state planning efforts.  The Construction Grants staff can identify
areas lacking in construction activity under state priorities or those
in which key facilities are missing.

It is important to emphasize the value of achieving the strategic
objectives of the Section 15 program.  In additions it is important
to develop Section 15 projects that contribute to objectives of

                               49

-------
                          EXHIBIT 11
                          FLOW CHART
   ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE SECTION 15
                           STRATEGY
REVIEW SUG-
GESTED DEMON-
STRATION
PROJECTS WITH
OTHER EPA
PROGRAMS
  Research &
  Monitoring
  Planning
  Branch
  Enforcement
  Division
  Facilities
  Construction
  Grants
DISTRIBUTE
SECTION 15
PROGRAM
MATERIALS &
PROJECT
OPPORTUNITIES
  State Water
  Pollution
  Control
  Agencies
  State Com-
  prehensive
  Planning
  Offices
  Regional  &
  Areawide
  Institutions
                   University
                   Consultants
                                     HUD
                                     Commerce
   Corps of
   Engineers
   Agriculture
   IJC
   State-Local
   Counterparts
DISCUSS
POTENTIAL
PROJECTS
WITH POTENTIAL
RECIPIENTS
                   Adjust to
                   State-Local
                   Needs
                                                    PROVIDE
                                                    SUPPORT FOR
                                                    DEVELOPING
                                                    INSTITUTIONAL
                                                    ARRANGEMENTS
                                     Use Institution
                                     Experts	
PROVIDE SUPPORT
IN DEVELOPING
TECHNICAL &
BASINWIDE DEMON-
STRATION
CONCEPTS
                    Use Systems
                    Experts
                             50

-------
REVIEW AND APPROVE
PROPOSALS
  Responsiveness to
    Guidelines
    Criteria
    Technical Merit
    Institutional/
      Administrative
MONITOR AND ASSIST
IN DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
DOCUMENT, PUBLICIZE
AND DISSEMINATE
RESULTS
  Continue Institu-
    tional and
    Systems Support
  Public
  Political Leaders
  State and Local
  Officials
                              51

-------
other EPA programs while achieving Section 15 objectives.  The review
of suggested projects should produce a package that reflects both the
special opportunities of Section 15 and the needs of other EPA organiza-
tions.  The resulting project descriptions should include target areas,
objectives, need for coordination with other agencies, and approximate
time and cost estimates.  Finally, while Section 15 projects should
support other programs, any tendency to treat Section 15 funds simply
as more money for each separate program pot should be resisted.

      2.   Distribute Section 15 Program Materials and Project
           Opportunities'to State ana Local Agencie's"

This step is intended to familiarize potential  grant or con-
tract recipients with the Section 15 strategy,  the guidelines and
criteria to be applied in developing and reviewing project proposals,
and the specific project opportunities that EPA desires to pursue.
This is the first step in EPA's active role in  approaching the states.
It should be taken in a manner that makes clear that EPA will be acting
as more than a passive beneficiary.  Personal rather than mail contacts
are essential.

This information should be given not only to the state water
pollution control and water resource agencies,  but also to the State
Comprehensive Planning Office, and to selected  regional and municipal
agencies.  It would also be useful to include selected university
organizations and consulting groups in this distribution.  This would
facilitate participation in project development and implementation
working either with the potential grantees or with EPA directly.   As a
result of such personal distribution the initial responses will not be
limited to the habitual patterns and contacts.   Such an approach can very
likely simulate a discussion leading to modification or even better
projects.  If significant changes are made then Step 1 should be
repeated to obtain a review by the other regional staff groups.

      3.   Coordinate with other Programs

As initial responses and discussions occur, it  is important to
develop coordinated approaches for bringing the resources of other pro-
grams to bear in conjuction with Section 15 programs.  In the coordina-
tion process, special effort should be taken to identify available  incen-
tives, leverages or resources available in these programs.  This step
is_critical to the catalytic value of Section 15 and to the continued
maintenance of EPA initiative.  It will encourage discussions with
potential Section 15 projects to be undertaken  on a "this is what we
would like and this is what we can provide" basis.

While such efforts should initially include the various EPA pro-
grams, they should be rapidly expanded to include other Federal
programs.  Discussions with other program administrators should be  held
at both headquarters and regional levels.

In this vein, there are a number of important programs in other
Federal agencies that should be considered in developing a catalytic,


                                52

-------
coordinated approach to Section 15 projects.  The Office of Management
and Budget has provided the following list of agency activities  in
water pollution control and abatement:

                                               FY 1973 Funding
Department                                     ($ in millions)

Defense                                            $16.2
Agriculture                                         71.3
Transportation                                      20.5
Commerce                                            24.1
Interior                                             8.6
Atomic Energy Commission                            15.0
TVA                                                  3.1
Housing and Urban Development                        3.8

The Department of Defense is primarily involved through the
activities of the Army Corps of Engineers which is currently studying
wastewater management systems in the Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland-
Akron areas.  The Corps is also involved in public works in water
supply, flood control, and harbor dredging, all of which relate  to
water pollution problems.

The Department of Agriculture is involved through the Farmer's
Home Administration which makes water and sewer grants in locations  of
less than 5,500 population.  The Soil Conservation Service has programs
in soil erosion control, flood prevention, sediment reduction and land
use planning, all of which are relevant to water pollution control.   In
addition, the USDA has programs to develop and disseminate information
on agricultural practices, many of which relate to sources of water
pollution.

The Department of Transportation's activities in water pollution
control pertain primarily to sources of pollution with trans-
portation systems, especially from vessel wastes and spillage of oil  and
hazardous materials during shipment.

The Department of Commerce enters the water pollution con-
trol business primarily through the grants and loans for water and
sewer systems made by the Economic Development Administration.  These
public works activities are available for areas designated as Redevelop-
ment Areas or Economic Development Districts.  Such districts provide
the elements of areawide institutions that can often be used to  develop
stronger institutional arrangements.

The Department of the Interior has several programs pertaining
to water pollution that could be brought to bear in conjunction  with
Section 15 projects.   The Geological Survey is charged with gathering
basic data on water resources and has an Earth Resources Observation  System
(EROS)  program to develop remote sensing techniques for natural  resource
surveys.   The Office of Water Resources Research is also involved in
developing techniques for solving water resource management problems.
                               53

-------
In addition to these technical  activities, the Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation ad-
minister programs designed to foster specific uses of water resources.
Water quality is a major concern in both wildlife and recreation.
Grants available through these  programs can be used to plan and develop
water resources of high quality in conjunction with Section 15 activities.

The water pollution control  activities of the Atomic Energy
Commission are concerned primarily with radioactive materials and thermal
pollution of nuclear electric generating plants.   These problems are not
now of great concern to the  Great Lakes Basin, but as nuclear plants
are installed over the next  decades, they are likely to come to the
forefront.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development provides
water and sewer facilities grants under its Section 702 program.  In
addition, it has a strong influence on the development of areawide
institutions through its comprehensive planning assistance programs.  The
relationships between EPA and HUD in water quality management planning
programs has been described  in  institutional  arrangements for Water
Quality Management Planning  of a report prepared by H.F. Wise and
Associates.

      4.   Discuss Potential Projects with Potential Recipients

The discussion process is intended to achieve more detailed
understanding and agreement  on  the objectives and approach of potential
demonstration projects and on the way they are to relate to other projects.
During the discussion, the number of candidates projects should be
reduced somewhat through elimination of those deemed impractical or un-
acceptable.  EPA's objective in undertaking the discussions should be
to stimulate and cultivate a project concept that is in keeping with
the objectives of Section 15.  Agreement in principal should be reached
on the Federal assistance to be provided during the proposal development
and other resources to be applied.

      5.   Provide Support in Developing Areawide Institutional
           Arrangements'

In some cases, it may be advantageous for EPA to provide
support to potential Section 15 recipients for developing areawide
institutional arrangements needed.  It is possible that some projects
will be devoted almost entirely to this task and that the project agree-
ment will involve EPA support in both the design of the institutional
arrangements and in the entrepreneurial activities needed to establish
them.   Even projects that are essentially technical in their orientation
may require this type of support.  A key rationale for providing it at
an early stage is that it maintains EPA's active, problem-solving role.
Institutional barriers frequently exist because existing agencies and
political forces have been unable to resolve their interests and con-
flicts.   In many cases, outside., problem oriented assistance can break
the log-jam.
                               54

-------
Several key actions are required in developing new institutional
arrangements.  The first is to identify the existing jurisdic-
tions, authorities, lines of communication and funding, and the key
actors in the institutions involved.  The next step is to design  with
these key actors, new institutional arrangements that take advantage of
the opportunities provided by the existing situation and that are
capable of gaining acceptance.  It is of prime importance that the new
institutional arrangements emerge from an increased interaction between
these key actors with a leavening of ideas, challenges and resources
provided through EPA assistance.  Institutional change by prescription
and decree is seldom effective.

      6.   Provide Support in Developing Technical and Basinwide
           Demonstration Concepts

In providing this assistance, EPA can actively help to over-
come difficulties that state and local agencies face in determining and
responding to the needs of an entire basin system.  It is also possible
that some technical assistance would be useful in developing new  waste
management and treatment system concepts from the many elements of
technology emerging from research.  By providing support during the
proposal development state, EPA can help cultivate fertile fields for
new concepts.

      7.   Review and Approve Proposals

This step is essentially similar to its counterpart in the
R, D&D program.  Proposals should be evaluated in terms of the objectives,
guidelines, and criteria recommended in this study.

      8.   Monitor and Assist in Demonstration Project Performance

The project monitoring envisaged for the Section 15 program
involves far more active EPA participation than conventional R, D&D
monitoring.  The manpower assigned to this effort should be sufficient to
make regular, frequent visits to the project site to play an active role
in identifying and solving policy issues and coordination problems as
they emerge during the course of the project.  Demonstration projects are
unlike the typical research project in which the research team can work
in semi-isolation.  The more valuable demonstrations are likely to involve
extensive interactions with other organizations and activities and re-
quire more EPA participation.

      9.   Document, Publicize and Disseminate Results

This step is intended to provide the results of demonstration
projects for use by the public, by policy makers and legislators, by
those who should be encouraged to adopt the demonstrated approach, and
by EPA program management including Section 15.  It should be closely
coordinated with general technology transfer programs.

It is particularly important that this process be recognized
as an on-going need rather than an after-the-fact effort.  This is
especially true with regard to legislators who are potential sponsors


                               55

-------
of additional Great Lakes programs.  Their participation in events such
as grant announcement, ground-breakings, ribbon-cuttings and their in-
stitutional counterparts can be of advantage in publicizing the projects
and gaining future support.


Organization and Manpower

In order to carry out the processes required to develop and manage $20
million of projects, an expanded Section 15 organization is needed.
The manpower and skills that should be applied are determined by the
internal and external activities outlined above and by the nature of
the demonstration projects to be pursued.  Internally, the staff will
be coordinating with other EPA organizational  elements and other Federal
agencies.  The basic requirements for these tasks are familiarity with
the substance and process of key programs, especially research and
facilities construction.
Externally, the requirement is for working closely with grantees to
develop the project concept, to help establish and implement the
project, and to monitor and assist in its performance.  In addition
to research and construction background, Section 15 programs should
make use of skills in analyzing and managing complex natural and tech-
nical systems and in designing and developing new institutional
arrangements.  Systems-oriented assistance provided to grantees should
focus on innovative approaches to environmental  system problems, and
on interdisciplinary, interagency team efforts.   In these areas, skills
in the process and procedure of analysis and management of large systems
are key and should be combined with the substantive and content know-
ledge currently available in other EPA organizations.   The institution
building skills needed are those of the entrepreneur,  bringing people
and new ideas together, and fashioning new patterns of interaction.


In each fiscal year, manpower should be allocated in the following
manner:

               Position                     Man-Years
        Section 15 Coordinator                 1

        Administrative Assistant               1

        Project Development  & Monitoring:
             Research  Specialist               1
             Construction  Specialist           1
             Systems Specialist                2
             Institutional Specialist          2^
                                  TOTAL         8
                               56

-------
We recognize that it may be difficult to shift this much manpower to
the program immediately.  This may make it desirable to look to outside
help in the early stages of implementing this report.  Such outside
help should exhibit the same background and skills.


In addition to this full-time effort, the Section 15 program should
draw on the resources of other EPA staff for internal reviews and
coordination and technical back-up.  For this purpose, each of
the key organizational elements should assign one person as a Section
15 representative.  This group need never meet as a committee, but
each representative should provide the channel for communication
between the Section 15 program and its organization.  In this manner, the
internal reviews can be conducted expeditiously in a personal context
rather than through the routing of paper materials.
                                57

-------
                            SECTION X

                SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

The  key words  in the strategy proposed for integrating Section 15  Into
EPA's overall program and particularly into the Great Lakes  Basin were:
active. catalytic and system-oriented.  It was expected that the demon-
stration programs under this section would also be innovative in both
technical  and institutional terms,

To go beyond strategy, this report has proposed an administrative pro-
cess by which the objectives of Section 15 can be realized.   What this
process envisages is a way to get the programs under way, to obtain
appropriate inhouse coordination, to stimulate good proposals from  the
states and to evaluate submitted proposals against objectives and goals.

In order to get the process started, an initial package of project
descriptions has been developed.  It will  be seen that the package  is a
balanced one, intended to accommodate several philosophies or objectives
with respect to the use of Section 15.

The selection of the following package of projects represents our judg-
ment on the best way to rapidly expand the use of Section 15,  In coming
to this point we have

     a.  reviewed the components of the Great Lakes pollution problem

     b.  grossly indicated the gaps between the current position and
         desired goals

     c.  reviewed the Accelerated Program

     d.  summarized our interviews with state officials

     e.  tabulated our questionnaires from the states and

     f.  incorporated our interviews with  EPA officials

The principal attributes of the suggested package of Section 15
projects are:

     (1)  some immediate short-term highly visible results

     (2)  foundations for longer-term, more effective system results

     (3)  basis for a significant growth program for Section 15 through
          fiscal year 1976,
                               59

-------
The overall approach has been to cover three principal areas:

     a.  technology demonstrations

     b.  institutional and financial projects

     c.  projects to develop plans and procedures.

A total of fifteen projects are suggested and presented in tabular form
in Exhibit 12.

It is important to recall the purposes of suggested demonstration
projects.  The immediate purpose is to give the Section 15 staff a
balanced group of appropriate projects in order to start the internal
and external review process in moving to acceptable proposals from the
states or other agencies for Section 15 funding.  The suggested projects
are sound in the sense of being compatible with needs, with articulated
state-local interests and national and regional goals relative to the
Great Lakes.  The suggested list is not likely to be final and during
the review process considerable flqshing out of the basic concepts is
essential.  The point at this time is that the administrative process
proposed in this report, to get the Section 15 program underway can be
activated with the help of the suggested projects described more fully
below.

Exhibit 12 indicates the relative level of funding on the 15 suggested
projects out of the initial $20 million authorized by Congress.  It will
be seen that, if EPA undertakes to support the projects at 75 percent of
their total, up to $17.4 million would be obligated.  Another $.5 million
is earmarked for program management and support and about $1.0 million
is available out of the original $20 million for contingencies.  No
decision on the budgetary issue of obligating all of the money in FY 1973
can be recommended.   EPA must weigh the short term advantages of starting
slower, against the long term advantages a faster start on the continuing
program following the $20.0 million effort.

Exhibit 13 indicates the relative funding levels suggested for the 15
projects in the follow-on phase through FY 1976.  The projected dollars
up to $400.0 million in FY 1976 are goals and, of course, dependent on
the establishment of feasibility in FY 1973 and following years.
Basically the original  $20.0 million program is only meaningful in
attacking as serious a problem as pollution in the Great Lakes if it is
judiciously used to develop a short and long term strategy that has some
opportunity of coming to grips with the massive issues involved.
                               60

-------
                             EXHIBIT 12
                  INITIAL PROGRAM FUNDING BY PROJECTS
                      (In Millions of Dollars)
Projects by Class
Technology Demonstration
     1.  New municipal pollution control process                $5.0
     2.  New industrial pollution control process (i.e. pulp)    5,0
     3.  New waste treatment process (i.e. chemical additives)   8,0
     4.  Mechanical beach grooming                                ,3
     5.  Improved pollution monitoring                            ,2
     6.  Improved septic tank operations                          .25
     7.  Detention basins for overflows                          2.1
Institutional and Finance
     8.  Short-term local coordination                            .2
     9.  Middle-term state coordination                           ,4
    10.  Intra-state regional institutions                        ,1
    11.  Multi-agency basin clean up                              .5
Plans and Procedures
    12.  Great Lakes system overview                              .3
    13.  C/E curves for increasingly tougher standards            .2
    14.  Total small lake restoration                             .5
    15.  Agricultural run-off management                          .1
                                               TOTAL            $23.15
EPA 75 percent obligation                                        17.36
Program management and support                                     .50
Contingencies                                                     1.00
                              61

-------
                             EXHIBIT 13
        Continuing Program Funding By Projects Thru FY  1976
                      [in millions of dollars)
                                                    Fiscal Years
Projects by Class

Technology Demonstration
1.  New municipal pollution control process
2.  New industrial pollution control
       process (i.e. pulp)
3.  New waste treatment process
       (i.e. chemical additives)
4.  Mechanical beach grooming
5.  Improved pollution monitoring
6.  Improved septic tank operations
7.  Interim projects prior to con-
       struction grants
1974
$50.0
50.0
50.0
.6
.2
.5
50.0
1975
$25.0
50.0
50.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
25.0
1976
$10.0
25.0
50.0
2.0
.0
10.0
10.0
Institutional and Finance
8.  Short-term local coordination
9.  Middle-term state coordination
10. Intra-state regional institutions
11. Multi-agency basin cleanup
Plans and Procedures
12. Great Lakes system overview
13. C/E curves for increasingly
       tougher standards
14. Total small lake restoration
15. Agricultural run-off management
                            TOTAL
EPA 75 percent obligation

Rounded Totals
.3
.5
.1
25.0
.05
.2
100.0
1.0
$328.45
246.34
250.00
.4
.5
.1
100.0
.05
.2
200.0
5.0
$460.75
345.56
350.00
.5
.5
.1
300.0
.05
.1
100.0
10.0
$518.25
388.69
400.00
                                62

-------
Exhibit 14 shows a schedule for the various projects and the points
at which they can be on-line and visible to EPA's constituency.  Some
projects will require some start-up coordination and others can commence
shortly after the formal acceptance of the present report.  Some projects
are visible shortly after start up;  others not until completion;  and
even others not until some time thereafter.

The details on the 15 suggested projects are set forth 1n Exhibit 15 and
16 following this section.  Individual project sheets have been developed
on each project for both short and long term funding.  The project sheets
give a brief description of the project, where it might best be activated,
the short and long run costs and the short and long run program contribu-
tion of completing such a project,  The following paragraphs briefly
summarize the projects by class.

The projects in the Technology Demonstration class reflect EPA's current
emphasis on municipal pollution control (#1), industrial pollution
control (#2) and waste treatment (#3).  The costs of individual projects
are usually high.  The R&D program and state interests must furnish the
basis for good demonstration efforts in these areas over the last four
years.  (Each of the suggested projects are presented on two summary sheets
as part of Exhibits 15 and 16 which follows the text.  The summary sheets
describe the project briefly and note its programmatic contribution.  The
initial and follow-on costs are estimated and schedule projected).

The other four demonstrations in this class address the beach grooming
problem (#4), improved pollution monitoring systems (#5) improved septic
tanks operations for small communities (#6) and detention basins for
overflows (#7).

The projects in the Institutional and Financial class address four issues.
A simple, clean cut solution to the fragmented institutional at the
local level of government is not available.  Rather with the help of
illustrative cases, EPA can build transplantable techniques and can
acquire a helpful image with local governments with respect to solving
their institutional problems relative to water management (#8).  A
broader attack but somewhat slower one, is required in working at the
state level with water managers, planners and their various channels to
local governments (#9).  No pat solution will be accepted across state
lines unless the Federal Government is anxious to impose Institutions
by fiat at this time.  Thus, an entrepreneurial case by case approach
aiming at maximum transplantability of techniques is required.

The literature and enthusiasm of at least one segment of the Great
Lakes Basin argues for an exploratory look at regional water quality
institutions between the state and local governmental structure (#10),
There are a number of novel organizational tax, subsidy, programmatic,
etc.  proposals that can be explored in the content of a regional water
authority.   There are also serious problems of the level of responsibility to
                                63

-------
                            EXHIBIT  14

    PROJECT  SCHEDULE:   PLANNING.  PROCUREMENT PERIOD AND POINTS
               OF  VISIBLE  AND/OR  PUBLISHABLE RESULTS
                                                                    Month
                                     FY  1972        FY 1973
 Projects by  Class                    JFMAMJ/JASONDJFMAMJ/

 Technology Demonstration                    	
 1.   New Municipal Pollution                [	|            ^
     Control Process                         	
 2.   New Industrial Pollution               L	
     Control Process  (i.e.
     pulp)                                  	
 3.   New Waste Treatment Process            E	
     (i.e. chemical additives)               __
 4.   Mechanical Beach                       L_JY
     Grooming                                	
 5.   Improved Pollution                     C	[
     Monitoring                               	
 6.   Improved Septic Tank                   Ł	
     Operations                              ~
 7.   Detention Basins for
     Overflows
 Institutional and Finance                   _
 8.   Short-term Local                       LID          m
     Coordination                            __           »
 9.   Middle-term State                     II~1!
     Coordination                           _~
 10.  Intra-state Regional                  LIU          W
     Institutions                           	           *
 11.  Multi-agency Basin                    |~ ~]
     Clean-up
Plans and Procedures
 12.  Great Lakes System                    C~Ii          Ą
     Overview                                             »
13.  C/E Curves for Increas-               \I_~_~\
     ingly Tougher Standards                    '          T
14.  Total  Small  Lake                       1	f
     Restoration
15.   Agricultural  Run-off                  Ii
     Management                                 ~	'
                                LEGEND
                     .JPeriod for planning and/or procurement
                     /\ Point of visible and/or publishable results
                               64

-------
and Year
FY 1974                   FY 1975                FY 1976
JASONDJFMAMJ/JASONDJFMAMJ/JASO'NDJFMAMJ
                       T  f
          T

          T

          T
 f

 T
          T

          f
T
T
                                 65

-------
constituencies and of obtaining fully coordinated operations  (both
intra- and inter-state).  Plans and models are needed for  this  explora-
tory case and for its broader potential use throughout the region.   The
development of a firm regional concept, fully reviewed and supported by
a definitive program, all need to be realized before funding  the  final
demonstration effort.

The final project in this class is directed at the currently  fragmented
efforts across various federal, state and local agencies (#11).   EPA can
spend its funds piecemeal and run into more and more cases  of sharply
diminishing returns.  On the other hand, it can use Section 15  to
operate as an inter-agency catalyst for R&D, operating and  constructing
funds in order to mount a significant basin clean up job.   A  coordinated
project, with enough funds and effectively scheduled, can  succeed where
piecemeal efforts would fail.

The Plans and Procedures class is used to start work on several important
issues.

Priorities for construction grant under Section 8 are substantially  set
by the several states.  Basin and area planning should begin  to emerge
from the states in 6 - 12 months.  Even so, EPA needs a framework by
which to review state priorities, before and even after whatever  state
planning is forthcoming in the next few years (#12).  A systems over-
view of the Great Lakes would enhance the agency's ability  to review,
suggest and even direct (with discretionary funds) projects of an
inter - and intra-state nature.

Current standards are the best that good judgment could furnish and have
effectively served to get the whole program rapidly underway.  Consider-
able concern has been voiced as to the costs of increasing  severe
standards.  Tightening some standards may run into rapidly  increasing
costs.  Cost-effectiveness curves for various pollutants under various
circumstances can isolate difficult or easy cases, help direct R&D and
allow us to anticipate total budget levels required to realize national
objectives (#13).

Cost-effectiveness curves can be developed theoretically for a major  lake
like Ontario.   However, valuable insight and hard data can  be obtained
by approaching the practical problem of achieving 1985 or  total restora-
tion levels on a small lake with essentially present state-of-the-art. (#14)

The last project is  concerned with developing plans for implementing
new agricultural  practices to reduce the nutrient content of agricultural
run-off (#15).   Again it appears that EPA can multiply the  effectiveness
of its funds  by working in consort with other agencies.

It is  proposed that  the administrative process to activate  and implement
good state proposals  under Section 15 get started with this package of
15 suggested  proposals.
                               66

-------
The recommended program envisages a review of this package and Its
strategic objectives within the Section 15 program operations.  The
acceptable suggested projects (as modified or replaced) then should be
cycled through the other interested EPA offices.  The Section 15 program
should then involve an active program to interest and support the Great
Basin states.  The evaluation of the final state proposals, monitoring
and on-going support activities can insure a rapidly expanding and
effective Section 15 program.  Both plans and results must then be
documented in support of a growing appropriate to fund the strategic
objectives of Section 15,

It is our belief that rapid administrative action is critical and in
the balance program herein presented we have the basis for expanding
an active, catalytic and system-oriented Section 15 program to make a
practical and innovative attack on the pollution problems of the
Great Lakes.
                               67

-------
                 EXHIBIT 15



SUMMARIES OF SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS;



           INITIAL PROGRAM, FY 1973
                       69

-------
                              SUMMARY
                SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 1
                       (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:         New Municipal  Pollution Control Process


CLASS:         Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:   A flotation  and skimming process in the treatment
      plants is envisioned.   Provision and enforcement of alternative
      urban oil/grease disposal practices would lower removal capacity
      requirements.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

      STATE(S):  New York

      INITIAL CONTACTS:

      Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy Commissioner
      Environmental  Quality
      Dept. of Environ.  Conserv.

      Richard A. Wiebe,  Director
      Office of Planning Services

      GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Monroe County

      BUDGET:  $5.0M

      SCHEDULE:  Start  Sept.  '72   Visible Results (Initial)   March '73

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC  CONTRIBUTION:

      Municipal pollution control  process research has been a major
      area of EPA R&D funding.  This  area should supply important
      demonstration  ideas for  high near term visability.   It is
      suggested that oil  removal process techniques could furnish an
      appropriate project in  this  area.
                              70

-------
                             SUMMARY
               SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
                       (Dollars In Millions)
TITLE?        New Industrial Pollution Control Process (1,e,? test
              pulp plant waste treatment processes)


CLASS;        Technology Pemonstratlon


DESCRIPTION;  In-plant filtration and oxydlzation via aeration bacterial
     action and/or non-polluting chemical oxydants would appear to
     offer feasible and effective solutions.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Wisconsin (or elsewhere)

     INITIAL CONTACTS:

     Thomas Frangos, Administrator             John M. Cain, Chief
     Div. of Environ. Protection               Water Planning Section
     Dept, of Natural Resources                Div. of Environ.  Protection
                                               Dept. of Natural  Resources
     E. Jack Schoop, Director
     Bureau of State Planning
     Dept. of Admin.

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Lower Fox River (or elsewhere)

     BUDGET;  $5.0M plus company contribution

     SCHEDULE:  Start  Sept. '72    Visible Results (Initial)  June '73

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     Industrial  pollution control processes, particularly pulp plant
     waste treatments, have been the objective of considerable EPA
     research.  It appears that technology is available in this
     area for testing.  The implementation in the Lower Fox River
     in cooperation with private industry support could contribute
     substantially to improved relationships between EPA, private
     industry and the state of Wisconsin.  Care must be taken to
     balance actions with enforcement programs underway in this  area,
                               71

-------
                            SUMMARY
               SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 3
                       (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:        New Waste Treatment Process (i.e., add chemical to
              treatment process)


CLASS:        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:  Phosphorus removal techniques using additives in a
     precipitation process need further testing in an operational
     context.   After precipitation, removal, disposal or potential
     re-use must be tested.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Michigan

     INITIAL CONTACTS:

     Ross Lowes, Director                Ralph Purdy
     Off. of Program Dev. and Plan.      Executive Secretary
                                         Water Resources Commission
     Mr.  Bradford or
     James P.  Dooley
     Water Resources Planning
     Dept. of Natural  Resources

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:   Detroit

     BUDGET:  $ 8.0M

     SCHEDULE:  Start    Sept. '72    Visible Results (Initial)  Nov. '72

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     Additives need to be tested in an operational context.  In this
     way  efficiency and costs can be determined before implementing this
     technique more broadly.
                                72

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 4
                      (Dollars In Millions)


TITLE:        Mechanical Beach Grooming


CLASSj        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:  This project is directed to the fabrication and use of
     a mechanical beach grooming device.  Cladophora algae now 1s
     serious on the beaches of Lake Ontario.  Grooming of beaches
     will encourage their use by the public.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  One beach 1n Ohio, Pennsylvania or New York

     Oh i o;                              New York

     Dr. Ira Whitman                    Dwight F. Metzler
     Dept. of Health                    Dept. of Environ. Conserv,

     Jack Frost                         Richard A. Wiebe
     Natural Resources Dept.            Off. of Planning Services

     Andres Priede                      Pennsylvania
     Dept. of Community Dev*
                                        R. M. Boardman
                                        Chief Div. of Water Quality

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA;  Lake Erie or Ontario

     BUDGET:  $ ,3M for equipment and 3-4 month operation

     SCHEDULE;  Start June '72    Visible Results (Initial)   June '72

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     The imrnedtate objective is to make at least one beach acceptable
     to the public by eliminating cladophora.  The choice of the first
     site for cleaning operations is important.  If all other conditions
     of the site are not acceptable to the public, the clean-up opera-
     tion will be judged a failure.
                               73

-------
                              SUMMARY
                SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 5
                        (Dollars  in Millions)
TITLE:        Improved Pollution Monitoring


CLASS:        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:   State officials indicate that the present monitoring
      systems are not sufficient to establish  pollution conditions
      before  and after treatment plants are put on-line.   Remote
      sensor  techniques should be explored  in  a search for a new
      monitoring system.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

      STATE(S):   New York or Michigan

      INITIAL CONTACTS:

      New York                                 Michigan

      Dwight  F.  Metzler                        Ralph Purdy
      Dept.  of Environ. Conserv.                Water Resources Commission

      Richard A. Wiebe                         Mr.  Bradford or
      Off.  of Plan. Services                   James P. Dooley
                                               Dept. of Natural Resources

                                               Ross Lowes
                                               Program Dev. and Planning

      GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Up-state New York or Muskegon , Michigan

      BUDGET:  $.2M

      SCHEDULE:   Start   June '72     Visible  Results  (Initial)    Nov.  '72.

SHORT TERM  PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

      In the  short run a cost and benefit analysis  should  be used
      to establish the feasibility of augmenting the present data
      collection systems with a remote sensor  component.   If the
      feasibility analysis  is favorable,  then  implementation in
      one state  or area should serve as the test demonstration for
      more  general use.
                                 74

-------
                              SUMMARY
                SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 6
                        (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE;        Improved Septic Tank Operations


CLASS;        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:  This project is directed to several actions intended
      to improve the operation of septic tanks where the community
      served is below the economical threshhold size for a practical
      treatment plant.  The improvement program includes better
      septic tank design, potential use of chemical additives and
      regular collection program for residual sludge.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

      STATE(S):  New York

      INITIAL CONTACTS:

      Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy Commissioner   Richard A. Wiebe,  Dir.
      Environmental Quality Dept.              Off. of Planning Services
      Dept. of Environ. Conserv.

      GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Up-state New York

      BUDGET:  $.25M

      SCHEDULE:  Start    Sept. '72    Visible Results (Initial)    March  3.  1973

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

      Techniques to handle very small population concentration must
      be packaged and demonstrated.  Many such concentrations are
      well below the economic threshold for even the smallest
      efficient treatment installation.  The package to be tested
      should included improved septic tank design (or modifications),
      chemical  additives, regular collection and all operated under
      supervised control conditions.
                                  75

-------
                             SUMMARY
               SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 7
                       (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:        Detention Basins for over flows


CLASS:        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:  This project involves a series of detention basins
      intended to retain storm and combined flows that the present
      system cannot handle.   The available processing plants are
      more than capable of handling projected flows if peaks can
      be smoothed through the construction of these basins.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

      STATE(S):  Indiana, Ohio,  N.Y., Mich., Wise.

      INITIAL CONTACTS:  Various State officials

      GEOGRAPHIC AREA:

      BUDGET:  $2.1 M

      SCHEDULE:  Start Sept.  '72  Visible Results (Initial)   June '73

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

      An immediate project will  solve a bad situation on Great Lakes
      beaches and will contribute to the minimal cost of water treat-
      ment in some areas.
                                    76

-------
                             SUMMARY
               SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 8
                       (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE;        Short-Term Local Coordination


CLASS;        Institutional and Finance


DESCRIPTION:  This project is intended to show that cooperative arrange-
     ments between local bodies can be encouraged in order to attach
     their mutual pollution problems more effectively.   The purpose
     is to strengthen similar efforts elsewhere employing the same
     or even different institutional solutions,

INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Ohio

     INITIAL CONTACTS;

     Jack Frost, Deputy Director       Dr.  Ira Whitman, Deputy Dir.
     Natural Resources Dept.           Environ. Programs
                                       Dept.  of Health
     Andres Priede
     Off. of Planning
     Dept. of Community Dev.

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Cleveland

     BUDGET;  $ ,2M planning budget

     SCHEDULE:  Start  June '72    Visible Results (Initial)  Nov. '72

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     In the short run it is important to show that organizational  entre-
     preneurship is a feasible route to new rapport, communications and
     modified or new institutions if required.  It is meant essential  to
     show that with favorable publicity and modest support good ideas
     can be transplanted to the new metropolitan area,
                               77

-------
                              SUMMARY
                SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 9
                       (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:        Middle-term State Coordination


CLASS:        Institutional  and Finance


DESCRIPTION:  This project envisages  an effort to bring water quality
      institutions at the state level  in closer coordination with state
      planners and through them regional and local  planners,  The purpose
      is to work within a state to suggest new institutions, better lines
      of communications and  both shorter lines of command and better
      coordination.  Experience in one state can be used as illustrative
      in the other Great Lakes states.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

      STATE(S):  Ohio

      INITIAL CONTACTS:

      Deputy Director                          Andres Priede
      Dr. Ira Whitman                          Off. of Planning
      Environ. Programs                        Dept.  of Community  Dev.
      Dept. of Health

      Deputy Dir. Water
      Jack Frost
      Natural Resources Dept.

      GEOGRAPHIC AREA:   State

      BUDGET:  $.4M planning budget

      SCHEDULE:  Start	June '72    Visible Results (Initial)    June '73_

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

      The keys to success in this area are again organizational entre-
      preneurship and transplanting of proven techniques.  EPA has a
      related program underway in Massachusetts in the program planning
      area whose success argues well  for a similar technique as applied
      in the Great Lakes. A near term success in one Great Lake state
      can encourage similar  efforts in the other states.
                                 78

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT i 10
                      CDollars in Mill tons)


TITLE:        Intra-State Regional Institutions


CLASS:        Institutional and financial


DESCRIPTION:  This project requires the formulation in detail of the
     character and responsibilities of a regional water quality manage-
     ment authority.  The concept should then be critically reviewed
     for financial foundations, regulatory powers and responsiveness
     to its constituency.  Plans and models should be developed in
     order to project its 5-10 year program.  Finally, demonstration
     funding from EPA should be available during its formative period
     of operations, if found desirable to activate the authority,

INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATECS);   Wisconsin Cor elsewhere)

     INITIAL CONTACTS;

     Thomas Frangos, Administrator         E, Jack Schoop, Director
     Div. of Environ, Protection           Bureau of State Planning
     Dept. of Natural Resources            Dept. of Admin.

     John M. Cain, Chief
     Water Planning Section
     Div. Environ. Protection
     Dept. of Natural Resources

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Lower Fox River (or elsewhere)

     BUDGET:  $ ,1M

     SCHEDULE:  Start   June '72   Visible Results (Initial)  Jan '73

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION;

     Intra-state regional institutions are beginning to emerge but they
     have not reached their full potential.  Ideas are developing in the
     Great Lakes region and new legislation anticipates their evolution
     into operational agencies.  Their potentials and constraints need to
     be assessed as soon as possible and acceptable prototypes tested.
                               79

-------
                            SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 11
                      (Dollars in Millions)


TITLE:        Multi-Agency Basin Clean-Up


CLASS:        Institutional  and Finance


DESCRIPTION:  A major opportunity in Sec. 15 is found in the possibility
     of planning a multi-agency basin clean-up program.  Sec. 15 money
     should be used to address a basin plan and to marshal! EPA Sec. 8
     and other funds as well  as funds from other Federal and state agencies.
     The demonstration should develop the processes, institutions and
     financial arrangements  to attach a multi-dimensional total basin
     clean-up with milestones and a completion data.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Ohio and Indiana

     INITIAL CONTACTS:

     Indiana                                Ohio

     Perry E. Miller                        Dr. Ira Whitman
     Stream Control  Brd.                     Dept.  of Health

     Ted W. Schulenberg                     Jack Frost
     Dept. of Commerce                      Natural Resources Dept.

     William Andrews                        Andres Priede
     Dept. of Natural  Resources             Dept.  of Community Dev.

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:   Maumee River

     BUDGET:  $ .5M

     SCHEDULE:  Start ...Sept. '72   Visible Results (Initial)  Dec. '75^

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     Efforts to secure cooperation at the inter-state level and inter-
     department at the Federal level must start immediately if basin clean-
     ups are to be achieved  at reasonable cost.  The immediate task is to
     define the task and select among the various alternatives one that
     can be successful in a  test area so feasibility can be demonstrated.
     Then implementation  is  in order in an area such as the Maumee.
                                80

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 12
                      (Dollars in Millions)


TITLE:        Great Lakes System Overview


CLASS:        Plans and Procedures


DESCRIPTION:  This project will develop a framework for reviewing con-
     struction grants and discretionary projects in the Great Lakes Basin
     through a system analysis overview.  Gross measures of pollutant
     inputs, in stream and in lake residuals, population-industrial changes
     and projected treatment plants.  From an overview of needs, R & D,
     projects, standards and objectives, a scheduled program of overall
     goals can be structured for guidance purposes.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  8 States in Great Lakes Basin

     INITIAL CONTACTS:  Various State Officials and IJC

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Great Lakes Basin

     BUDGET:  $ ,3M analysis budget

     SCHEDULE:  Start  June '72    Visible Results (Initial)  Nov. '72

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     An overall framework with respect to the problems, impacts and
     priorities of solutions from the view of the Great Lakes system
     can contribute to the effective management of Section 8 construction
     grants.  A first-cut as such an overview can contribute to both
     U.S. and international policies and programs,  A continual updating
     effort can be implemented if the first-cut analysis is as successful
     as anticipated.
                                 81

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT J 13
                      CDollars in Ml 11 tons}


TITLE:        Cost-Effectiveness Curves for Increasingly Higher Standards


CLASS:        Plans and Procedures


DESCRIPTION:  Cost-effectiveness curves relate costs and the level of
     pollution control.   Interim goals  envisage levels at 85$ effective-
     ness.   Ultimate objective anticipate achieving 100% effectiveness,
     The suggested project is aimed at  developing the shape of such curves
     for the principal  pollutants entering a major lake.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  New York

     INITIAL CONTACTS:

     Dwight F. Metzler.  Deputy Commissioner
     Environmental Quality
     Dept.  of Environ.  Conserv.

     Richard A. Wiebe,  Director
     Office of Plan. Services

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Lake Ontario

     BUDGET:  $ .2M analysis budget

     SCHEDULE:  Start  June '72    Visible Results Clnlttal)  Nov. '72

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     Cost-effectiveness  curves can guide policy and suggest the need for
     R&D alternatives.   By sizing the program to obtain complete pollution
     control, administrators can plan their budgeting, manpower, etc.
     strategies through  time.  As the curves indicate that present tech-
     nologies are moving into areas of  sharply decreasing returns, it
     will  become clear  that new R&D directions should be pursued.
                                82

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 14
                      (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE;        Total Small Lake Restoration


CLASS:        Plans and Procedures


DESCRIPTION:  This suggested demonstration project will  show the tech-
     niques and costs of first achieving the 1985 standards and then
     total restoration of a small lake.  Techniques involved will  relate
     to municipal and industrial  inputs and to lake bottom deposits.
     Various methods must be included to cope with inputs and deposits
     if restoration is to be achieved.

INITIAL ACTIVITY         Note:  Not determined at this time,

     STATE(S):

     INITIAL CONTACTS:
     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:

     BUDGET:  $ .5M

     SCHEDULE:  Start  Sept. '72    Visible Results (Initial)  Dec.  '75

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION;

     The immediate task is to develop a systems project and management
     plan to achieve the complete restoration of a small  lake that is
     seriously polluted.  The system will be multi-discipline in nature,
     involve various hardware and procedural innovations  and requires  a
     complete budget and schedule,  The initial planning  stage can then be
     fully renewed before attempting the more costly implementation  phase.
                                 83

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 15
                      (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:        Agricultural  Run-Off Management


CLASS:        Plans and Procedures


DESCRIPTION:  Cornell  and others have undertaken various studies on new
     agricultural practices aimed at reducing the nutrient content of
     agricultural run-off.   Since lower net yields or higher costs will
     apparently be realized, it is necessary to plan the implementation
     of such practices.  Various alternatives including subsidies, regulation,
     tie-in soil  conservation, etc., programs need to be reviewed for the
     optional route to the  reduction of agricultural run-off problems.

INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Ohio or Maumee Basin

     INITIAL CONTACTS:

     Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy Commissioner   Richard A. Wiebe, Director
     Environmental Quality                     Off. of Plan. Services
     Dept. of Environ. Conserv.

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:   Up-state New York

     BUDGET:  $ .1M

     SCHEDULE:  Start  Sept. '72   Visible Results (Initial)   May '73

SHORT TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     Given various studies  on agricultural practices to minimize non-point
     pollution, the economic and institutional aspects will allow
     EPA and supporting agencies to move rapidly toward implementation.
     The issue will be to establish what can be done by education, govern-
     ment regulation and finally economic incentives.  The character and
     costs of the implementing program can be projected and renewed at
     this time.
                                84

-------
                  EXHIBIT 16



SUMMARIES OF SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION  PROJECTS;



     CONTINUING PROGRAM, FY 1974 THRU 1976
                   85

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 1
                      [Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:        New Municipal  Pollution Control Process


CLASS:        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:  A flotation and skimming process in the treatment plants
     is envisioned.   Provision and enforcement of alternative urban oil/
     grease disposal  practices would lower removal capacity requirements.


INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  New  York

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Monroe County


CONTINUING FUNDING:   FY '74    $50.0    FY '75   $25.0     FY '76   $10.0


LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     The gap analysis and the form of the Acceleration Program indicate
     that this is a  major pollution problem where new technologies
     should be tested.   The  suggested project will demonstrate the
     potential effectiveness of oil removal  process applicable to many
     other municipalities in the Great Lakes Basin.
                               86

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT J 2
                      (Dollars In Millions)
TITLE:        New Industrial Pollution Control Process (i,ef> test
              pulp plant waste treatment processes)


CLASS:        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:  In-plant filtration and o.xydizatlon via aeration bacteria
     action and/or non-polluting chemical oxydants would appear to
     offer feasible and effective solutions,
INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Wisconsin (or elsewhere)

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Lower Fox River (or elsewhere)


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY '74   $50.0   FY '75   $50.0   FY '76   $25.0


LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     Industrial pollution and waste, particularly pulp plant wastes, were
     seen in the gap analysis and the Acceleration Program to be a high
     priority problem in the Great Lakes.  The process to be demonstrated
     will use EPA research and EPA seed money to obtain company Cor
     institute) support of a test of an operational version of laboratory
     processes,
                                87

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT J 3
                      (Dollars in Millions!
TITLE:        New Waste Treatment Process (J,Q., add chemical to treatment
              process)


CLASS:        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:  Phosporus removal  techniques  using additives in a pre-
     cipitation process need further testing in an operational  context.
     After precipitation, removal  disposal  or potential  re-use must
     be tested.
INITIAL ACTIVITY:

     STATE(S):

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:


CONTINUING FUNDING:   FY '74  $50.0    FY '75   $50,0    FY '76   $50.0
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     The addition of chemicals  to present treatment plants  offers an
     opportunity to obtain  secondary/tertiary  treatment without major
     plant changes.  The suggested project will  permit operating person-
     nel to use and evaluate such additives over a year of  plant opera-
     tion.  Various techniques  of phosphrous precipitation  collection
     and disposal need to be tested for low cost effectiveness.
                                88

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 4
                      (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:        Mechanical Beach Grooming


CLASS:        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:  This project is directed to the fabrication and use of
     a mechanical beach grooming device.  Cladophora algae now is serious
     on the beaches of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.   Grooming of beaches
     will encourage their use by the bathing public.


INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  One beach in Ohio, Pennsylvania or New York

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Lake Ontario or Erie


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY '74  $.6M   FY '75  $1.5M   FY '76  $2.0M



LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     This project represents an interim solution to obtain immediate
     visability of the program's efforts to clean up a serious problem.
     To maximize results at minimal cost, it is important to designate
     a beach that is basically healthful, where the currents enhance our
     objective, where bathing facilities are in place and where the
     problem is unsightly algae.

     The project can be demonstrated on one beach in FY 1973.  If funds
     are not available from other sources, Section 15 can be refunded
     in FY 1974, FY 1975 and FY 1976 to cover 2, 5 and then 7 beaches.
                                89

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION  PROJECT # 5
                      (Dollars  in  Millions)
TITLE:        Improved Pollution Monitoring


CLASS:        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:  State officials  indicate  that  the  present monitoring
     systems are not sufficient  to establish pollution  conditions before
     and after treatment plants  are put on-line.   Remote sensor tech-
     niques should be explored in a search for a new monitoring system.


INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  New York or Michigan

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Up-state  New York or  Muskegon, Michigan


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY '74  $.2M    FY '75   $1.0M   FY '76  $.0


LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     A monitoring project employing remote sensing in coordination with
     present EPA and New York  information could  demonstrate what elements
     of the New York, NASA, USDA, etc., programs can be effectively com-
     bined.  The purpose will  be to monitor  land and water in order to
     maintain a continuous  surveillance of pollutants and the environment
     and to monitor short lived, unpredictable ecological  disasters.
     A somewhat less extensive project  could be  mounted near Muskegon.

     In FY 1974 and FY 1975, the analysis can be extended to the imple-
     mentation problems in  the other 7  great lakes states.   Actual imple-
     mentation should be funded  under a new  section or  an expanded Section
     15.
                                90

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 6
                      (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE;        Improved Septic Tank Operations


CLASS:        Technology Demonstration


DESCRIPTION:  This project is directed to several actions intended to
     improve the operation of septic tanks where the community served
     is below the economical threshhold size for a practical  treatment
     plant.  The improvement program includes better septic tank design,
     potential use of chemical additives and regular collection program
     for residual sludge.


INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  New York or Michigan

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Up-state New York or Upper Michigan


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY  ' 74  $.5M     FY '  75  $2.0M     FY '76  $10.OM


LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     Small communities may be causing pollution of significance relative
     to their environment.  The construction of even the smallest treatment
     plant may be too big for the community and may encourage undesirable
     land development (more polluters).  This project would demonstrate
     a combination of improved septic tank design (or modifications),
     use of chemical additives to improve treatment and specified periodic
     collection.  Preliminary results should be obtainable 1n 6 months
     and a seasonable assessment at the end of 12 months.  Other communities
     can be addressed in subsequent years.
                                91

-------
                        SUMMARY
          SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
                 (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:   Detention Basins for Overflows
CLASS:   Technology Demonstration
DESCRIPTION:   This project involves a series of detention basins
intended to retain storm and combined flows that the present system
cannot handle.  The available processing plants are more than capable
of handling projected flows if peaks can be smoothed through the
construction of these Basins.
INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Indiana, Ohio,  N.Y.,  Mich.,  Wise.

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:



CONTINUING FUNDING:   FY '74  $50.0     FY '75  $25.0    FY '76  $IQ.Q



LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

Detention Basin projects of this size have not been funded to prove
full scale feasibility.  The construction of the Basins would
immediately stop unprocessed overflows into the Great Lakes and result
in a clean up action of high visibility,  similar efforts may be found
appropriate in other states and locations.
                                     92

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 8
                      CDollars in Millions)
TITLE;        Short-Term Local Coordination


CLASS:        Institutional and Finance
DESCRIPTION:  This project is intended to show that cooperative arrange-
     ments between local bodies can be encouraged in order to attack
     their mutual pollution problems more effectively.   The purpose is
     to strengthen similar efforts elsewhere employing  the same or
     even different institutional  solutions.
INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Ohio

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Cleveland


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY '74  $.3    FY  75  $.4    FY '76   $.5


LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     The problems of local cooperation are complicated by a multiplicity
     of agencies, fragmented responsibilities and differing personalities.
     EPA needs to establish the image of helping local governmental  units
     with their pollution problems in terms of the problems as they  are
     seen locally.   Considerable effort must be taken to support a few
     local areas in order to develop techniques and acceptance for EPA
     efforts at the local level.

     Each metropolitan situation tends to be different in many respects.
     What is needed is the ability to practice organizational  entre-
     preneurship.  Knowledgeable and sympathetic people can build rapport,
     communication  channels and modified or new institutions if required.
     It has  been found that good ideas are in turn transplantable to
     other environments with favorable publicity and a helping hand.
                                93

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION  PROJECT  # 9
                      (Dollars  in  Millions)
TITLE:        Middle-term State  Coordination


CLASS:        Institutional  and  Finance


DESCRIPTION:  This  project envisages  an  effort  to  bring  water quality
     institutions at the state  level  in  closer  coordination  with state
     planners and through them,  regional  and  local  planners.   The purpose
     is to work within a state  to suggest new institutions,  better lines
     of communications and both  shorter  lines of command and better
     coordination.   Experience  in one state can be used  as  illustrative
     in the other Great Lakes states.


INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Ohio

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  State


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY '74  $.5    FY '75 $.5    FY '76  $.5
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION

     Major solutions of institutional  problems  in implementing water quality
     programs must be attacked at the  state level.   State planning fre-
     quently has (or can get)  powers  over land  use  that can greatly enhance
     the powers given to water quality managers.   State planners also
     often have planning mandates with respect  to local and regional
     programs.  State planning is a  natural focus for land, water and
     resources in the state.   It is  also a logical  center for population
     and industry location.   It can  also be the place to initiate new
     control, regulation or pricing  techniques  to support water quality
     management.  New institutions at the local level can only be built
     state-wide by dealing with the  state government.  This program
     must envisage a 3 year effort at  a minimum.   Such middle range
     institutional planning  is appropriate at this  point in time.
                                94

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 10
                      (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE;        Intra-State Regional  Institutions


CLASS:        Institutional  and Financial


DESCRIPTION:  This project requires the formulation in detail  of the
     character and responsibilities of a regional  water quality manage-
     ment authority.  The concept should then be critically reviewed
     for financial foundations, regulatory powers  and responsiveness
     to its .constituency.  Plans and models should be developed in  order
     to project its 5-10 year program.  Finally, demonstration funding
     from EPA  should be available during its formative period of opera-
     tions, if found desirable to activate the authority.


INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Wisconsin (or elsewhere)

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Lower Fox River (or elsewhere)


CONTINUING FUNDING;  FY '74  $.1M    FY '75  $.1     FY '76  $.1
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     There are a number of institutional  issues that need to be  addressed
     if an intra-state regional  body  is to be effective and responsible
     to its constituency.   There are  a number of tax, regulation,  subsidy,
     grant and R&D options that  might be  explored in presenting  or treating
     municipal, industrial and non-point  sources of pollution.   Plans
     and. models need to be developed  to develop and evaluate cost-effective
     or cost-benefit programs.  Some  modest hardware in R&D, data  collection
     and like activities can be  employed  to test their contribution to
     basin management of water quality.  Consideration should also be
     given to broadening the Interests of the regional body from water
     quality to a total  range of environmental  protection services.
     The authority should also be reviewed in terms of pending or  new
     water quality legislation.
                                95

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT % 11
                      (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:        Multi-Agency Basin Clean Up


CLASS:        Institutional  and Finance


DESCRIPTION:  A major opportunity in Sec. 15 is found in the possibility
     of planning a multi-agency basin clean up program.   Sec. 15 money
     should be used to address a basin plan and to marshall EPA Sec. 8
     and other funds as well  as funds from other Federal and state agencies.
     The demonstration should develop the processes, institutions and
     financial arrangements  to attach a multi-dimensional total  basin
     clean up with milestones and a completion date.


INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Ohio and Indiana            a)

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Maumee River         a)


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY '74   $25.0   FY '75 $100.0   FY '76 $300.0
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     This project can be used to explore and develop inter-agency techniques
     in order to develop a "critical mass" in overcoming basin pollution
     in contrast to the present tendency to piecemeal  efforts.  An appro-
     priately funded and timed program will have as visable and effective
     an impact on a basin's water quality problems as  several times
     that same amount of money and effort would have if expended in
     an uncoordinated way.  A success in one area can  certainly lead to
     similar success in areas not half as difficult to manage as the
     Maumee.

     a)  Illinois has suggested that an intergovernmental project might
be undertaken in that state to coordinate SCS, C of E, EPA, Illinois
EPA, NE Illinois Planning Commission and Chicago Municipal Sanitary
District.

     Minnesota wants a multi-parameter attach to restore and maintain
the St. Louis River.
                                96

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 12
                      (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:        Great Lakes System Overview


CLASS;        Plans and Procedures


DESCRIPTION:  This project will develop a framework for reviewing con-
     struction grants and discretionary projects in the Great Lakes
     Basin through a system analysis overview of gross measures of pollutant
     inputs, in stream and in lake residuals, population-industrial
     changes and projected treatment plants.  From an overview of needs,
     R&D, projects, standards and objectives, a scheduled program of
     overall goals can be structured for guidance purposes,


INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S)  8 States in Great Lakes Basin

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:  Great Lakes Basin


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY ' 74  $.05    FY '  75  $.05    FY '  76  $.05


LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     EPA Sec. 8 priorities are essentially established by the states
     developing the projects.  State priorities can easily be somewhat
     less than optimal  from an overall EPA point of view.  If an overall
     updated framework of needs and priorities based on improving tech-
     nologies, better measurements of pollutants and the ecological
     environment and Interstate coordination can be constructed, EPA
     can furnish guidance to the states in the development of the priorities,
     Local and state considerations should continue to be reflected
     by the state programs but with a full  understanding of the conse-
     quences of their impacts on the Great Lakes.  The same overall  frame-
     work can be used to direct discretionary funded projects to maximize
     program objectives.  After the initial study only modest updating
     is anticipated.
                                97

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 13
                      (Dollars in Millions)
TITLE:        Cost-Effectiveness  Curves  for Increasingly Higher Standards

CLASS:        Plans  and Procedures
DESCRIPTION:   Cost-effectiveness  curves  relate costs  and the level  of
     pollution control;  interim goals  envisage levels at 85% effective-
     ness; ultimate objectives  anticipate  achieving 100% effectiveness.
     The suggested project is  aimed  at developing the shape of such
     curves for the principal  pollutants entering a major lake.
INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  New York

     OTHER PARTICIPANTS:  IJC

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:   Lake Ontario


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY '74   $.2     FY '75   $.2     FY '76  $.1
LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     Current standards covering  a  number of variables  in  the total
     pollution problem have  been set  with the best judgment available
     in order to get the  total program underway  as rapidly as possible.
     Some attention  should  now be  paid to the different cost-effectiveness
     curves associated with  the  different parameters  of the pollution
     problem.   The even rough quantification of  such  curves can help
     establish the costs  associated with increasing the severity of the
     different standards, can guide R&D efforts, anticipate institutional
     issues and anticipate  total budget levels to realize national  ob-
     jectives.  After Lake  Ontario has been analyzed,  the other major
     lakes should be addressed.   If 100 percent  effectiveness in the
     control  of pollutants  into  the Great Lakes  is to  be  achieved,  it
     is important to plan the paths and costs of getting  there.
                                 98

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT # 14
                      (Dollars In Millions)
TITLE:        Total Small Lake Restoration


CLASS:        Plans and Procedures
DESCRIPTION:  This suggested demonstration project will  show the tech-
     niques and costs of first achieving the 1985 standards and then
     total restoration of a small lake.  Techniques involved will  relate
     to municipal and industrial inputs and to lake bottom deposits.
     Various methods must be included to cope with inputs and deposits
     if restoration is to be achieved.
INITIAL ACTIVITY       Note:  Not selected at this time.

     STATE(S):

     GEOGRAPHIC


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY '74  $100.0  FY '75  $200.0  FY '76  $100.0


LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     It is anticipated that cost-effective curves will  tend to show
     severely diminishing returns from increased expenditures as standards
     are pushed higher and higher.  Under such circumstances the problem
     of what might be regarded as residual pollutants becomes a major
     issue.   The proposed plan will deal  with the natural  mechanisms
     of the watersheds, water courses and lakes relative  to the different
     tolerance levels to different pollutants at different times.  The
     objective will be to move toward an  optimal combination of man and
     natural  processes to cope with expensive residuals.   The demonstra-
     tion will indicate the effectiveness of state-of-the-art techniques,
     This information can be used to scale the size of the total Great
     Lakes job (either 1985 objectives or total restoration) and to
     indicate critical areas of required  research if total costs are
     to be significantly reduced.
                                99

-------
                             SUMMARY
              SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT $ 15
                      (Dollars in Mi 11 ionsJ
TITLE:        Agricultural  Run-Off Management


CLASS:        Plans and Procedures


DESCRIPTION:  Cornell  and others have undertaken various studies on
     new agricultural  practices  aimed at reducing the nutrient content
     of agricultural  run-off.   Since lower net yields or higher costs
     will apparently be realized it is necessary to plan the implementa-
     tion of such practices.   Various alternatives including subsidies,
     regulation, tie-in to soil  conservation, etc.  programs need to be
     reviewed for the  optional  route to the reduction of agricultural
     run-off problems.


INITIAL ACTIVITY

     STATE(S):  Ohio or Maumee Basin (Including Indiana)

     OTHER PARTICIPANTS:  Cornell  University and Ohio State University

     GEOGRAPHIC AREA:   Up-state  New York


CONTINUING FUNDING:  FY '  74   $1.0    FY '75  $5.0    FY '76  $10.0


LONG TERM PROGRAMMATIC CONTRIBUTION:

     As a non-point source, agricultural run-off 1s a source of significant
     nutrients going into rivers and lakes in the Great Lakes Basin.
     The problem is to develop both agricultural practices that are
     effective in reducing run-off problems and to find an economical
     way to motivate the farmer  to change his present methods of operation.
     It is anticipated that if EPA attempts to undertake the entire
     task, it will  be  both unnecessarily costly to EPA and inefficient.
     A coordinated, inter-agency attack stimulated by Section 15 funds
     may prove practical.
                                100

-------
                           SECTION XI


                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Many people were Instrumental in the performance of this study.

The 11st of people 1n EPA regional offices and state agencies who
contributed their time and thought is too long for inclusion here,
Nevertheless, their efforts are acknowledged and appreciated.

Mr. Ralph G. Christensen of the Region V office who was Project
Officer and Mr. Joseph A. Krivak of the Division of Planning and
Interagency Programs, Water Quality Office Headquarters, both
provided support and assistance throughout the project.  Their
contribution is acknowledged with sincere thanks.

The field surveys were conducted by Dr. Allan H. Muir, Harold F. Wise
and H. Theodore Helntz, Jr.  Analysis of the basic information on
pollution problems was performed by Kurt Hecht and Lucy Wallace.
Overall project management and supervision were provided by Harold
F. Wise and Dr. Allan H. Muir
                                 101

-------
A STRATEGY FOR THE SECTION 15 PROGRAM
             SECTION XII

             APPENDICES
                 by
    Harold F.  Wise and Associates
         1771  N Street, NW
       Washington, D.  C.    20036
               for the

        WATER QUALITY OFFICE

   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


              May 1972

-------
                           SECTION XII

                           APPENDICES
                                                           Page No.

A.  Summaries of Indicative Pollution Problems                1.
    in the Great Lakes Basin

B.  Sample Questionnaire                                     165.

-------
                           APPENDIX A
           SUMMARIES OF INDICATIVE POLLUTION PROBLEMS
                    IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
                         Lake Superior
                         Lake Michigan
                         Lake Erie
                         Lake Ontario
Note:  Appendix A provides a summary of indicative pollution problems in
the Great Lakes area in tabular form.  Available information on both the
basins of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario was relatively comprehensive.   Scant
descriptions of the basins of Lake Superior and Lake Michigan as well as
some detailed area reports were the basis for information on these  lakes.
Due to a lack of information on Lake Huron, a summary of its pollution
problems was not tabulated.  The status of this lake is, however, briefly
discussed in the text of the report.

For each major pollution component (or cause) a table was established.  A
distinction was also made between the tributary - shore water area  and the
open lake water area.

The information collected in this appendix is not intended to be fully
complete or detailed.  It was used to establish the major pollution prob-
lem types and to indicate the types of gaps that exist in current remedial
activities.

-------
Lake Superior

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
General
St. Louis
River.


Causes and Magnitude
Causes
°Municipal and industrial waste water
discharges
°Condition aggrevated by hydroelectric
plants through intermittent flow
restrictions
Magnitude
°Serious in the lower portion of the St.
Louis River, the Duluth-Superior Harbor
and Montreal River
°Inadequate sewage treatment facilities
"Hydroelectric plants restrict flow volumes

Pollution Problem: Phosphorus
Causes
°Industrial and municipal wastewater
discharge; agricultural runoff
Magnitude
°Greatest concentration in Duluth Harbor,
Two Harbors, Grand Marais, St. Louis River
and Montreal River

-------
   Current Measures
      Standards
         Gaps
Dissolved Oxygen

°Michigan
  •Mmg/1

°Minnesota
  47mg/l  Oct.-May
  *5mg/l  Ju. -Sept,
"Wisconsin
  $ 5mg/l
                                                 Insufficient treat-
                                                 ment

                                                 Capacities; and
                                                 facilities

                                                 Combined sewers
phosphorus removal
facilites in Duluth
Harbor, Grand Marais
and Two Harbors
°Michigan
    no criteria
°Minnesota
    no criteria
0Wisconsin
    no criteria
°IJC
    no criteria
High detergent input

High agricultural
runoff

Sewage

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Nitrogen
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
    General
 Causes

 ""Industrial  & municipal  wastewater
  discharge;  agricultural  runoff

 Magnitude

 °Harbor areas more susceptible to effects
  of effluents - concentrated in Duluth-
  Superior Harbor,  Grand  Marais and Two
  Harbors
    General
   St. Louis
   River
 Pollution Problem:   Bacteria

 Causes

 °Municipal  & Industrial  sewage effluents

 °Combined sewers

 Magnitude

 °Most severe in St.  Louis River,  Duluth-
  Superior Harbor,  Ashland area, Montreal
  River
 'Severe contamination

-------
    Current Measures
       Standards
         Gaps
                         "Michigan
                           ^ 45mg/l at
                             intake
                         °Minnesota
                           Ł 45 mg/1 for
                             public water
                             use
                         °Wiscons in
                           > 45mg/l
                         °IJC
                             no criteria
                        Additional  nutrient
                        input but effect minor
                        uncertain relative to
                        phosphate inputs
°Michigan continues
 disinfection &
 separate sewer
 systems

°Minnesota continues"
 disinfection &
 separate sewer
 systems

°Wisconsin continues
 disinfection &
 separate sewer
 systems
°Chlorination
 capacity for storm
 overflow
°Michigan
 Fecal  coliform
   >100/100ml
 Total  coliform
   >1000/100ml
°Minnesota
 Fecal  coliform
    no criteria
 Total  coliform
 >50 MPN
°Wiscons in
 Fecal  coliform
    no criteria
 Total  coliform
 > 1000/100 ml
°IJC
 FC 5 200/100ml
 TC > 1000/100ml
Sewage plant overflows

Insufficient treatment

Lade of disinfection

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Area
General



5t. Louis
*iver

General


Causes and Magnitude
Causes

°From tributary inflow, erosion, runoff
°Dredging in Duluth & Ashland Harbors
Magnitude
"General 10 tons/mi 2/yr runoff
°Southern shore red clay area 380,000
°184,000
°184,000 tons/yr due to agricultural
°Taconite mining


tons/yr
runoff


Pollution Problem: Pesticides
Causes
°Agricultural runoff
Magnitude
°Not severe yet
°Beginning to concentrate in fish




-------
  Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Watershed planning

Replanting

Contour plowing
                                                Mining tailings
                                                aesthetics turbidity,
                                                destruction of bottom
                                                fauna high heavy metal
                                                input, enters into
                                                adjacent municipal
                                                water supply systems
                       DDT
                            .5ppm
                       DIELDRIN
                            .3ppm
                       in fish

-------
Lake
Water
Superior
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem    Dissolved Constituents
Area
General


Causes and Magnitude
Causes
I
""Principally from industrial wastewaters
Magnitude
°Generally concentrated in harbor areas
such as Ashland & Duluth-Superior

Pollution Problem: Oil, Grease, Phenols
Causes
Industrial, municipal discharges, discharges
from vessels
Magnitude
°Concentrated in harbor areas, especially
Duluth
                                 10

-------
  Current  Measures
Standards
Gaps
                        ""Michigan
                          * 200mg/l
                        °Minnesota
                          \ 500mg/l
                        °Wi scons in
                         > 750mg/l
                            200mg/l
State laws prohibit-
ing dumping of
refuse & garbage
from boats
                                                problematic in harbor
                                                areas
                             11

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Solid Disposals & Refuse
Area
General






General











Causes and Magnitude
Causes
"Discharge from watercraft
°Disposal in shore areas
Magnitude
°Concentrated in harbor areas

Pollution Problem: Other

"Mining Activities
- 151 mining operations in lake area
introduces taconite, sulphates, chlorides
& Generally ciscolers water
- especially severe on St. Louis River
°Radioacti vity : nuclear plants
- contamination water with radioactive
material
- produces thermal pollution
- not severe
0 pH Range
                                12

-------
  Current Measures
       Standards
Gaps
Closing of E.W.Davis
Works

Settlement ponds for
mining water
 States:

 B   Ł• 1000

-      3
S0
                               10
                        pH Range

                        Lake Superior States

                        6.5-8.8
                        IJC
                        6.7-8.5
                             13

-------
Lake                Superior
Water               Open Lake
Pollution Problem   Oxygen Depletion,  BOD,  COD
Area
General




Causes and Magnitude
°The lake itself is oligotrophic

Pollution Problem: Phosphorus
Causes
°Assimilated from polluted shore & tributary
waters
Magnitude
°Not severe concentration in lake
°No algal over production is cited

Pollution Problem: Nitrogen
No information
                                 14

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      Dissolved Oxygen

                      °Michigan
                       «6mg/l
                      °Minnesota
                       Ł7rog/l Oct.-May
                       «fc5mg/l Ju,-Sept,
                      °Wisconsin
                       1  mg/1
                      °Wiscons in
                         no criteria
                      °IJC
                         no criteria
                       Michigan
                         at intake
                      °Minnesota
                       145mg/l
                         for public water
                         use
                     (continued)
                            15

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Open Lake
Nitrogen
       Area
                  Causes and Magnitude
                     Pollution Problem:   Bacteria

                     Causes

                     °Discharge from commercial  vessels  (garbage
                      & refuse)

                     Magnitude

                     °Not severe in  lake body
                                16

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                       °Wiscons in
                        ;f 45mg/l
                       °IJC
                          no  criteria
                       °Michigan
                       Fecal  coliform
                        MOO/100ml
                       Total  coliform
                        ^100/100  ml
                       °Minnesota
                       Fecal  coliform
                          no  criteria
                       Total  criteria
                       >50MPN
                       °Wisconsin
                       Fecal  coliform
                          no  criteria
                       Total  coliform
                        ^1000/lOOml
                       °IJC
                       Fecal  coliform
                        >100/100ml
                       Total  coliform
                        * 1000/100ml
                            17

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Open Lake
Sediments
Area







Causes and Magnitude
No current problem

Pollution Problem: Pesticides
Detected but no major problem

Pollution Problem: Dissolved Constituents
Said to be very low

Pollution Problem: Oil, Grease, Phenols
Not significant at this time
Pollution Problem: Solid Disposals & Refuse
No information available
                                  18

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      "Michigan
                       4-200 mg/1
                      °Minnesota
                        *500 mg/1
                      °Wisconsin
                        Ł750 mg/1
                      °IJC
                        f 200 mg/1
                             19

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Superior
Open Lake
Other
       Area
                  Causes  and Magnitude
   Genera'
upH Range
                                 20

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      Lake Superior states
                        6.5 - 8.5

                      IJC
                        6.7 - 8.5

-------
Lake_
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
General









Little
Calumet
River
Grand
Calumet
Ri ve r





Causes and Magnitude
Causes
°Untreated municipal
Magnitude

and industrial waste

0 Severe in lower portions of Fox River,
Little and Grand Calumet Rivers, Indiana
Harbor Canal and Indiana Harbor
0 Occurs periodically
Grand River, Menoini
River & Harbor, St.
Southern portion of
° Municipal
Plants operate at 1
BOD in effluents
0 Municipal
combined sewers

0 Industrial
BOD & COD
mean
DO
in portions of the
nee River, Milwaukee
Joseph River, and
Green Bay.

/2 capacity.
5-10 mg/1




30-1100 mg/1
35 mg/1
7.6 mg/1
At river mouth, DO mean saturation - 90%
                                 22

-------
 Current Measures
      Standards
        Gaps
Milwaukee
Sewerage
Commi s s i on
Demonstration
Sewage plant
effl uent
chlorination

Facilities for
disinfection of
storm water over-
flow due by 1970.
Dissolved Oxygen

0 Illinois:
    industrial
 Jf. 2 mg/1
°Indiana
 J!3 mg/1
°Michigan
 *4 mg/1
"Wisconsin
 * 4 mg/1
°IJC
 4.6 rog/i
See Illinois
standard above
See Illinois
standard above
Untreated effluents

Insufficient treatment
(primary)

Combined storm sewers
No overflow capacity
Insufficient in-plant
treatment or lack of
interceptors
                              23

-------
Lake Michigan
      25

-------
Lake
Water
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem  Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
I.H.C.

Hammond
Plant
Intake

Wolf Lake


Causes and Magnitude
0 Combined sewers and plant effluent are
major polluters
BOD, 1969 mean 4.7 mg/1
COD, 1969 mean 22 mg/1
DO, 1969 mean 6.8 mg/1
0 Municipal
Plants operating 10% above capacity
BOD average 40 mg/1
DO, 1969 mean 10 mg/1
0 Industrial
Recently installed facilities
have reduced BOD load.
                                 26

-------
 Current Measures
     Standards
        Gaps
Various facilities
under construction
See Indiana
standard above
Combined sewers

No storm water
storage capacity
                        See Indiana
                        standard above
Installation of
waste facilities
See Illinois
standard above
                              27

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Phosphorus
       Area
                   Causes  and Magnitude
   General
   Grand
   Calumet
   River
   East
   Chicago
   Sanitary
   District
 Causes

 0 2/3 of total  phosphates come from
   untreated municipal  and industrial  wastes,
   Approximately           15 Mill.  Ibs/yr.

 ° 1/3 of total  phosphates come from
   agricultural  run off.

 Magnitude

 0 Problem with  overproduction of algae
   which washes  up on  beaches and serves as
   breeding ground for flies.

 0 Severe on Fox,  Little  and
   Grand Calumet Rivers,  Kalamazoo River,
   St.  Joseph River, lower Green Bay,  and
   Indiana Harbor.
   Municipal  and industrial  effluents
   1969 Mean                        .053 mg/1
   Waste treatment by chlorination
   ineffective with increased ammonia inputs.
                                 23

-------
 Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                        Illinois shore area
                          }.04 mg/l/day

                        Indiana shore area
                          :k04 mg/1/day
                                                High uses of phosphate
                                                detergents
                                                No phosphate removal
                                                capabilities
                  Algae clutter beaches
                  and render them
                  unusable for recrea-
                  tion
                        Illinois:  Calumet
                        & Chicago Area
                          >.1 mg/l/day
Storm water demon-
stration project:
Deepwater detention
Lagoon.

Guggenheim advanced
treatment plant
                  Advanced treatment
                  facilities needed to
                  meet standards.
                             29

-------
Lake_
Hater
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Phosphorus
       Area
                   Causes  and Magnitude
   Indiana
   Harbor
   Canal
   Hammond
   Plant
   Intake
   Phosphate level
   1969 mean
 0 Phosphate level
   1969 mean
.23 mg/1
.05 mg/1
                                  30

-------
 Current Measures
     Standards
        Gaps
Phosphate removal
facilities to remove
80% of phosphates
to be ready by 1972.
Annual average
 ^ .016 mg/1
Daily average
 4 .033 mg/1
                        Annual average
                         * .016 mg/1
                        Daily average
                         Ł .033 mg/1
Frequent violation of
time.
                        Quality standard not
                        met.
                             31

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters
Nitrogen
& Tributaries
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
  Grand
  Calumet
  Ri ve r
   Ammonia nitrogen 1969 mean .1  mg/1
   Indiana
   Harbor
   Canal
 0  Ammonia nitrogen  1969 mean 2.2 mg/1
 0  Organic nitrogen  1969 mean  .4 mg/1
  Hammond
  Plant
  Intake
   Ammonia  nitrogen  1969 mean  .12 mg/1
                                 32

-------
 Current Measures
     Standards
        Gaps
No information on
current status
                        0 Michigan
                          H5 mg/1  at
                            intake

                        0 Wisconsin
                           Ł45 mg/1/day
Annual average
 ^.05 mg/1
Daily average
 5-12 mg/1
                        Annual  average
                        Ł1.0 mg/1
                        Daily average
                        Ł1.5 mg/1
                        Annual  average
                         Ł.05  mg/1
                        Daily average
                        * .12  mg/1
Violated 75% of time.
                        Violated 80% of time.
                        Violated 55% of time.
                             33

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters
Bacteria
& Tributaries
       Area
                  Causes  and  Magnitude
   General
 Causes

 0 Municipal  and industrial  waste  discharge.
 0 Combined sewers'  overflow.
                     Magnitude

                     0 Severe in lower portions of the Fox River,
                       St. Joseph River, Milwaukee River, Grand
                       River and Calumet area.
                     0 Has restricted or eliminated beach uses
                       near major urban/industrial areas.
                                34

-------
Current Measures
    Standards
        Gaps
 Illinois
 Continuous disin-
 fection of sewage
 effluents.

 Indiana
 Continuous disin-
 fection of sewage
 effluents.

 Michigan
 Continuous disin-
 fection of sewage
 effluents.

 Wisconsin
 Continuous disin-
 fection of sewage
 effluents.
Illinois
Fecal coliform
 *> 20/100 ml
Total coliform
no criteria.

Indiana
Fecal coliform
 > 200/100 ml
Total coliform
no criteria.

Michigan
Fecal coliform
 >100/100 ml
Total coliform
 >1000/100 ml

Wisconsin
Fecal coliform
No criteria
Total coliform
 J> 1000/100 nil

IJC
Fecal coliform
 ^200/100 ml
Total coliform
 ^1000/100 ml
Insufficient sewage
treatment

Insufficient capacity

Combined sewers

Chiorination not
consistent
                            35

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Bacteria
       Area
                  Causes and Magnitude
   Indiana
   Harbor
   Canal
   Hammond
   Plant
   Intake
   Grand
   Calumet
   Ri ver
0 Coliform Bacteria
  1969  Mean
0 Fecal Streptococci
  1969  Mean
0 Col i form Bacteria
  1969  Mean
0 Fecal  Streptococci
  1969  Mean
0 Col i form Bacteria
  1969  Mean
0 Fecal  Streptococci
  1969  Mean
32/100 ml

1700/100 ml




2282/100 ml

52/100 ml




125/100 ml

11/100 ml
                                 36

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                       Calumet Conference:
                       C.B.
                       Annual Average
                         •Ł2000/100 ml
                       Daily Average
                         Ł5000/100 ml

                       F.S.
                       Daily Average
                         Ł100/100 ml
                   Violated 75% of time

                   Violated 65% of time



                   Violated 5% of time

                   Violated 5% of time



                   No  Violations

                   No  Violations
                            37

-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pesticides
       Area
                  Causes  and Magnitude
   General
Causes

0 Runoff in agricultural  areas
0 Soil erosion

Magnitude

0 Severe in Green Bay watershed, SE
  portion of Michigan watershed and NE
  shore between Manistee  and Traverse
  City, Michigan.
                                38

-------
 Current Measures
     Standards
                    Gaps
None
DDT

Dieldrin
.5ppm

.3ppm
                                                High levels  tn  portion
                                                of watersheds
                             39

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Sediments
Area
General






Grand
Calumet
River
Hammond
Plant
Intake
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Agricultural Runoff
0 Dredging in harbor areas
0 Urban runoff
Magnitude
0 U.S. Corps of Engineers, harbor dredging
approximately 1 1/2 Mill yds^/yr.
0 Suspended solids
1969 Mean 187 mg/1

0 Suspended solids in sewage, plant
discharge >40 mg/1

0 Suspen-ded solids
1969 Mean 19 mg/1

                                40

-------
 Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Some soil conserva-
tion measures
Disposal in dyked
areas
Alternate disposal
areas for Indiana
Harbor, Calumet
Harbor and Green Bay
Harbor.
                                                Dumping in lake
                        Annual average
                           ^ 190 mg/1
                        Daily average
                          25 230 mg/1
                   Difficulty of locating
                   areas  suitable for
                   dyking and disposal
                   Possibly  inappropriate

                   Violated  8%  of the
                   time.'
                   Agricultural  drainage
                   practices
                   (stream channelization
                    high speed  runoff;
                    lack of  vegetation
                    for water retention)
                             41

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dissolved Constituents
       Area
                  Causes and Magnitude
  General
Causes

0  Principle source is industrial  wastewater
   effluents.

Magnitude

0  Severe in Calumet Area,  Milwaukee
   Harbor, South End of Green  Bay
0  Increase in  organic chemicals,  ammonia,
   suspended matter, alkaline  matter,
   chlorides and sulfates.
  Grand
  Calumet
  River
   Dissolved solids,  mean
194 mg/1
                               42

-------
 Current Measures
      Standards
        Gaps
No information
0  Illinois
     >170 mg/1


0  Indiana
     $200 mg/1

0  Michigan
     >200 mg/1

0  Wisconsin
     }>500 mg/1

0  IJC
    }>200 mg/1

Max.  230 mg/1
Min.  190 mg/1
Lack of precipitation
facilities
                                                Inforcement
                                                No  info  on  percentage
                                                of  violations
                             43

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dissolved Constituents
       Area
                  Causes and Magnitude
  Hammond
  Plant
  Intake
0 Filterable Residue
  1969 Mean

0 Dissolved Iron
  1969 Mean

0 Sulfates
  1969 Mean

0 Flourides
  1969 Mean

0 Chlorides
  1969 Mean
26.3 mg/1


  .095 mg/1


 5.7 mg/1


  .29 mg/1


10.2 mg/1
                                44

-------
Current Measures
      Standards
        Gaps
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily  Ave.
Annual Ave.
Daily Ave.
                                   Ł 190
                                   * 230
                                   ^, .15
                                   -? .30
                                   ^ 36
                                   *-  75
                                   •Ł• 1.0
                                      18
                                      30
No violations.
Violation 16% of the
time.
No violations.
No violations.
No violations.
                            45

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
 Michigan
 Shore Waters & Tributaries
 Dissolved Constituents
       Area
                    Causes  and Magnitude
  Indiana
  Harbor
  Canal
0  Filterable residue

0  Dissolved Iron
   1969 Mean

°  Sulfates
   1969 Mean

0  Flourides
                    °   Chlorides
                       1969  Mean
                                                       .17 mg/1


                                                        32 mg/1
                                    28 mg/1
                                46

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      Daily Ave.   Ł 275
                  8% violation
                      Annual Ave.
                      Daily Ave.

                      Annual Ave.
                      Daily Ave.

                      Annual Ave.

                      Daily Ave.

                      Annual Ave.
                      Daily Ave.
          0.15
          0.3

          60
          75
        1,0 mg/1
        Ł 1.3

       * 25
       Ł  35
                            47

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters
Oil, Grease,
& Tributaries
Phenols
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
   General
   Grand
   Calumet
   River
   Indiana
   Harbor
   Canal
  Hammond
  Plant
  Intake
Causes
0 Industrial  effluents
0 Municipal  Sewage
0 Oil  Spills
0 Watercraft
                    Magnitude

                    0  Severe in
                       Mi Iwaukee
             harbor areas,
             and Gary.
              such as Chicago,
   Phenol  substances
   1969 Mean
   Oil  and Grease
   1969 Mean
   Phenol  substances
   1969 Mean
                     .015 mg/1

                     4.6 mg/1




                     .003 mg/1
                                48

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                                               Insufficient
                                              enforcement

                                              Lack of removal
                                              facilities from
                                              municipal sewage.
                      Annual Average
                         Ł .005 mg/1
                      Daily Average
                        <Ł  0.1 mg/1
                      Annual  Average
                         * .002 mg/1
                      Daily Average
                        ^  .005 mg/1
                 Violated 72% of the
                 time.
                 Violated 24% of the
                 ti me ..
                           49

-------
Lake
Water
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem   Solid Disposal & Floating Refuse
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
  General
Causes

0  Refuse and garbage discharge from vyatercraft;
   industrial discharge

Magni tude

0  Contaminates beach areas and navigation
   areas
0  Contributes to bacterial pollution
                               50

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                                              Lack  of Enforcement
                                              Difficult  to enforce
                           51

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Others
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
0 Alewifes
Alewifes are overproducing, taking food from
other fish and dying off in large numbers,
contaminating beaches and harbor areas.
0 Radioactivity
Potential threat with discharge from
nuclear plants.
0 Thermal pollution
Potential problem with water cooling
systems for nuclear plants.
0 Ph range

                                52

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                                    1000
                      <*         *-     3
                      Strontium 90     10
                      Lake  Michigan
                      states
                      6.5-8.5

                      IJC
                      6.7-8.5
                                              General  ecological
                                              imbalance  of lake
                                              waters
                 No current problem
                                              Local effects
                 High local variations

                 Lack of neutralization
                 Lack of compliance
                           53

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Open Lake
Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
  General
Causes
                       Phosphates - algal overproduction
                       Municipal & industrial BOD/COD inputs
                       Discharge from vessels - requirements
                       for on-board retention facilities
                    Magnitude

                    0  Not a severe problem in the lake itself
                               54

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      Dissolved Oxygen

                      0  Illinois
                        4 5 mg/1
                      0  Indiana
                        { 4 mg/1
                      0  Michigan
                        4 6 mg/1
                      0  Wisconsin
                        4- 5 mg/1
                      0  IJC
                        { 6 mg/1
                 High phosphate/
                 nutrient input
                           55

-------
Lake                Michigan
Water               Open Lake
Pollution Problem   Phosphorus
Area
General





Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Assimilated from polluted shore and
tributary inflow
Magnitude
0 Overproduction of algae in open lake
waters
                               56

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      0  Illinois
                        > .04  mg/l/day
                      0  Indiana
                        >.04  mg/l/day

                      no criteria  for
                        Michigan and
                        Wisconsin
                           57

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
     Lake Michigan
     Open Lake
     Nitrogen
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
  General
No information available
                               58

-------
 Current Measures
      Standards
         Gaps
None
 Illinois
 total N
 >.4 mg/1
 Indiana

 Michigan
>45 mg/1
   i ntake
 Wisconsin
  45 mg/1
Currently no serious
problem
                                  at
                            59

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
     Lake Michigan
     Open Lake
     Bacteria
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
  General
Causes

0 discharge from commercial vessels
  (garbage, refuse)
                    Magnitude

                    0 not severe on open lake
                               60

-------
 Current Measures
       Standards
         Gaps
On-board sewage
retention and/or
treatment required
0 Illinois
  Fecal  coliform:
 Ł20/100 ml
  Total  coliform:
   no criteria
0 Indiana
  Fecal  coliform
 Ł20/100 ml
  Total  coliform
   no criteria
0 Michigan
  Fecal  coliform:
 Ł100/100 ml
  Total  col i form
 Ł1000/100 ml
0 Wisconsin
  Fecal  coliform:
    no criteria
  Total  coliform:
 >1000/100 ml
0 IJC
  Fecal  coliform:
 >100/-100 ml
  Total  coli form
 >1000/100 ml
No current problem
                             61

-------
Lake                Michigan
Water               Open  Lake
Pollution Problem   Sediments
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Dredged materials dumped in lake
Magnitude
No information available
                               62

-------
 Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Disposal  in dyked
areas
                            63

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Open Lake
Pes ti ci des
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
  General
Traces detected
                               64

-------
 Current Measures
      Standards
                  Gaps
None
DDT
Dieldrin.,
in fish
.5ppm
.Sppra
                            65

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Open Lake
Dissolved Constituents
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
   General
Causes

0 Assimilated from shore and tributary
  inflow
                    Magnitude

                    0 Average concentration of dissolved
                      constituents increasing in main body
                      of lake
                               66

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      '  Illinois
                      >170 mg/1
                      1  Indiana
                       ±200 mg/1
                      '  Michigan
                       Ł200 mg/1
                      '  Wisconsin
                       ^500 mg/1
                      '  IJC
                       ^200 mg/1
                 No severe problem
                 although effects of
                 specific toxins are
                 not known.
                           67

-------
Lake
Water
Michigan
Open Lake
Pollution Problem   Oil, Grease, Phenols
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 commercial vessels
0 oil spill
Magnitudes
0 not severe in open lake waters
                               68

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                           69

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Open Lake
Solid Disposal & Floating Refuse
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 garbage and refuse from watercraft
Magnitude
0 no information available
                               70

-------
 Current Measures
      Standards
         Gaps
None
No information
Interferes with
boating
                            71

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Michigan
Open Lake
Other
Area
General
Causes and Magnitude
0 Alewife
See .tributaries and shore waters
0 Radioactivity
Not a problem lake-wide
0 Thermal Pollution
See shore waters and tributaries
0 Ph range
                                72

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      Lake  Michigan
                        States:
                        6.5-8.5
                      IJC:
                        6.7-8.5
                           73

-------
Lake Erie
    75

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
Area
General
















Causes and Magnitude
Causes
I
°Combined or combined-separated sewers (approx.
90%); no sewage facilities
°Inadequate sewer system - bypassing of plants
°Storm overflows
Magnitude
°705,000 people produce 183,000 Ibs. raw
bods/day. About 80% of sewage plants provide
secondary treatment, reducing total bod5 to
approx. 25,000 Ibs. /day.
0 Inputs vary along the tributaries. An
estimated 75% of the tributaries receive
sufficient waste to reach less than 4 mg/1
do 50% of the time.
°Input to Lake Erie at Toledo: 0-1.0 mg/1 do
40-100% of the time.
°Total input at Toledo: 40,000 Ibs/day bod (1968)
                                 76

-------
  Current Measures
      Standards
Gaps
 Total  of 45 sewage
 facilities in basin

 36 secondary bio-
 logical  treatment

 5 oxydation lagoons

 2 intermediate
   treatment

 2 primary treatment

11 minor treatment
Dissolved Oxygen

°0hio
 4  5 mg/1  daily
 4.  4 mg/1  at any time
                              77

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
    Erie
    Shore Waters & Tributaries
    Oxygen Depletion, BOD,COD
       Area
                    Causes  and Magnitude
   Maumee River
       &
   Toledo
The Maumee-Basin-Todedo complex is  the third
largest contributor of U.S.  municipal  wastes
to Lake Erie - 3.5% (Detroit 65%,  Cleveland
9.0%)

Causes
                   °Pulp, food processing waste, reducing
                    chemicals, sewage

                   Magnitude

                   °Minimum BOD contribution (1966) 15,000 Ibs/day

                   °Minimum COD contribution (1966) 12,000 Ibs/day

                   °Total in basin                  27,000 Ibs/day

                   °Total sub-basin BOD,COD production

                        - 15% of total basin production or
                          approximately 190,000 Ibs/day = 32,000 tons/yr

                   °Total estimated input at Toledo:   50,000 - 100,000
                    Ibs/day

                        - BOD/COD or approximately 9,000-18,000 tons/yr
                                                              •
                   °Blanchard River is anaerobic in stretches
                                 78

-------
 Current Measures
      Standards
         Gaps
Industrial waste
treatment being in.
stituted
Dissolved Oxygen

°0hio
 X- 5 mg/1 daily
 <=P- 4 mg/1 at any-
    time
Effluents do not meet
general  standards

Lack of in-plant BOD
and COD removal
facilities

Possible lack of re-
cycling facilities

Aeration settling
lagoons
                              79

-------
Lake
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Water
Pollution Problem   Oxygen  Depletion,  BOD,COD
Area
Southeast
Michigan
Area
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
°Municipal, industrial, storm sewer overflow,
insufficient treatment
°Lake St. Claire heavily polluted through
storm sewer overflow, especially Clinton
River
°City of Detroit mostly primary treatment
°Daper mills, Raisin River
Magnitude
°Detroit & Wayne Co. discharge more BOD than
Lake Erie could assimilate
°City of Detroit plant contributes 95% of
municipal waste to Detroit River
°Area contributes 60% of total BOD of entire
basin, or approximately 100,000 tons/yr
°Pulp input, Raisin River, of 225,000 popula-
tion, equivalent BOD or 6,700 tons/yr

                                 80

-------
  Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Basically primary
treatment

Sewer extention &
interceptor program
proposed (1968)
                 Storm sewer overflows

                 Lack of secondary
                 treatment

                 Direct discharges from
                 paper mills
                        Dissolved Oxygen

                        0 Michigan
                         Jfi 5 mg/1 daily
                  Lack  of  sufficient
                  treatment  facilities
                             mg/1
                           time
    at  any-
                               81

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
      Erie
      Shore Waters & Tributaries
      Oxygen Depletion, BOD,  COD
       Area
                    Causes  and Magnitude
 Cleveland-
 Akron Area
Causes
                   °Municipal and industrial

                   Magnitude
                   °BOD/COD output second to Detroit - all
                    bathing beaches (except Huntington)
                    polluted

                   °Rivers locally chocked with rotting  organic
                    masses

                   °Input of 11.0% of total lake BOD - 110,000
                    tons/yr

                   °Lower Cuyahogh River - virtually a waste
                    treatment lagoon, very high BOD - inadequate
                    treatment of Cleveland southerly plant  &
                    storm overflows

                   °Rocky River - few inadequate plants; no
                    area wide system, foul, interferes with
                    recreational park uses

                   °Cleveland Lakefront - constant overflow of
                    raw sewage even in dry weather, floating
                    BOD material, debris, etc.
                                82

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                                              Lack of treatment
                                              capacity

                                              Lack of storm overflow
                                              capacity

                                              No disinfection

                                              No areawide sewer
                                              system
                                              Lack of capacity - even
                                              primary
                             83

-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oxygen Depletion, BOD,COD
       Area
                    Causes  and Magnitude
  Pennsylvania
Causes

°Papermill  wastes  extend for 10 miles  4
 foam, odor, discoloration,  BOD - requires
 excessive  treatment to Erie's  raw water
 supply
  New York
                   °Buffalo River
                    municipal and
                    Zero oxygen
               - resembles  holding basin for
               industrial  sewage & wastes.
             and almost sterile
                    'Cattaraugus Creek - similar conditions
                    beaches - rocky but covered with algae
                                84

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      Dissolved Oxygen
                      0 Pennsylvania
                        «& 6 mg/1 daily
                        «Ł. 5 mg/1 at any-
                           time
                  Lack of Settling
                  basins, areation-
                  treatment
                      Dissolved Oxygen

                      °New York
                        -Ł4 mg/1 at any-
                          ti me
                  Absence  of effluent
                  treatment

                  No Phosphorus  removal
                             85

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
      Erie
      Shore Waters & Tributaries
      Phosphates
       Area
                   Causes  and  Magnitude
  Maumee Basin
       &
  Toledo
  SouthEast
  Mi chi gan
Causes
°Municipal (sewage, detergents)

Industrial (detergents, chemical  wastes)

°Urban (runoff)

°Agricultural  (primarily fertilizers)

Magnitude

Municipal (2)  10,000 lbs/day=l,750 tons/yr

Industrial (2) 1,000 lbs/day=  750 tons/yr

Urban (2)      1,000 lbs/day=  750 tons/yr

Agricult. (1)  10,000 1bs/day=2,000 tons/yr

Total  Maumee Basin Input     6,050 tons/yr


Causes
                    'Primarily municipal  Detroit sewage plant -
                     largest  source  in  Lake Erie
                    Magnitude
                    Municipal
                    Industrial
                    Urban
                    Rural
                    Total
                           7,800 tons/yr
                             510 tons/yr
                             510 tons/yr
                             510 tons/yr
                           9,500 tons/yr
                    Other  Estimates  (4)   Detroit  River  17,500 tons/yr
                                         Rural  Runoff     500 tons/yr
                                86

-------
   Current  Measures
       Standards
         Gaps
None

None

None

Some soil conserva-
tion measures
°0hio
     no criteria
°IJC
     no criteria
°Lake Erie
 Agreement
    .025 mg/1
High inputs vs
desirable assimilation
capacity

Municipal:   no treat-
ment facilities
High use of phosphate
detergents

Industrial:  possible
lack of sufficient
precipitation facilities
Use of phosphate
detergents
None
°Michigan
    no criteria
°IJC
    no criteria
°Lake Erie
 Agreement
    .025 mg/1
Lack of removal
facilities
                               87

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
      Erie
      Shore Waters.& Tributaries
      Phosphates
       Area
                    Causes  and Magnitude
  Cleveland
  Akron  Area
Contributes 18.6% of total  Lake Erie input
  New  York
Buffalo River - high concentrations resulting
in heavy mats of plants  and algae
                                 88

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      °0hio
                          no specific
                          criteria;
                          water must be
                          free from dis-
                          charges causing
                          a "nuisance".

                      °Pennsylvania
                        ^.1 mg/1

                      °IJC
                          none

                      °Lake Erie
                       Agreement
                          .025 mg/1

                      °New York
                          no criteria

                      °IJC
                          none

                      °Lake Erie
                       Agreement
                          .025 mg/1
                  Too high phosphate
                  input.  Lack of
                  removal facilities
                             89

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem  Nitrogen
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
  Maumee
  Basin
  Southeast
  Michigan,
  Detroit
Causes

°Municipal  Sewage

°Industrial Waste (ammonia, nitrate, urea,
 polymeres, others)

0Agriculture (organic nitrogen, nitrate)

Magnitudes
                   °Municipal

                   0 Industrial
                      Total, Min

                   °Agricultural
                      Organic
                      Nitrate
                     Minimum Total
Causes
                         No Data


                         6,200 Ibs/day = 1,100 tons/yr

                                           500 tons/yr

                                        11,700 tons/yr
                                        13,300 tons/yr
°Municipal, rural runoff, some industry

Magnitude

0Detroit sewage plant                  120,000 tons/yr

°Michigan Runoff                         1,000 tons/yr
                                 90

-------
  Current Measures
      Standards
                                 Gaps
None

Possible 'some
precipitation

Some soil conserva-
tion measures
0 Michigan
    45 mg/1
            at
    intake;  or
    limited  to
    extent necessary
    to prevent
    adverse  effects
                         'IJC
                            no criteria
High inorganic inputs
resulting in P^
changes, toxic, & non-
decay able organic
components.

Lack of neutralization
precipitation

Nitrogen appears to
be less critical an
input than phosphates
will also equilibriate
with atmosphere.
None
3Michigan
 } 45  mg/1  at in-
    take;  or limited
    to  extent
    necessary to
    prevent  adverse
    effects
                        'IJC
                            no criteria
                              91

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem   Nitrogen
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
       Area
                    Causes  and  Magnitude
  Cleveland  -
  Akron  Area
Cuyahoga River - ammonia discharges
                                92

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      °0hio
                          "free from sub-
                           stances which
                           are toxic or
                           harmful" and
                           "free from
                           materials
                           which create a
                           nuisance"
                      "Pennsylvania
                           free from "ma-
                           terials that
                           are harmful,
                           produce color,
                           taste or odor".
                  Lack  of neutraliza-
                  tion  of ammonia
                  input
                            93

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Bacteria
Area
Maumee
River
Basin


















Causes and Magnitude
Causes

°Sewage
Magnitude
°Total Col i form -




the Maumee River & Tributary
Reservoir are heavily polluted. About 80%
of the monitored
rivers carry a median of
more than 100/100 ml. total col i form.
°In about one quarter of the stretches, con-
centrations are
°Input at Toledo
10,000/100 ml.
0 Fecal Col i form


°Streptococci




"Salmonella
about 10,000/100 ml
at a concentration of above

50% of stretches 0-500/100 ml.
15% of stretches 10.000+/100 ml.
at Toledo, input 10.000+/100 ml.
15% 0-500/100 ml
15% 500-1 ,000/
40% 1, 000-5 ,000/
30% 5,000+
at Toledo, input 5,000/100 ml.
present
                                94

-------
  Current Measures
      Standards
        Gaps
None
Total

°Michigan
  }> 1000/100 ml
°IJC
  HOOO/100 ml
                        Fecal

                        0 Michigan
                           ^100/100 ml
                        °IJC
                          Ł200/100 ml


                        no information


                        no information
Lack of disinfection

Insufficient treatment
capacity
                        Lack of disinfection
                        Lack of advanced
                        treatment
                              95

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters
Bacteria
& Tributaries
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
  Southeast
  Mi chi gan
Causes
                   °Sewage

                   Magnitude
                   °East Detroit River,  Canada, some
                    tion.  Detroit River below Rouge
  Cleveland-
  Akron  Area
                    hazardous.   Counts  run as high
Rivers & lake fronts very high
                                  contamina-
                                  River is
                                as 1 mill/100 ml
                                 96

-------
  Current Measures
      Standards
         Gaps
None
0 Michigan
  4-1000/100
                                     ml
                        °IJC
                          ^1000/100 ml
Lack of treatment
capacity'
                        °0hio
                            no
                        No  disinfection
       criteria
0 Pennsylvania
  ^1000/100 ml
                              97

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem  Sediments
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
 Maumee Basin
Causes
                    'Agriculture - drainage practices intensive
                                  culture

                   0Urban - runoff development, highway con-
                            struction

                    Industrial Mining

                   Magnitude
                   Maumee has highest sediment discharge of
                   any river in the Erie Basin (3).  It also
                   carries the finest sediments carried over
                   large areas of the lake.

                    'Average suspended sediment load (3) approx-
                    imately 2 million tons/yr

                    'Agriculture - major contributor

                    'Urban site development & Highway construction
                    high local contributions

                    'Industrial - no information
                                 98

-------
  Current Measures
       Standards
         Gaps
Some soil conserva-
tion measures

None
None
No information on
State, Federal or
International
level
Turbidity
                        None

                        None
Rapid filling of
dredged channels

Destruction of spawn-
ing beds

Destruction of bottom
fauna.

Reduction of light
penetrati on

Lack of runoff
control

(2) Urban development
construction

(3) Highway construc-
tion

(1) Agricultural
drainage & channeliza-
tion

Appropriate agricul-
tural practices
                               99

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem  Sediments
Erie
Shore Water & Tributaries
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
 Southeast
 Michigan Area,
 Detroit
 Cleveland-
 Akron Area
Causes
 Industrial, municipal, dredging

Magnitude
                    'Detroit River suspended solids (3) 45,000
                    tons/yr (industrial  & municipal)
Cleveland Lakefront - suspended solids
(organics)

Rocky River - interference with water uses  - from
subdivision & highway construction
                               100

-------
  Current Measures
      Standards
         Gaps
None
No information on
State, Federal or
International
Level
Ordinances lacking
or not enforced

Ohio State Highway
Department requires
now prevention, con-
trol , abatement of
erosion during
construction
No information on
State, Federal or
International Level
Lack of municipal
treatment capacity

Lack of industrial
removal.
Lack of runoff pre-
vention
                             101

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem  Pesticides
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
       Area
                    Causes  and Magnitude
 Maumee River
 Basin
 Southeast
 Michigan Area
Causes
                   °Agricultural practices

                   Magnitude
                    'Problem recognized as dangerous to aquatic
                    life & water users.

                    'No quantitative information
Present, but no quantitative data available
                                102

-------
   Current Measures
       Standards
                  Gaps
None
No information
Ohio standards
on
Agricultural  practices
and runoff use of
persistent pesticides
                        No information
                        on Michigan
                        standards
                             103

-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem   Dredged Material
       Area
                    Causes  and  Magnitude
  Maumee  River
  Baisn
  Southeast
  Michigan Area
Causes
                    °Harbor dredging

                    Magnitude
"Approximately 1  mill  c.  yds/yr from Maumee
 River discharges into diked areas or open
 waters

Causes
                    °Harbor  dredging

                    Magni tude
                    'Raisin  River has high input of settleable
                     organic solids, dredged annually

                    'Grand Haven Harbor  - highly polluted dark
                     sludge               100,000 yds3/yr
                                 104

-------
  Current Measures
       Standards
         Gaps
Discharge to diked
areas.
Regulations now
require disposal
in diked areas
None
Open discharges
to be discontinued
High sediment loads

Toxic sediments dug to
industrial & municipal
wastes

Destruction of marshes
and bottom fauna
Discharge in lake
filling of marshes
                                105

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
      Erie
      Shore Waters & Tributaries
      Phenols, Oil, Grease
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
 Maumee River
 Basin
  Southeast
  Michigan Area,
  Detroit
  New  York
Causes
                    'Industrial discharges & spills

                   Magnitude
                   °In approximately 80% of monitored rivers
                    phenol concentrations are above 2 nricrogms/1
                    and in stretches higher than 20 microgms/1
                    at Toledo the mean lies between G-20 microgms/1

                    'Oils are present
St. Clair River shows elevated phenol counts
stemming from Canadian refineries

City of Detroit sewage plant discharges oil and
phenol
Buffalo River - oils, phenols under very
sluggish flow conditions

Oils from Pennsylvania R.R. shops enter via
Buffalo Creek
                                   106

-------
  Current Measures
      Standards
         Gaps
No information
No information
°0hio
   no criteria
°LJC
 *>.001  mg/1
0 Michigan
  Ł.005 mg/1
°IJC
  ^.001 mg/1
                        °New York
                          ^.005 mg/1
                        °IJC
                          >.001 mg/1
                                                Lack  of  phenol removal

                                                Lack  of  enforcement
Lack of urban disposal
facilities or disposal
enforcement
                        Lack  of  enforcement
                                 107

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dissolved Constituents
       Area
                    Causes  and Magnitude
  Maumee  River
  Basin
  Southeast
  Michigan  Area
  Detroit
Causes
                   °Primarily industrial inputs including
                    solids, mercury, zinc, cyanid, others

                   Magnitude
                    'Solids, approximately measured
                    336,620 Ibs/day

                    'Dissolved salts, metals, min. of
                    18 Ibs/day

                    'Cyanide
                    38 Ibs/day
Information scattered

°Chlorides - area applies 51% of total lake
 input       Detroit River 3.3 mill tons/yr
             Rest Michigan 4500 tons/yr

°Iron - Lake St. Clair & upper Detroit River
320-690 mg/1 probably of natural origin.

"Cyanide - Raisin River, Ford Company
1000 Ibs/day
                                     108

-------
   Current Measures
       Standards
         Gaps
 Industrial removal
 facilities are said
 to be put in effect
°0hio
 4> 500 mg/1
    monthly average
°IJC
  ^200 mg/1
Lack of removal  of
settlement filtration
precipitation separa-
tion and/or washing
                        "Michigan
                                mg/1
Apparently being
reduced
                        0 Michigan
                            no criteria
 IJC
    .3  mg/1
                                    109

-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Shore Waters  & Tributaries
Pollution Problem  Dissolved Constituents
Area
Northeast
Ohio Area




New York

Causes and Magnitude
Severe chemical pollution in Grand and
Ashtabula Rivers and along lake shore J
Locally waters are green, yellow, white, brown.
°Grand River dissolved solids 3,000 tons/day
°Ashtabula dissolved solids, milky white,
brown
Buffalo River - iron, organic compounds,
other metals/sacts
                                      no

-------
  Current Measures
       Standards
         Gaps
No information
°0hio
  ^750 mg/1  at
    anytime
°IJC
  ^200 mg/1
                        °New York
                            no criteria
                            available
                        °IJC
                          i.200 mg/1
Lack of removal  of
solids

Lack of neutralization
precipitation

Lack of enforcement
                        Lack of enforcement
                             111

-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem  Other
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
  General
upH range particularly severe  in  Buffalo
 River
                                112

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      pH Range

                      0Michigan
                         6.5-8.8
                      °New York
                         6.5-8.8
                      °0hio
                         6.0-8.8
                      Pennsylvania
                         7.0-9.0
                      °IJC
                         6.7-8.5
                 Lack of neutralization
                 and/or precipitation
                           113

-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Open Lake
Pollution Problem  Oxygen Depletion, BOD,COD
Area
General



















Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Municipal, industrial sewage/nutrient
inputs.
0 Vessel wastes
0 Agricultural runoff
Magnitude
0 Total municipal and industrial
BOD load 430,000 t/yr
0 Epilymnion stays oxygenated usually
through atmospheric interchange, despite
heavy algal growth and decay.
0 Hypolymnion: severe oxygen depletion
in summer; 70% of bottom waters near
zero. Eastern basin usually stays above
50% saturation.
0 Contribution of BOD from commercial
traffic 210 Ibs/day
from pleasure boats 1000 Ibs/day
0 Oxygen depletion and other pollutants
may contribute to annual alewife deaths
                                114

-------
  Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
                        Dissolved Oxygen

                        0 Michigan
                         -fc-5 mg/1 daily
                          i.4 mg/1 at any-
                           time

                        0 New York
                         •^5 mg/1 at any-
                           time

                        0 Ohio
                          *-5 mg/1 dai ly
                         4>4 mg/1 at any-
                           time

                        0 Pennsylvania
                         •f-6 mg/1 dai ly
                          4-5 mg/1 at any-
                           time
                 Severe eutrophic bottom
                 conditions  in summer.
                 Provision and enforce-
                 ment of vessel dis-
                 charges.

                 Faunal imbalance
                              115

-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Phosphorus
Area
General























Causes and
Causes
0 Municipal sewage, detergents.
sources, agricultural runoff.
Magnitude
0 Total input, 1970
Retention, 94%
Municipal
Industrial
Urban runoff
Rural runoff
0 Average concentration
Western basin
Central basin
Eastern basin
° Surface
Magnitude

i
industrial


27,500 t/yr
23,000 t/yr
18,500 t/yr
2,500 t/yr
1 ,500 t/yr
5,000 t/yr

50 mg/1
30 mg/1
20 mg/1
1 . 1 g/m2/yr
0 Near shore phosphate concentrations
may be double or triple lake
values.
Average Seasonal Concentrations (ug/1)
Season Maumee South
Bay Nearshore
Winter 110 150
Spring 25 50
Summer 95 50
Fall 90 50
Mid NE
Basin Sector
55 20
25 20
40 20
30 20
                                 16

-------
  Current Measures
       Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
Lake Erie Agreement
   .025 mg/1
                                                Pervasive use of
                                                phosphate detergents.
                                                Agricultural practices
                        .13 g/mjr/yr
                        .28 g/m2/yr - dan-
                        gerous and criti-
                        cal level.
                        If reduced to .39 g/m2/
                        yr. Lake Erie might
                        return to mesotrophic
                        condition.
                             117

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution
Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Nitrogen
       Area
                             Causes and Magnitude
 General
         Causes
                      Sewage, organic and inorganic industrial
                      wastes, organic and inorganic agricul-
                      tural runoff
                   Magnitude
                   0  Total input
                      Retention
                      Municipal/industrial
                      Agricultural runoff:
                        Western basin
                        Central basin
                        Eastern basin

                   0  Shore:  organic nitrogen
                      concentrations are variable
                      average in summer
                      average in winter
                                             176,000 t/yr
                                              89,000 t/yr
                                              60,000 t/yr

                                               740 mg/1
                                               470 mg/1
                                               470 mg/1
                                               400 mg/1
                                               700 mg/1
                               118

-------
  Current Measures
       Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
0 Michigan
 *45 mg/1 at in-
   take

0 New York
   no quantitative
   criteria

0 Ohio
   Free from toxic
   or harmful
   substances

0 Pennsylvania
   Free from toxic
   substances
                                                Although  an  important
                                                nutrient, impact  of
                                                nitrogen  is  unclear
                                                relative  to  phosphates.

                                                High  inputs  related  to
                                                agricultural  practices
                                                and industrial  dis-
                                                charges.
                             119

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Bacteria
Area
General













Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Raw sewage
Magnitude
0 Severe around harbors of Detroit,
Cleveland and Buffalo
0 Counts may exceed 1 mi 11/100 ml
0 At least 1/3 of Lake Erie shore area
is continuously or intermittently
contaminated.
0 Closing of many beaches along lake
0 Causes unpleasant taste and
odor; serious on shores near
industrial/municipal areas
when > 200 (CCE) mg/1
                                120

-------
  Current  Measures
       Standards
         Gaps
None for open lake;
See tributary inflow
0 Michigan
  Fecal Coliform
 V100/100 ml
  Total Coliform
 ^1000/100 ml

0 New York
  Fecal Coliform
  no criteria
  Total Coliform
 ^2400/100 ml

0 Ohio
  Fecal Coliform
 $200/100 ml
  Total Coliform
   no criteria

0 Pennsylvania
  Fecal Coliform
   no criteria
  Total Coliform
 ^1000/100 ml

0 IJC
  Fecal Coliform
 }>200/100 ml
  Total Coliform
 Ł1000/100 ml
Lack of sufficient
treatment capacity.

Storm overflows

Lack of disinfection
                             121

-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Open Lake
Pollution Problem  Sediments
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
 General
Causes

0  Agricultural  runoff;  natural  erosion

0  Municipal/industrial  solids

Magnitude
                   0  Total suspended sediments
                      and solids

                   0  Shore erosion
                                   24 mill  t/yr

                                   15 mill  t/yr
                   0  Siltation is higher than in other
                      Great Lakes.
                   0  Dredging - total
                      Cleveland Harbor
                      Toledo

                   0  Agricultural runoff

                   0  Turbidity:
                      Central basin - intermediate
                      Eastern basin - cleanest

                   0  Organic content of deepwater
                      sediments:
                      Western basin
                      Central basin
                                    9 mill  t/yr
                                    1 mill  t/yr
                                  1.3 mill  t/yr

                                    8 mill  t/yr
                                      .2%
                                   .2% - 3.6%
                                122

-------
  Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Some erosion
measures
                 Accelerated agricul-
                 tural erosion possibly
                 related to high speed
                 drainage systems.
                                                Open lake dumping of
                                                dredged spoils.
                                                Insufficient removal of
                                                organic solids from
                                                municipal and
                                                industrial sewage
                                                effluents.
                             123

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Pesticides
       Area
                    Causes  and Magnitude
  General
Causes
                      Agricultural use

                   Magnitude
                      At present no quantitative data can
                      be found.

                      Concentration of pesticides in fish
                      does not exceed FDA standards, yet
                      most fish for human consumption have
                      been removed from the market.

                      Pesticide input is probably partially
                      responsible for changing fauna i.e.
                      fewer species.
                                124

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                                             Specific impacts
                                             known.
                                  not
                     In fish:
                      DDT  .5 ppm
                      Dieldrin .3
      ppm
                           125

-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Dissolved
Constituents
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
  General
Causes
                       Industrial, municipal wastes

                       Agricultural and natural  runoff.
                   Magnitude

                   0   Input:
                       Total dissolved solids
                       Chlorides
                        -Industrial
                       Sulfates
                       Mercury

                   0   Concentrations:
                       Western basin
                       Central basin
                       Eastern basin

                       Cadmium
                       Magnesium
                       Sodi urn
                       Potassium
                       Sulfate
                       Chloride
                       CaC03
                       Fluoride
                                      35 mill t/yr
                                     4.4 mill t/yr
                                     1.9 mill t/yr
                                     1.9 mill t/yr
                                15,000 Ibs/yr
                                          170 mg/1
                                          185 mg/1
                                          190 mg/1

                                           38 mg/1
                                            8 mg/1
                                           .2 mg/1
                                            2 mg/1
                                           26 mg/1
                                           25 mg/1
                                          112 mg/1
                                          .11 mg/1
                                126

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      0 Michigan
                       >200 mg/1

                      0 New York
                         no criteria

                      0 Ohio
                         500 mg/1
                         monthly average
                         750 mg/1  at any-
                         time

                      0 Pennsylvania
                       4> 500 mg/1
                         monthly average
                        ^•750 mg/1  at any-
                         time

                      0 IJC
                       ^200 mg/1
                 Lack of sufficient
                 neutralization and/or
                 precipitation facilities

                 Lack of prevention of
                 agricultural runoff.
                           127

-------
Lake
Water
Erie
Open Lake
Pollution Problem   Oil,  Grease,  Phenols
Area
General

General
Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Oil refineries; steel plants
0 Vessel discharges
0 Urban runoff and sewage
Magnitude
0 Oil and steel companies discharge
continuously.
0 Estimates of total input and concentra-
tion do not appear to be available.

Pollution Problem: Solid Disposal, Refuse
Causes
0 Dumping of trash along tributaries and
shore is widespread.
Magnitude
0 Debris interferes with navigation and
boating.
0 Spoils banks and lake fronts.
                                128

-------
Current Measures









Standards









Gaps
Compliance.
Enforcement.
Disposal facilities
(urban).
Provisions for re-
moving oil from
municipal sewage.

Aesthetic nuisance.
129

-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Erie
Open Lake
Other
Area
General










Causes and Magnitude
0 Aci ds
Continuous input from tributary and
shore located industries.
0 pH varies from 1.0 - 12.6
Severe local effects
0 Alkalinity throughout lake
approximately 100 mg/1 CaCOo
*
0 Radioactivity appears to be increasing;
no quantitative data available
0 Heat inputs from local power plants.
                                130

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      pH range

                      0 Michigan
                        6.5 - 8.8

                      0 New York
                        6.5 - 8.8

                      0 Ohio
                        6.0 - 8.5

                      0 Pennsylvania
                        7.0 - 9.0

                      0 IOC
                        6.7 - 8.5
                                              Apparently no radio-
                                              activity problems.
                           131

-------
Lake Ontario
     133

-------
Lake
Water
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem  Oxygen Depletion, BOD, COD
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
 Niagara
 Genese
Magnitude

0  Large volume of flow dilutes  most wastes

0  Especially high inputs  below  Grand Island

0  Some pulp waste

0  Buffalo River discharges  pollute for 6
   miles downstream

0  Niagara Falls; scum and sewage odor

0  Lower Niagara River:  accumulation and
   decay of algae
   Total  BOD5,  COD5

   90% from industries

   Treatment efficiency
   Municipalities
   Industries
100,000 Ibs/day

 90,000 Ibs/day
                                                                 45%
                                                                 35%
                   0  Lower river,  summer almost devoid  of DO
                      BOD concentrations                       20  mg/1


                   0  Frequent fish kills from Rochester
                      primary sewage input.
                               134

-------
  Current Measures
    Standards
Gaps
Total of 31 sewage
facilities on Lake:
 9 with primary
 treatment;
 2 with oxidation
 lagoon;
 18 with secondary
 treatment; and
 2 with no treatment

Of 6 U.S. plants:
 4 with primary
 treatment;
 1 with secondary
 treatment;
 1 with no treatment
                        Dissolved Oxygen
New York
 4 mg/1  at any-
 time

IJC
 6 mg/1
                     Very high  local BOD
                     (pulp,  papermill)  load.
                     High  nutrient  input
                     and algal  congestion:
                      -Rochester  beaches
                      -Water  intakes
                                                Insufficient treatment
                                                capacity.
                                                Lack  of  industrial
                                                BOD/COD  treatment
                                                facilities.
                             135

-------
Lake
Water
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem   Oxygen  Depletion,  BOD,  COD
       Area
                   Causes  and  Magnitude
  Oswego
  Black  River
  St.  Lawrence
  River
   BOD waste discharges
   Municipal
   Industrial
                      Lake Onondaga, below 25' depth
                      BOD5
                      Raw and partially treated
                       municipal and industrial
                       waste
                                                          60%
                                                          40%
                                    0 mg/1  oxygen


                                       15 mg/1
0  Lake Oneida
   Advanced state of eutrophication

0  Finger Lakes
   Controlled outlets;  relatively large
   lake volumes  which results  in better
   water quality.
   Local pollution sources

0  Barge Canal
   Serious  oxygen depletion


0  Seriously polluted;  mainly  from pulp
   mills                               90%
   Papermill  discharges         DO 0-4 mg/1
   Total  input

   Oxygen concentration  remains  near
   saturation due to turbulence
   and mixing.
.7 mill  t/yr
                      BOD, COD
                                  8.0-12.0 mg/1
                                136

-------
  Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
Some limitation on
industrial and muni
cipal construction
                  Insufficient sewage
                  treatment; raw and
                  partially treated
                  sewage.

                  Anaerobic conditions
                                                Advanced eutrophication
Little or no treat-
ment by industries.
30% reduction of BOD
possible by munici-
pal treatment
                                                Local enforcement
                  Insufficient treatment,
                  removal and enforcement

                  Lack of in-plant BOD
                  removal ; pulp wastes
                  are major source of
                  oxygen depletion.
                                                Local pollution sources
                                                Point pollution.
                              137

-------
Lake
Water
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Pollution Problem  Phosphorus
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
 Oswego
 St. Lawrence
   River
 0  Lake Onondaga
    High algae population       100,000 cells/ml
    despite high chloride contents.
 0  Lake Oneida
    Advanced eutrophication
    Total  phosphate input

 0  Total  input

 0  Concentration
700,000 Ibs/yr

  1,000 t/yr

.01-1.0 mg/1
 St. Lawrence
    Ri ve r
                    Pollution Problem:  Nitrogen
    Total  input
  9,000 t/yr
                                138

-------
  Current Measures
      Standards
        Gaps
No treatment of
industrial discharge
0  New York
   no criteria
   available

0  IJC
   no criteria
Lack of phosphate  con-
trol and/or removal.
                           New York
                           no specific
                           criteria other
                           than statement
                           that water must
                           be free of toxic
                           material.
                             139

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Bacteria
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
 Niagara
 Genese

 St. Lawrence
   River
0  Highest counts near Niagara River's
   mouth:                              '
                       Fecal coliform average
                       Downstream reaches
                                    300/100 ml
                                 1,000+7100 ml
                    0  Buffalo River contributes concentrations
                       of (median)             4,000-6,000/100 ml
                       Storm overflows
                                 20,000/100 ml
   Niagara Falls  discharge raw sewage.

   Rochester Bay  - high  counts
   Measured values  range from
   (1966):
70-400/100 ml
                                140

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                         New York
                         Fecal Coliform
                         no criteria
                         Total Coliform
                       t> 2400/100 ml
                          average

                         IJC
                         Fecal Coliform
                         iZOO/100 ml
                            average
                         Total Coliform
                         ^.1000/100 ml
                            average
                  Insufficient  treatment
                  capacity/quality.

                  Raw  sewage  input
                  Storm  sewers  have no
                  holding  capacity for
                  overflows.
                                              Closed beaches.

                                              Local point sources.
                            141

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Sediments
Area
Niagara

Oswego


St. Lawrence
River



General






Causes and Magnitude
0 Total sediments and dissolved solids
very high.
0 Lake Onondaga
Accumulation of organic and inorganic
wastes and precipitates.
0 Total solids .9 mill t/yr

0 Suspended solids 200,000 t/yr

Pollution Problem: Pesticides
Causes
0 Agricultural runoff
Magnitude
Present in tributaries and lake. In Genese
River there has been fish kills, which are
attributable to a specific phosphate pesti-
cide used in the area on potato crops.
                                142

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                                              Very high  sediment
                                              load; organic  material
                                              turbidity.


                                              Waste load too high  as
                                              compared to flushing
                                              and assimilation
                                              capacity.
                                              Due  to high  flow
                                              rate,  no particular
                                              problem.
                                              Insufficient  informa-
                                              tion  on  inputs,  cycle
                                              in  lake  system,  and
                                              impact on  fauna.
                           143

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dredged Material
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
  General
Causes

0  Three deep draft harbors:   Rochester,
   Great Sodus Bay and Oswego.
   Dredged annually.

Magnitude

0  Material is mostly from the Lake, clean
   and does not pose  a pollution problem.
   However, dredged materials are deposited
   in the Lake and not in dyked areas.
                               144

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                                              In-lake  disposal
                            145

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Oil, Grease, Phenols
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
 Niagara
 St. Lawrence
    Ri ver
   Noticeable problem, especially in the
   upper Niagara.

   Of 29 mill Ibs.  of oils  discharges in
   1967 into upper Niagara, 40% came from
   municipal sewage effluents.

   In 1968 approximately 32,000 Ibs./day
   discharged into upper Niagara.

   Taste and odor problems.

   In the lower Niagara discharges as
   high as                        200 mg/1
   average (1968)                  100 mg/1

   By 1971 oil  discharges greatly reduced
   except in the Buffalo River.
0  Phenols
   1967 range
1.2-2.4 mg/1
                                 146

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                                              High  inputs by indi-
                                              vidual  industries.

                                              Lack  of enforcement and
                                              training for  trans-
                                              shipment loading and
                                              unloading.
                              147

-------
Lake
Hater
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
Dissolved Constituents
       Area
                   Causes  and Magnitude
 Niagara
   Lower Niagara
   Calcium
   Iron
   Chloride
   Mercury wastes  have been reduced
   considerably and are reported to be
   below detectable limits  now.
                                                       5,000 Ibs/day
                                                           .3 mg/1
                                                        26-30 mg/1
 Oswego
 St. Lawrence
    Ri ve r
   Lake Onondaga
   Chlorides
   Chlorides
   -concentration
   S04
   CaC03

   Total  dissolved solids
   average
                                                  1,300-3,000 mg/1
 70,000 t/yr
 20-30 mg/1
 25-35 mg/1
90-115 mg/1
                                                         185 mg/1
                                148

-------
  Current Measures
    Standards
Gaps
Mercury control:
Temporary facilities
and procedures to re-
cover mercury.
Some plants under
court order to in-
stall recovery
facilities.
IJC
Iron
.3 mg/1
Chloride
^ 200 mg/1
Mercury
> 200 mg/1
                                                Enforcement
                                                Too high an input
                                                relative to through-
                                                flow.
                              149

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem   Others
Ontario
Shore Waters & Tributaries
       Area
                   Causes and Magnitude
 Black  River
 St.  Lawrence
   River
   Discoloration,  debris,  paper fibers,  etc.
   pH Range
                      Alkalinity
                      average
6.8-7.0
                                      112  mg/1
                                150

-------
Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                      0   New York
                         6.5 - 8.5

                      0   IJC
                         6.7 - 8.5
                           151

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Open Lake
Oxygen Depletion, BOD,  COD
Area
General










Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Tributary and shore municipal and in-
dustrial sewage and waste.
Magnitude
0 Total BOD5 load estimated at 350,000 t/yr
0 Because of large lake volume, oxygen
concentrations usually stay satisfactory.
Bottom waters (NE) 6% saturation
Bottom waters (Lakewide) 8% saturation
0 Continuous band of algae between
Hamilton and Toronto on shore.
                               152

-------
  Current Measures
      Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
Dissolved Oxygen

0  New York
  <Ł 5 mg/1 at any-
    time

0  IJC
  
-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Open Lake
Phosphorus
       Area
                   Causes  and  Magnitude
  General
Causes
                       Input from tributary and shore located
                       municipal and industrial sources.
                    Magnitude

                    0  Total input (1967)
                       Retention in lake
                       Municipal/industrial  sources
                       Agricultural runoff

                    0  Average concentration
                       70% of municipal  input stems
                       from detergents in  U.S.;
                       50% from Canadian detergents
                                   12,700  t/yr
                                   10,000  t/yr
                                    7,100  t/yr
                                    5,600  t/yr

                                       13  mg/1
                       Average surface concentration   .7 g/m^/yr
                               154

-------
  Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
                                                Extensive use of
                                                phosphate detergents,

                                                Lack of phosphorus
                                                removal facilities.

                                                Estimated costs for
                                                improved removal
                                                facilities $108 mill,
                           .75 g/m2/yr
                  Nlesotrophic conditions
                  at  .17 g/mVyr would
                  probably  return to
                  oligotrophic state
                  if  phosphate inputs
                  were  reduced.
                              155

-------
Lake
Water
Pollution Problem
Ontario
Open Lake
Nitrogen
Area
General











General







Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Assimilated from inflow
Magnitude
0 Total input (1967) 157,000
Retention in lake 35,000
Municipal/industrial sources 47,000
Agricultural runoff and
atmospheric precipitation 110,000
0 Concentration



t/yr
t/yr
t/yr

t/yr

mean range 400-600 mg/1

Pollution Problem: Bacteria
Causes
0 Assimilated from inflow
0 Watercraft wastes
Magnitude
0 Col i form count excellent in greater
lake. 1/100
0 Bacterial contamination localized
5/100






ml

ml
                                156

-------
  Current Measures
      Standards
         Gaps
See tributary inflow
   New York
   Water must be
   free from toxic
   material
Nutrients contributing
to algal growth and
eutrophication,
although importance
relative to
phosphates not esta-
blished.

Possible unsuitable
agricultural and
livestock practices.
See tributary inflow
3   New York
   Fecal  Coliform
   no criteria
   Total  Coliform
^2400/100  ml

3   IJC
   Fecal  Coliform
  ^200/100  ml
   Total  Coliform
    1000/100  ml
                                                Problems restricted to
                                                shore areas where they
                                                are severe, due to in-
                                                sufficient sewage treat
                                                ment and lack of dis-
                                                infection.
                              157

-------
Lake
Water
Ontario
Open Lake
Pollution Problem   Dredged Material
Area
General










Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Harbor dredging deposited in lake
0 Disposed solids contain municipal and
industrial waste.
Magnitude
0 Total solids from all major sources, including
Canada 53 mill t/yr
0 Dredging
US 480,000 yds3/yr
Canada 570,000 yds3/yr
0 Turbidity
Current turbidity levels do not seriously
affect water quality.
                                158

-------
  Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
See tributary inflow
Dumping in open water
not to interfere with
navigation;
Use dredged material
as land fill.
                  Dumping  of  toxic dredgei
                  spoils in lake causes
                  pollution and may
                  damage bottom fauna.
                             159

-------
Lake
Ontario
Open Lake
Water
Pollution Problem    Pesticides
Area
General






General








Causes and Magnitude
Causes
0 Agricultural runoff
Magnitude
0 In birds DDT 163 ppm
0 In eggs DDT 277 ppm






Pollution Problem: Oil, Grease, Phenols
Causes
0 Minor oil spills, industrial discharges
0 Watercraft
0 Municipal sources
Magnitude
0 Continuous small oil spills along shipping
lanes.
0 Phenols range 0-15
mean 2








mg/1
mg/1
                                160

-------
  Current Measures
Standards
Gaps
                                                Kill  and interfere  with
                                                reproduction

                                                Stemming from agricul-
                                                tural runoff.
Drilling regulations

Contingency plan for
spills does exist;
little information
on specifics
                 Surveillance,  recording,
                 review of legislation.

                 Lack  of training and
                 enforcement
                             161

-------
Lake
Water
 Ontario
 Open Lake
Pollution Problem    Dissolved  Constituents
       Area
                    Causes and Magnitude
  General
Causes
                      Assimilated from  inflow
                   Magnitude
                    0  Total dissolved solids
                      Mean

                    0  Total chlorides input
                                         196 mg/1

                                     7 mill t/yr
  General
Pollution Problem:  Solid Disposal, Refuse

No information available
  General
                   Pollution  Problem:  Others
   pH range
6.7 - 8.5
                      Alkalinity  - mean

                      Radioactivity
                      Below permissable  level
                                       92 mg/1


                                        ® pCi/1
                                162

-------
  Current  Measures
       Standards
         Gaps
See tributary inflow
0  Public Health
   Service Standard
                           >500 mg/1
                        0  IJC
                           >200 mg/1
Dissolved salt levels
pose no current prob-
lems
                        0  New York
                           6.5 - 8.5

                        0  IJC
                           6.7 - 8.5
                        Lake  normal

                        Local  variations de
                        pending on type of
                        discharges
                               pCi/1

                          /10 pCi/1
                              163

-------
     APPENDIX B



SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
         165

-------
                   QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SECTION 15 STUDY



                      HAROLD F.  WISE & ASSOCIATES





     The matrix below shows the  geographical  areas  and types of pollution



of greatest concern to the Federal  Environmental  Protection Agency.





1.   In the first matrix,



    Please identify the top four problem areas  standing  in  the way of



achieving water quality standards in the Great  Lakes.   Do this by  entering



1  in the cell  corresponding to the  location  and pollution type which



presents the biggest problem,  2  in  the next  biggest,  and so on through



4.   Provide separate rankings  for prevention  and  for  removal  of pollutants.
                                   166

-------
                                     Geographic Areas
Prevention of pollution
Municipal wastes
   Sanitary
   Storm
   Combined
Industrial Wastes^
   Steel
   Chemicals
   Petroleum
Agriculture
   Nutrients
   Pesticides
   Silt
Mining
   Taconite
   Others
Dredging
   Dredging operations
   Dredging disposal
Thermal
   Control
   Utilization
Removal of Pollutants
Removal of polluted sediments
   Heavy metals
   Nutrients
   Pesticides
                               167

-------
                                             Geographic Areas
Nuisance plant and
   algal harvesting

   Rooted aquatics

   Bacterial control

Beach Grooming

   Removal  of debris

   Bacterial control

Dead fish removal

   Alewifes
                                    168

-------
2.   Please provide a brief narrative discussion of the key barriers  to
solving these problems,  whether technical,  financial,  or institutional.
Please enclose reports and other documentation when available.

-------
3.  In the second matrix,  please  identify  the  problem  areas  for which
there are needed and desirable  demonstration projects.   Do this by  placing
a number in the corresponding cell  and  listing the potential  demonstration
projects below.
                                   170

-------
                                     Geographic Areas
Prevention of pollution
Municipal wastes
   Sanitary
   Storm
   Combined
Industrial Wastes
   Steel
   Chemicals
   Petroleum
Agriculture
   Nutrients
   Pesticides
   Silt
Mining
   Taconite
   Others
Dredging
   Dredging operations
   Dredging disposal
Thermal
   Control
   Utilization

Removal of Pollutants
Removal of polluted sediments
   Heavy metals
   Nutrients
   Pesticides
                               171

-------
                                     Geographic  Areas
Nuisance plant and
   algal harvesting
   Rooted aquatics
   Bacterial control
Beach Grooming
   Removal  of debris
   Bacterial control
Dead fish removal
   Al ewi fes
                                172

-------
List of Potential  Demonstration Projects
                                   173

-------
4.  A brief narrative description  and  pertinent  reports for these projects



would be helpful  in our  study.
                                   174

-------
5,  Please provide a general  description of the status  of  water quality
management and water quality  management planning in  your state, including
     A.  Organization of state,  basin,  areawide and  local  levels
     B.  Interstate coordination arrangements
     C.  Relations with Federal  Agencies
     D.  International coordination arrangements
                                    175

-------
6.  Name of Respondent
    Title, address
    Telephone number
                                   176

-------