PROCEEDINGS OF MEETING ON PROBLEMS WITH
STEEL DRUMS
AS
FLOATATION DEVICES
IN
LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
SPONSORED BY
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia
JULY 1969

-------
PROCEEDINGS OF MEETING
on
PROBLEMS WITH STEEL DRUMS
as
FLOATATION DEVICES
in
LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
Southeast Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior
July 1969

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Meeting Agenda 	 1
Opening Remarks
John R. Thoman	 2
Floatation Units for Floating Facilities
on Corps Reservoirs
C. E. Solomon	 6
Water Quality Aspects
William R. Nicholas	 14
TVA Program on Removal of Steel Drums
J. Porter Taylor	 17
Floor Discussion
Howard D. Zeller, Moderator 	 19
List of Attendees	 28
i

-------
MEETING AGENDA
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
PROBLEMS WITH STEEL DRUMS USED AS FLOATATION DEVICES
July 23, 1969
Atlanta Airport Holiday Inn
10:00-10:30 a.m. Opening Remarks 	 John R. Thoman
Regional Director
FWPCA
10:30-11:15 a.m. Floatation Units for Floating
Facilities in Reservoirs 	 C. E. Solomon
Construction-Operations
Corps of Engineers, SAD
11:15-11:35 a.m. Water Quality Aspects 	 W. R. Nicholas
Assistant Chief
Water Quality Branch
TVA
11:35-12:00 noon TVA Program on Removal of
Steel Drums 	 J. Porter Taylor
Director, Division of
Reservoir Properties
TVA
12:00-1:30 p.m. LUNCH
1:30-4:00 p.m. Floor Discussions by Meeting	Discussion Leaders:
Participants 	 FWPCA
TVA
Corps of Engineers

-------
2
OPENING REMARKS
by
John R. Thoman
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome all of you to
this meeting today and to thank you for the interest you have expressed
in this unique problem of water pollution. Your presence confirms the
great emphasis being placed on our recreational uses of water through-
out the country and particularly in the southeastern United States.
The Southeast has perhaps the most abundant supply of water resources
and is the most heavily used water-oriented recreational area in the
nation.
The recent fish kills in Tennessee's Boone Reservoir could very
well be classified as an isolated incident. On the other hand, the
fish kills were caused by indiscriminate use of steel drums as floata-
tion devices, and it's possible that similar incidents could occur on
any reservoir at any time. This, of course, .is the basis for our
meeting here today.
As we pointed out in our correspondence to you regarding discussions
on this problem, this meeting is to be yours, not ours. We have asked
the Corps of Engineers and TVA to assume the leadership in their presen-
tations regarding present control programs. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration will serve as a clearing house and is available
for coordination and technical assistance through the Southeast Water
Laboratory in Athens.

-------
3
As we move into the formal meeting, we have asked the Corps of
Engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority to discuss their experiences
with problems stemming from the use of steel drums as floatation devices.
Vie also have asked them to provide us with results of their past control
programs and to give us information on present regulations. During the
afternoon, the meeting will take the form of a workshop to discuss
operational problems and to address any questions to the Corps of
Engineers and TVA. I am also soliciting your thoughts on what we in
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration can do to help.
Because of the emphasis placed on the Boone Reservoir incident,
I should like at this time to give a brief summary of the fish kill
and provide you with the benefit of some of the techniques we utilized
in our investigation.
The massive fish kill began on May 9, 1969, on the South Fork
Holston arm of Boone Reservoir and continued through May 13. Over 2.3
million fish died, nearly all of which were shad. A multi-disciplinary
team from several federal and state agencies was on-site during the
kill.
Causes quickly ruled out were pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature.
Ammonia, chemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon, pesticides, heavy
metals, and cyanides were also eliminated as possible contributing
factors, though mercury was known to be toxic at levels lower than the
sensitivity of available analytical procedures.
TVA ruled out algal toxicants as the cause of the kill since
plankton populations were normal in diversity and numbers. On May.'20,
FWPCA reported that there was no evidence of acetylcholinesterase

-------
4
inhibition, which ruled out pesticides of the organo-phosphorous and
carbamate types. Auburn University reported on.May 22 that fish collected
at the time of the kill had no parasites and no disease and that two
strains of bacteria cultured were normal.
FWPCA repeated TVA's May 21 chemical analysis for metals and
pesticides, and confirmed the TVA results. Residues from a carbon
filter extract were given to FWPCA after a TVA analysis for pesticides
was negative. A conference of the two agencies on May 23 examined all
findings to date and decided that samples of fish in the hands of FWPCA
should not be used until more reliable clues were available.
During the week of May 26, FWPCA ran infrared and mass spectrometer
analyses on the TVA carbon filter extracts, and sent a water sample to
the Atomic Energy Commission's Savannah River Plant for spark source
mass spectroscopy. On May 27, FWPCA provided a group of kill fish to
the University of Georgia for histological examination of kidneys and
decided to perform chemical analyses on other fish kidneys.
On May 30, the Atomic Energy Commission reported 9 parts per billion
of mercury in the water sample, and the University of Georgia reported
tubular destruction in the fish kidneys, a condition symptomatic of
mercurial poisoning. FWPCA1 s kidney analysis by chemical methods
produced no results.
Based on the fact that mercury was present at levels above that,
known to cause death when in a form that could be in the reservoir,
and on the destruction ,of kidney tubes, the FWPCA on May 30 stated that
"presumption is high that the cause of the fish kill was mercury.in some
form."

-------
During the week of June 1, FWPCA performed analyses on sediment
samples collected May 28 but was unable to implicate adsorption-
desorption phenomena from this source as the mode of entry of mercury
to the water.
In conclusion, the following was proposed:
1.	Mercury, in some form, was the most probable cause of the
fish kill in Boone Reservoir beginning May 9, 1969. Mercury
was present in the water at a level of 9 parts per billion.
2.	Mercury in a specific organic compound is toxic at a level
of less than one part per billion. The probability is high
of this compound being present.
3.	The entry of this compound was most likely.from an empty
drum or drums used as a floatation device which became
floated as the reservoir was raised about five feet during
the kill period.
This concludes my remarks. A complete summary of the fish kill
investigation is available from the Regional Office in the event you
are interested in more detail.

-------
6
FLOATATION UNITS FOR FLOATING FACILITIES ON CORPS RESERVOIRS
by
C. E. Solomon
Construction-Operations Division
Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
1.	I will first present a brief resumd of certain Corps program
authorities as background material for my later remarks dealing more
specifically with the subject of my topic.
2.	The Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers had its
beginning in 1824 with passage of the first River and Harbor Act by
the Congress. This initial mission was directed primarily at the
improvement and maintenance of the nation's waterways and harbors.
The Civil Works program has been expanded over the years by the Congress
to include other water resource improvements. It was not until the
late 1930's that the Congress included reservoirs for flood control,
hydro-electric power, and other purposes to any significant extent in
the Corps' Civil Works program. However, most of our operating reser-
voirs have been constructed since the end of World War II (1945). The
authority for the Corps to develop the recreation resources of its
reservoir projects was issued by the Congress in the middle 1940's.
3.	The Corps of Engineers develops and manages the recreation
resources of its reservoir projects under the authority contained in
the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78-534 approved 22 December
1944). This initial basic legislative authority was amended by the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-874 approved 23 October 1962)
to make it applicable to all water resource development projects of
the Corps of Engineers. Rules and regulations governing public use of

-------
7
Corps reservoir areas, prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, are
published in Title 36, Chapter III, Code of Federal Regulations. The
rules and regulations concerning navigation and navigable waters of
the United States prescribed by the Secretary of the Army and published
in Title 33, Chapter II, Code of Federal Regulations, are also applic-
able to navigable reservoirs of the Corps.
4.	It is the policy of the Corps of Engineers to require boat-
houses, boatdocks, and other recreation related facilities on its
reservoirs to be floating structures. This general policy was adopted
because of the water level fluctuation characteristics of most Corps
reservoirs, which makes fixed structures of this nature rather imprac-
tical. Therefore, most of the floating recreational facilities over
which the Corps would have some control at its different types of
projects are located on its reservoirs,
5.	The Corps' rules and regulations governing public use of
reservoirs (Title 36 mentioned earlier) require a permit from the
Corps of Engineers for placing structures in or on the reservoir.
Location and construction plans are required for review and approval
before the necessary Corps permit for the structure is issued.
6.	The use of metal drums as floatation units for floating
recreational facilities was a common and acceptable practice at the
time the Corps reservoir construction program really got underway near
the close of World War II. Metal drums, usually oil barrels, were
readily available and relatively economical. Plastic buoyant material
for life rafts, floating heavy equipment, and other purposes was
developed during World War II., Industry pursued development of

-------
8
plastic buoyant materials after World War II for the commercial market.
These early products were forerunners of the various plastic buoyancy
materials used today as floatation units for floating facilities. As
these early products were tested and improved and became more and more
accepted by the public, the Corps encouraged applicants for floating
facility permits at its reservoir projects to consider the use of
plastic buoyant material for the floatation units in lieu of the con-
ventional metal drums. This effort produced some degree of success as
will be shown by some statistics to be given later in my remarks.
7. The Corps of Engineers has gone through three time-phases with
relation to floatation units for floating recreational facilities.at
its reservoir projects. They are as follows:
a.	1944 to 1967. - Metal drums were acceptable for both
non-commercial and commercial floating recreational facilities.
In the latter part of this period Corps encouraged consideration
of plastic buoyant material for floatation units in lieu of
conventional metal drums.
b.	1967. - Corps issued regulation requiring "floatation
by styrofoam, or equal, no iron barrels" for floating recrea-
tional facilities provided by commercial concessions and public
agencies.
c.	1969 (24 Feb.). - Corps issued regulation requiring
that "boat mooring buoys and floatation units of floating
facilities shall be constructed of material which will not
become waterlogged or sink when punctured." This permits use
of metal drums filled with a suitable buoyant material. This

-------
9
regulation is applicable to non-commercial floating recreational
facilities. Floatation units of all new facilities must meet
this requirement to be eligible for the required Corps permit.
Owners of existing facilities with floatation units not conform-
ing to this new requirement are being given from three to five
years to meet this new requirement. We wanted to allow a
reasonable period of time for replacement of metal drums with
acceptable floatation units. Ordinarily, metal drums without
a protective coating do not last over five years. This allowable
time period will permit the owners of such facilities to obtain
full use of existing metal drums with conversion occurring at
normal replacement time.
8. I have obtained some data from the Reservoir Managers at nine
reservoirs in the South Atlantic Division in an effort to get some
indication of our current situation with respect to the use of metal
drums for floatation units (see attached tabulation). A summary of
these data is as follows:
Combined water surface area of 9 reservoirs (acres) 318,200
Non-commercial floating facilities
Total number of structures	5,824
Percent with metal drums	32
Commercial floating facilities
Total number of boat spaces	3,588
Percent with metal drums	10
Two of these reservoirs have no commercial or non-commercial floating
facilities with metal drums and three others have no commercial

-------
10
floating facilities with metal drums. The Reservoir Managers at these
nine reservoirs were also asked if they had knowledge of any known
cases where water pollution, fish kills, odor, etc., had been conclu-
sively traced to residue material from metal drums used as floatation
units at their reservoirs, and each gave a negative answer.
9. Let us briefly review some of the advantages and disadvantages
of metal drums and plastic buoyant materials.
a,	Metal drums.
(1)	Low initial cost.
(2)	Filling with acceptable plastic buoyant material
substantially increases cost.
(3)	Applying protective coating to prolong useful life
is limited to materials which would not have an
adverse effect on the water and this measure
further increases the cost.
(4)	Relative short life requires frequent replacement
(unprotected drums-3 to 5 years).
(5)	Floating metal drums or sunken metal drums in
shallow water are serious hazards to boats, skiers,
and swimmers.
(6)	Metal drums used for storing certain toxic chemicals
or other materials are a potential pollution hazard
unless thoroughly emptied and cleaned before using
as floatation units.
b.	Plastic buoyant material.
(1) Higher initial cost than metal drums.

-------
11
(2)	Longer useful life reduces overall cost.
(3)	Under certain conditions, solvents (such as gasoline
and oils) and water animals (beaver, muskrat, and
otter) are detrimental to the regular plastic
buoyancy material. However, material has been
developed which is highly resistant to solvents.
Nest building by water animals in the material is
discouraged by design and/or use of galvanized wire
mesh covering. Sea gulls are discouraged from
pecking out pieces of the material by -painting it
orange. These preventive measures, when required,
do increase the initial cost.
(4)	Less likely to get loose from facility and, if it
does, it is not nearly the hazard to boats, skiers,
and swimmers as metal drums.
10. Colonel R. P. Tabb, Acting Division Engineer, is interested
in eliminating the use of conventional type metal drums as floatation
units for floating facilities at South Atlantic Division reservoirs.
We believe that the Corps' current regulations governing permits for
floating facilities is headed in that direction. We also believe that
owners of existing floating facilities are entitled to a reasonable
time to comply with our recently revised regulations as they pertain
to floatation units. Our current regulations on floatation units
could very well eliminate the use of even metal drums filled with an
acceptable buoyant material within the next 4 to 6 years. Any further
revision of current Corps regulations to completely prohibit the use

-------
12
of metal drums (even those filled with a buoyant material) as floatation
units for floating facilities would requite approval of the Chief of
Engineers.
11. It is generally difficult for the public to understand and
accept the need for any change in regulations that prohibits something
which has regularly been approved for many years. Any program to
completely prohibit the use of metal drums (even those filled with a
buoyant material) as floatation units for floating facilities should
consider the following:
a.	Sound justification to obtain necessary approval of each
reservoir managing agency (public and private) to completely
prohibit metal drums.
b.	Support by all agencies concerned.
c.	Information program to apprise public of the .pros and
cons on metal drums vs. plastic buoyant material as floatation
units.
Resumd of presentation at meeting called by Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration (Atlanta Office) at Airport Holiday Inn,
Atlanta, Georgia, 10:00 A.M., 23 July 1969.

-------
Floatation Unit Data
South Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers
15 July 1969
Item
Scott Allatoona-George	Lanier..Seminole-.Clark-Hill-Har.tvieJ-1—. Kerr.. _ Phil pat-t.. Total-
Water surface area (acres) 1,500 11,900 45,700 38,000 37,500 71,500 56,000 53,200 2,900 318,200
Non-commercial floating facilities
Total number of structures	13 600
Percent with metal drums	0	75
70 2,500
10	30
55
0
564
50
1,692
6
300
75
30
90
5,824
32
Commercial floating facilities
Total number of boat spaces 50 550
Percent with metal drums	0	30
116 2,200
0	0
0
0
198
8
362
0
100
5
12
100
3,588
10
Any known cases where water pollution,
fish kills, odor, etc.. has been
conclusively traced to residue material
from metal drums?	No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

-------
14
WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
by
William R. Nicholas
Assistant Chief, Water Quality Branch
Division of Environmental Research and Development
Tennessee Valley Authority
My remarks this morning, relative to steel drums as floatation
devices, will be restricted to the Tennessee Valley Authority impound-
ments and for the most part I will limit my comments to water quality
conditions encountered in Boone Reservoir,
Boone Reservoir is located in northeast Tennessee in Sullivan and
Washington Counties between the cities of Bristol, Elizabethton,
Kingsport, and Johnson City. It is formed by Boone Dam, located on
the South Fork Holston River at river mile 18.6, 1.4 miles below its
confluence with the Watauga River. Thus, Boone Reservoir has two major
arms. At normal maximum pool level, elevation 1385, backwater extends
17.3 miles on the South Fork Holston River and 15.3 miles on the Watauga
River.
A number of fish kills have been reported in the past from the
Watauga arm of Boone Reservoir, dating as far back as 1955. So far as
we know, no previous kills had occurred on the South Fork Holston arm
of this reservoir. The history of past fish kills includes two kills
in June and July of 1955 reported by TVA's Watauga Steam Plant employees.
The number of fish killed and causes was not stated, but waste discharges
from the Elizabethton area were suspected by the Tennessee Game and
Fish Commission.

-------
15
In May 1961 a fish kill of unknown proportions was reportedly
caused by a bacterial disease of fish, and the cause of a fish kill in
1962 in the Watauga arm was undetermined. Disease was suspected as the
cause of a fish kill in October 1963. Fish kills in May and July 1964
were reported as being caused, most likely, by industrial waste. A
large fish kill occurred in May 1966 involving over 100,000 fish,
primarily shad, with the cause suspected to be parasitic infection.
In July,1968 a massive fish kill occurred in the Watauga arm of
Boone Reservoir destroying 500,000 fish during the period July 9-13
due to toxic compound of mercury that leaked out of a steel drum in
the reservoir. The cause of this 1968 fish kill was extremely difficult
to track down, and it was not until all the more common causes of fish
kills were eliminated that the toxic material and its source were
pinpointed. The particular compound involved was used to control
bacterial slime growths in manufacturing processes and consisted
primarily of two chemicals in solution, phenylmercuric acetate and
2,4,6-trichlorophenol. The former compound is the more toxic to
aquatic life and breaks down in form diphenylmercury.
An estimated 200 drums were floating in the reservoir at this
time. Approximately 230 more steel drums were observed on shore above
the waterline. Seventeen old houseboats and 16 docks with barrel
floats and in various stages of disrepair were located in the vicinity
of the fish kill. Twenty-nine drums were sampled and 28 were found to
contain significant quantities of residual material. Bioassays showed
that the material from seven of the drums was toxic enough to cause
the fish to lose equilibrium, while material from two of the drums was

-------
16
extremely toxic. One of the drums containing extremely toxic material
was labeled "industrial micro-organism control." Bioassays performed
with this material established that diphenylmercury was the toxic
material involved.
This material killed 95 percent of 200 test fish within two hours
at a concentration of one part diphenylmercury per billion parts, by
weight, of water. Chemical determinations showed that this material
was present in the reservoir water at the time of the fish kill in
concentrations far exceeding those levels that were found to be
extremely toxic to test fish.
Following the fish kill, which occurred in Boone Reservoir on.the
South Fork Holston River during the period May 9-13, 1969 (reported on
earlier by John R. Thoman), we initiated, in cooperation with other
agencies, an investigation similar to our 1968 study. Results of the
investigation ruled out the more common causes of a fish kill; and as
was reported earlier, mercury at a concentration of 9 ppb was found in
the water in the kill area. However, we have failed to date to estab-
lish that the mercury was in a form that.would be toxic to fish at
these concentrations. Therefore, at the present time we are unable to
verify, through bioassays and chemical determinations, that mercury
was the cause of the 1969 fish.kill. Our investigation is continuing.

-------
17
TVA PROGRAM ON REMOVAL
OF STEEL DRUMS
by
J . Porter Taylor.
Director, Division of Reservoir Properties
Tennessee Valley Authority
I would like to briefly outline what the Tennessee Valley Authority
is doing in its program to remove steel drums presently in use on its
reservoirs.
It has been estimated that at the present time there are approxi-
mately 200,000 to 300,000 drums currently.in use on TVA reservoirs. We
have experienced a number of problems associated with these steel drums,
particularly a litter problem, and also as hazards to navigation. It
has been our experience that steel drums break loose from their moorings,
scatter throughout our large reservoirs, and are washed up on shore.
Many have deteriorated and sunk, and probably more are on-the bottoms
of our reservoirs than are in use.
As a general policy, the Tennessee Valley Authority had in the
past approved steel drums for use as floatation for boat docks. In
1967 TVA adopted the policy that steel drums could not be used for
floatation on new dock facilities and that by 1972 all drums would be
eliminated. We assumed that during the five-year period drums presently
in use would deteriorate and would need to be replaced by 1972 thus
causing no great hardship on dock owners. We have encountered very
little resistence in carrying out this program.

-------
18
After the 1968 fish kill occurred, consideration was given to a
requirement for immediate removal of all drums in Boone Reservoir.
This would have been a difficult decision to make since TVA had pro-
moted the use of steel drums for floatation from the middle '30's.
We encountered many individuals who were skeptical as to whether
the fish kill actually was caused by chemical drums. Although a great
many of the 20-25 thousand drums in Boone Reservoir were harmless in
terms of their original contents, some undoubtedly did contain chemicals
that could cause fish kills. The problem was to identify and remove
the drums of potential danger.
Since the date of 1972 had been established for removal of all
drums, the decision was made to work through cooperative programs in
an effort to accomplish voluntary removal on Boone Reservoir. Through
newspapers, radio and TV we advised the public of the problems of steel
drums containing chemicals and offered to haul drums to disposal areas
if they were delivered to designated collection points. The program
was successful to a degree in that some 5,000 drums were removed from
the reservoir.
In order to assist in the replacement of drums as floatation
materials, it would be helpful if the states adopted legislation pro-
hibiting use of drums on reservoirs. Such action would substantially
assist regulatory.agencies in dealing with the problem.

-------
19
FLOOR DISCUSSION
Moderator
Howard D. Zeller
MR. HOWARD D. ZELLER: We have scheduled the afternoon session
as a workshop to solicit thoughts and ideas from the audience. To open
the discussion, I would like for representatives of the private power
companies to comment on the use of steel drums in their reservoirs.
First, I'll ask for a statement from Mr. John Farley of the Alabama
Power Company, if he would come forward please.
MR. JOHN G. FARLEY, JR.: We have no prepared statement to
make at this time, but I do have a question. What was the end product
of the steel drums used in Boone Reservoir, and what was the nature of
their use?
MR. WILLIAM R. NICHOLAS: The materials were used primarily
for slime control in textile manufacturing plants.
MR. FARLEY: What is the possibility of this material getting
into the waste stream and ultimately into our waterways?
MR. NICHOLAS: Quite remote. This slimicide is readily
absorbed on organic material and would not likely be a problem.
MR. FARLEY: We are certainly interested in doing all that we
can to call this matter to the attention of the general public. Right
now, friendly persuasion would seem to be the best way to resolve the
problem. I also think that publications pointing out the problem would
help educate the public on the dangers involved.

-------
20
MR. ZELLER: I agree on this approach. Back to the magnitude
of the problem in Alabama impoundments, do you think you could estimate
what percentage of docks and other facilities utilize steel drums in
Alabama Power Company reservoirs?
MR, FARLEY: We have reviewed this problem in our impoundments,
and right now, we do not think it is serious. The current trend seems
to be the use of foam type materials. Actually, we have no legal means
of controlling any structures in our reservoirs, and about all we can do
is count them.
MR. ZELLER: I wonder if we could have a statement from
Mr. Rutledge of the Georgia Power Company.
MR. FRED M. RUTLEDGE: We have no statement to make at this
time; and, actually, we do not consider that we have a problem. We have
no authority over floating structures in Georgia Power Company reser-
voirs, and we do not know how extensively steel drums are used. We have
no instances of fish kills ever having been reported. Since the fish
kill on Boone Reservoir affected primarily shad, and since I know the
State has intentionally killed shad in some of our lakes, I was wonder-
ing why the alarm over the fish kill in Boone Reservoir?
MR. HUDSON M. NICHOLS: Any loss of fish due to water
pollution is serious. In Tennessee, shad are important food fish in
all of our reservoirs, and we may actually be Involved in future
programs of providing more shad for forage.
MR. BARRY 0. FREEMAN: My experience along these same lines
might be worth mentioning at this time. In certain lakes in the delta
area of Mississippi, we have found that fish build up a very high

-------
21
resistence to pesticides without necessarily succumbing to them. They
build up very high levels within their bodies and are not reproducing.
We have been unsuccessful in stocking these lakes and maintaining a
fish population even to the point of finding these fish are not fit for
human consumption. I would like to suggest that in considering pesti-
cide problems the magnitude of the problem is not always necessarily
measured in terms of a big fish kill.
MR. ZELLER: This is most interesting, and I think it illus-
trates that many of our problems with pesticide poisoning are just
beginning to be documented.
MR. NICHOLS: I would like to comment further on the shad
killed in Boone Reservoir. If we could have pinpointed the exact
cause of this fish kill, we would have asked the responsible parties
to contribute $46,000 for the shad killed since they are an important
source of food for game fish in large reservoirs.
MR. RUTLEDGE: What was your basis for reaching this figure?
MR. NICHOLS: The number of fish killed is estimated and
multiplied by the average value, which in the case of shad is two
cents each.
MR. HERBERT H. ROGERS: I have a question for the power
companies who commented earlier. Did I understand correctly that you
have no control over leases on power reservoirs?
MR. FARLEY: In cases where we lease land, we might be able
to make a case. Around all our reservoirs, particularly the older
ones, we own a certain amount of land, which, in many cases, we sub-
divide and lease. In those cases, we can exert control over the type

-------
22
of structure built. However, this is a small percentage. If we could
adequately document what has been said here today, we might be able to
persuade the public to eliminate steel drums as floatation devices.
MR. JOHN A. LITTLE: I have knowledge of a fish kill in a
Missouri reservoir which was traced to steel drums. I believe, in this
case, the drum contained DDT.
MR. ZELLER: Another subject I think we should explore is how
State legislation could help control this problem. Mr. Nicholas pro-
posed this in his comments this morning. I would like to ask Leary
Jones to speak on the need for State legislation in Tennessee.
MR. S. LEARY JONES: Legislation could be passed, but it would
be rough to enforce. An easier way would be for TVA to change their
contract to include a clause covering the use of drums.
MR. J. PORTER TAYLOR: At the present time we operate under
Section 26a.
MR. MILO A. CHURCHILL: I would like to point out that there
is also the land rights clause in TVA which would be pertinent here.
MR. JONES: Isn't that the same law?
MR. TAYLOR: The only place where we have any right to control
pollution is under our land laws. Where we have land rights, we can
enforce them. Most of the land around Boone Reservoir is private. I
would, frankly, hope that we would never have to pursue this matter in
the courts.
MR. JONES: It is possible that Tennessee's Stream Pollution
Control Board could rule to change the final date on the use of drums
from 1972 to July 1, 1970. This would probably be the best approach,

-------
23
it seems to me, since it would be difficult to get any legislation
through at this time. The general public in the Boone Lake area would
probably go along with it.
MR. TAYLOR: I am not sure that a majority of people would.
MR. NICHOLAS: We need reasonable time to effect this change.
Actually, we are responsible for the drums being there in the first
place. If we can accomplish a change-over within four years, we will
be doing good.
MR. NICHOLS: Maybe a fish kill would put some urgency into
the matter.
MR. NICHOLAS: It could and would if we had substantial
evidence that all the drums are potentially dangerous. But this is
not the case. Boone Reservoir provides the only documented evidence.
I still think that public persuasion is the best way to accomplish our
objectives.
MR. JONES: What do you think of the chances of getting a
bill through the legislature?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could this be handled as an amendment?
MR. JONES: We can prohibit barrels under a general order
from the Stream Pollution Control Board. I am concerned about how
many other chemicals that are potential contaminants. How are you
going to clean up the barrels? What is a satisfactory disposal method?
MR. ZELLER: We could add to this problem the extensive use
of countless smaller containers and what effects they might have.

-------
2 it
MR. JONES: Yes, this is true. According to newspaper accounts
in Tennessee, everyone is predicting three more kills in Boone Reservoir
this year.
MR. NICHOLAS: Well, if there aTe 25,000 barrels in use, you
would assume that quite a few would rust through each year.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This general problem has been discussed,
and I recently had an opportunity to bring out some of these points at
a recent pesticides advisory committee meeting. One consideration was
the requirement that the wholesaler be required to place a deposit on
the container and then do something with the empty containers. Another
approach discussed was to require the return of an empty drum before a
full one could be obtained.
MR. FARLEY: It seems we are really talking about two problems.
If we emphasize the pollution aspects involved with the use of drums,
we will persuade people to look more carefully for the type of drum
they use. Actually, since one of the biggest problems is with boating
safety, it seems this would be a logical approach and would give us a
persuasive case against eliminating steel drums as boating hazards in
reservoirs.
MR. ZELLER; I would like to call on the representatives from
the U. S. Coast Guard for their comments at this time.
CMDR. DAVID H. DICKSON: We actually have no problem that I
am aware of in the Eighth Coast Guard District. We are here as interested
bystanders--to learn rather than contribute.

-------
25
CMDR. JOHN C. DOWLING: We are aware that the problem exists.
We have not been actively involved but have watched it being handled,
we think properly, by TVA and the Corps of Engineers. Our position is
essentially the same in that we do not have statutory or regulatory
authority to do anything about the problem, although we would like to
see steel drums eliminated.
MR. ZELLER: Have you received a great number of complaints?
CMDR. DOWLING: Only in the Cumberland River.
MR. ZELLER: Earlier we heard that the cost of steel drums as
a floatation unit was about $3.00 and that styrofoam type floatation
material around $7.00. Cost does not seem to be the major problem in
resolving this issue.
MR. CHARLES MOAK: I would like to comment on Barnett Reservoir
in Jackson, Mississippi, a 33,000-acre impoundment on the Pearl River.
The reservoir, which was filled in 1965 and is operated by a water supply
district, supplies raw water to the City of Jackson. Initially, we had
a problem with drums; however, since the lake has been filled, this has
ceased to be a problem. Our water level fluctuates only about 18 inches
annually, so we can utilize fixed docks. We do not permit open moorings
on the lake, and there is a monthly marina charge of $1.00 per foot of
boats docked. This has resulted in higher class boats. We own the
shoreline and lease the property. People can have boat docks at their
home sites on the lake or they can moor on their own slips, but these
must be either fixed piers or with styrofoam.

-------
26
MR. ZELLER: Since we have another Corps of Engineers division
represented, I would like to ask Mr. Carter if he wishes to comment at
this time.
MR. THOMAS J. CARTER: All of our reservoirs generally use
styrofoam floats. We do have steel drums in use.and we could have a
potential problem in Arkansas.
MR. ZELLER: Will you be following the same four-year program?
MR. CHARLES E. SOLOMON: Yes.
MR. ZELLER: I would like ask Mr. Tebo of FWPCA if he has any
comments on surveillance and monitoring techniques.
MR. L. B. TEBO, JR.: Actually, levels causing fish kills
that have been reported are not high enough to be picked up on monitors
used in our present techniques. I would say that the number of fish
reported killed is probably smaller than the number actually lost since
it is difficult for a complete recovery in any fish kill.
MR. ARCHIE D. HOOPER: This is certainly true. In fish kill
investigations, we always wonder how many fish were missed in our tabu-
lation. It should also be pointed out that any material toxic to fish
is also toxic to fish food organisms. Reproduction and growth may be
affected and fish populations decline over a long period of time. I
think we tend to overlook this factor in some of our chronic pollution
areas where fish populations are being decimated.
MR. PAUL J. TRAINA: The general agreement is that steel
drums do create problems in reservoirs. An inventory of reservoirs
where they exist is needed. It seems to me there should be documenta-
tion of information on where drums are produced, at what plants, the

-------
27
types of chemicals marketed, and where they are located. We must get
at the source of the drums.
MR. RUTLEDGE: Would it be feasible to color code these
drums? Interstate Commerce could require this.
MR. JOHN R. THOMAN: There are possibilities in prohibiting
reuse of these containers. Something will probably have to be done.
This meeting has not been as productive as it might have been. It
seems to me that in this region the problem is mainly a federal
problem and can be taken care of through control of access on reser-
voirs. There may be a need for state laws and possibly federal laws
regarding the reuse of barrels. I would like to point out again that
we stand ready to assist all agencies in investigating any fish kills
or any other problems concerning toxicity of materials.
MR. H. A. METCALF, JR.: Is the authority of TVA and the
Corps of Engineers more assumed than legal?
MR. THOMAN: I think they are legal.
MR. TAYLOR: The Board's adoption of our present policy was
based solely on a navigational hazard. Where we own the land, there
is no question as to our rights to enforce our policy. It will cost
several thousand dollars for dock operators to convert. If there were
a state law, it would strengthen enforcement.
MR. THOMAN: Thank you all for participating in the
discussion. If there are no.additional comments, I will call this
meeting adjourned.

-------
28

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Name
Agency
Location
Hudson M. Nichols
Tenn. Game & Fish Commission
Nashville
S. J. Trombetta
FWPCA
Atlanta
John R. Thoman
FWPCA
Atlanta
Howard D. Zeller
FWPCA
Atlanta
L. Glenn McBay
Ga. Game & Fish Commission
Atlanta
Charles E. Solomon
Corps of Engineers
Atlanta
Herbert H. Rogers
Corps of Engineers
Atlanta
Jack 0. Mooney
Corps of Engineers
Mobile
William T. Donaldson
FWPCA-SEWL
Athens
John A. Little
FWPCA-SEWL
Athens
Alfred S. Chipley
Ala. State Health Department
Montgomery
Jack Hunnicutt
Ala. State Health Department
Montgomery
Frank J. Silva
FWPCA-SEWL
Athens
H. A. Metcalf, Jr.
Georgia Power Company
Atlanta
Fred M. Rutledge
Georgia Power Company
Atlanta
Marshall Gaddis
Ga..Water Quality Control Bd.
Atlanta
John G. Farley, Jr.
Alabama Power Company
Birmingham
J. Porter Taylor
TV A
Knoxville
Paul J. Traina.
FWPCA-SEWL
Athens
Julian J. Raynes
Corps of Engineers
Atlanta
G. E. Dail, Jr.
C&S Fla. Flood Control Dist.
West Palm Beach
William V. Storch
C&S Fla. Flood Control Dist.
West Palm Beach
W. E. Starnes
Fla. Dept. Air & WPC
Tallahassee
Thomas J. Carter
Corps of Engineers
Vicksburg
L. B. Tebo, Jr.
FWPCA-SEWL
Athens
David H. Dickson
U. S. Coast Guard
New Orleans
John C. Dowling
U. S. Coast Guard
St. Louis
William R. Nicholas
TV A
Chattanooga
Joe D. Brown
Miss. Board of Health
Jackson
Barry 0. Freeman
Miss ... Game- & - F±s.h Commiss ion
.Jackson
Clyde Copeland
Pearl R. Valley Water Supply Dist.
Jackson
Charles Moak
Pearl R. Valley Water Supply Dist.
Jackson
Milton F. Parkman
Corps of Engineers
Vicksburg
Archie D. Hooper
Ala. Dept. of Conservation
Montgomery
A, L. McKnight
Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville
Paul J. Schouboe
Fla. Board of Health
Jacksonville
S. Leary Jones
Tenn. Steam Pollution Control Bd.
Nashville
Milo A. Churchill
TVA
Chattanooga
Thomas A. Waters
Corps of Engineers
Savannah

-------