ILLINOIS
Third Session
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 31-April 1, 197O
Executive Session
Chicago, Illinois
May 7, 197O
Volume 3
Pollution of Lake Michigan and Its Tributary Basin
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
-------
EXECUTIVE SESSION
FOR THE THIRD SESSION
OF THE
CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF POLLUTION OF LAKE MICHIGAN
AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN IN THE STATES
OF WISCONSIN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, AND MICHIGAN
held in
Chicago, Illinois
May 7, 1970
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
-------
C.ONTENT§L
PAGE
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein 5
P. Booth 10
J. Karaganis 24
C. T. Quigg 26
J. Nash 28
R. W. Purdy 29
T. G. Frangos 38
P. E. Miller, 89
C. W. Klassen 100
General Discussion 113
A. J. Mifcva 140
F. T. Mayo. 155
M. May 162
L. Bloom 165
W. Zepiel 189
A. Fancoe 191
E. H. Lunde 199
Mrs. L. Botts 201
and 18
Mrs. E. L. Johnston. 206
Summary . 208
H. A. Katz.. 224
-------
The Executive Session for the Third Conference
on the matter of pollution of Lake Michigan and its
tributary basin in the States of Wisconsin, Illinois,
Indiana, and Michigan, convened at 9:30 o'clock on
May 7, 1970, at the Sheraton-Blackstone Hotel, Chicago,
Illinois.
PRESIDING:
Mr. Murray Stein
Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement
and Standards Compliance
Federal Water Quality Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
CONFEREES:
Francis T. Mayo
Regional Director, Great Lakes Region
Federal Water Quality Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior
Chicago, Illinois
Thomas G. Frangos
Director, Bureau of Water Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
Clarence W. Klassen
Technical Secretary
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
Springfield, Illinois
Blucher A. Poole
Technical Secretary
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
Indianapolis, Indiana , „
-------
CONFEREES (Continued):
Ralph ¥. Purdy
Executive Secretary
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Lansing, Michigan
AIDES TO ABOVE:
Carlos Petterolf
Supervisor, Water Quality Appraisal
Water Resources Commission
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Lansing, Michigan
Francis B. Frost
Chief Engineer
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Lansing, Michigan
Benn Leland
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
Chicago, Illinois
Donald Mackie
Executive Assistant
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
Perry E. Miller
Director of Bureau of Engineering
Indiana State Board of Health
Indianapolis, Indiana
D. B. Morton
Sanitary Engineer
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
Springfield, Illinois
PARTICIPANTS:
Lawrence S. Bloom
Commission Counsel
Lake Michigan & Adjoining
Land Study Commission
Chicago, Illinois
-------
PARTICIPANTS (Continued):
Paul Booth
Temporary Chairman
Campaign Against Pollution
Chicago, Illinois
Mrs. Lee Botts
Director, Environmental Education
Open Lands Project
Chicago, Illinois
Mrs. Eileen L. Johnston
League of Women Voters
Wilmette, Illinois
Joseph Karaganis
Businessmen for the Public Interest
Chicago, Illinois
Harold A. Katz
State Representative
Illinois House of Representatives
Chicago, Illinois
Erling H. Lunde
Vol. Administrator
Citizens of Greater Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
Matthew May
Campaign Against Pollution
Chicago, Illinois
Abner J. Mikva
United States Representative
State of Illinois
Janis Nash
Chairman
Society To Stop Pollution
Chicago, Illinois
-------
PARTICIPANTS (Continued):
Arthur Pancoe
Scientific Director
Society Against Violence
to the Environment
Glencoe, Illinois
Catherine T. Quigg
Harrington, Illinois
Walter Zepiel
Campaign Against Pollution
Chicago, Illinois
-------
ATTENDEES:
Anne Alberts, Delegate
Campaign Against Pollution
5357 South Rugherford
Chicago, 111.
Norman Lee Banner, Jr.
Co-Ordinator, North
Campaign Against Pollution
1359 Estes
Chicago, 111. 60626
Arlene Beatty
Campaing Against Pollution
833 West Buena Avenue
Chicago, 111.
L. A. Beaudin
Chief Construction Operations Div.
U.S. Army Engineer Division
North Central
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, 111. 60605
Maurice Bender
Industrial Bio-Test
1800 Frontage Road
Northbrook, 111. 60062
Lawrence S. Bloom
Commission Counsel
Lake Michigan's Adjoining
Land Study Commission
1307 East 60th Street
Chicago, 111. 60637
Paul Booth
Temporary Chairman
Campaign Against Pollution
65 East Huron
Chicago, 111.
Mrs. Russell Bonynge, Jr.
League of Women Voters
Lake Michigan Inter-League Group
1120 Chestnut
Wilmette, 111. 60091
Urban W. Brocsch
Detroit District Corps of Engineers
Detroit, Mich.
Lee Botts, Director
Environmental Education
Open Lands Project
53 West Jackson
Chicago, 111.
Leah Bowman
616 Deming
Chicago, 111. 60614
Terry Briggs
SAVE
9006 Senate Drive
Des Plaines, 111.
Enrico F. Conti
Assistant to Manager
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Argonne, 111.
Carol Cowgill
University of Chicago
Environmental Law Society
1414 East 59th Street
Chicago, 111. 60637
David P. Currie
111. Coordinator of Environmental
Quality
160 North LaSalle Street, Rm. 1100
Chicago, 111.
Walter S. Czepiel, Agent
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
4370 West 26th Street
Chicago, 111. 60623
Quincy Dadisman, Reporter
Milwaukee Sentinel
10817 North San Marino Drive
Mequon, Wise. 50392
-------
ATTENDEES CONT:
-A
Gail Donovan
Campaign Against Pollution
1661 Highland
Northbrook, 111. 60062
Hazel M. Doss
Campaign Against Pollution
833 West Beuna, Apr. 609
Chicago, 111.
Charles W. Dougherty
State Program Grants Specialist
USDI, FWQA, OE&CP
33 E. Congress Parkway, Rm. 410
Chicago, 111. 60605
Rev. Leonard Dubi, Co-Chairman
Campaign Against Pollution
5400 South Nashville
Chicago, 111.
Joseph Dvorak
Campaign Against Pollution
836 Alcoa
Melrose Park, 111. 60164
John R. Dyer, Supervisor
Consumers Power Company
212 West Michigan
Jackson, Mich.
Lawrence A. Ernest
Sewerage Commission of City
of Milwaukee
-P. 0. Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wise. 53201
Robert Fermanis
CAP-SAVE
789 Deerfield Road
Highland Park, 111. 60035
Carlos Fetterolf, Supervisor
Water Quality Appraisal
Water Resources Commission
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Mason Building
Lansing, Mich. 48926
A. William Finke, Attorney
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
231 W. Michigan Street
Milwaukee, Wise.
Herbert J. Fisher
Aquatic Biologist
FWQA
1819 West Pershing Road
Chicago, 111.
Francis B. Frost
Chief Engineer
Michigan Water Resources Comm.
Lansing, Mich.
M. B. Garnet, Chief
Federal Activities Coord. Br.
FWQA
33 E. Congress Pkwy., Rm. 410
Chicago, 111. 60605
Walter Ginsburg
Water Bacteriologist IV
Chicago Bureau of Water
1000 East Ohio Street
Chicago, 111.
Walter A. Gregory
Campaign Against Pollution
5309 South New England
Chicago, 111.
William J. Harth
Fish Conservation Supervisor
111. Dept. of Conservation
State Office Building
Springfield, 111. 62706
-------
ATTENDEES CONT:
4-B
V. Stevens Hastings
Commonwealth Edison
1 First National Bank Plaza
Chicago, 111.
Paul G. Hayes
Reporter
Milwaukee Journal
Journal Square
Milwaukee, Wise. 53201
Constance Herman
111. Federation of Sportsmen's
Clubs
3735 Morton Avenue
Brookfield, 111. 60513
David W. Hickey, Shareholder
Campaign Against Pollution
7441 North Washtenan Avenue
Chicago, 111.
Shelly Hickey
Society To Outlaw Pollution
7441 North Washtenan
Chicago, 111.
John Hogan
Environmental Editor
WGN
Chicago, 111.
J. B. Holleyman
Physical Scientist
FWQA, Great Lakes Regional
Office
33 E. Congress Pkwy., Rm. 410
Chicago, 111. 60605
Mike Hoskinson
Campaign Against Pollution
3010 Derrough Avenue
Melrose Park, 111. 60164
Dorothy J. Howell, Microbiologist
Metropolitan Sanitary District
Erie Street
Chicago, 111.
John Iberle
Campaign Against Pollution
1653 West Grace
Chicago, 111. 60613
James W. Jardine
Commissioner Water & Sewers
City of Chicago
Room 403 - City Hall
Chicago, 111. 60602
Eileen L, Johnston
League of Women Voters
505 Maple Avenue
tfilmette, 111. 60091
,lrs. Paul Kaefer ,
Campaign Against Pollution
3921 Oak
Northbrook, 111.
Mrs. Louis Kaplah
528 South Edsoh Avenue
Lombard, 111. 60148
Rona Kiener
Campaign Against Pollution j
2245 North Halsted
Chicago, 111. 60614
Raymond J. Kipp
Chairman C.E. Dept. Marquette Univ.
Metropolitan Sewerage Comm.
1515 West Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wise. 53226
Clarence W. Klassen
Technical Secretary
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
535 Jefferson Street
Springfield, 111. 62706
Lawrence S. Kolczah, Sanitarian
111. Dept. of Public Health
1919 West Taylor
Chicago, 111.
-------
ATTENDEES CONT:
4-C
Thomas Kroehn
District Director
Dept. of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
9203 West Bluemound Road
Milwaukee, Wise. 53226
Judy Kulstad
Reporter - Press
The Associated Press
188 West Randolph Street
Chicago, 111.
John K. Langum, President
Business Economics, Inc.
209 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, 111. 60604
Clarence Laskowski
Sanitary Engineer
Hqs. Fifth U.S. Army
DLSLOG Engineering Div.
Ft. Sheridan, 111. 60037
Ray D. Leary
Chief Engineer & General Manager
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
. Commission
P. 0. Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wise.
Kenneth Lehner
Superintendent of Chemical Services
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
231 West Michigan Street
Milwaukee, Wise.
Benn J. Leland, Engineer-in-Charge
Chicago Office
111. Sanitary Water Board
1919 West Taylor Street
Chicago, 111. 60612
Nancy LeVant
Campaign Against Pollution
2501 Morse
Chicago, 111. 60645
Roscoe W. Libby, Chief
Technical Activities Branc-
USDI, FWQA, LMBO
1819 West Pershing Road
Chicago, 111. 60609
Mrs. Alan Lunak
Mid-North Environmental Committee
424 W. Belden
Chicago, 111.
Erling H. Lunde
Vol. Administrator
Citizens of Greater Chicago
18 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, 111. 60603
D. T. Lundy, Partner
Alvoro, Burdick & Howson
Room 1401 - 20 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111.
Jerome R. McKersie, Engineer
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural
Resources
P. 0. Box 450
Madison, Wise.
Eleanor McNicholas
5614 South Nagle Avenue
Chicago, 111. 60638
Matthew Max
Campaign Against Pollution
5122 South Newcastle
Chicago, 111. 60638
Stephen Megregian
Wapora, Inc.
1725 DeSales Street
Washington, D.C. 20036
Helen Miller
Society To Outlaw Pollution
5701 North Sheridan Road
Chicago, 111.
D. B. Morton, Sanitary Engineer
111. Sanitary Water Board
535 West Jefferson Street
Springfield, 111. 62706
-------
ATTENDEES CONT:
4-D
Sheri Mount
Campaign Against Pollution
5119 North Christiana
Chicago, 111.
Shirley Murray
Campaign Against Pollution
2013 Redwood
Northbrook, 111. 60062
Janice Nash, Chairman
Society To Stop Pollution
7064 North Greenview
Chicago, 111. 60626
Charles E. Olmsted
Professor of Biology
Department of Biology
University of Chicago
Chicago, 111. 60637
Cynthia Olson
Campaign Against Pollution
10812 Wentworth
Chicago, 111.
Debbie Olson
Campaign Against Pollution
11121 South Vernon
Chicago, 111. 60628
Richard A. Pavia
Deputy Commissioner of Water
and Sewers
Room 403 - City Hall
Chicago, 111.
Lynn Pekkanen
Citizens Against Pollution
439 West Oakdale
Chicago, 111. 60657
C. Pemberton, Director
Office of Technical Programs
USDI, FWQA, GLR
33 E. Congress Parkway, Rm. 410
Chicago, 111. 60605
Frances M. Polk
Campaign Against Pollution
5620 South Rutherford
Chicago, 111.
M. Portnoy
Campaign Against Pollution
Ralph W. Purdy
Executive Secretary
Michigan Water Resources Comm.
Lansing, Mich.
Catherine T. Quigg
838 Harriet Lane
Barrington, 111.
Virginia H. Rankin
Court Reporter
Kansas City, Mo.
Philip A. Reed
Technical Assistant to Engineer
of Water Purification
Water Bureau of Chicago
1000 East Ohio Street
Chicago, 111. 60611
Clifford Risley, Jr., Director
Research & Development
USDI, FWQA, GLR
33 E. Congress Pkwy., Rm. 410
Chicago, 111. 60605
Victoria Ruez
1937 North Cleveland
Chicago, 111. 60604
-------
ATTENDEES CONT:
4-E
J. Sacks
900 North Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, 111. 60611
Helen Sala
Campaign Against Pollution
5541 South Oak Park Avenue
Chicago, 111.
LeRoy E. Scarce, Chief
Laboratory Services Branch
USDI, FWQA, LMBO
1819 West Pershing Road
Chicago, 111. 60609
Robert Schacht, Sanitarian
111. Dept. of Public Health, SWB
1919 West Taylor Street
Chicago, 111.
Robert A. Schacht
Aquatic Biologist
111. Sanitary Water Board
5623 St. Charles Road
Berkeley, 111. 60163
Gary W. Scherzel
Water Resources Planner
USDI, FWQA, GLRO
33 East Congress Pkwy., Rm. 410
Chicago, 111. 60605
William G. Schmeelk, Senior Biologist
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, 111.
Jean Sinsko
Campaign Against Pollution
5350 South Narrogonsett
Chicago, 111.
Alan D. Sugarman
111. Office Coordinator
of Environmental Quality
5421 South Cornell Avenue
Chicago, 111.
Fred 0. Sullivan
Sanitary Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, 111. 60604
Michael J. Sullivan
Southwest Community Council
5736 South Western
Chicago, 111.
Raynor Sturgis, Director
General Services Department
State of Illinois
Springfield, 111.
Mrs. Robert B. (Ladonna) Taylor
Campaign Against Pollution
2415 North Geneva Terr.
Chicago, 111. 60614
John V. Tokar
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, 111. 60439
Dennis W. Valentine
Sanitary Engineer
Northwestern University
819 Foster Street
Evanston, 111.
J. F. Voita
229 North Taylor Avenue
Oak Park, 111.
Ralph Weaver
Pioneer Service & Engineering Co.
2 North Riverside Plaza
Chicago, 111.
Rita T. Werner
Campaign Against Pollution
5835 South Rutherford
Chicago, 111. 60638
Roger S. Whitworth, Chemist
USDI, FWQA, GLRO
Off. of Enforcement & Coop.
Programs
33 E. Congress Pkwy., Rm. 410
Chicago, 111. 60605
-------
4-F
ATTENDEES CONT:
Christopher G. Wickstrom
Univeristy of Chicago
Room 215
1005 East 60th Street
Chicago, 111. 60637
B. F. Willey, Director
Water Purification Laboratory
City of Chicago
1000 East Erie Street
Chicago, 111. 60611
Darwin E. Williams
Management Assistant
National Park Service
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
P. 0. Box 12
Chesterton, Ind. 46304
Theodore F. Wisniewski
Ass't. to Administrator DEP
Wise. Department of Natural
Resources
P. 0. Box 450
Madison, Wise. 53702
Howard Zar
Physical Scientist
USDI, FWQA, GLR
Lake Michigan Basin Office
1819 West Pershing Road
Chicago, 111. 60609
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
P.RO£EEDINGS_
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. MURRAY STEIN
MR. STEIN: The conference is open.
This Executive Session for the Third Session
of the conference in the matter of pollution of Lake
Michigan and its tributary basin in the States of Wis-
consin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan is being held
under the provisions of Section 10 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. The Third Session first met on
March 31 and April 1, 1970.
Under the provisions of the Act, the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to initiate a conference
of this type when requested to do so by a Governor of a
State and when, on the basis of reports, surveys, or
studies, he has reason to believe that pollution subject
to abatement under the Federal Act is occurring.
As specified in Section 10 of the Act, the
Secretary of the Interior has notified the official
State water pollution control agencies of this conference.
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
These agencies are the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, the Illinois State Sanitary Water Board, the
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board, and the Michigan
Water Resources Commission.
The purpose of the conference is to bring
together the State water pollution control agencies,
representatives of the United States Department of the
Interior, and other interested parties to review the
existing situation, the progress which has been made,
and to lay a basis for future action by all parties
concerned, and to give the States, localities and
industries an opportunity to take any indicated remedial
action under State and local law.
Now a word about procedures and the parties to
the conference. The parties to the conference are the
official State water pollution control agencies and the
United States Department of the Interior. Only the
representatives of the State agencies and the United
States Department of the Interior constitute the con-
ferees as provided by Federal law.
A word about the procedures governing the
conduct of this Executive Session. The conferees will
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
consider the problems of temperature, the establishment
of interim dates, specifically for all the dischargers
into Lake Michigan, and other appropriate recommenda-
tions that the conferees may wish to bring up.
We shall have a discussion among the conferees
and try to arrive at a basis of agreement on the facts
of the situation. Then if possible we shall attempt to
summarize the conference orally, giving the conferees,
of course, the right to amend or modify the summary.
Of course any of you,after the conference or during the
break,are free to talk to any of the conferees or for
any statements which the conferees may wish to make.
We are making a verbatim transcript report of
the conference and this is being made by Mrs. Virginia
Rankin. It usually takes about three or four months
for the transcript to come out in printed form. If you
wish the record beforehand, you can make your own
arrangements with Mrs. Rankin, who is an independent
contractor, and you can get the copy of this transcript.
This transcript will be made available through
your- State water pollution control agencies, as will the
summary of the Executive Session, and if you wish copies
-------
8
Opening Statement - Mr,, stein
of that you can make your arrangements with the State
agencies to get this information.
I would like to ask that.the conferees
representing the various States around the table intro-
duce themselves, maybe start on the left with Mr. Purdy,
MR. PURDY: Ralph Purdy, Michigan Water
Resources Commission.
MR. FRANGOS: Tom Frangos, Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Natural Resources.
MR. MACKIE: Donald Mackie, Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Natural Resources.
MR. KLASSEN: I am Clarence Klassen, repre-
senting the Illinois Sanitary Water Board.
MR. POOLE: I am Blucher Poole, representing
the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board, and this
is Perry Miller, my brains, on my left.
MR. KLASSEN: I want to also introduce in the
same category Douglas Morton, who is Chief of our Water
Pollution Control Bureau.
MR. MAYO: Francis Mayo, Regional Director
for the Great Lakes Region of the Federal Water Quality
Administration. On my right is Mr. Jake Dumelle, the
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
Chief of our Lake Michigan Basin Office.
MR. STEIN: My name is Murray Stein and I have
been designated by Secretary Walter J. Hlckel as the
Chairman of the conference and his representative.
Yov know, when we deal with the environment
everything has something bad about it, even the brains
you talk about. I understand that's high in cholesterol
(Laughter.)
Before we begin, I have a policy position on
thermal pollution which has been developed by Carl
Klein, Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and
Research, and Leslie Glasgow, Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, both of the Department of
the Interior, which they have asked me to read. This is
a very short statement.
"The minimum possible waste heat shall be
added to the waters of Lake Michigan. In no event
will heat discharges be permitted to exceed ,a one
degree Fahrenheit -rise,. This will preclude the need
for mixing zones."
We will give the conferees an opportunity as
the conference proceeds to comment on this if they wish
-------
10
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
and on other matters.
Before we start to hear from the conferees,
we have had a request from representatives for the
Campaign Against Pollution to make a statement to the
conferees. We would like to call on that representative
now.
PAUL BOOTH
TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
CAMPAIGN AGAINST POLLUTION
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. BOOTH: My name is Paul Booth. I am the
Temporary Chairman of the Campaign Against Pollution
and I represent them here.
Gentlemen, first we believe that this should
have been a public session. We believe there should
have been a public session for Chicagoians prior to your
determination. It is only our persistence that at least
got us the possibility of making this statement before
you begin your executive meeting. We don't believe it
was fair to have asked us by implication to have traveled
miles or 80 miles to attend public hearings on this
-------
TL
P. Booth
important matter.
Now, number 2. The Campaign Against Pollution
puts you on notice that only zero pollution standards
will "be acceptable to us with tough penalties. Further-
more, we don't believe that this construction that is
going on now ,at Zion in terms of the Commonwealth Edison
Company and other units, soon to be 10 units in place
around Lake Michigan at ^-places of nuclear plants dis-
charging heat wastes into Lake Michigan, we don't
believe that makes any sense at all. We believe you
have the influence through your standards setting today
to force the construction to halt at those installations.
We don't believe the temporary permit under which Zion
is being constructed should ever have been issued and we
want to point out again the matter of public hearings.
We don't believe it would have happened had it been pre-
ceded with a public hearing.
That is to say, today's decision sets a prece-
dent because we know that most of the new electric
generation is going to be through nuclear installations
and the 10 announced units are only the beginning.
Therefore, zero pollution standards should be set at the
-------
P. Booth
outset, not after the damage is done.
Now, for the benefit of Mr. Mayo, whose
comments on pyrotechnics we have read in the newspapers,
we don't believe that what we are doing here today is
pyrotechnics at all. We believe simply it is a matter
of expressing the concern of the people and that this
opportunity should have been made available not simply
to us but to all the people of the Chicago area.
Just to repeat, it is zero pollution standards
that we are after and that are the only kind of stand-
ards that are acceptable without loopholes and with .
tough penalties. Otherwise we have great fears for the
future of the lake. We know, that there is incredible
scientific evidence that gives rise to the doubt as to
the safety of the lake and of our recreation and drink-
ing facilities if these heat waves are not prohibited.
Thank you. (Applause.)
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Booth, for your
statement. I am sure we can all learn from you as we
can all learn from participating in orderly proceedings.
As I see it, the statement you have made on
thermal pollution and the statement of the Assistant
-------
i. , 13
P. Booth
Secretary are very close.
MR. KLASSEN: Could I just ask for clarifica-
tion, Mr. Chairman?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. KLASSEN: I would like to know whether
this statement made applies only to power sources or
whether this statement of no pollution applies to all
industries and cities. This is purely for clarification
MR. STEIN: It is my understanding—and I ask
you to look at that, consider that preface carefully—it
is my understanding that this statement applies to all
sources whether they be municipalities, industries or
power sources.
MR. KLASSEN: In other words, there is no
industrial discharge, no effluent from any municipal
sewage treatment plant or any other discharge .going into
Lake Michigan? If this is what the statement is imply-
ing, I think that we all ought to understand this.
MR. STEIN: I think the statement does more
than imply that, Mr. Klassen, it says it. As far as I
am concerned, I don't see any difference; maybe there is
a difference, between heat supplied by an industrial
-------
P. Booth
discharge other than a powerplant or a municipal dis-
charge or a powerplant*
MR. KLASSEN: Could you ask the witness to
confirm your interpretation, just so we hear it from
him?
MR. STEIN: Mr. Booth, do you want to comment?
Is this what you mean too?
MR. BOOTH: Yes, indeed, we are opposed to
all these heat wastes. We think the question for you,
however, Mr. Klassen, is why that temporary permit
for the construction of Zion is going on. Yes, we are
opposed to the other ones.
MR. KLASSEN: I didn't issue that permit, and
let's get the record straight. That permit was issued
by the Department of Public Works,and we have under con-
sideration an application for a permit;and I have stated
publicly before any action on that permit is taken we
will hold a public hearing. Let's get the record
straight.
MR. STEIN: Pardon me. I would like to make
an amendment here. I may have left a phrase out.
The second sentence should have read in that
-------
15
P. Booth
statement, "in no event will heat discharges be per*-
mitted- to exceed a one degree Fahrenheit rise at the
point of discharge," which makes it even more restric-
tive.
Let me read the whole thing again so we are
pretty sure of what this means:
"The minimum possible waste heat shall be
added to the waters of Lake Michigan. In no event
will heat discharges be permitted to exceed one degree
Fahrenheit rise over ambient at the point of discharge.
This will preclude the need for mixing zones."
MR. POOLS: Have you got a typewriter avail-
able?
MR. STEIN: We will get one for you, sir, and
get this copied for you, Mr. Poole.
The last phrases I read nailed this down from
a technical point of view, but this is tire point of
what I made when I first read that statement.
MR. KLASSEN: This is a most important state-
ment by a group. We recognize this.
I might say for the benefit of that group and
everyone here, there is an Illinois Supreme Court
-------
P. Booth
decision that has been rendered since 1934 in the case
of Barrington versus the Harrington Hills Country Club
that says this same thing. It has never been recog-
nized by anyone, even though it is a Supreme Court
decision, because this would give the municipalities
two alternatives--either to disconnect everybody from
the sewer system or to treat the water and put it into
the drinking water lines. Now, these are two alterna-
tives. We could be coming to this.
The other point, and it is so important that
I would like to have the record show who this man
represents, the names of the organizations and his
authorization for making this statement. I don't :;
quarrel with this, but I think this is so important
that we ought to know on the record officially who is
making this statement and if he is making it for an
organization who the members of the organization are
and his authorization from that organization to make
this statement.
I am not quarreling with the statement at
all, but I think this is extremely important. It is
a turning point in the whole concept of waste treatment
-------
- : . II
P. Booth
and I think that if we are going to have this on the
record we have got to know who is making this statement
because it is extremely important.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Booth, you will be given an
opportunity to respond to Mr. Klassen if you wish.
. MR. BOOTH: Campaign Against Pollution repre-
sents thousands of citizens in the Chicago area, several
dozen of whom are here today, civic associations, churches
of all faiths, community organizations, many other forms
of associations that the people have gathered into in
order to fight pollution in all its forms.
MR. KLASSEN: No, that isn't what I have asked
for. I know this group, .we have worked with them. I
think for the record it should name the organizations,
name the churches, name the groups, so that we know.
VOICES FROM THE AUDIENCE: Aaahl
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, this is extremely important
policy to the State of Illinois.
MR. STEIN: Pardon me, gentlemen. I know we
have proceeded this far. Let's see, I think if we are
going to work this out and we have some real tough sub-
stantive problems--
-------
18
_____ _—-——•—
P. Booth
MR. KLASSEN: We want to know--
MR. STEIN: Just a moment. I think the
prerequisite for working this out is an orderly pro-
ceeding.
Now, I think again we are here and let me
give you the ground rules. No one is testifying under
oath.
MR. KLASSEN: Right, 0. K.
MR. STEIN: No one has to answer any ques-
tions . But any of the conferees certainly can ask what
the conferees consider pertinent questions. If you
don't want to respond to these questions, I think the
record will be very clear from any way you want to
make it. But please, let's try and have an orderly
proceeding in an orderly way.
MR. BOOTH: We have nothing to hide. We will
be glad to submit a very long list of the organizations
which are affiliated in the Campaign Against Pollution.
MR. KLASSEN: That is all we want.
MRS. BOTTS: Mr. Stein, I am Mrs. Botts from
the Open Lands Project and I wish to object to what has
just taken place here. I wrote to Mr. Klassen two weeks
-------
19
Mrs. L. Botts
ago and inquired whether the public would be allowed to
participate in this procedure. He referred the letter
to you and I received a letter from you saying that
this was an Executive Session in which public repre-
sentatives would not be allowed to participate. There
are many other organizations that would have liked to
participate in this meeting today but we were trying to
observe the orderly procedure which you described.
I don't understand why this exception has
been made. This is not a disagreement with what Mr.
Booth has said, but there are other organizations in
all four States who would have been present here today
to make a statement.
MR. STEIN: In an Executive Session we do not
in our regular procedure--
¥e gave full opportunity in our three previous
public conferences for citizens groups who were here and
other groups--
MRS. BOTTS: That still doesn't—
MR. STEIN: Just one moment. Will you listen?
I waited for you to finish.
The Executive Session does not have people
-------
Mrs. L. Botts
participating under the rules.
Now, however, when we got to the Executive
Session our policy has been that if someone at that
time felt that they had a compelling need to make a
statement, even under these rules, we are operating in
a free society and we were glad to avail"the oppor-
tunity to the Campaign Against Pollution to do so. If
you want to make a statement, and feel that you have to
make one here, the podium is open to you.
MRS. BOTTS: The statement I will make at
this time is that I think the violation t>f the rules
which this conference set up which was communicated
to me in writing casts some doubt on the credibility
of the procedures of this conference. I represent an
organization that tried to observe the rules, to
observe the procedures, and to have them violated in
this way on this ground undermines our capacity to
continue to participate in this orderly procedure, so
called.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Again may I suggest to the people out there,
-------
. 21
Mrs. L. Botts
and I hope you will listen to this, in dealing with
pollution problems, as I have said many times, we are
faced with a horrible environmental hazard that is
hanging.over our heads. We all have to get together
and work this out and extend a hand to each other. If
we get into tangential or peripheral issues to raise
questions of Federal rights, State rights, economic
rights, industrial rights, the environment is not
going to know this and we are going to have a worsening
environment.
If we can get into the battle over procedural
instead of substantive problems, you will have to make
your own judgment whether you are furthering the cause
of the battle against pollution.
MR. KLASSEN: I just want to say, though, Mr.
Chairman, Mrs. Botts has a very valid point. (Applause.)
If we are going to open this up to one group--
and this is my only reason for wanting to know who this
other group was--if we are going to open it up for one
group, we ought to let everybody testify that wants to
testify. I have always been, and people know that here,
in favor of letting the public give their views and help
-------
22
Mrs. L. Botts
make decisions.
Now, if one group is permitted to testify,
which they have, fine, we want their input. There are
many other groups that have written to me wanting to
testify, I have referred them to you for the ground
rules, and I just want to say as one conferee, Mrs.
Botts has a very good point and I believe it is a valid
one.
REV. LEONARD DUBI: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
REV. LEONARD DUBI: I am from the Campaign
Against Pollution. We took pains to try to have this
Executive Session transformed into a public hearing.
We were in communication with Mr. Mayo. I delivered
a letter personally to him. He told me through his
secretary that he was in communication with you.
We feel that this is a responsibility we have
as citizens to be able to testify here and we certainly
support this lady that she has a right, as many others
have a right, to come here to testify to the seriousness
of this problem and"our concern for this problem.
MR. STEIN: May we have your name, sir. For
-------
23.
Mrs. L. Botts
the record.
REV. DUBI: Father Dubi.
MR, STEIN: I certainly agree with you. I
certainly agree with you.
REV. DUBI: Well, is this going to be an open
hearing, then, for people to testify?
MR. STEIN: Anyone who is here or wants to
make a statement.
Have we told you you couldn't make a statement
on that when you asked for the opportunity to make a
statement? Anyone who is here who wants to make a
statement is certainly welcome.
MR. KARAGANIS: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: What?
MR. KARAGANIS: Are you now opening the floor
for anyone who does want to make a statement?
MR. STEIN: We will open this in an orderly
manner.
MR. KARAGANIS: Thank you. (Applause.)
MR. STEIN: We can't have a record without you
identifying yourself. Is Mrs. Piere here?
MRS. PIERE: Yes.
-------
J. Karaganis
MR. STEIN: All right. Anyone who wants to
make a statement, register with Mrs. Piere and we will
recess for 10 minutes,
(RECESS)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
We have three people who have registered.
Joseph Karaganis, will you please come to the rostrum
and identify yourself.
JOSEPH KARAGANIS
BUSINESSMEN FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. KARAGANIS: My name is Joseph Karaganis.
I am here representing Businessmen for the Public
Interest.
Like Mrs. Botts, I had presumed that this
meeting was going to be a closed session and had not
attempted to prepare written testimony today, indeed
had not attempted to prepare a specific statement out-
lining the criticisms of existing thermal problems
and existing thermal pollution as well as radiation
problems.
-------
25
J. Karaganis
One of the criticisms that citizens groups
continually receive from agencies and that citizens
groups continually receive from industry is that we
are uninformed, we are ill prepared and we come up and
make emotional statements.
I am not here to make an emotional statement
today. I am here to tell you that because of the pro-
cedure followed for this meeting I am unprepared today.
I was not expecting the opportunity to testify and I
have not had a chance to prepare the kind of testimony
that I feel would be useful to your deliberations.
I am asking, therefore, that you follow a
consistent open and public policy of reconvening this
session so that the literally close to 100 community
groups that I know of that are concerned about this
problem do have an opportunity to prepare informed,
reasoned, aggressive testimony on the problem.
Thank you. (Applause.)
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Mr. Karaganis, I will recommend that we give
you that opportunity as soon as possible and reconvene
the session so you will all have an opportunity to
-------
,"C. :T. Quigg
discuss it.
MR. KARAGANIS: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Catherine T. Quigg.
CATHERINE T. QUIGG
HARRINGTON, ILLINOIS
MRS. QUIGG: I am Catherine T. Quigg and I
represent myself. I have done some research in thermal
pollution because I am concerned about the Zion plant
and the effects on Lake Michigan.
I have written a statement which I hoped to
submit today;
According to representatives of Commonwealth
Edison Company, cooling towers are not feasible at their
Zion, Illinois, nuclear powerplants. They claim wet
cooling towers will produce undesirable atmospheric
conditions for the surrounding area.
However, sucn conditions are not often
encountered in practice. A recent investigation of
fogging problems from natural and mechanical draft
towers presently operating in the eastern United States
supports this conclusion. Reports indicate that
-------
27
C. T. Quigg
natural draft towers, that is wet towers, did not
produce ground level fog or drizzle under any weather
conditions. Plumes rarely dropped below the top of
the tower for an extended distance, and generally
dissipated within a few hundred feet of a tower.
In general, undesirable meteorologic effects
from towers can be prevented or controlled to a large
degree through modern design--effective drift eliminatoru
air flow control, et cetera. In situations where
problems arise, the area affected is limited to that
immediate to the tower installation.
The above information is contained in the
"industrial Waste Guide on Thermal Pollution" prepared
by the United States Department of the Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Pacific
Northwest Water Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, Septem-
ber 1968.
The other objection that is often voiced by
the power industries is its cost. According to Federal
Winter Pollution Control Administration studies,
installation of cooling equipment to control thermal
pollution from water discharges from powerplants would
-------
J. Nash
add from one percent to five percent to a cus-comer's
electric bill.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
May we have Janis Nash.
JANIS NASH
CHAIRMAN
SOCIETY TO STOP POLLUTION
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MRS. NASH: Good morning, gentlemen.
I am not sure that I understand all the tech-
nicalities of keeping our lake clear and free and able
to usQ. But I do understand that that part of it is your
job right now,,and I know that I am planning to use the
lake this summer with my children,and I know there are
a lot of people who are planning to use it,and I hope
that it will be able to be used. I don't think that the
people of this city and the cities surrounding the lake
ought to be forced inside to indoor pools because they
cannot use their lake.
That is all I have. (Applause.)
-------
29
R. W. Purdy
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
At this point we will proceed with the reports
from the States.
May we call on Michigan. Mr. Purdy.
RALPH W. PURDY
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
LANSING, MICHIGAN
MR. PURDY: Mr. stein, under a letter dated
May 1, 1970, we furnished to Mr. Mayo a table containing
interim dates for compliance with the recommendations
of the reconvened session of the Lake Michigan enforce-
ment conference that you, speaking of Mr. Mayo,
requested in his letter of April 14, 1970.
The dates listed for dischargers to retain
engineers, initiate detailed engineering plans and
specifications and arrange financing are staff recom-
mended target dates that have not been included in
stipulations, orders of determinations or final orders.
And we have a complete listing of these dates to pre-
sent to the conferees. I don't know how you would like
-------
R. W. Purdy
to handle this this morning. There are some 85
municipalities. I don't think that you would care to
go through those in detail.
MR. STEIN: Do you have enough copies to hand
around?
MR. PURDY: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: Can you refer to possibly the
highlights of those which you feel may not be on
schedule and just skip the ones which are or refer to
them? Is that possible?
MR. PURDY: Well, yes.
MR. STEIN: And maybe we can just get at the
major ones.
MR. PURDY: At the reconvened session in
Milwaukee, we reported to you on dates for preliminary
engineering report to submit the detailed specifica-
tions, dates to initiate construction and to complete
construction. We were not behind on any of those dates,
We have inserted additional dates for retain-
ing engineers, to initiate detailed plans and specifi-
cations, to arrange the financing, and none of the
municipalities or industries listed are behind the
dates that we have submitted to you.
(Which said report is as follows:)
-------
31
INTERIM DATES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
RECONVENED SESSION OF THE LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
The following table contains interim dates for compliance with
the recommendations of the reconvened session of the Lake Michigan
Enforcement Conference. The dates listed for discharges to retain
engineers, initiate detailed engineering plans and specifications
and arrange financing are staff recommended target dates that
have not been included in stipulations, orders of determination or
final orders.
-------
32
INTERIM DATES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE RECONVENED SESSION OF THE LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
Initiate
Submit Detailed
Final Order of Preliminary Plans Submit
Basin
UPPER PENINSULA
Menominee River
Escanaba River
LOWER PENINSULA
Boardman River
Lake Michigan
UPPER PENINSULA
Menominee River
Days River
Manistique River
LOWER PENINSULA
Pine River
Boardman River
Betsie River
Manistee River
Pere Marquette River
Industry
or
Community
1. American Can
Co . , Menominee
Mill, Marathon
Div.
1. Mead Corp. ,
Escanaba
division
1. Traverse City
Canning Company
1. Morgan McCool,
Inc.
2. Packaging Corp.
of America,
American Box
Board DiV.
1. Iron Mountain
Kings ford
2. Iron River
3. Menominee
t . Noway
1. Gladstone
1. Manistique
1. Boyne City
2. Charlevoix
3. East Jordan Lake
1. Traverse City
1. Beulah
1. Manistee
1 . Ludington
Determination Engine -
or Voluntary Date Retain ering
Stipulation No. Adopted Engineers Report
I NDUSTR I A
Stipulation 2-9-70 3-9-70 6-1-70
Order of 5-31-68
Determination
• 1161
Stipulation 5-16-69 6-16-69 5-1-70
Stipulation 5-16-69 6-1C-69 5-1-70
n u N i c i P A
Final Order 9-22-69 10-22-69 3-1-70
• 1305
Stipulation 7-22-69 8-22-69 4-2-70
Stipulation 2-14-69 3-14-69 6-1-69
Final Order 9-22-69 10-22-69 3-1-70
ill 306
Final Order 3-23-70 4-25-69 3-1-70
J1304
7-1-70
Stipulation 3-20-69 4-20-69 12-1-69
Stipulation 2-14-69 3-14-69 6-1-69
Stipulation 6-24-69 7-24-69 12-1-69
Final Order 8-30-68 9-30-68 10-15-69
*1198
Voluntary
Program
Stipulation 2-14-69 3-14-69 6-1-69
Statutory
Hearing held
3-18-70
and Detailed Arrange Initiate Complete
Specif- Speci- Finan- Const- Const-
ications ications cing^ ruction ruction Remarks
L D I SCHAR6ES
7-1-70 1-1-71 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
Increased use
statement.
Control req-
uired by
start of
operation
6-1-70 3-1-71 5-30-71 6-30-71 12-31-71
6-1-70 3-1-71 5-30-71 6-30-71 12-31-71
4-1-71 6-1-71 7-1-71 12-1-72 Conference held
5-15-69. Stip-
ulation not yet
signed. Dates
are staff
recommenda tions
DISCHARGES
4-1-70 9-1-70 4-1-71 5-1-71 12-1-72 Nutrient removal
3-1-71 3-1-71 4-1-71 6-1-72 New or improved
treatment .
S-l-70 1-1-71 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
7-J-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72 Nutrient removal
12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72 New or improved
treatment.
4-1-70- 2-1-71 '5-1-71 6-1-71 1Z-1-72
4-1-70 12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72 Nutrient removal
12-1-70 4-1-71 5-1-71 6-1-72 New or Improved
treatment.
8-1-70 7-1-71 8-1-71 10-1-71 12-1-72 Final Order
with these
dates author-
ized by Com-
mission at
April 1970
meeting.
1-1-70 9-1-70 4-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
7-1-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
1-1-70 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
11-15-69 6-1-70 6-15-70 7-15-70 12-31-71
Under const-
ruction.
7-1-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
3-1-71 11-1-71 12-1-71 12-1-72 Dates are staff
recommendations .
-1-
-------
33
Basin
White River
Miskegon River
Grand River
1.
1.
2.
.3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Community
Whitehall
Big Rapids
Cadillac
Fremont
Muskegon
Muskegon Heights
North Muskegon
Reed City
Alpine Township
Delhi Township
Delta Township
Dewitt Township
East Lansing
Eaton Rapids
Gaines Township
(CutlervUle)
Grand Haven
Grand Ledge
Grand Rapids
Grandville
Greenville
Hastings
Hudsonvill-
Ionia
Jackson
Lansing
Leoni Township
Jackson Co.
Final Order of
Determination
or Voluntary
Stipulation No.
Stipulation
Final Order
C1290
Stipulation
Stipulation
Stipulation
Stipulation
Stipulation
Stipulation
Final Order
• 903
Final Order
»12S7
Stipulation
Final Order
•908
Stipulation
Final Order
• 1255
Stipulation
Stipulation
Stipulation
Stipulation
Stipulation
Stipulation
Stipulation
Stipulation
Date
Adopted
10-16-68
7-28-69
5-16-69
3-20-69
3-20-69
8-1-69
6-24-69
5-16-69
8-1-66
4-23-69
6-24-69
8-3-66
8-5-69
4-21-69
4-23-69
12-11-69
6-24-69
8-1-69
4-23-69
3-20-69
5-16-69
8-1-69
Ret; .1
Engineers
11-16-68
8-28-69
6-16-69
4-20-69
4-20-69
9-1-69
6-16-69
S-23-69
9-5-69
5-21-69
5-23-69
1-11-70
9-1-69
5-23-69
4-20-69
6-16-69
9-1-69
.Submit
Preliminary
Engine-
ering
Report
7-1-70
4-1-70
2-1-70
5-1-70
6-1-69
5-1-70
6-1-69
3-1-70.
3-1-70
6-1-69
8-1-70.
3-I:70
9-1-69
11-1-70
(>-l -u!>
5-15-70
11-1-69
6-1-69
4-1-70
•
4-15-70
Initiate
Detailed
Plans
and
Specif-
ications
8-1-70
5-1-70
3-1-70
6-1-70
7-1-69
6-1-70
7-1-69
4-1-70
.
4-1-70
7-1-69
9-1-70
4-1-70
10-1-69
12-1-70
7-1 -£)P
6-15-70
12-1-69
7-1-69
5-1-70
5-15-70
Submit
Detailed
Specif-
ications
9-1-70
3-1-71
12-1-70
9-1-70
9-1-70
9-1-70
9-1-70
9-1-70
9-1-70
1-1-71
9-1-71
8-1-71
3-1-7!
9-i-/u
6-1-71
9-1-70
9-1-70
12-1-70
9-1-70
12-1-70
3-1-71
Arrange
Finan-
cing
5-1-71
7-1-71
5-1-71
5-1-71
5-1-71
5-1-71
S-l-71
5-1-71
5-1-71
11-1-71
11-1-71
3-1-70
11-1-71
11-1-71
5-1-71
8-1-71
5-1-71
5-1-71
5-1-71
5-1-71
5-1-71
11-1-71
Initiate
Const-
ruction
6-1-71
8-1-71
6-1-71
6-1-71
6-1-71
6-1-71
6-1-71
6-1-71
6-1-71
12-1-71
12-1-71
4-1-70
12-1-71
12-1-71
6-1-71
9-1-71
6-1-71
6-1-71
6-1-71
6-1-71
6-1-71
12-1-71
Complete
Const-
ruction
12-1-72
10-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
7-1-69
12-1-72
12-1-72
9-1-71
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
5-1-70
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
12-1-72
Remarks
Nutrient removal
New or improved
treatment.
Has connected
to Grand Rapids
system.
In default of
Final Order.
Construction
dates from.
court order of
10/24/68.
Has been
connected to the
Wyoming system.
To be connected
to the Grand-
ville system.
Statutory
hearing to be
held 5/11/70.
Statutory
hearing to be
held 5/11/70.
19. Lowell
20. Mason
21 Michigan
Reformatory
(Ionia)
22. Paris Township
(City of Kentwood)
23. Plainfield Townsh,.
Kent County
Final Order 1-20-70 2-20-70 9-1-70 10-1-70 5-1-71 11-1-71 12-1-71 12-1-72
»1338
Stipulation 10-16-69 11-16-f" '-1-70 4-1-70 12-1-70 7-1-71 8-1-71 12-1-72
3-1-71 11-1-71 12-1-71 12-1-72 Dates are
staff
recommendations.
Has been con-
nected to the
Grand Rapids and
Wyoming systems.
Has been con-
nected to the
Grand Rapids
system.
24. Portland
25. Rockford
Final Order 4-21-69 5-21-69 4-1-70 5-1-70 12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
H256
-2-
To connect to
the Grand Rapids
system. Inter-
ceptor completed
11-69.
-------
Basin
Black River
Holland
Kalamazoo River
Paw Paw River
Submit
Final Order of Preliminary
Determination Engine-
or Voluntary Date Retain ering
Community Stipulation No. Adopted Engineers Report
Statutory
Hearing held
4-23-70
Voluntary
program
26. St. Johns
27. Sparta
Initiate
Detailed
Plans Submit
and Detailed Arrange Initiate Complete
Specif- Specif- Finan- Const- Camt-
ications Ications cinr ruction ruction
28. Spring Lake
29. State Prison
(Jackson)
30. Walker
31. Williamston
32. Wyoming
1. Holland
2. Zeeland
1. Albion
2. Allegan
3. Battle Creek
4. Charlotte
5. Kalamazoo
6. Marshall
7. Otsego
8. Plainwell
9. Springfield
10. South Haven
1. Benton Township
Stipulation 8-11-69 9-11-69 9-15-69
Stipulation 9-17-69 10-17-69 7-1-70
Stipulation 3-20-69 4-20-69 6-1-69
Stipulation 4-23-69 5-23-69 4-1-70
Stipulation 5-16-69 6-1-69
Stipulation 5-16-69 6-16-69 7-1-70
Court Order
Stipulation 1-26-70 2-26-70 5-1-70
Stipulation 2-14-69 3-14-69 6-1-71.
Stipulation 3-20-69 4-20-69 6-1-69
Stipulation 6-24-69 7-24-69 6-1-70
Order of 3-24-69 4-24-69 10-1-69
Determination
• 1240
Stipulation 4-23-69 5-23-69 4-1-70
Remarks
Continued to
Hearing
examiner.
Under
construction.
Stipulation 3-20-69 4-20-69 9-1-69 10-1-69 9-1-70 S-l-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
Conference
held 3/18/70
4-1-70
9-15-70
To provide
nutrient removal
by 12-72.
Has been con-
nected to the
Grand Rapids
system.
10-15-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 . 12-1-72
8-1-70 1-1-71 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
7-1-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
5-1-70 12-1-70 11-1-71 12-1-71 12-1-72
7-1-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
8-1-70 1-1-71 9-1-71 10-1-71 12-1-72
Attorney General
asked to reopen
court action.
6-1-70 4-1-71 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
7-1-71 1-1-72 2-1-72 3-1-72 12-1-72
7-1-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
7-1-70 9-1-70 S-l-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
11-1-69 3-1-71 11-1-71 12-1-71 12-1-72
Has been con-
nected to the
Battle Creek
system.
5-1-70 12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
Voluntary program
underway to
correct sewer
overflows.
St. Joseph River
2. Hartford
3. Paw Paw
Final Order 3-24-69 4-24-69' 9-1-69
»1249
Final Order 3-24-69 4-24-70 5-1-70
1. Andrews University Stipulation 3-20-69 4-20-69 6-1-70
Berrien Springs
2. Benton Harbor
§ St. Joseph
4, Bronson
5. Buchanan
6. Coldwater
7. Coldwater State
Home and
Training School
8. Constantino
9. Dowagiac
10. Hillsdale
11. Miles
12. Sturgis
10-1-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
6-1-70 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
7-1-70 1-1-71 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
7-1-6
Stipulation 5-16-69 6-1-69
3. Berrien Springs Stipulation 3-20-69 4-20-69 12-1-69 1-1-70
Stipulation 5-16-69 6-16-69 3-1-70 4-1-70
Final Order 2-23-70 3-23-70 4-1-70 5-1-70
«1346
9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72 Nutrient removal
12-1-70 3-1-71 4-1-71 6-1-72 New or improved
treatment.
9-1-70 5-1-72 6-1-72 12-1-72
12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72 Nutrient removal
12-1-70 3-1-71 4-1-71 6-1-72 New or improved
Stipulation 8-1-69 9-1-69 3-1-70 4-1-70 1-1-71 2-1-71 3-1-71 12-1-72
Stipulation 8-7-69 9-7-69 12-1-69 1-1-70
3-1-71 11-1-71 12-1-71 12-1-72 Dates are staff
recommendations.
12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72 Nutrient removal
12-1-70 3-1-71 4-1-71 6-1-72 New or improved
treatment.
Stipulation 6-24-69 7-24-69 1-1-70
Stipulation 3-20-69 4-20-69 9-1-69
Stipulation 3-20-69 4-20-69 6-1-69
Order of 4-28-69 5-28-69 9-1-69
Determination
»128S
2-1-70 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
10-1-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
7-1-69 12-1-70 3-1-71 4-1-71 12-1-72
10-1-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
-3-
-------
35
Basin
Community
13.. Three Rivers
14. Vicksburg
Final Order of
Determination
or Voluntary
Stipulation No.
Stipulation
Stipulation
Initiate
Submit Detailed
Preliminary Plans Submit
Engine- and Detailed Arrange Initiate Caiplete
Date Retain ering Specif- Specif- Finan- Const- Const-
Adopted Engineers Report i cat ions ications cing ruction ruction
Remarks
MISCELLANEOUS DRAINAGE AREAS
Galien River
1. Chikaming Twp. Final Order
(Sawyer, Lakeside, »1136
Union Pier)
5-16-69 6-16-69 9-1-69 10-1-69 12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72 Nutrient removal
12-1-70 3-1-71 4-1-71 6-1-72 New or unproved
treatment.
2-14-69 3-14-69 8-1-69 9-1-69 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
3-28-68 4-28-68 6-1-68 7-1-68 3-1-70 6-1-70 7-1-70 7-1-71
2. New Buffalo
Final Order
»1250
3. New Buffalo Twp. Final Order
(Union Pier .Area) »1135
Portage Creek
1. Harbor Point
Association
2. Harbor Springs
3. Petoskey
4. Wequetonsing
1. Escanaba
3-24-69 4-24-69 2-1-70 3-1-70 9-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
3-25-68 4-26-68 6-1-68 7-1-68 3-1-70 6-1-70 7-1-70 7-1-71
Stipulation 6-24-69 7-24-69 12-1-69 1-1-70 12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
Stipulation 4-23-69 5-23-69 9-1-69 10-1-69 12-1-70 S-l-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
Stipulation 3-20-69 4-20-69 8-1-69 9-1-69 12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72 Nutrient removal
12-1-70 3-1-71 4-1-71 6-1-72 New or improved
treatment.
Stipulation 8-1-69 9-1-69 12-1-69 1-1-70 12-1-70 5-1-71 6-1-71 12-1-72
Stipulation 2-14-69 3-14-69 6-1-69 7-1-69 3-1-71 11-1-71 12-1-71 12-1-72
-------
__36_
R. W. Purdy
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
As I see it, this is precisely the kind of
information that we ask for. It will enable the
State, the Federal Government, the other States
involved, the public and everyone to check with pre-
cision on the remedial program the conferees have
agreed upon and see if there are any lapses. This
is the key information that we need at this stage of
the cleanup of Lake Michigan.
I would like to thank you very much for this,
Mr. Purdy, fHhe conferees can examine this, and while
you are here, Mr. Purdy, if anyone has any questions, I
assume you will hold yourself open for them.
MR. PURDY: Now, Mr. Stein, I would like to
point out that on the Submit Preliminary Engineering
Report dates, many of these dates have gone by. In some
instances the preliminary engineering report is a week
or a month late coming into the Commission, but as of
this date any time that there has been a preliminary
engineering report date lapse we have it in hand now.
MR. STEIN: Right. Thank you very much.
-------
: 37
R. W. Purdy
Yes, Mr. Poole.
MR. POOLE: What about trte industries?
MR. PURDY: We are on schedule with the
industries that are shown on this report.
MR. POOLE: I may not have been looking care-
fully enough. I haven't found any industries.
MR. STEIN: Well, look at the first page.
MR. POOLE: I see them at the top. 0. K.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
You remember when I started out years ago^Al
Reeder used to complain when we gave him these copies
he couldn't read, and I wondered what he was talking
about. Now that I am getting along and they put this
stuff out in small print, I know just what he meant.
Does that conclude the Michigan presentation
on that?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. STEIN: May we go to Wisconsin.
-------
38
T. G. Frangos
THOMAS G. FRANGOS
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF WATER RESOURCES
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MADISON, WISCONSIN
MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Chairman.
We have a statement report to make to the con-
ferees and we are distributing them.
While they are being passed out, I think we
would like to insert for the record the fact that we,
too, have discouraged and, in fact, turned down a
request for public groups to appear at this meeting,
and I just want it to be understood that we were
operating under that understanding.
MR. STEIN: Yes. Let me make this clear for
all the States. I recognize this. This was the intent
of the meeting, to have an Executive Session. Again as
you know, you people who have worked with us, you know
it is our intent, our considered operation policy, never
to turn anyone away who feels compelled that they really
want to say something.
All right.
-------
. 39
T. G. Prangos
MR. FRANGOS: We understand. ¥e just want our
people back home to understand.
MR. STEIN: All right.
And we will make a recommendation, since
there is that much interest here, to have a meeting
scheduled as soon as possible where we will have an
opportunity again for the widest insertion of public
views .
MR. PURDY: Mr. Frangos, if I could interrupt
a moment, on this same point I would have to say that
we had several inquiries from persons interested in
making statements at this hearing, and again having been
involved in Executive Sessions prior to this date we
informed these people that they would not have an oppor-
tunity to make statements; that they could be present in
the audience.
Now, you can't see the map from where you are
sitting, Mr. Chairman, but I know that you are^familiar
with it* If we look at the drainage basin involved
and the surface area of Lake Michigan and shoreline
involved, I think it is quite obvious that Michigan has
a great stake in the quality of Lake Michigan waters.
-------
T. G. Frangos
I have traveled and Michigan people have traveled to
•
Chicago numerous times to participate in sessions of
this conference. I think it is time that we meet in
Michigan and give our Michigan people an opportunity
to appear and observe the conference and to participate
in it without the long travel distance required in
coming to the Chicago area.
MR. STEIN: I would agree with that. Again
I can't see the map, but isn't a place near Grand
Rapids a reasonable place to be?
MR. PURDY: Grand Rapids would, say, be in an
area where we have a large part of our Michigan popula-
tion.
MR. STEIN: What is the city or community
right on the lake near "Grand Rapids?
MR. PURDY: Well, Mr. Klassen would like to
go back to his old home at Grand Haven, I understand.
MR. STEIN: Oh, Grand Haven.
Why don't the conferees consider that, because
I think we may have the next session at Grand Haven and
we will give an opportunity, certainly, to the Michigan
people who haven't had one of these conferences held in
-------
T. G. Prangos
their State.
MR. KLASSEN: Seriously, Mr. Chairman, while
I have a warm spot in my heart for Grand Haven and even
though they have a primary sewage treatment plant
(laughter), I think that we ought to go probably to
Grand Rapids because of the ease with which people from
Illinois can get to the center of transportation. If
we are going to Michigan, I would say that probably we
ought to forego the little town of Grand Haven and go
to Grand Rapids. Where they have, I understand, a com-
plete treatment plant, Ralph?
MR. PURDY: That is correct.
MR. KLASSEN: And chlorination?
MR. PURDY: And chlorination and very possibly
will have phosphorus removal. \
MR. KLASSEN: Thank you.'
MR. STEIN: Well, let's consider that next
time.
Mr. Klassen, how about our taking a side trip
\
to Grand Haven, though?
MR. KLASSEN: I will be glad to show you some
of the sources of pollution, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)
-------
T. G. Frangos
MR. POOLE: I also want to see where Klassen
was born, so count me in on that side trip.
MR. STEIN: You know, I have been anxious to
find out that too. (Laughter.)
May we go on with the Wisconsin statement, Mr,
Prangos?
MR. PRANGOS: Yes.
In response to the action taken at the
recently reconvened Lake Michigan enforcement con-
ference at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on March 31, 1970, the
Department of Natural Resources has prepared the fol-
lowing report on the status of abatement schedules that
have been established to meet the several requirements
of the Lake Michigan enforcement conference.
In accordance with the recommendations of the
conferees, a detailed abatement schedule covering all
pollution sources located within the Lake Michigan
drainage basin has been prepared and is attached for
the information and review of the conferees. It should
be noted that this schedule contains a complete break-
down of the remedial needs at each municipality and
industry and has a related time schedule for securing
-------
43
T. G. Prangos
abatement. It should be further noted that each need
has "been identified as to whether the particular
deficiency has an effect on water quality of the water-
courses covered by the Jurisdiction of the Lake Michigan
enforcement conference. The previous reports of the
Department had outlined these needs collectively and
had not been as specific as to whether the needs affected
the quality of those waters of concern to this con-
ference. As a result of the proceedings at the last
session of the conference, it appeared desirable to be
as precise as possible as to the time schedules that
fall within the framework of this conference.
At the last session in Milwaukee, several
questions were raised about specific pollution sources
and to their respective timetables for compliance. The
following is in response to these questions:
Industrial and Municipal Sources - other than
disinfection requirements.
J. I. Case Company.
A review of progress made at this company
indicates that it has completed the installation of
facilities to reduce suspended solids and treat oil
-------
44
T. G. Frangos
wastes. These facilities have been constructed and are
now in operation. This action by the company places it
in compliance with State requirements and Federal
requirements as outlined in the implementation plan for
interstate water quality standards.
Baileys Harbor Laundry.
This laundry operates during the summer months
at Baileys Harbor, Wisconsin. Repeated efforts on the
part of the Department to secure corrective action have
not been successful. The Department of Natural Resources
is now in the process of determining legal enforcement
steps that must be taken to secure abatement. The other
alternative is to close the facility. It should be
noted that the Department of Natural Resources has
categorized this pollution source as not affecting water
quality of Lake Michigan. Neither its oxygen demanding
constituents nor the phosphorus load is of sufficient
size to affect water quality other than in the immediate
vicinity of the discharge.
Disinfection.
A list of Wisconsin communities at which dis-
infection was not occurring on a year-round basis at the
-------
T. G. Frangos
time of the reconvened session in Milwaukee on March 31,
1970, was furnished to the conferees. This list has been
reassessed, brought up to date and the following details
are reported. A review of this list indicates that
three of the communities fall within the jurisdiction
of the conference recommendation as it relates to dis-
infection.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission.
A detailed discussion of this situation will follow.
Two Rivers.
This community has purchased the required
chlorination facilities and they have been delivered to
the plant and have been installed. The community is
now awaiting the arrival of the equipment manufacturer's
representative to initiate operation of the chlorination
equipment. It is anticipated that this will take place
within the next 10 days. Barring unforeseen problems,
chlorination will be in effect in the very near future.
Village of Oconto.
The village is required to provide disinfection
by May 1970. It is apparent that this deadline will not
be met. The Department is instituting enforcement
-------
T. G. Frangos
proceedings to achieve compliance.
The following Wisconsin communities do not
provide chlorination and this relates to the listing
that was prepared at the close of the last session.
It is the Department's position that the
absence of chlorination does not affect the water
quality of Lake Michigan. However, for the information
of the conferees, we are presenting a. listing of com-
pliance or installation dates required by the Department
of Natural Resources;
And we have that list that you have before you
for your review and information and comments. I will
not read it unless you want me to.
MR. STEIN: No, I think, unless any of the
conferees has a reason for that being read, that will
appear in the record as if read.
(Which said list appears herein at page 6l.)
MR. FRANGOS: The Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission, disinfection abatement schedules.
At the recent reconvened session in Milwaukee,
the question of unilateral action on the part of Wis-
consin with respect to extending conference deadlines
-------
47
T. G. Prangos
for disinfection was raised. It appears that it would
be useful for some of the historical background to be
made a part of the record and available to the conferees.
The implementation plan for the Wisconsin
Interstate Water Quality Standards program that was
adopted by the Secretary of the Interior required that
the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission provide
disinfection by May 1968. Subsequent to the development
*
of this implementation plan, the Lake Michigan enforce-
ment conference was reconvened and abatement deadlines
were established. One of these was the requirement of
year-round chlorination by May 1969. When it became
apparent to ,the Department of Natural Resources that
there was a question as to whether the Milwaukee Metro-
politan Commission would meet either of these deadlines,
we initiated discussions and correspondence with the
Federal Water Quality Administration. It was Wisconsin'^
understanding,since the implementation plan had a prior
date, that we should work with the Federal agency
rather than with the conference as a whole. The record,
we believe, is clear that the Federal Water Quality
Administration was aware of this delay and that the
-------
48
T. G. Frangos
agency did not object to the revised timetables that
were established by the State of Wisconsin. As late
as February 1969 our Department corresponded with the
Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Water Quality
Administration with respect to the Milwaukee Metropoli-
tan Sewerage disinfection problem. A revised schedule
was negotiated between the Department of Natural
Resources and the Milwaukee Sewerage Commission as to
the earliest time possible for compliance. For several
reasons, which will be discussed later, it was deter-
mined that the earliest schedule possible for the perma-
nent installation of chlorination facilities would be
December 31* 1971. This action was communicated again
to the Federal Water Quality Administration. We had the
impression -from the former Regional Director that a
timetable that was acceptable to the State agency would
*
be acceptable to the FWQA. On subsequent occasions
during meetings with the Department of the Interior and
the FWQA, about the Milwaukee Jones Island Plant, there
have been ample opportunities for the FWQA to raise
this question of delay and unilateral action. This was
not done until the session in Milwaukee. I would like
-------
T. G. Prangos
to cite several examples.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
and the Commission have provided the Chicago Regional
Office with data obtained from preliminary research
investigations on the proposed chlorination process at
the Jones Island Plant. We have received no comments
on these reports. This data .was submitted on the
assumption that there was concurrence in the overall
proposal for chlorination.
In November of I9&9» Assistant Secretary Carl
Klein, accompanied by Lt. Governor Olson, visited the
Jones Island Plant and made an inspection. Although
considerable time was spent at the Jones Island Plant,
no concern was expressed about chlorination at that
time. In fact, we were particularly gratified that
Secretary Klein recognized some of the experimental
work relating to phosphorus removal that had been
initiated by the Commission. As a result of Secretary
Klein's visit, the FWQA awarded a grant to the Commission
to help support and continue studies investigating the
use of spent industrial waste as a means for providing
additional phosphorus removals at the Jones Island
-------
T. G. Frangos
Plant. We appreciate the Department's support of that
important experiment.
Subsequently in January, staff members of the
Chicago Regional Office spent two days with the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources staff reviewing pollution
abatement schedules, including the Lake Michigan Basin.
No objections were received at that time.
In the latter part of February, the recently
appointed Regional Director, Mr. Mayo, came to Wiscon-
sin to review our programs and discuss the upcoming
Lake Michigan enforcement conference and the agenda. No
objection was made at that time about chlorination at
the Jones Island Plant.
As late as the week previous to the holding of
the conference, the Regional Director extended an invi-
tation to Mr. Raymond Leary, Executive Director of the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, to partici-
pate in the enforcement conference and discuss the
status of the phosphorus removal investigations that
were partially funded by the FWQA. Mr. Leary did
appear at that conference as part of the Federal pre-
sentation. At no time was Mr. Leary advised of the
-------
___ 51
T. G. Frangos
dissatisfaction with the chlorination question.
These events are cited to indicate that the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources did not pro-
ceed on a unilateral basis. Our assumption was and is
that the implementation plan took precedence over
enforcement conference recommendations and for that
reason, we worked with the Regional Office of FWQA.
This approach was made in good faith, and we wish to
assure the conferees that there was no intention to
bypass the other conferees of the Lake Michigan enforce-
ment conference. It should be further noted -cnat there
are no published rules or regulations or guidelines that
have been promulgated by the Department of the Interior
to give specific guidance and details on how this whole
area of joint enforcement of standards and recommenda-
tions should be administered. We consider the lack of
such rules to be a substantial weakness in conference
procedures.
I would like to comment at this time, Mr.
Chairman, that we make this statement for the record
so that the Wisconsin actions can be reviewed by the
conferees in total. We do this without any
-------
T. G. Fra.ng.os
Commission felt obliged to proceed with the project for
renovating the powerplant. The second reason relates
to the physical limitations at the Jones Island Treat-
ment Plant site. The installation of conventional
treatment facilities would require the construction of
a very large holding tank at the outfall of the treat-
ment plant. At the present time there is insufficient
space for construction of this large holding tank. At
the same time the Commission reexamined earlier con-
siderations that had been given to providing a different
method of disinfection. That method is to provide for
chlorination in the effluent channels of the treatment
plant at a higher concentration than normally maintained
and with a shorter detention period. Under normal flow
conditions the detention period that can be obtained in
the effluent channels is about seven minutes. There, of
course, was also the recognition that there would be
considerable savings if this method could be used rather
than the construction of the large holding tank. As
part of the State approval the Commission was permitted
to proceed with chlorination experiments to determine
whether, in fact, a comparable kill could be obtained
-------
- 52
T. G. Prangos
recriminations with respect to the operations of the
Chicago Regional Office. We recognize that there was
a change of direction of that program in terms of the
personnel. I would also offer that perhaps we should
have communicated directly with Washington on this
matter and perhaps we should have kept the States
advised of this. But again we Just point this out that
as far as we are concerned we think we proceeded in
good faith on this matter.
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commis-
sion - revised disinfection schedule.
The reasons for the delay in securing effluent
disinfection at the Jones Island S-ewage Treatment Plant
are twofold. The first was a matter of priorities with-
in the funds available to the Commission for maintaining
operation of its system and its treatment plants. The
powerplant at the Jones Island Treatment Plant has been
in dire need of complete renovation and reconstruction.
This is a $17 million project that could not be deferred,
The loss of power would mean a complete shutdown of the
treatment plant. Based on a Judgment of priorities--
and you remember this is now over two years ago--the
-------
T. G. Prangos
using a seven-minute contact time and chlorination rates
ranging from four to five milligrams per liter. These
preliminary experiments have been completed, and we are
encouraged that this method will be satisfactory and
can secure results comparable with standard practices.
The Department of Natural Resources is reviewing the
data that has been submitted, and the decision on
approval of this method of disinfection will be made
shortly.
Milwaukee Sewage Commission - effects of
Current waste discharges on bacteria quality.
The effect of the unchlorinated effluent from
the Jones Island Treatment Plant has been studied and
has been well documented since the completion of the
treatment plant in 1925. On the basis of these studies,
it has been concluded by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, the Wisconsin Division of Health,
the Milwaukee City Health Commission, and the Milwaukee
Sewage Commission that the discharge of the effluent
from Jones Island Plant does not adversely affect the
use of bathing beaches in the Milwaukee metropolitan
area. Additionally, no adverse effects to water quality
-------
— 55
T. G. Prangos
have been observed along the shoreline of the Wisconsin
portion of Lake Michigan. Several water supply intakes
are located south of the Jones Island outfall sewer, and
we are acutely aware of the need to protect against con-
tamination in that area. Our records at the intakes
indicate that there is no adverse bacterial effect
traceable to the Jones Island Sewage Treatment Plant.
We have attached for the review of the con-
ferees a record of bacterial quality at the water supply
intakes of Wisconsin municipalities in the vicinity of
the Jones Island Sewage Treatment Plant. Prom the 1969
data, we can conclude the water quality criteria for
average daily concentration is being met for recreation-
al use. It also should be noted that the daily maximums
are exceeded. However, it is our conclusion that these
-results are due to combined sewer overflow discharges
and are not traceable to the Jones Island Sewage Treat-
ment Plant. Similar data for many years can be made
available to the conferees if they so desire.
We are also listing a summary of 1969 coli-
form concentrations and removals at the Jones Island
Treatment Plant for the year 19^9 - Samples are
-------
56
T. G. Prangos
collected daily and analysis made in an aliquot taken
from 24-hour composite samples:
1969 coliform concentrations and removals:
The screened sewage data indicates 447,900
per milliliter, the effluent from the west side of the
plant is 10,080 per milliliter, the east side is 6,720
per milliliter, percent removals of coliform from this
plant, on the west segment is 96.9 percent, on the east
97-8 percent.
1969 fecal coliform concentrations and their
removals:
Screened sewage, 28,950 per milliliter, from
the west plant effluent 775, from the east plant 632,
the percent removals on the west 96.2 percent and the
east 96.6 percent.
We have reviewed all of the data available to
us, including that supplied by the Federal Water Quality
Administration with respect to bacterial and micro-
biological studies and current studies. Our assessment
of that data when viewed with the time of travel that has
been estimated by the FWQA is that the discharges from
the Jones Island Treatment Plant in no way can contribute
-------
57
T. G. Frangos
bacterial pollution problems which may be occurring in
Illinois waters and in the vicinity of the city of
Chicago. Any sanitary evaluation of the total picture
would lead one to conclude that if there are problems
in Illinois that the causes would be located more close-
ly to home. A review of the urbanized situation in the
Chicago area and the northern shoreline confirms this
conclusion that any water quality problems that may
exist are from local sources.
That completes our report, Mr. Chairman. We
have tried to lay this thing out on the table squarely.
This is the position and the actions that the Department
has taken and we welcome any comments.
MR. STEIN: All right.
The entire report without objection will
appear in the record as if read.
(Which said report is as follows:)
-------
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
REPORT TO LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
STATUS OF ABATEMENT
May 7, 1970
58
-------
59
REPORT TO LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
Status of Abatement
May 7, 1970
In response to the action taken at the recently reconvened Lake Michigan
Enforcement Conference at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on March 31, 1970, the Department
of Natural Resources has prepared the following report on the status of abatement
schedules that have been established to meet the several requirements of the
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference.
General
In accordance with the recommendations of the conferees, a detailed
abatement schedule covering all pollution sources located within the Lake
Michigan Drainage Basin has been prepared and is attached for the information
and review of the conferees. It should be noted that this schedule contains
a complete breakdown of the remedial needs at each municipality and industry
and has a related time schedule for securing abatement. It should be further
noted that each need has been identified as to whether the particular deficiency
has an affect on water quality of the watercourses covered by the jurisdiction
of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference. The previous reports of the
Department had outlined these needs collectively and had not been as specific
as to whether the needs affected the quality of those waters of concern to
this Conference. As a result of the proceedings at the last session of the
Conference, it appeared desirable to be as precise as possible as to the time
schedules that fall within the framework of this Conference.
At the last session in Milwaukee, several questions were raised about
specific pollution sources and to their respective timetables for compliance.
The following is in response to these questions:
-------
60
- 2 -
A. Industrial and Municipal Sources - other than disinfection requirements.
1. J. I. Case Company
A review of progress made at this company indicates that it
has completed the installation of facilities to reduce suspended solids and
treat oil wastes. These facilities have been constructed and are now in
operation. This action by the company places it in compliance with state
requirements and federal requirements as outlined in the implementation plan
for interstate water quality standards.
2. Baileys Harbor Laundry
This laundry operates during the summer months at Baileys Harbor,
Wisconsin. Repeated efforts on the part of the Department to secure corrective
action have not been successful. The Department of Natural Resources is now
in the process of determining legal enforcement steps that must be taken to
secure abatement. The other alternative is to close the facility. It should
be noted that the Department of Natural Resources has categorized this pollution
source as not affecting water quality of Lake Michigan. Neither its oxygen
demanding constituents nor the phosphorus load is of sufficient size to affect
water quality other than in the immediate vicinity of the discharge.
B. Disinfection
A list .of Wisconsin communities at which disinfection was not
occurring on a year-round basis at the time of the reconvened session in
Milwaukee on March 31, 1970 was furnished to the Conference. This list has
been reassessed, brought up to date and the following details are reported.
A review of this list indicates thatforeeof the communities fall within the
jurisdiction of the Conference recommendation as it relates to disinfection.
1. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission - A detailed
discussion of this situation will follow.
-------
61
- 3 -
2. Two Rivers
This community has purchased the required chlorination
facilities and they have been delivered to the plant and have been installed.
The community is now awaiting the arrival of the equipment manufacturer's
representative to initiate operation of the chlorination equipment. It is
anticipated that this will take place within the next 10 days. Barring
unforeseen problems, chlorination will be in effect in the very near future.
3. Oconto, Village
The village is required to provide disinfection by May 1970.
It is apparent that this deadline will not be met. The Department is
instituting enforcement proceedings to achieve compliance.
C. The Following Wisconsin Communities Do Not Provide Chorination
It is the Department's position that the absence of chlorination
does not affect the water quality of Lake Michigan. However, for the
information of the conferees, we are presenting a listing of compliance or
installation dates required by the Department of Natural Resources:
Franklin - August, 1970
Southern Colony - Compliance
Grafton - May, 1970
Thiensville - May, 1970
Menomonee Falls - Compliance
Kiel - Public Hearing
Plymouth - Public Hearing
Chilton - Compliance
North Fond du Lac - May, 1970
Portage - July, 1970
Kimberly - June, 1970
Appleton - Compliance
Little Chute - June, 1970
Kaukauna - Compliance
New London - Compliance
Clintonville - Public Hearing
Oconto - May, 1970
Racine Co. Hy. - August, 1970
& Office
Oak Creek, - August, 1970
Subdivision . 07r.
Oshkosh - May, 1970
Ripon - May» «J°
Neenah-Menasha - June, 1970
Cedarburg - »y» L97°
-------
62
- 4 -
D. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission - Disinfection
Abatement Schedules
At the recent reconvened session in Milwaukee, the question of
unilateral action on the part of Wisconsin with respect to extending Conference
deadlines for disinfection was raised. It appears that it would be useful for
some of the historical background to be made a part of the record and available
to the conferees.
The implementation plan for the Wisconsin Interstate Water Quality
Standards program that was adopted by the Secretary of the Interior required
that the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission provide disinfection
by May, 1968. Subsequent to the development of this implementation plan,
the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference was reconvened and abatement deadlines
were established. One of these was the requirement of year-round chlorination
by May, 1969. When it became apparent to the Department of Natural Resources
that there was a question as to whether the Milwaukee Metropolitan Commission
would meet either of these deadlines, we initiated discussions and correspondence
with the Federal Water Quality Administration. It was Wisconsin's understanding
since the implementation plan had a prior date, that we should work with the
federal agency rather than with the Conference as a whole. The record, we
believe, is clear that the Federal Water Quality Administration was aware
of this delay and that the agency did not object to the revised timetables
that were established by the State of Wisconsin. As late as February, 1969,
our Department corresponded with the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal
Water Quality Administration with respect to the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage disinfection problem. A revised schedule was negotiated between
the Department of Natural Resources and the Milwaukee Sewerage Commission as
to the earliest time possible for compliance. For several reasons, which will
-------
63
- 5 -
be discussed later, it was determined that the earliest schedule possible
for the permanent installation of chlorination facilities would be
December 31, 1971. This action was communicated again to the Federal Water
Quality Administration. We had the impression from the former Regional
Director that a timetable that was acceptable to the state agency would be
acceptable to the FWQA. On subsequent occasions during meetings with the
Department of the Interior and the FWQA, about the Milwaukee Jones Island
Plant, there have been ample opportunities for the FWQA to raise this question
of delay and unilateral action. This was not done until the session in
Milwaukee. Several examples can be cited;
1. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Commission
have provided the Chicago Regional Office with data obtained from preliminary
research investigations on the proposed chlorination process at the Jones
Island Plant. We have received no comments on these reports. This data was
submitted on the assumption that there was concurrence in the overall propos*
for chlorination
2. In November of 1969, Assistant Secretary Carl Klein, accompanied
by Lt. Governor Olson, visited the Jones Island Plant and made an inspection.
Although considerable time was spent at the Jones Island Plant, no concern
was expressed about chlorination at that time. In fact, we were particularly
gratified that Secretary Klein recognized some of the experimental work
relating to phosphorus removal that had been initiated by the Commission
As a result of Secretary Klein's visit, the FWQA awarded a grant to the
Commission to help support and continue studies investigating the use of
spent industrial waste as a means for providing additional phosphorus removals
at the Jones Island Plant. We appreciate the Department's support of that
important experiment.
-------
64
- 6 -
3. Subsequently in January, staff members of the Chicago Regional
Office spent two days with the Department of Natural Resources' staff reviewing
pollution abatement schedules, including the Lake Michigan Basin. No objections
were received at that time.
4. In the latter part of February, the recently appointed Regional
Director, Mr. Mayo, came to Wisconsin to review our programs and discuss the
upcoming Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference and the agenda. No objection
was made at that time about chlorination at the Jones Island Plant.
5. As late as the week previous to the holding of the Conference,
the Regional Director extended an invitation to Mr. Raymond Leary, Executive
Director of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, to participate in
the Enforcement Conference and discuss the status of the phosphorus removal
investigations that were partially funded by the FWQA. Mr. Leary did appear
at that Conference as part of the federal presentation. At no time was
Mr. Leary advised of the dissatisfaction with the chlorination question.
These events are cited to indicate that the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources did not proceed on a unilateral basis. Our assumption
was and is that the implementation plan took precedence over Enforcement
Conference recommendations and for that reason, we worked with the Regional
Office of FWQA. This approach was made in good faith, and we wish to assure
the conferees that there was no intention to bypass the other conferees of
the Lake Michigan Enforcement Coherence. It should be further noted that
there are no published rules or regulations or guidelines that have been
promulgated by the Department of the Interior to give specific guidance and
details on how this whole area of joint enforcement of standards and recom-
mendations should be administered. We consider the lack of such rules to be
a substantial weakness in Conference procedures.
-------
65
- 7 -
E- Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission - Revised Disinfection
Schedule " ———_
The reasons for the delay in securing effluent disinfection at
the Jones Island Sewage Treatment Plant are twofold. The first was a matter
of priorities within the funds available to the Commission for maintaining
operation of its system and its treatment plants. The power plant at the
Jones Island treatment Plant has been in dire need of complete renovation
and reconstruction. This is a $17 million project that could not be deferred.
The loss of power would mean a complete shutdown of the treatment plant.
Based on a judgement of priorities, the Commission felt obliged to proceed
with the project for renovating the power plant. The second reason relates
to the physical limitations at the Jones Island Treatment Plant site. The
installation of conventional treatment facilities would require the construction
of a very large holding tank at the outfall of the treatment plant. At the
present time there is insufficient space for construction of this large holding
tank. At the same time the Commission reexamined earlier considerations that
had been given to providing a different method of disinfection. That method
is to provide for chlorination in the effluent channels of the treatment plant
at a higher concentration than normally maintained and with a shorter detention
period. Under normal flow conditions the detention period that can be obtained
in the effluent channels is about seven minutes. There, of course, was also
the recognition that there would be considerable savings if this method could
be used rather than the construction of the large holding tank. As part of
the State approval the Commission was permitted to proceed with chlorination
experiments to determine whether, in fact, a comparable kill could be obtained
using a seven-minute contact time and chlorination rates ranging from four to
five milligrams per liter. These preliminary experiments have been completed,
-------
66
- 8 -
and we are encouraged that this method will be satisfactory and can secure
results comparable with standard practices. The Department of Natural
Resources is reviewing the data that has been submitted, and the decision
on approval of this method of disinfection will be made shortly.
F. Milwaukee Sewage Commission - Effects of Current Waste
Discharges on Bacteria Quality
The effect of the unchlorinated effluent from the Jones Island
Treatment Plant has been studied and has been well documented since the
completion of the treatment plant in 1925. On the basis of these studies,
it has been concluded by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the
Wisconsin Division of Health, the Milwaukee City Health Commission, and
the Milwaukee Sewage Commission that the discharge of the effluent from
Jones Island Plant does not adversely affect the use of bathing beaches in
the Milwaukee metropolitan area. Additionally, no adverse effects to water
quality have been observed along the shoreline of the Wisconsin portion of
Lake Michigan. Several water supply intakes are located south of the Jones
Island outfall sewer, and we are acutely aware of the need to protect against
contamination in that area. Our records at the intakes indicate that there
is no adverse bacterial effect traceable to the Jones Island Sewage Treatment
Plant.
We have attached for the review of the conferees a record of bacterial
quality at the water supply intakes of Wisconsin municipalities in the vicinity
of the Jones Island Sewage Treatment Plant. From the 1969 data, we can conclude
the water quality criteria for average daily concentration is being met for
recreational use. It also should be noted that the daily maximums are exceeded.
However, it is our conclusion that these results are due to combined sewer
overflow discharges and are not traceable to the Jones Island Sewage Treatment
Plant. Similar data for many years can be made available to the conferees if
they so desire.
-------
67
- 9 -
We are also listing a summary of 1969 coliform concentrations and
removals at the Jones Island Treatment Plant for the year 1969. Samples
are collected daily and analysis made in an aliquot taken from 24-hour
composite samples;
1969 Coliform Concentrations and Removals
Screened Sewage W. Plant Eff. E. Plant Eff. % Removals
VJ E
447,900 per ml. 10,080 per ml. 6,720 per ml. 96.9 97.8
1969 Fecal Coliform Concentrations and Removals
Screened Sewage W. Plant Eff. E. Plant Eff. % Removals
W E
28,950 per ml. 775 632 96.2 96.6
We have reviewed all of the data available to us, including that
supplied by the Federal Water Quality Administration with respect to
bacterial and microbiologic studies and current studies. Our assessment
of that data when viewed with the time of travel that has been estimated
by the FWQA is that the discharges from the Jones Island Treatment Plant
in no way can contribute bacterial pollution problems which may be occurring
in Illinois waters and in the vicinity of the City of Chicago. Any sanitary
evaluation of the total picture would lead one to conclude that if there are
problems in Illinois that the causes would be located more closely to home.
A review of the urbanized situation in the Chicago area and the northern
shoreline confirms this conclusion that any water quality problems are from
local sources.
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
MUNICIPALITIES
5/1/70
Source
Mt. Pleasant
Kenosha
(4B-68-3-3A)
Greendale
Hales Corners
(4B-68-4-10A)
Franklin
(4B-68-4-6A)
Southern Colony
Racine County Hwy.
& Office
(4B-63-4-22A)
Racine
(4B-68-4-21A)
Oak Creek
(Oakview Subdiv. #3)
(4B-68-4-19A)
B-l
Receiving Waters Existing Treatment
Pike River Septic Tanks
L. Michigan Secondary (Act. SI.)
Disinfection
Root River Connected to
Milwaukee Met.
Root River Secondary (Filter)
Root River Secondary (Filter)
(Trib.)
W. Br. Root R. Secondary (Act. SI.)
Disinfection
Hoods Creek Secondary (Act. Si.)
Root River Lagoon
Lake Michigan Secondary (Act. Si.)
Disinfection
Trib. Oak- Creek Lagoon
Affects
Remedial Needs L.Mich. A
None
Phos. Removal
Sewer Sep.
Annual Reports
None
Connect to
Milw. Met.
Annual Reports
Connect to
Milw. Met.
Disinfection
Annual Reports
Disinfection
Phos. Removal
Sewer Sep.
Annual Reports
Disinfection
Connect to
Milw. Met.
Annual Reports
*See Page B-12 for Implementation Schedule
No
Yes 1/71
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes 6/70
Yes
No
No
Code.
•^Implementation Schedule
B C D E F G
3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
7/77
(Not Applicable) 12/72
(Not Applicable) 12/72
8/70
8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
7/77
(Not Applicable)
a\
CO
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
Receiving Waters Existing Treatment Remedial Needs,
Affects Implementation Schedule
L.Mich. ABC D E F
West Bend
(4B-68-5-25A)
Grafton
(4B-68-5-12A)
Mequon
Thiensville
[4B-68-5-24A)
Cedarburg
(4B-68-5-5A)
Germantown
(4B-68-5-11A)
Menomonee Falls
(4B-68-5-18A)
Milwaukee River
Milwaukee River
Milwaukee River
Milwaukee River
Cedar Creek
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
Secondary (Act. Si.) Pfcos. Removal
Disinfection Clear Water or
Adeq. Treatment
Annual Reports
Secondary (Act. Si.) Disinfection
Clear Water or
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
Elim. Bypassing
Annual Reports
Connected to
Milwaukee Met.
None
Secondary (Act. Si.) Disinfection
Clear Water or
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
Elim. Bypassing
Annual Reports
Secondary
.'Trickling Filter)
Secondary (Tr.
Filter) Disinf.
Disinfection
Phos. Removal
Adeq. Treatment
Annual Reports
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
Annual Reports
Secondary (Act. SI., Connect to
Tr. Filter) Disinf. Milw. Met.
or
Phos. Removal
Yes 1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
No 12/72
No
5/70
No 12/72
Yes 1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
No 7/77
No
No
5/70
No 12/72
Yes 1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
No 7/77
No
Yes
No
5/70
9/70 10/70 1/71 11/71
12/72
No 12/72
Yes 1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
No
Yes 1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
vo
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
Milw. Metropolitan
Sew. Commission
(4B- 70-5-4)
Jones Island Plant
South Shore
South Milwaukee
South Milwaukee
(Water Treatment)
(4B-70-5-6)
Milwaukee
(Howard Ave. Water
Treatment)
(4B: 70-5-2)
Milwaukee
(Linwood Ave. Water
Treatment)
(4B-70-5-3)
Cudnhy (Water Trtmt.)
(4B- 775-5-1)
Sheboygan
Port Washington
Cleveland
Receiving Waters
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan'
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Centerville Cr,
Affects
Existing Treatment Remedial Needs L.Mich. A
Secondary (Act.
Primary Disinf.
Primary Disinf.
None
None
None
None
Secondary (Act.
Disinfection
Primary Disinf.
Secondary (Act.
Disinfection
Combine Sewers
& Clear Water
Annual Reports
Si.) Disinfection
Phos. Removal
Secondary
Phos. Removal
Secondary
Phos.
Susp.
Susp.
Susp.
Susp.
Si.) Phos.
Removal
Sol. Rem.
Sol. Rem.
Solids Rem.
Solids Rem.
Removal
Combined Sewers
Secondary
Phos .
Si.) None
Removal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Implementation
BCD
Schedule
E F G
*80% Phosphorus Removal
Now Provided
1/71 6/71
4/70 10/70 1/70 6/71
7/68 6/71
6/70
1/71
1/71
1/71
1/71
6/70
6/70
6/70
8/70
3/71
3/71
3/71
3/71
8/70
8/70
8/70
10/70
5/71
5/71
5/71
5/71
10/70
10/70
10/70
1/71
8/71
8/71
8/71
8/71
1/71
1/71
1/71
6/71
2/72
2/72
2/72
2/72
6/71
6/71
6/71
7/77
12/71
12/72
7/71 12/72
7/71 12/7P.
7/71 12/72
7/71 12/72
3/72 12/72
3/72 12/72
3/72 12/72
3/72 12/72
7/71 12/72
7/77
7/71 12/72
7/71 12/72
B-3
*The state requirement is 85% phosphorus removal which is to be
met with methodology developed through FWQA funded research project.
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
Kiel
Sheboygan Falls
Plymouth
unilton
(4B-69-7-6)
Manitowoc
(4B-69-7-10)
Two Rivers
Maribel
Kewaunee
Sturgeon Bay
Algoma
North Fond du Lac
(4B-68-lla-65A)
Receiving Waters
Sheboygan River
Sheboygan River
Mullet River
Sheboygan River
Manitowoc River
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
W. Twin River
Kewaunee River
Sturgeon Bay
Canal
Ahnapee River
Trib. , Fox River
Existing Treatment
Secondary (Act. Si.)
Secondary Disinf.
Secondary
Secondary (Act. Si.
Tr. Filter) Disinf.)
Secondary
(Trickling Filter)
Disinfection
Secondary (Act. Si.)
Disinfection
Septic Tanks
Secondary, Disinf.
Secondary (Act. Si.)
Disinfection
Secondary (Act. Si.)
Disinfection
Secondary
(Trickling Filter)
Remedial Needs
Phos. Removal
Disinfection
Phos. Removal
Phos. Removal
Disinfection
Phos. Removal
Clear Water
Elim. or Adeq.
Treatment Rep.
Phos. Rem. Rep.
Fno s . Remova 1
Secondary &
Disinfection
Phos. Removal
Phos. Removal
Phos. Removal
Disinfection
Clear Water
Affects Implementation Schedule
L.Mich. A B C D E F
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71
6/70 8/70 la/70 1/71
6/69
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71
2/72
2/72
2/71
2/72
6/71
6/71
2/72
2/72
2/72
3/72
3/72
3/72
3/72
7/71
7/71
3/72
3/72
3/72
G
12/72
12/72
12/72
12/72
12/72
12/72
12/72
12/72
12/72
12/72
Phos. Removal
Annual Reports
Yes 1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
B-4
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
Oshkosh
(4B-68-lla-68A)
Fox River Heights
Subd. , Green Bay
Portage
(4B-68-lla-70AA)
Berlin
(4B-68-lla-47A)
Ripon
(4B-68-lla-74A)
Fond du Lac
(4B-68-lla-55A)
Neenah-Menasha
(4B-68-lla-30A)
Receiving Waters Existing Treatment
Fox River Primary
Fox River Septic Tank Inter-
ceptors to Green
Bay Met. & De Pere
Fox River Secondary
(Trickling Filter)
Fox River Secondary
(Tr. Filter) Disinf.
Fox River Secondary
(Trickling Filter)
E. Br. Secondary (Tr.
Fond du Lac Filter) Disinf.
Fox River Secondary
(Act. Sludge)
Remedial Needs
Disinfection
Secondary
Phos. Removal
Combined Sewer
Annual Reports
Const, of Add.
Sewers &
Interceptor
Phos. Removal
Annual Reports
Clear Water or
Adeq . Treatment
Phos. Removal
Annual Reports
Disinfection
Clear Water
Adeq. Treatment
Phos . Removal
Annual Reports
v,lear Water &
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
Annual Reports
Disinfection
Adeq. Solids
Handling
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
Annual Reports
Affects
L.Mich. A
No
No
Yes 6/70
No
-
No
Yes 1/71
No
Yes 1/71
-
No
No
No
Yes 1/71
-
No
Yes 6/70
-
No
No
No
Yes 6/70
-
Implementation Schedule
B C D E F G
5/70
12/72
8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
12/77
12/72
3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
12/72
3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
5/70
12/71
3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
12/72
8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
6/70
9/70
9/72
8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 9/72
B-5
ro
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
Receiving Waters Existing Treatment Remedial Needs
Affects Implementation Schedule
L.Mich. ABC D E. F G
Tn. Menasha S.D. #4
(4B-68-lla-3lA)
Appleton
(4B-68-lla-2A)
Kiraberly
(4B-68-lla-28A)
Little Chute
(4B-68-lla-29A)
Kaukauna
(4B-68-lla-23A)
De Pere
(4B-68-lla-10A)
Green Bay Met.
Sewer District
(4C-68-lla-2)
Fox River
Fox River
Fox River
Fox River
Fox River
Fox River
Fox River
Secondary (Act. Si.)
Disinfection
Secondary (Act. Si.)
Secondary (Act. SI.)
Secondary (Act. Si.)
Secondary (Act. Si.)
Secondary (Act. Si.)
Disinfection
Secondary (Tr.
Filter) Disinf.
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
Annual Reports
Disinfection
Adeq. Treatment
Fnos. Removal
Annual Reports
Disinfection
Elim. Bypass
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
Annual Reports
Disinfection
Clear Water
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
Annual Reports
Disinfection
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
Combined Sewers
Annual Reports
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
Combined Sewers
Annual Reports
Combined Sewers
Adeq. Treatment
Phos. Removal
No 3/70
Yes 1/71't 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 9/72
V
No 6/70
No 9/72
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 9/72
No 6/70
No 12/70
No 9/72
Yes 1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 9/72
No 6/70
No 12/70
No 9/72
Yes 1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 9/72
No 4/70
No 9/72
Yes 1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 9/72
No 9/72
No 9/72
Yes 1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 9/72
No 9/72
No 9/72
No
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 9/72
B-6
10
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
Austin-Straubel
Airport
Shawano
New London
Shawano Lake San.
District
Clintonville
Waupaca
Oconto
(4B-70-14-3)
Peshtigo
(4B-70-15-4)
Marinette
(4B-70-16-3)
Receiving Waters Existing Treatment
Trib. Fox River Secondary (Act. SI.)
Disinfection
Wolf River Secondary (Tr.
Filter) Disinf.
Wolf River Secondary
Disinfection
Wolf River Septic Tanks
Pigeon River Secondary (Act. Si.)
Wolf River Primary Disinf.
Oconto River Secondary
(Tr. Filter)
Peshtigo River Secondary (Tr.
Filter) Disinf.
Menominee River Primary Disinf.
Affects Implementation Schedule
Remedial Needs L.Mich. A B' C D E F G
None
Phos. Removal
Phos. Removal
Disinfection.
Phos. Removal
Secondary
Phos. Removal
Disinfection
Combined Sewers
Adeq. Treatment
& Fnos, Rem. Rpt.
Combined Sewers
& Clear Water
Report
Adeq. Treatment
& Phos. Rem. Rpt.
Secondary
Phos. Removal
Combined Sewers
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
12/72
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
5/70
7/77
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
6/70
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
7/77
Annual Reports
B-7
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
Uet-eiving Waters Existing Treatment
Affects
Remedial Needs L. Mich. A,
Implementation Schedule
B C D E F
American Motors
American Motors
(Lakefront Plant)
Anaconda American
Brass Company
(4B-68-3-2A)
Wis. Elec. Power Co.
(Oak Creek Plant)
(4B-68-4-25)
J. I. Case Company
Peter Cooper Corp.
(4B-70-5-7)
Peter Cooper Corp.
(Water Trt. Plant)
(4B-70-5-8)
fcdgewood Power Plant
Wis. Elec. Company
Pine River Dairy Co.
Hipke Packing Corp.
Pike River
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Oil Separator
Skimming & Settling None
Prevent Oil
Spills
Neutralization
Effluent Limi-
tations on
Concentrations
of Cn, Cd, Cr,
Hi, Cxi, Zn, Pb,
Fe & Phenolic
Compounds
Settling, Secondary Adeq. Treatment Yes
Activated Sludge Annual Reports
No
No
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
3/70
7/71 12/72
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Chemical Floe, for
S.S. and Oil
Screening & Primar1'
'Treatment
None
Sedimentation
Sedimentation
Septic Tank &
Absorption
None
Connect to Milw.
Met, Sew. Comm.
Adequately Treat
Backwash Waters
None
None
None
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
(Not Applicable) 7/70
1/71 3/71 5/71 8/71 2/72 3/72 12/72
Centerville Cr.
Lagoon
None
No
B-8
VJl
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
Osman Cheese Factory
Two Creeks Dairy
Kewaunee Nuclear
Power Plant
Point Beach Nuclear
Power Plant
Bailey's Harbor
Receiving Waters
Trib. L. Michigan
Trib. L. Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Existing Treatment
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
Secondary Treatment
Activated Sludge
Secondary
Activated Sludge
None
Remedial Needs
None
None
None
None
Adeq. Treatment
Affects Implementation Schedule
L.Mich. A B C D E F G _
No
No
No
No
No
Laundry
(WP-10-15-101-20)
Gilbert Paper Company Fox River
(4B-68-lla-15A)
John Strange Fox River
Paper Company
(4B-68-lla-22A)
George A. Whiting Fox River
Paper Company
(4B-68-lla-14A)
Bergstrom Paper Co. Fox River
(4B-68-lla-3A)
Kimberly-Clark Fox River
Neenah Division
(4B-68-lla-27A)
Kimberly-Clark Fox River
Badger Globe Mill
(4B-68-lla-24A)
Saveall & Met.
Sewers
Saveall & Met.
Sewers
Saveall
Clarificatic
Saveall & Met.
Sewers
Saveall & Met.
Sewers
or Joint Trtmt.
Joint Treatment Yes
or BOD & SS
Reduction, Semi-
annual Report
Joint Treatment Yes
or SS Reduction
Semiannual Rep.
Joint Treatment
or SS Reduction
Semiannual Rep.
Joint Treatment Yea
or BOD & SS Red.
Semiannual Rep.
Joint Treatment Yes
or BOD & SS Red.
Semiannual Rep.
Joint Treatment Yes
or SS Reduction
Semiannual Rep.
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
B-9
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
ReceivingWaters Existing Treatment Remedial Needs
Affects Implementation Schedule
L.Mich. A B C D Z F
Kimberly-Clark Fox River
Lakeview Mill
(4B-68-lla-26A)
Kimberly-Clark Fox River
Kitnberly Mill
(4B-68-lla-25AA.)
Kimberly-Clark Fox River
Sewage Treatment Pit.
Riverside Papar Corp. Fox River
(4B-68-lla-36A)
Consolidated Papers, Fox River
Inc.
(4B-68-lla-9A)
Combined Paper Mills, Fox River
Inc.
(4B-68-lla-8A)
Thilmany Pulp & Paper Fox River
Company
(4B-68-lla-41A)
Nicolet Paper Corp. Fox River
(43-68-lla-33A)
U.S. Paper Mill
Corp.
(4B-68-lla-42A)
Fox River
Saveall & Met.
Sewers
Saveall & Lagoon
Secondary
Saveall
Spent Sulphite
Liquor Evap.
Saveall and
Clarification
Saveall and
Lagoons
Saveall
Saveall and
Laoon
Joint Treatment Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
or SS Reduction
Semiannual Rep.
Joint Treatment
or SS Reduction
Semiannual Rep.
None
Joint Treatment
or SS Reduction
Semiannual Rep.
Joint Treatment
or BOO & SS Red.
Semiannual Rep.
Joint Treatment
or BOD & SS Red.
Semiannual Rep.
Joint Treatment
or SS Reduction
Semiannual Rep.
Joint Treatment
or SS Reduction
Semiannual Rep.
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
Joint Treatment Yes
or BOD & SS Red.
Semiannual Rep.
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
B-10
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
Receiving Waters Existing Treatment Remedial Needs
Affects
L.Mich.
Implementation Schedule
C D E F
Fort Howard Patier Co.
(4B-68-lla-llA)
Fort Howard Paper Co.
Sewage Treatment Pit.
American Can Company
(4B-68-lla-lA)
Charmin Paper Prod.
Company
(4B-68-lla-6A.)
Green Bay Packaging,
Inc.
(4B-68-lla-17A)
Paper Converting
Machinery Company
Shawano Paper Mills
Midwest Breeders
Scott Paper Company
(4B-69-14-5)
Fox River
Fox River
Fox River
Fox River
Fox River
Trib. Dutchman
Creek
Wolf River
Wolf River
Oconto River
Saveall & Lagoon
Spent Sulphite
Liquor Evap. &
Lagoons
Spent Sulphite
Liquor Evap.
Fluidized Bed &
Clarification
Connected to
Green Bay Met.
Savealls
Neutralization
& Aeration
Savealls & Lagoon
Prim. Clarification
Sludge Centrifuga-
tion
Evaporation & Road-
binder Hauling
Joint Treatment
or BOD & SS Red.
Semiannual Rep.
None
Joint Treatment
or BOD & SS Red.
Semiannual Rep.
None
None
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
No
Joint Treatment Yes
or BOD & SS Red.
Semiannual Rep.
Joint Treatment Yes
or BOD & SS Red.
Semiannual Rep.
Adeq. Treatment No
Disinfection No
Preliminary Rep. Yes
& Time Schedule
for BOD & SS Red.
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
No
No
5/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
B-ll
CD
-------
WISCONSIN WASTE WATER SOURCES AFFECTING LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY
Source
Affects
Remedial Needs L.Mich. A
Implementation Schedule
B" C D E F
Badger Paper Hills,
Inc.
(4B-69-15-1)
Scott Paper Company
(Marinette)
(4B-70-16-5)
Peshtigo River Savealls & Land
Disposal
Menominee River Savealls, Screens
and Roadbinder
Hauling
Preliminary
Report & Time
Schedule for
BOD & SS Red.
Preliminary
Report & Time
Schedule for
BOD & SS Red.
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
Yes 6/70 8/70 10/70 1/71 6/71 7/71 12/72
A - Retain engineers.
B - Submit preliminary engineering report.
C - Initiate detailed engineering plans and specifications.
D - Submit detailed engineering specifications.
E - Arrange financing.
F - Initiate construction.
G - Complete construction and place in full-time operation.
3-12
-------
N
80
BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSES
fMC.WTL6iA«M VA
SOUTHEAST VKhscojosissi
0
|O
XV-V. .
2.0
10
40
-------
.1969 BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSES
MPN & MFC COUNTS/100 ML.
LAKK MICHIGAN WATER INTAKES
SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN
.Keaosha ....,.,_,%ic:yi!L.
@IPN)"~"""(MEN) ""
..Max.. Jiitt^ Ave.>_ .,Max.__Jlin.
1,473 24,000 24 378 2,400 22
1,591 24,000 0 126 540 8
1,431 24,000 0 90 590
ll 2,807 24,000 0 205 920
927 24,000 24 28 350
a 169 2,400 0 220 2,400 8
223 24,000 24 133 540 22
136 2,400 0 202 920 8
.J-O'-ith.MA^i'^? „ .. C\idahy__,„_„ Mibvr.^~_Ho_ward_Ave._ Milw.j^Llturaod_Ave.
^py)T''"~' (MPN)" """"~(MFCC) ™ " (MFCC)
Ava. Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. _ Ma.x.___M,n.__
:/
863 2,400 0 69
300 2,400 0 207
2,240 24,000 23 1,268 2,400 40 2,648 24,667
2
8
0
•t. 700 2,400 24 352 1,600 23
117 2,400 0 331 2,500 4
350 2
920 7
1,786 24,000 23
2,385 24,000 23
755 2,400 23
727 2,400 0
1,789 24,000 23
539 2,400 23
3,361 24,000 23
34
6
60 230 90 3,290 26,133 35
420 930 90 1,341 9,367 2
852 2,400 40 4,817 30,690
67 230 40 357 2,800
85 230 40 459 3,133 6
590 2,400 90 1,414 19,333 40
135 230 40 1,200 14,867 32
194 430 40 973 11,966 28
513 7,600 12
204 2,100 6
781 8,433 27
241 1,255
13 97
49 384
50 630
50 298
186 1,900
172 825
347 3,250
158
100
52
119
5
0
0
2
1
4
23
10
598 29
358 17
263 4
885 2
900
1,500
128
CO
-------
82
T. G. Prangos
MR. STEIN: I would like, before we get into
a possible discussion of the major points, to compli-
ment you on the full report on your sources of pollu-
tion. Do you know how many sources are listed in the
back, Mr. Frangos, about how many?
MR. PRANGOS: Well, 10 a page, and I don't
know how many pages.
MR. STEIN: Here, this has been one of the
main thrusts--
MR. PRANGOS: Twelve pages.
MR. STEIN: Twelve. That is about 120
sources.
This has been one of the?-main thrusts for
this Executive Session and I think this is what we are
achieving. We have 80-odd from Michigan, 120 from
Wisconsin, with details such as this with dates on the
name of the source, the receiving waters, the existing
treatment, the remedial needs, the effects o" Lake
Michigan, and dates on the following schedule: The
retention of engineers, submission of preliminary
engineering report, initiate detailed engineering plans
and specifications, submit detailed engineering
-------
83
T. G. Frangos
specifications, arrange financing, Initiate construc-
tion, complete construction and place in full-time
operation.
Now, I think with details like that, again,
we are very grateful to you for this. This will
afford everyone an opportunity to evaluate the progress
we are making to move with the remedial schedule.
Let me make one remark before I throw this
open.
In the experience that I have had in dealing
with Wisconsin, at no time have I ever had any notion
that Wisconsin would attempt unilateral action on the
changing of a remedial date agreed on between Wisconsin
and the Federal Government. I hope we can live up to
the same thing.
MR. PRANGOS: Let me offer Just an additional
comment, Mr. Chairman.
Our position has been throughout this con-
ference proceeding very much along the lines of the
expressions that you made at the outset of this session
here today and we really have not been concerned with
questions of jurisdiction, whether we are talking about
-------
84
T. G. Frangos
interstate waters, this kind of thing. We came in here
with the full list of our communities and industries and
laid it out. This is what we are going to do and we are
prepared to move ahead and there we are.
MR. STEIN: Yes. I have been in this business
for a long time, about 25 years, I know; and I am not
probably betraying Mr. Klassen's or Mr. Poole's age, but
when I started they were around already.
MR. POOLE: You just started late.
MR. STEIN: Yes, I got started late.
But I think we have as complete an inventory
on disclosure here as I have seen in any case and I
want to compliment you on getting that material in.
Are there any other comments on Wisconsin's
statement--questions?
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, I would like to make some
comments, Mr. Chairman, because I think I was the one
that at least emphasized the point in Milwaukee that
quite to our surprise the city of Milwaukee was dis-
charging 200 million gallons of unchlorinated sewage
into Lake Michigan. This report, in my opinion, has
been a recital primarily of why they are not
-------
___ 85.
T. G. Frangos
chlorinating. I don't question that they didn't make a
unilateral decision of advancing the date at least a
year. We did make a unilateral decision in Illinois
without conferring with anybody, but it was the other
way. We started year-round chlorination a year ahead
of schedule.
And my concern for the State of Illinois is
this. The North Shore Sanitary District is chlorinating
year-round, has been a year ahead of the schedule that
this conference set. In addition, this year provisions
are being made to chlorinate the overflow from their
combined sewers in an attempt to protect the beaches in
the hopes that they could be open this year and this is
a temporary arrangement, because as all of you know, the
project is under construction to remove all wastes from
Lake Michigan in the North Shore Sanitary District.
Now, the statement in Wisconsin's report here
that the Jones Island effluent, again I repeat of 200
million gallons a day of unchlorinated sewage, is not
affecting Illinois and that the reasons for the Illinois
beach pollution is local. I am not questioning this,
but this is obviously the kind of a statement that would
-------
86
T. G. Prangos
be made by Wisconsin. To clarify this, we asked the
day after the Milwaukee conference for the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration to make an
investigation to determine whether or not there is
interstate pollution. I don't agree with this state-
ment that it is not affecting Illinois. I don't
believe anybody really knows, and this is why we
requested the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration to make this investigation and if there is In
fact interstate pollution which--in my opinion there is
or could be—that the Federal Government take action so
that instead of having a report of why they are not
chlorinating, I would like a statement as to what they
are going to do and when. I think this is more important
to this conference than all of the reasons why they
haven't done it.
And I will say this, we have received a reply
from Federal Water Pollution Control Administration that
they felt that negotiating—and these are substantially
the words--negotiating with Wisconsin to get this done
could probably produce results faster and quicker than
a lengthy study and Federal action.
-------
8?
T. G. Prangos
I don't particularly care how it is done, but
I think that the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration has got an obligation to the State of
Illinois to resolve this and to take whatever action to
assure that this coming year some kind, obviously it
can't be permanent, but some kind of chlorination will
be carried on in Wisconsin, because we are going over-
board here in Illinois to chlorinate everything that is
going into the lake in the hopes that our beaches can
stay open this year.
And I would like to know, frankly, from some-
one that has the authority to do this whether or not-in
fact Milwaukee unchlorinated waste is affecting Illinois
If it is, some action should be taken, and if not, some-
body should say that it isn't. I have the greatest
respect for my colleagues in Wisconsin, but I can't buy
this statement that pollution from the Jones Island
Plant is not affecting Illinois.
This is all we are asking, that the other
States be required to do the same thing and to spend
their money and to operate the same as we are here in
Illinois.
-------
T. G. Frangos
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions on this?
MR. PRANGOS: Well, just to respond, Mr.
Klassen, my recollection is the same as yours, that
you are indeed the person who raised this question in
Milwaukee.
And by the way, if you will look in the report
we do tell you what the schedule is, so we have not just
told you why we aren't doing it.
But whatever the conference procedures are,
if you so desire, we have the people from the Commission
here and if there are any questions about the operation
or the procedures, they are available to testify in
more detail.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
MR. KLASSEN: Other than this schedule here on
page 5 is permanent, what about instant chlorination?
I am not questioning the operation of the
Jones Island Plant, because you state yourself you are
not chlorinating and I will accept that. I don't have
to go up there to confirm that.
MR. STEIN: Everyone's recollection is that
-------
_. 89
T. G. Frangos
you raised this question in Milwaukee, Mr. Klassen. I
think you did too. But I understand I got the credit.
MR. KLASSEN: That is correct.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
If not, may we go on to Indiana's report.
MR. POOLE: Perry Miller can get to the mike
easier than I can, so I am turning it over to him.
MR. STEIN: Right.
PERRY E. MILLER
DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF ENGINEERING
INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman and conferees, we
have passed out a supplemental table.
(Which said supplemental table is as follows:)
-------
90
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
TO THE
PROGRESS REPORT
FOR
CONFERENCE
ON
POLLUTION OF LAKE MICHIGAN AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN
(ILLINOIS - INDIANA - MICHIGAN - WISCONSIN)
RECONVENED MARCH 31, 1970
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
ON BEHALF OF
THE
INDIANA STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AND
THE STATE OF INDIANA
MAY k, 1970
-------
MUNICIPAL TIME SCHEDULE
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN - INDIANA
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
(ILLINOIS - INDIANA - MICHIGAN - WISCONSIN)
Municipality
Gary
East Chicago
South Bend
Chesterton
Crown Point
Hobart
Michigan City
Valparaiso
Angola
Goshen
Lagrange
Ligonier
Facility
Required
Phosphorus
Removal
"
n
Plant
Expansion
Phosphorus
Removal
"
n
ii
it
Plant
Expansion
Phosphorus
Removal
"
n
Plant
Expansion
Employ
Engineer
X
X
X
X
10/1/70
»
"
»
X
X
X
X
10/1/70
X
Submit Initiate
Preliminary Final Plans
x 10/1/70
x "
X X
X X
2/1/71 VI/TI
"
„
N n
x 10/1/70
x
2/1/71 WTI
„
n it
M it
X X
Submit
Final Plans
7/1/71
it
n
x
9/1/71
n
it
it
7/1/71
it
9A/71
"
"
x
Arrange
Financing
H/l/71
»
II
12/1/71
It
II
It
11/1/71
II
12/1/71
II
II
11/1/71
Complete
Construction
Initiate and place in
instruction Operation
1/1/72 12/31/72
VV72
1/1/72
Vl/72
n
it
n
ti
-------
Municipality
Nappanee
Kendallville
Elkhart
Complete
Construction
Facility Employ Submit Initiate Submit Arrange Initiate and place in
Required Engineer Preliminary Final Plans Final Plans Financing Construction Operation
Phosphorus 10/1/70 2/1/71
Removal
Vl/71
9/1/71
12/1/71
Plant
Expansion
x x 5/1/70
(included in plant expansion)
9/15/70 12/1/70
Vl/72
1/1/71
12/31/72
9/15/71
xxx x (8/1/70) (9/1/70) (12/31/71)
(Did not meet December, 1969, timetable, but priority for grants issued 3/6/70 -
anticipated dates for completion of various steps indicated.)
Disinfecti..-
of Storm Water
Hammond (L. Mich.) Control jnd
Whiting (L. Mich.)
Cromwell
Milford Jet.
Topeka
Sewers and 10/1/70
Sewage Treatment
x
10/1/70
x
2/1/71
x
2/1/71
Vl/71
x
Vl/71
9/1/71
x
9/1/71
12/1/71
1/1/72
12/31/70
12/31/70
12/31/72
x - This step completed.
In addition to the preceding, the following is pertinent:
1. Effluent Disinfection - Ashley, Goshen, Lagrange, Ligonier, and South Bend were to provide effluent
disinfection by May, 1969. Lagrange, Ligonier, and South Bend have submitted plans. Lagrange was issued
a priority for grants March 2, 1970; construction is anticipated this summer with completion by October 1,
1970. A Stream Pollution Control Board Order has been issued to South Bend and action on an appeal to
the Order is being pursued in Starke County Circuit Court. Enforcement action will be initiated against
the other municipalities as soon as practicable.
VD
ro
-------
2. Treatment and Disinfection of Storm Water Overflows - The Implementation Flans provide that East Chicago,
Gary, Hammond, and Michigan City provide treatment and disinfection of combined sewer and storm water
overflows as soon as practicable. These problems are now under study by these municipalities and their
consulting engineers. Timetables for this work will be developed after the work scheduled for completion
by 12/3/72 is under construction.
3. Advanced Waste Treatment - The Implementation Flans provide that East Chicago, Gary, Hammond, and
Michigan City provide advanced waste treatment as soon as practicable and that Angola, Crown Point,
Hobart, and Valparaiso provide necessary facilities by 1977. The additional treatment requirements
will be evaluated and timetables developed after the completion of phosphorus removal facilities.
vo
U)
-------
INDUSTRIAL TOME SCHEDULES
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN - INDIANA
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
(ILLD10IS - INDIANA - MICHIGAN - WISCONSIN)
Industry and Location
Secondary Treatment or Equivalent
Angola Reduction Company, Angola
Inland Steel Company, East Chicago
U. S. Gypsum Company, East Chicago
Employ
Engineer
X
Completed
10/1/70
Initiate
Submit Final
Preliminary Plans
X
facilities
1/1/71
X
being evaluated
3/1/71
Submit
Final
Plans
X
7/1/71
Arrange
Financing
6/1/70
8/1/71
Initiate
Construction
7/1/70
9/1/71
Complete
Construction
and place in
Operation
12/1/70
6/1/72
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Comoany
East Chicago
Continental Can Company, Elkhart
Completed facilities being evaluated
Proposes connection to Elkhart sewerage system when City expands plant for secondary
treatment
Pennsylvania New York Central
Transportation Company, Elkhart
*U. S. Steel Corporation, Gary Works
Gary
**Middlebury Coop Creamery, Middlebury
*General Products Division, American
Motors Corp. (formerly Kaiser Jeep)
South Bend
*Gentner Packing Company, South Bend
***
Lehman Veal and Poultry Packers
Wakarusa
Subject to court action requested by Stream Pollution Control Board
'1/70
X
X
X
2/1/71
10/1/70
10/1/70
10/1/70
W71
12/1/70
12/1/70
12/1/70
7/1/71
3/1/71
3/1/71
3/1/71
8/1/71
Vl/71
U/l/71
Vl/71
9/1/71
5/1/71
5/1/71
5/1/71
12/31/72
12/31/71
12/31/71
12/31/71
Completed May 1970
X Action completed
*Time schedules subject to change under enforcement action now scheduled. Dates indicated are those that will be recommended
to the hearing member
**Enforcement action will be requested at the May 19, 1970 Board meeting
***Phosphorous removal also will be required
-------
Industrial Time Schedules (continued)
Industry and Location
Advanced Waste Treatment
Atlantic-Richfield Company, East
Chicago
Cities Service Oil Company, East
Chicago
American Maize-Products Company
Hammond
American Oil Company, Whiting
Employ
Engineer
X
X
10/1/70
X
Submit
Preliminary
X
X
3/1/71
X
Initiate
Final
Plans
X
X
5/1/71
X
Submit
Final
Plans
X
X
9/1/71
X
Arrange
Financing
X
X
10/1/71
X
Initiate
Construction
X
X
12/1/71
X
Complete
Construction
and place in
Operation
8/1/70
7/1/71
12/1/72
12/31/70
vo
VJ1
-------
. 96
P. E. Miller
MR. MILLER: I might say that we in Indiana
have included every discharger that we have to the
Lake Michigan Basin and some of these are pretty small
communities, less than 1,000 people, and some pretty
small industries that are pretty well up on the St.
Joe River and we would question whether actually chlori-
nation of these and treatment or lack of treatment would
really affect Lake Michigan. Nevertheless, they have
been included in the table and we have put time sched-
ules on and we have indicated also where we are beyond
the dates that were in the plan of implementation.
The table you have, the first table covers
phosphorus removal and plant expansions, and we have
indicated by an X where the city or industry has
already complied or met this particular time schedule
and then the dates when we expect the subsequent
actions to be taken.
I would like to point out that in the case of
Elkhart we are beyond the date and the plan of imple-
mentation of Decenber 1969. However, on March 6 of
this year a priority for construction grant was issued
*
and the offer made to Elkhart and we expect this one to
-------
• 97
P. E. Miller
proceed in accordance with the date that we have
included in the expansion, which would be the dates
that we think the work can be completed.
In the next two instances of Hammond and
Whiting, the Stream Pollution Control Board has held
hearings with these two communities and we expect the
necessary action to follow in these cases.
Now, at the bottom of this table we have
indicated by Item 1 under effluent disinfection those
communities which are behind in this category. I would
say to you that Lagrange and Ligonier and South Bend
have submitted plans, that Lagrange was issued a
priority for grants on March 2, 1970, and construction
is anticipated this summer to be completed by October 1.
The order issued by the Stream Pollution Control Board
against South Bend, th^R is being pursued in the Starke
County Circuit Court and the Board at its April meeting
asked the Attorney General to proceed as expeditiously
as possible and get this case docketed so that we can
take action at this time.
We have included statements regarding treat-
ment- and disinfection of storm overflows and our
-------
98
P. E. Miller
original dates, plans of implementation, the advanced
waste treatment also.
And following that is a similar table for the
industrial plants that we have in the area and we have
indicated some of these that we have evaluated since the
last meeting of the conference as well as those and the
dates for which we are proceeding.
Following the meeting of the conferees in
Milwaukee, the Board did, at its April meeting, schedule
hearings with U. S. Steel Corporation in Gary, with
General Products Division of American Motors Corporation
in South Bend, and with Gentner Packing Company in South
Bend.
I would say to you that we expect and recom-
mend-~expect to recommend, we will recommend and we
expect the Board to schedule hearings with all the
communities and all the industries that are behind in
schedules or that we anticipate may get behind in
schedules and proceed with these actions of the Board
as soon as possible.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
-------
29
P. E. Miller
Again I would like to call attention to the
fact that while you have some small industries listed
here, I think Indiana is peculiarly blessed as some of
the industries they have listed are Inland Steel, U. S.
Gypsum, Youngstown Sheet and Tube, Continental Can,
Penn Central, U. S. Steel in Gary, American Motors,
Atlantic Richfield, Cities Service, American Maize and
American Oil. I think it is fair to say that as a re-
sult of this action, this State-Federal action, we are
probably seeing the largest industrial cleanup program
in one area that I imow of in the country, particularly
around Lake Michigan, and this is encouraging. I
didn't want the people to get the impression that we
were just dealing with small industries.
Are there any comments or questions?
If not, may we go to Illinois.
-------
100
C. W. Klassen
CLARENCE W. KLASSEN
TECHNICAL SECRETARY
ILLINOIS SANITARY WATER BOARD
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, Illinois is
probably also peculiarly blessed that we have a very
small part of the watershed, although an important
part.
On our summary we have three industries with
their schedule:
Abbott Laboratories, which will be completed
and in operation by December of this year.
U. S. Steel Corporation, the Waukegan Works.
They have several of their projects completed. Their
last.one will be completed about six months ahead of
the conference schedule in June 1972.
U. S. Steel South Works will be completed
December 1970.
Now, the North Shore Sanitary District, I
think as we detailed at the Milwaukee meeting, has
under construction a program to remove all wastes from
-------
— . . 101
C. W. Klassen
the district from Lake Michigan. There are 39 separate
projects involved in this whole program. We have issued
permits for, I think, the first seven or eight, they are
under construction. We have submitted and—l had sug-
gested this; I realize it might be difficult for some of
the other States--filed )with the conference a project
schedule for all of these 39 projects, when they will
start construction, when they did start, the dates of
completion. They will all be completed, with one
exception, by the fall of 1971, with the exception of
the Waukegan plant, which is their main plant, which
will-be completed by August 1972. All of these dates
here —
MR. STEIN: Does that change the date—pardon
me--from your chart here? You have June.
MR. KLASSENi No, no. The Middle Fork sewer,
which is not listed here, is a sewer project that will
be completed April 1972, but that is the construction
of a sewer to take some wastes to the plant. But the
plant itself will be completed, the last project, by
August 1972,to fall far within the deadline.
I might say since the Milwaukee conference, a
-------
102
C. W. Klassen
lawsuit that was brought about by citizens in Highland
Park against the expansion of one of the plants and the
construction of the plant listed in here has gone to
trial and has been resolved,and a satisfactory mutual
arrangement or agreement has been reached between those
citizens and the North Shore Sanitary District . We
testified in the case, so other than a few minor legal
hurdles that are involved in the delay of this, they
should proceed on schedule.
The two other sources of pollution, potential
sources of pollution, within the district, that I assume
will be reported on by the Federal Government, are two
military installations, the Port Sheridan and Great
Lakes, which, according to all our information, will be
included in the project to remove the effluent from Lake
Michigan within this schedule.
(The summary referred to is as follows:)
-------
THE BOARD
D. VODER, M.D., M.P.H.. CHAIRMAN
DIRECTOR Of PUBLIC HEALTH
JOHN W. LEWIS
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
«,LUAM f. CELLINI
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS
» t. SAROENT
MUN'CI PALITI rs
C. S. BORUFF
INDUSTRY
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SANITARY WATER BOARD
103
TECHNICAL
CLARENCE W. KUASSEN
CHIEF SANITARY ENCINECR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEAL!.
ADDRESS LETTERS TO:
STATE SANITARY WATER BOAIIb
SPRINOFIELO,. ILLINOIS
6270«
May 7, 1970
LAKE MICHIGAN - FOUR STATE FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
TO:
Murray Stein, Chairman
The attached detailed list, containing interim dates for compliance
with conference recommendations, has been prepared pursuant to your
request during the Third Session of the Conference held in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, on March 31, 1970. This list provides dates for the
following implementation phases for all dischargers to Lake Michigan.
1. Rea]t)in engineers
2. Submit preliminary engineering report
3. Initiate detailed engineering plans and specifications
4. Submit detailed engineering specifications
5. Arrange financing
t, Initiate construction
7. Complete construction and place in full time operation
C. W. Klassen, Technical Secretary
Illinois Sanitary Water Board
Conferee for State of Illinois
-------
Waukegan Works
U. S. Steel Corp.
South Works
LAKE MICHIGAN - FOUR STATE FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
May 7, 1970
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE INTERIM DATES
DISCHARGERS TO LAKE MICHIGAN IN ILLINOIS
Abbott Laboratories
U. S. Steel Corp.
RETAIN
ENGRS.
Feb. 1970
Feb. 1970
SUBMIT PRELIM.
ENGR. REPORT
March 1970
July 1970
START ENG.
PLANS AND
SPECS.
April 1970
Nov. 1970
SUBMIT ENGR.
PLANS AND
SPECS.
May 1970
Feb. 1971
ARRANGE
FINANCING
Feb. 1970
May 1971
START
CONSTR.
June 1970
June 1971
START
OPERATION
Dec. 1970
June 1972
1967
1967
1967
1968
1968
1968
Dec. 1970
NORTH SHORE SAN. DIST.
North Chicago STW
Waukegan STW
Lake Bluff STW
Lake Forest STW
Highland Park
Park Avenue
Highland Park
Gary Avenue
Highland Park
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
'967
.967
\yo/
1967
1967
Jan.
June
Dec.
June
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
1970
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
Oct.
Nov.
June
1969
pri 1
April
Apr! 1
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1968
1968
1968
1968
1968
1968
1968
Nov.
Mar.
Sept
Jan.
luly
July
July
1970
1971
. 1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
Oct.
Aug.
Aug.
Jan.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
1971
1972
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
Ravine Drive
-------
. 105
C. W. Klassen
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Klassen.
Any comments or questions?
MR. MAYO: I have got a question with regard
to the U. S. Steel Waukegan Works and the U. S. Steel
South Works. I notice that you have start operation
dates of June 1972 for the Waukegan Works and December
1970 for the South Works. I would appreciate it if you
would take me through the steps as far as the State of
Illinois is concerned--
MR. KLASSEN: Which one?
MR. MAYO: For both of those, if you will.
—that takes us from the December 1968 completion date
for each of those that I have in the February 25, 1969,
summary to the start operation dates of June 1972 and
December 1970.
MR. KLASSEN: Starting with U. S. Steel South
Works, they are in violation of the September 30, 19^9,
date. We filed a request with the Attorney General on
October 7 in regard to this and at the same time
requested the Federal Government to join us in this
suit for the violation which the Federal Government has
rejected. The Calumet enforcement conference had made
-------
106
C. W. Klassen
a request of the Department of the Interior, the
Secretary, to file an action against U. S. Steel and
this was also rejected.
And I just want to bring you up to date on the
legal aspects of this and our Attorney General, who
incidentally cooperates vH +-* us very closely, has also
filed suit against this corporation, as the Chicago
Sanitary District has. I think there are a total of
six or seven suits filed against them.
But in spite of this, t want to say, and as I
repeated in Wisconsin, in spite of all of these suits,
the U. S. Steel Corporation South Works is proceeding
with its construction schedule and so far as our
information is concerned, it is in accordance with this
schedule that I am giving you here. They started con-
struction in 1968 and will be completed by December
1970.
What more did you want on that?
MR. MAYO: Well, I was wondering about the
procedure that gets us from the December 1^68 date to
the June 196? date for the Waukegan Works--! mean to
the June 1972 date for the U. S. Steel Works at
-------
C. W. Klassen
Waukegan.
MR. STEIN: Changed that to August.
MR. KLASSEN: Now you are on the U. S. Steel
Waukegan Works?
MR. MAYO: Yes.
MR. KLASSEN: This was due to desdgn decisions,
construction, and a start of construction now is sched-
uled for June 1971 for their final outlet. They have
taken care already of removing all the pickle liquor
from the lake, and these are I don't say minor, but so
far as comoared to what the previous discharge was they
are not in the same category, and it will require this
time for them to complete the final construction on
their j.inal outlet that involves, I think, some iron
going into the lake.
MR. MAYO: Vmat was the nature of the Illinois
action chat set the June 1972 date?
MR. KLASSEN: The nature of the action? No
legal action, if this is what you are talking about,
because they are within the conference dates. As a
matter of fact, the conference date is December 1972,
I think, and this is going to be finished in June 1972.
-------
108
C. W. Klassen
And if you are quarreling with this date, I call your
attention to some of the schedules from the other States
that you have approved where they go up to December 1972
MR. MAYO: I am not quarreling with it.
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K.
MR..MAYO: I was Just trying to understand it.
MR. KLASSEN: Now, on North Shore Sanitary
District, the last of their projects will be diverting
their main plant, the Waukegan plant, westward and that
will be completed in August 1972, which will again be
about four months ahead of the conference schedule for
removing everything. We will be the only State that has
removed everything from Lake Michigan. And I might say,
well, this is a laudable objective, we feel. It has
been objected to by some people on the outlet stream
where these wastes will go, namely the Illinois River
and the Des Plaines River. (Laughter.)
I might add, though, that the water that will
be discharged from these plants will be of an exceeding-
ly high quality with complete treatment, tertiary treat-
ment and chlorination.
MR. STEIN: You know, those are interstate
-------
C. W. Klassen
streams. Why don't you invite us in on that one, Mr.
Klassen, like you did on U. S. steel?
MR. KLASSEN: Well, the reason we didn't, Mr.
Chairman, is that we know when we are licked. We don't
want any more rejections. I would say if you will Join
us on the Calumet River, we would be only happy to
refer more cases to you on violations of interstate
streams, but you have indicated to us that this is a
State of Illinois problem, and we are taking you at
your word.
MR. STEIN: What we have indicated to you is
you filed a case in the State court and it is the
policy generally of the Justice Department not to have
the Federal Government Join in cases under the Juris-
diction of State courts.
But I think, Mr. Klassen, really, if we got a
request from the State to clean up the Sanitary Ship
Canal and the Des Plaines River and the Illinois River,
you might get a favorable response.
MR. KLASSEN: We thought we might on the other
one, but we didn't.
MR. STEIN: We will make up for it.
-------
110
C. W. Klassen
MR. KLASSEN: Is this a change in policy of
the United States Attorney General?
MR. STEIN: No, this is not the Attorney
General's policy; this is our policy whether we Join in
in an enforcement case on those rivers.
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K.
MR. STEIN: We don't have to go to the
Attorney General on that one. We could make that judg-
ment ourselves.
MR. KLASSEN: Why was this judgment, then,
made on the Calumet River, which is an interstate.streanl
MR. STEIN: The Calumet River, that Judgment
was made for a court action. If a request is made for
us, we get a request for a conference of this type
where we make the Judgment ourselves*
Again, and I just gave Mr. Purdy a copy of
the law to look at, but our law is very clear, when we
go to court we have to refer the case to the Attorney
General foi* court action. We don't take that case to
court ourselves.
MR. KLASSEN: We won't need your help on
legal action on the Illinois River. We are proceeding
-------
. 111
C. W. Klassen
without it and very successfully.
MR. STEIN: All right. Thank you.
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. PRANGOS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. PRANGOS: Just a point of information.
All of these seven that you list under the
North Shore Sanitary District, are they existing treat-
ment plants?
MR. KLASSEN: They are existing treatment
plants, yes.
MR. FRANCOS:With outlets to the lake?
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
MR. FRANCOS: What is the degree of present
treatment, Mr. Klassen? I know you have given us that
information before.
MR. KLASSEN: Yes. Five of the seven are
primary treatment with chlorination.
MR. PRANGOS: I see. And on the other two
secondary chlorination?
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, with chlorination.
MR. POOLE: What are those two?
-------
112
C. W. Klassen
MR. KLASSEN: North Chicago and Waukegan.
MR. POOLE: They are the bigger ones?
MR. KLASSEN: Yes.
MR. FRANCOS: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions on that?
And thank you for that report. I think,
again, Illinois may be peculiarly blessed, because if
you look at the map a good.portion of the greater Chi-
cago drainage does not go into Lake Michigan and goes
the other way. However, I do say, Mr. Klassen, I think
you have addressed yourself to every source other than
those which were going into Lake Michigan, and I think
your plans and the prognosis you have for the treatment
are very good,and I think, we are on our way there. I
expect on backing you that you will be the first State
to have every source fully cleaned UJL. and will get the
brass ring or something.
Are there any other comments or questions?
If not, I think this accomplishes a major
purpose and a first one.^uf I think all the States
have come forward with their detailed analyses point by
-------
- -. 113
General Discussion
point of every source in the basin, dates for final
completion and interim dates for every source. This
of course, is a matter of public record and will be
made available to all so we can all judge the progress.
Now, does anyone want to address themselves
at this time to the other question that we had brought
up here and that was the question of thermal pollution?
Yes, Mr. Purdy.
MR. KLASSEN: Is Mr. Purdy going to comment?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, we have held some
recent hearings in Michigan on temperature standards
and came prepared today to discuss a number of factors.
m
However, the statement that you presented at the start
of this conference I think indicates the frustrating
experience that we of the States, at least we in Michi-
gan, have had on this temperature matter. And as we
approach something that we feel we can take into a pub-
lic hearing and hopefully adopt as a standard, we have
something new placed before us, so again we have
-------
General Discussion
something new today to consider and haven't had an
opportunity to review it in detail.
But on April 10 we did receive a letter from
Mr. Mayo indicating that ;at the time of their hearing
or our hearing they had not completed their review of
Lake Michigan waters and stated that other values would
be submitted to our Commission within 30 days of the
hearing and that they were now proposing completed
temperature criteria for the Lake Michigan Basin. It
is our intention to use these criteria as the basis for
consideration of revised temperature criteria for Lake
Michigan and its basin by the conferees at the forth-
coming Executive Session of 'the enforcement conference.
There are a number of details contained in
this recommendation and in fact there were recommenda-
tions made with respect to temperature rise, mixing
zone, and so forth.
Following that letter there was a meeting in
Ann Arbor to attempt to resolve current differences
between the States of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and
Wisconsin relative to temperature standards. And at
that meeting it was agreed that the States and the PWQA
-------
•• • 115
General Discussion
would tabulate existing temperature data and determine
monthly water temperatures for Lake Michigan which
would be equal to or less than the value of 90 percent
of The observations and that this information would
serve as a basis for discussion at the Executive Session
of the Lake Michigan conference on 5-7-70 in Chicago.
Now, this meeting took place on April 16.
Between April 16 and today we have made an analysis of
23,664 temperatures from eight Lake Michigan water
intakes in Michigan unaffected by heat discharges and
306 shoreline temperatures from 20 swimming beach
stations. This represents a great deal of work on our
part. It appears that this might be somewhat useless
work now in that the ground rules have changed again.
(Which said water temperature data is as
follows:)
-------
116
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Bureau of Water Management
Department of Natural Resources
5-6-70
Lake Michigan Water Temperature Data
Michigan's water quality standards for temperature have not been accepted
hw the> ^p»r r<=>f-ar\/ r
by the Secretary of the Interior.
In an effort to resolve current differences among the States of Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin relative to temperature standards
for Lake Michigan representatives of the Federal Water Qua!ity Adminis-
tration met with State water agency personnel on April 16, 1970 in Ann Arbor.
At that meeting it was agreed the States and FWQA would tabulate existing
temperature data and determine monthly water temperatures for Lake Michigan
which would be equal to or less than the value of 90% of the observations.
This information would serve as a basis for discussion at the Executive
Session of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference 5-7-70 in Chicago.
Michigan's contribution contains appropriate analysis of 23,66^- temperatures
from eight Lake Michigan water intakes in Michigan unaffected by heated
discharges and 306 shoreline temperatures from 20 swimming beach stations.
Data are presented in three tables as a basis for further deliberations
by our sister States and the FWO.A.
Carlos Fetterolf
D. James Seeburger
V/ater Quality Appraisal Section
-------
117
labjej.. Water temperature data, Lake Michigan water intakes
90/0 frequency indicates temperature was equal to or'
less than value shown for 90% of the observations.
A. St. Joseph; depth, 19'; distance offshore, 1490'. Period of record analyzed,
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Observations 341 283 341 300 310 279 310 310 300 310 300 310
Max. temp. 39 36 42 52 65 Jk 77 80 76 65 56 44
Kin. temp. 32 32 32 32 45 40 44 45 47 4g 37 32
90% freq. 34 34 38 48 56 67 74 74 72 62 53 4o
B. Benton Harbor; depth, 40'; distance offshore, 3,375'. Period of record analyzed,
Jan. 1960-March, 1970.
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Observations 310 311 331 340 309 300 310 310 298 310 299 309
Max. temp. 39 39 44 51 60 70 77 77 76 65 59 48
Min. temp. 33 32 33 34 45 44 46 49 48 51 38 33
90% freq. 37 36 39 48 55 65 72 73 70 63 55 43
C. Holland; depth, 36'| distance offshore, 4,240". Period of record, Jan. 1960-Feb, 1970
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Observations 341 311 31.0 300 310 300 310 310 300 309 299 310
Max. temp. 43 36 40 48 57 69 73 76 75 65 56 49
Min. temp. 33 33 33 34 43 43 42 44 45 47 41 33
90% freq. 36 35 38 45 53 62 68 71 70 62 54 44
D. Grand Rapids; depth, 55'; distance from shore, 6,200'. Period of record analyzed,
July 1963-Dec. 1969.
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Observations 186
Max. temp. 38
Min. temp. 32
90% freq. 35
E. Muskegon; depth, 50'; distance from shore, 7,200'. Period of record analyzed,
Jan. 1960-Feb. 1970.
Jan. Feb-. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Observations 337
Max. temp. 37
Min. temp. 32
90% freq. 35
150
35
32
^ c_
34
186
39
32
36
180
47
32
44
186
57
42
52
180
69
41
61
216
73
39
68
217
75
40
71
210
73
42
67
216
64
41
62
198
55
41
54
217
45
30
42
313
37
32
34
309
40
33
37
48
45
309
60
41
54
299
71
42
62
309
77
41
69
309
75
40
72
299
78
43
71
309
65
44
63
299
56
43
54
309
49
33
44
-------
118
-3-
Table 1. continued
F. Ludington; depth, 38'; distance from shore, 3000'. Period of record analyzed,
Jan. 1960 - Feb. 1970.
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Observations 342
Max. temp. 39
Min. temp. 31
90% freq. 35
G. Traverse City; depth, 341; distance offshore, 1700'. Period of record analyzed,
Jan. 1966 - Dec. 1967.
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
311
35
32
34
310
40
32
36
300
46
33
43
319
55
37
50
240
68
41
59
310
73
41
69
319
74
42
70
300
74
42
7r
310
63
44
60
300
53
40
50
310
47
32
42
Observations
Max. temp.
Min. temp.
90% freq.
57
43
35
42
56
38
34
36
62
37
34
36
60
42
35
39
56
46
38
45
60
60
42
58
62
80
42
76
62
69
56
69
60
68
40
68
62
61
42
59
60
53
41
51
62
46
36
46
H. Big Rock; depth, 27'; distance offshore, 1451'. Period of record analyzed,
May 1963 - Feb. 1970.
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Observations 216
Max. temp. 42
Min. temp. 31
90% freq. 40
163
39
30
37
168
45
30
37
133
41
31
40
150
47
33
44
168
68
40
55
165
70
47
66
177
72
43
69
185
72
45
68
172
64
43
61
200
55
38
52
194
46
33
42
-------
-4-
119
—••' • i ^ - - - ... — .*, t « v ^ w, j t^s ^ | ^ ^ ij | £^;j CvjU
less than value of 90% of the observations.
A. Group A. South
of Pentwater
St. Joseph
Benton Harbor
Holland
Grand Rapids
Muskegon
Average
B. Group B. North
of Pentwater
Ludington
Big Rock
Jan.
34
37
36
35
35
35.^
Jan.
35
40
Feb.
3k
36
35
34
34
34.6
Feb.
34
37
Mar.
38
39
38
36
37
37.6
Mar.
36
37
Apr.
48
48
45
44
45
46
Apr.
43
40
May
56
55
53
52
54
54
May
50
44
June
67
65
62
61
62
63.4
June
59
55
July
74
72
68
68
69
70.2
July
69
66
Aug.
74
73
71
71
72
72.2
Aug.
70
69
Sept.
72
70
70
67
71
70
Sept.
70
68
ai LU or
Oct.
62
63
62
62
63
62.4
Oct.
60
61
Nov.
53
*/ **
55
54
54
54
54
Nov.
50
52
Dec
40
43
44
42
44
42
Dec
42
42
Average
37.5 35.5 36.5 41.5 47 57 67.5 69.5 6?
60.5 51 42
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
C. Group C. Traverse
Bay
Traverse City 42 36 36 39 45 58 76 69 68 59 51 46
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
D. Grand average 36.8 35.0 37-1 44.0 51.1 61.1 70.25 71.1 69.5 61.5 52.9 42.9
E. Av. So. of
Pentwater
Ave. No. of
Pentwater
Difference
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
35.4 34.6 37.6 46 54 63.4 70.2 72.2 70 62.4 54 42.6
37.5 35.5 36.5 41.5 47 57 67.5 69.5 69 60.5 51 42
-1.9 -0.9 +1.1 +4.5 +7.0 +6.4 +2.7 +2.7 +1.0 +1.9 +3.0 +0.6
F. Assumption: Since the average* depth of the five water intakes south of Pentwater is
40 feet and the average depth of the two water intakes north of Pentwater
is 31.4 feet it may be assumed that surface water temperatures will be
warmer during the months of April through September.
-------
120
-5-
Table 2. Continued
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
90% freq. temps. . ,n,
South of Pentwater 35.4 34.6 37.6 46 54 63.4 70.2 72.2 70 62.4 54 42.6
MWRC staff conclusions? 35 38 48 57 67 73 75 73 63 54 ^3
for temps, south of
Pentwater for open
waters considering
increase for surface
waters
90% freq. temps.
North of Pentwater 37.5 35.5 36.5 41.5 47 57 67.5 69.5 69 60.5 51 42
MWRC staff conclusion37 35 37 43 50 60 71 73 72 61 51 42
for temps, north of
Pentwater for open
waters considering
increase for surface
waters.
G. In a letter from FWQA Regional Director Mayo to Ex. Sec. Purdy on 4-10-70 the
following daily surface water temperatures not to be exceeded were recommended
for inshore waters of Lake Michigan.
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
42
X*
36.8
i37
37
X
35.0
35
37
X
37.1
37
44
4°s
44
46
53
4°S
51.1
54
65
2°S
61.1
65
72
1°S
70.3
74
77
X
71.1
74
75
X
69.5
73
65
X
61.5
63
54
X
52.9
54
50
X
42,9
43
8 Mich, intakes
MWRC staff conclusions?
for open water temps.
considering increase
for surface addition,
all of Lake Michigan
* If the FW07\ temps apply to offshore waters we accept those with an x below them. Numbers
below FWQA recommended figures indicate additions needed, letter indicates area addition
is needed, north or south. See Table 3 for MWRC staff conclusions for inshore waters.
-------
121
-6-
Table 3. Water temperatures, shore sampling, Lake Micnigan.
A. Beach sampling program south of Pentwater, 1965-1968, 14 stations.
June July Aug. Sept.
Max. temp. 75 79 77 75
Min. temp. 55 53 57 50
90% freq. 75 77 75 70
# of observations 47 75 95 20
B. Beach sampling program north of Pentwater, 1965-1968, 6 stations.
June July Aug. Sept.
Max. temp. 73 75 75 6k
•Min. temp. 51 ^ 52 64
90% freq. 64 73 73 64
# of observations 18 37 51 1
C. Beach sampling program, combined stations, 1965-1968, ZO stations.
June July Aug. Sept.
Max. temp. 75 79 77 75
Min. temp. 51 53 52 50
90% freq. Jk 75 75 70
# of observations 65 112 146 21
D. Beach sampling program combined stations, 1965-19^8, 20 stations.
June July Aug. Sept.
90% frequency Jk 75 75 70
FWQA recommendation65 72 77 75
for inshore waters*+9 +3 x x
* x indicates acceptable, number indicates increase needed,
E. Beach sampling program, combined stations, 1965-1968, 20 stations.
June July Aug. Sept.
90% frequency Jt* 75 75 ?0
8 water intakes, combined for Lake Michigan
90% frequency 61.1 70.3 71.1 69.5
-------
122
General Discussion
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman.
Pardon me, Ralph.
MR. PURDY: I an certainly willing to take
the recommendations of the two Assistant Secretaries
back to my Commission for their consideration and to
have them give guidance to me on the position that they
wish to take. I am mindful, though, of the fact that
following the first session of this conference that a
Technical Committee was appointed to study the problem
of radioactivity and thermal discharges into Lake
Michigan. If I remember correctly, that Committee came
back with a report that they did not feel that there
would be a temperature problem in the lake as a whole
from the present and proposed powerplant installations,
that there could be problems within the local areas.
This may raise a question as to whether the thermal dis-
charges are of interstate nature and affecting the
health and welfare of a person other than the State in
which they originate.
However, this conference would serve as a
good vehicle to consider standards by all four States
and to arrive at that late recommendation. But within
-------
General Discussion
the statute it points out that the "standards of
quality established pursuant to this subsection shall
be such as to protect the public health or welfare "
and also to "enhance the quality of water and serve
the purposes of this Act" and that "in establishing
such standards the Secretary, the Hearing Board, or the
appropriate State authority shall take into considera-
tion their use and value for public water supplies,
propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes,
and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate
us e s. "
In view of the recommendations made today, it
seems that even if a State reached the conclusion that
in a small limited area there would be no injury to
fish and aquatic life and that some heat discharge
could enhance the utility of these waters for bathing
purposes and extend the swimming season at some of our
public bathing areas, that this still would not be
allowed. So we are placed in a very restrictive area
as to what we can consider for a standard.
I also note that in the statute that if there
is a violation of the standard there is a procedure to
-------
^ 124
general Discussion
be followed, of course, and that in the court's review
of the violation of the standard that the court should
give due consideration to the practability and to the
physical and economic feasibility of complying with
such standards. I would be most interested in having,
say, the technicians within the FWQA present to this
conference, to the conferees, the necessity of such a
recommendation as we received today from the standpoint
of protecting the health and welfare and also to the
practability and to the physical and economic feas-
ibility of complying with such standards.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments?
Mr. Klassen.
MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am making a
verbal request, and I will follow it up in writing to
the Secretary.
The State of Illinois, like the other States,
submitted criteria for water quality in accordance with
the Federal Act and these were approved by the Secretary
of the Interior January 27, 1968, and I am making a
verbal request and will follow it in writing:
Will the Secretary now send the State of
-------
General Discussion
Illinois the new requirement based on this statement so
the Illinois Sanitary Water Board can adopt this new
requirement and get on with the enforcement?
This comes at an opportune time so far as the
Sanitary Water Board of the State of Illinois is con-
cerned, because as I indicated, the Sanitary Water
Board has not—and I emphasize not—Issued any permits
for the Zion nuclear powerplant, either for radioactive
discharge or for cooling water discharge. I am
assuming, and I think I am correct/ ue^&use we have
pretty good knowledge of what is being proposed, that
the Zion nuclear powerplant cannot discharge cooling
water as proposed into Lake Michigan under these regu-
lations. They are awaiting our answer. With the Sanitary
Water Board adopting these and this becoming officially
the Illinois standards, then we can advise Zion Common-
wealth Edison immediately that no permit will be
issued.
This is the reason why I am making this
request, because I think we have every obligation to
advise that company that under the new rules there
will be no permit issued because we know that it would
-------
__ 126
General Discussion
be in violation of these. And when and if these are
adopted, obviously we will enforce them. (Applause.)
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments?
Mr. Poole.
MR. KLASSEN: I just want to add--
MR. STEIN: Pardon me; I am sorry.
MR.KLASSEN: I just want to add to this, we
have two other fossil fuel plants in Illinois now dis-
charging to the lake and I understand that one is at
Waukegan and the other I think is State Eine plant, I
think it is in Illinois.
Is that in Indiana?
MR. MILLER: That is in Indiana.
MR. KLASSEN: 0. K., then we only have one.
But in addition to the nuclear powerplants,
there are other discharges from some pretty important
facilities that are going into Lake Michigan that will
be in violation of this, but we will face those when we
get to them.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Klassen.
You know, Mr. Klassen, you have been fooling
me for years with those pregnant pauses of yours, and I
-------
General Discussion
knew what would happen, that one of these days we would
have children in the audience. (Laughter.)
MR. KLASSEN: I didn't hear. I missed some
of this, Mr.- Stein.
MR. STEIN: I said you have been fooling me
for years with one of these pregnant pauses of yours
where I think--
MR. KLASSEN: I didn't understand you.
MR. STEIN: Pauses.
MR. KLASSEN: Pregnant pauses?
MR. STEIN: Yes, where I think you are
finished and you pause.
MR. KLASSEN: Oh.
MR. STEIN: Then you see what happens, we have
babies.
MR. KLASSEN: I never want to miss any of
your words of wisdom, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: Mr. Poole.
MR. POOLE: Well, I think Mr. Purdy pretty
well expressed my views at the moment on the overall
temperature situation. ¥e had come here today pre-
pared to discuss the proposals of the Regional Office
-------
128
General"Discussion
with respect to Lake Michigan, and in view of the pol-
icy statement which you read to us this morning I am in
no position to do that today. This has to go back to
my Board and to my Governor before we can go any
further with respect to a position.
I have a second problem, however, that hope-
fully we might resolve today and that is with respect
to the temperature on the St. Joe River. I will have
to apologize to Wisconsin and to Illinois for boring
them with this now.
But as Mr. Purdy indicated, Michigan held
their hearings a few weeks ago and we held our hearing
yesterday. Our hearing yesterday was intended to cover
everything that involved the State of Indiana except
Lake Michigan. Like Illinois, we had even an earlier
approval of our Lake Michigan standards from the Sec-
retary and I now want to know if this is being rescinded
in view of the policy statement,
I think what we put to the hearing yesterday
with respect to St. Joe was identical with what the
Michigan hearing covered. I had previously been
advised by Mr. Mayo that his Regional Office had ideas
-------
General Discussion
for different temperatures for the St. Joe than what we
considered yesterday. We had Dr. Mount of the FWQA as
one of our main witnesses yesterday,,and I am sorry that
I didn't bring his prepared statement with me in the
rush to get away yesterday. But I remember distinctly
that he concluded his remarks by saying that in his
judgment the temperature standards which we had pro-
posed—incidentally, there was one standard for the
main stem of the Ohio River, another for the St. Joe
River, which, as I said, is identical to Michigan's.
and finally one for the rest of the waters of the State
except Lake Michigan—Mount concluded thai; in his
opinion these temperatures would provide reasonable
protection for aquatic life.
I am asking first now to Purdy, what is the
latest thing from Michigan and what came out of your
hearing with respect to the temperature proposals for
the St. Joe or the southern Michigan streams?
MR. PURDY: Mr. Poole, our hearing record was
left open for some 30 days for additional comments and
we did receive additional comments from Mr. Mayo within
this 30-day period and they did send in revised >
-------
130
General Discussion
temperature standards which they were recommending. I
think again your comments there with respect to the
testimony of Dr. Mount emphasize the feeling that I
have and I feel like I am in a revolving door on this
temperature standards bit.
For example, in our hearing,the temperature
standards that we had proposed and sent out for con-
sideration had the word "ambient" in them. The Federal
testimony at our hearing changed "ambient" in every
instance to "natural." They objected to "ambient."
Yet the statement that we have received tnis morning I
note says "rise over ambient.15
I am confused as to where we are going.
MR. STEIN: Well, let me tell you, as far as
I am concerned, there is no difference. Substitute
"natural" if you feel better.
MR. POOLE: Ours was not identical to Michi-
gan, then. We had "natural" Instead of "ambient."
MR. STEIN: Well, I think that is what the
Fish and Wildlife people like, the word "natural."
I don't have any objection to that phrase.
MR. POOLE: I am not trying to put anybody on
-------
General Discussion
the spot. Like Michigan, we left our hearing open
yesterday for 10 days. Now, as I recall the hearing,
and there were a lot of witnesses, the power companies
objected to the proposal, saying it was too high. I
think everybody else either endorsed the proposal or
there were some people that even in a general way asked
for more stringent temperature standards.
But candidly I don't know what in the hell
Indiana and Michigan are going to do about the St. Joe
River.
MR. STEIN: Well, again I think we will work
it out.
By the way, let me say, again, I have been
through this temperature bit quite often in the past few
months. There are a lot of differences here, like in
many other fields, which are only different to another
purist. As far as I am concerned, the difference
between "ambient" and "natural" falls within that cate-
gory. I can't find a bit of difference myself.
MR, PURDY: One further item that I would
like to bring up, Mr. Chairman, is this matter of the
one degree temperature rise and no mixing zone. Does
-------
^ _____ 132
General Discussion
this contemplate that if we have a treated municipal
effluent into Lake Michigan that we are going to
require cooling of this during the winter months?
Because it will add more.than one degree.
MR. STEIN: I think Mr. Klassen asked that
question very early in this meeting, whether this
applies to all sources, municipal and industrial,
temperaturewise, and I answered then as I read the
statement, yes, it does. And I think that is what it
says. (Laughter.)
MR. PURDY: This would apparently mean the
storm water runoff too.
MR. KLASSEN: I interpret it everything.
MR. STEIN: I can't see an exception for the
municipal waste during the wintertime.
MR. PURDY: Well, again I would like to hear
the testimony on the necessity and the practicability
MR. STEIN: That is right. Again I think you
have to recognize—and I have been dealing with our
fish and wildlife and other people--! don't know that
anybody has a right to take water out of a lake at one
temperature and return it to the lake at any different
-------
133
General Discussion
temperature. Maybe there is such a right. I haven't
heard about it.
MR. KLASSEN: I do want to call your attention
to one problem that involves all of tne States. A
strict interpretation of this is the water purification
plants that are taking water out of the lake, they
retain it in the plant for five or six hours, and then
the backwashing, the discharge of that same water back
into the lake, will violate this.
But we will enforce it if you require it.
MR. STEIN: I have always been suspicious of
that backwash in the water treatment plants.
MR. POOLE: Just for the record, we might let
you enforce it if you require.
MR. STEIN: Well, that would be very interest-
ing. If we get such a request from a Hoosier, it will
be the first time and I think we have made history.
(Laughter.)
MR. MACKIE: Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. MACKIE: I note that this is a policy
position by Assistant Secretary Klein and Assistant
-------
General Discussion
Secretary Glasgow. Our question is, is this an
official position of the Secretary of the Interior?
And if so, what does it mean to this conference in
terms of enforcement?
MR. STEIN: Well, here, I can only answer
with the statement which was given to me this morning.
And I don't know that I can go beyond that. But I can
guess, at least in the assumption that I make to answer
that question, and I place this as my assumption, when
an Assistant Secretary speaks he speaks for the Secre-
tary and the Department,and I have gotten this state-
ment from two Assistant Secretaries.
MR. MACKIE: In other words, this is the
official position of the Department?
MR. STEIN: No, I have told you what my view
of this is. I have no further information than that
statement, and that it was developed and is to be
attributed to the two Assistant Secretaries I have
indicated. If you want my personal interpretation of
what it means when an Assistant Secretary speaks, he
speaks for the Secretary of the Department.
MR. MACKIE: Would you find that out, please,
-------
General Discussion
and let us know?
MR. STEIN: Well, as far as I am concerned,
that is what it is. But the only further information
I can give you, Mr. Mackie, is to see if the Secretary
is going to endorse it himself. But I think you can
presume that when an Assistant Secretary makes a state-
ment he is speaking with the full legal and political
authority of our Department.
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. FRANCOS: Yes. Mr. Stein, I think we
share some of the concerns that were expressed by some
of the other States,and it seems to me one is the
problem with getting some certainty as to what the
requirements are so that we can proceed in administer-
ing this at the State level; and secondly some of the
questions on the technical side.
But I am wondering, at least if it is your
view, how a policy statement of the Department impinges
legally on this conference. Does this mean that the
Department will then proceed with every administrative
and legal device to make it so?
MR. STEIN: I think the answer to your
-------
, 136
General Discussion
question is yes. Obviously the policy statement is
the one which is traditionally made by the Secretary
and the Assistant Secretaries. Certainly in the
Department of the Interior the Assistant Secretaries
make the policy statements. Then it is up to--I don't
know what you call yourself, but at least some people
call me a professional, other people call me a tech-
nician, maybe I am a little of both, I don't know—but
it is up to me to try to work this out with the States
and the other people. You are as familiar at this
point with the directive that I have as I am,,because I
have withheld nothing. You do have everything that I
have heard.
MR. KARAGANIS: Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: No, I am sorry.
MR. KARAGANIS: I am not here to speak in a
public capacity. I am here —
MR. STEIN: I am sorry, we will not take
statements from the floor. We have a procedure here
and I am asking you to adhere to that.
MR. KARAGANIS: Mr. Stein, I am speaking as a
Special Assistant Illinois Attorney General to make
-------
General Discussion
clear to the conference here, there has been some ques-
tion raised' as to the position of State officials as to
the proposed regulation by the Department of the Inter-
ior. And I am here to say that the interpretation on
\
what the responsibility of those who would change the
condition of Lake Michigan waters that you have made
here today is consistent with the opinion of the Illinois
Attorney General. That is, that if somebody proposes to
change the condition of the water taken from the lake, it
is incumbent upon them to justify the feasibility and
quality of that position, and it is not incumbent upon
a regulatory agency to justify restricting such change.
MR. STEIN: Right. Now, I know as a repre-
sentative of the State and your State Attorney's
office you are as interested in as complete a record
as I am. Would you care to give you name to the
reporter?
MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. My dilemma in this is
that there appears to be a dichotomy between the State s
opinions on this matter and the Federal Government',
opinions on this matter.
I didn't intend to make this statement, but
-------
138
General Discussion
on behalf of Attorney General William Scot*- My name
is Joseph Karaganis and I act in some of the cases
referred to by Mr. Klassen as a Special assistant
Illinois Attorney General.
And the position of the Attorney General
again, may I state, is that if you are going to change
the quality of any body of water,that it is incumbent
upon you to justify the feasibility of the process and
the safety of the process,and not incumbent upon the
regulatory agency to show you that their regulation
prohibiting you from such change is justified,
MR. STEIN: Thank you. I think that is an
accurate statement of the law and one we have held all
the time, but we are glad to have it stated.
Are there any other comments?
MR. PURDY: Mr. Stein, to that point I would
have to say that there is a Supreme Court decision in
the State of Michigan that has held that the burden of
proof is upon the State agency.
MR. STEIN: The burden of proof for violating
a law. But I have looked at the State and Federal law
for a quarter of a century,and I see no inherent right
-------
General Discussion
of anyone--industry, city, any citizen—to take any
water, do what he wants to that water and dump it back
into a public watercourse. That just doesn't exist.
And the notion that a Federal agency or a State agency
or a regulatory agency should have to justify someone
turning back a natural resource as clean as it is and
put the burden on them rather than those who use it, it
a very interesting one. (Applause.)
Are there any other comments or questions?
Are there any other matters the conferees want
to take up?
MR. KLASSEN: The next date we are going to
meet in Michigan.
MR. STEIN: Oh, yes.
MR. KLASSEN: Make it soon
MR. STEIN: Yes, we will try? and I am sure
again experience has shown that we can best set the
dates when we get back to our office and check them
rather than attempt to do it here.
But I have a telegram now. We have several
more citizens that have indicated that they would like
to talk and we probably will have to go into the
LS
-------
140
Horu A, J. Mikva
afternoon if we are coing to hear them.
MR. POOLS: I have one other matter I want to
take up.
MR. STEIN: Yes. May I do this first?
MR. POOLE: Yes.
MR. STEIN: I have a telegram here saying:
"I urge the FWQA to hold hearings on the
determination of standards for the regulation of the
nuclear power station at Zion, Illinois, at which
citizens groups and others may testify. The irrepara-*
ble harm that could be done to Lake Michigan, to our
citizens and to the children of our citizens makes it
imperative that those who will be most affected by the
standards which are set for Zion plants be allowed to
speak at these hearings and to have a voice in what thost
standards will be."
Signed by Congressman Abner J. Mikva.
(Applause.)
Mr. Poole.
MR. POOLE: Well, I want to raise a question
about the dredgings. I don't believe from some of the
discussion we had Just before we convened that I am up
-------
General Discussion
to date. But my Governor got a letter dated April 28,
and I am assuming the other Governors did, from General
Watkins of the Corps of Engineers, with reference to the
entire program for 1970 for disposal of dredgings from
the Great Lakes. The gist of the letter was—and I
should remind you all of what you already know and that
is these conferees, I believe, have consistently taken
a position against the disposal of polluted dredgings
into the lake,and this has been the formal position of
the Indiana Pollution Board for either three or four
years now—the gist of this letter of April 28th to
Governor Whitcomb was that there were only two areas in
Indiana where dredging was proposed for 1970, namely
the Michigan City Harbor, and that would be disposed of
in a confined disposal area. The second one was in
the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, and our letter indicated
that it would be the policy of the Corps not to dredge
the canal in 1970 unless appropriate land disposal or
confined disposal <-nUld be provided.
Now, I understand from an article in the paper
and a discussion with Mr. Mayo and Mr. Purdy that pos-
sibly that has been switched around since April 28
-------
142
General Discussion
and the current Corps proposal is that they will utilize
open lake disposal unless the Governors react to the
contrary. I can't do anything in view of the position
of my Board but to recommend to our Governor that we
still maintain our position that no polluted dredgings
should be deposited in Lake Michigan.
But I do think that it is worth these con-
ferees discussing here,and we ought to decide whether
we want to reiterate our earlier position or Just what
we do want to do.
MR. STEIN: Well, let me get the factual
issue. I don't think unless the dredging is going to take
place some place in Indiana Harbor, that I don't know
about,that the dredgings are going .to be classified as
polluted dredgings.
MR. POOLE: You thimk they are going to be?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. POOLE: I agree with you.
MR. STEIN: All right.
Are there any other comments? Do you have any
other information on that, Mr. Mayo?
MR. MAYO: I believe--
-------
General Discussion
MR. KLASSEN: I would like to ask a question.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. KLASSEN: Where in Lake Michigan at the
present time are there areas in which dredgings are
deposited? Now, we have not issued any permits for any
dredging in the State of Illinois to go into that area
that I understand has congressional approval, part of
which is in Illinois and part in Indiana. So far as we
know, there has been nothing deposited in.the Illinois
sector, but are there areas in other States, that is
offshore in Michigan and Wisconsin, where this is taking
place? I would like to know.
MR. MAYO: Yes, I am sure there are. The
Corps in its report on the dredging schedule
•has included a map that gives the loca-
tion of the offshore sites the Corps has been using for
the disposal of dredgings.
MR. POOLE: Well, in answer, I don't know what
the Corps' policy in the State of Illinois is, but they
have refused to get State permits in Indiana for the
projects which they contract for and this has been a
moot question between our Department of Natural Resources
-------
General Discussion
and the Corps for the last several years. But if the
policy in Illinois is the same, it doesn't make any
difference, they wouldn't request a permit.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klassen.
MR. KLASSEN: The policy is the same. The
Corps has not requested any permits from the State of
Illinois. My question is really directed to the areas
in Wisconsin and in Michigan, whether they are now
being used or intend to be used for the disposal of
.dredgings of polluted material and, if so, what juris-
diction or control does the State of Wisconsin or
Michigan have over those dredgings like we do. This is
a point of information.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Frangos.
MR. PRANGOS: Well, our position is identical
to yours—that the Corps has essentially preempted our
rights for issuing of permits and they don't come to us
either.
MR. KLASSEN: They haven't preempted us. They
not only don't request permits, but they haven't dumped.
Now, have they dumped in Wisconsin?
MR. PRANGOS: Sure, they have. In comment to
-------
General Discussion
the recent developments, we have not had a chance to
see any of this communication in our State, and we have
things that I am interested in. You may recall that at
the last session the decision on which way this thing
would go in terms of dredging projects for this year
had not come in yet,and we haven't got it yet, Mr.
Klassen, at our administrative agency level yet. But
I would be interested in being brought up to date.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments?
Mr.Purdy.
MR. PURDY: I think several questions have
been asked relating to Michigan. Mr. Poole mentioned
a letter. It is interesting. This is another one of
those revolving door situations, Blucher. The Governor
received two letters roughly four days apart. The
second letter did not refer in any way to the first
letter. It was on the same subject, but the contents
were different, much different.
The second letter indicated to the Governor
that the dredging as outlined in their report would
take place unless the Governor objected to it. Our
Governor has responded. Governor Millikin has
-------
146
General Discussion
reiterated his earlier position and that is that he is
opposed to the dumping of polluted dredgings in the
open lake. He has asked that a number of steps be
followed.
One of the steps that he has requested is
that we be furnished the information upon which th»
decision is based^that the dredgings are or are not
polluted. I think this is a matter that I brought up
at this last conference, the last conference in Milwau-
kee, and we still have not received that.
In answer to Mr. Klassen's question, yes,
there is dumping taking place in the open.waters of
Lake Michigan, but not dumping of polluted dredgings.
Clean dredgings are dumped into the lake and in fact
we have a very definite interest in that and hope that
the clean sand dredgings can be used to nourish those
sand starved beaches that are suffering erosion prob-
lems. There is a need to maintain some .of this sand
along the shoreline.
MR. STEIN: Any other comment or question?
MR. MAYO: It is my understanding, gentlemen,
that each of the Great Lakes Basin States in which the
-------
General Discussion
Corps is to proceed with the dredging of polluted
materials in calendar 1970 have been advised by the
Division office of the Corps that they are going to
proceed with that dredging and open lake disposal in
calendar year 1970 unless adequate onshore disposal
sites are provided and that the Corps would forego the
dredging and open lake disposal of polluted materials
if the Governors of the affected States would request
the Corps to forego that dredging in the public interest,
So as I understand the situation, in the
absence of a specific request from the concerned
Governors for the Corps to defer the dredging of pol-
luted sediments in open lake disposal, the Corps will
proceed as it has in the past years.
MR. PURDY: Again as I stated, Michigan's
Governor, Governor Millikin, has said that he is
opposed to the dumping of polluted dredgings in the
open lakes, so I would say that this means that he is
asking them to forego this.
However, he is concerned that neither his
office nor the State agencies have been involved in the
determination of whether the dredgings are or are not
-------
148
General Discussion
polluted; secondly, whether there is a need for dredging
in the year 1970, what would be the economic impact
also if that harbor were not dredged in 1970.
He has not been brought into any of those
decision-making processes and he has requested that he
be giv«=»n the opportunity to enter in on those decisions.
MR. MAYO: Certainly, as we indicated at the
conference in Milwaukee, the information that PWQA
participated in gathering at the time of the dredging
study, in which we cooperated with the Corps, and some
data since that time^is available* We are available
to sit down with you and go over that data and work with
you in reaching a mutual agreement on the classification
of what is polluted. We had made some suggested classi-
fications to the Corps in the process of the dredging
study. We are available to participate in the oppor-
tunity to sit down with the States now and to reach that
conclusion with you and deal cooperatively with the
Corps and make available all of the data that we have.
MR. PURDY: There is more involved than Just
the matter of the polluted dredgings, but we requested
this at an earlier date and were informed that the
-------
General Discussion
report was in to Washington being cleared and was not
available to us at that time. We haven't received it
yet.
MR. MAYO: Is this the Corps of Engineers
dredging report?
MR. PURDY: The report on the quality or the
report that your office made on the quality of the
mud samples sampled in the various harbors.
MR. MAYO: I am Just not aware of your
request, Mr. Purdy, but I will tell you right now that
the data we have is available.
MR. PURDY: Happy to receive it.
MR. STEIN: Any other comment or question?
MR. POOLE: Well, I don't have an answer to my
question yet.
My question is, is it the sense of the con-
ferees, including the Federal conferees, that we stand
by our earlier position, namely that polluted dredgings
should not be disposed of in the lake? I think it is
Michigan's position and as of right now this is
Indiana's position.
MR. STEIN: I see nothing that should change
-------
General Discussion
that in the record. Do you? I think this is clear.
MR. POOLE: 0. K.
MR. STEIN: If we are not going to cle&n
out the lake like a big bathtub, we sure don't want
to make it a dump.
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. KLASSEN: Not on this, but Just briefly
another subject when you get there.
MR. STEIN: Yes. Well, why don't we take
that up, Mr. Klassen.
MR. KLASSEN: As a point of^information,
could you advise us the present status of Federal
legislation in regard to wastes from watercraft? In
Illinois, like the other States, we have adopted stand-
ards for the control of wastes from all watercraft, and
I am under the impression that there is Federal legis-
lation that I believe has been now enacted that could
preempt this. That is one point, whether it does. And
secondly, what is the status of Federal standards for
wastes from watercraft and will these override or pre-
empt the States' Jurisdiction and standards? This is
purely for information.
-------
General Discussion
MR. STEIN: Yes, I think the legislation is
passed; it was Just signed by the President within the
past few months. The 3d of April I understand is the
date.
As a lot of very important legislation*-and I
consider this important legislation,t-onee the legis-
lation is passed, particularly in the field of Federal-
State -foreign relations and in the basin dealing with
interstate and foreign commerce, there are many, many
questions such as you raised, Mr. Klassen. I think
that the Federal establishment right now is getting into
the business of gearing up and trying to develop a
methodology where the standards will be developed-and
I think we are going to have to wors out these very,
very delicate problems of Federal-State and foreign
jurisdiction in dealing with these vessels one at a
time.
Now, I do not think that this legislation has
been on the books long enough for the Federal Government
to even get out its official inquiries to the Stages?
but that, as I understand it, is being done. I cannot
answer your specific question because of the newness of
-------
152
General Discussion
the legislation, except to say that the Federal Govern-
ment is gearing up to administer this program.
MR. KLASSEN: Just one other question. I
believe the bill states that after the effective date
no State regulations can be enforced. Do you have an
interpretation on this?
MR. STEIN: No, I don't.
MR. KLASSEN: In other words, this will tie
our hands at the present time.
MR. STEIN: I am not sure if the question
is what is the effective date, and there is a grace
period for the Federal standards to go into effect.
I Just make this as an offhand guess be-
cause again I don't want to give a curbstone opinion
on this. I haven't examined this closely. But my
guess is that the State regulations are in force
until the Federal regulations actually come into
being and can be enforced. In other words, Just
the enactment of the legislation does not stop the
States.
MR. KLASSEN: There is one other point.
x
MR. STEIN: I would like a rain check on that.
-------
153-154
General Discussion
though.
MR. KLASSEN: One other point. If we are in
session this afternoon, will there be opportunity to
put into the record public statements from organiza-
tions through the conferees?
MR. STEIN: Yes. 1'hat is what we are going to
do largely this afternoon.
With that, we have several groups and persons
who have indicated they want to speak. We will be
available this afternoon. We will hear all the state-
ments .
At this time we stand recessed for lunch
until 1:35-
(NOON RECESS)
-------
155
AFTERNOON SESSION
THURSDAY, MAY 7_^1970.
(1:30 o!clock)
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
Gall on Mr. Mayo at this point for a report
on Federal installations.
Mr. Mayo.
FRANCIS T. MAYO
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES REGION
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. MAYO: Mr. Chairman and fellow conferees,
we have placed before each of you a brief report on the
interim dates for completion of planning and the con-
struction of waste treatment or disposal facilities at
Federal installations. I am not aware that there is
anything in here that is at all controversial if you
want to take a moment to go through it.
MR. POOLE: I have only one question. That
is, at the top of page 3 where the buoy tender Woodbine
is going to put in a treatment system, my question is,
how is it going to meet the new policy statement on
-------
F. T. Mayo
temperature? (Laughter.)
MR. MAYO: Did you expect an answer today,
Mr. Poole?
MR. POOLE: I would like to have one.
MR. STEIN: I can tell you, I can give you
the answer. I think under the new policy statement
that is the Woodbine's problem.
MR. KLASSEN: I could add to that, Mr. Chair-
man. From personal knowledge, the Woodbine is berthed
in a slip at Grand Haven, Michigan, (laughter) where
the outlet from the local powerplant cooling water goes
into that slip, and I don't believe you are going to.
find the ambient temperature in there is going to be
affected by the Woodbine because cooling water already
goes in there.
MR. STEIN: See what you do, when you get
guys like Klassen around our problems are solved. He
is great. (Laughter.)
MR. POOLE: I have made an erroneous assump-
tion. I assumed that if it was going to put a treatment
device on the boat that it might be discharging any
place in the lake that it happened to be. I apparently
-------
157
P. T. Mayo
was wrong.
MR. KLASSEN: Is this a macerator chlorinator
that they are going to put in?
MR. MAYO: Let me ask Mr. Garnet, if he is
here, if he knows.
Mr. Merrill Garnet.
MR. GAMET: My understanding is that this
will be a package type of treatment plant to provide
secondary treatment.
MR. KLASSEN: Phosphate removal?
MR. GAMET: Shipalt, S-h-i-p-a-1-t, is the
trade name given to it. I have not seen it. I think
this is being tested on the East Coast.
MR. KLASSEN: I am curious to know whether
it meets the new Illinois requirements, but as long
as the Woodbine doesn't come into Illinois waters I
guess we don't have anything to say about it.
MR. STEIN: Are you all set?
MR. POOLE: Go on with the show, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAYO: Are there any other questions,
gentlemen?
(The report referred to is as follows:)
-------
158
May 1970
REPORT OF INTERIM DATES FOR COMPLETION OF PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION
OF WASTE TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL FACILITIES AT FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
In compliance with the Summary of the reconvened session of Lake Michigan
Enforcement Conference of March 31, April I, 1970, the following is a report
of information received from Federal and State agencies in the Lake Michigan
basin pertaining to interim dates for completion of planning and construction
of waste treatment or disposal facilities.
U.S. NAVY - Great Lakes Naval Training Center
A. Sewage Pumping Stations and Force Mains needed to deliver all sewage
to North Shore Sanitary District at the site of their North Chicago
Sanitary Treatment Plant.
I. Engage consulting engineer - June I, 1970.
2. 'Submittal of 60% complete engineering plans and specifications -
November I, 1970-
3. Submittal of final plans and specifications - February 15, 1971.
4. Advertise project for bid - February 15, 1971.
5. Award contract for construction - April 15, 1971.
6. Complete construction - May I, 1972.
B. Interim Settling Basin for Water Plant Filter Backwash
I. Plans are complete.
2. Financing arranged - June I, 1970.
3. Initiate construction - June 15, 1970.
Construction is anticipated to be by in-house forces.
4. Complete construction - August I, 1970.
-------
159
2
U.S. ARMY - Fort Sheridan
A. Facilities required to discharge all wastes, including water treat-
ment plant wastes to the North snore sanitary District system.
I. Engage consulting engineer - May 22, 1.970.
2. Submittal of 60$ complete engineering plans and specifications -
August I, 1970-
3. Submittal of final plans and specifications - September I, 1970.
4. Advertise project for bid - January I, 1971.
5. Award contract for construction - February I, 1971.
6. Initiate construction - April I, 1971.
7. Complete construction and place in full operation - December 30,
1972.
BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE - Jordan River National Fish Hatchery
A. Lagoon to treat fish hatchery effluent.
I. Engage consulting engineer - Bureau will perform all necessary
engineering design.
2. Submit preliminary engineering report - preliminary report and
drawings have been completed and approved by FWQA in Jui^ 1969.
3. Engineering plans and specifications will be initiated as soon
as FY 1971 funds are approved.
4. Detailed engineering specifications - 3rd quarter, FY 1971.
5. Not appIicable.
6. Initiate construction - 4th quarter, FY 1971.
7. Complete construction and place in operation, 2nd quarter, FY 1972.
-------
160
3
U.S. COAST.GUARD -
A. Buoy Tender "WOODBINE": A secondary treatment plant suitable for
shipboard installation is under test. When tests are successfully
completed, a "Shipalt" will be .installed. Agency is well aware of
dead Iine'dates required by E.O. 11507.
B. Plans are in progress to provide dockside connections with pump-out
facilities for the Harbor Tugs "ARUNDEL" and "RARITAN".
\
C. Information regarding 36-foot and 44-foot motor lifeboats was
erroneously reported to us. The 44-foot boats have replaced the
36-footers, and are used mostly on short runs in extremely heavy
weather. They do not have macerator-chlorinators as reported, but
t
will be provided with portable holding tanks for longer runs in
less severe weather.
D. Development of automated equipment for Light Stations in Michigan
and Wisconsin which are to be unmanned and automated has been in
progress for more than five years. Plans and specifications for
these installations will be prepared in-house, and construction
will begin as soon as "Necessary funds flow down the budgetary duct
from the Congress." Completion is expected prior to December 31,
1972.
E. Plans to unman the Racine, Wisconsin Lifeboat Station, as reported
in February 1969, have been changed. The present plan is to retain
this station in full operation. Engineering planning is now in
progress to connect the station to the City of Racine municipal
sewer system. Funds have been requested.
-------
161
4
STATE OF ILLINOIS - Naval Reserve Training Armory, Randolph St., Chicago:
No reply has been received in answer to our request for information
pertaining to projected completion dates for installation of the pro-
posed sewer connection to the municipal system.
OPERATING REPORTS:
Information has been received that the Department of Defense has
i
initiated steps to liberalize existing regulations regarding the
release of operating data for waste water treatment plants. This
will be done in order to assure compliance with the intent of the
Executive Order wherever possible, but recognizing that there may be
some limitations in the interest of national defense. Each State
has been requested by letter to submit to the Regional Office a
list of facilities from which operating records are desired. These
operating records will be submitted to the appropriate Regional
Office, and forwarded to the requesting State.
-------
M. May
MR. STEIN: May I call on these people:
Matthew May.
Come on up. Go right up, introduce yourself
and give your statement.
MATTHEW MAY
CAMPAIGN AGAINST POLLUTION
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. MAY: Good afternoon.
My name is Matthew May. I am a member of the
Campaign Against Pollution, and I am very concerned about
the Zion nuclear station as well as all the other
industrial areas around our lake.
I think it is very good that the Commission
has refused to grant the Commonwealth Edison Company
permission to discharge hot water and radioactive wastes
into the lake. The reactors are not as safe as the
governments and the electric company would have you
believe. They are very dangerous devices. They are as
yet largely experiments. In fact, the Atomic Energy
Commission licenses all nuclear generating stations as
experimental units only. They are not licensed for
-------
^ 163
M. May
commercial operation.
The other thing I would wish to mention is
that they are not as efficient as the reactor companies
would have one believe. They are having all kinds of
problems making them operate at the full capacity for
which they were designed. They usually operate about
80 percent of their full capacity and some way below.
But the main concern is the discharge that
may go into the lake. It is not a small discharge.
It is a discharge of billions of gallons of water every
day from each station. This water will be heated at a
temperature of between 18 and 20 degrees over what it
originally was and this water concentrated in the small
area surrounding the station will have adverse effects
upon the ecology of all the life in the lake.
The heating of the water reduces the water's
ability to carry oxygen. The fish must live on the
oxygen and if the oxygen content of the water goes down
the fish are going to die.
There is a nuclear generating station in New
York on the Hudson River. It is owned and operated by
Consolidated Edison of New York. This station has
-------
M. May
heated the water up to such an extent that fish are
dying by the millions and they have also found radio-
active wastes in the water. If you go up in an air-
plane you can see the difference between the hot and
the cold water. And I just want you to read the news-
papers five years from now telling everybody what
Commonwealth Edison is doing to clean up the thermal
and radiation pollution in Lake Michigan.
I ask everyone, and especially our lawmakers,
that they be very, very much concerned about this prob-
lem, not only Edison, although Edison would be the
biggest, but every industrial concern, to think "people
before profit" "people before money? "people before
expediency."
This is all I have to say. And thartc you very
much.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. May.
Robert Fermanis?
(No response.)
Jennifer Schroeder?
(No response.)
Theresan Kaefer?
(No response.)
-------
L. Bloom
LAWRENCE BLOOM
LAKE MICHIGAN AND ADJOINING
LAND STUDY COMMISSION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. BLOOM: Mr. Chairman, my name is Lawrence
Bloom. I am representing the Lake Michigan and Adjoin-
ing Land Study Commission of the State of Illinois.
The Lake Michigan and Adjoining Land Study
Commission was constituted last year by the State of
Illinois to evaluate the condition and the uses of
Lake Michigan and its adjoining shore land within
Illinois and to recommend a comprehensive policy for
the States to follow in preserving the lake.
My comments will generally be referring to
earlier testimony. First of all, speaking for the
Commission who are heartened by the proposed new stand-
ards, last Friday on May 1 the Commission held a hear-
ing at which it expressed a great concern for the heated
water that would be flowing into Lake Michigan from the
Zion nuclear powerplant. We understand, however, at
least it would be my feeling,that such a gross change
in policy would have some degree of lag time between
-------
L. Bloom
today's statement and the actual implementation of
these standards and we would hope that in that time
all precautions be taken to make sure that excess
heated wastes are not put into Lake Michigan.
We do have or I do have some questions regard-
ing this statement of Mr. Klein's.
First of all, the way I read it, I hate to be
reading it from a sinister point of view, but it seems
to me there is a possibility of an infinite progression
here. If water can be dumped into the lake at one
degree above the ambient temperature, it seems to me
it might be possible to have the water temperature be
60 degress, what you are dumping in be 6l degress,
then soon enough the water will be 6l and you can go
one degree higher than that and now you can start dump-
ing at 62. Now, this may be a misunderstanding of
what the standard--
MR. STEIN: That is a misunderstanding.
(Laughter.)
MR. BLOOM: I just wanted to be clear that it
was a misunderstanding and I am glad that you have
clarified that.
-------
167
L. Bloom
The second item I would like to raise is, I
was wondering if you have any information of whether
there would be a grandfather clause in this particular
regulation such that existing uses, because they did
not have the benefit of this new standard, would be
allowed to continue to discharge.
MR. STEIN: I don't see a grandfather clause.
MR. BLOOM: You don't see a grandfather
clause. 0. K., that is very good.
Another item regarding the thermal effects.
I would like to clarify a statement that Mr. Klassen
made—and I fully understand, I think, the import of
what he said--but I want to for the record add a
comment that was raised at our last Commission hearing.
It is our understanding that the Sanitary
Water Board of the State of Illinois has approved the
permit only for the construction of the Zion nuclear
powerplant and not for its operation of discharging
water into the lake. However, it was raised at the
Commission that it is very strange that there would be
no implication raised from the permit to construct a
multi-million dollar facility, that there would not be
-------
L, Bloom
an implication that this facility would be used. Now,
of course I understand that it is the position of the
Sanitary Water Board that this should in no way imply
that permission has been granted in advance for the
Commonwealth Edison nuclear powerplant to discharge
wastes at any temperature above the water temperature.
However, it-did seem very strange to the Commission
that the potential use of this facility was not taken
into consideration when the permit for construction of
the facility was granted.
And finally with regard to the thermal effects
part of the testimony this morning. We would appreciater
the Lake Michigan Commission itself would appreciate--
some advance notice of the public hearing that you
mentioned would be held so that we can prepare adequate
testimony.
There are some remarks I have regarding other
prior testimony and this time maybe I will be on Mr.
Klassen's side. I recall them asking a question of the
gentleman,! think from Wisconsin,of whether there were
going to be interim chlorination for the Jones Island
Plant. I don't think we had a satisfactory answer on
-------
169
L. Bloom
that question of whether there would be interim chlori-
nation until that permanent chlorination was put into
effect,and I think we could ask for an answer to that
question.
I have another comment. Mr. Klassen stated
that by 1972 all facilities discharging into the lake
will be in compliance with water quality standards, and
I think that is something to be commended. However, I
have two questions regarding this. First of all, I
would like to know, even if all the existing plants are
in compliance with the water quality standards,, what will
be going into the lake in terms of what kind of chemi-
cals, what kind of substances and their amounts.
Arid my second question with regard to this
point is, even if all of the facilities are in compli-
ance with the water quality standards, to what extent
will dilution be allowed in meeting the standards, and
if it is allowed I would like it to be explained how
this will affect the nondegradation policy set for.Lake
Michigan.
A further comment with regard to prior
testimony. Mr. Frangos, I think, mentioned one
-------
L. Bloom
polluter in I think it was Wisconsin—is that right?--
which is a small polluter but was not in compliance. I
have forgotten what kind of small factory it was. I
think the Commission would want it on record that every
litter bit hurts, as we have heard on television many
times, and the concept of de minimis, a small amount
won't hurt, can have very dangerous consequences when
we add them up. So I think we should be equally con-
cerned not only about the big fellows but about the
little ones as well.
A general statement on policy. It would be
hoped that when any permits are granted for the use of
Lake Michigan as any kind of dumping ground, I think
it should be the policy to require the potential user
to prove the nondeleterious effects of his actions in
advance rather than having a permit be granted unless
objections are raised. It seems to me that when some-
one proposes to add a substance to Lake Michigan or to
alter the lake or any other facility,,it is up to them
to show that the public interest will be benefited, not
for them to wait until objections are raised, whether
from the State agencies, Federal agencies or private
-------
___ 171
L. .Bloom
citizens, to show that these uses would be detrimental.
These are the comments that I have prepared
for you. I hope that they have been comprehensible. I
would appreciate it if we could get some answers later
in this session on the questions I have raised.
MR. STEIN: Well, we will ask for comments and
anyone can make comments if he wishes.
Thank you for a very excellent comment.
MR. BLOOM: My pleasure.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments?
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, I will give you comments
right now.
MR. STEIN: Don't run off, Mr. Bloom.
MR. KLASSEN: No, you might want to comment.
I first want to reiterate what I told this
gentleman and the Commission, and they persist in put-
ting their own interpretation on this. If he will •
acquaint himself with House Bill 1794 of the 75th
General Assembly, which apparently he hasn't done,
he will find in there that the Illinois General Assembly
mandated the Department of Public Works when they issue
a permit for construction in the lake that this must be
-------
L. Bloom
countersigned by the Chairman of the Sanitary Water
Board that that construction would not cause pollution.
Now, Commonwealth Edison, I understand, made
an application to the Department of Public Works for
certain lake construction of a pipeline. They granted
that permit for the construction. The Sanitary Water
Board under the mandate from the Legislature said this
construction will not involve pollution of Lake Michi-
gan. And I reiterate and.I Just--all right—and I told
the Commission this, and I told this gentleman there was
absolutely no intimation in there, none whatever, that a
permit would be granted later for any discharge, and we
haven't granted that permit, w.-: I said this morning
that under the new regulation here the application would
be rejected.
Now, on his second question—I am a little
lost on this one--in 1972 when all the standards will
be met, and by that time Illinois will take everything
out of Lake Michigan, what will be the effects of pol-
lution and will we permit dilution? What else is going
in I don't know because it is going to be taken out, and
I don't know what we dilute; and if he would amplify that
-------
17.3
L. Bloom
a little, I would be glad to answer. I Just don't know
what he is talking about.
MR. BLOOM: I can clarify both points.
First of all, Mr. Klassen, your first point
was very well taken and I hoped I had made it clear that
we understood that when the--
MR. KLASSEN: Apparently you didn't because
you still persist in saying we issued a permit and we
didn't.
MR. BLOOM: Well, let me try to clarify it
again. It is my understanding, and correct me again if
I am wrong, that the permit that was approved by the
Sanitary Water Board of the State of Illinois approved
only the construction of the facility in Lake Michigan
and that you approved that because you said construc-
tion of the facility would not cause pollution.
MR. KLASSEN: That is what the Legislature
mandated us to say and that is what we said.
MR. BLOOM: That I thought I made clear in
my statement.
MR. KLASSEN: Well, you did, but you put
another interpretation on it.
-------
L. Bloom
MR. BLOOM: Let me try to state that again--
MR. KLASSEN: All right.
MR. BLOOM: --to your satisfaction.
It was the concern of the Commission that
when you are mandated to consider the pollutional
effects of approving a permit,you consider not only
what the actual construction will entail but the
implication of allowing that construction to take
place. And it was--although we recognize that you did
not intend to approve the discharge at that time of
water instillate at any degree of temperature—It is
our position that maybe you should have considered that
before you gave approval to build a multi-million
dollar plant. In other words, the approval has been
granted to construct pipes which are 16 feet in diam-
eter, hundreds of feet out into the lake. And it seemed
very strange to the Commission that you could say that
although you have not given approval for discharge of
water in the lake,you still have given approval to
build pipes which could only be used for one purpose.
MR. KLASSEN: What is that purpose?
MR. BLOOM: For discharge of water--
-------
17$.
L. Bloom
MR. KLASSEN: That is not correct. Those are
intake pipes .
MR. BLOOM: There were discharge pipes too,
if I recall right.
MR. KLASSEN: Those are intake pipes and
assuming they could be used for discharge pipes, they
may be used for discharge pipes under this new regula-
tion--
MR. BLOOM: That is correct.
MR. KLASSEN: --which will involve onshore
cooling facilities.
MR. BLOOM: We appreciate--! understand'that.
MR. KLASSEN: All right, then, let's get it
straight and don't keep implying we issued a permit and
we didn't know what we were doing. I resent that.
MR. BLOOM: Well, I didn't mean to--
MR. KLASSEN: Well, you have, so you have
clarified it three times, bub every time you talk you
confuse us.
MR. STEIN: I don't quite understand.
MR. KLASSEN: I don't either.
MR. STEIN: Let me pursue this, because I am
-------
176
L. Bloom
having trouble.
Supposing you have a discharge pipe.
MR. BLOOM: Yes.
MR. STEIN: And supposing you have a dis-
charge pipe that puts out water as cool as they take
it in.
MR. BLOOM: That is fine.
MR. STEIN: Then what is wrong with the dis-
charge pipe?
MR. BLOOM: Well, except that looking at the
plans for the construction of the facility, I don't
think it would be apparent that there was any facility--
any part of the machinery in there that would cool down
the water to a temperature which would be exactly the
same as the lake. So in other words, looking at the
plans you could not infer that the water would be the
same temperature; in fact you can infer that it would
be much warmer.
MR. \KLASSEN: You can't infer anything on it
because you had no facts and neither did we,- and you
couldn't infer any more that hot water was going in
there than cold water. Now, let's stick to the facts.
-------
177
L. Bloom
MR. BLOOM: Well, that is also another point
that was raised at the Commission, that if you didn't
have facts (laughter) that it was a very strange pro-
cedure to issue a permit. In other words, that gets
back to the policy statement that I was thinking you
should make. In other words, it should be up to the
person requesting the proposed usage to prove beyond
a doubt there would be no adverse effects and that
would entail presenting all the facts. It is apparent
that you didn't have the facts and we don't have the
facts and, therefore, I guess you granted the permit,
at least for the construction, and that is all I am
saying—
MR. KLASSEN: We didn't grant the permit; the
Department of Public Works. And let me say--
MR. BLOOM: You approved of it.
MR. KLASSEN: Let me say this, at a public
hearing, if one is held, if it is necessary to be held,
it won't be under this because we are going to reject
this application so this is all academic--
MR..BLOOM: I see.
MR. KLASSEN: --we will ask you to give your
-------
L. Bloom
opinion on these and we certainly will give it every
consideration.
MR. BLOOM: I hope this isn't becoming too
adverse because we appreciate the efforts that you are
making in this regard on this point.
Do you still want a clarification of the
points I was making?
MR. KLASSEN: No, I think you--
MR. STEIN: That is all right. By the way, I
think you have a good point, but just bear with this.
If you really want to do this, I think you have to
recognize the problem at the agency.
We have an action now in Florida against
Florida Power & Light. Florida Power & Light is
building a six-mile trench canal to discharge its
wastes. We filed a suit for a preliminary injunction
to stop them from building the canal. We lost. The
Federal judge told us anyone can build a ditch. We
might have another question of whether they are going
to put the water in.
Now, again I just ask you to look at this.
The point is, sure, we can do what you think we should
-------
179
L. Bloom
do, because we took that attitude on the Florida
Power & Light and tried to get this injunction. But
you have to recognize we are just dealing with one
part of society in pollution control, and there are
other parts. You are not going to stop public works;
you are not going to stop construction; you are not
going to stop all these things over which we don't
have jurisdiction.
The thing that people like Mr. Klassen,
the other people in the States, and we in the
Federal Government have jurisdiction over is keep-
ing the waters clean. If citizen groups get after
us for other issues over which we don't have any
power, and we can't do it, and we would be exceed-
ing our authority — it seems to me this is a good
game—but it really doesn't get to the matter of
pollution control and really work at the problem.
I just ask you to think about that.
MR. BLOOM: Well, I appreciate your comments,
and I would say that had you been more active when the
permit was granted, rather than trying to stop construc-
tion after the fact, you might have been more successful.
MR. KLASSEN: Speaking to Mr. Stein?
-------
—: . 180
L. Bloom
MR. BLOOM: Right. (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. BLOOM: I also—
MR. STEIN: Now, let me again say, you know,
this is again great to say. But let me make this--
MR. BLOOM: I know it may be beyond the issue.
MR. STEIN: Let me Just put this out, because
I really do think that obviously you have given a lot
of time and a lot of thought to this problem. But when
you think in our type of government that a chief
Federal enforcement man should be down on every permit
and every construction operation in Illinois that the
Illinois Department of Public Works is considering, you
may have such a ubiquitous big brother kind of govern-
ment you will be sorry you ever suggested it. I don't
believe we should do that. If we can't have full faith
in the honesty, the probity and the confidence of Mr.
Klassen and the State, we couldn't begin to do our job.
And we are just here from time to time. The day-to-day
operation with the polluters has to rest with these
States, and if you are suggesting that we have another
kind of thing, you are going to have another kind of
-------
IfiJL
L. Bloom
Federal Government and I am not sure that you would
like it.
MR. BLOOM: I would hope that we would give
Mr. Klassen and other agencies like his the appropriate
authority and the appropriate funds to carry out the
job that I think they want to do. I have no quarrel to
pick on that front.
Explaining my second question--currently, at
least, I am aware that Abbott Laboratories, United
States Steel, companies that Mr. Klassen mentioned are
now discharging certain materials into Lake Michigan.
He also stated that by 1972--at those various dates--those
plants would be in compliance with the water quality
standards of the State of Illinois,
My question is just this: Does that statement
mean that no metals, chemicals, things of that nature,
will thereafter be allowed to flow from these industrial
facilities into Lake Michigan? And if it doesn't mean
thatj if it means that there will still be some materials
flowing into Lake Michigan--! want to know what kinds of
materials and how much. That was my first question.
Maybe we can stop there.
-------
L. Bloom
Is that clarified?
MR. KLASSEN: If that day arrives when they
are meeting the water quality standards and if there is
any discharge to the lake, Abbott Laboratories particu-
larly plans to be part of this whole program to remove
everything from the lake. If this day arrives we will
tell you what is going in, if anything,
MR. BLOOM: Well, do the water quality stand-
ards allow anything to go in?
MR. KLASSEN: Certainly. Absolutely they do.
MR. BLOOM: Now, I would like to know—maybe
you can't answer this on the basis of the information
you have here—if the existing plants which are located
on the lake were allowed to function in such a way that
their discharges into the lake equaled but did not
exceed the amounts allowed to be discharged into the
lake under the water quality standards, how much, let's
say, iron would be going into the lake? Could you tell
us? You can't, I guess-- Would we know that at this
point?
MR. KLASSEN: You are a lawyer and here we
have water quality standards that the State adopts and
-------
183
L. Bloom
the Federal Government approves, and I don't quite get
your question if a discharger, whether he be an indus-
try or a private individual or anybody else, is dis-
charging into the lake and meeting those water quality
standards. What is your particular question?
\
MR. BLOOM: Well, I guess I am having trouble
MR. KLASSEN: I think you are. (Lauptbter.)
I am, at least.
MR. STEIN: Go on.
MR. BLOOM: Does someone else maybe up here
understand what I am saying?
MR. STEIN: I understand what you are saying,
I think, maybe I do. But I think we are trying to do
j
that. The point is we are not just talking when we can dp 11
in terms of percentage reduction. We try to talk in
pounds per day. Say you reduce Podunk's sewage 90
percent, you are not going to have much going in; you
reduce Chicago's 90 percent, that 10 percent is going
to be a pretty big load. So we try to, the phrase we
like to use is quantify. We put it pounds per day.
MR. BLOOM: That is fine.
MR. STEIN: We have done that with phosphorus.
-------
: 184
L. Bloom
I don't think this applies to the heat, and so forth.
As we get more and.more data and more and more perfect
this is where the pollution control, is going to get.
However, where we don't have that kind of.
expertise and that information, and these lakes are
very, very complicated bodies, when you have to come up
with a quantitative thing, we go into a qualitative
reduction. When we go into a qualitative reduction we
take our best judgment and the scientist's best judg-
ment plus a safety factor and we hope the lake will be
preserved and will be safe under those circumstances.
Unquestionably we have to move. Now, this
isn't the reason, the reason that we are not doing any
better is not because of the lack of will or the lack
of authority. It is because of the lack of being able
to- make a qualitative judgment and we have to make a
quantitative judgment and talk about rolling this back.
Sometimes you will find when we come to the
quantitative judgment that we can allow more material
to go in safely as well as less. .But we think we have
considered the safety factors and we have a program
which will save Lake Michigan.
-------
___ 185
L. Bloom
MR. BLOOM: I think what you have done is
you have laid the groundwork so I can still ask the
question. In other words, it is possible to quantify
on the basis of the standards set and the capacity of
the plants along the lake how much of each element or
material could theoretically be discharged into the
lake? I don't want to make a Judgment on whether that
is good or bad, but it would be possible to quantify?
MR. STEIN: I am not sure. I am afraid you
didn't understand me. The point is if we could do that
we would have done it. I said that the lake system is
a very complicated system. Where we have not quantified
it is because of the lack of this knowledge. This is
something we are working toward. The whole research
program is working toward that.
Now, the point is, I want to give you the
notion—and let me repeat what I said again this far--
this isn't because of a lack of will on our part.
MR. BLOOM: That is understood.
MR. STEIN: Or because of a lack of authority
on our part.
MR. BLOOM: That is also understood.
-------
186
L. Bloom
MR. STEIN: The point is we just don't know if
we could come up with a judgment, a meaningful judgment
on quantifying. As soon as someone can present that to
us, we are ready to put it forward. That is what we are
working on.
MR. BLOOM.: I am not asking that the stand-
ards be in the form of quantified amounts of pounds or
whatever. I am just asking, taking your qualitative
standards what will be the effect if we follow them?
In other words, taking the standards you have already
set in whatever manner you have, isn't it possible to
quantify what—it is not possible? I thought I heard
something from over here.
Isn't it possible to quantify what would be
discharged?
MR. STEIN: Yes, but what is the purpose?
MR. KLASSEN: The answer is yes.
MR. STEIN: Yes. But what is the purpose?
MR. BLOOM: Now, the second question would be,
if we had existing plants continue in operation and if
they were to meet the water quality standards that you
have already set, I just want to know what would be the
-------
________ 187
L. Bloom
combined amount of iron or any other element--potassium,
whatever would be discharged—what would be the total
amount per day or per year which would still be going
into Lake Michigan after 1972.
MR. STEIN: We can have an infinite number of
questions like that, but I can give you one answer.
Mr. Fetterolf is the representative of our
Technical Committee. I suggest he can answer these
questions into the night if you can ask them.
MR. BLOOM: I am not asking for an answer today
I would think that perhaps your proceedings would in-r
elude in it a chart of this nature. I know you can't
give it at this point.
MR. KLASSEN: So inasfar as the State of
Illinois, I can answer this question, yes, we can
determine that when this times comes and we will be
glad to give it to you.
MR. BLOOM: I would very much appreciate it.
Can I ask my second question? I hate to take
up so much time.
MR. STEIN: I thought you were on the second
one.
-------
L. Bloom
MR. BLOOM: No, the second one was, when a
standard is set is dilution taken into account? Now,
the point is this. I am not a scientist, but let's
say that you had 10--the standard said that of potas-
sium--! don't know if it would make sense—you could
have 10 grams per million of potassium going into the
lake.
MR. STEIN: No, no, no.
MR. BLOOM: I was just going to say--
MR. STEIN: No, we can save a lot of time.
When you say tens of millions we deal with water
quality. What the standard said is the amount of
material that can be in the receiving water for a
particular use. That assumes dilution right there.
MR. BLOOM: In other words, the standards are
set on what is received and not what is poured out?
MR. STEIN: We have to—yes, the answer to
that is yes.
MR. BLOOM: Is it possible in the receiving
-water by adding additional water to dilute the concen-
tration of the element being discharged such that
although leaving the plant it could be a strong
-------
189
L. Bloom
dilution, it could be joined with additional water
such that when it is received--
MR. STEIN: Yes, it is possible, but I think
*
we are not naive enough not to imagine i^?. But I am
sure it is not possible for us to supply any answer that
is going to stop your flow of questions.
MR. BLOOM: Not stop the what?
MR. STEIN: Your questions.
MR. BLOOM: Oh.
MR. STEIN: I wish I could find an answer
that would--
MR. BLOOM: That was the last question.
MR. STEIN: All right, thank you.
Mr. Zepiel, Miss Zepiel?
MR. ZEPIEL: Yes.
WALTER ZEPIEL
CAMPAIGN AGAINST POLLUTION
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. ZEPIEL: I am Walter Zepiel from Chicago,
I work and am associated with the Campaign Against Pol-
lution. I have here a statement.
-------
_____ 190
W. Zepiel
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion's January of 1968 report states one of the major
contributions to the early death of Lake Erie was the
overgrowth of algae, stimulated excessively by the heat
input into the lake.
We may say that Lake Michigan is far larger
than Lake Erie was, but the same thing, for that same
reason we have so many more plants for Lake Michigan
which will put out warmer water back into the lake.
And, therefore, I would urge you gentlemen to work
towards stopping the building of this plant in Zion
and all other plants that would take water from Lake
Michigan and put it back in at a higher temperature.
We must do this before it is too late.
I am sure that you know that Lake Michigan is
the only free recreation area we have and what nature
provided with God's help let no man destroy it.
So again I urge you to work towards stopping
this nonsense of letting hot water go back into the
lake.. And what about radiation from it? Think about
it, gentlemen. It is for the welfare of your future
children, grandchildren, and mine too.
-------
_ 191
A. Pancoe
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Zepiel.
D. Olson?
Anne Alberts? Anne Alberts?
Helen Miller?
Helen Sala?
Mr. Arthur Pancoe?
ARTHUR PANCOE
SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, SOCIETY
AGAINST VIOLENCE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
GLENCOE, ILLINOIS
MR. PANCOE: Mr. Stein, Mr. Mayo, and other
members of the committee.
My name is Arthur Pancoe. I represent an
organization known as SAVE, which is comprised of
approximately 1,000 North Shore families. We have a
brief statement to issue on the proceedings today.
We of SAVE, although for the Commonwealth
Edison nuclear plant, are against using the lake for
cooling purposes, since there are alternatives to the
cooling problem.
-------
A. Pancoe
We believe that the group of eminent scien-
tists and educators who recently agreed to advise
Commonwealth Edison on environmental matters would not
sign a public document that there might not be future
damage, even substantial in nature, to the ecology of
the lake from the Zion plant as it is now designed.
As a matter of fact, up until several days
ago it was Commonwealth Edison's position that there
was no danger to the public from radioactive tritium
to be deposited in the lake from the plant. We now
understand that as late as yesterday they are studying
a system to store this radioactive material at some
additional cost. This discussion is going on right now
with Westinghouse. Why this sudden change in their
previous stated position with regard to the absolute
safety of tritium effluent?
Contrary to Commonwealth Edison's statements,
there is available scientific studies indicating that
present and contemplated nuclear plants could provide
a growing biological health hazard from radioactive
emission.
The Lawrence Radiation Report states that
-------
123
A. Pancoe
there is no threshold below which damage might not be
done to human beings from manmade radioactive emissions
There are many scientists who believe that
the AEC should not be responsible for both promoting
the use of nuclear energy and at the same time regu-
lating the health standards under which these plants
operate.
The State of Minnesota is presently question-
ing in the Federal courts the AEC standards with regard
to the Monticello nuclear plant emissions. They are
asking for a many, manyfold reduction in the allowable
emissions.
There has been little research indicating
that nature might not reconcentrate tritium or other.
radioactive emissions from such plants in ways not now
envisioned,much as was the case with DDT.
There are several open end questions that
have really not come up for much discussion concerning
much more dangerous radioactive emissions, such as
strontium 90 and iodine 131. The data on this is
available but not to the public.
With regards to thermal pollution, the Zion
-------
194
A. Pancoe
plant will deposit in the lake enough BTU's to heat
approximately one million homes in this latitude.
I noticed a big sigh of relief this morning
about the one degree temperature change. I was very
curious as to the reception of this. It does not mean
exactly what you think it means. Under this one degree
regulation it would be possible and not even difficult
for Commonwealth Edison, or any other nuclear plant, to
deposit any amount of heat in the lake. Here is what it
really means. Commonwealth Edison and other plants take
the water from the deep water, from the cold water
avenue. You all know that down deep and far out the
water is colder than inshore. They now plan to heat
this cold water up approximately 19 degrees when the
plant is operating at full efficiency to a temperature
that is only 5 degrees warmer than the inshore warm
water. So that under this new regulation they still
would have a Delta T, as it is called, of perhaps 11 to
12 degrees to work with. Thus they could deposit every
drop of heat that we are now talking about under the
same regulation by merely getting some more pumps and
instead of pumping a million and a half gallons of water
-------
__ 195
A. Pancoe
through the plant per minute they would perhaps have to
pump through the plant two to two and a quarter millions
of gallons. The methods for putting the heat in the
lake would definitely be available under the new present
regulation that everyone heaved a sigh of relief about.
On this subject, Dr. C. H. Mortimer, Director
of the Center for Great Lakes Study at the University
of Wisconsin, stated just last Saturday at a Ziori
Symposium that he was not opposed to the plant. On the
subject of thermal pollution that he thinks--here is a
man who spends the greater part of his life studving
this problem—that he thinks the damage to the lake
would be about between the two extremes of opinion,
even though he made no specific judgment on whether the
plant should be or should not be constructed.
A man here previously quoted the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration•a statement on
Lake Erie, so I will not go into that again.
Any problems with regard to this plant might
not manifest itself for many years, at which time
damage to the lake could be of major proportions. Thus
we feel that unless Commonwealth Edison can answer all
-------
. __ 196
A. Pancoe
legitimate scientific objections beyond any question of
a doubt, they should make the Zion plant a closed
system, not depending on the lake, even though this
might lower plant efficiency by as much as five percent.
I want to close by reiterating that it is the
position of our group that we are for the Zion plant as
in the long run it presents a good interim form of
cleaner energy than coal, although it is certainly not
the ultimate.
My name is Arthur Pancoe and I am Scientific
Director of SAVE.
• Thank you, gentlemen.
(Which said statement is as follows:)
-------
197
SOCIETY
AGAINST VIOLENCE
TO THE
ENVIRONMENT
BOX 84
GLENCOE, ILLINOIS 60022
Steering Committee
MR. ARTHUR WILK Chairman
ID 3-1423
MR ARTHUR PANCOE, Treasurer
835-3338
MRS. FRANKLIN P COLE
831-3042
RICHARD M. DeVlERMAN
945-6552
MR. ROBERT FERMANIS
433-3638
MR. ROBERT HILLMAN
831-2193
MR. DALE SCHLAFER
433-0321
MR. MICHAEL SWEENEY
945-4937
MR. HOWARD SWEIG
831-4477
MR. BERNARD VERIN
432-6680
May 1, 1970
\
We of SAVE although for Commonwealth Edison
Zion Nuclear Plant are against using the Lake
for cooling purposes, since there are alternative
methods available, (cooling tower, large enclosed
lagoon in Lake.)
'We believe that the group of eminent scientists
and educators, who recently agreed to advise
Commonwealth Edison on environmental matters
would not sign a public document stating that
there might not be future damage, even substan-
tial in nature, to the ecology of the Lake from
the Zion Plant, as it is now designed.
As a matter of fact, up until several days ago, it was Common-
wealth's position there was no danger to the public from radio-
active tritium to be deposited in the Lake from the plant. We
now understand that as late as yesterday, they are studying a
system to store this radioactive material at some additional
cost. Why this sudden change in their previous stated position
with regard to the absolute safety of the tritium effluent?
Contrary to Commonwealth 3dison's statements, there is available
scientific studies indicating that present and contemplated nu-
clear plants co.uld provide a growing biological health hazard
from their -radioactive emissions.
The Lawrence Radiation report indicates that there is no thresh-
old belcw which damage might not be dore to human beings from
man-made radioactive emissions.
•There are many scientists who believe the ABC should not be
responsible for both promoting 'the use of nuclear energy, and
at the same time regulating the health standards under which
these plants operate.
The State of Minnesota is presently questioning, in the Federal
Courts, the AEC safety standards with regards to nuclear plant
emissions.
There has been little research indicating that nature might not
reconcentrate tritium or other radioactive emissions from such
-------
SOCIETY
AGAINST VIOLENCE
TO THE
ENVIRONMENT
BOX 84
GLENCOE, ILLINOIS 60022
Steering Committee
MR. ARTHUR WILK. Chairman
ID 3-1423
MR. ARTHUR PANCOE, Treasurer
835-3338
MRS. FRANKLIN P. COLE
831-3042
RICHARD M. DeVIERMAN
945-6552
MR. ROBERT FERMANIS
433-3638
MR. ROBERT HILLMAN
831-2193
MR. DALE SCHLAFER
433-0321
MR. MICHAFL SWEENEY
945-4937
MR. HOWARD SWE1G
831-4477
MR. BERNARD VERIN
432-6680
198
plants in ways not now envisioned, much as was
the case with DDT.
There are also several open-end questions con-
cerning much more dangerous radioactive emis-
sions, such as strontium 90 and iodine 131.
The data on this is not available for public
inspection.
With regards to thermal pollution, the Zion
Plant will deposit in the Lake enough BTQ's
to heat one million homes in this latitude.
On this subject, Dr. C. K. Mortimer, Director
of the Center for Great Lakes Studies, at the
University of Wisconsin, stated just last Sat-
urday at a Zion Symposium on the subject, that
he thinks the damage to the Lake would be about between the two
extremes of opinion, even though he made no specific judgment on
whether the plant itself should or shouldn't be constructed.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's January,
1968 Report states one of the major contributions to the early
death of Lake Erie was the overgrowth of algae stimulated ex-
cessively by the heat input into the Lake.
Any problems with regard, to this plait might not manifest itself
for many years, at which time damage to 'the Lake could be of
major proportions. Thus, we feel that unless Commonwealth Edison
can answer all legitimate, scientific objections, beyond any ques-
tion of doubt, they should make the Zion Plant a closed system,
not depending on the Lake, even though this might lower by fy
the efficiency of the Plant.
ARTHUR PANCOE
Scientific Director of SAVE
Area Code 312 ^27-8520
AP:dsg
-------
199
E. H. Lunde
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Erling H. Lunde?
ERLING H. LUNDE
DIRECTOR, THE CITIZENS OF GREATER CHICAGO
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. LUNDE: Gentlemen, thank you for this
opportunity to "be heard.
I am Erling H. Lunde, Director of the Citizens
of Greater Chicago, representing over 200 civic organi-
zations in this area.
Clean air and water are parts of our long-
time program. We urge you to set proper standards and
work for proper laws to preserve our environment intact
and unpolluted for future generations.
I didn't want to go into technical stuff, but
I want to get behind all these laws and all these stand-
ards that you are setting. I want to be with the group
that are working for law and order in this country.
(Which said paper is as follows:)
-------
200
THE CITIZENS OF GREATER CHICAGO
CGC
18 South Michigan Avenue . Chicago, Illinois 60603 . STate 2-4166
OFFICERS
Chairman: I. da Navarre Macamb, Jr.*
President: Aubrey 0. Cookman*
South Shore Commission
Vice Presidents:
Alwln c. Aimer*
Central Lions Club of Chicago
Chicago Federation of Settlements
Don Dailey*
Kiwanis Club of Chicago
Mrs. Sheila McCone*
Mrs. Batty Ross West*
Secretary: Eunice M. Prutsman*
American Association of
University Women
Treasurer: James L. Hamilton*
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mrs. Edwin c. Anderson
Church Women United of
Greater Chicago
Odis L. Brazil, Jr.
Community Protective Assn.
Mrs. Beatrice s. Claud
National Council of Negro Women
Adeline Cook
Norman H. Cook
Dialogue Publications Inc.
James F. Cooke
Public Relations Society of America
James J. Cusack, Jr.
Brace Elliott
Mrs. Jeanne Brown Gordon
Women's Bar Association of Illinois
Mrs. Richard B. Greenwald
Conference of Jewish
Women's Organizations
Albert Hachmeister
Margaret Hayes
Retired Teachers' Association
Thomas Hemmlnger*
Chicago Junior Association of
Commerce & Industry
Walter Holan
Mrs. Robert Ihrig
Mrs. Sylvia Jeffreys*
Woman's Share In Public Service
Erling H. Uinde*
Illinois Conference on Legislation
Mrs. Helen Graham Lynch*
Citizenship Council of
Metropolitan Chicago
Reverend David MaoCreath
Church Federation of Greater Chicago
James L. Morrison*
Donald V. O'Brien
Harry A. Olsen
Peter J. O'Rahilly
Theodore R. Pickard
Jewish War Veterans
Michael M. Racbwalskl
Northwestern University Settlement
C. Darker Rhodes, Jr.
Chicago Bar Association
Kenneth A. Roberts
Mrs. Samuel Rome
Mrs. Louis L. Slgel
Rabbi Mordecal Simon
Chicago Board of Rabbis
Ralph R. Springer
John T. Trutter
Mrs. Celeste White
Chicago & Northern District
• Association of Club Women
Richard L. Wood
Non-Partisan Citizen Education for Action
Contributions Income Tax Deductible
f
•Executive Committee
Endorsed by the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry for calendar years 1969-1970
-------
____ 201
Mrs. L. Botts
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Mrs. Botts?
MRS. LEE BOTTS
DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
OPEN LANDS PROJECT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MRS. BOTTS: Mr. Stein, conferees.
This morning earlier I objected to the fact
that a citizens' group was permitted to participate in
this proceeding when I had been informed that such
participation would not be possible today. During the
recess which followed that discussion, Mr. Stein asked
me for a copy of the letter which I said I had received
from his office. I returned to my office; I have the
letter here; I would like to submit it, together with
the letter that I wrote to Mr. Klassen inquiring about
the possibility of public participation, the letter from
Mr. Klassen to me referring the matter to Mr. Stein.
And the pertinent part of the reply from Mr. Stein to
me was as follows:
"The Executive Session will be limited to
discussion among the conferees."
-------
-—• — , _ —-——____ 202
Mrs. L. Botts
Further he says:
"The Executive Session will be held in public
so that the development of conclusions and recommenda-
tions by the conferees can be fully observed by all
interested parties."
The point that I made this morning was that
if it had been possible for public representatives to
participate today on advance notice there would have
been other parties besides myself here prepared to make
reasonable and responsible statements.
My organization, the Open Lands Project,
serves as a clearing house for matters pertaining to
Lake Michigan for organizations in the four States
around the lake. Last Saturday we held a meeting
which included representatives from industry, govern-
ment, and conservation and citizen groups for the
purpose of informing ourselves about the issues related
to the nuclear powerplants. We informed all those who
attended from Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan
that they would not be allowed to make presentations in -
this session of the four-State enforcement conference.
Since this turns out not to be the case, I am
-------
20;
Mrs. L. Botts
asking that this session be reconvened in Chicago to
offer those persons representing other citizen groups
who did wish to participate an opportunity to do so.
I would further suggest that if this is an
unwieldy way to handle the matter of permitting public
participation, that the conference address itself to
setting up a more rational meeting and rules which they
themselves can observe in allowing for public partici-
«.
pation in the future.
When the session is reconvened, my organiza-
tion will be prepared at that time to submit the full
transcript of last Saturday's meeting, including the
discussion by a professor of law from Indiana University
who had come to the conclusion that it would be neces-
sary to restructure our regulatory agencies in order to
accomplish the necessary task to protect Lake Michigan.
I thank you for offering me another oppor-
tunity to speak this afternoon and I will submit this
correspondence for the record.
(Which said correspondence is as follows:)
-------
bcc to those on attached list. 204
at
April 21, 197Q
Clarence Klasaan
Technical Secretary
Illinois state Sanitary Watar Board
Springfield, Illinois
Dear Mr. Klas»e>nt
A» you know, tha Open Lands Project ia seeking auaana
for the public to participate in decisions that sot public
policy on environmental issuoe.
Currently, w® ar® particularly concerned that the public
bo allowed opportunity to participate in dseiuions on use
of Lake Michigan water In production of elcsotric power,
In this connection we have boon informed that the Hay 7
meeting of th«j Lak® Michigan Four-State enforcement conference
will be an executive session and that th«» subject of tho
meeting will b«a the setting of thermal utandards for aischargoa
into tho lake.
Wo would like to obtain from your of fico any information
r«l«vant to this matter, such as tha Illinois tomporaturo
and mixing atone standard a, and information about the current
•tatuv of titoae atandardsi in enforcement, etc.
Also, could you plaas© inform u» how tho public partici-
pation in this process will b« assured and whether, for example,
your agency will hold a publio hoaring on thia matter in
tdvance of the Hay 7 mooting*
W« appreciate th® cooperation you have alway* «xt«ndad
t® us and look forward to hearing from you soon*
Very truly your a,
ites. Lee Botts, Director
Environmental Education
-------
-ME BOARD
JOHN W- LEWIS
D
WILLIAM F. CELLINI
A. u. SARQENT
20f
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SANITARY WATER BOARD
TECHNICAL SECRETARY
CLARENCE W KLA33EN
ADDRESS LETTERS TO:
SPMINOriELO. ILLINOIS
02706
April 24, 1970
Mrs. Lee Botts, Director
Environmental Education
Open Lands Project
53 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mrs. Botts:
This acknowledges your April 21 letter concerning the next meeting of the
Lake Michigan Four-State Enforcement Conference in Chicago on May 7.
Relative to how public participation will be involved in this meeting, I
am sending a copy of your letter to Mr. Murray Stein, Chairman of the Enforcement
Conference, who can answer this question inasmuch as he will be in control of the
entire session.
Quite frankly, I do not know the interpretation .of "executive session". I
am certain it will be a meeting open to the public but juat how the public will
participate is a matter over which Mr. Stein has jurisdiction and that is the
reason for sending your letter to him for reply.
We did appreciate your contribution made at the Milwaukee sessii
Sincerely,
iassen,
Technical Secretary
CWK:jp
cc: Mr. Murray Stein, Chairman
Four-State Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
-------
205-A
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20242
MAY 4 1970
Mrs. Lee Botts
Director, Environmental
Education
Open Lands Project
53 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mrs. Botts:
Mr. Clarence W. Klassen has asked me to respond to your letter of
April 21, 1970, concerning the upcoming Executive Session for the
third ••••ion of the Lake Michigan enforcement conference.
The Executive Session will be limited to discussion among the con-
ferees. They will consider several matters including temperature
and the establishment of interim dates for construction of necessary
treatment facilities. These points for the conferees' consideration
were reported upon and discussed at the third conference session
held on March 31 and April 1, 1970, in Milwaukee, where public par-
ticipation was invited.
The Executive Session will be held in public so that the development
of conclusions and recommendations by the conferees can be fully
observed by all interested parties.
Your attendance at the Executive Session for the conference to be
held on May 7, 1970, at 9:30 a.m., at the Sheraton Blackstone Hotel,
Crystal Room, 636 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, will be
most welcome.
Sincerely youra,
Murry Stein
Conferrtioe Chairman
-------
1BQH: Mrs. Lee Botts 205-B
X)pen Lands Project
53 V. Jackson
Chicago, Illinois 60604
STATEMENT TO FOUB-STATE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
HILWAUEEE, WISCONSIN, APRIL 1, 1970
I am Mrs. Lee Botts, representing the Open Lands
Project, a private, nonprofit conservation organization
headquartered in Chicago. My organization serves as a
clearinghouse and information center on Lake Michigan
for citizen groups in the four states of Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana and Michigan*
On Monday I attended a hearing at Grand Rapids,
Michigan, called by the Subcommittee on Energy and
Hatural Resource of the Senate Commerce Committee,
chaired by Senator Philip Hart* What I heard here yes-
terday in this conference has underscored what was brought
out in the Grand Rapids hearing and the plea made recently
t»y the president of my organization to the Illinois
legislative commission on the use of Lake Michigan and
Its adjoining shoreline.
0 The participants in the Grand Rapid hearing included
citizens who have already suffered property loss owing
to construction of a nuclear power plant on Lake Michigan
and other citizens who stated why they fear that operation
of such facilities may threaten their own existence and
that of the lake rather than only their land. They were
-------
2-OTEBr LANDS PROJECT
205-C
fhey were not reassured in Grand Rapids and they have not
been reassured here that industry and government shares
their concern.
There was testimony by "biologists, by a staff member
of the state water egulatory agency and by representatives
of the utility industry. The inescapable conclusion that
resulted was that no one, neither the citizens, the re-
searchers norttie power companies now has sufficient know-
ledge to offer reassurance to anyone that the seven nuclear
plants and 10 reactors scheduled to be operating on the
lake within a few years will be worth the environmental
consequences.
Tet what has been said here confirms that the nuclear
power plants under construction on the shore of Lake Michigan
are apparently going to be allowed to go into operation
before the full consequences have been evaluated and without
the public's having bad sufficient opportunity to partici-
pate in the decision of whether the electricity to be gener-
ated is worth the possible cost in clean air and clean water
end the certain loss of recreational and esthetic resource.
To give you one example, yesterday morning John Carr
of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries called for location
and documentation of the discrete spawning areas of the
fish now in the lake before the nuclear plants go into
operation. He directly contradicted a statement made by
Mr. Fetterolf in Grand Rapids when he challenged what he
called the misconception that discontinuance of discharge
-------
205-D
3-OPEN LANDS PROJECT
of heated effluents would result in re-establishiaent
of previous species. Representing the Michigan Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Mr. Fetterolf said on Monday
that be saw no reason not to go ahead and permit the dis-
charge of water heated 20 degrees in the volumes of millions
of gallons per second. He was certain, he said, the power
companies would cooperate and the discharge could simply
be stopped if tiaere was any reason to do so.
I do not believe, nor do I think the power companies
believe, that once they begin operating the plants they
ere now completing at costs ranging up to hundreds of
millions of dollars per site it will be a simple matter
to cause them to stop use of the lake whose convenience
was the reason for choice of locations on its shores in
the first place.
To use another example of unresolved questions that
get different answers from different sources was that
raised by the spokesman for the Wisconsin Electric Power
Company yesterday. He stated that at his company's Iwo
Rivers plant the heated eflluent would be discharged on
the surface of the lake nesr the shore when it could re-
ceive maximum exposure to the atmosphere with the most
rapid dispersal of the heat from the water.
let at Illinois on the same side of the lake
at another plant designed by the same engineering company
at Zion, Illinois, the discharge will be hundreds of
-------
440FEH LANDS PROJECT 205-E
of feet out in the lake well below the surface. This
approach is defended on the grounds that it will prevent
formation of a heated plume on the surface that would
interfere with oxygenation of water below it. I cannot
rationalize the contradictions in these theories, but un-
til someone can in a way that offers protection to the
lake, I do not believe either kind of discharge should
be permitted.
In yet another case, the Atomic Energy Commission
has required the Indiana and Michigan Power Company to
re-design its intake and discharge system at Bridgman,
Michigan, possibly for still other reasons. In this
location on the east side of the lake the winter ice
cover that builds up protects the shore from erosion and
the wave action generated by winter storms. The Wisconsin
company spokesman yesterday cited melting of the ice cover
by the heated water as an advantage, yet at Bridgman the
same effect is greatly feared.
What I am trying to say is that the question of
nuclear power plants and protection of Lake Michigan is
far more complex than anyone realized it could be just a
few years ago. The power company may feel that what it
said four years ago is applicable today, but the public
does not agree, and is growing ever more afraid. What
the utility industry and government must recognize is
that the public is so afraid and so uncertain whether
environmental protection is shared as a goalto which
economic gain must be subservient if necessary that it
-------
205-F
5-OFEH LANDS F80JECT
now questions the formerly sacred precept that our only
choice is between doing without electricity or doing with-
out nuclear power plants.
I am sure you have all beard the statement that
nuclear power is the most closely controlled techonological
development that has ever taken place. In a sense this is
so, and yet as far as the public is concerned, the multi-
plicity of government agencies that share in authority
over use of nuclear power to generate electricity makes
it appear to Ibe a most uncontrolled force against which
there is no recourse. Except for the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, the only agency with enforcement authority over
the whole lake from a single office is the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration.
I do not "telieve that the AEC's competence in building
reactors proves their ability, nor their willingness, to
protect the environment in operating them and certainly
not on the basis of present knowledge about thermal effects.
This four-state conference is meeting ina cooperative
effort to Correctmistakes made in an ignorant and uncaring
past. Mr. Stein questioned yesterday whether brownie
points should be given to cities end institutions who
claim credit for meeting outdated standards when they
are months and years behind schedule in meetiner current
atqndards for water quality control.
What I said in Ann Arbor was that so far in this
area the FWPCA has been a paper tiger and that I feared
-------
6-OEEff LAUDS PROJECT 205-G
this conference would be yet another occasion for docu-
menting the continued deterioration of tie lake without
aggressive action to prevent or avoid what may result
from the advent of nuclear power around its shores.
I am asking you now what the FWPCA and the cooperat-
ing stage agencies are going to do to avoid having to
meet together five years hence to decide how to deal with
problems they know right now may develop from this eource.
As the president of my board of directors, Mr.
Jeffrey Short, said to the Illinois legislative study com-
mission on Lake Michigan, we must go slow in use of nuclear
power until we know how to prevent damage to the lake, to
the air above it and to its shores. The City of Milwaukee
may not have any excuse not to disinfect its sewage but
neither does the FWPCA have any excuse not to avoid thermal
pollution.
The real choice is not whether to do without electricity,
but whether to pay now to prevent damage in its generation
or to pay later to correct it.
*******
-------
206
Mrs. E. L. Johnston
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mrs. Botts.
That is the last name I have. Does anyone
else care to make a statement who hasn't registered
yet?
MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Stein, can you hear a
brief one?
MR. STEIN: Yes, come right up. I knew some-
thing was missing, Mrs. Johnston. (Laughter.)
EILEEN L. JOHNSTON
LEAGUE OP WOMEN VOTERS
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS
MRS. JOHNSTON: My name is Eileen Johnston of
Wilmette, Illinois.
I want to say I have every confidence in Mr.
Stein's decision this morning.
And I just want to announce that the Committee
on Lake Michigan Pollution is sponsoring an educational
cruise this Saturday of the Chicago waterways and I want
to invite the conferees to stay over and join us. ¥e
will even give you a bargain rate. The public is $6.
¥e will give it to you for $5-95. (Laughter.)
-------
20?
Mrs. E. L. Johnston
But I just thought that there might be some-
body here interested. We do feel that more people need
to know the situation in the southern end of the lake
and this is a wonderful opportunity to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
Mrs. Johnston is our severest critic and
watches us very closely.
(The following was submitted by Mrs. Johnston:)
-------
207-A
atutenont to Conferences Pollution of !«*»«' Michigan and its Tributary
fsaaJn, Illinois, Indiana, MSehl^an, er rt ?iaoonaln
'My nane SB hlleen L. Johnston and ^ hwc 5» '..llwptt*, 2 Illinois.
Mr ahort paper la titled "Are we going fwwnrci or backward 3n our fight
for survivals ;>orae dajsl really wonder* i/oea -.an r**lly want to aurvlve?
Vhe recent 3/4 Inch thick report m "Flftnkton UJ»ton A«ft«mtol*@*a In
Lake 'Ttohlfran" by utocraer and ^ang of ttie Oreat I^kew H©»e»i*eh W vision
of the University of Michigan should serve us & SfOf sign on actolng any
wore phosphorus to the lake. The import •hot* elearlj fcimt the Ink* la
degraded even mope than we had j*«all«e '•
2 ara greatly concerned about feh« M«tj*opoli tan Sanitary PS strict of
Ore.-ster ChJowgo, In octobei«t 196S ttoef took a- big utep for*»nl *hen th*y
Adopted a Sewage and Waste Control Grdinanee «ith /vp;«meix & whloh atatea
that v»aate» of .any .kind jaa^ aot be
-------
g
207-B
paat two years. Action ia urgently noodted in «u, n^ altars district,
•specially in an area of fc»7 square aj3l*8 of coabSned sew«re «n the north
side. In timea of heavy rain* cowtoinwd sewer ovi-rflows nuet be sent ««
the lake to pollute it MM*. ?Ui» i* « critical «n«tter. Can eo tone urge
tbs Board of Trustees to adopt a inabilit} to make JmaiedJete
oontribirtion to save the Oreat Lake a jsnvi ron»ftnt and-...Jts fSsheriea." KJ
concern is aleo for fee vast exj>eri©nce Ua- i-;eee*iroh men at this venderful
lavoratory have gained in theSr work on the lake®. hat & waatd to
shut back such an: a§©ney when it S* concerned with our actual survival.
J ask you, gentleaemt, la this a step forward or beokwhrAY
Thank you for letting »«> »P®®k to you .
-------
207-C
Summary
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions that anyone wants to put in?
If not, we will go around the conferees and
see if we have any matters to discuss. I think the
major issues and points that we came here on have been
in large measure met and I would like to thank the
conferees for that.
SUMMARY
One, I think we have—and I challenge any
other region anywhere or anybody in the country to pro-
duce this--a list of all the dischargers from the four
States with all these interim dates listed up to date.
I think with that, that is going to be a tremendous
step forward in helping the State and Federal regulatory
agencies and the dischargers themselves and the people
-------
Summary
to.get on with this program. We have one of the most
complicated programs in the cleanup of Lake Michigan.
I think we are right in midstream in cleaning up that
program, and I will say from the reports we got the
prognosis looks pretty good. As a matter of fact, if
you compare the rate of progress that we have reported
here with the progress in various other watersheds in
the country, I think it is excellent. Of course what
we do, as Mr. Purdy is fond of saying, we have good
intentions and we have the papers filed, now we have to
see that they produce.
The first step in seeing that some are pro-
ducers is getting this material in. This represents a
lot of work, I know, on the part of the States, of the
municipalities, and the industries involved. I know in
cases involving large sums of money—and even the small-
er polluters are spending large sums for them—putting
these definitive dates down has taken a lot of soul
searching and a lot of negotiation and a tremendous
amount of work. So we do have the blueprint for the
cleanup of Lake Michigan and we have this for anyone to
see.
-------
_______^___ 209
Summary
.£>in I do think that we recognize we do have
a significant problem to work out in the State-Federal
program on requirements of thermal pollution control in
the lake. You have heard the Federal position this
morning. We are going to go back with the comments of
the States, the reservations the States have, and I
hope we will begin working on that.
I do think, unless I am mistaken, that we are
on our way for the cleanup of those two big Federal
installations that Mr. Poole mentioned—Fort Sheridan
and the Naval Training Station. So hopefully we are on
our way with the Federal as well as the State, indus-
trial and local problem.
Now, I also think that we have.to follow
through, perhaps, on a variety of programs that I would
like to give to you people if you have any suggestions.
Let me take the easy ones that came up first.
One, we will strive when we get back to set
up a meeting, the next meeting, at Grand Rapids, Michi-
gan.
In addition to that—if there is an objection,
I would like to hear it--we will set up as soon as
-------
Summary
possible another meeting in the Chicago area to hear the
people here, because evidently there is a lot of interest
coming up in thermal pollution and new plants. One
of the advantages of an executive session like this is
hearing that the people want to be heard again, and we
would be delighted to do that.
I would like to say if you want to look back
on the record of these conferences, we have had about as
much public participation as practically any public body
and we welcome that, because that is where we get a good
deal of our information and insight from. We want you
to participate and we want you to work very closely with
us. So we will try to set up that meeting,and make a
full announcement of that as soon as possible.
The reason we are not setting the date here or
trying to is in dealing with four States and the Federal
Government, we all have various commitments, and we have
found that when we get back to our offices and get this
calendar of events and commitments, we are able to do
this in a much better way.
Do any of the other conferees have any other
issues that you might want to raise?
-------
_ 211
Summary
MR. MAYO: Mr. Chairman, there were a few
items that I think were left over from the meeting in
Milwaukee that the conferees need to give at least some
brief attention to. Perhaps I can identify them and
see the extent to which they generate your concern.
At the Milwaukee conference,one of the items
discussed was the need for the conferees and their
respective .State and Federal interests to give some
attention to the occurrence of the polychlorinated
biphenyls. Now, the polychlorinated biphenyls, this
was discussed briefly in the report of the Pesticide
Committee. I sense that it was the desire of the con-
ferees to direct the Pesticide Committee to proceed to
attention, and spend some time with the putting together
of information on the occurrence and background informa-
tion on the toxicity of the PCB compounds. if that
is the sense of the conferees then the committee is
entitled to some fairly specific direction.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Petterolf, are you representing
the committee?
MR. FETTEROLF: I am not here in a capacity to
represent the technical committee on pesticides
-------
Summary
designated by this conference. But at the Milwaukee
meeting when I presented the technical committee report,
I stated that the various States participating in the
pesticide monitoring were taking steps to incorporate
PCB analysis along with their pesticide analysis.
I also stated that the committee was taking
the utmost precautions; that there were other environ-
mental contaminants which were being discharged that
might not be measured in our planned pesticide monitor-
ing program. To guard against this, we would have com-
plete analyses run by a consulting firm, which would
advise us what additional contaminants we should be look-
ing for within our monitoring program.
There was one more pointr--that laboratories
participating in this study would share samples and com-
pare analyses to be sure that the methods being used
by the various laboratories were delivering comparable
results.
So I do feel that the pesticide monitoring
program is taking into account PCB's. How soon the
various States will be able to start assuming their
responsibilities in the pesticide monitoring program is
-------
213
Summary
still unknown. Wisconsin is going strong. I believe
Indiana has assumed their responsibilities. Illinois
and Michigan are under-way but are not operative yet in
the pesticide monitoring program.
MR. MAYO: Would it be reasonable, then, to
ask the committee to report back, within six months, on
the information it has been able to gather on the
occurrence of the polychlorinated biphenyls in the lake
and its tributaries,, and the activity that has been
developed in the exchange of analytical data and tech-
niques?
»
MR. PETTEROLP: Yes. I was pausing because
I was wondering if we could have this report.ready for
the Grand Rapids meeting, but I doubt if enough informa-
tion would have been gathered by that time to be mean-
ingful.
MR. STEIN: Can we have a progress report, at
least, at the Grand Rapids meeting to tell us how you
are doing?
MR. FETTEROLF: By all means.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. POOLE: One other point on this. I am not
-------
_ __ 214
Summary
sure what the other States did, but when we filed for the
research grant we put it down as a 3-year project.
It was only acted on for one year, and as I remember
, some of the telephone conversations that we had back
and forth, the other States had made it a one-shot
affair. But that grant expires the first of October.
And the thing I had planned to do was put paper work
through for the second year of the project.
I wonder what the rest of you have got in
mind?
MR. FETTEROLF: The Milwaukee conference Con-
clusion 8 of our report was that the mechanism of moni-
toring and analyses for pesticides, PCB's and other
contaminants which are normally not monitored for, was
an excellent one for the States to protect themselves
from these unknown components that plague us continually.
And we stated that we felt it must be a continuing pro-
gram and that the States and the Federal Government
should continue to support this program. I have dis-
cussed this with the Regional Office in Chicago and they
have urged the States or are urging the States to submit
this for a continuation program.
-------
^ 215
Summary
MR. STEIN: Are you set on that?
MR. MAYO: Another point that was brought up
in Milwaukee had to do with the need to identify the
discrete fish spawning and feeding areas in the lake. I
think Mr. John Carr from the PGP made it abundantly clear
that this was an information need that certainly was not
satisfied at the present time.
I an wondering if the conferees would care to
make any expression or give any direction on proceeding
to delineate the spawning and feeding areas in the lake?
MR. STEIN: If there is no comment on that,
wouldn't it make sense for us to try to get the Pish and
Wildlife Service to get in touch with their State counter-
parts and give us a report on that at the Michigan
session of the conference?
MR. MAYO: All right.
MR. PURDY: Agreed.
MR. STEIN: Let's take that on.
Rheta, remind me of that, to get in touch with
the Fish and Wildlife Service, because I think they are
most qualified to do that.
MR. MAYO: Another point that Mr. Carr raised
-------
216
Summary
had to do with the opportunity for locally heavy dieoff
of alewives this year. I am not sure whether it was
the sense of the conferees that the individual States
would proceed to handle this as State problems, depend-
ing on the severity of the dieoffs within the individual
States, or whether you wish to address yourselves to the
problem in the sense of the conference.
His observations were that PGP anticipates
there will be locally heavy dieoffs of alewives, not
* nearly so severe as in 1967.
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, with respect to that,
I think it is quite necessary to emphasize the point
that Mr. Carr did not indicate that the dieoff would b3
as heavy as 1967, but that there would be, say, local
areas that would have a heavier dieoff than in the past
two years.
We as a part of the 1968 program acquired
beach cleaning equipment, and so forth. This is ready
to go in operation at those points in the State where we
might have problems and we are prepared to handle this
on a State basis on our Lake Michigan frontage.
MR. MAYO: Can we anticipate, then, that each
-------
21?
Summary
of the States will proceed as the problems develop?
MR. KLASSEN: Yes, Mr. Mayo. I would consider
this as a State problem. If the dieoff increases, I
would assume that the local and/or the State agencies
would take care of the dead alewife.
And I also understand that in the considera-
tion of the new thermal requirements that the spawning
ground and the propagation of alewife were taken into
account so that in effect we could protect the spawning
grounds so as to make sure that there will be more ale-
wives. Is this correct? (Laughter.)
MR. STEIN: As I understood it, they talk'about
sudden rises in temperature killing the alewives, and
without the heat going in you won't have these sudden
rises, so maybe they won't die. (Laughter.)
MR. MAYO: There was one other point that came
up at Milwaukee that perhaps you will want to address
yourselves to.
There was a brief discussion of the fact that
the State ASCS programs are proceeding with the develop-
ment of handbooks that would permit the Department of
Agriculture participation in on-the-farm grants for
-------
Summary
water pollution control measures. I get the impression
that the conferees had expressed some interest in this
program in the context of our relative inability up to
now to deal effectively with agricultural waste dis-
charges and pollutants in terms of the Lake Michigan
enforcement conference. I think this ASCS program offers
the-States individually and the conferees collectively
an opportunity to address ourselves to a new program of
on-the-farm assistance. It might be very worth our whil
for the States, the conferees, and State water control
agencies, to examine the ASCS programs in their indi-
vidual States and for us to get together sometime between
now and the meeting in Michigan. At least our staff peop:
should get together, and examine where the ASCS programs
are going in the individual States and see if there is a
p<5int at which we want to try to impact this program.
If you like, the Federal Water Quality
Administration can take the lead and arrange for that
kind of meeting among our staff people, anticipating
that in the meantime the State water pollution control
agencies will'take a look at the ASCS programs in their
respective States and be prepared to talk about them.
-------
21Q
Summary
MR. POOLE: Am I recollecting correctly that
you had one meeting with them and I wrote you a letter
suggesting that the States be included or is this meet-
ing still pending?
MR. MAYO: There is a meeting arranged for on
the 19th of May between ASCS representatives from the
nine Great Lakes Basin States and our staff here in
Chicago. The State people have been invited to sit in—
MR. POOLE: They have?
MR. MAYO: --on the meeting.
MR. POOLE: Good.
MR. MAYO: I think that is a little different
than what I am suggesting here so far as it relates
specifically to Lake Michigan.
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman.
MR. KLASSEN: Pardon me. Could you clarify or
rationalize your statement just a little on this? Why
should the agriculture industry be treated any different-
ly than any other segment of industry?
MR. MAYO: I am not suggesting that anybody be
treated any differently.
MR. KLASSEN: You are going to help
-------
Summary
agriculture solve their problems, is that what you are
saying?
MR. MAYO: What we need to be aware of is the
fact that there is emerging in the Department of Agri-
culture an on-the-farm water pollution control grant
assistance program,under which each State ASCS organi-
zation develops its individual State handbook. Now,
there is an opportunity here for the water pollution
control agencies to impact that handbook which identifies
the eligible assistance projects. I think there is a
good opportunity here for us to make an impression.
MR. KLASSEN: I just want to make one more
comment. Some of you may realize that there is in our
legislature now a new group of bills that will material-
ly change the old water pollution—and air pollution
too—water pollution administrative setup in Illinois,
which will give the agency the authority to put a tax
on the discharge of any pollutants, including agri-
cultural pollutants.
MR. POOLE; Well, in response to your ques-
tion, Mr. Mayo, I am delighted that we will have an
opportunity to participate in the May I9cb meeting, but
-------
221
Summary
if you are willing to take the lead on following through,
move it forward a little farther as far as Lake Michi-
gan is concerned, I will be quite happy to see you do so,
MR. MAYO: We will be quite pleased to do it.
MR. STEIN: Did you want to say something,
Mr. Purdy?
MR. PURDY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have a
representative of our commission or our staff attend
all of the soil conservation committee meetings, the
commission meetings. We have had an opportunity to
t
impact their handbook. We have participated in the
development of it. It is on Mr. Frost's desk right at the
moment waiting for him to go over it and give it back
over to you.
MR. MAYO: I think it would be excellent if
we could have the opportunity to just share an appraisal
of the success that you feel you have had and the area
in which you have been able to impact the handbook.
This may not be the case as far as the other States are
concerned.
MR. PRANGOS: Mr. Mayo, we have done the same
thing, almost the identical process as Michigan. We
-------
222
— • ____
Summary
have participated in developing the technical criteria
f.or this handbook, so I think we are with it. But
perhaps it may be of some value to the conference if
we get some kind of a summary of the activities within
these four States and perhaps your agency might provide
that out in your meetings with the agriculture people.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments'?
Is there anything else? Do you have anything
anyone wants to take up?
MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the con-
ference or session on the matter of temperature stand-
ards I did raise the question of some additional
testimony to the conferees. One of the speakers this
afternoon referred to us as lawmakers. I am not a
lawmaker. I have to be guided by the laws that are on
the books.
I am reasonably sure that all the States are
faced with the same problem as far as setting standards.
If you set a standard you must go through a public
hearing and you must have something in the record to
justify the standard at that point.
I am still most interested in having someone
-------
223
Summary
from the Federal Water Quality Administration or the
Fish and Wildlife Service, someone within the Department
of the Interior, that could present to the conferees
the practicability and the physical and economic feas-
ibility of complying with the temperature standards
that were recommended for Lake Michigan so that we
could then move forward into our public hearings and
provide the base for adopting such standards.
MR. STEIN: Any other comment or question?
MR. POOLE: I think I would endorse his view.
MR. STEIN: All right. I think that is well
taken and we will take that up. I think we may be able
to do that at the next meeting we have,either in Chicago
or in Michigan.
Are there any--
MR. KLASSEN: I have another request for a
statement that was given to me by a member of our legis-
lature .
MR. STEIN: Let's see ±f we have any other
statements from the conferees.
Anything else to hrino- up?
May we have State Representative Harold Katz.
-------
.„ 224
H. A. Katz
HAROLD A. KATZ
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
ILLINOIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
REP. KATZ: Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. STEIN: Please identify yourself.
REP. KATZ: Yes. I am Harold A. Katz. I am
a member of the Illinois House of Representatives. I
have been very interested, both as a legislator and a
lawyer, in environmental problems and I have tried as
a layman to gather what knowledge a layman can in terms
of trying to find legal solutions to environmental prob-
lems .
I am quite aware of the needs of public power
and it has seemed to me essential that we try to find a
solution to the problems of public power that will not
do violence to our environment.
It has seemed to me that Lake Michigan is very
much in the same situation as a patient who has had re-
peated serious surgery, and I recently had such a situ-
ation where a doctor said that even though the operation
-------
225
H. A. Katz
would ordinarily not be difficult, that in the case of
a patient who had had so much surgical shock that it
would be dangerous to give the patient any additional
because the body can stand only so much. And it has
seemed to me that whatever the circumstance might be,
with Lake Michigan being in the situation that it now
is that it is the height of folly to permit the dis-
charge into Lake Michigan of anything that might pos-
sibly adversely affect it.
Very br.iefly I wanted to say that in my
search for a way of reconciling the problem of public
power with the protection of the lake I have looked
about for what I could find in the cooling tower field.
I have found that in my view, at least, the utilities
have not been adequately motivated to look about the
world and try to find other places where solutions may
have been found which would be helpful in our situation.
And I discovered recently in my search for e dry cooling
tower system, which has seemed to me quite essential,
a dry system being highly desirable both from the point
of view of eliminating any loss of moisture from Lake
Michigan, a loss of water into the atmosphere, and also
-------
_—_ __ . 226
H. A. Katz
to eliminate the problems of fogging, I looked about for
a practical system of a dry cooling tower, it becomes
terribly important because if, in fact, such a system is
obtainable, then there is in my view no justification
-whatever for permitting utilities to place heated water
into the lake. And I discovered that there has been in
operation in Rugby, England, in connection with the
nuclear reactor that they have there, a dry cooling
tower system in operation since 1965.
Prior to writing them, I might say that I had
had some conversations with representatives of the local
utility and they had indicated to me that it was abso-
lutely not feasible to have a dry cooling tower system,
and from my conversation it appeared to me as a layman
and as a lawyer that they had not adequately investi-
gated the possibility; that but for the public clamor
that has resulted in the environmental field that in
fact they would not be directing attention to this prob-
lem.
I wrote the chief engineer of the group in
Rugby that has had a nuclear reactor in operation since
1965 with a dry cooling tower, and I would like to place
-------
227
H. A. Katz
into evidence here and make available to you the
response that the chief engineer of that group gave to
me. Now, I will point out that it is a system much
smaller, its capacity is much smaller than the capacity
of the system here involved. So one of the questions
I directed to his attention, since I knew he had
delivered some papers in Europe with reference to this
subject, was whether or not it would be feasible to
extrapolate the principles that they had applied in
Rugby and apply them to larger installations such as
those contemplated in Zion. And I have a letter here
that I am going to place into evidence in which he says
that, "I can say that dry cooling for such larger plant
is perfectly feasible with either natural drought towers
or mechanical draught towers, that is using fans," and
then he says, "although the latter method would require
a larger area of ground."
Now, this is a chief engineer of a project
that has actually been in operation for more than five
years in England. And it would seem to me that if our
engineers can extrapolate the principles that are
involved in small nuclear reactors to devise and
-------
A r= - ^
JL± — . __ 228
H. A. Katz
utilize large nuclear reactors, they can equally extra-
polate the principles involved in dry cooling towers and
build cooling towers adequate to the nuclear reactors.
And so it would seem to me that it being
.apparently the fact that England has had in operation
such a system for half a decade that we should utilize
that systemj that the Federal Government standard that
I understand to have been proposed here would be per-
fectly feasible utilizing such a system; and I know of
no reason why we should not do it. The only thing
involved is the question of cost, and I would only say
that to me the saving in money that would be occasioned,
compared with the possible loss of Lake Michigan,would
indeed be a foolish under-utilization of public funds at
a time when the expenditure of public funds can preserve
the most priceless heritage that we have in the Midwest.
I would be glad, if any of the conferees
desire, to answer any questions. I am not a technical
expert in the field of cooling towers, but it seems to
me really quite surprising that a nontechnical expert
has to go elsewhere to find this kind of information.
And. I would suggest that if standards such as the Federal
-------
229
H. A. Katz
Government's are applied here that the States and also
the utilities will then look around themselves and not
require citizens or lawyers or others to have to find
out this information; that then the pressure will be on
and they will exercise the technical competency required
to both have public power and still preserve the lake.
I would hand in to you, Mr. Chairman, if I
might, sir, a copy of the letter that I have received
from the chief engineer of the Rugby, England, nuclear
plant plus a paper that he has presented at a meeting
at the Rugby College of Engineering Technology entitled
"The Rugeley Dry Cooling Tower System" and in addition
to that the discussion that followed. From what I am
able to discern, England and Europe are far ahead of
the United States in the utilization of dry cooling
towers, and I would suggest that we ought to turn to
them for some of the expertise that we need in this
field. It is readily available. I can add that Mr.
Christopher indicated to me that he was preparing a
good deal fuller paper that he would send along indi-
cating his reasons, I gather, in greater detail as to
why he says it would be feasible to have a dry cooling
-------
, ____ 230
H. A. Katz
•I- y h .'
tower for plants such as we have in Zion. If they are
feasible in Zion they would be feasible anywhere along
the lake because these are among the biggest that we
will have anywhere in the country. (Applause.)
So, Mr. Chairman, if you might mark these as
exhibits to my testimony, I would be very appreciative.
MR. STEIN: May I see them, please?
The letter will appear in the record as if
read, without objection, and the article and the dis-
cussion will appear as exhibits.
(The article and transcript referred to are
marked Exhibits 1 and 2 and are on file at the PWQA
Headquarters in Washington, D. C., with copies on file
at the PWQA Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois.)
(Which said letter is as follows:)
-------
231
TELEPHONE FtUG*Y 2100
CACUE* EMELJXTICO RUGBY
ENGLISH ELECTRIC
COMPANY LIMITED
TCI.EX 11 S 7 9
TELEORAMS ENCL.ECTICO RUO»Y TR-CX
WILLANS WORKS RUGBY
Mr. H.A. Katz,
State Representative,
House of Representatives,
7, South Dearborn Street,
CHICAGO,
Illinois,
.United States uf America.
OUR REF LSTD(O)/PJC/RS.
TELEPHONE EXTENSION No.
YOUR REF
1st May 1970.
Dear Mr. Katz,
Thank you for your letter of 15th April regarding the technical
feasibility and costs of dry cooling for nuclear power plant close to Lake
Michigan.
A detailed answer to your enquiry is under consideration at the
moment, in the meantime I can say that dry cooling for such large plant is
perfectly feasible with either natural drought towers or mechanical draught
towers (i.e. using fans), although the latter would require a large area of
ground.
Regarding costs, they will vary appreciably according to the type
of plant, the loading pattern, the local climate and the effective cost of fuel.
Consequently, it is unrealistic to generalise and the nearest I would go with the
present information would be to estimate a capital cost in the range of ^ 20 +
per K.W. of plant installed.
- 2.C
To give come more background to the subject of dry cooling, I enclose
a recent paper on tho plant at Imgoley which gives information on how it has
behaved in service.
Your.-; ;:incorGly,
.- .Jl. iJLrii'Lopher.
uhjof j'ju-'ineor, Turbine operation.
Group.
-------
M. Stein
MR. STEIN: Are there any further comments or
questions?
If not, I would like to thank the conferees
for participating. I would like to thank the citizens
groups for coming here and bearing with us in partici-
pating, and we appreciate your advice at all times
whether we are in executive session or not.
Until we see you again soon, this session is
adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 3:50 o'clock, an adjournment
was taken.)
-------
a
s
western union
Telegram
"AXA056 1121A EOT MAY 9 70 WBOJ2
(AX) GU (WK320 WW BTA225) GOVT PDB BT WASHINGTON DC MAY 8
MURRAY STEIN ASST COMM FOR ENFORCEMENT FED WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ADMIN DEPT OF INTERIOR
RM 1116 WASHDC
UNDERSTAND YOUR RECOMMENDING THERMAL POLLUTION STANDARD ON
LAKE MICHIGAN URGE UNIFORM THERMAL STANDARD BE FIXED ON ALL
GREAT LAKES WHICH ARE SUFFERING SAME PROBLEM
CHARLES A VANIK MEMBER OF CONGRESS*
SF-1201 (RS-C8)
ro
jj
JO
------- |