THIRD SESSION
OF
CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF
POLLUTION OF THE INTERSTATE WATERS OF
ESCAMBIA RIVER BASIN AND THE INTRASTATE
PORTIONS OF THE ESCAMBIA BASIN AND BAY
WITHIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA
J
held at
Gulf Breeze, Florida
January 2H-26, 1972
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
-------
THIRD SESSION
OF
CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF
POLLUTION OF THE INTERSTATE WATERS OF
ESCAMBIA RIVER BASIN AND THE INTRASTATE
PORTIONS OF THE ESCAMBIA BASIN AND BAY
WITHIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA
held at
Gulf Breeze, Florida
January 2*4-26, 1972
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
-------
A
CONTENTS
PAGE
Opening Statement - Mr. White————— —- 5
D. Levin 1^
J. L. Crockett, Jr. — — 17
(re surae 3) 17 9
J. E. Ravan — — 17
P. J. Traina————— 19
J. A. Little 20
(resumes) — — 379
B. H. Adams———————— —- 44
Dr. T. W. Duke 125
M. E. Tagatz 151
M, 0. Weaver—— —-— 180
Q. Mauriello 191
J. P. deCastro — — 192
W. E. Linne 221
B. G. Tennant — 254
Dr. R. Livingston — 259
Dr. T. S. Hopkins — ——— 288
(resumes) 295
K. Adams 290
T. L. Carey 337
(resumes) —- 369
R. Duggan 345
-------
B
CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
B. Lane—————— 392 .
Dr. C. B. Wurtz 391*
J. E. Lipe 122
G. J. Kenngott— H92
J. Mandy- 502
C. A. Lowery — 515
L. A. Hunsley — 524
Mrs. J.J. Gulce— 535
J. M. Bolton — 547
D. Lang——————— ——— 565
Dr. P. Trout 579
J. Pay 59^
General Discussion——————— — 599
Conclusions and Recommendations—————— 606
-------
2
The third session of the conference in. the matt'er of
„ pollution of the interstate waters of Escambia River Basin and
the Intrastate portions of the Escambia Basin and Bay within the
State of Florida'convened: at* 9:30- o' clock on-January 2kt 1972, ,
— f •
at-the Holiday Inn, Gulf Breeze, Florida. >
PRESIDING:
John C. White
Director, Enforcement Division-
Region IV
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, Georgia
CONFEREES:
Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
Region IV
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency .
Atlanta, Georgia
Paul J. Tralna
Acting Director, Water Programs Branch
Region IV
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, Georgia
J. L. Crockett, Jr.
Director, Technical Staff
Alabama Water Improvement Commission
Montgomery, Alabama
David Levin
Chairman, Florida Department
of Pollution Control
Tallahassee, Florida
C. Gilbert Mauriello
Director, Division of Operations
Florida Department of Pollution Control
Tallahassee, Florida
-------
3
PARTICIPANTS:
Billy H. Adams, Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Surveillance and Analysis Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, Georgia
Ken Adams, Graduate Student
University of West Florida
Pensacola, Florida
John M. Bolton, Assistant Director
Technical Staff, Alabama Water
Improvement Commission
Montgomery, Alabama
T. L. Carey, Vice President
Air Products and Chemicals
Pensacola, Florida
Jose F. deCastro, Chief
Bureau of Enforcement
Florida Department of Pollution Control
Tallahassee, Florida
Roy Duggan, Environmental Engineer
Air Products and Chemicals
Pensacola, Florida
Dr. Thomas W. Duke, Director
Sabine Island Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf Breeze, Florida
John Fay, Technical Director
Container Corporation of America
Brewton Mill
Brewton, Alabama
Mrs. J. J„ Gulce
United Citizens Against Pollution
Gulf Breeze, Florida
-------
PARTICIPANTS (Continued):
Dr. Thomas S. Hopkins
Associate Professor
Chairman, Biology Department
University of West Florida
Pensacola, Florida
Commander L. A. Hunsley
President, Woodland Lake
Property Owners Improvement Association
Gulf Breeze, Florida
G. J. Kenngott, Manager
Santa Rosa Plant
American Cyanamid Company
Pace, Florida
Bert Lane, General Counsel
Gulf Power Company
Pensacola, Florida
David Lang, General Manager
Brewton, Alabama, Mill
Container Corporation of America
W. E. Linne, Acting Chief
Bureau of Permitting
Department of Pollution Control
Tallahassee, Florida
James E. Lipe, Manager
Environment and Ecology
Monsanto Textiles Company
Pensacola, Florida
John A. Little, Director
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Southeast Water Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, Georgia
Dr. Robert Livingston
Assistant Professor
Department of Biological Science
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida
-------
PARTICIPANTS (Continued):
Charles A. Lowery, President
Bream Fishermen Association
Pensacola, Florida
Joe Mandy
Pensacola, Florida
Marlin E. Tagatz, Fishery Biologist
Sabine Island Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf Breeze, Florida
B. G. Tennant
County Health Department
Pensacola, Florida
Dr. Paul Trout
Environmental Director
Container Corporation of America
Oaks, Pennsylvania
Maury 0. Weaver
Mayor
East Brewton, Alabama
Dr. Charles B. Wurtz
Consulting Biologist
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
-------
4
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
James Abrams
Monsanto Company
7975 LeGrande Drive
Fensacola, Florida
Mike Albertson
PENSACOLA NEWS JOURNAL
101 E. Romana Street
Pensacola, Florida
Mrs. Jo Ann Allen
STAR Route Box 605
Lillian, Alabama
Charles J. Allen
Environmental Specialist
Florida Department of Transportation
Tallahassee, Florida
Sam Armour
County Commissioner
Escambia County, Florida
Box 1111
Pensacola, Florida
Ms. David Aronson
Chairman, N.W. Florida Breathers
Lobby
850 Woodbine Drive
Pensacola, Florida
Sherman Barnes
Commissioner, Escambia County
32 Star Lake
Pensacola, Florida
Mrs. Chas. H. Blanchard
National Council State Garden Clubs, Inc
40001 Menendex Drive
Pensacola, Florida
Mrs. H.A. Boudolf
111 Yacht Club Court
Ft. Walton Beach, Florida
Mrs. Jack Bouffard
206 Dolphin
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Kathy Bouffard
206 Dolphin
Gulf Breeze, Florida
J.D. Brown
400 Colbert Avenue
Warrington, Florida
Wallace J. Bullock
10 Avenue
Fort Walton Beach, Florida
Judith B. Coe
9 N. Sunset
Gulf Breeze, Florida
H.W. Coe, M.D.
9 N. Sunset
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Gary H. Cook
Chemist, Environmental Protection
Agency
Sabine Island
Gulf Breeze, Florida
R.L. Crongeyer
• Box 791
Pensacola, Florida
Robert L. Crongeyer, Jr.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Box 1386
Pensacola, Florida
John Crew
Box 128
DeFuniak Springs, Florida
James J. Davies
7380 Exchange Place
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
R.W. Davis
Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mobile, Alabama
-------
P.J. Doherty
Regional Engineer
Florida Department of Pollution
Control
1384 Shoreline Drive
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Fred Duncan
Regional Planner
Escambia-Santa Rosa Regional
Planning Council
803 N. Palafax
Pensacola, Florida
Joseph Mclnnes Duncan
Assistant Sanitary Engineer
State of Alabama
State Office Building
Montgomery, Alabama
Dr. Joe A. Edmisten
University of West Florida
Pensacola, Florida
Pat Emmanuel
American Cyanamid Company
34 W. Government Street
Pensacola, Florida
Mrs. Robert L. Gade •
Route 1, Box 791
Pensacola, Florida
Jack T. Garrett
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Missouri
J.W. Godwin
Box 787
Pensacola, Florida
Ed Gray
16 Highpoint
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Robert P. Hannah
Biology Department
U. of West Florida
Pensacola, Florida
George L. Harlow
Chief, Enforcement Branch
Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
1421 Peachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
Richard T. Hess
U.S. Coast Guard
Custom House
New Orleans, Louisiana
Charles R. Hinrichs
U.S. Coast Guard
Mobile, Alabama
David Hopkins
Environmental Protection Agency
Box 22268
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
K.K. Huffstutler
Chief, Bureau of Surveillance
Florida Department of Pollution
Control
Tallahassee, Florida
Maurice J. Inkel
Box 160
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Joseph C. Jacobs
Box 1170
Tallahassee, Florida
F.L. Jones
Technical Services
Container Corporation of America
Fernandina Beach, Florida
R.E. Jones
Box 467
Pensacola, Florida
Lonnie Jordan
Information Director
State of Alabama
754 State Office Building
Montgomery, Alabama
M.C. Jordan
130 Mayo Street
East Brewton, Alabama
Vernon E. Keys
Box 210
Jacksonville, Florida
Paul R. Kitzinger
Box 787
Pensacola, Florida
-------
J.C. Kraft
Environmental Administrator
Department of Transportation
Tallahassee, Florida
W.C. Kress
American Cyanamid
Milton, Florida
Ken Larson
WEAR-TV
Box 431, Mobile Highway
Fensacola, Florida
R.C. Lava
Personnel Supt.
American Cyanamid Company
Milton, Florida
George 0. Layman
Box 1151
Pensacola, Florida
/
Barry Lessinger
Mississippi Test Facility
Bay St. Louis, Mississippi
Edward J. Little
Marine Biologist
State of Florida Marine Lab
Box 9037
Pensacola Beach, Florida
Jack 1. Lowe
Deputy Director
Gulf Breeze Lab
Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Woodrow L. Lynn
Naval Air Station, Bldg. 1
Pensacola, Florida
Ernest C. Martin
Regional Environmental Coordinator
Bureau Sport Fisheries & Wildlife
Peachtree-Seventh Building
Atlanta, Georgia
Allan K. McMillan
Box 467
Pensacola, Florida
William Metos
1400 Tallahassee Street
Avalon Beach, Florida
Dwight W. Miller
At torney
Monsanto Company
St. Louis, Missouri
Mrs. E.R. Moffett
Route 7, Box 446
Pensacola, Florida
Al.C. Muccicci
U.S. Coast Guard
Box 1788
Mobile, Alabama
Laura Murray
114 W. La Rua
Pensacola, Florida
Arnold E. Parsons
President
Polyengineering
2480 Government Blvd.
Mobile, Alabama
J. R. Patrick, Jr.
Chemical Engineer
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta, Georgia
Fred Peel
Environmental Specialist
Department of Transportation '
Chipley, Florida
Tony J. Raihl
2355 Scenic Highway
Pensacola, Florida
Clyde Richbourg
330 South Adams Street
Tallahassee, Florida
Deborah Rieck
Graduate Student
University of West Florida
Pensacola, Florida
Mrs. A. Santille
5706 N. Davis Highway
Pensacola, Florida
James H. Sargent
Enforcement Specialist
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street
Atlanta. Georgia
-------
4-C
Michael Dean Schmitt
University of West Florida
Pensacola, Florida
K.N. Sharitz
American Cyanamid Company
Milton, Florida
Dick Shelton
Information Director
Florida Department of Pollution
Control
300 S. Calhoun St.
Tallahassee. Florida
John W. Sindo
1500 Creighton Drive
Pensacola, Florida
David M. Spicer
4901 Kinnear Avenue
Pensacola, Florida
Mike11 Speaks
Box 6504
Mobile, Alabama
D.R. Spell
2144 Melbourne Street
Charleston, South Carolina
William Stafford
U.S. Attorney
Box 1386
Pensacola, Florida
Jerry L. Stegman
Regional Supervisor Division
River Basin S udies
U.S. Bureau Sport Fisheries &
Wildlife
Peachtree-Seventh Building
Atlanta, Georgia
Maynard Stitt
St. Regis Paper Company
Box 1591
Pensacola, Florida
Charles A. Sweatt
Sanitary Engineer.
Environmental Protection Agency
Southeast Water Lab
Athens, Georgia
J. R. Thoman
Engineering-Science
14 Perimeter Center East
Atlanta, Georgia
Michael Toner
MIAMI HERALD
1 Herald Plaza
Miami, Florida
Stirling Turner
Government & Civic Affairs Representative
Monsanto
Box 1507
Pensacola, Florida
J.J. Vick
Supt., Industrial Engineering
Monsanto
Box 1507
Pensacola, Florida
Thomas D. Walker
Agency Coordinator
Coastal Corrdinating Council
Carson building, Room 6«2
Tallahassee, Florida
James W. Warr
Assistant Sanitary Engineer
Alabama Water Improvement Commission
Room 320, State Office Building
Montgomery, Alabama
Gordon Warren. Jr.
District Engineer Mass Transit
Department of Transportation
Chipley. Florida
Kenneth B. Watts
Air Products & Chemicals
Escambia Plant
Pace, Florida
Roger Watts
Attorney, Container Corporation of America
One First National Plaza
Chicago, Illinois
C.H. Wigley, Jr.
Box 1471
Pensacola, Florida
William T. Young
Florida Department of Pollution Control
1384 Highpoint Drive
Gulf Breeze, Florida
-------
5
PROCEEDINGS
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. JOHN C. WHITE
MR. WHITE: The conference is open.
This Third Session of the Conference in the Matter of
Pollution of the Interstate Waters of Escambia River Basin and
the Intrastate Portions of the Escambia Basin and Bay within
the State of Florida is being held under the provisions of
Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended.
Under the provisions of the Act, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to call a con-
ference of this type when requested to do so by the Governor of
a State. On the basis of a written request from the Honorable
Reubin Askew, Governor of Florida, dated October 19, 1971, this
third conference has been called to consider progress In the
abatement of pollution in the Interstate and navigable waters
of the Escambia River Basin and Bay. The first conference was
held January 20 and 21, 1970, in Gulf Breeze, Florida. The
second conference was held February 23 and 24, 1971, in Pensa-
cola.
Ae specified in Section 10 of the Act, the Florida
Department of Pollution Control and the Alabama Water Improvement)
-------
6
Opening Statement - Mr. White
Commission have been notified of this reconvened conferences
Both the State and Federal Governments have respon-
sibilities in dealing with water pollution control problems.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares that the
States have primary rights and responsibilities for taking
action to abate and control pollution.
At the same time, the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency is charged by law with specific
responsibilities in the field of water pollution control in
connection with pollution of interstate and navigable waters.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides that pollution
of interstate or navigable waters which endangers the health
or welfare of any persons shall be subject to abatement. This
applies whether the matter causing or contributing to the pol-
lution is discharged directly into such waters or reaches such
waters after discharge into a tributary.
The purpose of the conference is to bring together
the State water pollution control agencies, representatives of
the Environmental Protection Agency, and other interested
parties to review the existing situation and the progress which
has been made, to lay a basis for future action by all parties
concerned, and to give the State, localities and industries an
opportunity to take any indicated remedial action under the
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. White
7
State and local law.
The Florida Department of Pollution Control will be
represented by Mr. David Levin and his designee, Mr. Gil
Mauriello.
The Alabama Water Improvement Commission will be
represented by Mr. Joe Crockett.
The Federal conferees are Mr. Jack E. Ravan,
Regional Administrator of the EPA's Southeast Region, and Mr.
Paul Traina, who is Acting Director of the Water Programs
Branch, Southeast Region, Environmental Protection Agency«
I am John C. White, Director of the Enforcement
Division. I am from the Atlanta Regional Office and I have
been designated Chairman by Mr. Ruckelshaus.
The parties to this conference are the official
State water pollution control agencies and the EPA. Partici-
pation in the conference will be open to representatives and
invitees of these agencies and such persons as inform me they
wish to present a statement. However, only the representatives
of the Florida Department of Pollution Control and the Alabama
Water Improvement Commission and the EPA constitute the con-
ferees .
At the second conference session, the conferees
unanimously recommended a program of necessary action. The
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. White
8
recommendations of the conferees are as follows:
To reduce or eliminate the accelerated eutrophication
of Escambia Bay and Mulat-Mulatto Bayou, and to provide water
quality suitable for a wide diversity of desirable uses, the
following water quality management and waste abatement program
Is recommended to be accomplished, except as otherwise speci-
fied, by not later than December 31> 1972. The first recom-
mendation:
1. There shall be reductions of 94 percent 5-day
BOD, 94 percent nitrogenous wastes, and 90 percent phosphorus
wastes discharged to the Escambia River and Bay from major souree
In Florida, including American Cyanamld, Escambia Chemical and
the Monsanto Company. Due to the distance from Escambia Bay
of Container Corporation of America's plant site, a reduction
of 90 percent 5-day BOD will be required. These percent
reductions permit the following allowable waste effluents:
Container Corporation: 5-day BOD,4,850 pounds; total
nitrogen,not applicable; total phosphorus,no discharge.
Monsanto: the BOD of 605 pounds, total nitrogen
248, total phosphorus 46,
American Cyanamld: BOD 425 pounds, total nitrogen
323 pounds, and the phosphorus portion is not applicable to
this.
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. White
9
Escambia Chemical Corporation: the BOD will be 17
pounds, total nitrogen ^77 pounds, total phosphorus 35 pounds.
The foregoing allowable waste loads shall be attained
by December 31, 1972. If further investigation shows that thesej
limits are excessive, Monsanto, American Cyanamld, and Escambia
Chemical must develop a plan to completely remove their dis-
charges from the Bay.
There shall be maximum feasible reduction of carbon-
aceous orgianic material. All waste dischargers shall monitor
effluents to ensure reductions and conduct feasibility studies
and submit a plan of abatement for carbonaceous waste to the
conferees by February 15, 1972.
The effects of the expansion of the Container
Corporation mill's pulping capacity on BOD discharged will be
evaluated and reviewed by the conferees at the appropriate
time. In addition, Container Corporation shall provide
secondary treatment to the bleach plant and woodyard waste.
2. The progress of the waste abatement program of
the city of PenBacola has not been satisfactory. The State
of Florida shall take appropriate action in accordance with
State rules and regulations to assure that the Northeast sewage
treatment plant abate its present discharge to Escambia Bay.
The State of Florida will submit to the conferees by August 15,
-------
10
Opening Statement - Mr. White
1971, a satisfactory plan for accomplishing this objective.
Indications are that some negotiations have trans-
pired among the Escambia-Santa Rosa Regional Planning Council,
the County Commissioners of Escambia 'and Santa Rosa Counties,
and the City of Pensacola. However, tangible results are not
evident. The parties shall conclude negotiations at an early
date and formulate a single program for the collection, treat-
ment and disposal of wastewaters into the Escambia River Basin.
A progress report shall be furnished the conferees by April 15,
1971, by the Escambia-Santa Rosa Regional Planning Commission,
3. The conferees recognize the in-plant changes
made by the Monsanto Company to reduce its waste discharges to
the Escambia River. The conferees require that the company
shall attain the recommended allowable waste effluent limit or
install a closed circuit cooling system by December 31, 1972.
The conferees support the State of Florida's action
against Monsanto for the immediate control of the discharge of
toxic polychlorinated blphenyls.
U, The Environmental Protection Agency laboratory
at Gulf Breeze, Florida, shall convene a conference of experts
on menhaden fisheries. This conference shall recommend methods
to limit the migration of Juvenile menhaden to the Upper
Escambia Bay and its related bayous.
-------
Opening Statement - Mr, White
11
The findings of this conference will be reported to
the conferees to form a basis of future action for the control
of fish kills in Escambia Bay and its bayous.
5. Color in the Escambia River at the Alabama-Florida
State line as measured at Highway 4 Bridge near Century,
Florida, shall be reduced to levels meeting Alabama, Florida,
and Federal standards. The Container Corporation of America is
to continue its studies, utilizing present research findings,
on methods for removing color from its waste discharge. The
company shall report its progress to the conferees by February
15, 1972.
6. No further construction dredging shall be per-
mitted in Escambia Bay and Mulatto Bayou until the artificial
buildup of organic sediment deposits ceases and stabilizes.
Maintenance dredging of existing channels shall be by hydraulic
pipeline or by hopper dredge. Disposal of all dredge materials
from hydraulic dredging shall be to upland spoil sites. The
Corps of Engineers is requested to provide the conferees with
a listing of these sites.
7. The Monsanto Company and Gulf Power Company shall
monitor their heated discharges to the river and bay and the
effect of these discharges on the biota and report quarterly
to the conferees the results of their monitoring programs. The
-------
12
Opening Statement - Mr, White
conferees agree to the Gulf Power Company plans for the Instal-
lation of cooling towers for Its planned expansion.
8, Century, Florida, and East Brewton, Alabama,
shall Install by not later than December 31» 1972, secondary
waste treatment facilities acceptable to their respective State
water pollution control agencies.
As noted previously, the conference has been recon-
vened to consider the progress which has been made to abate
the pollution of the Escambia River Basin and to make any
further recommendations or modifications of the previous recom-
mendations that the conferees deem necessary.
Very briefly, I will go Into the procedures for the
conference.
The conferees will be called upon to make statements.
The conferees in addition may call upon participants whom they
have Invited to the conference to make statements. In addition,
we shall call upon all other interested individuals who have
indicated they wish to present statements. At the conclusion
of each statement, the conferees will be given an opportunity
to comment or ask questions,
I would like to stress the point that the parties to
the conference are seated at the head table. In order to carry
on an orderly proceeding, we cannot permit any questions from
-------
13
Opening Statement - Mr. White
the floor and we will have to confine any exchange between the
conferees and the participants.
Everyone will be given an opportunity to present
anything that is relevant to the conferees and I feel sure
that we will have time to hear everyone.
At the end of the statements, we will have a discus-
sion among the conferees and then go into executive session.
Following this session the conferees will announce revised
conclusions and recommendations which have been dictated by the
facts of the situation that will appear today.
Under the Federal law, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency is required at the conclusion
of the conference to prepare a summary which will be sent to
the conferees. Conclusions and recommendations of the conferees
do not have any basis in law until they are adopted by the
l
' Administrator. However, prior to that adoption they will serve
as administrative guides to the conferees,
A record and verbatim transcript is being kept and we
"have a court reporter, Mrs. Rankin, who is taking notes now. We
expect to print a transcript of these proceedings and it
normally takes four to six months to do this. If any of you
need to receive any portion of the record before that time, I
would suggest that you contact Mrs. Rankin and make your
-------
D. Levin
arrangements with her.
I would now like to call on the other conferees for
any opening statement they may have.
Mr. Levin.
DAVID LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
FLORIDA AIR AND WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
MR. LEVIN: Well, first of all, speaking on behalf of
not only the State of Florida's Pollution Control Department but
also the citizens of Escambia and Santa Rosa County, I would
like to welcome to Gulf Breeze and Pensacola the gentlemen who
are seated here at the head table. We are honored by the
presence of Mr. Ravan, who is the head of the EPA for the South-
eastern Region, Mr. White and Mr. Traina also with EPA, and Mr.
Crockett from the State of Alabama, and of course Mr. Mauriello
from our department. It is really helpful to know that we can
rely on people such as this whenever we find ourselves in the
trouble that we have gotten ourselves into.
The only statement I would like to make is I would
like to tell you about a little prayer that I keep on my desk
and I have had it there for several years. And the prayer,
-------
15
D. Levin
which is an Indian prayer, says:
Great Spirit, grant that I not criti-
cize my neighbor until I have walked a mile In
his moccasins.
That is a pretty good thing to keep in mind, I think,
insofar as this conference is concerned. You know, It is real
easy to sit back and criticize. It is an entirely different
thing to be able to come up and say, well, now, I don't think
this is right, but I do think that this is right.
Everybody knows that is over the age of six years
that we do have a problem here and everybody knows what the
problem is. To the people who will represent industries, I
hope you will see the problem insofar as the public is concerned
and insofar as a dying estuary is concerned. To the people who
are the conservationists or ecologlsts or environmentalists,
whatever you want to call yourselves, please keep in mind that
we have got thousands and thousands of Jobs involved in this
thing. So there is not going to be any easy solution.
As I said last Friday, we have got to move cautiously
but quickly and we have got to come up with some answers here
today and balance, if we possibly can, a way to save Escambia
Bay and only as a last resort do anything that is going to take
food off of peoples' tables.
-------
D. Levin
16
Now, John won't aay this because John is too nice,
John White, but I am not nice and I never have been. I have
said this around the State of Florida. We want to hear—at
least I want to hear from people who really have something to
contribute to why we are spending three days here in Pensacola,
but as I have requested in Fort Lauderdale, in Tampa, in
Miami, in Jacksonville, all over the State of Florida, if
somebody else has already said something it really doesn't
accomplish a whole lot to come right behind them and say the
same thing, because what is happening is we are then taking the
time that we could possibly spend elsewhere and really derive
some benefit from it. So if you will keep that in mind, as far.
as I am concerned, I think that would be of most help to those
people that are sitting up here at the head table.
Again I want to welcome not only all these gentlemen
who are here and who are giving of their time to come down here
and help us solve these problems, but to all the members of
their staffs and our staff, and then launch into this thing
with a prayer, quite frankly, that maybe we can come up with
the answers that we need. And I v/ant to welcome all of you
here for helping us try to find these answers.
Thank you very much, John.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, David.
-------
17
J. L. Crockett, Jr.
Mr. Crockett, do you have any statement?
J. L. CROCKETT, JR.
DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL STAFF
ALABAMA WATER IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA
MR. CROCKETT: Only to say that we appreciate the wel-
come by Mr. Levin and to tell you that Alabama is doing and will
continue to do Its part in attempting to solve this problem.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
Mr. Ravan?
JACK E. RAVAN
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
REGION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
MR. RAVAN: Mr. Chairman, David and Mr. Crockett,
ladles and gentlemen.
On behalf of Bill Ruckelshaus, the Administrator for
the Environmental Protection Agency, we are happy and pleased
and concerned at the same time to participate in this reopening
of the Escambia conference. The matters before the conferees
-------
J. E. Ravan
here are extremely serious. I echo the words of Mr, David Levin
that we need to move quickly but with caution, addressing
those issues on all the spectrums of the environment. We are
very much interested in hearing the participants today and
hopefully to arrive at some positive course of action which
will restore this body of water which means so much both to
the State of Alabama and Florida and we as your representatives
of the Federal Government.
It is good to be here today.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Traina?
MR. TRAINA: No, let's proceed.
MR. WHITE: Before we get started, I would like to
make one other statement with respect to the agenda or the
lack of agenda. We get many requests about this, but our
normal procedure is that we make a Federal technical presenta-
tion and call on any other Federal agencies who are interested
in making a statement. We then go next to the States. The
State of Florida will be the first that we will call on today
and their technical staff will make a presentation and, of
course, any person who Indicates that they wish to make a state-
ment, and then down to the Alabama technical staff and any
participants from Alabama.
I think our agenda will be kept short or at least our
-------
P. J. Traina
session will be kept short. We don't have that many speakers
today. I believe we will have time to hear you all out, but as
Mr. Levin says, for the sake of brevity, I would appreciate It
if you would not be repetitious on anything that we have heard
previously.
With that, I will call on Mr. Traina for the Federal
presentation.
PAUL J. TRAINA, ACTING DIRECTOR
WATER PROGRAMS BRANCH, REGION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Mr. White.
To present the Federal report is Mr. John A. Little,'
who is Director of our Division of Surveillance Analysis at our
Water Laboratory in Athens, Georgia.
-------
J. A. Little
20
JOHN A. LITTLE, DIRECTOR
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA
MR. LITTLE: Mr. Chairman, conferees and ladies and
gentlemen.
I am John A. Little, the Director of the Surveillance
and Analysis Division, EPA, Region IV.
The EPA presentation this morning will be in two
parts. You have two reports in front of you, one of which is
entitled, "Water Quality Comparison Study, Escambia River and
Other Northwest Florida Streams." An additional report on the
study of Container Corporation will be presented immediately
after I am finished.
I would point out before I start, and I intend to
read the text material from this report, that it would take a
very close perusal on your part to be able to follow it all.
I hope that you will be able to get the gist of what is in here
and we will be able to study the report in some detail perhaps
at a later time during this week.
At this time I would like to proceed and read the
-------
J. A. Little
text portion of the report.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Little, you will submit the report
for the record in its entirety?
MR. LITTLE: Yes, I would like this report to be
submitted in its entirety for the record and I imagine Mr.
Adams will do so also with his report.
MR. WHITE: Without objection, it will be entered in
the record as if read.
-------
22
WATER QUALITY COMPARISON STUDY
ESCAMBIA RIVER AND OTHER NORTHWEST FLORIDA STREAMS
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Athens, Georgia
January 1972
-------
INTRODUCTION
In October 1971, the Southeast Region of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) received a request for technical assistance
in comparing nutrient concentrations in the Escambia River watershed
with other streams in the northwest Florida area. A meeting was held
in Atlanta between EPA, the Florida Department of Pollution Control
(FDPC), and Alabama Water Improvement Commission (AWIC) personnel to
prepare for the third session of the Escambia River Conference planned
for January, 1972. Because of extensive recent studies in the Conecuh-
Escambia River and Bay it vas decided that very little additional field
work was necessary. A limited survey was planned to produce data for
use in comparing water quality (including nutrient quality) of the
Escambia River with other streams in the Northwest Florida area. Of
particular interest were the relative nitrogen, phosphorus and organic
concentrations. A cooperative study was conducted from November 22 to
December 6, 1971 by FDPC and EPA. Florida personnel collected samples and
performed the analysis for all reported parameters except nitrogen- phos-
phorus and TOC in their Pensacola laboratory. Nutrient analyses vere
completed at the Southeast Water Laboratory in Athens, Georgia.
DESCRIPTION OF AREA
The study area lies between and includes the Perdido and Choctawhachee
River Basins in Northwest Florida (Figure 1). Streams in this area drain
the Florida panhandle and extreme Southern Alabama. Land use in the north-
ern portions of the Escambia, Yellow and Choctawhatehee Basins is primarily
agricultural with timber covered areas predominating in the southern
portion. All streams under consideration except the Conecuh-Escambia
-------
Brtofon
Contolnar
ALABAMA
orIda
OKALOOSA
SANTA • ROSA CO.
ESCAMBIA
HOLMES
mrtr
£»¦ 90
BIO®"
W'
Da Funlok Springs
p*niocola
^ I.3 WASHINGTON CO.
Jr~BAY CO
ChectawftalcM0
OF MEXICO
Panama City
KEY
O Sampling Station
SCALE IN MILES
0 5 10
GULF Of MEXICO
SITE PLAN
MH0
zzsm
U S- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 32!
STATIONS LOCATIONS
NORTHWEST FLORIDA STREAMS
SURVEILLANCE S ANALYSIS DIVISION
I ATHENS GEORGIA
£ro\
C jrl
zo I
m
J —
-------
25
receive relatively small quantities of domestic or industrial wastes
and can be classified as clean streams, particularly in the reaches
covered by this survey. Drainage areas upstream from some of the sampling
stations are:
Sta. No. 3, Escambia River, Florida, Highway 11 4, 3817 sq. mi.
Sta. No. 13, Choctawhatchee River, Florida, Highway $ 20, 4384 sq. mi.
Sta. No. 14, Choctawhatchee River, U. S. Highway 0 90, 3499 sq. mi.
Sta. No. 11, Yellow River, U. S. Highway // 90, 624 sq. mi.
Sta. No. 12, Shoal River, Florida, Highway it 85, 474 sq. mi.
Sta. No. 8, Perdido River, Barrineau Park, 394 sq. mi.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
One grab sample per week at mid water depth was taken for three
consecutive weeks from 14 locations. Streamflows in the area were
unusually low when the first set of samples were collected but increased
progressively on two additional runs as a result of locally heavy rain-
fall. Flow information was provided by the U. S. Geological Survey.
Figure 1 shows the sampling stations and Appendix A lists the tabulated
study data. Appendix B shows average values for data collected by EPA
or its predecessor agencies between 1966 and 1971. These data were
retrieved from STORET—^ and represent part of the water quality record
for these stations. Figures 1 through 9 are graphs of both the recent
and STORET water quality data. Minor variations were observed in com-
paring water quality of these streams. The following arc general obser-
1/ STORET is a computerized system for storage and retrieval of water
quality data.
-------
26
FIGURE 2
FLOW DURING STUDY PERIOD
PLUS AVERAGE FLOW FOR STORET DATA I™ ,„
t/MO
rliw
KET
1,000
STATIONS
FIGURE 3
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND* VARIATIONS
7.0
60
I
40
3.0 -
20 -
Ul
STATIONS
>1/22/71 11/29/7) 12/6/71 AVERAGE 0' STORET DATA
DATE
NOTE « ESCAMBiA RIVER AT CtNTlffiT FLA.
-------
14
12
10
JOB
.06
,04
.02
00
1.4
1.2
1.0
O.B
06
0.4
0.2
0
FIGURE 4
PHOSPHORUS VARIATIONS
27
[?
rs
¦n i
!l ¦'
-1 ¦
i;
'n
t! •-; i l ! .J
r
. . n
fii |r-! ,n| ,nn
n ;!
i ;»
i 11
i •
3* 6 7 B II 12 13 14
.! I. i j j: \[ I: i ¦ •:
.-ii h. JL jLJl -It JL. it
r 1
>r-P
¦ lH'
nr
n
Jl-
I 3** 6 7 8 II 12 13 14 I 3* 6 7 0 II 12 13 14
STATIONS
11/29/71 12/6/71
DATE
!i
n
il li ii,
I 3* 6 7
J_L
n
M
j_i
II 12 13 14
AVERAGE OF STORET DATA
M
m
a
SS B
ksa
S Ju
FIGURE 5
NITROGEN VARIATIONS
KEY
[ ] TOTAL HTOOOCN
O ¦"i
I 3* 6, 7 8 II 12 13 14
q
Qs
D
BS
i
i-i
I 5* 6 7 8 II 12 13 14 I 3* 6 7 S II 12 II 14
STATIONS
11/29/71 12/6/71
DATE
Jl
~
!
I 3* 6 7 6 II 12 13 14
AVERAGE 0* STORET DATA
MOTE « ESCAM8IA flivER AT CCNTuRV FLA.
-------
nr
nn
iudi
n!
,r
fi
n
a
FIGURE 6
COLOR VARIATIONS
: "pin,!;
. I. I i \- \: !' i!
¦•l lUI JLl: ii. II jl
PI
n
Jl
j! " 11 :1
ji i; Jl Ji ii .i> j
S C r B II 12 15 >4 13 6 7 a II 12 13 >4 I 3 € 7 6 II
STATIONS
11/22/71 11/29/71 12/6/71
OATE
FIGURE 7
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON VARIATIONS
28
«
5
S
0
1 s -
rn
it.ii
3
nQ
n
n
fl
n (Inn
nib in
Ji JL ii ii Jl,
n
3 6 7 e II 12 13 14
3 t 7 « II 12 iJ l« I J * 7 • II 12 13 14 I 3* « 7 e II 12 l}
STATIONS
11/79/71 If/6/71 MXRACE Or STORET D*^A
OATE
NOTE * CSCAUfi'A mvniAT CENTURY, rtA
-------
29
TP «r.izo
j ITJB10
i. li
i; ii
i ''
P
JUL
FIGURE 8
TOTAL & DISSOLVED SOLIDS VARIATIONS
w" p>
P
ri
unnni
R
f]
i <
H
p
:
KCT
nivkL nues
Q OIIUufD MUM
oOq
Ha
1 3 6 7 0 (I 12 13
13 6 T 0 II 12 13 14 I 3 6 7 S II 12 13 14 I 3 6 7 0 11 12 13 14
STATIONS
11/29/71 12/4/71 AVERAGf Of S70RCT DATA
DATE
fl
n-Llni
FIGURE 9
SUSPENDED SOLIDS VARIATIONS
n
n
.nO.o.ra
|S
n
fi
J3fL
1 3 4 7 a II 12 13 M
I 34 t 9 II 12 13 M 1 3 < 7 • || it 13 14
STATIONS
11/21/71 lf/6/71
OATE
I J* 4 7 fl M I? 13 M
AVCRACC Of STOACT D*T*
NOTE ~ CSCAM6IA ftivcn ai cc«rrmtTt rt*
-------
3 30
vatIons taken from Figures 1-9.
Five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD^)
1. The BOD^ concentrations varied inversely with flow.
2. At low flow, the BOD^ concentrations on the Escambia River
at Station No. 3 were only slightly higher than in other
study area streams.
3. A maximum 4.8 mg/1 value recorded on 11/22/71 at Station No. 6
on the Escambia was downstream from Monsanto Company's waste
outfall.
4. Host of the BODj concentrations (except the 4.8 value) were
less than or equal to ranges normally found in healthy streams.
5. STORET data are comparable to 1971 results.
Total Phosphorus
1. During the 1971 study, Escambia River phosphorus concentrations were
similar to those of other streams. One higher phosphorus value
at Station 3 on December 6, 1971, could have resulted from upstream
waste discharges, but the high flow on this date tends to preclude
this possibility.
2. The slightly higher values from STORET are probably due to seasonal
variations, in rainfall and streamflow, and/or improved waste treat-
ment practices since 1966.
Total Nitrogen
1. During the 1971 studyi Escambia River nitrogen concentrations were
-------
i\ 31
generally similar to those of other streams. The one low flow
elevated value (0.6 rag/1)' at Station 3 (11/22/71) would appear to
result from upstream waste discharges, although Station A downstream
showed a substantial decrease (0.31 mg/1).
2. Phosphorus comment (2) above applies.
Color
1. Color increased with flow. This is probably caused by discharge
of highly colored water from storage in swamp and marshy areas.
2. Evidence of paper mill waste can be detected at Station No. 3 on
the Escambia at low flows.
3. At higher flows the Conecuh and Choctawhatehee Rivers had more
color than the Escambia.
Total- Organic Carbon (TOC)
1. All TOC values were relatively low (<10 mg/1).
2. Some increase in TOC values downstream from Brewton, Alabama,
and Container Corporation discharges were noted, although on
November 29, 1971, there were much higher concentrations in
other study area streams.
3. TOC values increased with streamflow.
Solids
1. High solids observed on river stations closest to the Gulf are
influenced by salt water intrusion.
2. At low flow, solids were higher on the Escambia than in other
study streams.
-------
5 32
3. Solids concentrations al Station No. 3 on the Escambia and Station
No. 1 on the Conecuh are essentially the same.
4. Solids did not vary appreciably with flow for the range of flows
covered in the 1971 study.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Although the 1971 study was not an exhaustive investigation,
there is strong evidence that quality among all the streams
studies is comparable. Seasonal trends and effects of rainfall
and runoff can be better defined by a long term monitoring
program.
2. At low flow, the results of waste discharges from the Container
Corporation-Brewton, Alabama area are evident in the increased
color and TOC values between Station 1 and 3.
3. STORET data shouscomparable water quality among the streams
selected for study.
A. When concentrations for various water quality constituents studied
are converted to loading (lbs/day), there will be an appreciable
difference among river basins in the study area. Loading is a
function of strearaflow which varies among the study streams.
Differences among the estuarine ecosystems for each river basin
are to be expected — possibly as a result of differing streamflow.
Enforcement actions, however, should be formed on controllable
factors rather than on effect of flow which is largely a natural
phenomenon.
-------
Sta.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Append Ik A
Escambia River Comparltlve Study
Summary of Data
Stress and
Location
Conecuh R.-
Ilvy 041
Big Escambia Cr.
Near mouth
Escambia R. -
Huy. No. 4
Escambia R. -
McDavld Landing
Escambia R. -
Hvy. No. 164
Escambia R.
Hwy. No. 90
Perdldo R. -
Hwy No. 90
Perdldb R. -
Barrlneati Park
Big Coldwater Cr.-
Hvy. No. 191
Blackwatcr S. -
Hwy. No.4
Yellow R. -
Hvy. No. 90
Shoal R» -
Huy. No. 185
Choctawhatchee R.-
Hwy. No. 20
Choctawhatchee R.-
Huy. No. SO
Color
Total
Dissolved
Total
Flow
Temp
DO
bod5
Turb.
COD
PH
Pt-Co
Solids
Solids
Collforn
TKN
NHi-N N0,+N0i-N
Pho3-P
TOC
Dace
cfe
oc
mg/l
2&Z1
JCU
¦B/l
Field
Units
or/1
KPN/100 ml
ok/1
B1R/1
or/1
rir/1
mg/l
(1971)
11/22
13.0
10.1
2.6
16
19.0
7.2
20
191
105
1,600
0.15
0.03
0.15
0.022
3.2
11/29
13.6
9.8
1.6
22
26.6
7.2
50
69
55
920
0.32
0.17
0.29
0.038
2.1
12/6
10.9
10.4
1.1
85
11.4
6.9
120
103
46
>2,400
0.18
0.02
0.13
0.026
8.4
11/22
12.0
9.4
1.9
31
4.0
6.4
50
262
259
0.14
0.04
0.13
0.032
2.5
11/29
13.0
9.0
1.7
11
7.6
6.6
40
30
21
13,000
0.25
0.30
0.17
0.022
2.7
12/6
11.5
12.2
0.8
10
7.6
6.2
60
"25
8
1,600
0.25
0.02
0.09
0.013
5.4
11/22
1,080
13.6
8.2
2.7
42
11.0
6.9
100
180
117
>2,400
0.47
0.03
0.13
0.038
6.1
11/29
1,520
13.8
8.7
2.7
13
22.6
6.8
60
87
36
3,300
0.29
0.01
0.12
0.050
4.7
12/6
6,090
12.0
7.6
0.8
15.2
6.6
100
127
35
>2,400
0.22
0.03
0.17
0.050
9.5
11/22
13.8
8.9
2.0
44
7.0
6.8
70
189
130
540
0.16
0.04
0.15
0.035
4.5
11/29
12.6
9.0
1.9
14
7.6
7.0
40
78
77
3,300
0.18
0.06
0.12
0.040
5.0
12/6
10.5
10.7
0.3
70
15.2
6.8
70
100
43
>2,400
0.18
0.06
0.14
0.028
8.0
11/22
14.8
8.6
2.2
28
11.0
6.9
60
>2,400
0.23
0.03
0.14
0.034
3.5
11/29
13.5
8.7
1.0
14
11.4
6.8
60
70
59
2,300
0.18
0.02
0.12
0.046
5.0
12/6
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
11/22
18.5
6.6
4.6
21
ch'lo-
8.8
50
17,120
17,020
>2,400
0.32
0.06
0.07
0.040
3.1
11/29
16
8.)
3.4
5
rlde
6.8
30
21,548
21,338
4,900
0.19
0.06
0.07
0.065
3.5
12/6
12
9.6
0.6
20
inter
- 6.8
50
2,543
1,458
>2,400
0.22
0.06
0.11
0.020
6.0
ference
11/22
—
—
2.9
25
chlo-
6.8
30
105
87
350
0.04
0.09
3.1
11/29
14.5
7.9
1.7
ride
6.4
40
1,710
1,610
24.000
0.22
0.03
0.13
0.050
3.4
12/6
12.0
9.8
1.2
43
Inter
- 6.2
70
73
42
>2,400
0.28
0.01
0.11
0.010
7.1
11/22
145
13.5
9.4
1.3
34
7.0
6.4
30
47
43
350
0.17
0.03
0.11
0.080
3.3
11/29
496
13.2
8.7
1.9
16
15.2
6.2
40
10
4
13,000
0.26
0.01
0.18
0.070
5.5
12/6
727
13.0
10.2
0.5
22
11.4
5.4
50
38
35
>2,400
0.19
0.02
0.09
0.015
5.8
11/22
257
12.5
10.2
7.1
16
30.0
6.4
50
23 ff
219
350
0.22
0.01
0.32
0.010
1.1
11/29
572
)4.6
9.6
3.4
25
19.0
6.1
30
31
30
1,600
0.74
0.05
0.28
0.040
G.l
12/6
478
14.9
9.7
0.7
J
19.0
6.1
20
32
15
540
0.17
0.03
0.22
0.010
3.2
11/22
96
12.0
10.5
2.1
13
19.0
6.4
30
30
30
79
0.08
0.02
0.08
0.011
2.5
11/29
310
13.8
9.7
1.6
30
30.4
6.0
60
66
49
>2,400
0.38
0.17
0.29
0.045
10.0
12/6
350
13.5
9.7
1.1
23
53.2
6.0
80
45
27
920
0.17
0.01
0.05
0.016
8.5
11/22
258
12.2
10.1
2.0
12
11.0
7.1
30
50
4
0.10
0.04
0.06
0.020
1.3
11/29
497
14.4
9.9
2.9
32
7.6
6.9
40
68
41
>2,400
0.43
0.04
0.08
0.050
6.1
12/6
1,760
11.1
9.7
0.9
40
57.0
6.4
100
52
42
>2,400
0.29
0.01
0.01
0.020
8.7
11/22
334
12.5
10.4
1.9
11
15.0
6.2
20
38
20
170
0.15
0.03
0.11
0.013
1.3
11/29
735
14.3
10.0
1.9
50
7.6
6.2
70
77
36
>2,400
0.19
0.03
0.11
0.058
9.5
12/6
714
13.0
9.6
0.2
7
7.6
5.9
60
29
10
>2,400
0.23
0.06
0.11
0.005
7.1
11/22
2,320
14.5
9.0
2.4
22
19.0
7.2
30
111
65
920
0.25
0.04
0.33
0.030
3.0
11/29
2,620
H. e
8.6
1.9
6
U.4
7.2
30
71
71
>2,400
0.16
0.04
0.30
0.052
1.7
12/6
6,760
—
—
~
0.21
0.02
0.06
0.025
7.1
U/22
1,550
13.0
9.5
2.3
10
19.0
6.8
20
96S
583
540
0.22
0.14
0.32
o.ou
1.7
11/29
2,650
13.3
6.9
1.3
38
19.0
7.0
60
63
51
—
0.16
0.05
0.27
0,0!>2
3.5
12/6
9.350
10.1
9.9
1.1
104
38.0
6.4
120
157
37
to
o
o
0.20
0.02
0.11
0.028
7.1
LO
UO
-------
Appendix B
Escambia River Camparitive Study
Summary of Average STORET Data
Sta.
No.
Stream and
Location
Inclu-
sive
Daces
Flow
cfg
Temp
°C
DO
mn/1
8OD5
idr/1
1.3
Turb.
JCU
COD
mg/1
pH
Field
Color
Pt-Co
Units
Total
Solids
or/I
Dissolved
Solids
or/1
1
Conecuh R.-
Hwy. No. 41
4/24/68-
8/28/70
26.3
7.8
7.0
101
83
2
Big Escambia
Cr.-near mouth
4/24/68-
7/2/71
23.7
7.5
1.3
32
12.0
6.0
51
35
3
Escambia R.-
Hwy. No. 4.
4/24/68-
8/28/70
3,243
25.9
6.3
1.8
25
6.7
114
92
4
Escambia R.-
McDavid
Landing
4/28/68-
6/28/68
24.4
5.9
1.1
6.8
5
Escan&ia R. -
Hwy. No. 184
4/24/68-
8/28/70
4,677
25.5
6.3
1.4
15.1
6.6
6
Escambia R.-
Hwy. No. 90
4/24/68-
6/28/68
25.6
3.7
3.3
7.1
6.990
6,977
7
8
Perdldo R.-
Hwy. No. 90
Perdldo R.-
Barrineau
Park
12/2/66-
1/4/67
4/24/68-
6/28/68
13.5
13.2
9.0
10.0
1.1
1.2
5.6
5.7
9
Big Coldwater
Cr.-Rwy Ho.191
2/18/66-
6/9/66
685
17.5
9.5
0.8
10.8
6.0
10
Blackwater R.-
Hvy.'No. 4
4/4/66-
6/9/66
203
17.3
9.5
1.0
11.3
5.4
36
29
11
Yellow R.-
Hwy. No. 90
4/4/66-
4/18/66
816
17.7
9.0
1.1
9.6
6.7
56
44
12
Shoal R.-
Hwy. No. 185
2/24/66
6/9/66
1,460
19.5
8.7
1.0
10.6
6.0
39
27
13
Choc eawha t chee
R.-Hvy. No. 20
1/22/68-
2/9/68
6,298
10.3
9.2
1.1
7.4
Coliform TKN NHj-N
MPN/100 ml mg/1 me/1
2,775 0.66 0.31
16.252
30,171 0.35 0.14
7,085
12,381 0.30 0.13
2,778 0.63 0.31
3,839 0.89 0.06
2,097
2,325 0.37
957 0.43
1,277 0.70 0.33
2,222 0.70
909 0.23 0.08
TotaL
NO2+NO3-N Phos.-P TOC
mg/1 mg/1 mft/1
0.11 0.042 6.7
8.0
0.09 0.065 9.2
0.12 0.052 8.8
0.15 0.153
\
0.07 0.013
0.026
0.036
0.11 0.046
0.026
0.11 0.026
-------
J. A, Little
35
MR. LITTLE: In October 1971 the Southeast Region
of the Environmental Protection Agency received a request for
technical assistance in comparing nutrient concentrations in
the Escambia River watershed with other streams in the north-
west Florida area. A meeting was held In Atlanta between EPA,
the Florida Department of Pollution Control, and the Alabama
Water Improvement Commission to prepare for the third session
of the Escambia River conference planned for January 1972,
Because of extensive recent studies In the Conecuh-Escambia
River and Escambia Bay It was decided that very little addi-
tional field work would be necessary to meet this request. A
limited survey was planned to produce data for use in comparing
water quality, including nutrient quality, of the Escambia River
with other streams in the Northwest Florida area. Of particu-
lar interest were the relative nitrogen, phosphorus and organic
concentrations. A cooperative study was conducted from Novem-
ber 22 to December 6, 1971, by the Florida Department of Pollu-
tion Control and EPA. Florida personnel collected samples and
performed the analysis for all reported parameters except
nitrogen, phosphorus, and total organic carbon in their Pensa-
cola laboratory. Nutrient analyses were completed at the South-
east Water Laboratory in Athens, Georgia.
-------
J. A, Little
36
Description of the Area:
The study area lies between and includes the Perdido
and Choctawhatchee River Basins in Northwest Florida and there
is a figure that you might refer to there. Streams in this
area drain the Florida panhandle and extreme southern Alabama.
Land use in the northern portions of the Escambia, Yellow, and
Choctawhatchee Basins is primarily agricultural with timber-
covered areas predominating in the southern portion. All
streams under consideration except the Conecuh-Escambia receive
relatively small quantities of domestic or industrial wastes
and can be classified as clean streams, particularly in the
reaches covered by this survey. Drainage areas upstream from
some of the sampling stations are:
And there is a list of six stations here, including
stations on the Escambia River, two on the Choctawhatchee River,
one on the Yellow River, one on the Shoal River, and one on the
Perdido River.
Results:
One grab sample per week at midwater depth was taken
for three consecutive weeks from 14 locations. Streamflows in
.the area were unusually low when the first set of samples was
collected, but Increased progressively on two additional runs
as a result of locally heavy rainfall. Flow information was
-------
J. A. Little
37
provided by the U. S. Geological Survey. Figure 1 shows the
sampling stations and Appendix A lists the tabulated study
data. Appendix B shows the average values for data collected
by EPA or its predecessor agencies between 1966 and 1971. These
data were retrieved from STORET, and STORET is a computerized
system for storage and retrieval of water quality data, and
represent part of the water quality record for these stations.
Figures are presented that you might refer to with both the
recent 1971 study data compared to the data from historical
STORET information.
Minor variations were observed in comparing water
quality of these streams. The following are general observa-
tions taken from the figures in the report. First for the
parameter of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand:
The BOD^ concentrations varied inversely with flow.
At low flow, the BOD^ concentrations on the Escambia River at
Station No. 3, and this station is at Century, Florida, were
only slightly higher than In other study area streams.
A maximum ^.8 mg/1 value recorded on November 22,
1971, at Station No. 6 on the Escambia was downstream from
Monsanto Company's waste outfall.
I might add at this point that this area of the
stream is tldally affected.
-------
18
J. A, Little
Most of the BOD concentrations, except for this
5
4.8 mg/1 value, were less than or equal to ranges normally
found in healthy streams. STORET data are comparable to the
1971 results.
For the parameter of total phosphorus:
During the 1971 study, Escambia River phosphorus con-
centrations were similar to those of other streams. One higher
phosphorus value at Station No. 3» again at Century, Florida,
on December 6, 1971, could have resulted from upstream waste
discharges, but the high flow on this date tends to preclude
this possibility.
The slightly higher values from STORET, which are
shown in the figures, are probably due to seasonal variations
in rainfall and streamflow and/or improved waste treatment
practices since 1966.
For the parameter of total nitrogen:
During the 1971 study, Escambia River nitrogen con-
centrations were generally similar to those of other streams.
The one low flow elevated value of 0.6 mg/1 of total nitrogen
at Station 3 would appear to result from upstream waste dis-
charges, although Station which was some miles downstream
from the Century station on the Escambia River, showed a sub-
stantial decrease in this nitrogen level to 0.31 mg/1.
-------
J, A. Little
On total phosphorus parameter, the general comment
that I Just made about total nitrogen, in that the concentra-
tions were generally similar to those of the other study
streams outside of the Escambia River Basin, applies also.
For the parameter of color:
Color increased with flow. This is probably caused
by discharge of highly colored water from storage in swamp and
marshy areas.
Evidence of paper mill waste can be detected at
Station No. 3, Century, on the Escambia at low flows.
At higher flows the Conecuh and Choctawhatchee Rivers
had more color than the Escambia,
For the parameter of total organic carbon:
All TOC values were relatively low, less than 10 mg/1.
Some increase in TOC values downstream from Brewton,
Alabama, and Container Corporation discharges were noted, al-
though on November 29, 1971, there were much higher concentra-
tions in the other study area streams,
TOC values increased generally with streamflow.
For the parameter of solids:
High solids observed on river stations closest to the
Gulf are Influenced by salt water intrusion, and by reference to
the appropriate figure you can see easily the effect of salt
-------
40
J. A. Little
water on the solids level at these same points.
At low flow, solids were higher on the Escambia than
in other study streams.
Solids concentrations at Station No. 3 on the
Escambia and at Station No. 1, and I might point out that
this was upstream from Brewton and Container Corporation
waste discharges, are essentially the same.
Solids did not vary appreciably with flow for the
range of flows covered in the 1971 study.
The conclusions from this brief study are as follows:
1. Although the 1971 study was not an exhaustive
investigation, there is strong evidence that quality among all
the streams studied is comparable. Seasonal trends and effects
of rainfall and runoff can be better defined by a long-term
monitoring program.
2. At low 'flow, the results of waste discharges from
the Container Corporation-Brewton, Alabama, area are evident in
the Increased color and TOC values between Stations 1 and 3.
3. STORET data show comparable water quality among
the streams selected for study.
Finally, 4. When concentrations for various water
quality constituents studied are converted to loading, for
example pounds per day, there will be an appreciable difference
-------
J. A. Little
among river basins in the study area. Loading is a function
of strearaflow which varies among the study streams. Differ-
ences among the estuarine ecosystems for each river basin are
to be expected, possibly as a result of differing streamflow.
Enforcement actions, however, should be formed on controllable
factors rather than on effect of flow^whlch is largely a
natural phenomenon.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes this particular report.
MR. WHITE: Thank you. Before you proceed, Mr. Little,
I think we need to see if we have any questions by the con-,
ferees.
Mr. Levin?
Mr. Traina?
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Little, from your conclusions is it
fair to say that based on your results that the water quality
changes that you observed, not only on the Escambia but the
other streams, are more from noncontrollable we might term
natural conditions than they are from point source discharges?
MR. LITTLE: With the two exceptions of TOC and color
at Station 3, that is a correct statement.
MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: I would like to ask one question, I am
sure we will get into this a little later, possibly with the
-------
J. A, Little
42
company or with the Florida technical presentation.
But what does the increased BOD below Monsanto's
outfall indicate? Can you translate that into pounds a day?
MR. LITTLE: Well, I can't right offhand. I mentioned!
Mr. Chairman, that this is a tidal area. I would elaborate on
the remarks that I made from the report in that there was no
attempt to relate directly this value to the discharge from
Monsanto, that there is definitely an elevation to be expected
from the salt water area, but in my own personal opinion there
is some elevation in this 4.8 mg/1 value that was reported that
is directly related to Morisanto's discharge.
MR. WHITE: But the tidal exchange keeps you from
giving any accurate estimate from this?
MR. LITTLE: I couldn't get any more exact than the
way we handled it in this particular study.
MR. WHITE: Any other questions?
Proceed.
Mr. Crockett?
MR. CROCKETT: I think Mr, Traina asked the question
that I had in mind, but if you could be a little bit more
specific. Now, of course, you did remark that at Station 3,
which is the first station immediately below the Alabama-
Florida State line, increases in color were observed, as these
-------
J. A. Little
have been noted in previous presentations to the first two
sessions of this conference, and also some slight increase in
total organic carbon, did I understand that?
MR. LITTLE: That is correct.
MR. CROCKETT: Well, now, on the basis of the other
parameters, you report, as I see it, minimal effects on the
Escambia River at Station 3 by Alabama sources of pollution?
MR. LITTLE: I think that is a correct statement,
Mr. Crockett. We didn't look at every parameter we could have,
but we looked at the key ones, I think, of concern to this
particular conference, No. 1 BOD and some of the nutrients of
nitrogen and phosphorus, and for these three parameters we did
not associate anything out of the ordinary at this particular
station that could be attributed to the waste dischargers from
the Alabama side.
MR. CROCKETT: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Any other questions or comments?
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Chairman, I would now like to call
Mr. Billy H. Adams, who is with the EPA, Athens, Georgia.
-------
B, H. Adams
• BILLY H. ADAMS, CHIEF
ENGINEERING SERVICES BRANCH
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA
MR. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen.
I am Billy H. Adams, Chief, Engineering Services
Branch, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, although I do not intend to read the
entire Federal report containing an evaluation of waste treat
ment at Container Corporation of America's paper mill at Brew
ton, I request that the entire report be entered into the
record.
MR. WHITE: It will be entered into the record,
without objection, as if read.
(The above-mentioned report follows:)
-------
CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA
BREWTON MILL
CONECUH-ESCAMBIA RIVER BASIN
STUDY II
Environmental Protection Agency
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
November 1971
-------
46
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY 3
CONCLUSIONS 5
STUDY AREA 7
CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA 7
CONECUH-ESCAMBIA RIVER BASIN 8
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 10
STUDY PROGRAM 11
STUDY FINDINGS 12
GENERAL DISCUSSION 12
CONTAINER CORPORATION'S TREATMENT EVALUATION 13
Comparison of 1970 and 1971 Study Results 13
Physical and Chemical Data 13
Special Studies 17
CONECUH-ESCAMBIA RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY 18
APPENDIX A, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
APPENDIX B, SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX C, DYE STUDY PROCEDURE
APPENDIX D, WATER QUALITY DATA
i
-------
47
LIST OF FIGURES
FOLLOWS
NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.
1 CONTAINER CORPORATION STUDY AREA 20
2 WASTE TREATMENT SCHEMATIC 7
3 WATER USE CLASSIFICATION, CONECUH-ESCAMBIA RIVER. 10
4 AVERAGE BOD5 LOADS ' 14
5 AVERAGE TOC LOADS 14
6 AVERAGE COD LOADS 15
7 AVERAGE SUSPENDED SOLIDS LOADS 16
8 AVERAGE COLOR IN TREATMENT SYSTEM 16
9 DISSOLVED OXYGEN DIURNAL 17
10 DYE CIRCULATION 18
ii
-------
48
LIST OF TABLES
FOLLOWS
NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.
I ALABAMA AND FLORIDA ADOPTED WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA 10
II SAMPLING STATION NUMBER AND LOCATION 11
III WASTE TREAIMENT DATA SUMMARY 13
IV SUMMARY WASTE TREATMENT LOADS (lbs/day) 13
V SUMMARY WATER QUALITY DATA 19
-------
1)9
INTRODUCTION
This report contains an evaluation of waste treatment at Container
Corporation of America's (CCA) Integrated Pulp and Paper Mill located
at Brewton, Alabama. The two-week study, conducted during June-July 1971
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was prompted by 1970
enforcement action. The study was designed to determine the volume of
carbonaceous waste generated by increased production, evaluate treatment
efficiency and qualify any relative changes in water quality in the
Conecuh-Escambia River below CCA's discharge.
This is the third Federal report containing data relative to
carbonaceous waste discharges from Container Corporation's Brewton
mill. The first study was conducted during September-October 1969
in response to a request from the Governor of Florida to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration"'' Southeast Region for technical
assistance in evaluating interstate and intrastate pollution in Escambia
River and Bay. Results of the study were contained in a report entitled
Effect of Pollution on Water Quality, Escambia River and Bay. Florida
and served as Federal evidence of pollution in a January 1970 enforce-
ment conference called to consider the matter of pollution of interstate
and intrastate water in Escambia River and Bay. The report identified
Container Corporation's Brewton Kill is the major point source of
carbonaceous wastes discharged into the Conecuh-Escambia River from
waste sources in Alabama. Conference recommendation included the
removal of 90 percent of the carbonaceous waste generated at the
1/ Now the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Brewton Mill. At a February 1971 reconvened conference, following
a detailed study' (August 1970) of waste loads before and after treatment,
the conferees recommended that CCA's daily discharge be limited to 4,850
pounds of 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5). This progress report
contains the status of survey finding with regard to conference recommen-
dations and compares study results with previous findings.
The cooperation and contribution of Container Corporation's mill
management during the study are gratefully appreciated. Particular
acknowledgements are due to personnel of the mill's Technical Engineering
Section.
-------
3
51
SUMMARY
Container Corporation of America's integrated pulp and paper mill
at Brewton, Alabama has increased average mill production from 900 to
1,050 tons per day. Accompanying this increased production was the
addition of a 22-acre aeration basin housing ten-75 horsepower aerators.
With the addition of the aeration basin, treatment units in operation
at the time of the June 1971 survey included a clarifier, liquid oxygen
applicator, oxidation pond, and ponding in six natural lakes. Time
of travel for the 17.2 million gallons per day (MGD) of unbleached
pulp processing waste routed through this complex of treatment units
was approximately A.8 days. Bleachery waste and woodyard drainage
amounting to some 17.3 MGD receive treatment through the system of
natural lakes only. The success of the pollution abatement program
initiated by CCA is clearly demonstrated by the following comparison
of results from the August 1970 and June 1971 studies:
August 1970
1. Average wastewater volume 32 MGD
June 1971
34.5 MGD
2. Average untreated BOD^ load 44,500 lbs/day
28,200 lbs/day
3. Average BOD^ discharge
to the Conecuh River
8,500 lbs/day or
-- , ^.-'iiation
•ii|U . ¦•a1 -int of
49, jOO
2,220 lbs/day or
a population
equivalent of
13,100
4. Reduction oe through
facilities including the
system of natural lakes
81%
92%
-------
4
52
August 1970
June 1971
Average untreated Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) load
67,500 lbs/day 50,500 lbs/day
6. Average TOC discharge
to the Conecuh River
20,800 lbs/day 15,200 lbs/day
7. Reduction of TOC through
treatment facilities
including natural lakes
69%
70%
8. Average untreated
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) load
Not Determined 205,500 lbs/day
9. Reduction of COD through
treatment facilities,
including natural lakes
Not Determined
80%
10. Average COD discharged
to the Conecuh River
Not Determined 40,100 lbs/day
11. Suspended solids reduction
through treatment facilities,
including system of natural
lakes
81%
92%
12. Average non-filterable
suspended solids discharged
to the Conecuh River
9,800 lbs/day 4,860 lbs/day
13. Average non-filterable
volatile solids discharged
to the Conecuh River
Not Determined 2,730 lbs/day
14. Volatile solids reduction
through treatment facilities,
including system of natural
lakes
Not Determined
92%
15. Average color in discharge
to the Conecuh River
410 Pt-Co units
325 Pt-Co units
16. Range of parameters observed
in Conecuh-Escambia River
below the CCA discharge
(Station Nos. C0-6 & E-9)
D.0.-6.4 to 7.4 mg/1 6.9 to 7.1 mg/1
pH-6.1 to 7.2 6.9 to 7.0
Temp.-23.5 to 27.7 to 27.9
30.0°C
Color-40 to 60 10
-------
53
CONCLUSIONS
1. Additional secondary units placed in operation by Container
Corporation have resulted in BOD5 reductions in excess of the
90 percent reconmended by the conferees at the February 1971
Escambia River-Bay Enforcement Conference.
2. Through the implementation of additional secondary treatment
and improved in-plant controls, Container Corporation has reduced
the discharged effluent to less than half the 4,850 pounds per day
limit established by conference recommendations.
3. Container Corporation has not complied with the conference
recommendation that bleach plant and woodyard wastes be provided
secondary treatment.
4. All waste loadings measured at the Brewton Mill were reduced as
a result of additional pollution abatement.
5. Woodyard wastes are the largest source of non-filterable
suspended and volatile solids discharged to the system of natural
lakes.
6. Seventy percent of the color in the wastes flowing into the
system of natural lakes are the result of bleach plant discharges.
7. Although corrective measures have improved treatment efficiency
and drastically reo.uctci was'& discharges, additional reductions
can be achieved by:
• Providing additional treatment to bleach plant and
woodyard wastes;
• Eliminating short circuiting in the aeration basin and
oxidation pond.
-------
5^
6
8. Although Container Corporation has not directed treatment toward
color reduction, color in the effluent was less intense than that
observed in previous surveys and there was not a noticeable change ,
in color in the Conecuh River above ar.d below the point of CCA's
discharge.
9- Except for naturally occurring low pH values in study area
tributaries (Murder, ?ranklin Kill, Little Escaribia and Big
Escambia Creeks) and elevated BOD- in Big Escambia Creek,
parameters measured indicated that water ir. Conecuh-Escambia River
tributaries were of relatively good quality.
-------
STUDY AREA
CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA
Container Corporation of America's mill at Brewton, Alabama, is
located in the Conecuh-Escambia River dTainage basin (Figure 1). The
integrated Kraft pulp and paper mill processes an average of 1,050 tons
per day of pulp, of which 900 tons per day are from wood chips and the
remainder bought paper for recycling. Approximately half of the pulp
produced is bleached. Expansion plans include increasing wood chip
pulping capacity to 1,050 pounds per day in March 1972.
Waste treatment facilities consist of a clarifier, liquid oxygen
applicator, aeration basin, oxidation pond and Franklin Mill Creek
plus swamp and natural system of 6 lakes. The aeration basin was placed
in operation during October 1970; however, operational difficulty
delayed continuous operation until January 1971. Figure 2 contains a
schematic of waste treatment plus supplimentary information about
each treatment unit.
All wastes do not receive the same degree of treatment. Unbleached
pulp process wastes are routed through the entire treatment system;
however, bleach plant and woodyard wastes are conveyed via Franklin Mill
Creek to the swamp and natural lake system. Mill sanitary wastes are
routed into the clarifier and serve as the only source of nutrients to
the treatment systen. Mill wastes are discharged into the Conecuh
River at a point approximately 2.7 miles above the Alabama-Florida State
line.
Color removal is presently being investigated; however, no additional
-------
r JRE 2
WASTE TREATMENT SCHEMATIC
BREWTON MILL
Franklin Mi!/ Cr
r—I-IO HP Mechoracal
\ Aerotor in Lost Loke
CC-7
Container
Corporation
of America
Swamp
°"°ch * Pianf
mgd
(j. Clarifier
(4,320 Ibs/Doy)
02 Injection
CC-5S
36 4 mgd
Natural Lake System
Aeration
*-22 Acres 10-73 HP
Mectonicol Aerator
Basin
5 Acres
*CC-6
Oxidation Pond
Sludge
Disposal Area
140 Acres 2*40 HP
Brush Aerators
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
ATHENS GEORGIA
Woodyard Wasta a
Filter Plont
Backwash
CONTAINER CORP OF AMERICA
CONECUH - ESCAMBIA RIVER STUDY
JUNE - JULY, 1971
NOTE;
Flo
During Study Ptrlod
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER OUALITY OFFICE
SOUTHEAST REGION ATLANTA .GEORGIA
-------
8
57
treatment improvements are scheduled for any phase of Container's treatment
facility.
CONECUH-ESCAMBIA RIVER BASIK
The Conecuh-Escambia River rises near Union Springs, Alabama, and
terminates its south-southwestward journey in Escambia Bay at Pensacola,
Florida. The total drainage area of the Conecuh-Escambia River Basin is
4,132 square miles. The Conecuh River and its tributaries in Alabama
drain an area of approximately 3,817 square miles.
Streams within the basin flow through wooded areas, are generally
shallow with relatively swift currents, and contain the usual natural
debris found in waters traversing wooded lands. Major tributaries to
the Conecuh-Escambia River in the vicinity of the study area include
Murder, Little Escambia, and Big Escambia Creeks. The Conecuh River
serves as a source of process water for Container Corporation. Other
direct uses of the river and its tributaries, excluding fish and wild-
life uses, are for waste disposal. Murder Creek receives Industrial
wastes from T. R. Miller Company and treated and untreated municipal
wastes from Brewton and East Brewton, respectively. Big Escambia Creek
al9o receives effluent from the waste stabilization pond at Flomaton,
Alabama. Little Escambia Creek traverses the Pollard Oil Field; however,
previous studies have shown the water is of relatively good quality.
Escambia Bay, the recipient of wastes discharged into the Conecuh-
Escambia River Basin, has a continuous record of massive fish kills.
Although many factors which cause water quality degradation in the bay
have been documented, other contributing causes and the triggering
-------
mechanism are still questionable and are undergoing investigation. The
study of waste discharges into receiving waters of the Conecuh-Escambia
drainage system and water quality in these surface waters near the
Alabama-Florida state line are a portion of the ongoing investigations.
-------
10
59
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Since the Conecuh-Escambia River originates in Alabama and termi-
nates in Florida, it is classified as an interstate stream. Study area
tributaries--8ig Escambia and Little Escambia Creeks--are also interstate
streams by the same definition. Murder Creek, the other major tribu-
tary in the Immediate study area, is an intrastate stream since it
originates and terminates in Alabama.
The Conecuh-Escambia River is classified for recreation and/or
fish and wildlife uses. Figure 3 shows the Conecuh-Escambia River use
classifications established by Alabama and Florida. In the Alabama
portion of the study area, the Conecuh River, Big Escambia Creek,
Little Escambia Creek and Murder Creek are classified for fish and
wildlife uses. In the Florida portion of the study area, the Escambia
River, Big Escambia Creek and Little Escambia Creek are classified as
Class III waters, waters suitable for recreation and the propagation
and management of fish and wildlife.
Specific criteria originally adopted by the Alabama Water Improve-
ment Commission has not been accepted by EPA and is presently being
revised. The State of Florida has also been notified by EFA that their
criteria are no longer acceptable and that revisions will be required.
However, the new criteria requirements have not been finalized. Table I
contains specific water quality criteria presently adopted by the two
states which pertain ~o the two use classifications.
-------
FIGURE 3 6(
WATER USE CLASSIFICATION
CONECUH-ESCAMBIA RIVER
-Conecuh River Headwaters
2-3715 (R.M. 164.3)
^•Heod of Gantl Dam Impoundment
-Gantt Dam
Point A Dam
^2-3725 (R.M. 120.9)
—C.C.A. Discharge (R.M. 56.4)
-Alabama - Florida Slate Line
2-3753 (R.M.48 8)
-Escambia Bay
SCALE I = 9.6 Ml.
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
ATHENS GEORGIA
CONTAINER CORP OF AMERICA
CONECUH - ESCAMBIA RIVER STUDY
JUNE-JULY, 1971
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
SOUTHEAST REGION ATLANTA .GEORGIA
-------
61
Table I
Alabama and Florida Adopted Water Quality Criteria
Conecuh-Escambia River Use Classifications
Item
Specification
Alabama
Florida
Temperature
Max. 93°F (10 F Rise)
Dissolved Oxygen
pS
Bacterial
Turbidity
Toxic Suebstances
Taste, odor and color
producing substances
>4.0 mg/1
6.0 to 8.5
Not Specified
Not Specified
<1/10 48 hours TIM
Insufficient to
damage aquatic
life, vegetation,
or intefere with
classified uses.
>4. 0 mg/1
6.0 to 8.5
Monthly Avg. <1,000/100
Daily Value <.2,400/100
<50 JTJ above back-
ground
Free from substances
toxic or harmful to
humane, animals, or
aquatic life
No amount that will injure
fish and aquatic life, impair
marketability palatability or
unreasonably affect the aesthetic
use value
tlo amount sufficient
create a nuisance
-------
Study Program
At the second session of the February 1971 Escambia Bay Enforce-
ment Conference, recommendations required Container Corporation to
reduce its BOD5 by 90 percent and established a maximum effluent waste
load of 4,850 pounds per day. Also included in the recommendation was
an evaluation of increased pulping capacity on BOD5 discharges.
An evaluation of Container Corporation's waste abatement facility
and the relative effect of the waste discharge upon water quality in
the Conecuh-Escambia River was conducted during the weeks of June 20
and 27, 1971. The mill survey was designed to determine the volume of
wastes generated by increased product production and to determine the
effectiveness of the improvement in treatment following the addition of
a 22-acre aeration basin after the August 1970 field study. Eight
influent and effluent sampling sites located at each treatment unit were
sampled to determine treatment effect on BODj, TOC, COD, color, solids,
pH and temperature. Stream samples were collected from 7 sampling
locations within the immediate basin area and analysed for parameters
that would reflect any relative changes in water quality below the
mill discharge. Both in-plant and stream sampling locations are shown
in Table II. Other chemical sampling included sampling of the oxidation
pond for dissolved oxygen fluctations and bleachery waste for polychlori-
nated biphenols (PCB's) content.
Dye tracer studies were conducted to demonstrate time of travel
throughout the entire treatment system. Water quality data was supple-
mented by flow measurements at both in-plant and stream sampling stations.
-------
63
Table II
Sampling Station Number and Location
Brewton Paper Mill and '
Conecuh-Escambia River System
In-Plant Stations
CC-1 Clarifier influent
CC-5 Clarifier effluent
CC-6 Aeration basin discharge
CC-2 Oxidation pond outlet
CC-7 Bleach plant waste at sewer line discharge
CC-8 Woodyard waste prior to dilution with oxidation pond discharge
CC-3 Franklin Mill Creek spillway below junction of all mill wastes
CC-4 Brewton Lake discharge 200 yards upstream from Conecuh River
(RM 56.4)
Conecuh-Escambia River System Stations
CO-5 Conecuh River at Alabama Highway 41 bridge (Edwards Bridge) near
Brewton, Alabama (RM 67.10).
CO-6 Conecuh River at Pollard boat landing located approximately two
miles downstream from the Brewton Lake discharge.
M-ll Murder Creek at Container Corporation's process water intake located
near the mouth of Murder Creek.
LE-7 Little Escambia Creek at U. S. Highway 31 bridge near Pollard, Alabama.
BE-8 Big Escambia Creek at Escambia County road near Century, Florida.
E-9 Escambia River at Florida Highway 4 near Century, Florida (RM 48.80).
FM-10 Franklin Mill Creek at U. S. Highway 31 bridge at Brewton, Alabama.
-------
STUDY FINDINGS
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Climatologic conditions within the Brewton area were seasonal and
almost constant. Average high temperatures were 95.9°Ff 2 degrees above
1/
normal. Precipitation was almost nil within the Brewton area except
for a few scattered showers the latter part of the second week. Flows
in Murder Creek and the Conecuh-Escambia River showed increases the
second week from precipitation north of Brewton.
The Escambia River at Century, Florida has a drainage area of
3,817 square miles and a 37-year average daily discharge of 5,952 cubic
feet per second (cfs) with extremes from 596 cfs to 77,200 cfs. The
seven-day, 10-year low flow is 785 cfs. The U. S. Geological Survey
gaging station at Century, Florida reports the average flow in the
Escambia River at Century for the two-week study period was 2,560 cfs.
Little Escambia, Franklin Mill and MurdeT Creeks were gaged and
referenced with tape downs to establish Tating curves. Big Escambia
Creek was not gaged because of water depth. Existing flumes and weirs
were used for in-plant flow measurements at sampling stations CC-1,
CC-5, CC-6, and CC-7. The discharge at station CC-8 was formulated
from water treatment plant usage records. The flow at Station CC-2
was calibrated and continuously measured with Stevens recorders. The
Brewton Lake discharge (CC-4) was stream gaged and assumed to be constant
because of physical conditions.
1/ U. S. Department of Commerce, Climatological Data, Alabama, June 1971,
Volume '77 No. 6.
-------
13
65
CONTAINER CORPORATION'S TREATMENT EVALUATION
Comparison of 1970 and 1971 Study Results
With the addition of a 22-acre aeration basin, the average BOD5
removal efficiency of the treatment system at the Brewton Mill improved
from 81 percent to 92 percent.—^ Corresponding TOC reductions showed
no significant improvement — 69 percent removal for 1970 compared to 70
percent removal this year. The TOC analyses added to the 1971 study
indicated an overall removal rate of 80 percent. Color in the effluent
was 85 units lower than that observed during the 1970 survey. The
step reduction in these parameters through the treatment system are
summarized in Table III, and Table IV contains a summary of waste treat-
ment loads. All water quality data are presented in Appendix E.
Physical and Chemical Data
During the study period, the volume of waste in the mill effluent
was 34.5 million gallons per day (MGD). Waste flow from the bleach
plant averaged 15.3 HGD and pulp processing waste averaged 17.2 MGD.
The flow from the woodyard operation, including water plant filter
backwash wastes, average approximately 2 MGD. Although not a product
of mill operation, an average flow of approximatley 1.6 MGD in Franklin
Mill Creek flows through the swamp and natural lake system. Figure 2
contains average flows observed throughout the treatment system and
depicts the effects of seepage and evaporation on the treatment system.
1/ All comparisons are between CCA field studies of August 1970 and
June 1971.
-------
Table III
Waste Treatment Data Sunmary
Container Corporation of America-Brewton Mill
(June-July 1971)
Station No. Hater Solids-Non-
& Range Flow Temp. pH Color BODj TOC COD Filterable
Location (MGD) (°C) (FT-CO Units) (mg/1) (me/1) (mg/1) Suspended Volatile
CC-1
Max.
~
45.0
9.7
700
270
400
2,670
684
452
Clarifier
Min.
—
40.5
7.3
125
80
125
547
168
102
influent
Mean
17.2
43.7
8.6
392
131
205
1,070
319
204
CC-5
Max.
44 .0
9.4
600
130
165
507
160
88
Clarifier
Min.
—
39.5
7.1
140
62
60
297
36
29
effluent
Mean
17.2
43.2
8.6
340
98
98
380
88
49
CC-6
Max.
36.0
7.6
200
31
79
233
65
37
Aeration
Min.
—
33.0
6.4
120
17
44
130
8
2
basin
Mean
16.7
35.0
7.2
172
24
60
180
30
17
effluent
CC-2
Max.
16.1
29.5
8.5
200
13
49
148
104
23
Oxidation
Min.
14.0
26.5
5.4
120
8
33
107
10
4
pond
Mean
15.0
28.6
7.5
158
10
40
129
46
10
effluent
CC-7
Max.
45.5
3.8
600
84
220
4 35
54
42
Bleach
Min.
—
41.5
2.9
400
34
75
212
8
2
plant
Mean
15.3
43.5
3.2
500
69
156
369
26
18
effluent
CC-8
Max.
32.0
7.3
400
44
120
526
884
248
Woodyard
Min.
—
26.5
5.7
200
24
32
192
196
72
effluent
Mean
2.0
29.4
6.8
291
37
69
326
578
169
CC-3
Max.
35.0
32.0
6.7
600
45
77
227
68
28
Franklin
Min.
32.9
28.5
6.0
200
24
50
143
16
4
Mill Creek
Mean
34.0
30.6
6.3
299
31
64
198
39
15
@ spillway
C C-4
Max.
28.0
7.5
600
10
57
152
27
14
Bre'Jton
Min.
—
19.5
7.0
200
5
44
60
6
4
Lake
Mean
36.A
24.6
7.2
325
7
50
132
16
9
effluent
-------
Table IV
Summary Waste Treatment Loads (lbs/day)
Container Corporation of America - Brewton Mill
(June-July 1971)
Station No.
&
Location
Solids, Non-Filterable
BOD* TOC* COD* Suspended* Volatile*
CC-1
Clarifier influent
CC-5
Clarifier effluent
18,800 29,400 153,000
14,100 14,100 54,500
CC-6
Aeration basin effluent 3,310 8,360 25,100
CC-2
Oxidation pond effluent 1,310 5,000 16,200
CC-7
Bleach plant effluent 8,750 19,900 47,100
620 1,150 5,440
CC-8
Woodyard effluent
CC-3
Franklin Mill Creek
@ spillway
8,900 18,100 56,100
CC-4
Brewton Lake effluent 2,220 15,200 40,100
45,800 29,300
12,600 7,030
4,180 2,370
5,760
3,320
9,640
11,100
1,250
2,300
2,820
4,250
4,860 2,730
* Denotes mean values.
-------
14
68
Although average production was 150 tons per day higher than la6t
year's 900 tons per day, the average untreated BOD^ load generated
decreased from 44,500 pounds per day to 28,200 pounds per day. Reduction
by in-plant controls,coupled with a treatment reduction of 92 percent,
produced an average effluent BOD^ of 2,220 pounds per day or a discharge
equivalent to that from a human population of 13,100A BOD^ reduc-
tion of 25 and 83 percent were noted in the pulp process waste routed
through the clarifier and aeration basin,respectively. The average
BODj load in the oxidation pond effluent showed a discharge of 1,310
pounds per day, an overall reduction of 93 percent. Average BOD^
reductions throughout the treatment system are shown in figure 4.
The untreated TOC load generated by the mill was down from last
year's 67,500 pounds per day to 50,500 pounds per day. Neither this
reduction nor the addition of the aeration basin noticeably affect the
TOC removal rate. An average TOC load of 15,200 pounds per day was
discharged to the Conecuh River (Figure 5). This represents a 5,600
pound per day decrease from 1970. It should be noted that only the
pulp wastes are conveyed to the aeration basin, whereas the bleach
plant wastes are discharged untreated to the system of natural lakes.
The average daily TOC discharge from the bleach plant is 19,900 pounds.
Results from the 1970 study showed that the TOC in the pulp processing
wastes received an 84 percent reduction in the clarifier and oxidation
pond. With the addition of the aeration basin to this treatment, the
TOC reduction was 83 percent.
Brewton Mill BOD/TOC regression analyses expressed as percent
1/ One population equivalent = 0.17 pounds per capita per day.
-------
. "SURE 4
AVERAGE BODs LOADS
BREWTON MILL TREATMENT SYSTEM
20,600
-8,900
6,490
2,220
8,750
Container
Corporation
of America
Swomp
C arifier
\
02 Injection
Natural Lake System
32,200
-18,800
Aeration
Basin
14,100
Sludqc
Disposal Area
Oxidation Pond
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
ATHENS GEORGIA
8,370
1,310
Woodyard Waste S
Filler Plant
Backwash
CONTAINER CORP OF AMERICA
CONECUH - ESCAMBIA RIVER STUOY
JUNE-JULY, 1971
SCALE: I Sq. In. :20,0004/Day KEY CD June-July, 1971
Aug, 1970
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER OUALITY OFFICE
SOUTHEAST REGION ATLANTA .CEORGIA
CTN
tO
-------
r JRE 5
AVERAGE T.O.C. LOADS
BREWTON MILL TREATMENT SYSTEM
19,900
51,000
29,400
24,300
8,100
Container
Corporation
of America
Swamp
Clorifier
Oi injection
Natural Lake System
Aeration
Basin
14,100
8,400
*CC-6
Oxidation Pond
Sludge
Disposal Areo
CC-8
7,900
5,000
Woodyard Waste a
Filter Plant
Backwash
KEY CD June-July, 1971
¦ Aug, 1970
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
ATHENS GEORGIA
CONTAINER CORP OF AMERICA
CONECUH - ESCAMBIA RIVER STUDY
JUNE - JULY, t97l
SCALE: I Sq In = 20,000*/Ooy
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER OUALITY OFFICE
SOUTHEAST REGION ATLANTA .GEORGIA
-------
15
71
BOD removed showed approximately a 1 to 1 removal rate for TOC as a
function of BOD between the 25 percent to 75 percent removal range.
These were computed from the August 1970 data. Above 75 percent
removal, the inherent differences in TOC and BOD are very relevant and
no relationship is seemingly available. For example, at Brewton Lake
discharge, after approximately 5 days retention, the BOD/TOC regression
line shows a constant slope which indicates no change in TOC for
varying BOD concentrations. This same relationship was apparent with
the addition of the aeration basin.
Although the 1970 study did not include a COD analysis, samples
collected during the 1971 study showed that the daily waste generated
contained 205,500 pounds of COD. The daily effluent from pulp processing,
bleach plant and woodyard contained 153,000, 47,100, and 5,440 pounds
of COE^ respectively. The overall COD reduction through the treatment
system was 80 percent. The COD reduction through the aeration basin and
oxidation pond were 84 percent and 89 percent^ respectively. The system
of natural lakes removes about 29 percent of the COD in the influent;
however, the daily discharge into the Conecuh River still contains
40,100 pounds. Figure 6 shows the average COD reduction throughout
the treatment system.
The non-filterable suspended solids removal at the Brewton Mill
was 93 percent. The average daily discharge to the Conecuh River
contained 4,860 pounds of suspended solids, a 10,270 pound per day
reduction over the 1970 load. The raw pulp process wastes at the clar-
ifier inlet are the largest source of suspended solids at 45,800 pounds
per day. The suspended solids load in the effluent from the clarifier
was 12,600 pound per day, a removal of 72 percent. Treatment through
the aeration basin and oxidation pond results in a overall reduction
-------
URE 6
AVERAGE COD LOADS
BREWTON MILL TREATMENT SYSTEM
47,100
56,100
CC-7
Swomp
CC-3
Clarifier
.CC-4
Oz Injection
.Q
Natural Lake System
CC-5
CO
lO
153,000
54,500
Basin
25,100
*CC-6
Oxidation Pond
CC-8
16,200
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
ATHENS
5,440
GEORGIA
CONTAINER CORP OF AMERICA
CONECUH - ESCAMBIA RIVER STUDY
JUNE - JULY, 1971
SCALE l" OIA. = 100,000 */ Doy
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER OUALITY OFFICE
ATLANTA .GEORGIA
SOUTHEAST REGION
CC-2
Sludge
Disposal Area
40,100
Woodyard Waste 8
Filter Plonl
Backwash
Container
Corporation
of America
-------
16
73
of 88 percent. The oxidation pond effluent contained a suspended
solids load of 5,760 pounds per day. The daily oxidation pond effl-
uent contains 1,580 pounds more of suspended solids than the aeration
basin effluent. Plankton-algal growth and a seasonal increase in
insect larvae and insects probably account for this increased load.
The 9,640 pounds per day of suspended solids from the woodyard and
filter plant backwash are the largest single source of solids discharged
to the system of natural lakes. Prior removal of these solids would
appreciably reduce the suspended solids load discharged to the Conecuh
River. Bleach plant waste contained only 3,320 pound of suspended
solids. Figure 7 illustrates the average suspended solids load' for
each sampling site in the treatment process.
The mill discharge to the Conecuh River contains 2,730 pounds per
day of non-filterable volatile solids. This load represents a 92
percent reduction in the total volatile solids produced from the three
waste sources. The daily discharge from pulp processing, bleach
plant and woodyard operation contained 29,300, 2,300 and 2,830 pounds
of volitable solids, respectively. Average volatile solids in the
pulp processing waste was reduced to 1,250 pound per day, a 96 percent
reduction, by treatment through the man-made system. Average volatile
solids loads for each sampling site are contained in Table 111.
There is no direct method for removing color employed at the Brewton
Mill. Figure 8 illustrates the color concentrations at each in-plant
sampling station. There was a slight increase in color as the wastes
flowed through the system of natural lakes. At the Franklin Mill Creek
sampling site (CC-3), where all wastes have mixed, the color was 299
units, of which 70 percent was from the untreated bleach plant wastes.
The average color concentration in the discharge to the Conecuh River
-------
( JRE 7
AVERAGE SUSPENDED SOLIDS LOADS
BREWTON MILL TREATMENT SYSTEM
11,060
15,760
CC-7
Container
Corporation
of America
Swamp
CC-3
Clarifier
,CC-4
Oz Injection
CC-
Notural Lake System
ICC-5
3,320
4,860
Aeration
Basin
4,180
~CC-6
7,130
Sludge
Disposal Areo
Oxidation Pond
CC-2
yu
CC-8
5,760
SCALE I Sq In.: 20,000»/Day
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
6E0RGIA
ATHENS
Woodyard Waste 8
Filler Plant
Backwash
CONTAINER CORP OF AMERICA
CONECUH - ESCAMBIA RIVER STUDY
JUNE-JULY, 1971
9,610
9,610
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER OUALITY OFFICE
SOUTHEAST REGION
ATLANTA ,GEORGIA
-------
r JRE 8
AVERAGE COLOR IN TREATMENT SYSTEM
BREWTON MILL
500
299
CC-7
Container
Corporation
of America
B'each Plon, Wnt,„
Clarifier
JCC-4
CC-3
Oi Injection
.O
Natural LaKe Syitem
CC-5
392
325
Aeration
Basin
172
CC-6
341
Oxidation Pond
CC-2
rb
CC-8
291
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
GEORGIA
158
ATHENS
Woodyard Waste 8
Filler Plant
Backwosh
CONTAINER CORP OF AMERICA
CONECUH-ESCAMBIA RIVER STUDY
JUNE- JULY, 1971
SCALE l" = 350 Pt. Co. Unils
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
water quality office
SOUTHEAST REGION
ATLANTA .GEORGIA
-------
was 325 units.
Samples collected from the bleach plant at Brewton Lake were
analyzed for polychlorinated biphenols (PCB's); however, PCB's were
not detected in the effluent.
Special Studies
A diurnal study to show dissolved oxygen fluctuations in the 140-
acre oxidation pond was performed June 23 and 24. Figure 9 exhibits
the extremely high dissolved oxygen concentrations in the shallow
pond. A large plankton-algal population existed which produced dis-
solved oxygen concentrations in the pond effluent near or above the
saturation point at all times. Dissolved oxygen in surface samples
varied from 2.8 to 18.0 mg/1, while dissolved oxygen in bottom samples
ranged from 3.0 to 12.0 mg/1.
Dye studies were used to demonstrate the retention time of pulp
process wastes in the aeration basin and oxidation pond and the time
of travel of wastes through the swamp and natural system of lakes. Time
of travel studies of the flow of bleach plant wastes to the junction of
other wastes were also made.
Dye study procedures are included in Appendix B. The dye studies
showed approximate travel times of:
• 26 minutes from the oxygen application nozzle to the aeration
basin inlet;
• 6 hours 34 minutes from the aeration basin inlet to outlet;
• 48 hours from oxidation pond inlet to outlet;
• 58 1/2 hours from the bleach plant sewer discharge (cc.7) to
the Conecuh River; and
• 4 3/5 days' from the clarifier outlet to the Conecuh River.
-------
FIGURE 9
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DIURNAL
BREWTON MILL OXIDATION POND
Brush Aerators
Flow
20
0600
6/24/71
1900
6/23/71
2400
0600
6/24/71
1900
6/23/71
2400
1500
1900
20
20
10
0600
6/24/71
1900
1900
6/23/71
0600
6/24/71
1300
1900
6/23/71
20
1900
2400
0600
6/24/71
1900
6/23/71
KEY
' Surface
Bottom
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
ATHENS GEORGIA
CONTAINER CORR OF AMERICA
CONECUH - ESCAMBIA RIVER STUDY
JUNE-JULY, 1971
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
SOUTHEAST REGION ATLANTA .GEORGIA
-------
18
78
The travel times indicated for dye passage in the aeration basin
and oxidation pond were measured from the time of injection until the
first dye trace was detected. The remaining travel times were computed
from dye peak to dye peak after an instantaneous dye dump. The 4.6
days travel time from the clarifier outlet to the Conecuh River includes
an estimated 2-hour travel time from the oxidation pond outlet to the
Franklin Mill Creek spillway, station CC-3. This estimate was based on
several stream velocity measurements and related travel time studies.
Figure 10 shows the visually observed movement of dye through the
aeration basin and the apparent short circuiting. However, there is
still enough retention time in the aeration basin to remove-77 percent,
54 percent and 41 percent of the incoming BOD, COD and TOC, respectively.
Improvement of these reduction rates is a function of time which depends
on increasing the aeration basin's retention time. Two possible
remedies are a simple baffle system and re-alignment of the aerators
using a better rotation scheme to improve mixing.
The travel time through the system of natural lakes to the
Conecuh River was 53 hours. The 4.9 mile, 6-lake system is severly
channeled. The 6 lakes ranging in size from 1.9 acres to 18.6 acres
cover an area of 44.6 acres and have a total volume of 129.4 million
gallons.
CONECUH-ESCAMBIA RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY
The water quality parameters analysed on water samples collected
from the Conecuh-Escambia River did not show a standard violation.
Although flow in the Escambia River at Century was less than half the
-------
JRE 10
DYE CIRCULATION
BREWTON MILL AERATION BASIN
Inlet
By Post Orgin
Surface Aerators
) 1
/
-Outlet to Oudotion Pond
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
ATHENS GEORGIA
CONTAINER CORP OF AMERICA
CONECUH - ESCAMBIA RIVER STUDY
JUNE - JULY, 1971
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER OUALITY OFFICE
SOUTHEAST REGION ATLANTA .GEORGIA
-------
19 80
37 year average, there was no appreciable difference in dissolved
oxygen, temperature, pH and color at river sampling stations above
and below the Brewton Mill discharge. The minimum dissolved oxygen
observed in the river was 6.8 mg/1 at both Pollard landing and Florida
Highway 4 bridge near Century. The minimum dissolved oxygen at
Edwards Bridge, assumed to exemplify background conditions, was 7.1
mg/1. The temperature in the river varied from 25° to 30° Centigrade
and the pH ranged from 6.5 to 7.2. Color held steady at 10 units at
all river sampling stations. There was a noticeable increase in BOD^
in the Escambia River near Century; however, elevated BOD5S were also
noted in Big Escambia Creek which affects the BOD^ at Century. Average
BOD5 in the Escambia River at Century was 1.9 mg/1 while BOD^s in the
Conecuh River above and below CCA's discharge were 0.8 and 1.0 mg/1,
respectively. Total organic carbon, COD, suspended solids and volatile
solids ranged from 2 to 10 mg/1, 4.0 to 22.4 mg/1, 2 to 36 mg/1, and
zero to 8 mg/1, respectively.
Except for low pH values observed in all tributaries sampled and
the elevated BOD^ in Big Escambia Creek, parameters measured indicate
relatively good water quality in the Conecuh-Escambia River tributaries
(Table V). The pH in Big Escambia, Little Escambia and Murder Creeks
were lower than the limit specified in adopted criteria. Minimum pH
values of 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 were observed in Murder, Little
Escambia, Franklin Mill and Big Escambia Creeks,respectively. Previous
survey sampling of these tributaries above any known point source
discharges have also revealed low pH values, and these low values are
assumed to be normal for stream in this general area. Although Murder
-------
Table V
Water Qu.iLi.ty Data Summary
Conecuh-Escambia River System
(June-July 1971)
Solids Non-Filterable
Station No.
& Location
Ran Re
Uater
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
PH
Color
(PT-Counts)
bdd5
(mn/1)
COD
(mR/1)
TOC
(mR/1)
Suspended
(mR/1)
Volatile
(mR/1)
CO-5
Max.
28
7.4
7.2
10
1.1
22.4
5
21
8
Conecuh River
Min.
26
7.1
6.7
10
0.5
4.0
2
2
0
at Ala. Hwy 41
Mean
27
7.2
6.9
10
0.8
12.2
4
8
3
near Brewton
CO-6
Max.
30
7.4
7.2
10
1.3
18.3
10
26
8
Conecuh River
Min.
25
6.8
6.5
10
0.7
6.2
4
2
0
at Pollard
Mean
28
6.9
7.0
10
1.0
13.9
6
11
2
boat landing
M-ll
Murder Creek
Max.
26
8.4
7.1
15
1.3
23.2
9
14
4
at CCA's
Min.
23
7.3
5.3
10
0.3
5.7
3
1
0
water Intake
Mean
25
7.7
6.7
11
0.8
13.7
6
7
2
LE-7
Max.
25
8.6
7.0
20
1.1
15.4
6
14
8
Little
Min.
22
8.1
5.4
10
0.4
6.6
2
2
0
Escambia Creek
Mean
24
8.4
6.3
12
0.7
13.0
5
6
2
at U. S. Hwy 31
near Pollard
BE-8
Max.
26
7.5
7.0
10
3.0
19.1
11
12
6
Big Escambia
Min.
24
6.6
5.6
10
0.3
6.7
3
1
0
Creek at
Mean
25
7.0
6.3
10
1.6
12.2
5
6
2
County road
near Century,Fla
E-9
Max.
28
7.3
7.2
10
4.0
21.6
8
36
5
Escambia River
Min.
26
6.8
6.5
10
0.6
9.6
5
4
1
at Fla.
Mean
28
7.1
6.9
10
1.9
15.7
6
14
3
Huy 4 near
Century
FM-10
Max.
28
8.5
7.3
10
1.3
16.4
6
27
9
Franklin Mill
Min.
21
7.4
5.5
10
0.3
4.1
3
1
0 co
Creek at U.S.
Mean
23
8.0
6.3
10
0.8
10.5
4
8
3
Hwy. 31 near
Brewton
-------
20
82
Creek receives both treated and untreated wastes, BOD^ concent-
rations were similar to those observed in Little Escambia Creek,
which does not have any known point sources of organic waste discharges.
The average BOD^ in Murder Creek was 0.8 mg/1 and the BOD^ ranged
from 1.3 to 0.3 mg/1. Average BOD^ in Big Escambia Creek, which
receives effluent from the waste stabilization pond at Flomaton,
was 1.6 mg/1 with ranges from 3.0 to 0.3 mg/1. Table V contains
a summary of water quality data from the Conecuh-Escambia River
system and Appendix E contains a list of all data.
-------
STUCK AREA
I
%
Jk/
.V / (J llMl »«•«•
V
\ !?
,r, { (', ^
izr- ¦¦. -^
^ \TL
//
A- ?
t ^
: STA _y7-
~-Ffe
SCiU IN IflLCS
SOUTHEAST «a1EB HBOMTOtTT
I ITWD CCORCU I
chv»omi«mtm. peorccrcH *ccncy
•»H» «Mur> tnq
-------
APPENDIX A
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The cooperation and resources extended by Container Corporation
to EPA are a fine example of productive government-industry relations.
Thanks is expressed to their quick responding electrical crews for
immediate hookup and disconnection of our mobile lab; the ever watchful
eye of CCA's security force; Technical Section personnel who worked
with EPA people seven days a week: John Fay, Technical Superintendent;
William Brantley, Project Engineer; Rudy Yuhasz, Shift Supervisor;
Larry Croft, Technician; Hilton Howard, Technician; the remaining
members of the section, and mill management for their effort in produc-
ing a very successful field study.
EPA Field Personnel were;
Dennis Cafaro - Sanitary Engineer
Steve Hall - Sanitary Engineer
Pat Lawless - Chemist
Ray Wilkerson - Hydraulic Technician
Chuck Holland - Co-op Student
-------
85
APPENDIX B
SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Samples were collected for 10 days from 8 in-plant sampling sites
and 7 stream sampling locations. Container Corporation personnel
assisted in sample collection and all samples were split with the company.
Twenty-four hour composite samples were collected at one hour
intervals at all in-plant sampling stations. Parameters analyzed included
temperature, pH, color, and BOD^. Samples to be analyzed for filterable
and non-filterable solids, PCB's, COD, and TOC were preserved, if neces-
sary, and returned to the Southeast Water Laboratory at Athens, Georgia'
for analysis.
All stream samples were collected by the grab sample method once
per day, except during the first week when samples from sampling stations
E-9 and CO-7 were sampled twice daily. Stream samples were routinely
analysed for DO, pH,temperature, color, BOD^, COD, TOC and filterable
an
-------
86
• Dissolved Oxygen — modified Winkler with full-bottle tech-
nique — "FWPCA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," November 1969.
• Total Organic Carbon (TOC) — single channel instrument, DOW
Beckman Carbonaceous Analyzer," FWPCA Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes," November 1969.
• Five-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) — "FWPCA Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," November 1969. (Using
only Conecuh River water at Station CO-5 for dilution of in-plant
samples.)
• Chemical Oxygen Demand(COD) — Dichromate Reflux — 0.25 N; ¦
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
12th Edition.
• COD — Dichromate Reflux — 0.025 N, "FWPCA Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes," November 1969.
• Color — Platinum-Cobalt visual, "FWPCA Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes," November 1969.
• Solids— Total suspended solids (non-filterable residue), "FWPCA
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," November 1969,
Total volatile suspended solids (filterable residue), "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," 12th Edition.
• Polychlorinated Biphenyl's (PCB) — Gas chromatography using
the electron capture detect.
Preservation methods for samples sent back to Southeast Water Laboratory:
PCB - None
Solids - None
TOC - 1 ml of 10% H2SO4 per 100 ml of sample
COD - Same as TOC.
-------
APPENDIX C
DYE STUDY PROCEDURES
Dye studies were performed June 19-23. Duponc Rhodamine W. T.
20 dye was used for all Injections and concentrations were measured
by an American Instrument Company Fluorometer. Some samples were
collected manually, but the bulk of collection was with Serco automatic
samplers — collecting at 1-hour intervals.
Three in-plant areas were investigated for time of travel:
1. Minimum retention times in the aeration basin and oxidation
pond — 14 gallons of dye were dumped prior to the oxygen
injection nozzle at the clarifier outlet. Visual inspection
of the dye was first made at the aeration basin inlet pipe.
The dye was then visually followed as long as possible
through the aeration basin. Samples were collected at the
aeration basin and oxidation pond outlets using Serco samplers.
2. Bleach plant waste travel from the sewer line discharge
(CC-7) to the spillway (CC-3) — 1 gallon of dye was dumped
and sample collection was made with a Serco sampler.
3. Time of travel from the spillway to Brewton Lake discharge
(CC-4) — three dye dumps were made: 3 gallons at the
spillway; 2 gallons at the inlet to Jackson Lake; and 2 gallons
at bridge above Merritt Lake. Samples were collected with
Serco samplers.
-------
AFFENDIX D
-------
Appendix D
Mater Quality Data
Contained Corporation and Conecuh-Escambia River Basin
(June-July 1971)
Color
Temp.*
BOD
COD
TOC
TSS
TVSS
Flow
Station
Date
PH
Pt.Co.
°C
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
cfs
CC-1
6/20-21
9.5
125
43
104
695
145
168
102
26.7
CC-1
6/21-22
8.3
200
44.5
119
726
190
344
156
26.7
CC-1
6/22-23
9.7
200
44.5
140
658
165
172
108
26.7
CC-1
6/23-24
7.8
240
43.5
107
547
125
232
192
26.7
CC-1
6/24-25
9.4
700
40.5
270
2,671
400
684
298
26.7
CC-1
6/27-28
8.5
600
43
80
1,616
260
316
252
26.7
CC-1
6/28-29
7.3
500
44
103
929
150
176
156
26.7
CC-1
6/29-30
—
400
45
101
675
175
248
212
26.7
CC-1
6/30-7/1
8.0
450
45
125
719
165
240
108
26.7
CC-1
7/1-2
9.1
500
44
162
1,421
275
612
452
26.7
Max.
9.7
700
45
270
2,671
400
684
452
26.7
Min.
7.3
125
40.5
80
547
125
168
102
26.7
Mean
8.6
392
43.7
131
1,066
205
319
204
26.7
CC-2
6/20-21
7.5
120
29.5
11
148
37
60
23
21.7
CC-2
6/21-22
7.9
120
29
11
130
38
25
8
21.7
CC-2
6/22-23
7.8
120
26.5
10
130
37
29
14
21.7
CC-2
6/23-24
8.3
120
28.5
8
125
43
20
10
21.7
CC-2
6/24-25
8.5
200
29.5
13
107
33
10
6
21.7
CC-2
6/27-28
7.4
150
29
10
122
34
18
14
25.0
CC-2
6/28-29
5.4
150
29.5
9
114
37
78
4
25.0
CC-2
6/29-30
200
29
10
147
46
56
4
25.0
CC-2
6/30-7/1
7.5
200
28.5
12
134
44
104
10
25.0
CC-2
7/1-2
7.0
200
27
10
132
49
60
8
25.0
Max.
B.5
200
29.5
13
148
49
104
23
25.0
Min.
5.4
120
26.5
8
107
33
10
4
21.7
Mean
7.4
158
28.6
10.4
129
40
46
10
21.7
* Temperatures are instantaneous.
-------
2
Appendix D - Continued
Color
Temp.
BOD
COD
TOC
TSS
TVSS
Flow .
Station
Date
PH
Pt.Co.
°C
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
cfs
CC-3
6/20-21
6.0
200
29.5
30
199
62
41
14
51.0
CC-3
6/21-22
6.7
200
32
26
205
69
50
15
51.0
CC-3
6/22-23
6.4
200
28.5
30
203
50
42
17
51.0
CC-3
6/23-24
6.3
240
30.5
30
214
67
44
14
51.0
CC-3
6/24-25
6.3
600
30.5
45
143
60
32
22
51.0
CC-3
6/27-28
6.1
350
31
24
170
54
44
28
54.2
CC-3
6/28-29
6.0
300
31
28
197
58
22
6
54.2
CC-3
6/29-30
300
31.5
28
203
77
28
4
54.2
CC-3
6/30-7/1
6.6
300
31.5
40
227
72
16
4
54.2
CC-3
7/1-2
6.5
300
30.5
33
218
67
68
24
54.2
Max.
6.7
600
32
45
227
77
68
28
54.2
Min.
6.0
200
28.5
24
143
50
16
4
51.0
Mean.
6.3
299
30.6
31.4
198
64
39
15
52.6
CC-4
6/20-21
7.3
200
28
8
152
50
27
10
56.4
CC-4
6/21-22
7.4
200
5
130
48
24
6
56.4
CC-4
6/22-23
7.5
250
19.5
7
60
49
17
11
56.4
CC-4
6/23-24
7.3
250
23.5
9
146
56
16
13
56.4
CC-4
6/24-25
7.4
600
24.5
9
142
48
6
4
56.4
CC-4
6/27-28
7.1
400
26
5
140
48
16
6
56.4
CC-4
6/28-29
350
25.5
5
143
49
14
10
56.4
CC-4
400
26
8
134
57
12
8
56.4
CC-4
6/30-7/1
7.0
300
23.5
10
125
44
16
6
56.4'
CC-4
7/1-2
7.0
300
7
143
51
16
14
56.4
Max.
7.5
600
28
10
152
57
27
14
56.4
Min.
7.0
200
19.5
5
60
44
6
4
56.4
Mean
7.2
325
24.6
7.3
132
50
16
9
56.4
o
-------
Appendix D-Continued
Color
Temp.
BOD
COD
TOC
TSS
TVSS
Flow
Station
Date
PH
Pt.Co.
°C
TDg/1
hr/1
"ir/1
mn/1
mg/1
cfs
CC-5
6/20-21
9
140
43
94
304
60
50
29
26.7
CC-5
6/21-22
8.7
150
43.5
83
368
90
126
42
26.7
CC-5
6/22-23
9.4
170
43.5
100
3B6
78
88
56
26.7
CC-5
6/23-24
8.7
200
44
96
297
77
36
32
26.7
CC-5
6/24-25
9.4
600
39.5
124
467
120
88
60
26.7
CC-5
6/27-28
8.7
500
43
62
330
80
84
48
26. 7
CC-5
6/28-29
7.1
400
44
90
431
97
92
48
26.7
CC-5
6/29-30
400
44
82
347
99
88
48
26.7
CC-5
6/30-7/1
7.7
400
44
124
365
110
72
40
26.7
CC-5
7/1-2
8.4
450
43.5
130
507
165
160
88
26.7
Max.
9.4
600
44
130
507
165
160
88
26.7
Min.
7.1
140
39.5
62
297
60
36
29
26.7
Mean
8.6
341
43.2
98.5
380
98
88
49
26.7
CC-6
6/21
7.6
120
34
**
156
45
11
2
25.9
CC-6
6/21-22
7.5
120
33.5
* A
130
50
20
6
25.9
CC-6
6/22-23
7.5
120
33
**
156
49
65
37
25.9
CC-6
6/23-24
7.4
160
34
28
145
55
44
25
25.9
CC-6
6/24-25
7.3
200
35
31
134
44
24
22
25.9
CC-6
6/27-28
7.2
200
35.5
29
224
69
38
34
25.9
CC-6
6/28-29
6.4
200
36
25
233
66
18
12
25.9
CC-6
6/29-30
200 •
35.5
19
221
79
8
4
25.9
CC-6
6/30-7/1
7.4
200
35.5
18
204
70
28
14
25.9
CC-6
7/1-7/2
7.0
200
35.5
17
202
73
40
14
25.9
Max.
7.6
200
36
31
233
79
65
37
25.9
Min.
6.4
120
33
17
130
44
8
2
25.9
Mean
7.2
172
35
23.8
180
60
30
17
25.9
CC-7
6/20-21
3.3
500
42
60
412
145
54
42
23.7
CC-7
6/21-22
3.0
500
43
84
435
220
52
42
23.7
CC-7
6/22-23
3.0
500
43.5
80
356
150
24-
20
23.7
** Dilutions set too high — data not valid.
-------
Appendix D-Continued
Color
Temp.
BOD
COD
T0C
TSS
TVSS
Flow
Station
Date
pH
Pt.Co.
°C
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mj»/l
mg/1
cfs
CC-7
6/23-24
2.9
500
43.5
74
374
185
14
10
23.7
CC-7
6/24-25
3.1
500
41.5
77
324
125
32
30
23.7
CC-7
6/27-28
3.8
400
43
34
212
75
10
8
23.7
CC-7
6/28-29
3.4
500
44
58
400
155
8
4
23.7
CC-7
6/29-30
500
44.5
70
370
160
20
2
23.7
CC-7
6/30-7/1
3.4
500
45.5
78
425
180
14
6
23.7
CC-7
7/1-2
3.0
600
44.5
71
385
160
30
20
23.7
Max.
3.8
600
45.5
84
435
220
54
42
23.7
Min.
2.9
400
41.5
34
212
75
8
2
23.7
Mean
3.2
500
43.5
68.6
369
156
26
18
23.7
CC-8
6/20-21
7.0
300
29.5
30
292
52
812
242
3.1
CC-8
6/21-22
7.0
200
27
42
246
61
548
120
3.1
CC-8
6/22-23
7.5
200
29.5
33
192
32
360
104
3.1
CC-8
6/23-2A
7.2
260
26.5
39
329
77
504
236
3.1
CC-8
6/24-25
7.3
400
29
43
314
60
772
180
3.1
CC-8
6/27-28
6.5
350
32
24
279
45
704
188
3.1
CC-8
6/28-29
5.7
300
30.5
38
265
50
348
72
3.1
CC-8
6/29-30
300
31
42
459
120
196
176
3.1
CC-8
6/30-7/1
6.4
300
30
38
360
85
648
128
3.1
CC-8
7/1-2
6.5
300
28.5
44
526
110
884
248
3.1
Max.
7.3
400
32
44
526
120
884
248
3.1
Min.
5.7
200
26.5
24
192
32
196
72
3.1
Mean
6.8
291
29.4
37.3
326
69
578
169
3.1
-------
Appendix D - Continued
Station
Date
Time
DO
mg/1
PH
Color
Pt.Co.
Temp
°C
C0-5
6/21
0830
7.3
6.7
10
26
C0-5
6/22
0818
7.2
7.1
10
26.5
C0-5
6/23
0840
7.3
7.1
10
26
CO-5
6/24
0820
7.3
7.1
10
27
C0-5
6/25
0830
7.1
6.9
10
28
CO-5
6/28
0836
7.4
6.7
10
28
CO-5
6/29
0834
7.2
7.2
10
28
CO-5
6/30
0914
7.1
10
28
CO-5
7/1
0820
7.2
7.0
10
28
CO-5
7/2
1020
7.1
6.7
10
27
Max.
7.4
7.2
10
28
Min.
7.1
6.7
10
26
Mean
7.2
6.9
10
27.2
C0-6
6/21
1055
6.9
6.5
10
25
C0-6
6/21
1430
7.2
7.0
27
C0-6
6/22
1000
6.9
6.9
10
27
CO-6
6/22
1500
6.9
7.2
28
C0-6
6/23
1095
7.0
7.1
10
26.5
CO-6
6/23
1400
7.4
7.2
28
C0-6
6/24
1126
6.9
7.0
10
28
CO-6
6/24
1455
7.0
6.9
29
CO-6
6/25
1130
7.1
7.0
10
29
C0-6
6/25
1400
7.1
7.1
30
CO-6
6/28
1055
6.8
6.7
10
28
C0-6
6/29
1100
6.9
10
29
CO-6
6/30
1130
7.0
10
28
CO-6
7/1
1315
7.2
. 6.7
10
29
00-6
7/2
1020
6.9
7.1
10
27
Max.
7.4
7.2
10
20
Min.
6.8
6.5
10
25
Mean
6.9
7.0
10
27.9
BOD
mg/1
COD
"ig/1
TOC
mg/1
TSS TVSS Flow
mg/1 mg/1 cfs
0.6 22.4
0.7 13.2
0.9 13.2
0.9 4.0
1.1 13.7
0.5 10.4
0.6 9.7
0.9 9.7
0.9 12.8
1.1 13.9
1.1 22.4
0.5 4.0
0.8 12.2
1.0 14.5
1.1 18.2
0.7 17.1
1.3 17.2
0.9 15.8
1.3 16.5
0.8 6.2
1.1 6.2
1.1 11.9
1.0 10.2
0.9 14.9
1.2 11.9
0.9 13.1
1.3 16.2
1.1 18.3
1.3 18.3
0.7 6.2
1.0 13.9
21 0
6 1
10 2
6 1
12 8
2 1
4 2
8 2
5 4
8 4
21 8
2 0
8 3
22 1
26 8
2 1
11 2
7 2
8 2
4 2
13 0
6 3
15 3
26 8
2 0
11 2
5
4
4
5
3
2
4
5
5
5
5
2
4
7
7
7
7
6
5
6
6
5
10
4
6
7
6
7
10
4
6
vo
LO
-------
Appendix D - Continued
DO . Color Temp. BOD COD IOC TSS TVSS Flow
Station Date Time mg/1 pH Pt.Co. ^C mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 rng/1 mg/1 cfs
LE-7
6/21
1024
8.2
5.4
20
23
0.9
14.7
6
3
0
LE-7
6/22
0945
8.3
6.1
20
23
0.4
12.8
5
11
3
LE-7
6/23
1022
8.4
6.2
10
22.5
0.7
13.8
6
14
8
LE-7
6/24
1100
8.1
5.9
10
23.5
0.4
14.8
5
2
0
LE-7
6/25
1020
8.1
6.6
10
24
1.1
6.6
4
6
2
LE-7
6/28
0940
8.5
5.9
10
24
0.8
15.4
2
6
2
LE-7
6/29
0930
8.5
10
24
0.6
11.8
5
3
2
LE-7
6/30
1010
8.5
10
23
0.8
14.2
5
7
2
LE-7
7/1
1200
8.6
7.0
10
25
1.1
12.8
4
3
1
LE-7
7/2
0921
8.5
7.0
10
24
0.4
13.6
6
6
• 2
Max.
6.6
7.0
20
25
1.1
15.4
6
14
8
Mln.
8.1
5.4
10
22.5
0.4
6.4
2
2
0
Mean
8.4
6.3
12
23.6
0.7
13.0
5
6
2
BE-8
6/21
1010
6.9
5.6
10
24.5
0.3
12.9
5
12
0
BE-8
6/22
0930
6.9
6.0
10
25
0.7
13.2
5
8
1
BE-8
6/23
1005
7.1
6.5
10
24.5
2.7
15.0
5
6
1
BE-8
6/24
1042
7.1
6.0
10
25.5
1.3
6.7
5
1
0
BE-8
6/25
0920
6.9
6.2
10
26
1.0
9.0
5
8
6
BE-8
6/28
0955
7.4
6.1
10
26
0.5
9.9
3
3
1
BE-8
6/29
0944
6.6
10
26
2.6
15.7
6
3
1
BE-8
6/30
1025
7.1
10
25
1.4
10.9
5
5
3
BE-8
7/1
1215
7.5
7.0
10
26
3.0
10.1
4
4
2
BE-8
7/2
0930
6.7
7.0
10
25
2.7
19.1
11
12
3
Max.
7.5
7.0
10
26
3.0
19.1
11
12
6
Min.
6.6
5.6
10
24.5
0.3
6.7
3
1
0
Mean
7.0
6.3
10
25.4
1.6
12.2
5
6
2
E-9
6/21
0955
7.1
6.5
10
25.5
0.6
16.1
6
20
2
E-9
6/21
1400
7.3
7.1
26.5
0.7
14.6
6
vo
.&•
-------
Appendix D - Continued
DO
Color
Temp
Station
Date
Time
mg/1
pH
Ft.Co.
°C
E-9
6/22
0920
6.8
6.8
10
27
E-9
6/22
1430
7.3
7.2
28
E-9
6/23
0945
7.1
7.0
10
26
E-9
6/23
1315
7.1
7.1
27
E-9
6/24
1025
6.9
6.9
10
27
E-9
6/24
1425
7.1
6.9
29
E-9
6/25
0943
7.3
6.8
10
28
E-9
6/25
1325
7.0
6.9
29
E-9
6/28
1015
7.1
6.6
10
28
E-9
6/29
1010
7.0
10
29
E-9
6/30
1045
7.0
10
29
E-9
7/1
1230
7.2
6.7
10
29
E-9
7/2
0945
7.1
6.9
10
27
Max.
7.3
7.2
10
29.0
Min.
6.8
6.5
10
25.5
Mean
7.1
6.9
10
27.7
FM-10
6/21
0905
8.5
5.5
10
21.5
FM-10
6/22
0800
8.0
6.5
10
22
FM-10
6/23
0820
8.2
6.0
10
21
FM-10
6/24
0800
8.2
6.1
10
21
FM-10
6/25
0800
7.4
6.1
10
24.5
FM-10
6/28
0815
8.1
5.9
10
23
FM-10
6/29
0810
7.6
6.3
10
23
FM-10
6/30
0850
8.1
10
24
FM-10
7/1
1345
7.6
6.7
10
28
FM-10
7/2
0800
8.0
7.3
10
22
Max.
8.5
7.3
10
28
Min.
7.4
5.5
10
21
Mean
8.0
6.3
10
23
Mean lbs/day
7
BOD
COD
T0C
TSS
TVSS
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1 mg/1
4.0
17.32
6
36
3
2.2
20.0
7
2.4
17.6
6
12
1
1.7
14.5
5
1.4
10.9
6
10
1
2.3
9.8
7
1.4
9.6
5
6
3
2.3
18.0
8
2.5
21.6
5
14
4
0.9
13.9
6
4
2
0.7
13.6
5
18
5
3.2
19.6
7
5
3
1.6
18.0
7
18
4
4.0
21.6
8
36
5
0.6
9.6
5
4
1
1.9
15.7
6
14
3
cfs
0.7
11.8
4
8
1
2.4
0.4
16.4
4
27
1
2.4
0.9
12.2
5
1
0
2.4
0.7
4.2
5
7
6
2.4
1.3
6.2
4
9
6
2.4
.8
5.2
3
4
0
2.4
1.2
14.8
6
12
9
2.4
0.3
8.7
4
2
2
2.4
0.9
12.5
5
8
5
2.4
0.6
12.9
5
4
2
2.4
1.3
16.4
6
27
9
2.4
0.3
4.2
3
1
0
2.4
0.8
10.5
4.5
8
3
2.4
10
140
60
107
40
VO
VJ1
-------
Appendix D - Continued
DO Color Temp.
Station Date Time rog/1 pH Pt .Co. °C
M-ll
6/21
0925
8.4
7.1
15
24
M-ll
6/22
0930
7.6
7.0
15
24
M-ll
6/23
0920
7.7
6.9
10
23
M-ll
6/24
0915
7.5
7.0
10
24
M-ll
6/25
0915
7.3
6.8
10
25
M-ll
6/28
0900
7.5
6.3
10
25.5
M-ll
6/29
0910
7.7
5.3
10
25.5
M-ll
6/30
0835
7.6
10
25
M-ll
7/1
1330
7.8
7.1
10
26.5
M-ll
7/2
0900
7.7
6.6
10
24
Max.
8.4
7.1
15
26.5
Min.
7.3
5.3
10
23
Mean
7.7
6.7
11
24.6
8
BOD
COD
TOCq
TSS
TVSS
ihr/1
uir/1
ihr/1
or/1
mn/1
1.1
18.1
7
13
0
.3
12.9
6
9
0
1.1
15.0
6
1
1
0.5
5.7
5
4
2
0.6
7.8
4
4
4
0.6
10.9
3
5
1
0.7
11.6
5
9
4
0.5
13.5
6
8
. 4
0.8
18.7
7
7
2
1.3
23.2
9
14
2
1.3
23.2
9
14
4
0.3
5.7
3
1
0
0.8
13.7
6
7
2
\o
CT\
-------
97
D. H. Adams
MR. ADAMS: This report contains an evaluation of
waste treatment at Container Corporation of America's inte-
grated pulp and paper mill located at Brewton, Alabama. The
two-week study, conducted during June-July 1971 by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, was prompted by 1970 enforcement
action. The study was designed to determine the volume of
carbonaceous waste generated by Increased production, evaluate
treatment efficiency, and to qualify any relative changes in
water quality in the Conecuh-Escambia River below Container's
discharge.
This is the third Federal report containing data
relative to carbonaceous waste discharges from Container
Corporation's Brewton mill. The first study was conducted
during September-October 1969 In response to a request from
the Governor of Florida to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Southeast Region, for technical assistance in
evaluating Interstate and Intrastate pollution in Escambia
River and Bay. Results of the study were contained In a
report entitled "Effect of Pollution on Water Quality, Escambia
River and Bay, Florida," and served as Federal evidence of
pollution in a January 1970 enforcement conference. The report
identified Container Corporation's Brewton mill as the major
point source of carbonaceous wastes discharged into the
-------
B. H. Adams
98
Conecuh-Escambia River from waste sources in Alabama. Con-
ference recommendation included the removal of 90 percent of
the carbonaceous waste generated at the Brewton mill. At a
February 1971 reconvened conference, following a detailed study
in August 1970 of waste loads before and after treatment, the
conferees recommended that Container's daily discharge be
limited to ^,850 pounds of 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, here-
after referred to as BOD. This progress report contains the
3tatus of survey findings with regard to conference recommenda-
tions and compares study results with previous findings.
The cooperation and contribution of Container Corpora-
tion's mill management during the study are gratefully appre-
ciated. Particular acknowledgements are due to personnel of
the mill's Technical Engineering Section.
Summary:
Container Corporation of America's Integrated pulp
and paper mill at Brewton, Alabama, has Increased average mill
production from 900 to 1,050 tons per day. Accompanying this
Increased production was the addition of a 22-acre basin
housing ten 75-horsepower aerators* With the addition of the
aeration basin, treatment units in operation at the time of
the June 1971 survey included a clarifier, liquid oxygen
applicator, oxidation pond, and ponding in six natural lakes.
-------
£. H. Adams
Time of travel for the 17.2 million gallons per day of un-
bleached pulp processing waste routed through this complex of
treatment units was approximately ^.8 days. Bleachery waste
and woodyard drainage amounting to some 17.3 MGD receive treat-
ment through the system of natural lakes only. The success of
the pollution abatement program initiated by Container is
clearly demonstrated by the following comparison of results
from the August 1970 and June 1971 studies:
The average wastewater volume was up from ^3 MGD in
1970 to 3^.5 MGD in 1971.
The average untreated BOD load of M,500 lbs/day in
1970 was reduced to 28,200 lbs/dgy in 1971.
The average BOD discharged to the Conecuh River was
8,500 lbs/day or a population equivalent of *<9,900 in 1970. In
1971 this load was down to 2,220 lbs/day or a population
equivalent of 13,100.
Reduction of BOD through the treatment system,
including the system of natural lakes, increased from 8l
percent in 1970 to 92 percent in 1971.
The average untreated total organic carbon load in
1970 was 67,500 lbs/day and 50,500 lbs/day in 1971.
The average TOC discharged to the Conecuh River
decreased from 20,800 lbs/day in 1970 to 15,200 lbs/day in 1971.
-------
100
B. H. Adams
Reduction of TOC through treatment facilities,
including the system of natural lakes, did not appreciably
change. It was 69 percent in 1970 and 70 percent in 1971.
The average untreated chemical oxygen demand was not
determined in the 1970 survey. In 1971 it was 205,500 lbs/day.
After reduction of 80 percent, 40,100 lbs/day of COD
is discharged into the Conecuh River.
Suspended solids reduction through treatment facil-
ities, including the system of natural lakes, was 81 percent
in 1970 and 92 percent in 1971.
Average nonfilterable suspended solids discharged to
the Conecuh River in 1970 was 9,800 lbs/day and 4,860 lbs/day
in 1971.
Average nonfilterable volatile solids discharged to
the Conecuh River were not determined in 1970 but were 2,730
lbs/day in 1971. This represents a treatment reduction of 92
percent.
Average color in discharge to the Conecuh River, this
is true color and not apparent color, was ^10 platinum cobalt
units in 1970. This value was down to 325 Pt-Co units in 1971.
The range of parameters observed in the Conecuh-
Escambia River below Container's discharge, that is at Pollard
Landing and at Highway 4 Bridge in Century, are as follows:
-------
101
B. H. Adams
In 1970 the dissolved oxygen ranged from 6.^4 to 7.1*
mg/1. This parameter ranged from 6.9 to 7.1 mg/1 in 1971.
pH values of 6.1 to 7.2 were recorded in 1970 and
ranged from 6.9 to 7.0 in 1971.
Temperature varied from 23.5 to 30.0 degrees Centi-
grade in 1970 and from 27.7 to 27.9 degrees Centigrade in 1971.
In 1970 color ranged from ^0 to 60 units, while in
1971 it was unchanged at 10 units.
The following conclusions were drawn from this study:
1. Additional secondary units placed in operation
by Container Corporation have resulted in BOD^ reductions in
excess of the 90 percent recommended by the conferees at the
February 1971 Escambiia- River-Bay Enforcement Conference.
2. Through the implementation of additional secondary
treatment and improved in-plant controls, Container Corporation
has reduced the discharged effluent to less than half the ^,850
pounds per day limit established by conference recommendations.
3. Container Corporation has not complied with the
conference recommendation that bleach plant and woodyard wastes
be provided secondary treatment.
All waste loadings measured at the Brewton Mill
were reduced as a result of additional pollution abatement.
5. Woodyard wastes are the largest source of
-------
102
Q. H. Adams
nonfilterable suspended and volatile solids discharged to the
system of natural lakes.
6. Seventy percent of the color In the wastes flowing
Into the system of natural lakes are the result of bleach plant
discharges.
7. Although corrective measures have improved treat-
ment efficiency and drastically reduced waste discharges,
additional reductions can be achieved by:
a. Providing additional treatment to bleach plant
and woodyard wastes;
b. Eliminating short circuiting In the aeration
basin and oxidation pond.
8. Although Container Corporation has not directed
treatment toward color reduction, color in the effluent was
less intense than that observed in previous surveys and there
was a noticeable change In color in the Conecuh River above and
below the point of Container's discharge.
9. Except for naturally occurring low pH values in
study area tributaries, Murder Creek, Franklin Mill Creek, Little
Escambia Creek and Big Escambia Creek, and elevated BOD In Big
Escambia Creek, parameters measured indicated that water in the
Conecuh-Escambia River tributaries were of relatively good
quality.
-------
1P3
B. H. Adams
Mr. Chairman, this concludes the portion of the
Federal presentation related to discharges from Container
Corporation's paper mill,
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Adams.
Are there comments or questions?
Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Mr, Adams, what reason was given to you
as to why there was no action being taken concerning these—what
did you say, solid wastes? That even though this conference
had made certain recommendations and findings that there had
been no treatment made of these—I am not sure exactly what
particular substance you were speaking of there.
MR. ADAMS: I think what you are talking about is
Conclusion No. 3 where I said Container Corporation has not
complied with the conference recommendation that bleach plant
and woodyard wastes—
MR. LEVIN: That is it.
MR. ADAMS: —be provided secondary treatment.
MR. LEVIN: Why not?
MR. ADAMS: I guess it is a matter of how you define
secondary treatment. They consider it secondary treatment.
Primary treatment is normally the settling of settleable solids„
which will reduce up to 30 or 35 percent of the BOD. The type
-------
lot
B. H. Adams
of treatment that they employ Is a biological type of treat-
ment and is capable of removing from 75 to even 95 percent of
the BOD. It is ponding, a natural system of natural lakes,
and many municipalities use the same system.
MR. LEVIN: Now, as I understand, it is your recom-
mendation that we specify more particularly what we are talking
about insofar as these items are concerned?
MR. ADAMS: It needs to be clarified.
MR. LEVIN: And what do you think the effect will be
in the event that we clarify this and Container goes even
further than the point of the recommendation of the previous
conference?
MR. ADAMS: Well, I could not say at this point what
further reductions could be expected. As a matter of fact, I
think there would have to be some other studies made to deter-
mine what this effect would be and we would not want to make
specific recommendations at this point as to how this bay
should be provided additional treatment.
MR. LEVIN: But you do recommend that that be speci-
fied?
MR. ADAMS: It would reduce, I think, the organic
load discharged to Conecuh River.
MR. LEVIN: Well, now, let me ask you about Conecuh
-------
105
B. H. Adams
and Escambia. I am not too familiar with that part of the
geography.
MR. ADAMS: Conecuh River ends at the State line
and becomes the Escambia River as it flows into Florida.
MR. LEVIN: Will you say that one more time?
MR» MAURIELLO: It changes name,
MR. ADAMS: It changes name. It is the same stream;
it changes name.
MR. LEVIN: In other words, it is not two different
streams that you are talking about?
MR. ADAMS: No.
MR. LEVIN: The same stream, it just changes name?
MR. ADAMS: That is right.
MR. LEVIN: What about, did you all do any studies on
the sewerage problem at East Brewton?
MR. ADAMS: We did not.
MR. LEVIN: Do you know if somebody has done the
study?
MR. ADAMS: I would imagine that the State would
report on this.
MR. LEVIN: Now, one more thing I Just want to get
cleared up. Obviously Container Corporation knew that you all
were doing the studies?
-------
B, H. Adams
106
MR. ADAMS: That Is right. We could not have done It
without their cooperation.
MR. LEVIN: Now, I am not trying to be paranoid, but
I want to find out, is there any possibility that the production
could have been reduced at the period of time when you were
conducting your surveys?
MR. ADAMS: It is possible, but the production
levels were the same as those indicated in their increased
production.
MR. LEVIN: Well, now, did you satisfy yourself.to
the extent that that was being done, that they didn't reduce
production just for the purpose of your investigation?
MR. ADAMS: No, sir, we took their word for this and
that was the only way that we could determine whether or not
they had done this.
MR. LEVIN: Is it feasible to assume that they could
have reduced production at the time you were running your test?
MR. ADAMS: I would say it would be difficult over a
two-weeks study such as this.
MR. LEVIN: The tests that you all ran in November and
December of this year, were they similar to the tests that you
ran back prior to the time that we had the previous conference?
MR. ADAMS: In November and December of this year?
-------
B. H. Adams
107
MR. LEVIN: Excuse me, 1971. I am sorry.
MR. ADAMS: Yes.
MR, LEVIN: In other words, you all ran studies at the
same points, and so forth?
MR. ADAMS: Right.
MR. LEVIN: And that was—
MR. ADAMS: We expanded this study a little bit more
than the previous study.
MR. LEVIN: And it was at.these points that you
noticed the marked reduction in these wastes, and so forth?
MR. ADAMS: Right. It is also reflected in their
untreated BOD.
MR. LEVIN: And—
MR. ADAMS: And this would be brought about by ln-
plant changes.
MR. LEVIN: What other changes are on the drawing
board, so to speak, to further reduce the discharge into this
river? Are you familiar with that?
MR. ADAMS: Container intends to report on that, I
understand, later.
MR. LEVIN: I have no more questions.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett.
MR. CROCKETT: First I want to express the appreciation
-------
108
B. H. Adams
of Alabama and I am sure of Container for this very compre-
hensive study and report and the technical assistance which
EPA has rendered.
Mr. Levin raised several questions. I think we clar-
ified the point that there is treatment of the bleach plant
wastes and woodyard wastes through the natural system of lakes.
While I cannot, I note a representative of Container will
report to this conference. It is my impression that the moni-
toring reports routinely submitted to us by Container support
the evidence that you obtained in this two-weeks study, but I
am sure that there will be an opportunity for more questions of
Container's representative later on in the day.
And incidentally, there will be a report on the East
Brewton situation,
MR. WHITE: Any other comments or questions?
MR. TRAINA: Billy, do you know—there may be an
accompanying report on this; I hope so. I note a significant
reduction was made in the amount of BOD generated at the plant.
Could you say, relatively speaking, how much of the reduction
you noticed at the effluent was due to the in-plant changes
as compared to how much was due to the additional treatment
that was provided?
MR. ADAMS: No, Paul, I couldn't at this point.
-------
B, H, Adams
109
MR. TRAINA: 0. K.
MR. WHITE: We can get that from the company.
I want to ask one question.
On the Conclusion 7 in the second part you say,
"Eliminating short circuiting in the aeration basin and
oxidation pond." What are we talking—I mean you are refer-
ring to the 4.8 days flow-through time that they have?
MR. ADAMS: Right.
MR. WHITE: And what do you think it should be or
could be or are you prepared to make any statements on that?
MR. ADAMS: I am not prepared. All we are trying to
bring out is there could be some kind of in-basin controls
taken to increase the detention time in the basin.
It is demonstrated in one of the graphs that 1b
contained in the report. We did a dye study and it showed that
the waste as it flowed through the basin was only hitting
about four of the aerators in the first cell of the aeration
basin.
MR. WHITE: Very good. I guess we can probably get
into that a little with the company when they make their
presentation.
Mr. Ravan?
MR. RAVAN: Mr. Adams, let's go back to point 3,
-------
110
B. H. Adams
bleach plant and woodyard wastes. Do you or don't you have a
recommendation as to how we should handle that?
MR. ADAMS: We do not, for this reason. We felt
that the company had met the requirements of the conferees,
excluding this statement, and it was our opinion that if
additional treatment should be provided for this waste that
it should be worked out between the company and the State
water pollution control agency,
Mr. Crockett may like to comment to this.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett?
MR. CROCKETT: Mr. Adams, you, I think, asked a ques-
tion of how much further reduction, and let's say in BOD or
carbonaceous waste, could be attained by further treatment of
bleach plant and woodyard wastes. You also asked a question of
how much further reduction could be attained by eliminating the
short circuiting in the aeration basin that you reported.
I appreciate your position in not being able to put
a numerical value. I don't think that I or members of my
staff could do it either when this BOD being discharged now
is as low as It is, but perhaps we can work that in with the
representatives of Container this afternoon.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Adams, you can understand, I am not
-------
Ill
B. H. Adams
a technical person in this particular field so maybe I am asking
some ridiculous questions, but it is the only way I can arrive
in my mind at a solution or attempt to arrive at a .solution.
And I wasnft a member of the previous conference.
Now, do you feel that Container Corporation is
contributing in any significant fashion to the problem that we
have in Escambia Bay?
MR, ADAMS: Based on the parameters that we measured
during this study I would say no.
MR. LEVIN: So then you are satisfied that the recom-
mendations of the previous conferees are sufficiently strict?
That, first of all, it would not be feasible to make them any
stricter from a technological standpoint?
MR. ADAMS: Yes, sir, I would agree with that state-
ment .
MR. LEVIN: In other words, now as compared to
previously, you are satisfied with the exception of this one
area—
MR. ADAMS: With the exception of color, which we have
mentioned that their treatment is not directed towards color
removal.
MR. LEVIN: I am talking about that Recommendation 3
that you have.
-------
112
B. H. Adams
MR. ADAMS: Recommendation 3, yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: With the exception of that, you are satis-
fied that everything feasible is being done by Container?
MR. ADAMS: Yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: And there is no way in the world that
they could meet anything any stricter than what has already
been put on them, is this what you said?
MR. ADAMS: I wouldn't put it exactly this way, but
I think that they have had pretty strict restrictions placed on
them at this point.
MR. LEVIN: All right. Now, I think you can see what
is going through my mind. You know, the State of Florida has
imposed upon Florida industry a complete removal from the bay
by January of 1973.
MR. ADAMS: I am aware of that.
MR. LEVIN: All right. And of course in considering
the fairness of the situation, where the Florida industries are
being required to get out of the bay, why is it not fair that
the Alabama industries, for example, likewise be required to do
that?
And the only thing I am trying to get straight in my
mind, that you are satisfied that they are not contributing in
any significant way to the problem that we are having in
-------
113
B. H. Adams
Escambia Bay.
MR. ADAMS: Yes, sir, I would agree with that state-
ment.
MR. LEVIN: With the exception of that one area
which you think we ought to straighten out as to what we mean
by the removal of those particular wastes?
MR. ADAMS: Right.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments?
MR. CROCKETT: Just this one comment.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett? ^
MR. CROCKETT: I know we talked up here about short
circuitingf but perhaps it may be well to Just say that what
it is is an aeration basin which is designed to retain the
waste for a specific number of days, and what is happening
there is that the flow is passing through as a current, so to
speak, thereby reducing this time of retention to what you have
reported here.
MR. ADAMS: That Is channelized through the basin,
I believe.
MR. CROCKETT: That is correct. Now, there would be
perhaps some rearrangement of aerators, if that is possible, or
baffling might be the answer there.
Thank you.
-------
11^
Q. H. Adams
MR. WHITE: Do you know, Mr. Crockett, whether or not
the company plans to address this particular problem? Have
they done anything toward any design of baffles?
MR. CROCKETT: They will report on that this.after-
noon.
MR. WHITE: 0. K. Fine.
Mr. Traina?
Excuse me.
MR. TRAINA: I have a few comments.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin has another question.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Adams, what you are saying is that at
the particular points of the Escambia River that you checked,
that they compare with the same general areas that you checked
in the other rivers coming into the State of Florida? Is this
basically what you are saying?
MR. ADAMS: You are talking about the presentation
that Mr. Little made a few minutes ago.
MR. LEVIN: You all made a comparison between what is
coming down the Escambia River as compared to what is coming
down the Choctawhatchee.
MR. ADAMS: This was based on three samples taken by
your agency whereby the analyses were performed by EPA, yes.
I believe Mr. Little said that the only difference was that
-------
1.15
B. H. Adams
color and TOC values were slightly higher below Container's
discharge.
MR. LEVIN: And do you find any appreciable change
further downstream, so to speak, Just before it enters the
Monsanto area place of discharge?
MR. TRAINA: Dave, could I suggest that Mr. Little
get back up in response to that, since he made the report on
this part of the study?
MR. LEVIN: Yes.
MR. LITTLE: The answer to that question i3 yes, there
was further reduction downstream from the key station at Century^
Florida, in both TOC and color values. I will check that to be
sure, but I think that is an accurate statement.
MR. LEVIN: I am not concerned so much with whether .
or not there were reductions other than the fact as to how it
compared with the other rivers at about the same point.
MR. LITTLE: At the same point I think that we are
back to what we would consider normal background levels in all
streams at the station upstream from Monsanto.
MR. LEVIN: Are you saying even with respect to color
and TOC's?
MR. LITTLE: Without some checking on that in detail,
if you will let me take just a moment, I will be sure of that.
-------
J. A. Little
116
I think the statement is correct if I said that these
levels of TOC and color were comparable In all the riverB
studied at the station Just above Monsanto compared to these
other streams.
MR. LEVIN: How about, were any studies made of the
bottoms of these rivers?
MR. LITTLE: No, sir. These were strictly water
samples taken at mid-depth in these streams.
MR. LEVIN: Do you have any idea as to what the dis-
charge of Container is doing to the riverbed itself? In other
words, is there any residue being left on the bottom as it
goes?
MR. LITTLE: In these particular studies we did not
address that point. There have been previous studies which led
into the first conference and I don't recall those results with-
out reference to the report. Mr. Traina--
MR. TRAINA: I could speak to that. The first con-
ference—
MR. LEVIN: Let me get one more thing. The thing I
am trying to find out, is there any possibility that the problem
we are having on the bed of Escambia Bay could in any way be
contributed by any discharge coming out of Alabama? This is
what I am trying to find out.
-------
J. A. Little
117
MR. TRAINA: Of course the possibility always exists.
However, the data that was reported to the first session of
the conference, the Federal report went Into the question of
biota in Escambia River and generally concluded that although
there were some changes in the mix of biota that it still
represented a healthy pollution condition—excuse me (laughter)—
a healthy quality condition,although there were some changes
in biota observed below Container, but it still was a healthy
condition. This was reported in the first session of the con-
ference.
MR. LEVIN: So in layman's language, what you all are
saying is that Container is not contributing to our problem? Is
this what you are saying?
MR. TRAINA: I think the data that has been presented
in all these three sessions bear that out, with the exception of
the color problem. We don't want to avoid the color business,
which we have always picked up as a problem, the color.
MR. RAVAN: I have a further question.
Again Just for clarity, Mr. Little, in previous
studies to this study has there in fact been a sediraentologist
available, EPA or otherwise, that has conducted sediment ¦
studies in the Escambia River and in the bay and compared the
two?
-------
118
J. A. Little
MR. LITTLE: Studies of the sediment character were
made in 1969, I believe, Mr. Ravan, and how far up the river
they went with this particular study I am not aware. We do
have copies of these reports with us that we could check. I
think it was principally confined to the bay area itself.
Now, from a sedimentology research standpoint, where
we are talking about the age of sediments and the quality would
vary as it varies with depth, the rate of deposition of sedi-
ments, no studies of this type have been performed under our
direction.
MR. RAVAN: Mr. Traina, could you address that?
MR. TRAINA: Just what Alec says. We did In the 1969
study do sediment work in which we Just characterized the
nutrient levels in sediments, but this was confined primarily
to the bay. I think we went up Just a little bit into the
river, but we didn't do anything at the State line.
The only work we have done in this regard is the
biological work that I earlier referred to.
MR. LEVIN: Could I ask one question?
MR. WHITE: Surely.
MR. LEVIN: Paul, the only thing I am trying to find
out is whether or not there is a possibility or probability
that a discharge from Container Corporation might possibly be
-------
General Discussion
119
coming down the river, that while it may not have a chance to
settle Into the river because of the flow of the stream it
might make Its way into the bay and thus settle to the bottom
when that flow is no longer present to keep the thing moving.
This is what I am trying to find out. And of course the engi-
neers and the biologists and the chemists are going to have to
tell me that, because that is going to depend, I think, on how
much of the BOD's and the TOC's and a few other letters that
you all find out there.
MR. TRAINA:1 To answer that question, I think that is
an easy one, Dave. The settleable materials have been taken
out in treatment so there are no settleable materials to speak
of. Of course you always have a little bit--
MR. LEVIN: What is the effect of that thing that
they are not removing, that we don't remove?
MR. TRAINA: This is color and possibly TOC.
MR. LEVIN: Tell me what TOC is.
MR. TRAINA: TOC is total organic carbon. Maybe we
ought to get into this.
When we did this earlier, the recommendations of the
first conference related to TOC in that we felt that this was a
paramater that needed to be controlled so we can control
eutrophlcatlon of the bay.
-------
General Discussion
120
MR. LEVIN: Why?
MR. TRAINA: Because carbon is an essential parameter
in the life cycle of algae and the whole process whereby bays
and other bodies of water become eutrophied. So we put some
limits on TOC throughout the area and this is why the TOC ques-
tion has come up.
MR. LEVIN: The thing that doesn't seem consistent to
me is that if they found all these great things along about
Century, you know, that nothing is happening, and so on and so
forth, why they were told to do that if in fact it is not going
to help anything along about the Century mark. Do you under-
stand what I am saying?
MR. TRAINA: Well, the question of the bleachery
wastes is related not only to TOC but the color problem. As
you noticed, the report that Mr. Adams made said that 70 per-
cent of the color is in the bleachery wastes and this has
always been a problem.
MR. LEVIN: So in other words, if we go ahead and
push that point you think the TOC's and the color might
improve?
MR. TRAINA: There are some indications, we have
checked this with our research people, that color and TOC
are somewhat related, that if we could get at the color problem
-------
121
General Discussion
we could further reduce the TOC. However, all the evidence is
not in on that one.
MR. LEVIN: 0. K.
MR. TRAINA: But this is why we continuously made
that recommendation on bleachery wastes.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett?
MR. CROCKETT: At the risk of running this into the
ground I will make this one comment. It may not be made; I
don't know whether Container proposes to make it or not.
But it has been reported by us at previous sessions
of this conference that Container, in addition to monitoring
its wastes and the river for such things as were Included in
the EPA study, that they have a highly trained professional
biologist make an annual biological study of the river and it
extends down into Florida, and I don't think that those reports
have ever indicated that there is any biological damage; in
other words, as the river moved into Florida that the stream
had recovered to a normal state of affairs so far as the biota
would b<> concerned.
MR. WHITE: Well, I will make one observation, and
Mr. Little, you and Mr. Adams correct me If I am Wrong.
It is my understanding that the primary problem we
aire having in the bay now we associate with the nitrogen and
-------
122
J. A. Little
the phosphorus discharge. Is this correct? Or/am I jumping
ahead?
MR. LITTLE: You may be Jumping ahead a little bit.
I think that carbon is associated with it, but all three of
these are getting into a realm of relationship that is—
MR. WHITE: I understand that this discussion about
the role that carbon plays hasn't been settled, but is it not
correct to state that one of the prime concerns of the initial
report was to reduce the nitrogen and the phosphorus load?
MR, LITTLE: Very much so, yes.
MR. WHITE: And I don't believe that we have any
discharge or significant discharge of these two parameters,
do we, from the Container Corporation?
MR. LITTLE: From the Container Corporation, no. We
have not included these particular analyses in the study of
1970 or 1971, but the earlier studies, the first ones that
were made, I believe, discovered that these particular items,
nitrogen and phosphorus, were not significant from the stand-
point of their waste discharge.
And I think perhaps, Mr. Chairman, this was the
reason that there may have been some modification of the
recommendations at the last conference based on nitrogen and
phosphorus from their plant. As you read a moment ago, these
-------
123
J. A. Little
are not considerations at this moment. We are more concerned
with the BOD and the color and TOC removal.
MR, RAVAN: Mr. Chairman, if you will,
Joe, I might like to run this into the ground a
little bit. (Laughter.) If we could do that maybe we could
get it out of the water.
MR. LEVIN: I will drink to that, (Laughter.)
MR. RAVAN: Mr. Little, I wish you would give me a
recommendation as to whether or not you think we should conduct
a long-term look or a short-term .look at the sediments in the
bay and in the river.
MR. LITTLE: I would like to address this later on
today. This actually won't conclude our Federal presentation
at this moment when Mr. Adams and I finish this morning. And
sedimentology studies were a part of this later presentation.
MR. RAVAN: Good. That is what I want. Thank you.
MR. MAURIELLO: John, I have got one.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Mauriello.
MR. MAURIELLO: Alec, straighten out one point for
me; maybe Billy better.
There has been a reduction in raw BOD that has been
generated, which I think that the report indicates. What
reasoning do you give that the TOC hasn't been reduced by the
-------
12*1
B. H. Adams
same amount? Is there any reasoning that you have used that
the discharge of TOC from Container is still about the same
level, it is about 25 percent reduction, roughly, even though
raw BOD has been reduced—
MR. ADAMS: In the discharge you are talking about?
MR. MAURIELLO: In the discharge.
MR. ADAMS: I think that your TOC is coming back in
your natural ponding system.
MR. WHITE: Speak into the mike.
MR. ADAMS: 1 think that the TOC concentration bodies
are coming back in the natural pohding system. We found very
little reduction in TOC through the natural system. There was
a good relationship between BOD and TOC reductions through the
aeration basin and lagoon system,
MR. MAURIELLO: The point being, then, that the load
of TOC—and I certainly don't want to open up that can of worms
too much, but I think that we have got to recognize, as Alec
\
said, that there is a relationship in the bay between phosphorus,
nitrogen and carbon—but the load of TOC is still there, it has
been reduced by about 25 percent, but it is still up In the
range of 15,000 pounds a day. Is this a correct statement?
MR. ADAMS: This is correct. And if you would refer
to a graph In the text report, I think you will see that most
-------
Dr. T. W. Duke
125
of the TOC is generated from the bleachery plant discharge.
MR. MAURIELLO: 0. K.
MR. LEVIN: Which means that if we do something about
that bleach business that you have suggested that that is going
to further reduce the TOC, is this right?
MR. ADAMS: Correct,
MR. TRAINA: That is right.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much, Mr. Little and Mr.
Adams.
Mr.. Traina.
MR. TRAINA: The next Federal speaker is Dr.—I want
to get his exact title—Dr. Tom Duke, who is Laboratory
Director of EPA's Gulf Breeze Laboratory right here at Gulf
Breeze.
Dr. Duke.
DR. THOMAS W. DUKE, DIRECTOR
SABINE ISLAND LABORATORY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GULP BREEZE, FLORIDA
DR. DUKE: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen.
-------
126
Dr. T, V/. Duke
I have prepared a statement from our laboratory and
have made an abstract of it for presentation, and I request
that the entire statement be entered Into the record,
MR. WHITE: It will be accepted in the record as if
read.
(The above-mentioned statement follows:)
-------
127
APPENDIX
Statement of Dr. Thomas W. Duke, Director
Gulf Breeze Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency
REPORT OF MENHADEN CONFERENCE
A conference on menhaden fisheries was convened at the Gulf Breeze
Laboratory on April 7, 1971, as recommended by Conferees of the Enforce-
ment Conference held in Pensacola, Florida, on February 23-24, 1971.
The purposes of this conference were (a) to discuss the migration of
juvenile menhaden into restricted bayous in Escambia Bay and contiguous
waters and (b) to recommend methods to limit this migration. The agenda
for the conference and a roster of attendees and the organizations
represented are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2.
Conference Discussion
Scheduled speakers presented enlightening information on the biology
of the menhaden, movement of these fish in our area, catch data In
associated*species of fish and facts about the use of air-curtains in
the bay last year. The discussion can be separated into five general
topics: (1) biology and value of Gulf menhaden; (2) cause of fish-kills;
(3) use of air-curtains to control movement of menhaden; (4) need for
an effective clean-up crew, and (5) introduction of predator species
to control populations of menhaden.
-------
128
2
1. Biology and value of Gulf menhaden:--This report is partly
based on a study by the National Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory,
Beaufort, N. C., on that portion of the life history of Gulf menhaden
that occurs in Inside waters at Fensacola. Collections were obtained
during 1970 and 1971 from the Fensacola Bay bridge and from upper East
Bay and lower East Bay River.
Larval menhaden hatch in the Gulf of Mexico and after 3 to 5 weeks
enter estuaries for further development. Spawning takes place near
shore from late October through March. Larvae enter the Fensacola
inlet during a 5-month period, December to April, and range in size
from 10 to 30 mm (1/2 to 1") total length. They are elongated, trans-
parent, and without scales. They school by size froni the time they
enter the estuary. Larvae were most abundant in February — 5 or 6 per
cubic meter of water strained. Therefore, juveniles comprising the
summer fish-kills are first found in Escambia Bay as small larvae from
December to May.
Early growth in the East Bay area was in low salinities or fresh
water. As the young increased in size, they moved downstream to the
lower bay where salinities were over 10 parts per thousand or about
1/3 as salt as seawater. Juveniles 30 to 50 mm (1 to 2") in April
attained a size of 90 to 120 mm (3 1/2 to 4 3/4") by August. Also
abundant in August were much smaller fish from late season spawning.
The small size of all catches after August indicated that most juveniles
had moved toward the Gulf. Schools of yearlings hatched the previous
spawning-season also appeared in the estuary from April to October.
These were 90 to 130 mm (3 1/2 to 5") long in April and over 150 mm (6")
-------
129
3
long in October. They probably enter the estuary froir. the Gulf to
feed.
Menhaden, like mullet, are filter feeders on algae and the
remains of higher plants. Also, they are near the bottom of the
food chain and provide food for many carnivores. Some fish common
Co Escambia Bay that prey on menhaden are the silver perch, seatrout,
croaker, sea catfish, ladyfish, lizardfi6h, and flounder.
Since 1963, the menhaden has been the most valuable fish in the
Gulf. It is strictly an industrial fish and not used for human food.
Products are fish meal for poultry and hogs, oil for lubricants, paints,
and soaps, and condensed solubles for protein supplement to animal feed.
Gulf menhaden catches set a new record in 1971, exceeding the historic
record catches of Pacific sardine in 1936 and Atlantic menhaden in
1956. Over 1 1/2 billion pounds were landed at 13 processing plants
in only three states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Half were
fish 1 to 2 years old and half were 2 to 3 year6 old. Eighty-five purse-
seine carrier vessels operated, each capable of carrying up to 350 tons
of menhaden. It has been estimated that for each 1 billion pounds in
the commercial catch, SO billion juveniles must grow uo in Gulf estuaries.
2. Cause of fish-kills:--Participants in the conference reiterated
that excess nutrients in the wacer of Escambia Bay cause a eutrophic
situation which results in low dissolved oxygen in the water. When
large populations of fish enter restricted areas with low amounts of
oxygen, a fish-kill can be expected. Participants emphasized the need
-------
130
4
for expediting Che removal of excessive nutrients from waste
stTearos that enter the bay and pointed out that any temporary
control, of fish-kills should not in any way slow down this
removal.
3. Use of air-curtains:—Observations on the use of air-
curtains last year in Mulatto Bayou indicate that air-curtains
can keep the juvenile menhaden out of restricted areas. However,
some problems are involved.
(a) Ecological effect: The effect of the air-
curtain on the movement of crabs, shrimp,
and fishes other than menhaden is not known.
By restricting the movement of these animals,
the curtain might adversely affect the nursery
grounds we are striving to protect.
(b) Cost: DOT, Marine Patrol, and Florida A&WPC
submitted actual cost figures for an operation
of three compressors (which are rated for
5000 hours) used in the summer of 1970. The
monthly cost for continuous operation was
about $10,000.
(c) Vandalism: A battery was stolen and possibly also
air filters, etc.
(d) Down-time: When the compressor was shut
down for even a short period of time for
maintenance, schools of menhaden on the bay
-------
131
5
side of the curtain swam into the bayou where
they were entrapped. Trawling in the bayou re-
sulted in the accidental removal of air-curtain
pipes.
(e) Maintenance: Compressors used last year required
constant observation. Sealed compressors (more
expensive) or blower-type compressors (require
electrical power) should be purchased and used.
A standby compressor is necessary to ensure con-
tinuous operation. Electricity, of course, is
not always available where the compressors are needed.
(f) Noise pollution: Residents complained of noise from
compressors.
(g) Property settlement: Arrangement must be made with
property owners to place compressors on their land.
This probably will require a rentaJ fee.
(h) Number of air-curtains required: At least 10 air-
curtains would have to be employed in the bay systems
to limit entry of menhaden into all bayous with low
oxygen.
A. Control by use of predators:—Biological control of the menhaden
would be a useful tool for holding down population numbers. Striped bass
was discussed as a possible predator. Discussion indicated that it would
s.
be feasible to introduce the bass into Escambia Bay, but the effectiveness
of the bass as predators of menhaden is unknown. More important is the
possibility that Aroclor 1254, which now occurs in the bay, will accumulate
in the edible tissues of this predator and be transferred to man. For
this reason, the subject was dropped.
-------
6
132
5. Need for effective clean-up crew:—No matter what temporary
measures are employed to control the movement of' menhaden, a crew
will be needed to remove dead fish that result from fish-kills.
Suggestions were made to employ 12 migrant laborers or high school
or college students to work with a State agency, such as DOT, and
can be on call to respond quickly for clean-up work when fish kills
occur. Equipment required would include two boats rigged for clean-
up purposes ($2,500 each), three trucks with driver ($80/day each
when in use), and a loader plus driver ($80/day when in use). The
fish would be disposed of initially in the county sanitary land-
fill. The possibility of using the fish as fertilizer in pine-tree
nursery areas should be explored also.
Recommendations
(1) Removal of nutrients and other pollutants from waste
streams entering Escambia Bay should be continued and expedited.
(2) Air-curtains should be installed only in Mulatto Bayou
to further evaluate their effectiveness as a barrier to the passage
of menhaden and to investigate the effects of the air-curtains on
the ecology of the bayou and nearby waters. In particular, the
relation of the air-curtain to the normal passage of shrimp, crabs,
and fishes other than menhaden should be determined. Useful in-
formation should be obtained within a year. Placement of other
air-curtains in Escambia Bay and contiguous waters will depend
upon evaluation of these data. This study could be funded as a
demonstration grant or through some other State and Federal grant
programs.
-------
(3) A work-force should be created to respond quickly to
remove dead fish from "fish-kills". The work-force could consist
of high school or college students or migrant laborers who would
work on State and Federal Highway projects but would be free to
respond to a fi9h-kill quickly. Initially, the conference
recommends a work crew of 12, with access to: two estuarine
boats, equipped for "skimming" or seining dead fish, three trucks
with drivers, and one loader with driver. This clean-up crew will
be required even if air-curtains are used. The evaluation projec£_
on Mulatto .Bayou could include studies of development of specific
clean-up equipment and efficient organization of the emergency
work-force for estuarine fish-kills. This project also could
investigate the feasibility of using dead menhaden as fertilizer
on plots of sand-hill vegetation used to raise pine trees.
(4) Controlled and limited dredging in' the inlet to Woodland
and Hoffman Bayous to remove obstructions and permit free circu-
lation of water between the bayou and contiguous waters.
-------
JcXllxl-
ENVIRONMECTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GULF BREEZE LABORATORY
SABINT ISLAND
GULF BREEZE, FLORIDA 32561
7 April 1971
CONFERENCE ON MENHADEN
AGENDA
A. M.
9:30
9:40
10:00
10:20
10:40
11:00
11:20
12:00
1:30
5:00
Introduction
The Importance of Estuaries
to the Early Life History
of Gulf Menhaden
Notes on the Biology of Young
Menhaden in a Pensacola
Estuary
Life History of Menhaden
Relative to Mulatto Bayou
Coffee Break
Operation of Air Curtain
Operation of Air Curtain in
Mulatto Bay
Dr. Thomas W. Duke
Environmental Protection
Agency
Dr. Paul L. Fore
National Marine Fisheries
Service
Mr. Marlin E. Tagatz
National Marine Fisheries
Service
Dr. Thomas S. Hopkins
University of West Florida
Mr. Lee Tebo
Environmental Protection
Agency
Lt. Lewis E. Zangas
Florida Department of
Natural Resources
and
A Representative of Florida
Department of Transportation
Lunch
Discussion and Recommendations Conference
Adjournment
-------
135
EXHIBIT 2
MENHADEN CONFERENCE -- ATTENDEES
Name
Dr. Thomas W. Duke, Chairman
Mr. David J. Hansen
Dr. Paul L. Fore
Mr. Marlin E. Tagatz
Dr. Thomas S. Hopkins
Mr. Michael Schmitt
Dr. Robert L. Livingston
Lt. Lewis E. Zangas
Sgt. John L. LaLander
Mr. James G. Mills, Jr.
Mr. J. M. Barkuloo
Mr. P. J. Doherty
Mr. W. T. Young
Mr. L. R. Smith
Mr. Willard Norris
Mr. Charles J. Allen
Mr. Lee Tebo
Organization
Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf Breeze, Florida
National Marine Fisheries Service
Gulf Breeze, Florida
University of West Florida
Pensacola, Florida
" (Graduate student)
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida
Florida Marine Patrol
Pensacola, Florida
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of.Marine Science & Technology
ApalachicoLa, Florida
Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife
Panama City Beach, Florida
Florida Department of Air & Water
Pollution Control, Gulf Breeze,
Florida
Florida Department of Transportation
Tallahassee, Florida
Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, Georgia
-------
136
10
OYSTER MORTALITIES IN ESCAMBIA BAY
. The Gulf Breeze Laboratory was asked to investigate causes of
severe oyster losses that reportedly occurred in Escambia Bay from
September 2 through September 6, 1971. Pathologist John Couch and
biologist Patrick Borthwick, using the vessel Dolphin, investigated
oyster beds on the east side (Pearson's lease) and west side (Devil
Point) of Escambia Bay on September 8.
Meterological and Hydrographic Data
Site I: Pearson's oyster lease (east side of bay)
Weather; Clear to partly cloudy, warm. Brisk
surface winds mixing surface water well.
Water depth: 5 to 8 feet.
Salinity: Top, 21&; Bottom, 1%o.
Water temperature: Bottom, 27.5° C (8 feet); 28.5° C
(5 feet).
pH: Bottom 7.7.
Site II: Middle of Escambia Bay between Pearson's lease and
Devil Point.
Water Depth: 25 feet.
Salinity: Bottom, 22m.
Water temperature: Bottom, 27.5" C.
pH: Bottom 7.5.
Site III: Devil Point Buoy (west side of bay)
Water Depth: 8 feet.
Salinity: Top, 14.%-, Bottom, 2$o.
-------
137
Water temperature: Bottom 27.5° C.
pH: Bottom, 7.7
Mortality Observations
Three dredge hauls were made on Pearson's lease: two on the
inshore side; one on the offshore side. Boxes, gapers, and closed
live oysters were counted in each dredge haul and mortality
expressed as the percentage of fresh boxes. Based on the relative
abundance of fresh boxes and lack of gapers, it appeared that the
major mortality had reached its peak at least two days prior to
our examination. On Pearson's lease, mortality appeared to fall
between 67-8% and 94.5%. Two dredge hauls from Devil Point buoy
suggested a mortality of 40-507. for the western shore up to that
time. Only four gapers were obtained in all the dredge hauls.
Nineteen live oysters (survivors) from the eastern shore, and 10
from the western shore were taken along with the gapers for
laboratory analyses. Five oysters, reportedly taken from "Long
Creek" - an area of low mortality" - were also included in the
analysis.
Laboratory Observations
Methods:—The oyster pathogen, Dermocystidium marinum, was
searched for in shells and meats of each oyster examined. Pieces
of gill, heart, and rectum were placed in fluid thioglycollate
medium fortified with 500-1000 units/mg of penicillin and strep-
tomycin and incubated at room temperature. Samples of those tissues
were stained with Lugol's iodine and examined at 36, 60, 72, and 96
hours, and at six days.
-------
Nineteen live oysters and one gaper were processed for histology
(7-micron sections; Mayer's hematoxylin). Remaining portions of
oysters were given to State investigators for further analysis of
heavy metals, etc. One group of oysters, three water samples, and
two mud samples were analyzed for FCB and pesticides.
Results
Prevalence of Dermocystidiura
Culture
(FTM)
Histological
Infection
*H
M
L Neg
H M L Neg
Gapers
4
1**
Survivors
8
1
16 9
2 8 9
Total
38
** only 1 gaper; 20
processed
Prevalence based on culture only:--76.3% overall prevalence
(survivors + gapers); 100% prevalence in gapers.
*H - Heavy; M - Medium; L - Light.
Histological examination indicated thatyin the gaper, there was
heavy systemic infection of Dermocystidium marinum. All organs were
invaded and there were abundant multiple-fission stages as well as .
hypnospores. Only in certain foci of the gaper was there still
evidence of an active host response (i.e., infiltration by leucocytes).
Most regions showed lysis and necrosis of the tissues.
In the lighter infected survivors, there was evidence of
emanciation. Certain of these oysters contained abcesses associated
-------
139
13
*lth D. marinum stages. Encapsulations of hypnospores and_multiple-
fission stages were found. Certain of these oysters appeared to be
in possible late stages of remission of D. marinum disease. The 9
uninfected oysters were ripe males and females and generally less
emaciated. These oysters had not spawned and contrast with several
of the infected oysters which had spawned and were emaciated.
Tentative Conclusions
Unfortunately, relatively few dying oysters (gapers) were collected
and observations and collections were at least 2 days late. However,
based on culture and histological diagnosis, it appears that Dermo-
cvstidium marinum was a large contributing factor to the mass mortality
of these oysters. The time (late summer), water temperature (up to 33° C
prior to kill, according to W. T. Young, State Biologist) and salinity
(22 - 2%,) were optimum for a Dermocystidium epizootic.
Since the oy6ter kill reportedly occurred rapidly, other factors
such as pollutants, fresh water influx, algal blooms and possible over-
crowding could have been involved as contributing stresses on infected
oysters.
SURVEY FOR POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
We continued to monitor the water, sediment, and biota of
(1*.)
Escambia Bay and contiguous waters for Aroclor^^l254. As reported
in the 1970 Escambia Bay Enforcement Conference Proceedings, we
traced one source of this polychlorinated biphenyl to an accidental
Registered trade mark - Monsanto Company
-------
/V-
leak at the Monsanto Chemical Plant located on the Escambia River.
Aroclor 1254 entered Escambia River at the Monsanto Weir, was
carried downstream and is now in biota, sediment, and water of
Escambia Bay and contiguous waters. The source of the leak was
eliminated when Monsanto was notified of the problem in August
1969. A survey conducted by this laboratory in December 1970
and reported in the 1971 Escambia Bay Enforcement Conference
Proceedings showed that residues of this chemical continued to
occur in the biota, sediment and water of the estuarine system.
Another survey was conducted on October 26, 1971 to determine
existing levels of Aroclor 1254 in the bay. In the recent survey,
we analyzed samples of:
(1) Water collected at six transects that were located up-
stream from the Monsanto Chemical Company on the Escambia
River and extended downstream to upper Escambia Bay
(Figure 1),
(2) Sediments collected with a grab sampler from the river
and estuary at 10 transects established from the previous
study (Figure 2),
(3) Sediment cores from eight stations in the lower river and
upper bay (Figure 3), and
(4) Biota, including vegetation, invertebrates and vertebrates
from different locations in the estuary (Figure"4).
Results:--The concentrations of Aroclor in the water were
approximately the same or lower than those recorded in the 1970
-------
survey. Concentrations were lower in water collected near the old
Monsanto outfall (weir) and in surface water above the Highway 90
bridge.
Greatest amounts of Aroclor were found in sediments collected
near Monsanto in upper Escambia Bay but concentrations in sediments
at most locations were less than those reported in 1971. The
greatest decrease was found in sediment cores, especially in the
core from sediment collected above the L&N bridge (Figure 3,
stations E and F). Sediment cores from the estuary showed that
the upper strata at this time were the most contaminated.
As much as 10 times more Aroclor occurred in samples of biota
from Escambia Bay than occurred in those taken from East Bay
(Table 1 and Figure 4). Benthic species collected from upper bays
(Table 2) appeared to contain more Aroclor than those from other
locations in the system.
Conclusions:—The concentrations of Aroclor 1234 at many
locations in the river and the estuary appear to have decreased
in magnitude since the survey one year ago, although no statistical
evaluation was made due to the limited number of samples taken.
Without doubt, Aroclor 1254 is dispersed in this estuarine system
N
as indicated by the residues in the biota collected from the
various parts of the system and the chemical appears to be
concentrated in the higher trophic levels.
-------
1H2
Figure 1. Concentrations (expressed in parts per-billion) of Aroclo^®
1254 in water samples collected Oct. 26, 1971, from Pensacola Estuary.
Above Monsanto, S-KD, b-ND
New Monsanto weir, S-tr, b-tr
Old Monsanto weir, S-0.16, b-0.06
S- ND
b- tr
b- tr
S-ND
b-ND
S- surface samples
b- bottom samples
ND- nondetectable <.0.03 ppb
tr- trace 0.03-0.05 ppb
-------
Figure 2. Concentrations (in. parts per million) of Arocloiffi)1254
in sediments from Pensacola Estuary.
0.14
1.5
0.25
ND
ND
ND
NAUTICAL
MILES
ND
EAST BAY
ND
PENSACOLA
ND
20
ND
ND- nondetectable <,0.10 ppm
tr- trace - 0.01-0.05 ppm
ND
-------
1UH
I ?
lit,ure 3, Concentrations (in patLs per million) ox Arocioi^ J.254 iti
sediment cores from Pensacola Estuary.
Location
Above Monsanto
0-2" ND
2-4" ND
4-7" ND
New Monsanto outlet
0-2" 0.13
2-4" 0.17
4-7" 0.23
Old Monsanto outlet
0-2" 8.1
2-4" 0.12
4-8" ND
Highway 90
0-2" L.2
2-4" 1.1
4-6" 13.0
Above trestle
0-2" 0.63
2-4" tr
4-8" ND
8-10" ND
Below trestle
0-2" 0.19
2-4" ND
4-8" ND
8-11" ND
Above trestle
0-2" 1.2
2-4" tr
4-8" ND
8-12 ND
Below trestle
0-2" 0.18
2-4" ND
4-8" ND
8-10 ND
ND- nondetectable ^0.10 ppm
tr- trace -0.01-0.05 ppm
-------
Figure 4. Collection sites in Escambia and T .bt B.iy:; (,'iiota only).
MILE.';
oa
EAST HAY
PENSACOLA
l &
na SOVJW®
sauta *oSA
Collection date: 11/26/71
-------
Table 1. Comparison In amounts of Arocloi® 1254 (parts per million (ppm) whole body)
in samples of biota from East and Escambia Bays collected October 26, 1971.
Biota
Common Name
Scientific Name
East
Escambia
Plants
Spartlna sj>
ND
ND
Zostera marina
NO
ND
Mollusks
Rangia
Rangia cuneata
ND
ND
Neritina reclivata
ND
0.49
Arthropods
Brown and
Penacus aztecus and
tr
(8)
0.98
(12]
White shrimp
P. setiferus
Blue crabs
Callinectes sapidus
0.46
(3)
6.9
(16)
Chordates
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
0.68
(14)
3.0
(4)
Sea catfish and
Arius felis and
0.58
(2)
3.8
(2)
Gafftopsail catfish
Bagre marinus
Tidewater silversides
Menidia bcrvllina
0.95
(13)
10.0
(19)
Silver perch
Bairdiella chrysura
0.48
(7)
4.5
(3)
Sand seatrout
Cynoscion arenarius
--
1.5
(8)
Spotted seatrout
Cynoscion nebulosus
0.12
(12)
—
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
tr (10)
1.8
(7)
Atlantic croaker
MicropoRon undulatus
tr (9)
1.6
(10)
Hogchoker
Trinectes maculatus
ND
1.3
(2)
Atlantic cutlassfish'
Trichlurus lepturus
0.72
(2)
2.9
(2)
ND - nondetectable<0.10 ppm
tr - trace = 0.01-0.05 ppm
-------
Table 2. Comparison in the amounts of Arocloi® 1254 (ppm whole body)
in samples of benthic organisms from the Pensacola Estuary collected Oct. 26, 1971.
Location
Number
of PredRe hauls
Biota
PPM
Upper Escambia Bay
(a line across the bay from a point 1 mile
above Lora Point to a point 200 yds off the
mouth of Mulatto Bayou)
13
Mollusca
(1 bivalve)
1.3
Escambia Bay
(a line from 200 yds. off Devil Point
directed through the light to a point
200 yds. north of the upper boundary of
Pearson's lease
10
Pensacola Bay
(a line along a north to south transect
200 yds. east of old Pensacola Bay Bridge)
18
Annelida
(1 doz. annelids) ND
(1 doz. annelids) 0.57
Mollusca
(1 bivalve) ND
(3 mud snails) ND
Arthropoda
(1 Squilla sp) 0,40
Annelida and
Nemertina
(2 doz.) 0.12
Mollusca
(S snails) ND
Arthropoda
(3 Palaemonetes sp) ND
Chordata
(2 fish) 0.29
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Number
Location of Dredge hauls
Pensacola Bay Entrance 15
(a line between Buoys 10 and 12)
ND - nondetectable <0.10 pprn
Biota
PPM
Echinodermata
(2 brittlestars) ND
Annelida and
Nemertina
(five annelids and ND
2 nemerteans
Mollusca
(1 doz. bivalves and ND
snails)
Arthropoda
(3 snapping shrimp and ND
A small xanthid9)
Chordata
(3 amphioxus) ND
-------
Dr. T. W. Duke
149
DR. DUKE: .The Environmental Protection Agency's
Laboratory at Gulf Breeze, Florida, an associate laboratory
of the National Environmental Research Center, Corvallis,
Oregon, conducts research on the effect of toxic organic
compounds, chiefly pesticides, on estuarine plants and animals
and their environment. We have conducted some studies con-
cerned directly with pollution in Escambia Bay and trust that
these results will be helpful to the conferees.
My statement will cover three subjects: report of
the conference of menhaden kills. This is a report of the
conference that the conferees requested we hold.
The second, oyster mortalities in Escambia Bay.
And the third, survey for polychlorinated biphenyls.
Concerning the menhaden conference, the conferees
of the Enforcement Conference held in Pensacola, Florida, on
February 23 and 24, 1971, asked that a conference for menhaden
fisheries be held to discuss the possibility of limiting the
movement of juvenile menhaden into restricted bayous in
Escambia Bay and contiguous waters. As you well know, we have
experienced many fish kills in Escambia Bay during the past
several years and in some instances a million or more menhaden
were involved, although these were not the only fish involved.
The conference was held at the Gulf Breeze Laboratory
-------
150
Dr„ T. W. Duke
on April 7, 1971, and was attended by representatives of the
Federal and State governments and universities. A list of
those attending the meeting is in the appendix. The discus-
sions at the meeting covered five general topics: the biology
and value of Gulf menhaden, cause of fill kills, the use of
air curtains to restrict movement of fish, need for effective
cleanup crews, and last, the introduction of predator species
to control populations of menhaden. Participants in the con-
ference reiterated that excess nutrients in the waters of
Escambia Bay can cause a eutrophic or overenriched situation
that results in low dissolved oxygen in the water. When a
large population of fish enters a restricted area with low
amounts of oxygen, a fish kill can be expected.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to
ask a member of this conference at this time to give a brief
talk on the biology of the menhaden. I think it might be
helpful to us as we progress through the talk.
MR. WHITE: Pine. Ask him to come up, if you would.
DR. DUKE: All right. This is Mr. Marlin E. Tagatz,
a fishery biologist, who was formerly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service and is now with EPA at Gulf Breeze. Mr.
Tagatz has performed quite a bit of research on the Gulf men-
haden and I think his talk will be helpful to us.
-------
151
M. E. Tagatz
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
MARLIN E. TAGATZ, FISHERY BIOLOGIST
SABINE ISLAND LABORATORY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GULF BREEZE, FLORIDA
MR. TAGATZ: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen.
This report .is partly based on a study by the National
Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory, Beaufort, North Carolina,
on that portion of the life history of the Gulf menhaden that
occurs in the inside waters at Pensacola.
Collections were obtained during 1970 and 1971 from
the Pensacola Bay Bridge and from Upper East Bay and Lower East
Bay River.
Larval menhaden hatch in the Gulf of Mexico and
after three to five weeks enter estuaries for further develop-
ment, Spawning takes place near shore from late October
through March.
Larvae enter the Pensacola inlet during a five-month
period, December to April, and range in size from 10 to 30 mm,
one-half to one inch total length. They are elongated, trans-
parent, and without scales, and school by size frorr. the time
-------
152
M. E. Tagatz
they enter the estuary.
Larvae were most abundant in February, five or six
per cubic meter of water strained with a plankton net. There-
fore, Juveniles comprising the summer fish kills are first
found in Escambia Bay as small larvae from December to May.
Early growth in the East Bay area was in low salin-
ities or fresh water. As the young increased in size they
moved downstream to the Lower Bay where salinities were over
10 parts per thousand or about one-third seawater.
Juveniles 30 to 50 mm, one to two inches, in April
attained a size of 90 to 120 mm, three and a half to four and
three-quarter inches, by August. Also abundant in August were
much smaller fish from late season spawning. The small size
of all catcnes after August indicated that most Juveniles had
moved toward the Gulf.
Schools of yearlings hatched the previous spawning
season also appeared in the estuary from April to October.
These were 90 to 130 mm, three and a half to five inches long,
in April and over 150 mm, six inches long, in October, They
probably enter the estuary from the Gulf to feed.
Menhaden, like mullet, are filter feeders on algae
and the remains of higher plants. Also, they are near the
bottom of the food chain and provide food for many carnivores
-------
153
M. E. Tagatz
Some fish common to Escambia Bay that prey on men-
haden are the silver perch, sea trout, croaker, sea catfish,
ladyfish, lizardfish and flounder.
Since 1963 the menhaden has been the most valuable
fish in the Gulf of Mexico. It is an industrial fish and not
used for human food.
Products are fish meal for poultry and hogs, oil for
lubricants, paints and soaps, and condensed solubles for pro-
tane supplement to animal feed.
Gulf menhaden catches set a new record in 1971,
exceeding the historic record catches of Pacific sardine in
1936 and Atlantic menhaden in 1956. Over one and a half billlor
pounds were landed at 13 processing plants in only three
States: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Half of the fish
were one to two years old and half were two to three years
old.
Eighty-five purse seine carrier vessels operated,
each capable of carrying up to 350 tons of fish. An average
set of the net yields from 20 to 25 tons of menhaden.
It has been estimated that for each one billion
pounds in the commercial catch, 50 billion juveniles must grow
up In Gulf estuaries.
Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
-------
15"
M. E. Tagatz
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: How long will it be, do you think, at
the rate we are going;, with the little ones dying up in
estuaries and the big ones being taken away by the tons, before
this whole thing just completely disappears?
MR. TAGATZ: Well, the Beaufort, North Carolina,
Laboratory, the personnel there are concerned about the
increase in the effort of the commercial fishery from year to
year and feel that it probably has reached a point where no
more effort should be involved.
MR. LEVIN: Are you saying that we have gotten to the
point now that without some Federal legislation or whatever
legislation it is going to take to stop these folks from—you
said Texas, Louisiana and where?
MR. TAGATZ: Yes, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi
are the three States.
MR. LEVIN: —to stop them from doing what they are
doing to menhaden, that eventually we are Just going to be
without that species of fish altogether? .
MR. TAGATZ: Well, it is a commercial species, as I
pointed out in point of commercial species, and they feel that
they have probably reached the sustained yield with the effort
-------
155
M. E. Tagatz
of number of boats and number of plants. Although the catch
has gone up, the effort also has gone up the past years.
MR. LEVIN: I don't know what that means.
MR. TAGATZ: The catch per unit of effort, the number
of boats that are fishing, the size of net and the efficiency
of the boats have also increased over the past years, which is
involved in this large increase from year to year of the com-
mercial catch of menhaden.
MR. LEVIN: Yes, but that doesn't do anything about
these menhaden reproducing, does it, except that when you kill
the adults, I assume, that that is going to be that fewer—
MR. TAGATZ: Juveniles.
MR. LEVIN: —juveniles?
MR. TAGATZ: Juveniles in the estuary, right. But
this large volume of fish that is caught by the commercial
fishery depends on success in all these estuaries in the Gulf
because of the volumes of fish involved.
I am not sure I understand your question.
MR. LEVIN: Well, my question is, you know you can't
pick up a magazine or a newspaper without hearing about the
salmon, the tuna—
MR. TAGATZ: Right.
MR. LEVIN: —that are virtually going to becorre
-------
156
M. E. Tagatz
extinct if we don't start doing something about stopping the
wholesale catch of these fish.
Now, based on what you have just said, myself, I am
concerned about what is going to happen with the menhaden if,
first of all, we don't do something about the estuary situation*
and secondly, on the other hand, don't do something about stop-
ping the catch of the grown-up menhaden for fertilizer and
all this other thing that you mentioned.
Now, you have mentioned something that you all were
concerned, that the scientists are concerned. Now, we are at
the point to where we have got to start becoming concerned
about the extinction of this fish. Now, am I right so far?
MR. TAGATZ: Not the extinction of the fish, but to
maintain it at levels that it would be profitable for—it is
a commercial species—for the processing and reduction plants
to operate. On the Atlantic Coast they had tremendous records
of catches too in 1956, and by increased effort the bottom of the
catch just fell out and it became nonprofitable for many of the
reduction plants to operate.
And they are looking at this as a possibility in the
Gulf, that it is following in some ways the increased effort
that was used on the Atlantic, that this could also take place
in the Gulf and mean a reduction in the number of fish to make
-------
157
Dr. T. W. Duke
them commercially profitable, not as a matter of extinction.
MR. LEVIN: I am not so much worried about the
commercial profit, for some reason or other.
MR. WHITE: I think Dr. Duke can help, too, if both
of you gentlemen will stand there.
MR. TAGATZ:" All right.
DR. DUKE: I believe I can answer. I see your con-
cern. I believe I can answer it.
MR. LEVIN: I am concerned, first of all, about the
extinction of the fish, and secondly, what effect is that
going to have as a food supply for the other fish, which we
have already been told is down ^0 percent, see.
DR. DUKE: Right. You have got two good concerns and
you have got one area in the Gulf where the National Marine
Fisheries Service and biologists are working with the menhaden
people to see that they don't overexploit the resource. They
are working along that area. Your concern is right there.
The second is, it is very true that this is another
reason we must protect our estuaries, because as Mr. Tagatz
mentioned, these fish come In and grow. You heard how much
they grow in the estuary. It is a nursery ground. Your con-
cern 1b right there, again, why we must preserve the estuary.
So there are two things there that we must be looking
-------
158
Dr. T'. W. Duke
at and your concern is Justified and there is something going
on in those.
LEVIN: Doctor, let me ask you this. Is there
any Federal legislation to control these people that you say
are overseining the catches of these fish, that gives them the
power to stop it' if in fact they feel it is necessary?
DR. DUKE: To answer it truthfully, I don't know what
their powers for stopping the commercial fishermen are. I know
that the government is aware of this and exactly what powers
they have I do not know.
MR. LEVIN: I have no more questions.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Ravan?
MR. RAVAN: Just one question,
I would like for you to explain exactly what you mean
by filter feeder and is this at all depths?
MR. TAGATZ: They are primarily a surface schooling
fish and they feed by Just swimming in schools with their mouth
open and straining small plankton through their gills out of
the stream, particles that are caught up in their gills network,
and it is primarily an algae and plant, although they do take
small animal plankters too, but primarily plant material.
MR. RAVAN: Can one conclude from what you Just said
that they in fact will not feed down at the lower depths
-------
159
M. E. Tagatz
regardless of what that depth Is, in other words skimming along
the surface where the sediments are?
MR. TAGATZ: They can feed at the bottom depths if
for some reason a school decides to lower its position. The
plankton is most common in the upper layers of the water where
it gets most light and as a result the menhaden follow the
plankters in the area where they are common and that is in the
surface waters.
MR. RAVAN: Then is it common or uncommon to find
thera feeding along the bottoms?
MR. TAGATZ: It is uncommon, because we have
attempted to collect them at bottom depths ij\ each bay with
bottom trawls and they are much more abundant relative to the
bottom at the surface than they are at the bottom. We use
surface nets to collect them.
MR. RAVAN: Thank you.
MR. LEVIN: Can I ask another question?
MR. WHITE: Yes. Mr. Levin. Please do.
MR. LEVIN: Do you find as many in East Bay as you
find in Escambia Bay?
MR. TAGATZ: I haven't made any studies in Escambia
Bay. It has just been observations of the fish kill. But we
have found a lot of menhaden in East Bay. For instance, we
-------
16.0
M. E. Tagatz
catch as many with a surface trawl about 20-foot wide net as
20,000 to 40,000, which is a considerable number.
But as far as the relative abundancy between Escambia
and East Bay, all I can say is that there are a lot of menhaden
in East Bay and obviously a lot of them in Escambia Bay.
MR. LEVIN: You see, what I am trying to get at, I
talked to a friend of mine yesterday who does a lot of work
in this particular field. He says that if you follow the
migration of these fish from an airplane that you will see
them corae up to Garcon Point and just like somebody stuck out
their hand for a left-hand turn and they just swing north into
Escambia Bay.
And 1 was wondering if there is any particular reason
or to be more specific is there anything that industry is dis-
charging into this water that would necessarily attract those
fish into that area as opposed to them going on up into East
Bay?
MR. TAGATZ: Well, of course they are always pursuing
food and Escambia Bay is very rich in algae and plankton
because of the hi^h nutrient values. This is one of the
reasons the Juveniles are in this area in huge numbers, because
there is a ready food supply for them to feed on.
MR. LEVIN: And that is being supplied by the
-------
161
M. E. Tagatz
industries?
¦ MR. TAGATZ: Right. I am not condoning this.
(Laughter.)
MR. LEVIN: No, no, I am not—I am trying to find
out if there is any relationship that you know—maybe I might
ask Dr. Duke this:
Is there any relation between the food being supplied
for these fish by virtue of the number of TOC's in the water,
whatever they happen to be?
MR. TAGATZ: Repeat that question. I am sorry.
MR. LEVIN: I am not even sure if I am asking the
right question. (Laughter.) We just heard that Container is
being nice to supply us with TOC's coming down the river, see,
and I am Just wondering if that contributes in any large
amount to the food which is being supplied for these fish Just
before the trap door is sprung on them.
MR. TAGATZ: Right. Well, any nutrients that are
In the river increase the algae bloom and as a result more
fish will enter the area, but this, of course, is bad because
if we have too many numbers of fish they reduce the oxygen
again, have an oxygen demand, so although the food may be good
the large numbers of fish that take advantage of it would be
bad because their numbers would also hurt the oxygen level of
-------
¦ 162
M. E. Tagatz
these areas.
MR. LEVIN: Now, this could possibly be the dumbest
question that has ever been asked. Does the color of the water,
do you think, have, any effect on attracting the young menhaden?
MR. TAGATZ: .1 really couldn't say. I don't know
myself if a color of the water would be any attractant to
menhaden.
MR. WHITE: I believe Dr. Duke, could you just clarify
for us now the process of the creation of the algae and what-not
from the nutrients? Would you go into that Just briefly?
DR. DUKE: I don't believe I could answer the
direct question that Mr. Levin asked any better than Mr. Tagatz,
but certainly the phytoplankton blooms require nutrients, such
as nitrogen and phosphorus, and so forth, and we have quite a
few blooms and we have an excess of nutrients.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Traina.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Tagatz, you mentioned that since
1963, I believe the date was, that menhaden has become a viable
commercial fishery in the Gulf. Is there any significance to
that date?
MF. TAGATZ: It seems that industry—I really don't
quite understand the economics of why suddenly the fish became
so important except that more money was invested and there
-------
163
M. E. Tagatz
seemed to be a shift of the populations from the Florida area
to the areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, and—
MR. LEVIN: All ours are dead, that's why, (Laughter.)
MR. TAGATZ: I think part of it is from restrictions,
too, in Florida to that type of net. They aren't able to fish
there.
MR. TRAINA: It has nothing to do with the life
cycle of the menhaden? I mean there were as many menhaden
in 1958 as there were in 1963 and as there are now generally
out in the Gulf?
MR. TAGATZ: I really don't know. I don't believe
there are any records of the—
MR. TRAINA: In your studies of the menhaden cycle in
the Gulf, how significant is this particular area, Escambia-
Pensacola Bay? Have you made any estimates of the percent of
the Juveniles that -come in here of the total population of
menhaden into this area?
MR. TAGATZ:' No. Some of the people from the
Beaufort, North Carolina, Laboratory, National Fisheries
Service Laboratory, have been involved in a tagging program
of Juvenile menhaden in estuaries from Florida to Texas and
they tagged fewer fish, unfortunately, in this area and quite
late, so they have had no returns of Florida Juveniles in the
-------
16U
M. E. Tagatz
commercial fishery in the Gulf, but they found that the
Juveniles that they tagged in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi
participated,were part of the fishery; in other words, Juvenile^
in Texas could be caught in Mississippi or Louisiana, that they
were traveling from an estuary to another State, off another
State, and were caught. And 1 suspect that the very same thing
may be true in Florida, although I have nothing to base it on
at this time, but I believe the Juveniles—
MR. TRAINA: In other words, fish that might be
using this area here end up being caught off the areas of
Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas?
MR. TAGATZ: I would- believe that might be—
MR. TRAINA: In other words, the migration pattern
is such that it involves all of these Gulf States?
MR. TAGATZ: I believe so. But as I say, this would
have to wait until more tag returns, another year until we get
some tag returns from the Florida juveniles.
MR. TRAINA: Have there been observations made of
similar types of fish kills in other estuarine areas along
the Gulf?
KR. TAGATZ: I really couldn't answer that. I am
sorry, I really don't know,
MR. TRAINA: Thank you, sir.
-------
165
Dr. T. W. Duke
MR. WHITE: Any other comments or questions?
Doctor, do you plan to go on?
DR. DUKE: Yes. I wanted Mr. Tagatz to make this
presentation to talk a little bit about the biology of the
menhaden and some of the problems involved so you might see
the problems involved, how you cannot Just say we will keep
the menhaden out of a particular area. They come in very
small and are difficult to work with in that respect.
Another item that was mentioned was the use of air
curtains. Air curtains are often used across the entrance to
a restricted area, and I will talk a little bit more about them
later, to keep populations of menhaden from entering this
particular area. The air curtain is a sheet of air bubbles
formed by forcing compressed air through a perforated pipe laid
across the bottom of a stream. It is a barrier, in other words.
This was used in Mulatto Bayou in the summer of 1971 and
observations indicated that the air curtain effectively pre-
vented the fish from entering the bayou. Even so, the con-
tinuous operation of the air curtain presented some problems.
To mention a few, the estimated cost to operate three air com-
pressors for three months was about $10,000 and there was some
equipment stolen and there were maintenance problems. Also we
do not yet know what effect the air curtain has on keeping
-------
166
Dr. T. W. Duke
other animals, such as shrimp, other fish, crabs, from
crossing into an area where we might want them to go0
It would be useful to introduce into the bay a
predator, that is an animal that would feed on juvenile men-
haden, as a tool for holding down the size of menhaden popula-
tions. Striped bass was discussed as a possible predator, but
the participants dismissed the idea because little is known
about the effectiveness of this fish as a predator on menhaden
and there is a possibility that this predator might accumulate
polychlorinated biphenyl or Aroclor 125^ that is in our bay,
so this idea was dismissed.
The conferees of this menhaden conference felt that
we could look forward to additional fish kills and that we must
address ourselves to the need for a cleanup crew to remove dead
fish from future kills. This, very briefly, was the discussion
that went on at the conference. I would like to read three
recommendations that came out of the conference:
Air curtains should be installed only in Mulatto
Bayou to evaluate further their effectiveness as a barrier to
passage of menhaden and to investigate the effect of air
curtains on the ecology of the bayou and nearby waters.
A.work force could be created to respond quickly to
remove dead fish from fish kills. The work force could consist
-------
167
Dr. T. W. Duke
of high school or college students, migrant laborers or others
who would work on State and Federal highway projects, but would
be free to respond quickly to a fish kill. The possibility of
using fish as a fertilizer also should be investigated.
The third, controlled and limited dredging in the
inlet to Woodland and Hoffman Bayous to remove obstructions and
permit free circulation of water between the bay and contiguous
waters.
Those in general were the recommendations of that
conference.
Do you have any questions about the menhaden area
before we go on?
MR. LEVIN: Would you mention that third one again,
please?
DR. DUKE: Controlled, limited dredging in the inlet
,o Woodland and Hoffman Bayous to remove obstructions and permit
free circulation of water between the bay and contiguous waters.
MR. LEVIN: Are there barriers there now?
DR. DUKE: Yes. Some members of the conference
suggested that a fill was being—a ledge was being formed
across the entrance to these and that there had been some fish
kills when the fish got in and the water didn't circulate
properly and didn't have the right amount of oxygen. It was
-------
168
Dr. T. W. Duke
thought that if this was open and the water permitted to
circulate, possibly it might help the situation,
MR. WHITE: Any other comments?
MR. TRAINA: Dr. Duke, speaking of air curtains,
did the conferees examine the effectiveness of the air curtains
when they were in two summers ago and what did they conclude?
DR. DUKE: If I remember correctly, there were no
in-depth studies of this, but observations of some of the folks
from the University of West Florida. These people thought that
when they were in operation they did in fact keep the menhaden
from going up the bayou.
MR. TRAINA: The problem is to keep them in operation?
DR. DUKE: That is one big problem, yes.
MR. WHITE: I understand, too, that you didn't get
into any depth of consideration of other things, such as nets
across the bay, because of the logistical problems of main-
taining such an apparatus?
DR. DUKE: It was brought up, but your point is
correct.
HH. WHITE: Mr. Mauriello?
MR. MAURIELLO: I want to follow a train. Dr. Duke.
I think what we are saying is that there are plankton
and algae blooms that are drawing the menhaden into the bay.
-------
Dr. T. W. Duke
169
Is this a correct assumption?
DR. DUKE: This is an assumption, yes.
MR. MAURIELLO: That because of the volume that is
there the large schools are being drawn in and that the algae
and the phytoplankton are available through the nutrients that
are available, whether it is combinations of carbon, nitrogen,
phosphorus, whatever the case may be.
Did the conference go into any discussion concerning
possibly breaking the chain of providing that source of food
for the menhaden, mechanically possibly? Sunlight is a factor
in the development of the phytoplankton or the algae blooms.
During your conference did any discussion in controlling of the
source of food—and let me put it in this respect, was any of
this discussed?
DR. DUKE: I do recall that it was discussed and at
the conference no one had the knowledge of what could be used
at this time. For example, mechanical means, the bay is so
large and it would be very difficult, the logistics would be
difficult. The conferees did not accept the idea of chemical
control of the algae. This was mentioned but dropped.
And these things were kicked around, but of those
present we just did not have a good logical, feasible idea
along.that line.
-------
Dr. T. W. Duke
170
i-lR. RAVAN: One further, if I may.
Doctor, would you state again why you thought it
would be a good idea to put in this predator fish?
DR. DUKE: Yes. We thought if the menhaden popula-
tions—we were drawing then in and they were quite large, that
perhaps we could cut down on the numbers of fish in the menhaden
population by introducing predator fish. In other words, it is
a biological control. It is something that happens; it is the
balance of nature.
In other words, nature is out of balance. We have
too many of the food fish. So it was discussed to bring It
back in balance by introducing some predator fish that would
eat the menhaden and possibly keep the population down.
MR. RAVAN: I am not sure I go along with that con-
clusion based on the fact that we see something happening at
the beginning of this menhaden chain and large catches being
taken at the upper end of the menhaden chain.
And lastly, the air curtains, the predator fish,
or whatever means we want to use, isn't that an interim solu-
tion? It doesn't keep the menhaden from being killed?
DR. DUKE: That is a very good point» The conferees
mentioned, and I hope that I stated it correctly at the begin-
ning of this talk, that anything we do along this line is
-------
171
Dr. T. W. Duke
temporary. What has to be done is reduce the pollution in the
bay. That is the point.
MR. RAVAN: Good. Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments or questions?
Do you plan to go on, Doctor?
DR. DUKE: I will do It quickly.
MR. WHITE: Well,go ahead, and I want to ask Mr.
Tagatz one more question when you get through.
DR. DUKE: Do you want to go ahead?
MR. WHITE: It doesn't matter.
Mr. Tagatz, do you have specifics on that tagging
study that is going on on menhaden? I mean are you thoroughly
familiar with what the North Carolina Laboratory is doing in
this area?
MR. TAGATZ: Not thoroughly familiar. I know, you
know, what they are doing, but as far as numbers of tags, and
so forth, that material will be available to me, but I don't
know offhand.
MR. WHITE: Well, the thing that I am getting to, is
there any way that we could accelerate this investigation of
theirs that might give us any information that would be bene-
ficial to us in considering this problem? Or do you think they
are doing as much as they can now?
-------
172
M. E. Tagatz
MR. TAGATZ: Well, this would be the goals and aims
of that particular laboratory. They are Involved with other
things besides menhaden investigations and I guess it would be
on a relative basis, depending on the director and what- input
he has from the people above him Just how much time or effort
he feels he can devote to such things as menhaden Investigations
in the Gulf or elsewhere. But certainly much more could be
done in the Gulf in .this regard, more fish should be tagged
and closer records, more collections obtained'.
MR. WHITE: The reason I am asking, I don't know ti.at
there is anything we could do, but conceivably we could work
with a sister agency and see if we couldn't get more emphasis
on this particular problem if you think that this would be
beneficial in our endeavor here of understanding the problem.
MR. TAGATZ: No question about it, it would be bene-
ficial to understanding the problem in Escambia Bay, any
information we can have with regard to movements of Juveniles,
their feeding and the biology and life history of the animal.
Unfortunately, Beaufort has de-emphasized their Gulf work and
v.
it is just right now a monitoring of commercial fishery and
they are turning to other things.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
t-
Dr. Duke, if you would, please.
-------
173
Dr. T, W. Duke
DR. DUKE: I will just continue, then. We will leave the
menhaden conference and to the second item.
Our laboratory was involved in studies of oyster
mortalities, oyster deaths, that reportedly occurred in
Escambia Bay from September 2 through September 6, 1971.
Investigators from our laboratory, in conjunction with personnel
from The Florida Department of Natural Resources and local
fishermen, collected oysters from beds on the east and west
sides of Escambia Bay on September 8. Approximately 67 to 91*
percent of the oysters collected from sites on the east side of
the bay were dead. We took some of these oysters back to the
laboratory and examined them in the laboratory and our path-
ologist, Mr. John Couch, found that the specimens indicated
infections of Dermocystidium marinum, a fungus, and this
infection ranged from heavy to light infection,
MR. WHITE: The conferees will refer to that as a
fungus. (Laughter.)
DR. DUKE: Thank you.
Unfortunately, relatively few dying oysters or
gapers were found in the samples and observations and collec-
tions were made at least two days after the major kill had
occurred. However, from our laboratory analysis, it appears
that this fungus was a large contributing factor in the mass
-------
17^
L)r. T. W. Duke
mortality.
I will take just a minute to talk about this fungus
in case you nay not be familiar with it.
It is a parasitic marine fungus. It is found In
tissues of oysters from bays and sounds and estuaries along
from Texas to Maryland.
The fungus was first reported In 1950 by Mackin,
Owen and Collier from oysters in Barataria Bay, Louisiana.
Since 1950 the fungus has been studied extensively in almost
every coastal State between Texas and Delaware. It has been
shown in field and laboratory studies to be a natural and
severe pathogen or disease-causing agent in the oyster.
The parasite is responsible for periodic heavy
mortalities in oysters in some instances in late summer and
early fall when water temperatures are high and the salt
content is high for the water. Dr. Mackin and most scientists
who have studied the fungus have reported that conditions such
as fatigue, spawning, and adverse environmental conditions
enhance the spread and intensity of infection and subsequent
deaths.
The death of the oysters in Escambia Bay was reported
to have occurred suddenly rather than over a long period of
time as one normally would expect from an infection of this
-------
Dr. T. W. Duke
175
sort. Because of this, other factors, such as pollutants,
freshwater Influx, algal blooms, and possible overcrowding
could have been involved as contributing stresses on the
infected oysters.
That is the summary of the oyster mortality report.
If there are questions on that, perhaps we can take them now.
MR. WHITE: Any questions?
MR. TRAINA: A couple, Tom.
You say the environmental conditions enhance the
chances of infection. Is there any work being done in the
laboratory or otherwise as to particularly what kind of
environmental conditions, low pH's or, you know, what specific
quality parameters might enhance this chance of infection?
DR. DUKE: I personally am not aware of it, Paul.
I can ask the pathologist and he would probably know, but I
think, from what I have read and understand, it is the general
deteriorating conditions give problems.
MR. TRAINA: Another question, Tom. Do you have any
estimates as to what the economic damage was due to this oyster
kill that you experienced here?
DR. DUKE: We did not make that kind of investigation.
I am really not familiar with it, but I think the State of
Florida may have some information on that.
-------
Dr. T. W. Duke
176
MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Were there any other unusual circum-
stances that happened at about the time of the kill that may
have contributed to the problem? I understand allegedly there
was a dumping of some sort In the upper end of the bay?
DR. DUKE: Yes. This was reported. We did not
investigate that, Mr. Chairman, but this has been reported
through the State of Florida where a large amount, several
thousand pounds, of nitrate was dumped at about this time.
MR. WHITE: I see. Any other comments or questions?
You have one more?
DR. DUKE: I have one more subject.
MR. WHITE: That Is right, I forgot, we have the
PCB's. Please proceed.
DR. DUKE: I will talk just briefly now about the
polychlorinated biphenyls. If you like, we will call those
PCB's.
We continued to monitor the water, sediment and
plants and animals of Escambia Bay and contiguous waters for
Aroclor 12b^. Aroclor 1251* belongs to a group of industrial
chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls or PCB's. As
reported in the 1970 Escambia Bay Enforcement Conference
proceedings, we traced one source of this PCB to an accidental
-------
Dr. T. W. Duke
177
leak at the Monsanto Chemical Plant located on Escambia River.
This was reportedly a leak In the heat exchange fluid. Aroclor
125^ entered the Escambia River at the Monsanto weir, was car-
ried downstream and is now In animals, sediment and water of
Escambia Bay and contiguous waters.
The source of the leak was eliminated when Monsanto
was notified of the problem In August 1969. 0ur latest survey,
conducted on October 26, 1971, indicated that the concentrations
of Aroclor 125*1 at many locations in the river and estuary
appear to have decreased since the survey one year ago. Never-
theless, Aroclor 1251* is still dispersed in this estuary, as
indicated by recovery of the residue from animals, sediment
and water collected from the various parts of the estuary. The
chemical appears to be concentrated in higher levels of the
food chain. For example, we found 0.12 ppm in worms and 10
ppm in allversides, a small fiah. More detailed Information
of PCB concentrations In the water, near the Monsanto weir,
and in various levels of the food chain are given in the
appendix.
MR. WHITE: Comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much, Dr. Duke.
And we will take a 10-minute recess.
(RECESS)
-------
178
P. J. Traina
MR. WHITE: Let's go back In session, please.
We are going to deviate slightly from the schedule
that I outlined before. I understand In talking to Mr.
Crockett we have the Mayor of East Brewton here and he needs
to make a presentation and get back to take care of some
business.
So we will call on Mr. Crockett for a partial
Alabama presentation from the Mayor of East Brewton. When we
get through with that, then we will go back to the State of
Florida and pick up and go through with the entire presentation
and then get back to the rest of the Alabama presentation at
that time.
I believe Mr. Traina has a comment he wants to make.
MR. TRAINA: Just so we can maybe clear up thfe
Federal one, I don't have any indications of any more Federal
presentations to be made. I do want to acknowledge, though,
representatives of the various fallowing Federal agencies that
have registered here:
The Navy Public Works Center here at Pensacola,
the U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in Atlanta, ^
the U. S. Corps of Engineers in Mobile, the U. S. Coast Guard
New Orleans, and the U. 3. Coast Guard Mobile.
I would ask if any of these representatives would
-------
179
J. L. Crockett, Jr.
like to make a statement at this time? This is the time to
make it.
If not, Mr. White, that concludes the formal Federal
1 presentation.
MR. WHITE: I think we are ready with the Alabama
presentation. I will call on Mr. Crockett for the Mayor of
East Brewton at this time.
J. L. CROCKETT, JR.
DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL STAFF
ALABAMA WATER IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA
MR. CROCKETT: I would like to ask the Honorable
Maury 0. Weaver, the Mayor of East Brewton, to come forward
and make a statement for the town of East Brewton.
While he i-s coming forward, Mr. Jordan, who is Chair-
man of the Water and Sewer Board of East Brewton, is here and
also the representative of the engineering consulting firm
who is drawing plans for East Brewton.
-------
180
M. 0. Weaver
MAURY 0. WEAVER
MAYOR
EAST BREWTON, ALABAMA
KRo WEAVER: Ladies and gentlemen, I am Maury 0.
Weaver, Mayor of East Brewton, and I appreciate the opportunity
of giving a report to you on the status of construction of
sewage treatment facilities for our community.
East Brewton is a relatively small town having a
population of 2,511 in I960. The 1970 census figures reveal
that our community actually experienced a small decline in
population during this 10-year period. I became Mayor in July
1970 and inherited the task of the planning, financing and
construction of an adequate water board and sewage treatment
system shortly after becoming Mayor.
After becoming Mayor I met with the water board and
consulted the engineering firm and directed them to proceed
with the development and design of a sewage treatment plant.
Since that time our engineers have been involved in the prepa-
ration of plans and we have been working toward arranging for
the financing of the needed facilities.
I an very happy to announce to you today that an
application for a Federal tyrant to assist in the construction
of a treatment plant has been processed by the Alabama Water
-------
181
M. 0, Weaver
Improvement Commission and that It is in the Regional Office
of the Environmental Protection Agency awaiting approval. I
have Just been told that final construction and plans and
specifications of the above project have also been completed
and have been approved by the Alabama Water Improvement Com-
mission and is also in the Atlanta office awaiting Environmental
Protection Agency approval.
I want to assure each of you here today that it is
the intention of the city of East Brewton to proceed with the
construction of required treatment facilities as promptly as
possible following approval of our grant and plans and speci-
fications. I have asked the representative of the engineering
firm representing our city to be with us here today, also the
water board chairman, Mr. M. C. Jordan. Should there be any
question regarding this project, I will be glad to try to answer.
Gentlemen, we are doing everything possible.
Now it is up to you, whoever is head of this Environmental
Protection Agency, to approve these Federal grants. (Laughter.)
Now, there it is on the table.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mayor.
MAYOR WEAVER: Are there any questions?
MR. LEVIN: Are you, going to bring the engineer up
here?
-------
182
M. 0. Weaver
MAYOR WEAVER; Have you got any questions?
MR. LEVIN: Yes, sir, I sure do,
MR. RAVAN: Mr. Mayor, if you will, please, let me
say, I am Jack Ravan, Environmental Protection Agency. It is
a real pleasure to have you here with us today and I would like
to ask a question.
When was this request for participation submitted?
MAYOR WEAVER: Well, I can give it to you. I didn't
want to go into all these details. I didn't know you was going
to ask me.
Have you got them? I have got them here. It will
just take me a little time to find them.
MR. SPEAKS: I am Mike Speaks, with Polyengineering.
The first application was submitted on April 14th.
MAYOR WEAVER: Is this what you wanted to know?
MR. RAVAN: To whom was it submitted in April?
MR. SPEAKS: To the Alabama Water Improvement Com-
mission.
MR. RAVAN: And Mr. Crockett, when did that come to
us?
MR. CROCKETT: I think this was sent on the applica-
tion for Federal grant, I am not sure, but I believe all the
details were completed and the package delivered to your office
-------
183
M. 0. Weaver
on Thursday or Friday of last week.
MR. RAVAN: Thank you very much. I want you to know
that the Environmental Protection Agency will move with all due
haste to return this application and if at all possible we will
get an approval on it and get it back to you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR WEAVER: Thank you.
And there is one more thing. Whoever is head of this
news media, I wish they would get them off of East Brewton's
back. (Laughter.) Every time something comes up down here
about this thing they throw it on East Brewton. And those fish
are eating up what little we put in there before it gets to
Escambia River. (Applause and laughter.)
MR. WHITE: Let me respond to that, Mr. Mayor. I
appreciate your problem and I know you came into a very diffi-
cult situation. Of course you know we have no control over
anything like this and I regret that this reflects badly on
you.
But your predecessor in office or the former city
council,I think,did not act expeditiously to get to this
problem.And I think we would like to talk to your engineer
now about some specifics, assuming that—
MAYOR WEAVER: 0. K. Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Well, if you would like to stand, you may
-------
184
M, 0. Weaver
want to comment also, if you wouldn't mind.
Assuming that we get favorable action on this
rapidly, and I feel certain that that will be forthcoming,
what is the time frame for getting this project under way
and completed?
MR. SPEAKS: The plans are completed. We could
advertise as soon as, you know, we got approval on the grant.
Now, the fiscal agent for the city says that he can Bell the
bonds necessary for the additional amount, so we could advertise
as soon as we got notification of the grant.
KR. WHITE: What is your estimated construction
period?
MR. SPEAKS: One hundred fifty days, working days.
MH. WHITE: Mr. Crockett?
MR. CROCKETT: Would the town of East Brewton have
any difficulty in financing this project and constructing the
project witnln trie deadline of December 31, 1972, set by the
second session of this conference if the approved plans are
processed ana approved by the EPA within a month's time?
MR. SPaAKS: ho, sir. It could be possible, I mean
It would be completed.
MR. CROCKETT: But anything that could be done by
the Regional Office and Mr. Ravan to expedite this one project
-------
M. 0. Weaver
would certainly be helpful--
MR. SPEAKS: Yes, sir.
MR. CROCKETT: —in accomplishing the completion of
this project within the deadline set?
MR. SPEAKS: Right.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Speaks, do you know of any other
municipality or governmental agency that is using the Escambia
River to discharge its sewage into, as far as Escambia River
is concerned or Conecuh or whatever you all call it up there?
MR. SPEAKS: We are not associated with any other.
MR. LEVIN: I know you are not. I am Just asking to
your own knowledge do you know of any other cities that are
using this~
MR. SPEAKS: No, sir.
MR. LEVIN: —letting the fish eat whatever little
bit you all do? The fish eat it up is what you said.
MR. SPEAKS: That is what the Mayor said.
MR. LEVIN: That is what the Mayor said, right.
MR. SPEAKS: No, sir.
MR. LEVIN: Do you know of any other city?
MR. SPEAKS: No, sir.
MR. LEVIN: What system are you using now to get rid
-------
W. 0. Weaver
of the effluent?
MR. SPEAKS: The effluent presently is dumping
untreated into the Murder Creek.
MR. LEVIN: And you say Murder Creek. Does that then
go to the Conecuh River?
MR. SPEAKS: Yes.
MR. LEVIH: And how far downstream is the Conecuh
River from the Murder Creek disposal point?
MR. SPEAKS: I would say approximately four miles.
That would be a rough estimate.
MR. WEAVER: Is that to where your new disposal
would be?
MR. SPEAKS: No, to where it is dumping now.
MAYOR WEAVER: Into Conecuh River?
MR. SPEAKS: Right.
MAYOR WEAVER: About four miles.
MR. LEVIN: Do I understand what is happening is that
you all are gathering the wastes from these 2,511 citizens and
gathering it into one central place and then just dumping it
untreated into the Murder Creek?
MR. SPEAKS: Yes, that is right.
MR, LEVIN: Whenever you finish this plant, what will
be the percentage of treatment that you all will have afforded
-------
M, 0. Vieaver
187
this waste before you dispose of it--I assume you are going to
dispose of the rest of it that is still in Murder Creek?
MR. SPEAKS: Right. Approximately 85 percent treat-
ment .
MAYOR WEAVER: Mr. Speaks, let me interrupt for Just
a minute. We don't have the total sewage from 2,511. Tell him
how many sewage customers we have.
MR. SPEAKS: There is 411 sewer customers now.
MR. LEVIN: What happened to the other 2,100?
MR. SPEAKS: They are on septic tanks or something
else. They are not on city sewage.
MR. LEVIN: Let me ask Mr. Ravan this question:
Mr. Ravan, are you. all going to approve a sewer treat-
ment plant that only provides 85 percent removal?
MR. RAVAN: David, the question Is well taken. Let
me make a couple of comments.
The situation with regard to the town of East Brewton
is not unlike the situation with small towns and municipalities
throughout the Southeast. We find this not only the situation
in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and all the other
eight States over which we have some interest.
As to the particular approval, first of all let me
again express my feelings to the Mayor and Mr. Joe Crockett
-------
188
M. 0. Weaver
that in fact the Environmental Protection Agency,Juat having
received this application,will act in all due haste. We will
give the application full consideration and we look forward to
working with both the State of Alabama and the town of East
Brewton for an approval. We realize the seriousness of the
situation and the untimely consideration now of this applica-
tion.
And I realize, Mr. Mayor, that the problems of
serving the people of East Brewton are not unlike problems
associated with trying to serve the people at all levels.
Therefore, we are all in this thing with you and we will do all
we can now to get that application approved if in fact it is
approvable.
David, we will take into consideration whether or not
this is in fact addressing the whole problem or whether or not
it simply satisfies what quickly could be considered to be a 20
percent addressing. If there are 2,500 people there and they
all need service, our jurisdiction may end short of being able
to connect every home in East Brewton to this particular system.
However, let me be quick to point out that there are
in existence other programs, not necessarily under the umbrella
of the EPA, which can get at this program and I couldn't say
today whether or not that particular factor would gain the
-------
189
M. 0. Weaver
application a disapproval, and I certainly would be quick to
add that we will do all we can to get the application in a form
that can get it approved.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett.
MR. CROCKETT: How many people are now served by
the East Brewton system, how many of these 2,500 people?
MR. SPEAKS: Approximately 1,600.
MR. CROCKETT: I have Just made some quick figures
that those people would be discharging about 235 pounds of BOD.
If the full population were treated they would discharge before
treatment about U00 pounds. Now, if we gave it 85 percent
treatment, then what would be discharged would be 60 pounds.
So we are not talking about a major discharge.
MR. WHITE: Other comments or questions?
MR. LEVIN: I would Just like to make this comment.
It seems nothing is a major discharge that comes into
Florida and I Just think that we are being rather shortsighted
if in my Judgment—now, don't misunderstand me, I would rather
have 85 percent treatment than nothing, but we are requiring,
I believe, 90 percent in Florida, Now, if they want to take
this thing and dump it over in the Alabama River, that is all
right with me, but when we have got a critical problem here in
Escambia Bay I Just don't think it is right for us to sit here
-------
M. 0. Weaver
190
and just wave our hands and say we really don't have any
problem.
MR. WHITE: Well, of course, any source is a problem,
but I would say this too, absent other factors Indicating a
need for a higher degree of treatment, and we have this in many
instances, the normally accepted treatment level is 85 percent
removal. I think Florida is to be commended for going to 90
percent. This is a step beyond what is being done nationally.
But I do feel, too, that the nature of the discharge is such
that what BOD is left would be exerted rather rapidly in the
stream.
Any other comments?
If not, thank you very much, Mayor.
MAYOR WEAVER: I don't think you understood that we
do plan to put everybody on sewage. That is in the plans.
MR. SPEAKS: They also have applied for HUD grant to
sewer the whole town. We haven't heard from this grant. If
and when it does come through, the city is going ahead to sewer
the whole town.
MR. WHITE: Fine.
MR. RAVAN: That is what I was getting at. Our
authority does not allow us to pick up that, as you already
know, and if it will be of any assistance to you I will try to
-------
191
M. 0. Weaver
help along that line too and add my endorsement to the fact that
the Department of Housing and Urban Development also should move
quickly to get this grant approval.
MR. SPEAKS: Well, now, the HUD grant was also applied
for at the same time that this grant was applied for, so as
soon as It is processed we will go ahead with the rest of it.
MR. RAVAN: Thank you, sir.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaks.
Well, I wanted to go Just a little longer, but I
would like to go off the record a minute now before we proceed.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record.
We will proceed with the initial Florida technical
presentation from the staff of the Florida Department of Pollu-
tion Control.
C. GILBERT MAURIELLO
DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS DIVISION
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
MR. MAURIELLO: Mr. White, the first presentation, we
would like to enter into the record a status report of our
enforcement actions and I ask Mr. deCastro, the Head of our
-------
J. F. deCastro
192
Bureau of Enforcement, to make this presentation.
JOSE P. DE CASTRO, CHIEF
BUREAU OF ENFORCEMENT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
POLLUTION CONTROL, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
MR. DE CASTRO: My name is J. F. deCastro and I am
the Chief of the Bureau of Enforcement of the Department of Air
& Water Pollution Control, State of Florida.
State involvement with the three major Florida
industrial sources, Monsanto, American Cyanamid, and Escambia
Chemical, dates back to mid-1969 when all. three cases were
served citations and orders to provide 90 percent minimum
treatment to their liquid discharges.
Subsequently, in January of 1970 the conferees at
the Pensacola Federal/Interstate Enforcement Conference on
matters of Escambia Bay recommended, among other things, the
removal of 9^ percent carbonaceous and nitrogenous matter fror
discharges of the three Florida industries and the Pensacola
Northeast Sewage Treatment Plant. Also the removal of 90
percent carbonaceous waste from Container Corporation of
America, a paper mill on the Escambia River at Brewton, Ala-
bama.
-------
J. F. deCastro
193
In February 1971, the Federal Enforcement Conference
reconvened and recommended the reductions of biochemical oxygen
demand, BOD^, nitrogen and phosphorus discharges from Florida
sources and the paper mill in Alabama to fixed maximum levels
by not later than January 1 of 1973* Also established was the
proviso that if reductions to said maximum discharge levels
would not suffice the purpose, all polluted outfalls would have
to be removed from Escambia Bay waters.
So far all Florida cases and the paper mill in Ala-
bama have complied with all intermediate milestones set by
the States and/or the Federal Enforcement conferees in the
common goal to reach the target maximum discharge levels by
January 1, 1973. Substantial reductions of BOD^, nitrogen and
phosphorus have so far been effected by Florida and-the Alabama
paper mill.
Notwithstanding the above reductions, massive fish
kills have continued to plague Escambia Bay and no signs of
enhancement are noticeable that would indicate eventual
recovery of the bay even if the target maximum discharge
levels as set by the Federal Enforcement Conference were
attained by January 1, 1973.
In view of all the above, the State of Florida has
reached the conclusion that nothing short of complete removal
-------
J. F. deCastro
194
of polluted discharges to Upper Escanbla Bay could prevent
further degradation of said waters.
Based on the above conclusion, the State of Florida,
Department of Pollution Control, has ordered Monsanto, American
Cyanamid, and Escambia Chemical to remove their polluted
streams from the river and abate not later than January 1,
1973, and the Pensacola Northeast Sewage Treatment Plant to
provide advanced tertiary treatment by the same date.
Industries have now requested public hearings.
Furthermore, upon recommendations of the Florida .
Department of Pollution Control and at the request of Governor
Askew, this Federal/Interstate Enforcement Conference has
reconvened today to consider, among other things, appropriate
measures to restore Escambia Bay in light of substantial
amounts of carbonaceous matter and nutrients flowing into
Upper Escambia Bay via the Escambia River from upstream of
known Florida sources.
In the case of Monsanto Chemical, the final orders
for corrective action read as follows, just the items:
The respondent will take immediate
measures to insure that rainfall of such mag-
nitude as can reasonably be expected shall
not cause an overflow of pollutants to the
-------
195
J. F» deCastro
river.
Respondent shall not use, possess,
or allow any polychlorinated blphenyls, PCB's,
on its premises.
Respondent will continue to monitor
the background level of PCB's in its intake and
discharge.
Respondent shall complete and submit
an interim report to the Department of Pollution
Control by January 15 of 1972 containing a pre-
liminary plan of action concerning the following:
a. A sound in-plant source control
and wastewater management program that
will completely eliminate present dis-
charges of contaminated wastes and heat
loads from Monsanto Chemical to waters
of Escambia River.
b. An appropriate industrial
waste pollution abatement plan to
provide no less than 90 percent treat-
ment to the volume of wastewater
presently disposed of by deep well in-
fection .
-------
196
J. P. deCastro
c. Combinations of a and b, or both,
or any other feasible method that will
achieve the same goals.
Monsanto shall continue to use approved
equipment to continuously sample all effluent,
and shall file with the Department monthly a
record of all samples and a report setting forth
the daily levels and monthly average of the fol-
lowing parameters:
Biochemical Oxygen Demand;
Nitrogen in parts per million and
pounds per day;
Phosphorus in parts per million and
pounds per day j
Carbonaceous matter in parts per
million and pounds per day;
The volume in million gallons per
day ;
And the temperature of intake and
receiving waters.
All the three companies have more or less the same
orders.
In the case of the Northeast Sewage Treatment Plant,
-------
J. F. deCastro
197
they have been issued a temporary permit to operate and the
provisos call for the same reductions of 9^ percent of BOD,
9^ percent of nitrogen, and 90 percent on phosphorus.
Furthermore, a completion is set by April of 19.72
and the permit will expire on January 1.
At this point I wish to stress once more that any
pollution from the three major Florida sources and the Pensacola
Northeast Sewage Treatment Plant no matter how small, no
matter how low, is too much pollution. The State of Florida
Department of Pollution Control wants their polluted streams
out of Escambia Bay. However, it is my personal opinion that
we should not Ignore the substantial amounts of carbonaceous
matter and nutrients in pounds per day, not milligrams per
liter or parts per million, from either natural or artificial-
sources carried by the Escambia River into Upper Escambia Bay
if we hope to restore the bay.
The fact that other Florida streams may also be loaded
with carbonaceous matter and nutrients from natural or arti-
ficial sources should not, in my personal opinion, preclude
the fact that we also have to clean up the Escambia River
proper.if we Intend attempting to restore Escambia Bay.
This again is my humble personal opinion which may or
may not be fully shared by others better qualified on the
-------
J, P. deCastro
subject.
That is my statement.
(The above statement follows:)
-------
199
STATC OF PLORIOA
POtCUTION CONTROL
. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
FLORIDA-ALABAMA
JAN. 24-25, 1972
ESCAMBIA BAV
JOSI r. da CASTRO. CH.l.. P.E.
State involvement with the three major Florida industrial
sources - MonBanto, American Cyanamid and Escambia Olemical -
dates back to mid 1969 .when all three caseB were served
citations and orders to provide 90% minimum treatment to
their liquid discharges.
Subsequently, in January 1970 the conferees at the Pensacola
Federal/Interstate Enforcement Conference, on matters of Escambia
Bay, recommended among other things the removal of 94% carbona-
ceous and nitrogenous matter from discharges of the three
Florida industries and the Pensacola Northeast Sewage Treatment
Plant. Also, the removal of 90% carbonaceous waste from
Container Corporation of America, a paper mill on the Escambia
River at Brewton, Alabama.
In February 1971, the Federal Enforcement Conference reconvened
and recommended the reductions of biochemical oxygen demand,
nitrogen and phosnhorous discharges from Florida sources and
the pai>er mill in Alabama to fixed maximum levels by not later
than January 1, 1973. Also established was the proviso that
if reductions to said maximum discharge levels would not
suffice the purpose, all polluted outfalls would have to be
removed from Escambia Bay waters.
So far all Florida cases and the paper mill in Alabama have
complied with all Intermediate milestones set by the States
and/or the Federal Enforcement conferees in the common goal
to reatii the target maximum discharge levels by January 1, 1973.
Substantial reductions of BOD5, nitrogen and phosphorous dis-
charges have so far been effected by Florida sources (see fig.)
and the Alabama paper mill.
Notwithstanding the above reductions,
massive fish kills have continued to
plague Escambia Bay and no signs of
enhancement are noticeable that
would indicate eventual recovery
of the bay even if the target
maximum discharge levels as set
by the Pederpl Enforcement con-
ferees were attained by January 1,
1973.
In view of all the above, the State
.of Florida has reached the conclusion
that nothing short of complete remova
of polluted discharges to upper
Escambia Bay could prevent further
degradation of said waters.
Based on the above conclusion, the State of Florida, Department
of Pollution Control, has ordered Monsanto, American Cyanamid
and Escambia Oiemical to remove their polluted streams from the
river and bay by not later than January 1, 1973, and the Pensacola
Northeast Sewage Treatment Plant to provide advanced - tertiary -
treatment by the same date. Industries have requested cublic hearinqs.
Furthermore, upon recommendations, of the Florida Department of
Pollution Control and at the request of Governor Askew, this
Federal/Interstate Enforcement Conference has reconvened today
to consider among other things appropriate measures to restore
Escambia Bay in light of substantial amounts of carbonaceous
matter and nutrients flowing into Upper Escambia Bay via the
Escambia River from upstream of known Florida sources.
noun 809»eu ci t* « i mi
0ma wauaa uv
MfUMRSM
fd.
ftoort
(more
we *n
L*
(IMOI'I
Tw6. *91
final
BOD,
li.4
t.ft
1.1
f9t
11. •
S.ft
1.1
m
1.9
•«s
0.1
for. BQOTV. T
443
tM
41
-------
200
JOSE f.«i»CASTRO.CH£„P.E.
MONSANTO CHEW CM- COMPANY CASE NO. IW-2&0-70
Escambia County ORDER NO. 355
Spinal orders for corrective action - December 16, 1971
1. Respondent will rake immediate measures to ensure that
rainfall of such magnitude as can reasonably be expected shall
not cauae an overflow to the River.
2. Respondent shall not use, possess, or allow any
Polychlorinated biphenyis on its premises.
3. Respondent will continue to monitor the background
level of PCB's in Its intake and discharge.
4. Respondent shall complete and submit an.interim report
to the Department of Pollution Control (c/o the Bureau of
Enforcement) by January 15, 1972, containing a preliminary plan
of action concerning the following:
a. A sound inplant source-control and wastewater
management program that will completely eliminate
present discharges of contaminated wastes and
heat loads from Monsanto Chemical to waters of
Escambia River.
b. An appropriate industrial waste pollution abatement
plan to provide not less than 90» treatment to the
volume of wastewater presently disposed of by deeD
well injection.
c. Combinations of a and b in addition to any feasible
methods that will achieve the same goals.
5. Respondent shall continue to use approved equipment to
continuously sample all effluent, and shall file with the Depart-
ment monthly a record of all samples and a report setting forth
the daily levels and monthly average of the following parameters:
Biochemical Oxygen Demand in parts per million and
pounds per day
Nitrogen in parts per million and pounds per day
Phosphorous in parts per million and pounds per day
Carbonaceous Material in parts per million and pounds
per day
The volume in million gallons per day
Temberature of intake and receiving waters
6. Respondent shall by January 1, 1973, provide secondary
waste treatment of all wastes which are disposed of through sub-
surface disposal wells.
7. After December 31, 1972, no waste water containing
pollutants or contaminants shall be discharged into Escambia River
from Respondent's facilities.
• * * * * * *
AMERICAN CYAN AMID COMPANY CASE NO. IW-227-69
Santa Rosa County ORDER NO. 358
SPINAL ORDERS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION - DECEMBER 16, 1971
1. Respondent shall take immediate measures to ensure that
rainfall of such magnituce as can reasonably be expected shall not
cause an abnormal discharge of waste into Escandaia Bay.
2. Respondent shall complete and submit an Interim report to
the Department of Pollution Control (c/o the Bureau of Enforcement)
by January 15, 1972, containing a preliminary plan of action concern-
ing the following:
SNotei Preambles not included.
-------
201
JOSS F.MCASIflO.CHX.P.I.
a. A sound lnplant source-control and wastewater
management program that will completely eliminate
present 'discharges of contaminated wastes to waters
of Escambia Bay.
b. An appropriate industrial waste abatement plan to
provide by January 1> 19 73, not less than 904
treatment to the volume of wastewater contemplated
to be disposed of by deep veil injection (if appli-
cable) .
3. Respondent shall continue to use approved equipment for
continuously sampling all effluent, and shall file with the Depart-
ment monthly a record of all samples and a reoort setting forth
the daily levels and monthly average of the following parameters:
Biochemical Oxygen Demand in parts per million and
pounds per day
Nitrogen in parts per million and pounds per day
Carbonaceous Material in parts cer million and pounds
per day
Phosphorous in parts per million and pounds per day
The volume in million gallons per day
Temperature of intake and receiving waters
Respondent shall file monthly a monitor record and a report setting
forth the daily and monthly average load of each contaminant.
4. After December 31, 19 72, no wastewater containing pollu-
tants dr contaminants shall be discharged into Escambia Bay from
Respondent's facilities.
The Orders for Corrective Action, UDon becoming final and
effective shall supersede and supplant all previous Orders issued
by the Department concerning the Santa Rosa plant.
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. CASE NO. Iff-226-69
Santa Rosa County ORDER NO. 356
® FINAL ORDERS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION - DECEMBER 15
1. Respondent shall take immediate measures to ensure that
rainfall of such magnitude as can reasonably be expected shall
not cause an abnormal discharge of waste into Escairbia Bay.
2. Respondent shall complete by January IS, 19 72, Dr. James
Lackey's recommendations as follows:
a. Construction of an additional so called Echo Pond
Biological system to increase the overall treatment
volume to approximately 99 million gallons.
b.. From1 time to time remove from Alpha and Bravo ponds
duckweed and other vegetation in order to maintain
sufficient open water in these ponds to support
photosynthesis which will result in aerobic surfaces.
This will be a continuing operational item.
3. Respondent shall complete by January 15, 1972, the second
portion of the proposed inplant source-control program that will
result in a reduction of 1/2 mgd of the flow generated at the
chemical plant.
4. Respondent shall conduct an engineering study of the first
portion of the proposed inplant source control program set forth
in Its report of September 30, 1971, which has as its objective a
1 mgd reduction of the average effluent generated by Respondent's
plant. Respondent shall report the outcome of this study to the
Department no later than March 1, 1972.
-------
202
JOSE F. da CASTRO.£h.E„P.E.
5. Respondent shall continue efforts to locate, identify,
and eliminate or control underground source of contaminated
water seeping into the retention pond insofar as Respondent
is responsible for the contaminants therein.
6. Respondent shall complete and report to the Department
of Pollution Control, Bureau of Enforcement, by October 1, 1972,
a thorough technical xeevaluation of:
a. Spray irrigation disposal of the reduced volume
that will generate from the chemical plant after
completion of this program.
b. Deep well disposal of the above reduced volume.
c. Combinations of a and b in addition to any other
feasible methods that will reduce discharges from
the Escambia Plant to waters of Escanbia Bay.
7. After December 31, 1972, no wa9te water containing
pollutants or contaminants shall be discharged into Escanbia
Bay from Respondent's facilities.
8. Respondent shall continue to use approved equipment
to continuously sample all effluent, and shall file with the
Department monthly a record of all samples and a report setting
forth the daily levels and monthly average of the following
parameters:
Biochemical Oxygen Demand in partB per million and
pounds per day
Nitrogen in parts per million and pounds per day
Phosphorous in parts per million and pounds per day
Carbonaceous Material in parts per million and pounds
per day
The volume of flow in million gallons per day
9. Respondent shall conduct an engineering study to determine
the feasibility of isolating the plant's process waste water and
the biological ponds from general surface water runoff. Respondent
shall report the outcome of this study to the Department no later
than May 1, 1972.
***** * *
CITY OP PENSACOLA - NE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF AIR AND WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
1. The existing level of treat-
ment is not in compliance
with Section 17-3.04 Florida
Administrative Code.
Temporary Operation Permit
Conditions (Excerpts)
•URCAU OF tWMlTTIMC
TEMPORARY OPERATION PERMIT
w» Cltv of Mn*«col«
Hum NO. PT 17' »»
a.M use imtm. MUar n«nt with 7? ptr f
i-tw MB mml
rtmnUi Hfiinftti ftmnsv —
wto am cMtna i» * fwimi cbok. imi m«n ia mm* toi
to tH MNOHHtnimi MINI 11*1 o* «•*. MAT-
rem miinmtat vuanttw mmunnMr
:tr. frfiK r»i«cn. city
i. i. ir»
SATE 11/11/11
Consistent removals of no less
than 94 percent 5-day BOD and
suspended solidB, 94 percent
total nitrooen and 90 percent
total phosphorous before dis-
charge to area surface waters
shall be obtained.
L'Mir
a) Completion of upgrading
as required by this permit
Aoril 1, 1972
b) This temporary permit will
expire on: June 1, 1972.
-------
J. P. deCastro
203
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. deCastro, you mentioned the date of
January 15 that these industries were supposed to submit plans
to our Department—
MR. DECASTRO: Yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: —as to how they are going to go about
being out of the bay by January of 1973.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: Have you received those?
MR. DE CASTRO: No. Precisely one of the reasons for
the submittal of our application for public hearing was based
on that deadline. When they apply for a public hearing or
submit a request for a public hearing that stays until the
hearing is held.
MR. LEVIN: How soon have we set up those public
hearings?
MR. DE CASTRO: The legal department, the legal group,
is the one that sets those dates and I think they are forth-
coming shortly. They have got to find an office, and so on.
So far as our Administrator, enforcement stays until that pub-
lic hearing is held.
MR. LEVIN: Have the members or representatives of
-------
J. F, deCastro
these industries gotten together with you to indicate to you
that it is not possible for them to meet these orders?
MR. DE CASTRO: That came up, sir, when we had the
informal conference prior to issuance of the final orders, yes.
They think it is too short a time and that—they haven't
refused to do it, but they feel that they have too short a time
to come up with something and the intent was more or less to
have the reply, the formal reply, by the time of this con-
ference. That was why we set that date as a deadline, sir.
MR. LEVIN: Do you feel like that this public hearing
ought to be in front of our full board rather than in front of
an examiner? I don't mean this board. 1 am talking about the
Pollution Control Board of Florida. If so, I would like to
set that meeting up just as soon as possible.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Levin, in my personal opinion,
perhaps yes, but I don't dare to issue an opinion in the name
of the Department.
MR. LEVIW: Now, did I understand that you said that
the Northeast Sewer Treatment Plant has indicated they will
have arrived at tertiary treatment by January of 1973?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes.
MR. MAURIELLO: Mr. Levin, could I interrupt here?
Mr. Linne is going to bring us a complete report on the status
-------
J. P. deCastro
of the Northeast plant.
MR. LEVIN: 0. K. You mentioned something that
intrigues me. You do not agree, obviously, with the report
of the EPA people concerning the damage, if you want to use
that word, being done to the bay by Container or some source
coming down the Escambia River?
MR. DE CASTRO: As far as I know, sir, Container is
doing a good Job and the results I have seen from the Federal
people is very encouraging, but definitely my point is that
unless the river is cleaned up, the upper river Is cleaned up,
we won't accomplish much by doing our part of the business.
MR. LEVIN: I know, but there is a gap in what you
are saying.
MR. DE CASTRO: It may be natural sources or whatnot,
but it is there, sir.
MR. LEVIN: Well, we can't do anything about natural
sources. The thing I am trying to find out is whether or not
in your Judgment—you say Container is doing a good Job, I
think probably Monsanto is doing a good Job, but the question
is whether or not they are doing a good enough job to restore
the bay. This is what I am worried about. Now, we have ordered
the Florida industries to be out of the. bay.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, sir.
-------
206
J. F. deCastro
i'iR. LEVIN: So we are not discriminating against
Alabama industries in any way if we ask that this Federal con-
ference require the same thing to come out of Alabama. Now,
do you feel like that that is a necessary step to get Container
Corporation out of the river in order for this bay to be
restored?
HR. DE CASTRO: That wouldn't be enough, sir, that
is my opinion.
MR. LEVIN: What else will we have to do besides get-
ting the 60 pounds from East Brewton?
MR. DE CASTRO: Find out where the rest of the nutrient
combination matter are coming from and 3ee if they can be some-
how abated.
MR. LEVIN: Do your figures agree with the figures
of EPA as to the carbonaceous wastes, and so forth, coming
down the river?
MR. DE CASTRO: Well, for example, the figure of 4.5
ppm was mentioned. What flow? Because that may be in the
perhaps quarter million pounds per day. See, the ppm doesn't
mean much unless you have the flow of the river and that could
be a tremendous amount of—I don't know whether it was a total
of any carbon or what. The figure 4.5 ppm was mentioned.
MR. LEVIN: Well, if these men are still here from
-------
207
J. F. deCastro
the EPA, would you mind getting together with them at lunch
time and letting us know what—
MR. DE CASTRO: Let me Just point out, Mr. Levin,
I do not have that portion of the study. I am only enforce-
ment. I am just pointing out if we want to solve the problem
of the bay we should look at the rivers and not just the
specific cases we know.
MR. LEVIN: Do you feel like that it is possible
that the readings that we are getting in the river might
necessarily be covering all of the problem? For example, we
may be getting one reading out of the river and yet the flow
of the river have something to do with the fact that it would
appear that the river would have no serious contribution to
the problem whereas by the time it makes its way into the bay
it then becomes a part of the problem? Is this—
MR. DE CASTRO: Well, when you multiply, sir, the
ppm times the flow, and at times, it is usually—I mean the
average is 6,000 CFS, cubic feet per second, but it goes up as high as
30,(DO, 40,000 for weeks, and when you multiply the ppm, no matter
how low, by that flow, you end up with huge amounts of carbon-
aceous matter, total organic carbon, that is what I am pointing
out, sir.
MR. LEVIN: And you are saying—
-------
208
J. F. deCastro
MR. DE CASTRO: The river shouldn't be ignored if we
have as a common goal the restoration of Escambia Bay.
MR. LEVIN: You are saying that in your judgment,
with the present state of eutrophication of Escambia Bay, that
we are not going to be accomplishing anything if we permit,
after we get local Industry out of the bay, after we get what-
ever happens to Gulf Power, what happens to them, what happens
to the Northeast sewer treatment plant, that we are still not
going to be solving anything if we permit Container Corporation
and East Brewton—and I apologize for using the name of a city—
but if we permit them to continue to go into the river? Is
this basically what you are saying?
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Levin, I am not singling out
anyone. I don't know where it is coming from.
MR. LEVIN: I am doing that, Mr. deCastro.
MR. DE CASTRO: I want to make that clear because I
don't want to single out anyone. What I am saying is—
MR. WHITE: May I interject something here?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: If you will excuse me, please.
Mr. deCastro, is there anything that much different
from this stream to any other stream that has no pollution
point source discharging into it? Would not another river
-------
J. F. deCastro
209
removed over—and I forget the names of all of these rivers—
but the poundage loading that you are talking about would be
high In those rivers also, Is this not correct?
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. White, as far as the Escambia Bay
is concerned, it makes 100 percent difference. What I am saying
is that regardless of what is coming down other rivers, if this
is there—let me summarize. If all industry was putting out—
Industry and the sewage treatment plant was putting out,let's
say,6,000 pounds of total nitrogen into Upper Escambia Bay and
the river is putting in,let*s say,10 times as much, I would say
that the problem is proportionate. That is my point, sir.
MR. WHITE: Well, Just one point there. Wouldn't you
say that there is a difference between where the discharge goes
into the bay as it relates to flushing?
MR. DE CASTRO: Oh, definitely. I mean I am not—
let me make this clear again. I am enforcement. However, I
made this statement on my own. I am not an expert on pollution,
but I would say yes, definitely.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: The conditions of the bay are such
that perhaps they are conducive to problems. What I am pointing
out is that if 6,000 pounds from industry is a problem, let's say
60,000 or 600,000 from the river, it should be either 10 or 100
-------
210
J. F. deCastro
times more is my whole point.
MR. LEVIN: See, the thing that it is hard for me to
get through my thick skull is if in fact Container Corporation
and other cities are dumping into Escambia River, it stands to
reason that if there are other natural sources coming down the
river that anything we can get out of there has got to be an
improvement.
MR. DE CASTRO: Definitely, sir.
MR. LEVIN: So that if we compare the Escambia River
with the Choctawhatchee River and they compare favorably and the
Choctawhatchee River does not contain any discharge from any other
source, then we are going to be that much better off, obviously,
if we pull out whatever man is putting into the river. Doesn't
that make sense or am I wrong?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, sir, I think so. We have got to
bear in mind, sir, that the Escambia drainage area is close to
^,000 square miles.
MR. LEVIN: In other words, I can't see the sense in
requiring Florida industries not to be given the same leeway
that Alabama industries are given.If in fact the people in the
State of Florida have required or see to it that they are
requiring Florida industries to get out of the river, I can't
understand why—well, maybe we have not gotten to that point
-------
211
J. F« deCastro
yet. But it would seem like to me that anything that we can
get out of the river is going to help to restore that bay that
much faster.
MR. DE CASTRO: That definitely. How significant
depending on the amount of the contribution, but definitely.
A pound less is a pound of improvement, no question about it.
i
MR. WHITE: I believe Mr. Ravan has a question.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, sir.
MR. RAVAN: Mr. deCastro.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, sir.
MR. RAVAN: I agree with the philosophy stated here
that something is better than nothing in terms of getting rid
o f pollutional load and that we all ought to work towards
perfection if that is attainable. Whether or not it be
attainable, it is certainly an admirable goal.
However, do you have, does the State of Florida, do
you have now or have you conducted any studies that would tell
us exactly what is the pollutional load coming down the river?
MR. DE CASTRO: Not my bureau, sir, I do not have
that data.
MR. MAURIELLO: Mr. Ravan,may I attempt to answer
that?
MR. RAVAN: Surely.
-------
J. P. deCastro
212
MR. MAURIELLO: I believe, and Mr. Little can back
this up, that we supplied some information as well as Alabama,
Mr. Crockett and the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, as
to evaluations of other streams entering Alabama or entering
from Alabama into Florida. Now, coupled with the survey that
was conducted we both--I guess all three groups went back into
the data and dug this out, and I believe this is where a
majority plus the evaluations that were made overreached it-
self, where Mr. Little's report stimulated from.
I think the point that we are—one of the points
that we are missing, and we have discussed this, is that it
is very possible that with the loads coming from Alabama that
the Escambia situation is slightly different because we do
have the nitrogen and phosphorus that the State of Florida is
putting into iiscambia bay. We are not sure at this tine whether
Choctawhatchee bay, which is the estuary of the Choctawhatchee
River, or even some of the other bays may not be in this same—
not same type of condition, but very close to it. This is a
question tnat still we have to answer ourselves.
MR. RAVAiJ: I would like to get back to the point,
then.
It would appear from what you have just said that if
this was a three-way participation study that in fact the
-------
J. F. deCastro
213
report made here by Mr, Little represented, could we say, your
best thinking, the State of Florida's best thinking with regard
to the present day situation?
MR. MAURIELLO: Yes, sir, I think—I believe the
answer to that is yes, that It is. There is some concern here,
though, and this is, I think, part of the thing that Mr.
deCastro was speaking to is that there are some loads of
carbonaceous material that may still be in existence in the
Escambia River basin that may not be present in other areas
which needs to be explored.
MR. RAVAN: And the State of Florida has not conducted
independent studies, especially over the last three years, to
tell us what the pollutional load is coming down the Escambia
River?
MR. MAURIELLO: Our monitoring of the river is a
continuous type thing and it was incorporated into the data
that we submitted back in preparation for Mr. Little's report,
so it was included, any of the background data that we had.
MR. RAVAN: Could either you or Mr. deCastro offer
a suggestion as to what we might do to find out exactly even
more in depth or perhaps better define where that pollutional
load is coming from and what effect it is having?
MR. MAURIELLO: I think—go ahead.
-------
214
J. F. deCastro
MR. DE CASTRO: No, no, that is not my bureau, sir.
I am enforcement. That will be the Division of Operations.
MR. MAURIELLO: I think we realize that there are
many uncontrollable, and Mr. Little spelled this out, there
are uncontrollable natural sources that are in the drainage
basin, not only in the Escambia-Conecuh Basin but in the Perdido
and the Choctawhatchee and everywhere else, and this is a land
runoff type of problem. And I believe that everybody has indi-
cated', Alabama as well as Florida, that have pinpointed the
sources of pollution. There is no question that we know where
the sources of pollution" are, but the—
MR. RAVAN: You are talking about the manmade sources?
MR. MAURIELLO: The manmade sources, right,
MR. RAVAN: Well, good. I think we are all working
towards the same common goal, which is to rectify, first of
all, the problem that exists and then somehow get to its
recovery. And anything that you might have, Mr. deCastro, in
terms of a suggestion, we would be happy to hear.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I make a comment?
MR. WHITE: Yes, please.
MR. DE CASTRO: For example, I think one point of
interest would be to go out and find out what is In this 4,000
square miles drainage area.
-------
215
J. P. deCastro
MR. WHITE: Excuse me, please. Would you speak up
louder?
MR. DE CASTRO: One point that I would suggest to
figure out or find out, what is within that 14,000 square miles
of drainage area of the Escambia River and all its streams.
MR. RAVAN: In other words, you think there is some-
thing there other than natural?
MR. DE CASTRO: No, sir. It may be Mother Nature.
But unless we abate Mother Nature, what—
MR. RAVAN: An aerial or.surface survey, then, to
find out what is there?
MR. DE CASTRO: I am not saying any one, sir. I
think we have been too much concerned with known sources that
we have completely ignored the unknown sources. That is what
I am trying to make clear.
MR. TRAINA: Do you have information, Mr. deCastro,
that Indicates that there are point sources that we have not
addressed to this conference?
MR. DE CASTRO: Let me make, this very clear. I
don't. Let's assume that it is Mother Nature, from things I
nave observed.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett, do you have a question?
MR. CROCKETT: Mr. deCastro, you are not saying that
-------
216
J. F, deCastro
there are streams which have no point sources of pollution,
that are completely free from BOD? I don't think you said
that. I think you have recognized that there are concentra-
tions of BOD that are going to be found in streams of Florida
as well as those of Alabama,Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi
without point sources of pollution on them. There are concen-
trations that may range from a part to a part and a half per
million.
If I understand what you have said, you haven't said
that this was from point source, but you said it ought to come
out.
Now, of course, there is another thing, and I am
sure that you will accept and recognize, that any BOD of an
organic nature, which is about all we have in Alabama, that
is introduced is stabilized wnere it can't be found, it is
stabilized in the course of travel downstream. I think that
has to be accepted.
There are sources of BOD that come from natural
runoff, from the arainage, particularly after heavy rains, of
a metropolitan area, stormwater is a problem.
Of course we worked on Conecuh-Escambia River as far
bacK as 1956 and it may be interesting to know that during the
course of one of these studies at the Century Bridge, Highway
-------
217
J. P. deCastro
4, Florida, that concentrations of as high as 2.5 ppm were found
when flows were in the order of 15,000 cubic feet per second.
Now, this was before Container came on the scene.
MR. DE CASTRO: That is—may I?
MR. WHITE: Yes, if you would. But briefly answer.
I think we need to move on. We were kind of bogging down on
this and not accomplishing anything. I think we have got some
other testimony this afternoon that might shed a little more
light on this area that we are addressing now.
But if you want to make a specific comment.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, I agree with him fully, but what
about total organic carbon? That was encountered by the river
way down, sir, and I have seen huge figures at Century. As I
say, I am not pinpointing any source. It may be Mother Nature.
But if it is Mother Nature, what is the solution there?
MR. WHITE: Fine. Can I cut this off now and could
we get together maybe, I mean the technical staffs and discuss
this a little more—
MR. CROCKETT: Right.
MR. WHITE: —unless there are other comments?
MR. LEVIN: Confined specifically to how much total
organic carbon, is that the thing that concerns you?
MR. DE CASTRO: For example, the figure of 1.5 ppm
-------
218
J. F. deCastro
was mentioned here. What was the flow?
MR. LEVIN: In other words, I would like to find out
specifically what specific points of pollution in Alabama are
contributing to that particular figure that Pepi is interested
in. This is what I would like to know.
You see, John, here is the problem that I see we have
got in Florida. It is not right for us to sit here and tell the
Florida industries that they have got to get out if we are going
to let other sources continue on. You see what I mean? It is
not fair that they be treated one way and Alabama be treated
another way.
So what. I have got to find out now, if Container
Corporation is n o t any serious problem, then maybe we ought
to find out where is that point that the local industries are
not going to be any serious problem. But by the same token,if
any amount coming out of Florida is a serious problem, then it
would seem to me like any amount coming out of Alabama is a
serious problem.
So what I would like to find out is to compare apples with
apples. I don't know anything about total carbon, I don't know
anything about TOC, BOD, QRS, anything like that. All I want
to know is whether or not the point that Pepi has brought up
has been covered in the studies of EPA to determine whether or
-------
219
J. F. deCastro
not we can determine where that source is coming from In
Alabama. This is what I want to find out,
MR. WHITE: Fine. Would it be suitable to you if
we could get Mr. Little and Mr. deCastro together--
MR. LEVIN: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: —and get a report after we have our
lunch break, come back and work then in?
MR. LEVIN: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: So I will ask that you get together with
Mr. Little so that we can get into this area Just a little more
then.
MR. TRAINA: I have a few other questions, Mr,
deCastro, based on your presentation. I think I can ask them
quickly.
You mentioned in your Monsanto order the deep well
situation. I am sorry, I didn't get completely what—
MR. DE CASTRO: That is the flow that requires 90
percent treatment and deep well disposal streams.
MR. TRAINA: So the company is now under order to
provide 90 percent removal?
MR. DE CASTRO: That has no bearing with this con-
ference.
MR. TRAINA: I know that, but I am asking the question.
-------
.-22.Q
i
J. F, deCastrp
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: They are under order now to remove 90
percent of—
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: Of what, now, BOD?
MR. DE CASTRO: Ninety percent removal of the pollu-
tants disposed of by deep well injection.
MR. TRAINA: This is BOD, nitrogen, phosphorus—
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: —TOC?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes.
MR. TRAINA: 0. K. The other question, just a point
of clarification, I think you addressed is Century, Florida. Of
course they were made part of this conference recommendation.
MR. WHITE: I believe Mr. Lively or what is the—
MR. DE CASTRO: I mentioned—
MR. TRAINA: He reported on the other four and I just
wondered if you reported on Century?
MR. DE CASTRO: I reported on Century as the sampling
point, as the sampling station.
MR. WHITE: If I may interject something, we are
going to get a report on that.
MR. TRAINA: I was not aware of that.
-------
221
J. P. deCastro
MR. MAURIELLO: Mr. Linne indicates that he can
cover it in 5.
MR. WHITE: Very good, Mr. Linne.
MR. MAURIELLO: This is basically a status report of
the Gulf Power facilities in the Northeast sewage treatment
plant in regards to the State permit systeir. and the action
that they are taking,
W. E. LINNE, ACTING CHIEF
BUREAU OP PERMITTING
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
MR. LINNE: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladles and
gentlemen.
I am the Acting Chief, Bureau of Permitting, Depart-
ment of Pollution Control, State of Florida.
I have got two short reports to make here, one having
to do with the thermal discharges to the Escambia River, and I
will read what I have here. I will read the whole thing.
The scope of this report is limited to thermal dis-
charges into the Escambia River and the possible effects of
these discharges on the water quality of that river and bay.
The largest heat discharge to the river is from the
-------
222
W. E. Llnne
Crist Plant of the Gulf Power Company. This may be contro-
versial. It is all right if it is. The plant location is
shown in Figure 1. Also shown on Figure 1 is the location of
the Monsanto Corporation Plant which makes a thermal discharge
equal to 15 percent of that discharged from the Crist Plant.
The following table shows the growth by addition of
generating units at the Crist Plant:
Unit 1 was built in 19^5, Unit 2 in 1949, Unit 3 in
1952, Unit 4 in 1959, Unit 5 in 1961, Unit 6 in February 1970,
and No. 7 is supposed to go into operation early in 1973.
Unit 7 will have its own cooling tower and make no
thermal discharge to the river. Unit 6 operated with once-
through cooling and thermal discharge to the river from February
until December 1970. In January 1971 the cooling tpwer serving
Unit 6 was placed in operation. Since that time, thermal dis-
charge from the Crist Plant has been reduced to the combined
flows from Unit 1 to 5 which has existed since 1961.
Intake for that combined system is from Governors
Bayou very near its confluence with the river. Discharge is
through a canal to a point one mile down river. This canal
has a flume to carry Thompson's Bayou across the canal
unperturbed. The tidal range at this point is as much as 2.5
feet. The plant discharge flow is 440 cubic feet per second.
-------
W. E. LInne
223
Maximum temperature rise above intake or ambient is 17°F. with
Units 1 to 5 fully loaded. Typical river flow data—this is
taken up at Century gaging station—is shown at 1968 a minimum
cubic feet per second of 596, maximum cubic feet per second
15,300.
In 1969 minimum cubic feet per second 993, maximum
cubic feet per second 37,800, average annual 4,621.
There are, of course, additional tributary stream and
spring flows below the gaging station, but these are not
measured.
Thermal studies of the Escambia River at and below
the Crist Plant were conducted in December 1969 and August 2^
and 25, 1971, by the Department of"Pollution Control Northwest
Regional Office. It should be noted that the first set of
data was taken prior to the operation of Unit 6 and the second
study was made well after the Unit 6 discharge was removed from
the river and connected to the cooling tower. Thus the same
units were discharging to the river during both studies. Also
river flow is typically three times greater in December than in
August.
The Plant was at or near full load each afternoon in
August 1971. The Department of Pollution Control study of
August 2*4 and 25, 1971, also provided observations of dissolved
-------
22M
W. E. Linne
oxygen and salinity.
I am going to skip part of this. You have all of it.
MR. WHITE: Well, if you are going to Jump around,
would you like to have the report entered in the record?
MR. LINNE: Yes, please.
MR. WHITE: You have some charts and things that will
be of significance too?
MR. LINNE: Yes.
MR. WHITE: We will enter that -into the record as if
read.
MR. LINNE: Very good.
MR. WHITE: And if you would like to just highlight it
from here on.
(The above-mentioned report follows:)
-------
A Report on Thermal Discharges to the Eucambia River
January 21, 1972
For Presentation at the Federal-State
Escambia Bay Conference
January 24-26, 1972
Introduction
The scope of this report is limited to
thermal discharges into the Escambia River and
the possible effects of these discharges on the'
water quality of that River and Eay.
The largest heat discharge to the River is
from the Crist Plant of the GuIl Power Company.
The Plant location is shovm in Figure 1. Also
shown on Figure 1 is the location of the Mon-
santo Corporation plant which makes a thermal
discharge equal to 15% of that discharged from
the Crist Plant.
-------
ru . c-> it
GULF POWER COMPANY
226
,o
X?t®|t
0' \}\
- \'3D • 1\X;^
v; 'J-i ¦X I? a
~ ^ -u™
h. t&v: '¦ i
V;'''"¦' v -r--V--- i
,...... '
' Vi-t^.; r -o^^ vi'O ^
/k-P^X)r-rvit?/i C/&- .
f!>h\ Srv>-> 1 •'* ( . / <-s i 1 1^-* 5
..-' ,"X\ \j-;+—«.Vyd?•¦.,¦,
!t 13 \*\ r i 11 fe-I .: • /' ! .'- ¦:!
it' ¦ q' '•• ' v t'
N V W**
V u-i-
. j •'¦" ^ -N<^
is*/ .'J
&4^?n ^
k&f' C=^.iA . X'"
K''IX .
f^" - ¦ ¦*>:¦' M%
r K* i ! ¦ V2"
l..--' ¦/' ,\ Vr: V. ./v , . O-J.'/n
fefers
' lit -rl,? ¦¦/¦'
1, !;^'v . r\ )>¦'/¦ l,
' '^X „v; , ^ t X [ % / \_/ j
T.I 5
.! /"X^S--
/' „-^v> ¦•
•2C .
I."
"X-""TX' -Xx\x
-\ . ¦ ( -/lsur,
' -ri \-!' iss
O I '••
:' '• >•; -'•-X •. i ..X . «- ^
• % .v--' < ¦ v ; i . t C"\/V_.'. \ ¦-,. y
h'r.5 ^ Jr.".;". f r~35"w: ' ^ ^ c }
Dn._
Tr._
FLZi
subject
Detail
F.CAI r. _
w:^.- ¦¦S--- =-v.v;;r:
/;¦.•' *:y." 's '.vv:/.?,'//-.; ^'.",L:/i
r.fi
r : f ! : ; TTri | /• V"
-------
227
Description of Crist Plant, Gulf Power Company
The following table shows the growth by addition of generating
units at the Crist Plant.
Operational Nameplate Max. Temp.
Unit Date Capacity, MW Rise, °F Fuel
1 1945 24.5 12 Oil/Gas
2 1949 24.5 12 Oil/Gas
3 1952 33.0 15 Oil/Gas
4 1959 83.0 17 Coal
5 1961 83.0 17 Coal
6 Feb. '70 326.0 — Coal
7 Early '73- 500.0 — Coal
Unit 7 will have its own cooling tower and will make no thermal
discharge to the River. Unit 6 operated with once-through cooling
and thermal discharge to the River from February until December,
1970. In January, 1971, the cooling tower serving Unit 6 was placed
in operation. Since that time thermal discharge from the Crist Plant
has been reduced to the combined flows from Unit 1 to 5 which has
existed since 1961. Intake for that combined system is from Gover-
nors Bayou very near its confluence with the River. Discharge is
through a canal to a point one mile down River. This canal has a flume
to carry Thompsons Bayou across the canal unperturbed. The tidal
range at this point is as much as 2.5 feet. The plant discharge flow
is 440 cubic feetpa- second, (all flows in this report will be in
cubic feet per second, c.f.s., for comparison with River flow). Maxi-
mum temperature rise above intake or ambient'is 17°F with Units 1 to
5 fully loaded. Typical river flow data (Century, Florida gaging
station 25 miles upstream) is shown below.
-------
Year
min¦ , c.f.s.
max. , c.f.s.
annual 228
ave. c.f.s.
1968 , 596 15,300 2,889
1969 993 37,800 4,621
(34 year average flow - 5,952 c.f.s.)
There are, of course, additional tributary stream and spring
flows below the gaging station, but these are not measured.
ThermaJ- Studies of the Escambia River
Thermal studies of the Escambia River at and below the Crist
Plant were conducted in December, 1969, and August 24 & 25, 1971,
I
by the Department of Pollution Control Northwest Regional Office.
It should be noted that the first set of data was taken prior to
the operation of Unit 6 and the second study was made well after
the Unit 6 discharge was removed from the River and connected to
the cooling tower. Thus the same units were discharging to the
River during both studies. Also River flow is typically three times
greater in December than in August. The Plant was at or near full
load each afternoon in August, 1971. The Department of Pollution
Control study of August 24 £ 25, 1971, also provided observations
of dissolved oxygen and salinity. The River flow on those dates
was 2,670 c.f.s. Figures 2 and 3 present thermal surface contours
for December 19, 1969, and August 24, 1971, respectively. The
plant was fully loaded on both occasions; and, despite the ex-
tremes of season and temperature, the contours cf thermal influence
are very similar. An abstract of the study follows:
On August 24 and 25, 1971, the Department
of Pollution Control determined the therrr.al and
disolved oxygen contours around the Crist Plant
discharge canal in the Escambia River. A maxi-
mum temperature increase of 10.7°F. was found
near the outfall with an average increase of
between 3.6 an 5.4°F at the U.S. 90 bridge one
mile downstream. Stratification of the salt
-------
THFfiAML 5URF/iC,£ CO/Vrou/^.5
at
G-u. I f Power OtW'-fa//
J1 p_ec_.. 6 9
fTf^
Pokf£r
U^0 //
r,*Ort /S
t q. 4 c - 67. t*f=
i 0.6 V = &/ / 9/r
^ C /•? ^f , t/
1 - -?ov.)'
/Oo
ton
—L_
jao
too
r,3. z.
-------
£L
o
7~h <
1 " / (Torr
>~c.n r- -j
' »- /-co
Aurj U 3 f 2 ^ /'°C - 9 B.o" F
0 c - V '• v ^
" C 9 C-o " ^
Ft 3-
U>
o
-------
wedge was noted. Low D. 0. values and high sali-
nity were measured below the 10 foot depth.
Generally low D.O. values exist around the out-
fall, but recovery of normal D.O. had taken place
by the time the water had reach the U.S. 90
bridge.
Gulf Power has provided thermal study data for studies of
June 24, 1969, (before Unit 6 operation), May 27, 1970, (Units
1 to 6 discharging to River) and June 9 and August 30, 1971,
(Unit 6 on cooling tower). The results were very similar in
comparable cases.
Monsanto Corporation Discharge
The Monsanto Plant makes a thermal discharge from a second
stage of the Plant chilled water system which is used for process
cooling and air conditioning. The discharge temperature now re-
mains fairly constant throughout the year at 14-18°F above intake
or ambient water temperature. Thermal contours are shown on Figure
4. The seasonal variation in heat load is handled by varying the
flow from about 40 c.f.s. in winter to 65 c.f.s. in the summer.
The thermal discharge plume in the River stays in the upper few feet
of water and clings to the right or west bank of the River. The
plume does not extend across the River beyond mid-channel. The
plume is mixed and dissipated within 300 yards of the mouth of the
discharge canal.
Description of the Escambia River
The most conspicuous feature of the River is the underlying
salt water wedge or tongue which extends up river beyond the Mon-
santo Plant during periods of low river flow. It is present at
the Crist Plant during normal river flow cUring most of the year.
-------
(° c.)
. , <3 n F A £ ^
'ix . „
n °aC- 61 ,c = ot'f
Ou tf V H
5 fa ft on li-
re '
f b la "e€tr«r*> *
fe^r^
/*»
a^, /wV«r.
... - 2£?o'
^C/Its ¦ '
o ,c°
-------
233
It is probably washed out during annual high river flows although
no observation has< been made at flood stage to substantiate this.
The salt wedge appears to be stagnant, when present, and has a dis-
solved oxygen content less than 2ppm.
The reach of the River under consideration is thus alternately
fresh water or estuarine in character. For much of the year the
bottom biota environment is marine in character but quite unfavor-
able due to dissolved oxygen deficiency. Tidal effects bring fresh
water in and out of the marshes to the fresh, surface layer. The
summertime solar heating of these marshes imposes a natural heat load
on the River. This River heat load is, however, dominated by solar
heat input to Escambia-Bay when considering conditions in the Bay.
The summer temperature of the salt wedge in the River is typically
one or two degrees Fahrenheit higher than the overlying flowing
fresh water. That heat had its origin in the Bay.
Discussion of Thermal Additions to the River
The Monsanto discharge has a small zone of influence on the
River. Heat dissipation by mixing is rapid and biological damage
outside the small mixing zone is negligible. The thermal load is
completely dissipated long before it reached the Crist Plant and is
not additive to the discharge of the Crist Plant.
The biotic index of the River from the Crist Plant to the
mouth is depressed. The Plant heat load to the River is now (and
has been since January 1971) the same as has existed for he period
1961-1969. It cannot be stated that the Plant load to the River
is entirely responsible for the biotic index depression below the
Plant. The Plant heat load is additive to the natural heat addi-
tions .
-------
234
At the U. S. 90 bridge near the mouth of the River surface
water temperatures are increased by 3 to 6°F by the Plant heat
load. This heat load is discharged to the Bay but is rapidly
dissipated by mixing and natural cooling near the River mouth.
No heat balance calculations have ,been attempted for the Bay/ but
it is considered that natural heading and cooling of that large
body of water will dominate any effects of the Plant thermal addi-
tion to the Bay. Acute adverse water quality and its severe effect
on the biota occur at some distance from the mouth of the River.
In the absence of thermal studies in the immediate vicinity of the
River mouth, it cannot be determined what effect, if any, the
Plant thermal load has on the Bay. If thermal additions do extend
to areas of acute Bay degradation, they will be small, but they
can aggravate the effects of other, much more important, factors that
are degrading water quality.
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. The Monsanto Plant discharge makes no significant thermal
addition to Escambia Bay.
The thermal addition to the River causes no measurable biological
degradation beyond the small mixing zone. If it is required to re-
move the heat load from the River, a pond (or series of ponds) with
i
16 hours detention time, an estimated 40 acres of water surface area,
and flow control is a feasible means of removing this heat load to
the River.
2. It cannot be determined that the Crist Plant discharge
is entirely responsible for depression of biotic index of the River
below the Plant. The Plant heat load that reaches the Bay has not
been compared to natural heat loads in areas of acute biological
-------
235
damage to the Bay. If it is required to remove this heat load from
the River and Bay, cooling towers at an estimated cost of $3 million
would be required. Topography precludes cooling ponds. In view of
the indeterminate effect of thermal additions to the Bay, cooling
of present Plant discharges should not be required until thermal
studies of Bay in the vicinity of the River mouth have been made.
-------
236
W. E. Linne
MH. LINNE: I will go on to Monsanto. We have back
in here—I am going to skip more of it. I am going to get over
to page 9.
The Monsanto discharge has a small zone of influence
on the river. Heat dissipation by mixing is rapid and bio-
logical damage outside the small mixing zone is negligible.
The thermal load is completely dissipated long before it reached
the Crist Plant and is not additive to the discharge of the
Crist Plant.
The biotic index of the river from the Crist Plant
to the mouth is depressed. The plant heat load to the river is
now, and has been since January 1971, the same as has existed
for the period 1961 through 1969. It cannot be stated that the
plant load to the river is entirely responsible for-the biotic
index depression below the plant. The biotic index above the
plant is about and below the plant it cuts down to about 12.
The plant heat load is additive to the natural heat addition.
At the U.S. 90 Bridge near the mouth of the river
surface water temperatures are increased by three to four
degrees Fahrenheit by the plant heat load. This is discharged
to the bay but is rapidly dissipated by mixing and natural
cooling near the river mouth. No heat balance calculations
have been attempted for the bay, but it is considered that
-------
W. E. Llnne
237
natural heating and cooling of that large body of water will
dominate any effects of the plant thermal additions to the bay.
Acute adverse water quality and its severe effect on the biota
occur at some distance from the mouth of the river. In the
absence of thermal studies in the immediate vicinity of the
river mouth it cannot be determined what effect, if any, the
plant thermal load has on the bay. If thermal additions do
extend to areas of acute bay degradation, they will be small
but they can aggravate the effects of other much more important
factors that are degrading water quality.
This is getting around to conclusions and recommeda-
tlons.
1. The Monsanto Plant discharge makes no significant
thermal addition to Escambia Bay. The thermal addition to the
river causes no measurable biological degradation beyond the
small mixing zone. If it is required to remove the heat load
1
from the river, a pond or series of ponds with 16 hours
detention time, an estimated 40 acres of water surface area,
and flow control is a feasible means of removing this heat
load to the river.
I would say our thermal standards for the State are
not yet established but will be shortly and it will be deter-
mined when we have those as to whether or not this plant
-------
W. E. Linne
238
complies with the State standards.
2. It cannot be determined that the Crist Plant
discharge is entirely responsible for depression of biotic
index of the river belovi the plant. The plant heat load that
reaches the bay has not been compared to natural heat loads
in areas of acute biological damage to the bay. If it is
required to move this heat load from the river and bay, cooling
towers at an estimated cost of $3 million would be required.
Topography precludes cooling ponds. In view of the indeterminate
effect of thermal additions to the bay, cooling of present
plant discharges should not be required until thermal studies
of bay in the vicinity of the river mouth have been made.
That concludes this.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Linne.
Comments or questions?
MR. RAVAN: I have a question.
I would like for you to run through one more time
why you say it cannot be determined that the Crist Plant dis-
charge is entirely responsible for that depression.
MR. LINNE: There has not been enough investigative
work done there to determine that. If we are going to find
this out, there is a lot more work needed there.
MR. RAVAN: 0. K., thank you.
-------
239
W. E. Linne
MR. MAURIELLO: I might Interject, Mr.. Ravan, also,
that this is right in the salt tongue area, right where the
fresh and salt water mixing zone is, which has an effect.
MR. LEVIN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WHITE: Go ahead.
MR. LEVIN: I did understand you to say that Gulf
Power is discharging 17 degrees above ambient?
MR. LINNE:. That is correct.
MR. LEVIN: What is the proposed thermal standard of
the State of Florida? Do you know?
MR. LINNE: In an area—I—
MR. MAURIELLO: No, sir.
MR. TRAINA: I might comment that—
MR. LINNE: Let me finish. I.can't answer that
exactly. I am pretty well aware what was presented. I don't
know how it has come out.
MR. LEVIN: It is certainly nowhere near 17 degrees?
MR. LINNE:. No, sir, it Is not.
MR. LEVIN: So they had better get ready?
MR. LINNE: I would assume so.
MR. LEVIN: 0. K.
MR. TRAINA: May I Just say that, nationally a figure
of 5 degrees has been discussed as a national thinp. Of course
-------
240
W. E. Llnne
this is adjusted, but 5 degrees is a maximum rise that has
been discussed.
MR. LEVIN: I think ours is somewhere around 4 to
4 . 5 is what Florida is going to adopt eventually, I believe.
MR. LINNE: There is another little—may I add to
that? In our thermal proposals I don't know whether we have
eliminated the mixing zone or not. I am not sure of that.
Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: The report of the State agency which
you abstracted here states that there is an increase of 10.7
degrees was found near the outfall with an average Increase of
between 36 to 5^ at Highway 90 Bridge. The question is, was
the flow regime there representative of summer condition? Is
this a high value or a low value? Do you. have any feel for
this? Maybe Mr. Mauriello could respond to this.
MR. MAURIELLO: I think the data when it was taken
was in August.
MR. LINNE: Which would be—let's see—would be high,
if I remember. If you look back in last year's publication of
this meeting you will find that the figure—there are many
figures in there that have most of that outlined.
MR. TRAINA: Also in your presentation I believe you
stated at Highway 90 Bridge near the mouth, this is on page 10,
-------
W. E. Llnne
water temperatures increased by three to four degrees. I think
that Is what you said in your presentation.
MR. LINNE: It is in there.
MR. TRAINA: However your report indicates three to
six degrees.
NR. LINNE: What Is your question, please?
MR. TRAINA: Is It six degrees? I believe it reads
six degrees. In your verbal presentation you said three to
four.
MR. LINNE: Whatever is in here is correct.
MR. TRAINA: 0. K.
MR. MAURIELLO: Three to six.
MR. TRAINA: 0. K.» thank you.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments or questions?
MR. LINNE: I have one more.
MR. WHITE: Proceed, Mr. Linne.
MR. LINNE: This one has to do with the report on the
status of the city of Pensacola Northeast sewage treatment
plant.
MR. WHITE: Well, I thought maybe you had one more
comment.
. MR. LINNE: No, sir.
MR. WHITE: Let's go off the record a minute.
-------
W. £. Llnne
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record.
If you would be agreeable, Mr. Llnne, to make a
presentation right after lunch?
MR. LINNE: Like the man said, as you would have
MR. WHITE: Fine. We stand recessed until 2 p.m.
(NOON RECESS)
-------
AFTERNOON SESSION
MONDAY, JANAURY 24, 1972
(2 o'clock)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back In session, please.
When we left, I believe we were In the middle of
Mr. Linne's testimony. And If you would, step forward and
Just proceed with the report that you were making on Pensacola,
MR. LINNE: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: And I would like to say, though, that I
assume we will call Mr. deCastro back after you finish your
presentation for some further questions.
MR. LINNE: This report on the status of city of
Pensacola Northeast sewage treatment plant.
The first session of the State-Federal Enforcement
Conference held in Gulf Breeze, Florida, on January 21-22,
1970, recommended that there shall be reductions of 94 percent
carbonaceous, 91* percent nitrogenous, and 90 percent phosphorus
wastes discharged by the Northeast sewage treatment plant of
the city of Pensacola.
As a result of this recommendation, the city of
Pensacola submitted a report in January of 1971 covering the
results of laboratory studies on the feasibility of removing
phosphorus from the plant's effluents. These studies demon-
strated that soluble phosphate residuals approaching zero can be
-------
244
W. E. Linne
obtained by adding the coagulant (aluminum sulfate or sodium
aluminate) directly into the feed to the activated sludge tank.
However, minimum phosphate levels and higher effluent quality
were obtained only after further clarification of the secondary
effluents by filtration. The cost for chemicals (commercial
alum) alone were estimated to be $55 to $60 a day.
Removal of nitrogen was also found to be improved by
the above treatment for phosphorus removal. However, this
process cannot provide a high degree of removal required by the
enforcement conference.
Meanwhile, the city of Pensacola accepted and approved
the 5-year sewer plan for metropolitan Pensacola developed on
behalf of the Escambia-Santa Rosa Regional Planning Council.
This plan recommended the abandonment of the Northeast plant
and diversion of sewage from its service area to the Main Street
plant for the treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay.
In its report dated August 12, 1971, to the Department
the city proposed modification to the existing plant in order to
upgrade the quality of treatment to accommodate the new stand-
ards. This alternative, the city contended, would entail keep-
ing the existing plant in service for an interim number of years
by providing advanced treatment and would meet the December 31,
1972, deadline imposed by the enforcement conference. The city
-------
W. E. Linne
2h5
cited the problems and difficulties Involved In the abandonment of the
existing plant before December 31» 1972, as the reason for
maintaining and upgrading the existing plant.
The Department has accepted the proposal of the city
for advanced treatment as an interim measure before the plant
is abandoned and the effluent diverted to the Main Street
plant. A temporary operating permit, valid until June 1, 1972,
was issued to the plant on December 31, 1971, with the following
conditions among others:
1) Before April 1, 1972—Consistent
removal of no less than 9^ percent 5-day BOD
and suspended solids, 9^ percent total nitrogen
and 90 percent total phosphorus removal before
discharge to area surface waters shall be obtained.
2) Before May 1, 1972—Results on
effluent quality and other (operational) data
should be submitted.
3) Before May 1, 1972—Advise the
Department of Pollution Control as to when this
plant will conform to the concept of the 5-year
master plan for the city of Pensacola,i.e.
connection to an areawlde system.
4) Provide standby power for operation
-------
W. E. Llnne
2b6
of the treatment plant and chlorination
facilities.
5) Provide dual chlorination
facilities for adequate and continuous dis-
infection of the effluento
6) Effective January 15, 1972,
no additional connection to the existing
collection system shall be made without the
prior approval of the Department of Pollution
Control.
The Department has been notified by the City that the
Installation of chemical feed equipment has already been com-
pleted and other improvements are under way.
Summary and conclusions:
The Northeast sewage treatment plant of the city of
Pensacola was required by the first State-Federal Enforcement
Conference to upgrade the level of treatment in order to achieve
reductions of 94 percent carbon, 9^ percent nitrogen and 90
percent phosphorus wastes no later than December 31, 1972.
The city conducted laboratory studies on removal of
nutrients and found that it was feasible to remove soluble
phosphate down to zero levels by employing alum coagulation.
Some degree of nitrogen removal was also claimed for this
-------
w. E. Linne
process.
Meanwhile, the city has also adopted the metropolitan
Pensacola 5-year sewer plan which recommended abandonment of
the existing plant and pumping the sewage to the Main Street
plant for discharge to Pensacola. Since the actual implementa-
tion of this proposal cannot be accomplished before December
31, 1972, the city has decided to upgrade the quality of the
effluents presently being discharged to Escambia Bay in order
to comply with the requirements of the enforcement conference.
The Department of Pollution Control has required the
city to submit by May 1, 1972, evidence showing compliance with
the requirements of the enforcement conference.
A temporary operating permit issued by the Department
to the existing plant will expire on June 1, 1972. As a con-
dition of the permit, the city has been required not to allow
additional connections to the sewer system served by the plant.
That is it. Thank you.
(The following documents were attached to Mr. Linne's
statement:)
-------
248
APPENDIX
CITY OF PENSACOLA, NORTHEAST SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES
(Data taken from City's Application for Operation Permit dated 3/3/71)
1. Treatment Units
Grit Chamber
Primary Clarifier
Trickling Filter
Secondary Clarifier
Chlorine Contact Chamber
Anaerobic Digester
2. Flow Data
Ave. Max. Design
Daily Flow, GPD 500,000 700,000 850,000
3. Waste Characteristics
Removal
Parameter Influent Effluent Efficiency
(Per Cent)
BOD5 151 33 78
Diss. Solids:
Volatile 155 98 36
Fixed 14 8 129 12
Susp. Solids
Volatile 64 32 50
Fixed 91 32 64
N1I3-N 7.85 6.39 18
(N02+N03)-N 0.182 0.373
TOTAL P04 56.2 31.5 43
4.
Sludge Disposal
Digested sludge is being used as landfill.
-------
2k3
Q,1,
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF PGLLUT.'Q.M
SUITE 300. TALLAHASSCE DANK OUILEING
3t3 SOUTH CALHOUN STREET. TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301
VINCCMV D PATTON
CXtCUlivC MMICTO*
January 12, 1972
DAVID H LCVtN
CIA fth'A« t
Escambia County-DW
City d£ Pensacola
Northeast STP--T0P
Mr. Frank Faison
City Manager
City of Pensacola
p: 0. Box 1471
l'cnsacoldi Florida
Dear Mr. Iciison:
P!c?.'j? R-j;/y to.
Dcparlmenl cf Po'Mion Control
Ncr'.hvcsl Kcrvoml
Mr. Phi Dourly, Rs^icrj! EnjjiTjs
1334 Shcrs-Ime Drive
Gull Srifiz.?, Florida 3"ool
Phono: 904:932 :j3i3
Pursuant to your recent application, please find encjooeu a terporcirv
permit (No. DT 17-1361) dated 12/31/71 to operate the subject water
pollution source (domestic or municipal wastewaters).
This permit will expire on 6/1/72 and is subject to the conditions
and requirements checked or indicated otherwise in the attached
shctits entitled "Temporary Operation Permit Conditions" and "Permit
Application Deficiencies."
This permit is issued under the authority of Florida Statute 403.061,
(16). The time limits imposed herein are a condition to this permit
and are enforcceable under Florida Statute 403.1C1 (1)(b). You are
hereby p]?.ced on Notice that the Department will review this permit
before the scheduled date of expiry and will seek-court action Cor
violation of the conditions and requirements of this permit.
You have ten days from the date of receipt hereof within \rhich to
seek a review of the conditions and requirements contained in this
permit.
Your continued cooparation in this matter js appreciated and in
future communication please refer to your permit number.
Very truly your3<--~j
X-
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF AIR AND WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
TEMPORARY GPEHATiCM PERMIT
TOR City of Pcnsacola
P. 0. Box 1471
... _El.QKi.da.
PERMIT NO. DT 17-1361
DATE l?/^l m
PURSUANT TO TH6 PROVISION OP SECTION 405.061 {t*| OF CHAPTER 40). FLORIOA STAT-
UTES AND CHAKTCR 17-4 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE COPE, THIS PCRMIT IS ISSUED TO.
Mr_.__FranJc FaisonL City Manager
FOR THE TEMPORARY OPERATION OF THE FOLUOV/INQ-
0.85 HGD (design)_ Triek 1 ing_Fil1er_Plant with 77 per cent
5-day BOD remova 1 ;
located Vicinity o£ Scenic Highway & Lanqley Avenue.
Esnaaggla.. S£Sar4>jA County
WENT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS APPENDED IIERCTO. ALL OP WHICH ARE CONSID-
ERED A PART OF THIS PERMIT.
THIS PERMIT SHALL BC EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATC OF ITS ISSUANCE UNTIL. 6/1/72
AND SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE LAWS OF THC STATE AND RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
THE DEPARTMENT.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICATION DATEO
3/31/71 -FILED V/ITH THE DEPART-
W.E. Linne","*Acting CiTlef
KJQXIUXIQXmxiR xiuxmx X
VINCENT D. PATTON
BUREAU OF PERMITTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FORM I*11
-------
STATIS OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL
PERMIT APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES
Permit No.: dt 17-1361 Date: 12/31/71
1. Identify the location of pollution control plant by street
address, and latitude and longitude, or Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) grid systen to the nearest 100 meters.
2. Furnish details of prior approvals or permits (number and
date).
3. Have all applications signed by a professional engineer
registered in Florida. Three Copies of the application are
returned herewith.
4. Owner or authorized agent failed to sign the statement on
Page 2A. Attach letter of authorization if applicable.
5. Name and title of the owner or authorized agent arc either
not given or not legible. Furnish this information.
6. Submit a USGS map or map section or a sketch or plot plan
in quadruplicate. (The scale of the map provided is not
sufficient to identify the location accurately)
7. Information relating to the following items is either missing
or insufficient:
Page
Item
Additional Remarks
G B
7 B
8 B
10B
III C
IV B2
IV C6
V A3
Identify the drainage path of effluents
Plan and profile of outfall
Location of landfill
Submit the missing information noted in
this sheet before Feb. 15, 1972.
INDICATE ZIP CODE ON ALL ADDRESSES
-------
STATL 01' rLCIi'., l>,\
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL (DPC)
252
TEMPORARY OPERATION PERMIT'CONDITIONS
DOMESTIC (MUNICIPAL) WASTE SOURCES
Permit No.: DT 17-1361 DATE: 12/31/71
1 i1>e existing level of treatment is not in compliance with Section
17-3.04 Florida Administrative Code.
Consistent removals of no lass than 94 per cent 5-day BOD and
suspended solids, 94 per cent total nitrogen and 90 per cent total
phosphorus before discharge to area surface waters shall be
obtained.
An application for construction permit shall be filed with the DPC
before beginning upgrading/replacement of the existing plant.
The following schedule for compliance with the above requirements
shall be adopted in accordance with the proposal submitted by- the
City on August 12, 1971 and the progress achieved to date in
implementing the proposal:
a] Completion of upgrading as required by this permit: April 1, 1972.
b) Results on effluent quality and other required data to be
submitted to DPC: Prior to May 1, 1972.
. c) This temporary permit will expire on: June 1, 1972.
2. Provide standby power for operation of the treatment plant and
chlorination facilities.
3. Provide dual chlorination facilities for adequate and continuous
disinfection of the effluent.
4. No wastewater shall be allowed to deliberately bypass the existing
pollution control facility without the prior approval of the DPC.
5. Submit a copy of industrial waste ordinance now in effect in order
to protect the treatment facilities from toxic wastes and/or
organic and hydraulic shock loadings.
6. When an areawide (regional/metropolitan) collection and treatment
system becomes available, the DPC may require the permittee to
connect the source to such a system within a specified period of
time. It will be incumbent upon the permittee to comply with such
requirement and cease operation of the permitted source.
7. During the period of temporary operation allowed by this permit,
the applicant (owner) shall furnish two copies of monthly reports
:>n the operation of the pollution control plant. Such reports
shall also contain information on the dally quantities of waste
sludge generated at the source, type and degree of its treatment
and the site of its ultimate disposal.
Reports for a month shall be submitted to the Regional Office of
this Department no later than the fifteenth day of the succeeding
month.
8. Effective January 15, 1972 r.o additional connection to the existing
collection system shall be made without the prior approval of the
DPC.
9. By May 1, 1972 you 6hould advise us as to when this plant will
conform to the concept of the Five-year Master Plan for the City
of PensacoLa i.e. connection to an areawide system, as mentioned
in i tem IC. Please Reply to:
Dcpertmrnt of Pollution Control
ff.ofjv.' ".t R^'icjn.i! O'lice
Mr. I'll I Ljl,.ir:ii troi.j "
1384 Shorctinj Dn.-u
Gulf Brtxizo, Fbrub 3^501
Phone: 904/932-0323
-------
W. E. LInne
253
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Linne.
Any comments or questions?
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Linne, do you know what the loads
will look like coming from the Pensacola plant during this
interim period? Do you have those figures? In your permit did
you establish loads or percent removals?
MR. LINNE: That was percent removal by—let me find
out here.
I don't have It In this portion. I don't have it.
MR. TRAINA: During the first sesssion of the conference
there was some reference made to«
MR. LINNE: What you are talking about is the interim?
MR. TRAINA: Yes. There were some loads referred to,
though, that were set for the city of Pensacola.
MR. LINNE: What they are hoping to achieve. Let's
see here, see if I can find it.
I don't have It In this part.
MR. TRAINA: Well, maybe you could submit that for
the record.
MR. LINNE: I think we can find it.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any ques-
tions about Pensacola, but is Mr. Linne going to speak to the
question of Century?
-------
W. E. Linne
MR. WHITE: I plan to ask Mr. Mauriello who would be
the proper party to speak to the Century problem.
MR. MAURIELLO: We have Mr. Tennant from the County
Health Department here and also the Regional Engineer I think
has some information on it. Do you want to go into it now to
get it out of the way?
MR. WHITE: Well, this concludes the Department's
technical presentation but for that, is that correct?
MR. MAURIELLO: Right.
MR. WHITE: I would like to proceed with that now,
if you are ready.
MR. MAURIELLO: 0. K.
MR. LINNE: Thank you.
MR. MAURIELLO: We have asked Mr. Tennant from the
County Health Department to give us a brief status report on
the Century situation.
B. G. TENNANT
COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
MR. TENNANT: Gentlemen, let me first say that I have
no authority as far as the operation of this system or the
approval" of the system. I am merely going to advise you as to
-------
B. G. Tennant
255
what the status is.
Prior to the installation of the temporary system now
existing in Century, which serves the Century Hospital, the
Century Mill, and approximately 50 houses, the raw sewage' dis-
charged went into a stream area that finally found its way
into Escambia River. At the time of the construction of the
Century Hospital a system was to be Installed at the site of
the new Century Hospital which would have discharged into an
old line that was installed many years ago, which is the system
in operation now.
A temporary system has been Installed and is in
operation for the Century Mill, the approximately 50 houses
and the hospital. The system consists of a large septic tank,
a biological pond and chlorination of the final effluent.
t
It is my understanding too that a move is under way
whereby a report will be made on the development of an overall
system to serve the Century-South Flomaton area.
MR. TRAINA: Will this report talk about a regional
system, a collection and treatment system?
MR. TENNANT: It is my understanding that this report
would cover the urban area of Century-South Flomaton, yes, which
is being prepared by Justice and Associates.
MR. TRAINA: Do you have a date as to when that
-------
B. G. Tennant
256
report will be forthcoming and what it—
MR. TENNANT: No, sir.
MR. TRAINA: —might recommend in the terms of
an implementation plan for a treatment facility?
MR. TENNANT: No, sir, I do not.
MR. TRAINA: May I ask, does the State of Florida
have Century under some sort of orders?
MR. MAURIELLO: No, it is not right now. It is under
a temporary operating permit, Mr. Traina, the intent being that
they have the interim type facility, and granted, it does not
meet the requirements of 90 percent removal, but we did know
that there had been an engineer retained to do a regional
type evaluation of this Flomaton-Century area or South Flomaton,
and the date of-that—the permit is in process right now and
this is one of the domestic waste situations that we are trying
to get caught up on.
MR. TRAINA: Will they be able to make the 1973 date?
MR. MAURIELLO: I would certainly think so. The
type of system that we are talking about in the area that we
are talking about, the volumes up there, will probably meet it.
I don't see where there will be any problem. I think we will
be swatting at gnats and letting the elephants run by if—
The Century situation is not as grave as it should
-------
B. G. Tennant
257
be; I mean there are other things that are more important.
MR. WHITE: Well, we understand, but I mean we do need
to carry forth with this.
MR. MAURIELLO: 0. K. I think that we can get and
probably enter this into the record the date of the compre-
hensive plan and the system for the entire area, and I will
make sure that it gets into the record.
MR. TRAINA: I think this is germane.
MR. WHITE: If possible, can we get that within 30
days?
MR. MAURIELLO: Yes.
MR. WHITE: And we will include it in this record.
Any other comments or questions?
MR. LEVIN: Billy, maybe I missed this, but what are
thpv doing now?^^'# happening now? Is there any treatment at
all to the—
MR. TENNANT: Oh, yes, there is treatment in the
temporary system, because prior to the installation of the
temporary system all of it was raw sewage discharge, and of
course with the installation of the temporary system, pending
the development of an overall plan to serve this area, you
have a holding tank with a biological pond and chlorlnation
of the final effluent, which is much, much better than, of
-------
257-A
NOTE:
Comprehensive plan (see p. 257) submitted to Florida Department of
Pollution Control May 15, 1972.
-------
25fi
B. Q. Tennant
course, discharging raw sewage. And of course the hospital,
approximately 50 houses and the mill are now on this temporary
system.
The system was approved as a temporary system by the
Division of Health and we felt—I mean the Division of Health
felt, because as I said before, gentlemen, I have no approval
authority in this matter, 1 am speaking as to what the con-
ditions are up there—that this was the proper step to take
under the conditions until they were able to develop a plan for
the overall sewering of the Century-South Flomaton area,
MR. TRAINA: What is the population Involved in the
Century-South Flomaton area?
MR. TENNANT: 1 would say about 2,500 people.
MR. TRAINA: Will the system that is going to be
designed serve the entire 2,500 people?
MR. TENNANT: I hope it will. I am not familiar with
that much of Mr. Justice's work, but I am assuming that it will
cover the urban area of Century-South Flomaton.
MR.. TRAINA: And this will be a 90 percent—I guess
according to requirements under Florida law it will be a 90
percent removal facility, conventional secondary treatment?
MR. TENNANT: I would assume that that would be so,
yes, sir.
-------
259
B. G. Tennant
MR. WHITE: Other comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much.
Let's go off the record just a minute.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record, please.
MR. MAURIELLO: I would like to ask Dr. Livingston,
Associate Professor from Florida State University, and I think
he is also going to include Professor Hopkins.
Is he going to be involved, Doctor?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes, he will speak after me.
MR. MAURIELLO: This is a status report on the
Department of Transportation project in Mulat Bayou.
DR. LIVINGSTON: I would like to just drag this out
for you, if I may, so you can see what I am talking about.
DR. ROBERT LIVINGSTON
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
DR. LIVINGSTON: My name is Robert Livingston. I am
an Assistant Professor at the Florida State University in the
Department of Biological Science. We were commissioned by the
-------
260
Dr. R. Livingston
Department of Transportation to do a study on the Mulatto
Bayou area. I have a picture right here, an aerial photograph,
of the area.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects
of the dredging operations that the Department of Transportation
undertook in the bayou over a certain period of time on the
various deteriorating levels of the various water quality in
the bayou and on the fish kills itself.
If I might simply mention, this is a—-these are
depths. I might go away a minute from the mike. They opened
up the area here (indicating) and they borrowed fill from
this area here (Indicating). They also had some maintenance
dredging going in this particular area here (indicating) and
our particular charge in this study was to determine just how
this particular dredging operation affected the water quality
In that area.
MR. LEVIN: Would you show which way is north and
south?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes. North is this way (indicating),
I believe.
Well, I can show you how this bayou sits. I have
torn my top sheet off.
It sits Just like this (indicating) with north going
-------
Dr. R. Livingston
261
in, let's see, I believe it is this direction (indicating). We
are looking at this bayou here from this direction (indicating)
in this particular photograph.
MR. LEVIN: Now, this is the Pensacola side, then,
down here?
DR. LIVINGSTON: This is Escambia Bay right here
(indicating). This (indicating) is Escambia Bay, this (indi-
cating) is 1-10, this (indicating) is the railroad, this (indi-
cating) is Mulat Bayou, this (indicating) is Mulatto Bayou.
MR. LEVIN: I see. 0. K.
DR. LIVINGSTON: We decided to break this up into
various portions. First we were going to monitor over a period
of time, that is over a year's period of time, the physical and
chemical changes in the area. We included in this dissolved
oxygen, temperature, salinity, BOD, H2S, certain nutrients.
Also we were to do aerial photography of the area to
determine the currents to see how the current changes possibly
would affect all these parameters.
We also were going to do primary productivity in this
area, the migrating crustaceans and the fin fishes in the area.
And finally we were to analyze exactly how all of
this fit together in possible fish kills that would occur
during the study period.
-------
262
Dr. Ft. Livingston
Now, we were able to do all this, it is a.big order,
simply because this is a very small area and we were able to
set up a large number of stations.
Dr. Hopkins will address his part of this project
after I get through speaking. He was in charge of primarily
the biological end of it, doing the primary productivity, the
fishes and crustaceans, and the effects of this dredging and
of the general area on the biological end. My end and Florida
State's end was the physical and chemical parameters.
Now, if I may, we established approximately 20
stations in this study area from Florida State and our modus
operandi was very simple. Once a week from July to October
we would come in for a 2l*-hour period and over the 2U-hour
period, once every three hours, each of these 20-odd stations
was studied for dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, H2S,
color, turbidity, and every other week we would do BOD's and
occasionally nitrates and phosphates for nutrients. The reason
for this was to get a comprehensive daily idea of exactly what
was going on over the 2^-hour dieoff period in order to deter-
mine perhaps the worsening conditions that would occur with
time.
Now, we did vertical-profiles at each station so we
would have a vertical profile of each of those parameters that
-------
Dr. R. Livingston
263
I am talking about, and we complimented this study with dye
studies. Using aerial photography, we were able to drop dye
in the area and study the current patterns on the incoming
and the outgoing currents. Dr. Hopkins and myself collaborated
on this together with the Department of Transportation, who
provide the plant and all the equipment, and we got a very good
idea of exactly what the current pattern was in this particular
area.
We were I wouldn't say lucky enough, but we happened
to be there during several major fish kills and we were, there-
fore, very fortunate to get data during weeks prior to and
after these major fish kills in a very detailed way. As you
can see, these stations Just cover that bayou, so we have a
very excellent idea over a 24-hour period of Just about every-
thing that is going on in that bayou. We also made detailed
fish observations on this area before, during and after the
fish kills.
The major fish kills occurred while we were there in
this area here (indicating) and this area here (indicating).
This area (indicating), I might add, has been dredged for I
believe it is the Escambia Shores Development and those are
canals that are artifically dredged and have been dredged in
that area.
-------
Dr. R. Livingston
Now, I must;—
MR. WHITE: Could I interrupt Just a minute here?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Surely.
MR. WHITE: Do you have any small drawings or plats
that you might submit for the record and would you Identify the
areas that you were talking about so that—I mean we are having-
DR. LIVINGSTON: I see.
MR. WHITE: We have a visual aid here and we are
building a record. Could you be more definitive in your state-
ment of where those samples were taken?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes. One of the main stations
around which we were getting kills was right near the fish
camp, which is located on the Mulat Bayou area, and it is
along the trestles also of I believe it is the L&N Railroad.
The other major area of fish kills was in an area of
the Escambia Shores Development area, where they have dredged
out canals for future home sites.
Yes.
MR. RAVAN: That was a point I wanted to make or
question. When you say they had or they did, prior to your
study, after or during?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Prior to our study all of this
dredging was accomplished.
-------
265
Dr. R. Livingston
MR. RAVAN: How long before?
DR. LIVINGSTON: I don't have all the dates on those
at my fingertips, but it was a period of one to two years, I
believe. I have the dates somewhere.
There is another thing I must say. This report that
I am giving you now is simply an interim report. Most of my
data right now is in the computers and I cannot give you a
detailed analysis of the data, but 1 am trying to give you some
of the high points about what we found out,
MR. RAVAN: Good. We would appreciate lt„
DR. LIVINGSTON: I am not going to make a definitive
remark, for instance, on the relative effects of dredging on
this area, although I think we have a very good idea of what
they are, simply because I don't want to speak without my data,
naturally. And I can speak, though, to certain aspects of the
problem, and I think with such a comprehensive look at a small
area like this, between Dr. Hopkins and myself I think we are
going to be able to come to some answers, perhaps, that have
hitherto not been arrived at.
One thing that I think I must impress on you is this,
that these fish kills—and as I say, we monitored right through
them; at 3-hour intervals through a 2^-hour period we were right
there from the beginning to the end of a fish kill. And then,
-------
Dr. R. Livingston
266
of course, I must say that we are doing this weekly, so we
have got a very large amount of data that is very cumbersome;
I have got to use computers to be able to analyze it.
Just off the top of my head, because I was there
during the whole study and I have looked over all the data,
I can say this, that the fish kills that are occurring are
occurring due to a very complex series of events that are
happening with this particular bayou, and the exact, shall I
say.physiography of the bayou in mind. This has a great effect
on the fish kills and why the fishes are dying. The current
structure, I believe, is going to be very important. The
eutrophication, the cultural eutrophication, is definitely a
factor. The dredging would appear to be a factor, although, as
I say, I hesitate to draw any fast conclusions about how much
of a factor it is going to be until we look at more of the
data.
The area itself is—and it is very obviously in an
advanced state of cultural eutrophication, as everyone knows.
Our dissolved oxygen, though, with this particular type of
sampling program, we were able to show using the dissolved
oxygen data primarily that it Is a very complex picture with
all of these aspects entering Into it. So there is no simple
way to get at this particular problem and I could probably talk
-------
2£7
Dr. R. Livingston
with you all afternoon about just why I am saying that. I am
not going to because I don't have the data here and you can't
listen to me all afternoon.
But this particular area is definitely in a state of
advanced eutrophication, with these areas (indicating) espec-
ially acutely affected, the dredging in this particular area.
For instance, the dissolved oxygens for weeks on end in these
particular areas would be zero. There would be no oxygen in
that particular area. I am talking about the canals, now, in
the Miami Shores area.
The other major area of fish kill would show pro-
nounced fluctuations with—for instance, starting in July there
would be the usual diurnal decrease in oxygen during the eve-
ning. As we get into August this diurnal pattern of high
oxygen during the day, lower oxygen at night, was exaggarated
with the oxygen going up higher during the day and down lower
during the night. We could follow this right straight through
to the kill, and as a matter of fact, we could almost predict
the kill by looking at this kind of data, because when the
dissolved oxygen reached a certain level, then all it needed
was the fishes to cone in that area and we knew that there was
going to be a fish kill.
I hope eventually, with the large amount of data that
-------
Dr. R. Livingston
268
we do have, that we can run, for instance, some sort of multi-
varied analysis to be able then to be predictive, and we
possibly, by taking spot checks in different areas, can then
predict where these fish kills might occur. It is very
obvious right from the start that to have a fish kill you have
to have the conditions, the physical and chemical conditions,
as well as the fishes, and although the one thing that we don't
have a great deal of data on is the predictive value of when
these fishes are coming in, we do know that we will be able to
show exactly when a fish kill can occur if the fishes do come
in.
I would like to also address myself to one thing that
I have heard and that is this, that the fishes are not neces-
sarily committing suicide. They are not depleting the oxygen
in the water to such an extent that they are dying simply from
their own breathing. Some of these areas simply don't have any
oxygen in them. The fishes get in there, get trapped and can't
get out for one reason or another, and they die. They do
aggravate a situation. If there is a large enough amount of
fishes, it will aggravate an already aggravated situation
and might worsen it. But some of these areas, especially in the
ESeambia Shores area, where there was absolutely no oxygen to begin
with, the fish would simply run in there with probably—I am not
-------
Dr. R. Livingston
269
going to say it is definite, but it looks like they are after
the larger volumes of phytoplankton that are in the water.
They will run into these areas and then at night they will
usually start dying or even during the day.
The various dredged areas in this whole area down at
depths, say—well, I can't say all of the depths, but let us
say below 10 feet, usually, are usually anoxic and have greater
and greater amounts of H2S as you go down. They are areas of,
I woul4 say, very poor water. The effects of these dredged
areas on the overall picture I will reserve until we analyze
our data a little later.
The computerized portion of our research should bring
out a lot more than what I am telling you now. I am just giving
you a brief glimpse of what I can tell you are some of the high-
lights of what we can just pick out from the data without having
to run to the computers. It is just such a pile of data that
it is going to take a little time to analyze it. But I think
we have enough so we can tell you pretty much what is going on
in this bayou, what has gone on this past summer.
I am Just going to stop talking now.
MR. WHITE: Do you anticipate that you will be able to
make some recommendations for some remedial program in there?
DR. LIVINGSTON: It is highly possible.
-------
270
Dr. R. Livingston
MR. WHITE: What is the time frame?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Our report is—well, our grant runs
out 1 May and we should have the report in within a month or
so after that.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: You have indicated that the area up
there about—I can't see; my eyes aren't good—11(B) and 11(A)?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes.
MR. LEVIN: That is one of the areas of the problem?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes.
MR. LEVIN: And we know that is raanmade dredging?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes.
MR. LEVIN: Now, the area around 7 that you said was
also another area.
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes.
MR. LEVIN: Is that dredged also in there?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Not to my knowledge. This is not a
dredged area.
The reason that we threw our samples all over the
bayou is this. We worked on a possible assumption that by
opening the canal at the Escambia Shores end it is possible
that the currents were adjusted in such a way as to isolate
these areas from the usual tidal drainage. In other words,
-------
211
Dr. R. Livingston
the tides are coming In and going out. And by Isolating areas
such as this, it would cause a stagnation to occur that possibly
would add to the dissolved oxygen burden that is already there.
In other words, this whole area is connected. It is
not a large area. So that by doing something over here (indi-
cating), that doesn't preclude the events to occur over here
(indicating) in relation to what you have done over here (indi-
cating).
For instance, this whole area through here (indicat-
ing) is scoured. On an incoming tide we have preliminary evi-
dence—we are going to do one more dye run—but preliminary
evidence, for instance, that the tide simply runs in this end
and right through and out the other, which was very surprising.
We would have thought it might have been different, but it was
not.
In other words, it is scoured, this whole area, until
this is relatively deep all through here. Areas such as this
(indicating) have been isolated, this area (indicating) is iso-
lated, this a^ea (indicating) is isolated, setting up, I would
say, a potential for the—then the effects of what is a
eutrophicated state to then take hold and have perhaps an
exaggarated effect on the water and therefore the animals
simply can't maintain themselves.
-------
272
Dr. R. Livingston
MR. LEVIN: The 13 and'1*4, is that a manmade pass in
there?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes, this was dredged out and opened
up by the Department of Transportation. In other words, this
whole area was sealed off and we have aerial photographs of it
before and after so that this was actually—I think there was a
connection in here somewhere at one time, but it is pretty much
a cul de sac.
MR. LEVIN: Well, I don't know whether this is practi-
cal or not, but I assume If it is taken out it can be put back.
Suppose that thing is filled back in the way it was. What would
you think would be the effect to the tide of having only one
entrance in there around 5 and 6 the way it was when the Good
Lord made it?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Now you are starting to nail me down
to something I didn't want to talk about, because we are playing
with—part of the purpose of this study for DOT is to put back
what they took out in a place which would help the area,
possibly. If this is feasible we will go ahead with this.
That is one of the primary aims that we will advise them on.
However, the area has changed pretty drastically from
when they originally dredged. Exactly where we would have them
fill it, can be done in any number of places. For instance,
-------
273
Dr. R. Livingston
how about doing it in this particular area (indicating) and
dividing the two areas so that you have both areas being
drained now since you do have a new area over here that you
simply can't fill up? There is just too much for me to go into
this right now.
MR. LEVIN: Let me ask you, were there fish kills in
Mulatto Bayou any place other than those two specific points you
pointed out during the time you were studying?
DR. LIVINGSTON; Yes. The water in this area would
become depleted with oxygen and then with an outgoing tide this
whole canal here would be filled with deoxygenated water and
we did see fish kills occurring all along this area during out-
flowing tide.
MR. LEVIN: How about up around 1, 2, 3 and ^?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Nothing; we never saw any fish kill
in that area. The dissolved oxygens in this area remained, well,
relatively what you would consider stable for a particular
shallow estuary.
MR. LEVIN: And that is all natural? That has not
been—
DR. LIVINGSTON: To ray knowledge this might have been
dredged down here (indicating), but I am not sure. Dr. Hopkins
would probably know more about that than I. But this is a
-------
274.
Dr. R. Livingston
relatively shallow area with no deep area in it that would
add to any water quality deterioration. This area also is
flushed by a stream. I haven't drawn that in, but the stream
flushes this regularly.
You see, this is so much more complicated. For
instance, we have to take into consideration rainfall patterns
and how this area is getting groundwater and things like this
which are all entering into this picture.
MR. LEVIN: But doesn't it seem like that really the
fish kills have to be in some way in Mulatto Bayou related to the
11(A), 11(B) point or the 7 point, in some way?
DR. LIVINGSTON: I would say that during this summer
j
when we were there and during the time that the kills were
occurring this (indicating) would be one sensitive area and
this (indicating) was very definitely another sensitive area.
And we have quantitative proof of how these areas degenerated with
time over the summer until they reached a point where they
became lethal.
MR. LEVIN: Excuse me, but let me ask you this. Is
there an outlet for the water going from 5, 6 into 7? Does it
swing around and come out or Is that a dead end up there where
that fish camp is that you mentioned?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Oh, you mean up in here (indicating)?
-------
275
Dr. R. Livingston
MR. LEVIN: Yes.
DR. LIVINGSTON: No, this is closed, so that, you
see, that it is a low energy area to begin with,
MR. LEVIN: Well, it goes back to your pattern of
your tides which are completely ignoring 11(A) and 11(B) and 7»
right? They are Just circling and—
DR. LIVINGSTON: By opening this up, that is one
hypothesis, yes, that by opening this up the water simply swingsj
through without going—for instance, if we were to close this
(indicating) off or close this off here (Indicating), then the
tidal currents would possibly drain this area and have much
more effect on this whole area than th,ey did before this was
opened up.
MR. LEVIN: And if you didn't have the stream coming
down where 1, 2 and 3 are, you would perhaps have a great
number of fish kills up in there too, right?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Now you are talking in the realm of
(
speculation. This is all speculation right now until we analyze
this data, and the one main problem is that we don't have data
before they opened it up, you see; then we would have it locked up.
This way we can only speculate. 1
But I would say that with this particular type of
tidal currents, this is one possible and very reasonable
-------
276
Dr. R. Livingston
explanation of why that particular area in 7 would be going
like It is.
MR. RAVAN: Again, how long did your study go on,
four months?
DR. LIVINGSTON: We started in July and we are still
going. It goes on until May. Dr. Hopkins has been working
longer in there.
MR. RAVAN: And about how many sauare miles is that
you have worked in?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Let me think. How many?
FROM THE FLOOR: Two hundred square acres.
DR. LIVINGSTON: I wouldn't know, but they say 200
square acres.
MR. RAVAN: How much did the study cost,, how much
do you think?
DR. LIVINGSTON: About $19,800.
MR. RAVAN: Nineteen eight?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes.
MR. RAVAN: Do you know of any such study ever having
occurred with regard to Escambia Bay?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Similar to this one?
MR. RAVAN: Yes.
DR. LIVINGSTON: Dr. Hopkins has been studying this
-------
277
Dr. R. Livingston
area for quite a while, not with the same approach, necessarily4
but he has been studying it for a long time.
MR. RAVAN: Let's say with the same thoroughness that
you Just described.
DR. LIVINGSTON: Well, Dr. Hopkins is very thorough.
(Laughter.) I would say that this area—you mean in this
detail?
Have you done this, Tom? I haven't seen this kind of
data in such detail, no.
(
MR. RAVAN: Dr. Hopkins, unfortunately, is Just one
man. The point I make is you did 20 stations. Have we done a
100-station study for eight months in Escambia?
DR. LIVINGSTON: I know of none.
MR. RAVAN: Do you think that would be beneficial?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Well, I don't see how you make any
estimate on a scattering of data anyway. If you come In In a
couple of week period and go out again, I don't see how you can
make any kind of reasonable assessment without looking at this
situation over a long-range period of time.
Any area like this is so complex that you can waste
a lot of time by simply coming in, hitting it and running again
without doing a comprehensive long-term study on the area.
There is' no doubt in my mind—
-------
278
Dr. R. Livingston
MR. RAVAN: But you know of no such comprehensive
long-term study having been done in Escambia?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes, there are other studies that
have been done1, but I know of—well, for Instance, no one on
this particular area that has been done in this detail, no.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin has one.
MR. LEVIN: Sir, have you considered the possibility
of—or would you consider the possibility of perhaps opening
up this area down in here (indicating) so that perhaps your
tide might could swing in there as well?
DR. LIVINGSTON: That is a third alternative, yes.
I have considered it. I haven't conferred with Dr. Hopkins
yet, but I have considered that as an alternative.
MR. LEVIN: And then it would seem if that should take
place, then our only problem probably would be right in there
(indicating), wouldn't it?
DR. LIVINGSTON: It Is a possibility, yes. To be
honest, again, this is.all on preliminary estimates of the data.
Until I have the data in front of rae I can't really make any
hard and fast decision, plus the fact I would warn you or
anyone who would go into this area and do this to be very care-
ful with what you are doing. You could simply aggravate an
already aggravated situation. That is why I am reluctant to
-------
279
Dr. R. Livingston
really say what we would decide.
MR. LEVIN: I just wanted to find out, you were con-
sidering that possibility?
DR. LIVINGSTON: I considered that as a third but
a remote possibility.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Traina.
MR. TRAINA: Dr. Livingston, did you say that most
of the fish kills in this entire area have been concentrated in
Mulatto Bayou? Is that what I understood you to say?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Pardon me?
MR. TRAINA: That most of the fish kills that occurred
generally in Escambia Bay have been concentrated in Mulatto
Bayou?
DR. LIVINGSTON: I couldn't speak to that. There afre
a large number of fish kills in this particular bayou, though.
There are a large number of fishes dying, but throughout the
summer,of course, there were other areas that were being built«
MR. TRAINA: ,In the beginning, to go back over history
here, back in 1968 and 1969 when some of these major kills began
to occur, at least coming to our attention, Mulatto Bayou was
the focus of the fish kills at that time. They apparently have
extended out into the bay. And again I am asking you to maybe
draw conclusions here that are not warranted based on what you
-------
Dr. R. Livingston
have so far—
(Off the record.)
;
MR. TRAINA: As I started to say, I want to ask you
maybe to draw a conclusion. The fish kills that seemed ta be
began occurring in the Mulatto Bayou area. Prom what you are
saying here, at least there is a concentration of the fish kills
still in this area. Would you like to conclude now that Mulatto
Bayou has been the source of kills, not in terms of pollution
source, but if we could solve the problem of Mulatto Bayou we
may solve the problem of the bay?
DR. LIVINGSTON: I would hate to say. yes to that.
As a matter of fact, I would rather say no simply because this
area is different from most of the other areas of the bay.
Each area has its_own problems, is what I.am trying to say, so
that to solve the problems here might not solve the problems
in the rest of the bay.
One thing that would solve the overall problem, of
course, would be for the overall area to become less eutroph-
icated. That would solve a lot of problems.
But to solve these particular problems and to apply
them to other bayous, if that is what you are getting at, I
would hate to do that because simply there might be other
problems in other parts of the bay that we are not considering.
-------
281
Dr. R. Livingston
MR. TRAINA: It was reported to us last year, I have
forgotten the depth of it, but this large hole that was
created because of the construction of 1-10 for dredge material.
Where is that located?
DR. LIVINGSTON: That is right here (indicating).
MR. TRAINA: That seems to be in the path of this
water that you are saying is coming through t. " -
DR. LIVINGSTON: Well, it is a little to the left
side of it. The water is pretty much bypassing that. There
isn't a great deal of water flowing either in or out of t ..it
area unless it is a large runoff. We have noticed during
times of large rains, for instance, that the area would "u~
somewhat clear, but it is usually a bypass.
MR. TRAINA: So you think that the water contained in
that is not affecting the water quality in the rest of it?
DR. LIVINGSTON: You are now trying to nail me down
on something that I told you I could not make a—
MR. TRAINA: You will excuse us, but we are all trying
to nail this thing down.
One other question. When was this canal opened, the
one that is down in—I get ray directions mixed up here, but—
DR. LIVINGSTON: It was, I think, between 2 and 3
years ago. I don't have all this data at my fingertips.
-------
Dr. R. Livingston
MR. TRAINA: Which places it about 1968?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Around that time, I believe,
MR. TRAINA: Which would place it around the time
that we had a lot of the fish kills began to be reported.
DR. LIVINGSTON: Again I would address this particular
information to Dr. Hopkins. He has been in this area longer
than I have and he could answer these with facility, whereas I
have only been in here since July.
MR. TRAINA: Again, this is probably an unfair ques-
tion. Let me ask it anyhow.
What kinds of problems do you see immediately in
terms of water quality of the fishery resource or any other
problems, even, with regard to access in and out if that canal
was closed?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Well, it could cause just as bad a
situation as we have now, possibly, simply because it would be
a cul-de-sac also and if the tidal currents would not clear it
out, with those holes in the way they are and with the water
quality being deteriorated in those canals, the fish could
still make it through there and get into those areas and if it
wasn't thoroughly washed out you might even have greater fish
kills. That is one of the considerations that we have to take
into account.
-------
283
Dr. R. Livingston
MR. TRAINA: What is the canal used for now, do you
know?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Just boating,
MR, TRAINA: Commercial, pleasure boating?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Mostly pleasure. It is a small
canal. This is a small area, generally.
MR. TRAINA: Let me ask a question with regard to
that development you talked about, I have forgotten the name
of It, Homestead?
DR. LIVINGSTON: No, it is called, I believe,
Escambia Shores.
MR. TRAINA: Do they take dredge from the bay and
fill that area in?
DR. LIVINGSTON: No, they dredged canals out of here
and threw the spoil up on banks on either side of these canals.
These are simply dredged out.
MR. TRAINA: I see. But they, in fact, have created
poor circulation for that part of the—
DR. LIVINGSTON: It is a cul-de-sac. It is terrible
circulation and these are areas that we have found the worst water
quality in those particular canals and in water associated wit* it.
MR. TRAIKA: Does that water get out into the other
areas that you had the fish kills?
-------
284
Dr. R. Livingston
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes, as I say, on the outgoing tide
we did find this water draining right down. It depends a lot
on the wind and the rain in the area and, oh, a whole series of
other things, tidal currents, and so on. I mean it is a very
complicated picture.
MR. TRAINA: Just to make it common, it appears from
what you said, and based on other information that this con-
ference received, that a strong possibility exists that the
opening of that canal may have had something to do with a
proliferation of the fish kills, maybe not the only cause.
DR. LIVINGSTON: Again you are trying to nail me down
to something that I don't want—
MR. TRAINA: That is the business we are in, sir,
trying to pin you down.
DR. LIVINGSTON: Yes. If I had my whole report in
front of me I would be glad to answer these questions, but I
don't want to answer any questions that I don't have scientific;
proof of.
MR. TRAINA: Do you think you would be in a position
of answering those questions with some specificity?
DR. LIVINGSTON: Again I don't know until I look at
my datajand I feel that.we will have enough data to possibly
approach the answer.
-------
285
Dr. R. Livingston
Let me tell you this from the beginning. I don't
think you are going to get at the ultimate answer of any of
this because of the way it has been done and over the time
period that it has been done, because we can't go in and tell
you what the area was before, so ultimately you are not going
to get a final scientific solution after, you can't expect
that.
But what we can do is simply tell you in empirical
terms what happened last summer, how the fish kills occurred
and all of the events leading up to that, and then the events
that went beyond that. And I am afraid you are going to have
to read my report and draw your own conclusions as to how much
of a percentage you could say opening that canal would have.
I don't think it will ever get to that—
I would say this, though. It is a strong possibility
that this did have some effect on the area, but it Is still
Just a possibility in my mind,
MR. TRAINA: Maybe one question, one final question.
Did you say the Department of Transportation—I assume
that is the State Department of Transportation?
DR. LIVINGSTON: That is right.
MR. TRAINA: —is committed to doing whatever needs
to be done to rectify? Is this the basis of your work?
-------
286
Dr. R. Livingston
DR. LIVINGSTON: I don't know, whatever can be done,
but they are committed or have committed themselves to me to
move on my advice or on our advice, Dr. Hopkins and myself, to
try to by refilling the area improve the situation if they
can, yes.
MR. TRAINA: I see. Thank you, sir.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin, do you have another question?
MR. LEVIN: All I wanted to do was to find out if
anybody knew any. of the data before this canal was built?
Maybe that would help us in some way.
DR. LIVINGSTON: I think you ought to ask this to
Dr. Hopkins.
MR. LEVIN: That is what I want to do.
DR. LIVINGSTON: Again, he is the man who-has been in
there longer than I have. I have just been in here since July.
He has got a great deal of data that went on before this, so
he would be a good person to ask.
MR. LEVIN: But doesn't it seem pretty clear to you—
and again, I an^not trying to pin you down, but doesn't it seem
like that if you were a lawyer instead of a scientist that if
you were trying to decide what the preponderance of the evidence
was, so to speak, that doesn't it look like the problem seems
to be that these things occur in dead ends and these fish get
-------
287
Dr. R. Livingston
themselves up in there and they can't get out in time before
they s-uffocate themselves? Isn't that a pretty fair assumption?
DR. LIVINGSTON: If I was a lawyer and not a
scientist I would sue the hell out of them. (Laughter.)
MR. LEVIN: Sue the hell out of who?
DR. LIVINGSTON: The people who dredged this area.
But then I am not a lawyer, so I won't say that.
MR. LEVIN: You sound like you are very proud of that.
(Laughter.)
MR. WHITE: Thank you very much, Dr. Livingston.
Off the record.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: We are back on the record.
Let me clarify something. We talked around this
plat and nobody could really follow it. I think it has been
very beneficial to the conferees, but Just for the little lady
who is going to be reading this record I want to point out
that we are not going to have this map in. This was simply a
visual aid to assist us.
Proceed, Mr..Mauriello.
MR. MAURIELLO: Dr. Hopkins, would you like to add any
comments to Dr. Livingston's?
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
DR. THOMAS S. HOPKINS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
CHAIRMAN, BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY OP WEST FLORIDA
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
DR. HOPKINS: We would like to make a presentation
with regard to our portion of, the data and I would like to say
that there is considerable background information on Mulatto
Bayou as a result of a Bureau of Fisheries contract to study
the area with regard to pesticides. That information will be
made available to the conferees.
In addition, we have some data with regard to the
!immediate effects of dredging during the time of dredging the
canal that he was talking about going through here. I do not
want to present it at this time, but if so requested will sub-
mit it within the 30 days.
I would like to call on my graduate student or a
graduate student from the University, Ken Adams, to talk about
the primary productivity aspects, because I think this will
tie in very well with the arguments that we have had with regard
to why fish go to Mulat Bayou. After Ken's presentation I
would like, to summarize and answer any questions you may have.
MR. LEVIN: You don't want us to ask questions now?
-------
289
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
DR. HOPKINS: No, but let's let Ken tell about what
we know. It gets back to the background question. We think we
have an answer to some of the background information.
Ken.
MR. WHITE: If you will stand by too, Tom, until
the time to ask questions.
DR. HOPKINS: I will be right behind.
Kenny.
We have some before and after slides of what you have
seen here. I think,again,we can submit these things. We can't
submit them today, but we can submit all the visual materials.
MR. WHITE: Everything that you use, then—
DR. HOPKINS: Will go into the record.
MR. WHITE: —you should submit to us for the record..
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: ' Fine.
DR. HOPKINS: It is being prepared. We Just couldn't
get it through the photo lab in time.
MR. ADAMS: Do you want to do this?
MR. WHITE: We will go off the record while you set
up.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record, again, and
-------
289-A
NOTE;
Dr. Hopkins was requested repeatedly to submit materials (see p. 289),
but they were not received.
-------
K. Adams
start with the presentation.
KEN ADAMS, GRADUATE STUDENT
UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
MR. ADAMS: In the way of introduction, primary
productivity of the energy transformations that occur within
ecosystems is the initial and, therefore, basic to the forma-
tion of all food webs and it also has value as an indicator'
of ^relative stability and the general trophic condition of a
system.
For background information I went to the BCF study
that Dr. Hopkins has mentioned, and unfortunately we won't be
able to show these to the general audience.
Here we have primary productivity data for about eight
months correlated with nutrient data.
MR. WHITE: Would you explain the charts to us a
little, I mean what you are getting at?
MR. ADAMS: Certainly.
On this scale we have milligrams of carbon per square
meter per hour surface values. This is gross, net and respira-
tion across here. You will note the erratic value of these.
The triangles are nitrates and the circles are temperature,
-------
K. Adams
291
water temperature.
Over here we have the same thing basically except
we have four different depths, carbon in milligrams per cubic
meter per hour. Here we see the same fluctuation with indi-
cations of negative respiration at times.
With this in mind, I started my study of Mulatto
Bayou on July 11, and for sake of conparison I chose Catfish
Basin, which lies on the eastern shore of Blackwater Bay, as
a control area. You can notice it up there. It is on the
eastern shore of Blackwater Bay; it would be in this area
(indicating) on the same map, while Mulatto Bayou is situated
here (indicating).
DR. HOPKINS: This is the Catfish (indicating) and
Mulatto (indicating).
MR. ADAMS: Comparing the two, Mulatto has a drainage
basin of 135.6 hectares and a surface area of 89.08 hectares,
a mean depth of 1.5 meters. Catfish Basin has a surface area
of 132.8 hectares, 88.56 hectares is the surface area, the mean
depth is 1.2 meters.
The procedure followed was that at weekly intervals
three sites were sampled at three, depths, surface, half meter
and one meter. The light bottoms were done in triplicate and a
common Incubation site was chosen to assure Identical
-------
292
K. Adams
temperature and illumination. Water chemistry samples were also
taken from these three sites.
Here we have Mulatto Bayou, north being toward the
top. My site 2 is the triangle at the upper portion.
DR. HOPKINS: This one (indicating), Ken?
MR. ADAMS: Right. And my site 3 was at the bottom
triangle right there (indicating), and at Catfish Basin—
DR. HOPKINS: Wait a minute, I will get an outline of
Catfish.
MR. ADAMS: 0. K.
MR. WHITE: Off the record Just a second.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Back on the record.
MR. ADAMS: Site 3 was at a central site in Catfish
Basin right there, and I compared the primary productivity in
water chemistry of these three sites at weekly intervals, as I
stated. The methods employed were the C-14 method for primary
productivity and standard colormetric methods for nitrate,
phosphate and ammonia.
Here we see the results of 20 weeks of sampling.
This is the primary productivity in Catfish Basin, carbon,
milligrams and cubic meters per hour.
And the carbon fixation ranged from 0.92 on August 1
-------
253
K. Adams
to 26.34 on September 1. As you can see, this is relatively
stable in load.
The nitrate levels in Catfish Basin, which are
represented by triangles, varied from 0.02 at several dates
to 0.20 on November 7. And the ammonia, which is represented
by squares, varied from 16 ppb to 98 ppb on September 26, and
16 ppb was on November 21; The nitrates were given in parts
per million, that is 0.02 ppm to 0.20 ppm.
This is site 2 in Mulatto Bayou. Primary productivity,
as you oan see, is rather erratic.
The carbon fixation values varied from 2.39 on
August 1 to 137.37 on August 8.
The nitrate values at site 2 varied from 0,02 on
July 11 to 0.17 on August 1.
And the ammonia values varied from' 8 ppb on November
21 to 335 ppb on August 1. And this ran off the chart; it is
335 ppb.
This is site 3» primary productivity. Carbon values
ranged from 1.14 on August 1 to 132.65 on August 8.
Nitrate values varied from 0.02 on July 11 to 0.22 on
July 18 at site 3.
The ammonia values varied from 15 ppb on November 27
to 315 ppb on August 1, similar to those at site 2.
-------
29 b
K. Adams
r
To point out some interesting sidelines here, on
August 1, the day that the ammonia was so very high, the
productivity was down, it was a day of continuous downpour,
high rainfall. And the others just show the erratic nature of
the high productivity of sites 2 and 3 in Mulatto and the low
productivity,1 phytoplanktonwise, in Catfish Basin,
MR. WHITE: Is that it?
MR. ADAMS: That is it.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Adams, when you say carbon do you
mean total organic carbon?
MR. ADAMS: No, sir. Carbon assimilated by phyto-
plankton.
MR. TRAINA: Oh, I see. You didn't do any TOC in any
of these areas?
MR. ADAMS: No.
MR. TRAINA: Would you like to venture amy kind of
estimate as to what the TOC might be in Catfish Basin?
MR. ADAMS: I have no idea.
MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
MR, WHITE: Any other comments or questions?
Thank you very much, Mr. Adams.
MR. ADAMS: Thank you.
-------
Dr, T. S. Hopkins
295
DR. THOMAS S. HOPKINS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
CHAIRMAN, BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
(RESUMES)
DR. HOPKINS: I would like to try and tie in what
Kenny has presented with regard to some of the things that have
preceded.
In Dr. Duke's statement this morning we heard from
Sam Tagatz with regard to menhaden and we know that Mulat-
Mulatto Bayou has been a very attractive site to menhaden for
a long period of time, much to the detriment of the area, I
believe.
I believe that in undertaking what we have in terms
of establishing Catfish as the control,we tried to find an
area, as Kenny said, comparable and one which might resemble
r
what Mulatto Bayou was historically. We do have before and
after photographs of Mulatto Bayou which we will enclose for
the record.
The point that we wish to establish is that with
regard to water chemistry, phytoplankton production, Catfish
is a relatively low productive but highly stable ecosystem.
-------
296
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
We suspect that, I would say, based on the grass found around
Catfish Basin that it was in fact very much like Mulatto Bayou
was at one time.
And we see in comparison that Mulatto Bayou was a
very erratic, unstable ecosystem, great phytoplankton changes.
We can see periods of deficit respiration, that is to say all
of the phytoplankton production went into maintaining the
community. I believe that this supports the idea that fish are
indeed attracted to Mulatto Bayou and when we look at the fish
data per se, the catch per unit effort, which we cannot give
right now, but the catch per unit effort we do know in Catfish
Basin is virtually nonexistent compared to Mulatto.
We have established seine on-sites that we have been
occupying for the past six months, we will occupy them for
another six months, but in essence we no menhaden in
Catfish and, of course, we get more than we can count out of
Mulatto.
I believe this completely substantiates the feeling
that Mulatto is an attractant source.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Tom, I have just looked over a log of
fish kills in 1971 and it seems like almost without exception
these fish'kills took place in these bayous and these places.
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
For example, what do they call it, Bass?
DR. HOPKINS: Basso Cove?
MR. LEVIN: Yes. And Saultsman Bayou and Hoffman—
well, Hoffman Bayou of course is over here. Judges Bayou.
Has there been any dredging—
DR. HOPKINS: Judges Bayou is here (indicating),
Basso Cove is up here (indicating), which one—Hoffman's is
over here in Gulf Breeze. We will eliminate it.
MR. LEVIN: Have there been any fish kills out in
the bay itself proper?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I would like to
speak to that if I can, Just briefly.
In April, May, and June, Ken? In April, May, and
June of this year we occupied something like stations in •
the bay. We divided the bay into segments occupying three
stations in a segment, taking salinity, temperature, and dis-
solved oxygen, and at that time we found rather poor water
quality conditions from the standpoint of dissolved oxygen
existing in Escambia Bay. So Kenny and those people working in
the project then knew we were going to have fish kills in the
major part of the bay later on during the summer.
MR. LEVIN: And we did in fact?
DR. HOPKINS: We did in fact, yes, sir. And I have
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
298
just reams of that dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature data
and when I can find the time I would be happy to submit it,
but right now it is a matter of trying to get everything
together. But we can document poor water quality conditions
throughout the bay in April, May and June.
To take off on a point I think that Mr. Traina was:
asking and Skip not willing to answer, I personally feel that
indeed if we could solve the problems of Mulatto Bayou we have
in fact solved the problems of the bay. I have worked in the
bayou for three years; obviously I am emotionally attached to
it. You can't spend that many hours, as my wife says—well,
forget it. (Laughter.) But anyway, the more I see of that,,
and I see the bay, one can say, 0. K., what about dredging?
The ship channel, there is no question about it, the ship
channel acts as a reservoir for transporting low dissolved
oxygen water all the way up to the Monsanto plant and all the
way out here. We have encountered DO's as low as 2 ppm right
here at the causeway bridge, that was in 1969, and is being
transported through that vehicle. So there is one v;ay of
dredging.
There is no question that the problems of Mulatto
Bayou,in my mind, are tied up with decreased circulation prob-
lems because they change the flow of water. And I have documents!
-------
299
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
where I protested against some of the things several years
ago and I don't want to say I have told you so, but I hope
that I am going to be able to say I told you so.
. But I think that with regard to circulation dredging
that this area has become eutrophied in much the same way that
Judges Bayou and others have with regard to the buildup of
wastes during water periods that in essence push them up. If
we could look at the nutrient buildup in these areas here as
a backup, as a result of wastes drifting back this way, Just as
wastes have been carried in here (indicating), with regard to
the point you were making here (indicating), I know by visual
observations when one of the industries several years ago
broke down, I know exactly where the wastes went into the bayou
and it is carried up into here (indicating) and it is carried as farl
northward as the bridge. So there is no question that wastes
are transported into these isolated areas and then they are
not effectively transported back out.
MR. LEVIN: Tell me, if you would go into it a little
bit more, when you said that in your judgment if we find the
answer to the problems of Mulatto Bayou we are going to find
the answer to the bay, tell me what you mean by that.
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, this is an oversimplification, but
I think that since I made the statement I would like to.
-------
3-QD
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
If we could restore a better circulation pattern to
Mulatto Bayou, and I have my own opinions and they are on
record so it is really nothing new, and it would be sealing
off the lower end, I proposed it two years ago, I still feel
that all the evidence justifies my position of two years ago
except that now we have some hard data and I hope we have some
good hard knot concessions as to what the data means. But in
essence I would return the flow so that the drainage basin would
go out through the trestle and it would flush this area in
here (indicating), which is a prime nursery area, and through
flushing it it would rejuvenate the sediments, I believe, keep
the sediments oxygenated. Then the next step would be to replace
and experimentally put in artificial gras3 to provide a place
for the shrimps and small fishes to hide from their predators,
because this area up until about 1966 did have marine grasses
in it. I could get affidavits from people that live on the
bayou that will tell you that there were marine grasses. She
can even tell you when the marine grasses died, because she
was pregnant at the time. Very good marker.
But if we could then experiment with this area'and
demonstrate that we could show the return of the nursery, then
I think the next step is to go to the bay with regard to the
establishment of certain areas if we know that they are not too
-------
301
Dr, T, S. Hopkins
high ana put in these same artificial marine grass mats to
allow the young fishes, the sea trout, and so forth, to have a
place to hide.
So from the standpoint of minor scale engineering
here, looking at it as a model, then I think we can apply some
of those principles to the restoration of the bay.
MR, LEVIN: Yes, but what I am getting at, even if you
get this circulation problem worked out, in your judgment does
that detract from the thought of trying to get the nutrients
out of the bay?
DR, HOPKINS: Oh, the nutrients have to come out of
the bay. There is no point in really doing any restoration
work-until there is some good evidence that you are going to
get a stability in the levels of dissolved oxygen and the
phytoplankton levels. Well, that goes right back to the
nutrients.
Now, my point about Mulatto is, personally I feel
if we sealed off the lower end so that the flow was primarily
from here, you wouldn't get the influx of nutrients that we do.
We average something like 0.25 milligrams of nitrate in Mula.t
Bayou, and that is about 10 times too high.
MR. LEVIN: It is a combination of the lack of circu-
lation plus the addition of the nutrients?
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
302
DR. HOPKINS: That is right.
MR. LEVIN: All right.
Tom, you mentioned something yesterday when we talked
about the possibility of another source of water coming from
some other river that could possibly be used to help flush
this bay. Where is that located?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, historically if you look back to
Army Map Service maps you will see that the White River and
the Simpson River tied in, which come in right here at Basso
Cove, they tied into the White River up on Escambia,and through
the years, for reasons not entirely known to me, certainly, but
through the years those avenues of water into this portion of
the bay have been sealed off.
Now, it is my feeling, and I certainly don't know,
but it is my feeling that, one, the hydraulic force of the
Escambia River has been changed because we have deepened and
widened it as a ship channel, and so that may have diluted the
force of the White River and allowed those rivers to seal off.
I feel like that the White River, personally, and it would
require some study of hydraulics with some other people, that
if we could go back in and open up and channel, if you will,
fresh water from the White River into the White and Simpson
here, it would maintain a better flushing in this area up here
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
303
and I think it would provide more oxygenated water to areas
up here which stand stagnant at periods. The bream fishermen
during the summer mounted a patrol of Saultsman Bayou and all
through here and we found numerous opportunities for fish kill,
although the fish weren't dying the conditions were there,
simply because of stagnant waters. And I think that flowing
water through that area, if nothing else, would eliminate the
stagnant conditions. I can't see how anybody could argue
against that.
Just how it would affect this area down in here I
don't know, but one would hope that if it was beneficial there
that it would also add here, because we do know that wastes
go north from this area here and follow the shoreline into
Basso Cove.
MR.LEVIN: Do you have an opinion as to whether or
not it is going to require the complete cessation of any dis-
charge into that body of water in order for it to be restored
or do you feel like that it would still be able to—let's say
if we could get 9^ or 95 percent removal, do you have an
opinion as to whether or not that would be sufficient?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir, I have an opinion. And my
opinion at this time is that although getting the discharge
completely out of the bay might be ideal, I am not really .
-------
304
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
convinced that going to that extreme is Justified for the
effort. In other words, it is sort of like in an optimization
model you can do so much and then after that you are Just
pouring extra in for very little gain, and I feel like right
now that I personally, and as I said, a person looking at this
bay for four years, I would be very happy to sit on the
percent for a year or two before I go to that extra effort
of getting that other 6 percent, because there may be some
value in an optimization of the bay system, we don't know.
We do know we have got a hell of a lot of excess, we have got
a lot of excess in the sediments, and we don't know the rates
of recirculation and resuspenslon.
So until we know those, my own feeling, Mr. Levin,
is that I would not go that extra 6 percent Just yet. I
think we need some real hard looks at other things that Alec
is going to talk about before we go to that step.
MR. LEVIN: Of course the problem that I can see in
the future is it is obvious, I think it is obvious, that we
are going to have more fish kills this summer.
DR. HOPKINS: No question.
MR. LEVIN: 0. K. Now, I am trying to think out in
my own mind what that is going to do to your theory, and I am
sure it wouldn't from a scientific standpoint, but from a
-------
_305
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
public standpoint, when we are taking these calculated risks,
so to speak, and the fish kills keep occurring, in your judg-
ment they would keep occurring even if it was stopped imme-
diately?
DR. HOPKINS: If we stop last year we are going to
have fish kills next year, Mr. Levin, because the amount of
phosphorus and nitrates, and so forth, tied up in these systems—
for example, in this deep hole in Mulat, if I remember the
studies that were done in 1969, it is something like 20 times
the normal concentration of nitrates found in that deep hole,
20 times the normal concentration.
MR. LEVIN: You think that hole has a whole lot to do
with the problem?
DR. HOPKINS: With regard to Mulat Bayou there Is no
question in my mind. And I feel like, as I said, I have got
water chemistry data for a year or two in there and it is just
a—below 10 feet it is a hydrogen sulfide—
MR. LEVIN: All right. Now, here comes the big
question. Assume we do everything we can. Apparently the big
problem, as I see it, based on what I have heard today, the
big problem has a lot to do, let me put it that way, with the
poor circulation and the dead end, so to speak, in these smaller
bayous?
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: All right. If we started concentrating
on closing up these particular areas that you have recommended,
investigate the possibility of opening up that other source of
water into northern Escambia Bay so as to assist that flushing
out, so to speak, all right, now, and then concentrate on the
industries trying to get 9^ percent removal, so to speak, do you
feel like that we would be well on our way to coming up with an
answer to—
And let me give you part B to that question.
DR. HOPKINS: 0. K.
MR. LEVIN": Do you think that we ought to try to work
on the L&N Railroad and perhaps 1-10—boy, that is a big Jump--
to try to make it easier for that bay to flush Itself out?
DR. HOPKINS: Well, that is about an A, B and a C.
But to begin with, I know I am not going to make
myself popular by more or less saying all of the industries out
by 1973, but I quite frankly feel that way right now for the
reasons stated.
But with regard to the 9^ percent, I do believe in
the 9^ percent by 1972 and that in fact as^they are approaching
it now it may be reasonable to assume that already the nutrient
levels in the water column are going to dissipate slowly. I
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
wish we had that information. Unfortunately we don't.
With regard to hindered circulation, yes, I still
believe that the L&N Railroad has a lot to do with the hindered
circulation plus the strange morphometry right here, We have
some information that shows that on a heavy rain the salinity
comes out of the upper—-this whole area will move out as one
block of water and it can be contained from top to bottom as
one homogenous block and it will stretch from there to there
and it represents virtually all the salt water in that bay.
And this is a very strange phenomenon. It doesn't trickle out
it just comes out in a big slug. And we saw this in February
and can document it fairly closely.
I believe, then, that this does act as a barrier to
hold up water flow under normal conditions and that the other
thing we need to look at now that we have cut the pilings out,
as I mentioned the other day, we need to look at how sediments
have redistributed themselves with regard to their nutrient
concentrations.
MR. LEVIN: How much money do you think it would take-
wait a minute, now, I am not asking you—I am talking about
perhaps additional study on this thing, how much money do you
think it would take and how long would it take to come up with
some specific A, B, C, D concrete recommendations so that we
-------
308
LNr. T. S. Hopkins
could arrive at the best possible—I don't mean possible—
feasiDle, the most feasible solution to try to restore this
body of water?
DR. HOPKINS: Well, I think—
MR. LEVIN: In other words, let you take a look at all
the bayous, the L&N trestle, the industries, the Gulf Power,
the Escambia River. I know you have done probably, like you
said, four years work on this thing and, of course, we would
be calling on you on that vast storehouse of knowledge that you
have gained and we would be availing ourselves of it probably
free of charge.
But what I am saying is, how long do you think it
would take and how much money would it take for you to give us
some definitive recommendations that we can get to right quick
so that we can get this body of water back to where it was?
DR. HOPKINS: Well, this is one of the reasons why
I more or less am willing to go along with the 9^ percent at
this time. I think that since there are so many unanswered
questions that Tom Duke and Phil Doherty and I have asked, and
in spite of the fact that the people of Pensacola are tired of
one more study, I don't think that we are doing one more study
in order to change that, but there are indeed questions about
the levels of nutrients, and so I think that a minimum of one
-------
309
Dr. T, S. Hopkins
year In the field is necessary, a minimum of one year in the
field. I would like to have two. During that time, and Alec is
going to get into this more, there are a number of things that
should be done to pinpoint tidal movement in relation to wind
currents in various segments of the bay: take a segment at a
time, set the wind conditions, set the tide conditions, where
is the water going. Then with that you can predict, 0. K., with
the wind and water moving in that way, knowing what the nutrient
load is and the sediments there, you can predict its effect on
resuspension or how far it is going to be transported. And all
of these questions need to be known before you pull out that
last 6 percent because it just may be that the problem is
greater than that.
Let me also add, because I don't want to keep harping
on it, but then I would say after you get to the 94 percent
then you push them for that last 6 percent as fast as they
can get it, because I would assume technology is becoming
closer and closer.
But there are other things too, like relocation of
the outfall of perhaps Escambia Air Products, relocation of
their outfall so that their 6 percent as it is would get a more
direct shot towards removal and dispersion, these kinds of
things.
-------
310
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
MR. LEVIN: All right, you have told me one part of
the question.
DR. HOPKINS: 0. K.
MR. LEVIN: You said it would take a year?
DR. HOPKINS: At least a year.
MR. LEVIN: Now let's get to the other part.
. DR. HOPKINS: The money?
MR. LEVIN: Because I was thinking, wouldn't it be
nice if the industries were to volunteer to pay for this study?
I was just thinking that. (Applause.)
,DR. HOPKINS: Well, a long tine ago Don Brown, who
was with the Department, and Fred Waldinger and I undertook such
a task to figure it out and we came up with a three-year study
and it was over $1 million, so we tore up all our papers and
started over again.
I believe with the combined efforts of Dr. Duke's
laboratory and the industry and the whole bag, and assuming
capabilities, it should be done for less than a half a million
dollars. But really we would have to sit down and generate
cost. It probably could run less than that, because it Is not
that big of a problem logistically. .'he big problem is finding
lab space and running the samples—
MR. WHITE: If I night interject myself here.
-------
311
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
DR. HOPKINS: Surely.
MR. WHITE: And I do believe Mr. Little is going to
go into some of this.
DR. HOPKINS: Yes.
MR. WHITE: But now, in a partial answer to one of
Mr. Levin's questions, I believe that, say, a definitive out-
line could be developed in a short period of time as to the
needs, who would need to do what—
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: —and what the estimates would be. This
would be, say, 30 days?
DR. HOPKINS: In at least 30 days, yes, sir, and that
is Mr. Little and Mr. Duke's and my time.
MR. WHITE: Go ahead, Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: He has answered my question.
MR. TRAINA: I have some specific technical questions
I would like to ask you.
DR. HOPKINS: Yes.
MR. TRAINA: First you had mentioned on the one hand
that you think that perhaps we can get by with the 91 percent
and make some decision about the remaining 6 percent later.
Then on the other hand you talked about, which we had confirmed
in our own studies over the years, the high levels of nutrient
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
312
materials in the bottom muds.
DR. HOPKINS: Right.
MR. TRAINA: And I assume that there would be
recycling of that?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes.
KR. TRAINA: How do you compare those?
DR. HOPKINS: Right. It is just an assumption, and
there again, I think if we knew more about.the turnover time
for water and reconfirmed some of the data presented last year
with regard to recycling time that we could assume for the
basis of another year or so that the water column could in
fact assimilate that 6 percent, depending on—and if we coul
define exactly what we are assimilating. And as you know, the
major problem here is that we have all three necessary nutrients
going in, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.
All right, Now, since we know the phytoplankton
dies off, the population dies off during the winter, if we
could in fact change the nutrient structure of the water column
and then hold down the discharges so there aren't these
opportunities for it to build up in the summertime, we might
get a hold on the water column and in fact we might assume for
the sake of argument that the water column through the bay with
Increased flushing could in fact assimilate the waste loading
-------
313
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
of that 6 percent that has been allowed.
As you say, then our next problem Is, 0. K., what
about the stuff from the bottom? Well, that we can't assume is
going to be assimilated and we have to assume that, if you will,
it is going to be taken care of in other means. Now, several
means. It could become buried by a mass transport of sediment
through the various systems, it could be shifted and thinned
out into other areas where it exerts less effect. And it is
Just conjecture, Paul, that I think it is—
MR. TRAINA: You heard, Tom, this morning a consider-
able amount of discussion with regard to the water quality com-
ing down from the Escambia River and talk about background or
natural sources, and so on. Here again, how does that fact,
assuming it is a fact, that we are getting levels of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and carbon from rural and urban runoff, how would
that Jibe with what you are saying with regard to allowing
that 6 percent still in the bay?
DR. HOPKINS: Well, when we talk about that problem
up there, I think we have to keep in mind that several years
ago I suggested that a gyre exists in here that keeps things in
suspension longer than usual and longer than they should be,
and I think this has been shown by the Federal reports. And I
say again that by breaking this gyre so that an organic carbon
-------
314
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
particle and a nitrogen particle and a phosphorus particle
or even a phytoplankton itself would not stay as long in resi-
dence up here exerting the effect on the system that it does,
that that is a key to the problem.
MR. TRAINA: You are saying that if we could open up
\
the bay to take advantage of the entire bay—
DR. HOPKINS: Yes.
MR. TRAINA: —the problem of upstream sources may
not be as significant?
DR. HOPKINS: It would help, I think.
MR. TRAINA: It would help?
DR. HOPKINS: I think it would help.
MR. TRAINA: Some specific questions with regard to
Mulatto Bayou.
Again, when we first came down here in 1970 this
question had come up,and we reported at that time this opening
of the canal. Frankly, I am going to direct the same blunt
question to you as I did to Dr. Livingston.
What problems do you foresee if that canal was closed?
DR. HOPKINS: Political.
MR. TRAINA: Do you think--
DR. HOPKINS: Sociological, economic.
MR. TRAINA: Do you think there are going to be
-------
315
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
severe water quality problems with attendant aquatic life
problems if that canal is closed?
DR. HOPKINS: No. I think that the quality of life
in Mulatto Bayou will improve by leaps and bounds, and I pray
that it does if they do it. We are liable to be in trouble if
they don't. (Laughter.)
MR. TRAINA: Tom, we are facing within the next four
to five months another summer period and everybody down here
and those of us in Atlanta and Tallahassee and other places
dread that summer period because we know what to expect. Would
you like to suggest or take the suggestion that we get about
closing that canal now before the summer is upon us and see
what happens?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir, because I made that recom-
mendation over a year ago and I certainly won't back off on
it from what I know right now. Every major fish kill or at
least the major continuing fish kills have happened south of
the gap, so to speak, in the last couple of years. Now, I
realize the ones that happened a long time ago in 1969 happened
right in this area right here (indicating), but I believe the
bream fishermen and other people, Dr. Livingston's own fish
kill slides, will show you that in the last few years they
have been connected with the dredge and fill area and they are—
-------
316
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
the ones you saw In the newspaper that got all the way around
the country, that was the 1-10 canal.
MR. TRAINA: I know this conference has gone on
record, again for the record, Mr. Chairman, and I guess we
do have a requirement, that there is no construction dredging
in Mulatto Bayou. This is a problem we have long recognized
with regard to dredging In Mulatto Bayou, and I assume since
this conference there hasn't been any dredging in Mulatto Bayou.
Is that correct?
DR. HOPKINS: Well—
MR. TRAINA: It is the requirement of this conference.
DR. HOPKINS: There was maintenance dredging, and that
is the DOT project. I have fought it tooth and nail and, quite
frankly, lost a few pieces of my hide, but there was mainte-
nance dredging.
MR. TRAINA: The recommendation was specifically
construction dredging. I assume, then, you are saying—well,
I assume; you Just said it—that there should be no dredging,
period?
DR. HOPKINS: In my opinion, Mr.- Traina, they did not
maintenance dredge in 1970. I can show you, I think, that when
you plow through an island full of grass, that isn't maintenance
dredging.
-------
317
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
MR. TRAINA: You feel, then, there has been a viola-
tion of the recommendations of this conference?
DR. HOPKINS: I have always felt that, sir.
MR. LEVIN: Can I ask a question?
MR. WHITE: Sure.
DR. HOPKINS: And I have slides to demonstrate the
dredge going through the grass islands.
MR. WHITE: Before I do, let me ask our reporter
how she is doing.
Let's go off the record a second.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Back on the record.
Let's take a 10-minute recess and we will come back
with Dr. Hopkins after the recess.
(RECESS)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back in session.
It looks as though we have another three hours to
go on the program. I would like to proceed now, I mean finish
up with Dr. Hopkins, and proceed and.see if we go anywhere
near the schedule that we have outlined. If possible, we would
like to finish.it today, but I am thinking we won't and it
looks as though we might have to break at about 6 and come back
in the morning to hear the additional testimony and then go
-------
318
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
into executive session and come up with the conclusions and
recommendations then.
We will make a definite decision by 5 o'clock,
but it looks like we will be back in the morning on this.
Are there any of you who are here today who can't
be here tomorrow?
0. K. Thank you.
If you would proceed, then,
DR. HOPKINS: I thought it might be helpful to show
Mulat Bayou as it was some years back and perhaps we can get
a better understanding of just how it has been changed in
nature.
...Slides...
As I understand it, this is a USDA aerial photograph
taken about 19^9. At that time there was virtually no manmade
activity in the area with the exception of the L&N trestle.
The only activity that I can document is a group of pioneering
gentlemen that took sticks of dynamite and tried to open up
this canal through here (indicating), and I have talked to them"
and as best I can tell they were interested in taking skiffs
from this area up in here (indicating), oystermen and so forth,
and they used to drag their skiffs and they used to have to
essentially carry them overland through this twisting, winding
-------
319
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
area here (indicating). They called this Redfish Bayou,
historically, and they opened it up with some dynamite sometime
Just after World War II.
The next aerial photograph that we can find of record
is this flight which was taken after the construction of 1-10,
and we can see the effects of development of several kinds.
Incidentally, these canals open on Indian Bayou. It has been
treated in much the same fashion with regard to real estate
development.
If you look at the map carefully, you will find the
ancient trail of Redfish Bayou twisting and winding right here
(Indicating). It was, in fact, sealed over by the construction
of 1-10 and in that process, as I understand it, the Department
of Transportation was asked to leave this access open. This
access was created so that they could take barges in to pump
up spoil to create this area here. They left it open and then,
of course, that left it open to the real estate developer who
came along and constructed this area here.
Then we have other photographs later on that show
the dredging that took place. In an essence, it went through
this grassy island right here and stretched around to there
(indicating).
But this shows rather dramatically the effect of
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
320
engineering on this particular geographic site.
Mow, I should like to say for the record, because 1
am sure that in some ways by expressing my opinion to the con-
ferees I have done something that Dr. Livingston was hesitant
to do. Remember, it is my opinion. It is my opinion based on
three or four years working in the area and it, of course, does
not preclude the fact that after Dr. Livingston shows me all
his data and we take all my data historically that I might not
change. But as I said, much of what I am saying today is on
record, I have been on record that way for two years, and I
still don't see any information that really changes with regard
to Mulatto Bayou.
With regard to the statements of 9^ percent treatment,
I would just like to clarify that what I was alluding to was
the Federal conferees of 1969 with regard to their waste
reduction and I believe they converted it to pounds, not
percentages. I think that that is what I personally would
hold to, Mr. Levin, rather than say out of the bay. Out of
the bay is very nice, but it may be in terms of an optimization
model we might be able to reach that without going that other
all the way.
MR. LEVIN: Tom, how much of the previous studies
that you have done along with members of our department and Dr.
-------
321
Dr, T. S. Hopkins
Duke and the local .staff, how much of that could you utilize
in conducting this study that you want to make now in order to
come up with some final recommendations?
DR. HOPKINS: I certainly don't know. Every scrap of
information I have—and quite obviously some of it is, as I
said, on the field data sheets - -it certainly is available to
any agency that would like copies of it. The problem is to put
it in some tabulated form where it would oe of use.
For example, all of our data for,April, May and June
is still on the original data sheets and has never been tran-
scribed. -We Just don't have the—I don't have the—as somebody
said, there is just one of me and that is about the way it stood.
Kids go off the job and I have got other things to do.
With regard to Mulat, I think that all of the data,
to be specific, all of the data we have been able to generate
through the old Bureau of Commercial Fisheries contract will be
fed into the decision that Dr. Livingston and I ultimately
make. Vie hope that the information I have will corroborate
his findings.
MR. LEVIN: How about the other bayous, Judges Bayou?
DR. HOPKINS: Judges Bayou is a peculiar situation.
It is located right here (indicating) just north of Fishermen's
Point. I have never really looked at it/ but as you know,
-------
322
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
being here, it is very close to the industrial sites. One
could -suspect that perhaps leaching from the industrial sites
through groundwater enters Judges Bayou and has caused its
eutrophication. That is absolutely conjecture because 1 have
only taken a few water samples in there and that was during
the fish kill.
MR. LEVIN: Getting back to Mr. Traina's idea of
some stopgap remedies until we can come up with some more
permanent things, these bayous, is there any way that you could
utilize these air curtains, so to speak?
DR. HOPKINS: No, I think that we pretty well
exhausted this at the menhaden conference. If you put in one
air current some place, somebody else who is having problems
is going to virtually demand one and they have a right to it,
because we cannot predict in how many places. We had fish
kills that Just ring the bay and now in Gulf Breeze too, so
that the cost would be prohibitive. And then maintaining them
is Just impossible. Even if you wanted them, I am not sure
you could get that many compressors if you ordered them today
logistically.
I Just don't think air curtains are a solution. I
wish they were. Functionally they work fine as a nice theoreti-
cal solution.
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
323
As Tom told you, we did observe that they did hold
the fish out, but we also observed, and the fruit of it is in
that picture again that got spread around this year, actually
that picture is a year old, with the marine patrolman standing
in the boat, that fish kill occurred in that canal when the
compressor broke.
MR. LEVIN: Let me ask you about the using of the
other river, the White River.
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: How much of a problem are we talking
about there Insofar as getting that body of water moving?
DR. HOPKINS: Mr. Levin, I am not ,an engineer and I
believe that this is the point where our people in the Corps
of Engineers could be of a great deal of help in terms of
/
looking at hydrographic flow and changing it, but I measured
on the map and at one point there is no more than 1,000 yards
that would have to be opened up on a straight shot to carry
into one river, and I think it was about the same on the other.
But again I think that this is in the realm of the hydrographer
to look at.
I personally feel it would help. I think it would
improve the water quality from the standpoint of breaking down
the stagnation that occurs on the axis of Simpson River and
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
White River, Thompson's Bayou, which we did see this summer.
MR. LEVIN: But as far as getting ready for this
coming summer, the best you can see is trying to get that prob-
lem straightened out in Mulatto Bayou and that is about all
we can do for right now?
DR. HOPKINS: Well, I don't think engineeringwise
that it would take all that long to make some sort of decision
about cutting through. I mean if you are asking me point
blank could this be done before summer, I would imagine so.
It is only 1,000 yards. And with the right engineering study
and know-how that the Corps of Engineers possess, it would
seem to me that they could give us an answer with regard to
time and cost very quickly.
MR. LEVIN: What about the possibilities of other
nutrients coming down that body of water into Escambia Bay?
DR. HOPKINS: I don't know how much information
I
exists on the White River, In 1969 I took nutrient data from
the White River and the only thing I looked at at that time
was nitrate and they were not exceedingly high. There is no
hot water. I did not do total organic carbon.
But just offhand I would suspect that the White
River does not carry a high nutrient load of total organic
carbon, of artificial total organic carbon,as opposed to
-------
323
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
natural.
MR. TRAINA: Tom, a question getting back to this 9^
percent, because I think perhaps the way it came'out earlier
may not be the way you want it to come out.
You are saying that you are really not too sure at
this point, Tom, whether we should have complete removal from
the bay? You are not saying that you feel that this bay can
take more nutrients or continued amount of nutrients, are you?
DR. HOPKINS: No. No, I am saying that—I guess in
a way--I don't want to use that. I guess what I am saying is
that I am not convinced that 100 percent removal is absolutely
necessary. I realize it would be the best thing in the world
for the bay, but it is sort of like asking yourself what can I
achieve versus what would I like to achieve. And as a biologist
seeing this bay over time, if I felt that we could achieve the
recommendations set by the original conference, we would be a
milestone ahead while we then gathered the necessary steps and
necessary information to see what more we should put into it.
But I would really hate, not knowing—not knowing—I
would really hate to see more dollars spent, which, as I said,
in an optimization model would be over the curve and would just
be spent needlessly. And there are all kinds of papers in the
journals now about optimization models on rivers, and so forth,
-------
326
Dr. T. S„ Hopkins
up in New York, showing that you achieve this much removal for
this amount of dollars and after that for every one percent
over that you are spending more dollars than you are getting
benefit.
MR. TRAINA: Of course this conference has not
recommended this total removal from the bay, although it was
suggested as an alternative.
DR. HOPKINS: No, it was a question, and I am answer-
ing in my personal opinion, certainly not as an engineer, and
some people may disclaim me as a biologist after this.
MR. TRAINA: With regard to Mulatto Bayou, again I
keep going back to this because summer is coming up quickly.
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: To your knowledge, are there any other
activities in terms of dredging being considered between now
and the summer?
DR. HOPKINS: No. The only other dredging activity
that I have noticed, that there is clamshell dredging up by
the State road bridge and this is done by a real estate
developer where he is cutting a canal into his property, and
I questioned that before and in essence it Just goes on. But
he had a dip-type dredge and I can show you—well, I can show
you on this over here, if you like.
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
327
e••Slides•»•
This went on about a year ago and it is a source of
a great deal of sedimentation. In fact, I feel like—you see
this right here (indicating), Mr. Traina, this is an artificial
canal, and I personally feel that this very buildup of sediment
in here (Indicating) may very well be a result of this right
here (indicating), because when it rains this literally bleeds
and I feel like it is sediment that has created this bar that
you see in here (indicating), although I have no real proof.
1 can't suggest any other way it came about.
MR. TRAINA: These are, quote, maintenance dredging
projects?
DR. HOPKINS: Well—0. K„ I don't know, because I
have never been able to determine. And Mr. Wagner came down
at the eleventh hour with regard to that canal and we Just
fought a valiant effort and lost, because I think Mr. Wagner
agreed that it was not going to be maintenance dredging that
1
they had proposed.
MR. TRAINA: Who within the State is the one—a
permit is needed to do this?
DR. HOPKINS: Oh, the permit was already issued. Thatf
was the whole problem.
MR. TRAINA: I see.
-------
128
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
DR. HOPKINS: And I just started the battle too late.
I mean it is Just one of those things.
MR. LEVIN: I am going to check. We are going to
check right away to see how many of these permits. We have
instructions that there be no more permits on this body of
water, so as to when these permits,if in fact they were issued--
if they weren't issued, we can do something right away.
MR. TRAINA: Apparently, you know,I guess everyone
has decided on construction permits, but I think what Dr.
Hopkins is saying is that perhaps there have been some problems
associated with maintenance dredging which this conference does
not have the specific recommendation on, although I believe we
did recommend that those projects be reviewed by the group, but
with regard to construction dredging there, be no construction
dredging at all. Apparently we have got a problem here which
I think needs to be checked,
DR. HOPKINS: I think you have a problem with
maintenance dredging. I think that a lot of people are carry-
ing on unnecessary activity under the guise of maintenance
dredging and I think that all dredging activities of any kind
in the basin Itself should be looked at with a very jaundiced
eye until more is known about the effects on the system.
MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
-------
329
Dr. T. S, Hopkins
MR. CROCKETT: Question.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett,
. MR. CROCKETT: Dr. Hopkins, going back to your dis-
cussion of a connection of White River to the upper end of the
bay, in effect the White River is simply a split-off of the
Escambia—
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir, it surrounds Brosnahara
Island.
MRc CROCKETT: So you wouldn't be too concerned about
bringing that Escambia River water into the bay, you wouldn't
be too concerned with the nutrient load that is not just now
in there?
DR. HOPKINS: I am not sure I follow you. You talked
about the White and then referred to the Escambia.
MR. CROCKETT: Well, the White, if you obstructed the
White, you would in a sense be diverting part of the Escambia
River, would you not?
DR. HOPKINS: Well, I an rot going to obstruct the
White. The White would still come on down by—I would divert
some of the flow.
MR. CROCKETT: But it would be going into this area
of the bay where you have had most of your troubles, correct?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
-------
330
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
MR. CROCKETT: I will get down to the point of my
question.'
DR. HOPKINS: 0. K.
MR. CROCKETT: I believe you have done some bio-
logical work on the river, let's say upstream from Monsanto,
around State Highway l8^J, you have done some studies—
DR. HOPKINS: Highway *4.
MR. CROCKETT: What?
DR. HOPKINS: Highway 4.
MR. CROCKETT: Highway 4, you went up as high as
Highway Do you have any comments, I think I have heard you
make comments in the past, on what you found in the way of
biota and would—
DR. HOPKINS: No, sir, I don't believe I have.
MR. CROCKETT: You have no information on the biology
of the stream?
DR. HOPKINS: I am not sure I know what report you
are referring to. In 1969 I did a study approximately a month
long on the river and a month on the bay, and in the river we
only looked at water chemistry and temperature, nitrate,
salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen. We did not do any
biological studies.
In November of this year we were funded by Humble
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
331
Oil Corporation to do an impact study at the site of the Humble
pipeline crossing Just south of Highway
MR. CROCKETT: Maybe that is the one 1 had reference
to8
DR. HOPKINS: So we haven't written any up yet, but
at the present time in conjunction with the Bream Fishermen's
Association we are conducting monthly shockings and fish tag-
ging exercises, we are putting out plates for periphyton
development, and we are also looking at new growth and vege-
tation from the standpoint of, one, baseline data in the area
and baseline to compare it if we had a world catastrophe,
which all of us do not believe will happen. But we hope to be
able to provide the conferees with quarterly reports as we
develop them.
MR. CROCKETT: Let me go back to the question I was
trying to make in a roundabout fashion earlier and ask you of
your opinion as to the contribution—let"s go back to the
Conecuh River and to the problem we are now having in Escambia
Bay.
DR. HOPKINS: I do not have amy personal knowledge
with regard to water quality as it is affected by the Conecuh
River. I have never, for example, looked at 5-day BOD's or
total organic carbon. We don't have that capability right now.
-------
m
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
I am hoping to get a carbon analyzer.
The only data that we had two.years ago was on
nitrate levels In the river and at that time I pointed out
that from the limited sampling we did the Escambia River at
the head of Brosnaham Island, which was Ruth Patrick's, it
duplicated Ruth Patrick's original station, some stations in
the White River, the nitrate levels in that river were no more
than they were during the 1952-1954 survey of Ruth Patrick.That
dealt just with nitrates.
MR. CROCKETT: John, 1 have no more.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments or questions?
MR. RAVAN: Just a question here.
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. RAVAN: Just for the record and to be absolutely
clear, the White River is a tributary of the Escambia River?
DR. HOPKINS: It splits off of the Escambia River.
Here it is right here (Indicating) and it splits off and Joins
back and isolates a large island called Brosnaham Island.
MR. RAVAN: Is it your opinion, Doctor, that the water
quality in the White River is better, worse, or the same as?
DR. HOPKINS: It is better.
MR. RAVAN: It is better than Escambia?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
-------
333
Dr. T, S. Hopkins
MR. RAVAN: To what do you attribute this?
DR. HOPKINS: There is no industrial outfall that
goes into it.
MR. RAVAN: And about how long is the White River?
DR. HOPKINS: I have those figures. I can't pull
them out of my head right now. Several miles. It is very
twisty, windy, and I am equating several miles in river miles.
MR. RAVAN: Thank you,
MR. MAURIELLO: Tom.
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. MAURIELLO: Clarify the point when you say that
the water quality of the White River is better than the Escambia.
The Escambia at what point?
DR. HOPKINS: At a point below the location of a
major industry.
MR. MAURIELLO: 0. K.
DR. HOPKINS: The Monsanto Corporation.
MR. MAURIELLO: How about the water quality of the
White River above the point source in, say, Florida? Is the
White River—
DR. HOPKINS: I don't know--
MR. MAURIELLO: It is the same as—you consider it
the same as the Escambia River, then, at Highway 4?
-------
33^
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir, I believe so. I believe I
could make that statement. Although I should say that during
that same period I did not take water samples at Highway 4,
but I would assume from all that I can see that there should
be no significant difference.
MR. MAURIELLO: Well, your recommendation of connect-
ing the White River into the upper end of Escambia Bay is based
primarily, then, on the hydrologlcal effects. Does it include
all of the water quality that may have an effect on that area?
Such things as nitrates, phosphates—
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. MAURIELLO: --carbons?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. MAURIELLO: And those additions that may—
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. MAURIELLO: —or may, not be in?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir. Because bear in mind that
whether you set it through there to there or whether you set
it down there, it is still going to end up in the same place,
Gil. We are still talking about ultimately ending up at the
same place. And I am only hoping that this will restore this
major marsh area up here so that we get rid of the stagnant
water, that menhaden don't go up there and die and kill all
-------
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
33b
the kinds of fish that everybody wants to fish for. I don't
fish 30 I don't—
MR. MAURIELLO: What you are saying, then, is that
it is going to increase the flushing activity or the hydro-
logical effect of that area?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir, I would believe it would do
that.
MR. TRAINA: Tom, just so I don't become confused, I
thought I understood, perhaps I don't. The White River gets
water from the Escambia River, does it not?
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: So the water quality of the White River
is the same as the water quality of the Escambia River?
DR. HOPKINS: North of the major industry.
MR. TRAINA: North of the major industry.
DR. HOPKINS: I think we would have to say that, with
no derogatory remarks intended. We know that the temperature
changes and that there is a certain amount of—-
MR. TRAINA: Yes, right. So, therefore, you know,
you are Just taking, really, Escambia River water coming from
upstream and putting it in a different place in the bay to take
advantage of its flushing capabilities?
DR. HOPKINS: Almost. I don't want to hedge, but
-------
336
Dr. T. S. Hopkins
there Is additional natural drainage coming into the White
at various points that may ada—
MR. TRAINA: Essentially it is Escambia River water?
DR. hOPKINS: Yes, sir, essentially it is Escambia
River water.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments?
If not, thank you very much, Dr. Hopkins.
DR. HOPKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: I think you have given us quite a bit of
food for thought.
Let's go off the record for Just a second.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record, then.
Mr. Mauriello, if you will proceed.
MR. MAURIELLO: I would like to ask is Commander
Hunsley or any representative from the Woodlawn Civic Associa-
tion here?
MRS. GUICE: There are a couple of us here, but Mr.
Hunsley isn't here.
MR. MAURIELLO: Is he going to be here, do you know?
MRS. GUICE: I can have him here tomorrow if you would
like to have him.
MR. MAURIELLO: I think the conferees would have an
-------
337
T. L. Carey
Interest in that Woodlawn project.
MRS. GUICE: All right.
MR. WHITE: Excuse me, we don't normally do this.
Would you identify yourself, ma'sun? And we won't depart this
much from our procedure any more.
MRS. GUICE: I am Mrs. John J. Guice.
MR. WHITE: Fine. But from now on let's confine our
comments at the lectern.
MR. MAURIELLO: Mr. Tom Carey of Air Products has
indicated that he would like to speak. Is he still here?
MR. CAREY: Yes.
T. L. CAREY, VICE PRESIDENT
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS
PENSACOLA, FLORID"
MR, CAREY: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen.
I am T. L. Carey, Vice President of Air Products and
Chemicals.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to report to
the "conference the results and current status of our pollution
control efforts.
To avoid any misunderstanding, what was the Escambia
-------
338
T. L. Carey
Chemical Corporation has now been merged Into Air Products
and Chemicals, Inc., and this plant is known as the Escambia
Plant of Air Products.
You will recall that the FWQA report issued at the
first conference on January 30, 1970, noted that the Escambia
Plant effluent contributed only 1 percent of the 5-day BOD and
total organic carbon discharged in the study area. The report
also noted that under the heading of "Toxic Wastes" that "no
compound in the Escambia effluent had concentrations greater
than 5 mg/1". At that conference, we further pointed out that
our effluent had an average pH of 7.2, essentially neutral, and
that it contained essentially no settleable solids. Dissolved
oxygen in the effluent has always been equal to or greater
than the receiving waters of the bay. At the second of these
conferences, in February 1971, Mr. J. D. Kramer, our Technical
Manager, reported on our progress to that time and outlined a
continuing program.
The past year has seen further significant reductions
in the effluent as a result of the completion of several major
plant projects and the continuation and expansion of our In-
Plant Source Control, Water Conservation and Reuse Programs.
The following details the progress to date of the
Escambia Plant Abatement Program. Results of these are clearly
-------
T. L0 Carey
33S
set forth in the following tables. And we put this in the
record, but in effect what we show is the levels of water,
COD, nitrogen, phosphate at the various times, and it shows
that our COD removal is now at 96 percent, our nitrogen, at 8l
percent, and our phosphorus removal at 83 percent. Phosphorus,
incidentally, is 55 pounds per day. It is hard to find much
less than that.
Nitrogen removal is the remaining problem in the
Escambia Plant effluent. Our programs are to continue with
the highest priority towards the removal of these materials.
The technology of removal from dilute streams is not well
advanced, it is pointed out by the Advanced Waste Treatment
/
Laboratory of the EPA in their report of May 20, 1970, entitled
"Nitrogen Removal from Wastewater." To date, the Escambia
Plant's program of source-control, flow reduction by recycling,
and biological treatment has been effective, and we feel,
based on the results to date, promises to provide for even
further removal of the nutrient nitrogen. We anticipate a 90
.percent removal from the base levels by January 1, 1973.
Since the first joint Federal-State conference, the
Escambia Plant has Installed>many new pollution control
facilities at a cost of over $1 million, requiring an opera-
tional expenditure of $0.25 million annually. A summary of the
-------
T. L. Carey
340
major facilities follows:
First, the expansion of our facultative stabilization
ponas.
We originally had a small three-acre pond just ahead
of our effluent measuring weir at the discharge point. Dr.
James B, Lackey, formerly Professor of Sanitary Science of the
University of Florida and now Professor Emeritus of Bio-
environmental Engineering at the University, made extensive
biological studies of the pond. He found a well-balanced biota
to exist the year round with a significant uptake of phosphorus
and nitrogen. The quality of the effluent in this pond was
such that we stocked and maintained an abundant fish life.
On the basis of these findings, the original three-
acre pond was expanded to three biological ponds totaling some
60 acres at a cost of approximately $400,000. All of the
Escambia Plant effluent water and surface water drainage passes
through these ponds before entering the bay. Each of the ponds
has a concrete spillway provided with a 20-foot weir for
measurement. Also as a part of the pond project are three
aerated terraces—one to each pond discharge point.
The expanded biological pond system is only a few
months old, but now generates the lowest nitrogen figures we
have had. While final stabilization of these ponds is projected
-------
T. L. Carey
311
by Dr. Lackey to require several months, they presently support
the growth of a vast flora and fauna. In fact, wild birds and
ducks have populated the ponds ever since they were initially
flooded in March,1971, and we have now stocked several hundred
fish of various species.
Second, chemical treatment facility.
Construction of this $100,000 facility was completed
in May, 1971, to treat wastewaters from the polyvinyl chloride
and nitric acid plants. The waters are treated in a neutralizer
with magnesium oxide, which simultaneously chemically precipi-
tates the phosphates and neutralizes the wastewater. The waste-
water is then transferred to a holding pond where the solids
are settled, pH stabilized, and wastewater biologically
polished. The water overflows this pond through a paved ditch
to the previously mentioned biological pond system.
3, neutralization facilities.
Another plant wastewater stream is passed through an
automatic neutralizer and pH control. The neutralized effluent
is discharged to an intermediate retention pond for stabiliza-
tion. This pond contains some 3.3 million gallons capacity
and discharges to the biological ponds for further treatment.
This system was installed in May, 1971, at a cost of about
$75,000.
-------
3^2
T. L. Carey
In November 1971, at a cost of $0.25 million, our
fifth biological pond was completed and placed in service. The
purpose of this pond is to provide additional biological
treatment for selected low-volume streams. This pond, with a
capacity of about 25 million gallons, provides five to six
months treatment time for these selected streams. With this
pond, the Escambia Plant now has a total treatment system
capacity of 100 million gallons.
5. Reduction in volume of effluent flow by recycle
and in-plant control programs.
a. Methanol plant water reuse facilities. New
equipment was provided in the modernization program in the
Escambia Methanol Plant to permit the reuse of the total process
water streams. This was completed in June, 1971.
b. Ammonia plant water reuse recovery facilities.
In February, 1971, some 1.5 million gallons of water per day
were removed from the effluent by installing new facilities to
reuse once-through cooling water and.to recover process con-
densate .
c. A number of other smaller projects to this end
have been completed, making in all a total reduction of nearly
*4.5 million gallons of effluent per day since 1970.
6. Excess run-off control devices.
-------
3 n3
T. L, Carey
' All of the run-off waters as well as the in-plant
streams are taken Into the plant biological pond system. In
November flood gates were installed at each pond to prevent
sudden surges of flow due to heavy rains and permit a more
orderly discharge of this runoff. In connection with these
improvements, we have extensive monitoring and automatic
sampling equipment. The 350 samples generated per month by
the program undergo some 2,900 assays. The resulting data are
coordinated and organized on our computer with immediate printourt
and updating. These data are routinely reported to the State.
Coupled with the routine program are special
programs, such as work done by Dr. James B. Lackey and our
staff in the Escambia and Blackwater Bays. We exchange samples
for comparison of analytical precision and accuracy with
governmental, industrial, as well as independent laboratories.
We are now actively engaged with the Audubon Society to estab-
lish a wild bird sanctuary at the biological treatment pond
area. We feel that by the establishment of such a sanctuary,
wildlife clubs as well as the interested public would have an
excellent opportunity to observe our local birds in their
natural habitat.
I would now like to direct your attention to the
slide presentation of Mr. Roy Duggan, our environmental
-------
3^4
T. L. Carey
engineer, who will show you some of the things which we have
discussed.
MR. WHITE: If I might interject something here, do
you have copies of these slides to present for the record?
MR. CAREY: I don't think so.
MR. DUGGAN: We can have them within 30 days.
MR. CAREY: We can make them.
MR. WHITE: If you would and submit them within 30
days, I would appreciate it.
MR. TRAINA: They aren't color, are they?
MR. DUGGAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: They won't appear in color in any
reproduction.
MR. CAREY: All right. We will be pleased to do that.
MR. WHITE: All right.
MR. CAREY: After Roy's presentation I Just have a few
concluding remarks.
MR. WHITE: Fine.
-------
R. Duggan
ROY DUGGAN, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
MR. DUGGAN: I am going to show you what Tom left out
here first.
0. K., I am going to real quickly, since we are
pressed for time and the conferees and everyone has had a long
busy day, run through slides of what Mr. Carey has just
verbally presented to you as far as the Escambia Plant status.
.. .Slides...
This is the sign at the beginning of our roadway
and we will real quickly run through an orientation.
This is an aerial shot of some 1,600 acres that we
occupy out there and it fronts Highway 90 as well as the Escam-
bia Bay area. It has two main manufacturing areas known as
Area A up he>e (indicating) and Area B (indicating). It is .a
multi-petrochemical base type chemical,manufacturing bulk inter-
mediates primarily, and we compete with people like Dow,
duPont, Allied, Carbide, Monsanto, et cetera, in the various
product areas. As Mr. Carey pointed out, we have had a major
expansion of the biological ponding system. This is an overlay
of the area south of Area B between our last manufacturing
facilities and the bay. This was presented to the Board of
-------
345-A
y/\ c4iA7^uxlujC& Chemical*
ESC£,Mi£il^ Plklsn
-------
345-'
-------
345-C
-------
I-SI7E
-------
3^5-E
-------
mm
raSii
-• - - iv,' i -1. • v-r>. - ••* ¦*$>•* * «. ¦ • ¦;
> K H-IIB *'** —S£? 1 ?|i:i:
tf-cw:
-------
345-G
-------
WMm
; *'Sqp';;i' * ¦;
-------
345-1
-------
345-j
llllSpiss^
2EJE?"?
-------
345-K
-------
-------
345-M
-------
345-
iftisiI
miK'iSSBI
v '{¦¦/ :i4~r.
-------
-------
345-p
-------
-------
345-R
-------
3^6
R. Duggan
Directors, also presented to the State, approved and passed.
Construction began and we moved some 300,000 yards of filth
and to create a road system down in the natural lowland drain-
age area to better get increased retention time and Increased
biological treatment for our nitrogen effluent problem.
This is a shot pointing out the road base or the
base of the dam for the new system as compared to the top of
the dam for the original three-acre pond to just put the entire
project in perspective.
We created and designed and built three spillways
containing something like a couple of hundred yards of concrete
and about $17,000 expense for spillway to measure, aerate, and
sample and record the flow of this system.
This was the completed system as it looked in August.
The water in the ponds or the lagoons, if you wish to call them
that, is shallow. It. is about six feet deep at the spillways
and the green vegetation that you see is actually floating on
top of the water. The light green is a weed that floats on
the top, it is a little trilobular plant that is called duck-
weed. The other dark green flora is just a whole host of
typical southland vegetation.
This is a low elevation aerial shot of the spillways
and ponds. From time to time we go in with a clamshell and
-------
3^7
R. Duggan
clamshell out these floating vegetation masses and compost
them for natural recycle.
This is a shot of our last pond, three ponds in a
series, prior to discharging through the original lowland
area into the peripheral shoreline of the bay.
This is what the water looks like going over the
last spillway and there is a considerable community of fila-
mentous diatoms here as recorded in Dr. Lackey's work for
the last two years. You also can see the sampling platform,
spillway and the 20-foot rectangular contracted weir right in
this area (indicating) that allows us to record the flow of
the water that we discharge to the bay.
Flow devices have been placed in service to minimize
surges as a result of natural lowland and rain runoff.
This is a cl&seup shot of a flow recorder and sample
recorder that worked 24 hours around the clock. We will have
a detailed shot of it later.
This is part of the treatment system that was
designed, constructed and installed and is operating at 90
percent-plus treatment efficiency on our polyvinyl chloride .
and nitric acid waste streams. It is a magnesium oxide slurry
chemical treatment prior to biological treatment. We buy
magnesium oxide from Basic Magnesia down at Panama City. pH
-------
3^8
R. Duggan
adjust, precipitate phosphates, and then go ahead to biologi-
cally treat in this pond.
Here is a low level shot showing you a closeup of
the lagoon.
We have been so delighted at the response and the
treatment generated in the original three ponda that Dr. Lackey's
work and the chemical assay work going on enabled us to go to
the Board of Directors and request a continuing project for
the construction of this ecopond. This is the new large facility'
that Mr. Carey Just detailed to you. It has Just been put in
service, it is filling up at this time, and recently to release
the thing to the public, so to speak, we brought Roy Thigpen,
who is an Audubon man from Mobile, over and he brought Dr.
Wilson Gaillard with him, author of several Audubon books, and
these gentlemen looked over our entire property with respect to
the Audubon bird sanctuary that we are now working on.
Mr. Carey pointed out several samplers and this type
of thing that have been ongoing for quite sometime. We have
several types of samplers and we will show you two of the
basic types here. We have many of these.
This is a composite sampler here. It takes a 2-1/2
gallon composite over any period selected, 2k hours a day ,down
to an hour, and you also can select your sampling frequency.
-------
3^9
R. Duggan
One sample every five minutes, one every 25 minutes, one every
hour, this type of thing.
We also have two standard U. S. Weather Bureau rain
gauges on our property as rainfall plays a significant part in
the entire problem of the 3,800 square mile estuary as has
been pointed out by several people already today.
This is a specific sampler that we utilize on the
last two biological ponds prior to discharge to the bay. It
has 24 separate bottles, one bottle fills per hour, so that
at the end of a 24-hour cycle the 24 bottles are manually
proportioned according to the flow reported, experienced at
that time of discharge, so that our sample is probably as
representative as we could get it.
We have considerable analytical capability, as Mr.
Carey pointed out, better than some 350 samples a month with
just right at 3,000 assays per month for the routine situations.
Here is some DO and biological oxygen demand equipment that
you have heard a lot about today.
Here is the ammonia and total Kjeldahl nitrogen
apparatus that you have heard, ammonia nitrogen, TKN nitrogen,
mentioned before.
We have an atomic absorption spec on the plant
property and have had for years and run quite an extensive
-------
R. Duggan
350
array of heavy metal analyses and have for quite sometime.
All of this data, all of this sampling,is organized
right here in the computer room at the Pace facility. It is
updated every day. A printed sheet comes out and it is for-
warded to me in the morning. We forward this to the State during
regular intervals, as Mr. Carey has pointed out.
This is the rig that we work with on the estuary and
all of you people who have been on the estuary, who have worked
on it and live around it see us on there quite often. We have
regular sample stations for chemical assay, for biological
assay. We also do work in Blackwater Estuary and the biological
assay is primarily performed by this grand old gent, Dr. James
B. Lackey, who is 78 years old. He has worked with us now
for about, oh, two and a half years or so and has developed
quite an extensive background of data on the microbiotic
community of the bay.
Now you are going to see some shots taken by Mr.
Thigpen of the Audubon Society, just proving and pointing out
one of the most amazing side benefits that we'have seen. We
Just have been really gratified at the wildlife and duck
populations that have moved into our biological ponding area.
This is a flight of bluewing teal there that came in
and spent some time with us.
-------
351
R. Duggan
This is the duckweed that I pointed out that floated
on the water that the ducks feed on. It is part of the food
chain system.
This is a couple of shots of the fish stocking'that
we did with the small bream back In mid-November on our last
two ponds.
Now, there has been a lot of talk about the bayous,
about the orientation, and everything, and at times I wished
you could have had this slide up here,because you can see the
Simpson River in here (indicating), the White River (indicating),
the Saultsman Bayou (indicating), the Escambia River (indi-
cating), the Sullivans Ditch here (indicating), it is all right
there, and as you can see,that delta is sedimentation in
its best form. That is what forms those deltas. You can see •
the hook created here (indicating), as Tom Hopkins referred to,
as in times past the flows primarily could have been or should
have been over here and has moved and probably due to a storm
or something like this and created another delta or expanded
the delta, if you so wish. You can also see the water reflection
of our biological ponding area and this type of thing.
The bay is definitely imbalanced, it definitely has
problems. We work on it every day, we all live here, I fish
out there and I enjoy it. We want it very much to be in as
-------
352
R. Duggan
best possible health as it can be.
This concludes my part of the slides of actually
showing you what Mr. Carey has presented to you in verbal form,
pictures that Just can't be refuted. It is there, it is
concrete. If you want to come see it, you can make arrangements
and come see it. If any of you know any of the kids in the
Woodland High biology club, they have been to see us; there
have been quite a few citizens groups come to see us. It is
out there, it is for real and it Just hasn't all cropped
up overnight.
I thank you for your patience and your time.
MR. WHITE: I think Mr. Levin has a question.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Duggan, in your fish pond do you have
any menhaden?
MR. DUGGAN: No, sir, that is a saltwater species;
this is a freshwater pond, sir.
MR. LEVIN: So you don't know what effect the discharge
has on the menhaden population?
MR. DUGGAN: No, sir, but I can assume that if we
can get a diverse biota to exist in an undiluted state in our
effluent ponds that we can have nothing but an extreme minimal
effect on the receiving body of the estuary.
MR .LEVIN: All right. Now I have got one more
-------
353
R. Duggan
question.
MR. DUGGAN: Yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: Which do you think would be more attain-
able for your industry, to be completely out of the bay by
January of 1973 or to meet the recommendations of this con-
ference of two years ago that you have your discharged treated
up to 9^ percent?
MR. DUGGAN: Well, Mr. Levin, the statistics reported
to you are from a program aimed at obtaining the goals gene-
rated better than two years ago, actually generated by your
department back in 1969, so that we have been actively working
on that and the goals are to obtain those values.
As far as total recycle, technically we are Just not
in a position right now to achieve that by 1973. As Mr. Carey
pointed out, we have better than 75 percent reduction in flow
since 1969, so we are 75 percent reduced volumewise now. So
that our aim is in this area, our interests are in this area,
but right now the technology is limited, and so that we cannot
have a total recycle system, to the best of my personal knowl-
edge, by January of 1973.
MR. LEVIN: What about the reduction of your—
MR. DUGGAN: Well, our goals are certainly to be
there, sir.
-------
H. Duggan
MR. LEVIN: About 94 percent by January of 1973?
MR. DUGGAW; Well, right now we are at 83, 3*) percent
on nitrogen and this system is not a year old yet, and as Dr.
Lackey, our retained biologist, tells us, it is still increas-
ing in performance, as far as that goes. We are still working
on source control and recycling within the plant, so that we
are shooting towards that 90 percent type figure, yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: Ninety or ninety-four?
MR. DUGGAN: Well, it depends upon what you—you can't
talk percentages without getting into pounds per day, as Tlr.
Traina pointed out, so that we are shooting towards the pounds
per day figure established by your department in 1969. The
percentages depend upon what sort of figure you want to pick
statistically.
MR. LEVIN: But right now you don't think it is
technologically possible for you to be completely out of the
bay by January 1973?
MR. DUGGAN: Not for our particular Industry to the
best of my personal knowledge, no, sir.
MR. LEVIN: I don't mean this to be ugly, but you
say "not to the best of my knowledge." You see, this phrase
keeps throwing me. I want to know Is there somebody else in
your Industry that I can ask that can tell me?
-------
355
R. Duggan
MR. DUGGAN: We have got a whole host of expertise
covered in all fields with considerable consultants retained.
For instance, Black, Crow & Eidsiess, water consultants, have
been retained since the 1950's, so that when I say personally,
I mean that is to the best of my knowledge after talking to all
of these types of people.
For instance, subterranean injection could cease dis-
charge to the bay, but how do you obtain 90 percent of pre-
treatment prior to subjection if we can't obtain it before we
discharge to the bay? So that there are real serious engi-
neering problems in this area.
MR. LEVIN: What about ponds or I should say pumping
it backwards and getting some land that you can Just throw it
back up on the land, upstream, so to speak?
MR. DUGGAN: You can only irrigate, I believe is the
term, or percolate water, as far as nutrients are concerned, to
the tune of assimilative capacity of the crops or the living
systems on that particular land. If you force feed it and put
too many nutrients there, you will contaminate the shallow
groundwater and then create a problem. ThiB has been published
in many studies and can be backed up by the USGS people out of
the Gainesville-Jacksonville area, sir. So that you can perco-
late and you can spray irrigate, but the nutrients have to be
-------
356
R. Duggan
assimilated in the crop and they have to be put into the food
chain in order to be taken out of the problem.
MR. LEVIN; When will you be able to know Just what
you all will be able to achieve by January 1973?
MR. DUGGAN: Well, sir, we have submitted and did
submit to you a final phase program on October 1, actually
it was September 30 in the Gulf Breeze meeting, and pursuant to
that we were ordered total abatement zero discharge, and have
since filed for public hearing, so I assume that last technical
report still covers our position as far as the timetable and
how we are going to go about obtaining that particular treat-
ment or load level to the bay, sir.
MR. LEVIN: And in the event you are unable to
meet with the orders, then what?
MR. DUGGAN: Sir, I can tell you about the technical
problems of what we are doing, but I can't prejudge what is
going to happen at some time in the future if we don't do a
couple of things. I just couldn't tell you that.
MR. LEVIN: To your knowledge, that hasn't been dis-
cussed?
MR. D'JGGAN: No, sir.
MR. LEVIN: I have no further questions.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Traina.
-------
R. Duggan
357
MR. TRAINA: I have a few questions.
First, Mr. Carey, in your presentation you give
these figures here for nitrogen. Is this a TKN figure?
MR. DUGGAN: No, sir, that is total N, sir, total N.
It is TKN plus nitrate, sir.
MR. TRAINA: 0. ft.
MR. DUGGAN: All figures are as total N, total P,
elemental.
MR. TRAINA: As I read these, and please follow througjh
with me on this, because I may be misinterpreting, what you are
saying is that you have reduced the flow in half generated by
the plant and yet your pounds, relating it to material that was
presented to us two years ago, is essentially the same or more?
MR. DUGGAN: No, sir.
MR. TRAINA: This is why I need to get some clari-
fication.
MR. CAREY: Oh, I am sorry. Did I give you a copy
of this?
MR. DUGGAN: They have a copy, sir.
MR. TRAINA: I have a copy of your statement here.
MR. CAREY: Which one is your problem?
MR. TRAINA: ' The nitrogen figure here.
KR. CAREY: Yes.
-------
358
R. Duggan
MR. TRAINA: You give it in, well, 15,000 pounds in
1969 and I take it now you are down to 2,900 pounds.
MR. CAREY: Yes.
MR. TRAINA: I was actually relating that figure to
figures that were first presented to us in the Federal report
back in 1970 which talked about 3,000 pounds, but they were
talking about TKN. That is why I asked the question, you see.
I was actually comparing the 3,000 pounds to the 2,900. I
don't see a real substantial difference between the figures,
but I may be comparing two different things.
MR. DUGGAN: It is apples and oranges, yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: 0. K. Do you know how that would relate,
very quickly, back to TKN? How does this 2,900—
MR. DUGGAN: Statistically our nitrogen exists 50-50
as ammonia and nitrate with very little or zero organic, 30 if
you double the TKN that should have been our approximate dis-
charge statistically.
MR. TRAINA: All right, I see. About 6,000?
MR. DUGGAN: Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: With regard to these ponds, what is the
mechanism involved there for removing nitrogen?
MR. DUGGAN: Establishing of the food chain, sir.
MR. TRAINA: How do you—I know it goes into the
-------
359
R. Duggan
duckweeds, and so on.
MR. DUGGAN: Right.
MR. TRAINA: But then—
MR. CAREY: Into worms, into fishes, into everything.
They eat it, as I understand it.
MR. TRAINA: You have to have a harvest, then, from
these ponds, do you?
MR. DUGGAN: Yes, sir, and from time to time we clam-
shell off the weeds.
NR. CAREY: We have a harvest,but they also settle'
to the bottom and become stabilized in the bottom.
MR. DUGGAN: Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: Again, you fellows know your business
here, but I would say that this kind of biological—
MR. CAREY: Biological business is. not mine, I am
afraid.
best.
MR. TRAINA: —for nitrogen removal is difficult at
MR. CAREY: It is an extremely difficult thing.
MR. TRAINA: Have you considered chemical treatment
for your nitrogen problems?
MR. DUGGAN: Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: Where have we gotten with that?
-------
360
R. Duggan
MR. DUGGAN: The volumes of water that we are talking
about, like an anaerobic denitrification on carbon total with
methanol and things like this is what you are talking about,
sir?
MR. TRAINA: Yes.
MR. DUGGAN: The volumes at best, according to EPA
reports, this has been pilot planted in small volumes but never
put on large scale, and here again you are requiring denitrifl-
cation bacteria to do the same type of thing here only in a
much more confined community or'ecosystem, so that it is much
more difficult.
MR. TRAINA: Do you fully expect to get the 94 percent
reduction of ammonia with the system?
MR. DUGGAN: This isn't the only thing that we
are doing. For Instance, source control was mentioned by Mr.
Carey and there are many, many specific projects, engineering
projects, a couple of changes in feed stocks or in designs to
eliminate causes rather than treat effects, if you will, as far
as logical philosophy on that.
MR. TRAINA: I am really concerned, because you know
the plant here represents close to 50 percent of the source of
nitrogen for the bay.
MR. CAHEY: Into the bay? Excuse me. Into the bay?
-------
3&a
R. Duggan
MR. TRAINA: Yes.
MR. CAREY: I don't think that is right.
\
MR. DUGGAN: No, sir.
MR. CAREY: Excuse me.
MR. DUGGAN: No, sir.
MR. CAREY: Excuse me. We have very large nitrogen
flows from the river into the bay.
MR. TRAINA: o. K., let me, for the record, clarify
that.
The plant represents a significant source of nitrogen
into the waters of the river and bay.
At any rate, I don't want to play with that, but ir.y
concern is that we are not—I wonder if we are really getting
at this nitrogen problem with the system that is being developed
here,and you say that you nave checked tne chemical removal
but feel that you cannot project—
Mrt. DUGGAN: We are saying we are with chemical
removal, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis and all these types
of things. Believe me, we would much rather run a chemical
operation than we would a biological operation, strictly
because of the inherent problems that you point out, but so
far the consultants and all the expertise in the field say it
is extremely lirr.itinp; as pointed out by an EPA funded grant in
-------
R. Dugpan
some work done at Tyler, Tennessee, with a corporation up there.
They have gone to ion exchange,but they have got less than a
million gallons of flow a day, sir.
MR. TRAINA: Well, I know you have said here that
you are going to anticipate getting the reductions down by the
1973 date and I wish you well. I would hate, though, to come
to that date and find that the system you have just hadn't made
it. And other than just making this statement of cautioning
you, or however you want to take that, I don't really know what
else we can do. We can assume that you are going to get there,
but I am telling you that to do it with a system like this for
nitrogen removal—and again I would like to stress that,
because I think Escambia or your new name represents a major
source of nitrogen to the system and we need to really get that
tied down.
MR. CAREY: Yes. What we are trying to convey are
the things that we have done, the things that we are pursuing
and now best know how to do and best are learning to do. And
I think that it is my opinion that we will be able to approach
the number that was recommended by the conference, the 91* per-
cent. We started, of course, as you know, shooting for the 90,
so it is all in the same line. However, in trying not to con-
vey to you something that comes through rose-colored glasses,
-------
T. L. Carey
363
this last little bit is very difficult to p;et and it can cost
extreme amounts of money or be totally impossible.
For example, we have talked about the river some
today, but we have two or three thousand pounds of nitrogen a
day, the river has thirty to sixty thousand normally and as
much as five hundred thousand coming down per day into the
bay. So maybe your problem, whoever owns the river up there,
is 60 or 100 times worse than ours, but you certainly get. the
idea. It is a very difficult thing to do because—
MR. WHITE: I would like to interject the point here,
though, your discharge, as was discussed with Dr. Hopkins a
little earlier, is in an area of the bay that is not getting
flushing and circulation, so you can't equate the two when we
talk about the gravity of the harm that is done in the bay. And
admittedly we might now have all of the technology or all of
the studies done to show us just who is doing what, but you
can't escape the fact, and you might as well say it, the dis-
charge is poorly located in the upper end of the bay. I mean
this is, of course, nothing—1 mean there is nothing we can do
about anything like tnis.
MR. RAVAN: I have.a question.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Ravan has a question.
MR. RAVAN: With regard to this clamshell operation,
-------
361
T. L. Carey
skimming off the top, what did you say you did with that?
MR. DUGGAN: We compost it and then distribute it on
the grounds of our property, sir..
HR. RAVAN: This has only been going on about a year?
MR. DUGGAN: Less than a year, sir. It was initiated
in March of last year, sir.
I might point out that all of the technical or all of
the chemical treatment systems that Mr. Traina referred to are
specifically covered in a technical report submitted to the
State, the final phase report on September 30, so if you would
obtain a copy of that you can review all of the progress that
we have had with the Department of Pollution Control in the
State on all of these treatment methodologies up through the
present day, sir.
MR..RAVAN: Thank you.
MR. TRAINA: Again, just one further question on this
question of removal of nitrogen.
The conference, of course, and I understan-1 that the
State has followed this with an actual permit, gave you an
allowable load of approximately 500 pounds a day and I suess
this—I am having problems converting things. This was in
total nitrogen. As I understand the figure you ?;ave, tnis snouid
convert in terms of total nitrogen tc i,b>00 pounds per day?
-------
365
R. Duggan
MR. DUGGAN: Yes, sir. At the time of the original
conference, the Federal conferees were not aware of any treat-
ment we were doing. The original conference reported the
Escambia Plant, or Escambia Chemical then, as having zero
treatment.
MR. TRAINA: Yes, sir,
MR. DUGGAN: This was discussed in a meeting in
Atlanta and was agreed to that it was erroneous.
MR. TRAINA: Yes, sir.
yiR. DUGGAJl: And it was to be corrected, sir. So
that is the problem with the statistics.which is why I referred
to Mr. Levin's comment of percentages. It depends on percent-
age of what base load figure. The State has accepted our raw
loads and our raw loads are as such and are from the State
files out of Mr. Patton's office over his personal signature,"
sir.
MR. TRAINA: May I ask, Gil, what is the allowable
load for Lscamoia Chemical in terms of total nitrogen?
MR. .•'.A'JPJELLC: Paul, I think to clarify the thing
we ought to be talking in terms of pounds and get away from
this percentage figure.
:iR. TRAIiiA: Yes, this is what I am saying. Right,
\R. "VJRT-L-LO: This percentage figure is going to
-------
366
R. Duggan
confuse things. We are talking somewhere in the range of 477
or 500 pounds. This is the ultimate goal that we are shootin,-
for of pounds.
MR. TRAINA: Pounds per day in total nitrogen?
MR. MAURIELLO: Forget the percentages; It is going
to throw everybody.
MR. TRAINA: As I understand the figure that was
presented here relating to that, that is 1,500 pounds total
nitrogen, approximately?
MR. DUGGAN: Right, 90 percent of the base load from
Mr. Patton's office, I believe it is 1,510 pounds precisely.
MR. TRAINA: 0. K. So you fellows—I don't want to
come back here in November of 1972 and find that we are not
even close. You fellows have got 1,500 pounds, you have to go
down to 500 pounds, you understand that? I assume you do.
And that is a significant way to go. It is Just not the last
5 percent. That is a long way to goffrom 1,500 pounds down
to 500 pounds.
That was my only point. And I again would like to
make the point, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude, is that the
system that you have got going here may not make it. I hope
it does, but I think you may—and I assume you are looking at
other ways.
-------
367
T. L. Carey
Mr?, CAREY: I think, depending on what number we are
finalli1 talking about, and there is some question about it, a
number like 5300 pounds probably is very, very, very difficult
tc obtain. I wouldn't like to mislead you on this.
Mr!. WKITE: Let rr.e make one additional point here,
and I don't want to pet over in a different area too much,,
But we have,, as you know, the Refuse Act permit
program and this is administered by the Atlanta Regional
Office, and although it is bogged down in the court decisionst
as many of you know, we nevertheless are going to be compelled
to permit that at least based on this if not a stricter stand-
ard, and this is yet to be determined. I mean this is what we
are here to decide today. So in no situation would it be less
than that and that would be a part of any permit that would be
issued by the Corps, we would recommend the Corps would issue
in this particular case.
Turning Just to a lighter point here, I notice there
is no discussion about the phantom stream this time and I
assume that—maybe you are not aware of this, but I assume the
phantom stream has been sorted out and nullified?
MR. CAREY: It has been put into the totals and we
just aren't talking about it or haven't talked about it.
MR. DUGGAN: It is in the total figure, sir.
-------
368
T. L. Carey
MR. CAREY: It is In the total number of figures.
MR. WHITE: I don't care to explore It In any great
depth, but that always intrigued me, this phantom stream.
(Laughter.)
MR. CAREY: It intrigues everybody. But there are
some groundwaters that do certain things and the numbers that
you have today include total runoff; whatever comes is there,
MR. WHITE: l-'ine.
MR. CAREY: Kow, I just have a little bit more.
MR. WHITE: Please proceed.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Carey, Just one other question. I
am sorry,
MK. CARF.Y: You had that four times, but shoot.
(Laughter.)
MR. TRAINA: 0. K. You didn't have any HOD figures
in here?
MR. CARtY: Well, we have COD, which is the thins
that we think is probably better to measure. It is a relative
kind of thing. We don't have total organic carbon either
because it is less than 100 pounds.
MK. TRAINA: The conference put soir.e recommendations
with regard to BOD and phosphorus as well as nitrogen, that is
the reason I asked you.
-------
369
T, L. Carey
MR. CAREY: We are well under, aren't we, Roy? We
have no problem. Ninety-six, ninety-eight percent.
MR. WHITE: Off the record Just a minute.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record.
Do you have another question, Mr. Traina?
MR. TRAINA: That is it.
KK. WHITE: Please proceed.
MR. CAKEY: Thank you.
In conclusion, Air Products and the Escambia Plant
will continue to be responsible and responsive with respect to
environmental affairs and we are genuinely interested in con-
tinued improvement of our environmental impact in a manner
that is consistent with good citizenship and with the effort
of the total community.
The ecological problems of Escambia Bay are complex
and Incompletely understood. Unfortunately, the burdens of
attempting to correct these problems have been thrust upon a
politica_ a;roup of regulatory bodies who do not have the neces-
sary resources to properly study the total situation nor the
tine to rationally define and resolve the problems in the face
of an impatient public. Under.the circumstances, it is not
surnrisinr; that rna.ior industry, which represent discrete,
-------
370
T. L. Carey
visible, significant and relatively Impersonal pollution
sources, as well as an organized capability to do something
concrete in reasonably short periods of time, becomes the
first target. We in Air Products and Chemicals have understood
this and accepted it and we do not quarrel with it now.
Such a procedure has its cost, however. Primarily
it has caused industry to turn all of its effort inward, to
find ways of reducing its own environmental impact to meet
orders laid down by agencies forced to politicize their
approaches. Very little has been done by industry to study .
the total problem because it has been continuously on the
defensive, attempting to satisfy its critics, whether ill-
founded or ill-informed or not. As long as our environmental
impact was significant, this was in part appropriate.
Carrying this procedure to extremes, however, is
very ill-advised. Air Products has now reached the point where
its effluent contributes a relatively negligible amount of
V,
pollutants entering Escambia Bay each day. We believe that
other industries in the area have similarly reduced their
pollution loads to relatively insignificant amounts. .In fact,
Mr. deCastro of the Florida Pollution Control Board has stated
in a previous public meeting of this type that complete shutdown
of the industries located on the Escambia Bay would have no
-------
T, L. Carey
noticeable.effect on the pollution problems of the bay as of
this time. That statement coming from a public official is
noteworthy and has not been given the attention it- so richly
merits. It does make It apparent that further restrictive
legislation or regulation concerning industry effluent could
cause significant economic dislocation of local industry and
serious impacts for the community as a whole without producing
any noticeable benefits to the community whatsoever.
Under these circumstances, it is time to assure that
those regulations imposed upon local industry are consistent
with the public interest and are within the bounds of what is
I
economically and technologically acceptable and reasonable.
Rather, we should now turn ourselves to the more adequate
understanding of those factors that have a considerable impact
on the bay and have not yet been brought under equivalent de-
grees of control. That there are many will be attested to by
a reasonably objective technical observer of the real situation.
Further improvements in the ecological situation of
Escambia Bay must be realized on the basis of a complete and
realistic understanding of all the facts. To obtain those
facts does represent a considerable amount of work, but it also
implies the release of considerable amounts of data already
collected which has not been brought out for public
-------
372
T. L, Carey
consideration of the problems of Escambia Bay. To the end of
assuring a much more adequate understanding of these factors,
we would like to make the following proposal for the considera-
tion of the parties represented at this conference:
. It has occurred to us that with the large number of
industry and government groups doing work on the various
factors affecting the bay, there must be much duplication of
effort and,conversely, useful data produced by various groups
are not being made available to help, direct the efforts of
others. In general, the result is much misdirected and wasted
effort.
Furthermore, v;ithin these various groups is available
a large pool of scientific talent covering many fields of
expertise. Also within these groups are the technical
abilities and the sophisticated analytical tools necessary to
accurately analyze and develop the detailed data required to
better understand the various factors at play in the ecological
system of the Escambia and Pensacola Bay regions.
If we could bring all these talents to bear on a
well planned, well thought-out program of study of this eco-
logical system, surely more factual definition of the problems
will result. Hopefully, then, truly constructive courses of
action will be resolved upon in a fraction of the time it will
-------
373
T. L. Carey
take If we each go our own separate ways. To bring about such
cooperation and to develop a comprehensive picture of the
various factors affecting the ecology of the bay, we would
like to propose the formation of a Joint Industry-Government-
Science Council to be composed of representatives of various
groups such as:
EPA - Sabine Island Laboratory
Florida Department of Pollution Control
Florida Department of Health
Florida Department of Natural Resources
University of West Florida
U. S. Geological Survey
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
American Cyanamid Corporation
Monsanto
Gulf Power
Ana any others who would be appropriate.
We suggest that one or perhaps two representatives
from each group neet to form the council and lay out a program
and a plan of action. Various tasks and assignments would be
made according to the abilities and capabilities of each
particioatin.t group. The data so generated would be assembled
into meaningful form and fitted into the overall program.
-------
T.. L. Carey
Frequent meetings should be held to study the data and discuss
and decide the direction and nature of the ongoing data require-
ments .
It would appear to us to be appropriate for the
council to periodically present their findings at these
Federal-State pollution conferences.
For Air Products part, we are willing to make all of
Dr. James B. Lackey's Escambia Bay studies available and to
make his contracted-for services available to the council for
consultation and to coordinate his future work. In addition,
the analytical tools available at the Escambia Plant would be
made known to the council and a significant amount of analyti-
cal and technician time would be set aside for the use of
f
council-directed work. We also are prepared to make available
technician time to do sampling in or around the bay as required
and assigned by the council. We also would be prepared to pro-
vide some clerical and stenographic time and any other reason-
able services that would help the cause.
Gentlemen, we would very much like to have your
reaction to such a proposal.
That concludes my statement.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Carey.
Are there comments or questions now?
-------
325
1'. L. Carey
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Carey, will you and your staff
submit to us equivalent BOD figures in relation to COD?
MR. CAnEY: Yes, insofar as we have them available.
Kh. DuGGAu: We submit them.
I'iK. CAREY: We submit everything that is required,
as far as I know.
MR. TRAINA: I would like to make one comment that
doesn't have to be on the record, unless you want it, and I
would like to make this to the Chair.
I cannot agree that the figures of 1,500 pounds of
total nitrogen, 2,500 pounds of COD, and 55 pounds of phosphorus'
are insignificant sources. I think that you made that state-
ment. I think we have a long way to go with your problem there
and I hope that you feel that you are not"—you know, your prob-
lem is not solved, you have a long, long way to go with reducing
these to the levels that I think the State and us and this con-
ference have asked you to reduce them to.
That is just a comment and I will let it sit as that.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Carey, how many people do you employ?
MR. CAREY: Just over *100. About ^50 at the plant
site.
MR. LEVIN: I would like to know what you mean by
-------
376
T. L. Carey
this statement, please:
"It does make it apparent that further restrictive
legislation or regulation concerning industry effluent could
cause significant economic dislocation of local industry and
serious impacts for the community as a whole without producing
any noticeable benefits to the community whatsoever."
What do you mean by that?
MR. CAREY: Well, we say that it could produce some.
I am not sure Just what they are until I know what the restric-
tions are. But it seems entirely possible to me.
MR. LEVIN: What seems entirely possible?
MR. CAREY: That it will have some impact.
For example, things could become so restrictive that,
you know, you would have to pick up and leave.
MR. LEVIN: I thought that is wnat you were referring
to. I just wondered.
MR. CAREY: Well, I would say a very way out kind of
thing. I am certain that that Isn't what anybody has in mind or
anybody wants.
MR. LEVIN: How much Investment does your company
have in the Pensacola area?
MR. CAREY: We argue with accountants about tnat,
but it is very significant. Original investr.ent was probably
-------
1Z.7
T. L. Carey
on the order of magnitude of $^0 to $50 million.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments?
MR. LEVIN: How much money is In your budget for
ascertaining technology which could possibly result in the
ultimate achievement of getting out of the bay? How much do
you all spend of your budget on technology?
MR. CAREY: Mr. Levin, right now we are studying—
spending, excuse me—it depends on what you are doing at the
time. We have a total number of dollars we spend. Right now
we are spending quite a lot of money for studies, such things
as deep well-disposal, spray irrigation, for example, and some
of these more exotic kinds of, you know, resin absorption and
these kinds of things for removal of nitrogen from low strength
streams.
MR. LEVIN: Well—
MR. CAHEY: So as far as these studies are concerned,
we are complying, as far as I know, as quickly as we know how
to do those things that the State has requested us to go back
vana review a^ain.
nR. LLVIU: Mr. Carey, 1 want to tell you the way I
feel. 1 can't apeak for everybody; all I can tell you is how
I feel rryself. but I have made the statement hundreds and
nundreas of times, perhaps not that many, but I have made the
-------
378
T. L. Carey
statement and I will stand by it, I can't speak for the
Federal Government, but the Florida Pollution Control Depart-
ment stands ready to cooperate/ any way possible, but to
threaten is not going to mean anything as far as I am concerned.
MR. CAREY: Certainly we implied no threat with this.
MR. LEVIN: I don't know what else you could mean by
what you said.
MR. CAREY: I am just saying that there is some
impact. I don't know what it is and I don't know what it could
be until we have the restrictions. I really don't know.
Certainly there is no intent to imply any threat.
We are only trying to create a preamble that leads up to this
proposal of cooperation that we are talking about.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Carey. And I might add
your proposal concerning a council is an interesting one and
it is something that I think that the conferees want to address.
Something like that would require much detailed working out and
I am not sure Just how this thing would be structured.
And I would like to go into this area now and make
this our last presentation today. We would like to call Mr.
Alec Little back, the Federal participant earlier in the day,
to discuss something in line with what you were talking about
on a program that we are looking into without getting into any
-------
J. A* Little
379
specifics.
But thank you for your offer.
MR. CAREY: Very well. We want to be on record that
we are willing to cooperate and to contribute whatever we can
to the solution of this problem in its best fashion.
MR. WHITE: 0. K,, thank you.
JOHN A. LITTLE, DIRECTOR
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
SOUTHEAST WATER LABORATORY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA
MR. LITTLE: Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate,
in view of the previous remarks, for me to make this particular
presentation.
Several weeks ago representatives of the Florida
Department of Pollution Control, the Alabama Water Improvement
Commission, and the University of West Florida met with per-
sonnel of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in Atlanta,
The purpose of the meeting was to review- the many activities
and actions which have taken place in the last year and to
initiate a coordinated effort to determine in research detail
the inner workings of the Escambia Bay ecosystem:
-------
J. A. Little
380
Why has it reacted to man's abuse in
such a violent manner?
What can possibly be done to effect
a rapid recovery concurrent with the strong
pollution abatement program under way?
How can we profit from the example
of Escambia to prevent it from happening else-
where?
Several points related to these questions were gene-
rated at this meeting, and in the period that followed addi-
tional details were obtained from the participants. At this
time I would like to elaborate on some of these items and then
present a recommendation for the conferees to consider.
Three general subjects were considered in the recovery
study proposal:
What remedial measures can be taken
to expedite bay recovery concurrent with the
point source pollution control program?
What is the precise mechanism (or
mechanisms) by which massive numbers of fish
have been destroyed?
How rapidly and by what means will
natural recovery of Escambia Bay occur as waste .
-------
J. A. Little
381
inputs decrease or are eliminated?
In the first subject area, a number of proposals for
expediting recovery have been proposed:
Removal of toxic components and
nutrients in the bay's sediments.
Modify the natural tidal and freshwater
circulation patterns to effect better flushing
of the upper bay.
Agitate or generate bottom sediments
to accelerate natural stabilization of undesirable
constituents.
Remove all fish which may die in the
future—and as we have said, we expect more fish
kills to occur—remove all fish which may die in
the future from bay waters in order that these
same fish will not add to the pollutant load.
Labor forces needed to remove fish could include
student ecological groups, State Highway Department
personnel, or penal institution residents.
Evaluate fish exclusion techniques and
success.
The practicality and necessity for each of the above
and other recovery steps needs to be evaluated in detail.
-------
J, A. Little
382
On the general subject of exact mechanisms of fish
kills and water quality degradation, it is necessary to consider
the following:
What are the circulation pattern
variations during different seasons, with
influent tributary flow fluctuations, and
changes in wind direction? Do the differences
observed contribute to fish migration pattern
differences and buildup of contaminants in
any portion of the bay?
What are all the toxicity fact'ors
associated with fish kills? Do algae contribute
to the problem? Do pathological studies indi-
cate a toxicity or disease-associated mechanism
for fish kills?
Is there a need to determine a complete
nutrient budget for the Escambia Bay systems or
are existing data adequate?
Finally, for the last subject area of documentation of
change in the ecosystem, the following would provide information
of great worth:
The history of sedimentation rates and
sediment quality differences, especially as wastes
-------
J. A, Little
383
are removed from the system.
The change in the biotic structure as
recovery proceeds. For example—-Will shrimp
growth increase? Will menhaden migration patterns
be altered? Will microbiological components be
part of overall biotic change?
Mr. Chairman and conferees, some detail on each of
the above has been obtained in recent interagency discussions.
To an extent, resources (personnel and dollars) have been vol-
unteered to accomplish the above recovery study steps. But in
order for such a study to be successful, it is necessary for
it to be fully coordinated.
At this time the Environmental Protection Agency
recommends the following course of action:
That a recovery study team be organized
under the overall direction of the Environmental
Protection Agency,
That this recovery team include the
University of Florida system through the University
of West Florida, the Florida Department of Pollu-
tion Control, the Environmental Protection Agency
(especially the Gulf Breeze Laboratory), and any
other agency with an essential contribution to make.
-------
J, A. Little
That a specific plan for the recovery
study, including staffing, financing, and basin
investigation avenues, be completed within the
next 60 days.
That any independent plans for gather-
ing information in the next several months which
would complement the basic objectives of the
recovery program be encouraged to proceed.
In conclusion and before the question is asked, I do
not consider that the above recommendation is Just another
study. We have seen all the symptoms of a diseased estuarlne
system here in Escambia Bay. With better diagnostic and reha-
bilitative techniques, we can prevent the disease from becoming
communicable and hopefully benefit Escambia Bay at the same
time. The estuary is perhaps the most complex of aquatic
ecosystems and we must understand it better.
Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Little.
Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Little, do you have any recommenda-
tions or suggestions that we can perform that could perhaps be
a stopgap remedy to cut down on these fish kills until such a
study as you suggested can be made?
-------
J. A, Little
385
MR. LITTLE; I think that some of the items that
Dr. Hopkins mentioned should be considered. I believe that i
couldn't add any new ones at this point myself.
MR. LEVIN: Do you agree about the White River and
the filling in of the dredge area in Mulatto Bayou, that that
ought to be done right away?
MR. LITTLE: I alluded to the fact that it ought to
be studied. I am not sure of all the technical feasibility
for doing that and I think we need to look at it. It should be
a decision that can be made fairly rapidly in terras of the
ability to do so. The effect would probably take a little
longer to determine.
MR. LEVIN: What I am trying to find out is, you do
think that that could be done before the summertime, that
study?
MR. LITTLE: It is physically possible.
MR. LEVIN: Would you mind helping me, if you can?
Mr. Carey said something about that they are responsible for a
relatively small amount of the nitrogen that goes out into the
bay, I think he said his figures were 50 or 60 times coming down
the river. You see, either that is right or what we heard this'
morning was right. Either the river is healthy and we are not
getting 50 to 60 times the amount of nitrogen or perhaps I
-------
386
J. A. Little
misunderstand, being a political group, perhaps I misunderstand
the effect of his statement.
Now, is this right? Is there 50 to 60 times the
amount of nitrogen that Escambia Chemical or Air Products is
putting out there in the bay?
MR. LITTLE: I am not sure of that exact figure, but
I would warrant a guess that there is a substantial amount of
nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in excess of that discharged
from the local industries coming down the river.
Now, I would point out that there are differences in
the types of these compounds and their effect on an ecosystem.
We are talking about in some Instances, perhaps, with the
total nitrogen value, you may be comparing fertilizer with
leaves, for example, or material that could be fairly stab-
ilized and reacts differently once it reaches an ecosystem such
as Escambia Bay. I think you are also saying that any estuarine
system is a rich system and it receives large quantities of
nutrients from a natural standpoint and I don't believe anyone
would argue that point*
MB. LEVIN: The thing I am trying to find out,
though, if 50 to 60 times the amount of nitrogen that Air
Products is putting out in that water is coming down the
river, do you feel like in your Judgment that the amount that
-------
J. A. Little
387
Air Products la contributing Is playing any significant role
in the destruction of that bay?
MR. LITTLE: I would say this, that an estuarlne
system is able to take care of itself unless mem interferes
with it, and in this instance in Escambia Bay man has inter-
fered with it and changed the input of nutrients to it and,
therefore, this is the reason we have taken strong action, I
very much am in favor of the program of the previous conference
in the reductions that have been named and I feel that this
will be of great benefit to this system.
MR. LEVIN: What reduction specifically are you talking
about?
MR. LITTLE: I am talking about the 9^4 percent of
these figures.
MR. LEVIN: All right. Gil says that that is perhaps
not a good idea to figure percentages. How many pounds are you
talking about?
MR. LITTLE: Well, I wasn't present during the first
conference. Mr. Traina has those figures.
MR. TRAINA: Those figures, and I think Mr. White read
them at the beginning, we can go through them here, but for
Escambia Chemical, allowable waste effluents were 17 pounds per
day of BOD, 477 pounds per day of total nitrogen, and 35 pounds
-------
J. A. Little
388
per day of total phosphorus.
MR. LEVIN: Transposing that, Is that the same thing
that Dr. Hopkins was talking about, the 9^ percent? Is that
equivalent to the 9^?
MR. LITTLE: I believe so, yes.
MR. LEVIN: Let me just make sure, now, that I under-
stand. What you are saying is that the nitrogen coming down
the river is a natural phenomenon, is this what you are saying?
MR. LITTLE: The nitrogen that we have Identified at
this point we consider to be at a natural background level and
one which an estuarine system would normally be expected to
receive.
MR. LEVIN: But yet added to that, the 1,500 pounds
which Air Products is currently contributing, you feel like
that that messes up the balance to sufficient extent to where
it does cause problems in the bay?
MR. LITTLE: This is an aggravating item in terms of
the damage to this particular bay.
MR. LEVIN: So it is not fair for Air Products—and
I don't want to single Air Products out. It is the only one
I have heard from so far. Do you think that it is, then, an
unfair thing, as far as fairness goes, for them to hide behind
the idea that we have got that nitrogen coming down the river,
-------
389
J. A, Little
therefore you shouldn't pick on us for putting just this small
amount into the bay? Do you think that that is a fair way of
doing things?
MR. LITTLE: I think that we should do our utmost to
remove all point source waste contribution to the bay and hope
that this will restore it to its natural system of being able
to assimilate what has come into the bay in past years.
MR. LEVIN: Are you familiar with any type of tech-
nology that could be utilized by Air Products that could permit
them or would result in them being totally out of the bay?
Maybe that is an unfair question to you, I am not sure.
MR. LITTLE: This is not really in my realm and in
terms of the treatment technology I know as they do what current
work is going on through grants from EPA and through other
studies, and frankly I don't know of any one scheme at this
moment which would be a total recycle type of scheme.
MR. LEVIN: Do you know anybody that would be avail-
able that could testify on this point?
MR. LITTLE: The only persons that I could think of
would be in our advanced waste treatment program in Cincinnati
and they haven't been contacted, to my knowledge, in regard to
this particular problem here. They have worked on some others
in other parts of our region, so perhaps this would be the
-------
J, A. Little
390
group that we could contact.
MR. LEVIN: Would you be kind enough to do that and
just as a personal favor let me know what they have got to
say about that, please?
MR. LITTLE: All right. I am going to be leaving.
If you want a comeback quickly, I am going to be leaving
tonight. I will be glad to furnish this to you in the next
few days.
MR. LEVIN: I would appreciate it very much. Thank
you.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments or questions?
Just one point. You talk of 60 days in terms of
developing this study,plan. Is that about as tight as you
think you could get it, Mr. Little?
MR. LITTLE: I think we are talking about getting
in several groups and if we are talking 30 I think we would
find out at the end of the 30 we are not quite there. I think
60 is a more realistic figure. This is something, of course,
the conferees can consider and perhaps think of ways to cut
that short. That is somewhat of an arbitrary figure.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Little.
MR. LEVIN: Jack, are there any funds available for
that type of study?
-------
J. A. Little
391
MR. WHITE: Let's go off the record a minute.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record.
As I indicated a little earlier, this would be the
last presentation today. We regret we didn't get to all of you
and we will get a little earlier start in the morning by start-
ing at 9, a half an hour earlier. Hopefully we will be able to
go through and get most of you in by noon, go into executive
session after that and come up with some recommendations.
We stand recessed until 9 in the morning.
(Whereupon, at 5:30 o'clock an adjournment was taken
until 9 o'clock, Tuesday, January 25, 1972.)
-------
392
MORNING SESSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1972
9 o'clock
MR. WHITE: Let's go back in session.
I would like to explain Mr. Ravan's absence. He will
be back with us later this morning. He was called back to
Atlanta late last night and I think he will Join us again at
noon.
If you will, Mr. Mauriello, proceed with the Florida
presentation.
MR. MAURIELLO: Mr. White, I believe we have one
representative from Gulf Power Company who has a court commit-
ment earlier thi3 morning, so I think we will ask him to make
Gulf Power'b presentation.
BERT LANE, GENERAL COUNSEL
GULF POWER COMPANY
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
MR. LANE: Thank you, sir, for that consideration.
My name is Bert Lane. I am General Counsel for Gulf
Power Company.
I don't fool myself that a lawyer appearing as an
invitee at a conference like this will not add anything. Mr.
Ed Addison, the Senior Vice President of Gulf Power Company,
-------
B. Lane
393
had expected to be here, but because of illness In his immediate
family which carries him away from Pensacola he is not able to
be here.
At the last session of this conference it was recom-
mended to Gulf Power Company that it retain the services of a
qualified consultant and monitor the biota of Escambia River in
the vicinity of the Crist Bteam plant, which has been done for
a period of nine months or better, and I would like to ask our
consultant to make a presentation to the conferees at this time.
Our consultant is Dr. Charles B. Wurtz, W-u-i'-t-z, of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who has been both a consulting
biologist and a teacher of the subject and related subjects
since about 19^6. He has written 70 papers which have been pub-
lished on this and related subjects. He is a member of the
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, American Eco-
logical Society, Water Pollution Control Federation, American
Fisheries Society,American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Dr. Wurtz to sum-
i
marize what Gulf Power Company—not Gulf Power Company but what
he has found in his checking on the biota in Escambia River.
MR. WHITE: All right.
-------
3.9
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
DR. CHARLES B. WURTZ
CONSULTING BIOLOGIST
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
DR. WURTZ: Mr. Chairman, conferees.
I have a prepared statement here, which I will give to
the reporter at the conclusion of my presentation.
In the spring of 1971 Gulf Power Company began a
quarterly biological monitoring program in the vicinity of the
intake and at the discharge of the Crist Plant. The program
was designed to evaluate any biological differences between the
Escambia River at the mouth of Governors Bayou, on which the
intake is located, and at the mouth of the discharge,canal
about one mile downriver. These locations are designated,
respectively, Stations 1 and 2.
The biological materials used as the basis for study
hew been the raacroinvertebrate or so-called bottom organisms.
In general, these life forms have life cycles of at least one
i
year and represent a fairly constant component in the ecological
\
community. Microorganisms usually have very short life cycles •
and each species tends to be transient in nature. Thus weekly
monitoring would be necessary to follow population trends of
these microscopic forms of life. At the other extreme are the
fish. Fish, however, are quite vagile and commonly withdraw
-------
395
Dr. C. E. Wurtz
from areas of biological stress or exhausted feeding grounds.
Further, fish have strong migratory movements that are season-
ally controlled. And last, the fish are physically the most
difficult group to work with, requiring extensive equipment and
man-hours in the field for proper sampling. Fishery surveys
are usually done on an annual basis to compare season with
season, and several years of study are needed to evaluate trends.
Any of these three biological groups within a com-
munity can be used for biological survey purposes. Sometimes
all are used. However, the macroinvertebrate organisms form
the most practical group for evaluating stream conditions on a
regular basis within a reasonable period of time.
Sampling for this monitoring program began In May
1971. To date three surveys have been completed. Sampling
was done May 21, August 2U, and December 1, 1971. The fourth
survey is scheduled for February 22, 1972.
Sampling is confined to the west bank of the river
and includes about 100 yards of shoreline and bottom above and
below the mouth of Governors Bayou and the mouth of the dis-
charge canal. Collecting is done by hand-picking organisms
from submerged surfaces, sieving soft substrate material such aa
mud or sand, and, in deeper water, taking bottom samples with
a Petersen grab sampler. This is a miniature clam bucket.
-------
. 39§
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
All collected material is preserved in methanol.
The identification of each species is carried out in the
laboratory. Common field-recognizable species, such as the
blue crab, are not collected. Their occurrence is recorded
in the field.
To date 69 different macroinvertebrate species have
been recorded from the two stations. No single survey had this x
many. Many organisms are strongly seasonal, and this is
particularly true of the insects. Thus different species tend
to succeed one another throughout the year. The number of
species found during each survey is presented in Table 1:
At Station 1 in May 35 species, in August 31 species,
in December 10 species.
At Station 2 in May 28 species, in Augus.t 27 species,
in December 10 species.
For both stations together in each survey in May
there was a total of ^9 species found, in August species,
in December 14 species.
Of the 69 species collected during the three surveys
only five were found during each survey. These were a 3nail,
a pill bug, a scud or side-swimmer, a crab, and a midge larva.
Of these five, only the snail was found at both stations during
all three surveys.
-------
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
397
The differences found from survey to survey are the
product of seasonal change. These are normal cyclic chances
controlled primarily by three cyclic environmental influences.
These parameters are length of photoperiod, temperature and
salinity. The resident fauna of the river has annual cycles
that are adapted to these environmental influences and responds
to changes in them.
The differences found between the two stations
during each survey are the product of ecological differences.
Station 1 is continuously seeded from Governors Bayou which
drains an extensive area. Also there is a variety of shoreline
habitats. Station 2 lacks this supporting source of species.
Even more importantly, Station 2 lacks the habitat diversity of
Station 1. At Station 2, for example, the shoreline above the
mouth of the canal is fully sandbagged and there is a minimum
of vegetative debris present. These differences lower the
ecological diversity at Station 2.
The biological diversity is correspondingly lowered.
However, the biological structure of the two stations is
virtually the same. This is illustrated in Figure 1. In this
figure the macroinvertebrate community is divided into its
insect and non-insect components, and these represent the axes
of the graph. The number of species at each station for each
-------
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
survey is plotted. The stations and surveys are identified in
/
the figure. Both the insect and non-insect groups have the
same mean number, 12, for the three surveys.
The biological structure of a community is readily
described by descriptive statistics. The statistics used in
the reports of these surveys include mean number of species,
the standard deviation, the variance, and the coefficient of
variation expressed as a percentage. Variance is commonly used
In ecological studies of populations. As diversity among the
stations increases the variance increases. The coefficient
of variation is a measure of variation about the mean or aver-
age. When the coefficient of variation is less than about 25
percent, a stable community in equilibrium with the environ-
ment exists. Values greater than about 25 percent indicate
the population is in a state of flux, readjusting to changed
conditions.
Table 2 presents the data from which the descriptive
statistics were developed:
Station 1, the insects in May, 17 species, August 17
species, December 3 species. The non-insects, May 18 species,
August 14 species, December 7 species.
At Station 2, the insects in May 13 species, August
4 species, December 5 species. And the non-insects at Station
-------
323
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
2, in Way 15 species, August 13 species, December 5 species.
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics developed
during the preparation of this review:
Insects for all three surveys, the mean value is 12,
standard deviation 6.08, variance 37.00, and the coefficient of
variation 50.7 percent.
Non-insects for all three surveys, the mean Is 12,
standard deviation 4.98, variance 24.80, and coefficient of
variation 41.5 percent.
Now, to put the insects and non-insects together,
for the May survey the mean value was 16, standard deviation
2.24, variance 5.00, coefficient of variation 14 percent.
In August the mean was 15, standard deviation 1.83,
variance 3.33, and the coefficient of variation only 12.2
percent.
In December the mean was 5, standard deviation 1.63,
variance 2.67, and the coefficient of variation was up to 32.6
percent.
Two important environmental changes can be readily
recognized from the statistics of Table 3. First, the Insects
reflect a high degree of instability during the three seasons.
I recall to you the 50.7 percent coefficient of variation.
This would be expected because of their strong seasonal
-------
ng.o
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
occurrence. Of course the non-insects, with a coefficient of
variation of 41.5 percent, also reflect seasonal changes, but
this is not as pronounced as it is for the insects.
Second, during the early and late summer the bio-
logical community was highly stable, coefficient of variation
1^.0 and 12.2 percent ,respectively. On the other hand, by
December the community was shifting to winter conditions and
had not yet stabilized and the coefficient of variation was 32.6
percent. None of the biological studies to date indicate that
the discharge from the Crist Plant is having a measurable bio-
logical effect on the Escambia River.
And that, gentlemen, concludes my presentation.
(Figure 1 referred to follows:)
-------
..FIGURE._1"
-------
2102'
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Dr. Wurtz.
Questions or comments?
MR. TRAINA: Dr. Wurtz, did you sey that you did
observe a lowering of the biological diversity at the station,
one of the stations, but attributed it to the habitat rather
than to the discharge?
DR. WURTZ: Yes, Mr. Traina. Station 2, to date any-
way, consistently has had about 15 percent fewer species than
has Station 1, and this is attributed to the reduction in
ecological diversity. Station 1 is a—
MR. TRAINA: Not to the discharge?
DR. WURTZ: Not to the discharge, no, sir.
MR. TRAINA: Is there a control station that you have
attributed—
DR. WURTZ: Station 1 is my control station.
MR. TRAINA: I see.
DR. WURTZ: But you see, you have to look at this
qualitatively as well as quantitatively. That is to say, if
it were a product of the discharge, then there are certain
species that tend to be more heat sensitive, shall we say, than
other species, which would not occur, and this is not happening
in the river.
MR. TRAINA: Another question, Dr. Wurtz. Have you
-------
K03
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
done any work with regard to looking at the effects of running
the biological species through the cooling system itself?
DR. WURTZ: No, sir, I have not.
MR. TRAINA: Is this planned as part of your studies?
DR. WURTZ: No, it is not, sir.
MR. TRAINA: Let me ask you this, Dr. Wurtz. Do you
think this is—
DR. WURTZ: This would be very limited, Mr. Traina,
on what species would go through, you know.
MR. TRAINA: Right.
DR. WURTZ: The tubes are what, a half an inch in
diameter, something like that.
MR. TRAINA: I know you have had a lot of experience
in this thing. Do you think this should be done? Do you think
this is a significant thing to look at?
DR. WURTZ: In the literature, as you are aware,
there is some contradictory work in this. Presumptively people
would say if it goes through the tubes it is going to be killed.
In point of fact this is not necessarily true. For example, in
Markowski's early work in England, which was published in 1959
and I960, he studied two plants there. One of them had a two-
phase plant, came up through some kind of a header box, I don't
know the engineering of this, it had a l'Udegree delta T, and
-------
HOU
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
this plant discharged, much as Crist does, into a canal where
this was the only source of water in the canal, and at the
point of discharge he had an established biological community
that consisted of 35 freshwater species and 62 marine species.
He, too, was in an estuarine situation. And this was the same
composition as the .samples taken of the Intake water going into
this plant.
Now, Dr. Allen Brook at the University of Minnesota
has given testimony before the Minnesota Pollution Control
Board where he has studied algae going through the tubes of
the L and S King Plant of Northern States Power Company on the
St. Croix River, and he recognized that it is not Just a ques-
tion of intensity of heat. It is also a function of time, how
long are they subjected to this heat. Water passes through the
tubes, you know, in seconds, so that they can take this so-
called thermal shock very quickly and it has a minimal effect
upon them. But Brook not only put them through the tubes or
put them through temperatures comparable to the tubes, he held
them at those elevated temperatures and he has found no change
in primary productivity, no change in losses.
I have done studies at plants where I have taken
samples coming out of the boil of the discharge from the con-
densers and found organisms there living in the same proportion
-------
405
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
that I would If I had used a plankton net and towed It In
ambient waters out In the bay.
MR. TRAINA: So It Is your considered opinion that
this Is not a problem right here?
DR. WURTZ: This Is not a problem here, no, sir, not
at all.
MR. TRAINA: Thank you, sir.
MR. LEVIN: May I ask something?
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Dr. Wurtz, would you mind reading your
last statement, please, that you said the conclusion was that-
DR. WURTZ: Yes, sir. And I said:
None of the biological studies to date
• indicate that the discharge from the Crist Plant
Is having a measurable biological effect on the
Escambia River.
MR. LEVIN: Would you carry it one step farther and
tell me what effect it is havifig on Escambia Bay?
DR. WURTZ: I couldn't carry it one step further and
I don't think it is having any effect on Escambia Bay. I don't
see how It could have an effect on Escambia Bay— *
MR. LEVIN: You don't feel like the discharge of water
17 degrees above ambient is going to have any adverse effect on
-------
106
Dr., C. B. Wurtz
that body of water?
DR. WURTZ: I don't find it, sir.
MR. LEVIN: Dr. Wurtz, let me ask you something, and
I admit, like somebody said yesterday, that we are politicians
up here and we don't really know what we are doing, but it
seems like to me as a layman that the proof of the pudding is
in the eating.
DR. WURTZ: There it is, sir.
MR. LEVIN: 0. K. You say that Gulf Power is not
doing anything to the water, the people from Air Products said
that that 1,500 pounds of nitrate they are putting out there is
really a drop in the bucket so they are not doing anything, the
people from Alabama say the stuff coming down the Escambia
River is not doing anything, and I assume Monsanto and every-
body else wants to say the same thing. Would you mind telling
me what is killing those fish?
DR. WURTZ: Well, I listened to the testimony yester-
day, Mr. Levin, and if you want to bear with me I would like to
interject some comments.
MR. LEVIN: All right, sir, I wish you would.
DR. WURTZ: I have not studied the bay. I have not
studied the bay since 1952, 1953. As you will recall from the
Orlando hearings, I have.had nearly 20 years experience on this
-------
407
Dr. C, B. Wurtz
estuary in biological studies.
There are a couple of items that different witnesses
presented in their testimony yesterday that 1 take with a grain
of salt. I don't question their presentation; I don't question
their facts. I question their interpretation and also I ques-
tion their predictive abilities on the strength of what they
did present.
For example, Mr. Adams in talking about his study In
Alabama—now, this is a stretch of the river that I haven't
seen in many years, and I presume Container Corporation is some
miles above the State border and that at the State border is
this community of Brewton or East Brewton or whatever it is.
But he spoke about subsequent to Container Corporation putting
in waste treatment and what he read sounded like a darned fine
waste treatment system, but among the parameters where he had
!
measured quality characteristics and showed between 1970 and
1971 when this thing went into operation the Improvement in
these quality characteristics of the water; one of them was
temperature.
Now, he used data from this data bank that EPA main-
tains, at least he said so and I presume that he did, the data
are there, and one of the quality characteristics was a reduc-
tion in temperature. He gave the range of each of these and
-------
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
1(08
showed the lowering effect of this improved waste treatment. '
If he used the STORET data, I don't know what extent of data he
used, but his study extended from November 22 to December 6,
if I recall correctly, and he was talking there about a two-
week period late in the season. I am not sure that that
temperature is real, this lowering of the temperature. He
presents it as such.
But if you will recall the work done by Tisdale', who
was at one time, perhaps still is, associated with the State of
Florida, Tisdale did very extensive temperature work operating
from the gauging station at Century, and when you go over his
data for any 10-year period you have a range in the average
annual temperature of the river that exceeds 5 degrees Fahren-
heit. Some years are just warmer than others or colder. There
is no average that is always developed for each succeeding
year. These averages fluctuate from year to year.
If Container Corporation, even with their waste
treatment—and let's say that they have 95 percent Improvement
in their waste discharge, what does the remaining 10 percent
amount to? The things that have been brought up, for example
one is BOD.
\.
Well, BOD is the sort of thing that in the normal
linear flow of the river this is solved, it is not a substance
-------
A09
Dr. C. B, Wurtz
that is present, BOD is a rate of demand of oxygen or the rate
at which oxygen is used by bacteria that are decomposing organic
matter, and this material in the flow of the river, this material
would have been long since decomposed and mineralized. So this
is not getting into the bay. Now, the minerals themselves
may be. This I don't know. I haven't measured this. I haven't
seen enough data to see this.
Let me come to a remark of Dr. Hopkins, and you were
interested in this arid I am a little unsure as to why. Dr.
Hopkins has made the suggestion that White River be canalized
on some curve before it rejoins the Escambia and brought down
into the east end of the bay. And you thought that—and this
was his intention, he suggested this, that this would create a
flushing action that would come down through the east end of
the bay and scour out, presumably scour out, depositions of
sludge that have accumulated over X number of years. I ques-
tion this. I really—I don't know that it won't happen, but I
don't know that it will any stronger, I will put it that way.
The normal functions or the normal dynamics of an
estuary and the water exchanges of an estuarine situation are
such that I would be Inclined to think this would not be
effective.
MR. WHITE: Can I ask something here, Dr. Wurtz?
-------
no
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
Now, I have a different interpretation of what Dr.
Hopkins said yesterday and I would like to"get this clarified.
And we don't know, I should say, before getting into this, of
course, what will be recommended or what might be a solution.
It is my understanding that the diversion of flow
would help circulation, not so much remove the sludge deposits.
Now, that is not the prime reason for the diversion. So—
DR. WURTZ: All right. All right. I—
MR. WHITE: And it also brings some fresh water into-
DR. WURTZ: I had the impression that it was—
MR. WHITE: —a pocket stagnated afea where waste
discharge is coming and it Just—it rocks back and forth.
DR. WURTZ: See, it is very possible that you will
not be able to keep that channel open. If you stopped and
looked at the sediments of an estuarine system, you know that
as the velocity of water decreases its ability to transport
particles reduces, so that when you get deposition in the forma-
tion of a delta the biggest particles are right at the mouth of
the river and as you get further and further away from the mouth
of the river the finer and finer material settles out but the
finest material is at the far end of the delta. And if all you
had was a river coming down into the ocean, this would be
exactly thd setup that you would get, such as the Mississippi
-------
m
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
Delta. But when you have a river that comes Into a bay, a bay
works in reverse. The heaviest particles that are transported
settle at the mouth and the finest particles come up into the
head of it.
So that you have at the head of every estuary what is
referred to as a nutrient trap, literally this is what it is,
and this, I think, is your bay problem. Whatever is coming in
from any source is in point of fact accumulating there.
Now, you are talking about controlling menhaden. In
point of fact, this is nature's control, those menhaden kills,
literally.
MR. LEVIN: Excuse me. Do I understand what you are
saying is that the fact those fish are dying out there is really
beneficial?
DR. WURTZ: I think so indeed, yes. This is your
problem, trying to get rid of this accumulative material.
MR. LEVIN: You mean getting rid of those menhaden?
DR. WURTZ: This is—now it is concentrated into
menhaden meat Instead of phytoplankton protoplasm.
MR. LEVIN: And that we really ought to be thankful
I
for the fact that those menhaden are dying every year instead of|
being concerned about it?
DR. WURTZ: No, you are carrying this a little further
-------
Dr, C. B. Wurtz
412
than I would care to project It. Under the present setup I
think this loss of menhaden Is not that critical, I truthfully
don't believe that It is. I think that this is nature's self-
correcting action.
MR. LEVIN: How come nature isn't doing it in any
other bay besides Escambia?
DR. WURTZ: Because I do think the nutrients in this
bay have accumulated more than in a bay that has not been
developed to the extent that this one has.
MR. LEVIN: When you say development are you talking
about—
DR. WURTZ: I am talking about urbanization, intro-
duction of industry, all the things that go with human culture
as we recognize it in this country.
MR. LEVIN: So that if you were sitting on this Board
or if you were Chairman of the Pollution Department o.f Florida,
what you would do is you would just say, well, that is nature's
way of doing things, let's don't concern ourselves with this
problem?
DR. WURTZ: No, if I were—no, no, that is not. No,
I would have a positive program, Mr. Levin, such as you—
MR. LEVIN: What sort of positive program would you
recommend, Doctor?
-------
-413 1
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
DR. WURTZ: I would do exactly what these companies
are now doing.
MR. LEVIN:, What?
DR. WURTZ: Now, I listened to Air Products yesterday.
I have never been on their property, I have never seen it, I
don't know the personnel, don't know them as well as you do,
don't know anything about them, but it seems to me that here
is an outfit that has a multi-million dollar capital Investment,
they are a member of this community, the company itself is com-
posed of people and these people live here, they are interested
in the environment, they have spent I don't know how much money
on waste treatment. Now, they have done this, admittedly,
under the goad of regulatory agencies. Perhaps this is neces-
sary. As a matter of fact, we know that it is in many
instances. But they are doing something.
Now, how far can they go? They sit here and they have
competent engineers, I presume they do, who design a system—I
know they have got a good biologist; you are not going to find
anything better than Jim Lackey in this area—who is giving
them guidance and they have developed a biological process for
the reduction of nitrogen loadings, and they sit here an" I
think with some justification are proud of what they have done.
They showed pictures of this, they have come a long, long way.
-------
Ul k
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
And then Mr. Traina sits there and says, "Well, I
don't think it is going to work." Maybe Mr. Traina is a smarter
engineer than all their group put together, but you know, let's
give the devils their due. They are trying.
MR. TRAINA: An appropriate use of the term, sir.
(Laughter.)
DR. WURTZ: This I wouldn't know. You know them
better than I do. (Laughter.)
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Chairman, I know I—
MR. WHITE: Mr. Traina.
MR. TRAINA: I know I said I didn't want to make any
more comments, but I think a comment is in order, several com-
ments are in order. I will try to confine mine.
First the implication—and Dr. Wurtz did say he
really didn't know about it, but the implication that an
industry some 40 or 50 miles upstream might be affecting the
temperature of the river today after making a half hour
presentation how an industry right in the bay is not affecting
the temperature or the biota to me seems rather stretching
some points.
We have had, you know, some discussions in other area?
of the State, I might add, as well as this area and I appreciate
I did ask you some specific questions with regard to your studies
-------
*13
Dr. C. 5, Wurtz
and I accept the propositions you made. However, I do feel
that unless there is some scientific data you have to present
about the other aspects of this problem, I don't know whether
or not we could—
DR. WURTZ: Mr. Traina, I was responding to a
request from Mr. Levin to—
MR. WHITE: Mr. Traina, Mr. Levin asked the question
and I think we can spend a few minutes on this, if Mr. Levin
is satisfied with the answer now.
Do you have any other questions, Mr. Levin?
DR. WURTZ: I would like the record to show that I
did not say Container Corporation was raising the temperature
of Escambia Bay or anything else,
MR. WHITE: Fine.
MR. LEVIN: But it is your view that these industries
are not really doing anything that materially affects the makeup
of that bay, that those fish would be dying probably even if
they weren't there?
DR. WURTZ: I think that this would be cumulative.
Maybe we have here—
MR. LEVIN: I don't know what that means.
DR. WURTZ: —in 10 years what under natural circum-
stances would not have occurred for 50 years.
-------
416
Dr« C. B. Wurtz
MR. LEVIN: And that It is your view, as you say,
that we really ought to be thank—that this is Mother Nature's
way of controlling the menhaden?
DR. WURTZ: Yes, but I am not saying that these
Industries should not have waste treatment, Mr. Levin, and
designed, you know, to some reasonable degree of efficiency to
reduce this burden.
MR. LEVIN: Let me ask you this. Suppose we could,
by grace of God, get everybody out of that bay. What do you
think, do you think menhaden would continue to die there?
DR. WURTZ: I think until current depositions that
occur there are removed, scoured out, which I presume would
occur, let's say, with a hurricane type of—some catastrophic
physical change.
MR. LEVIN: After that would the menhaden continue
to die?
DR. WURTZ: I shouldn't think so.
MR. LEVIN: Then why would Mother Nature all of a
sudden decide that menhaden no longer need to die in order to
control the population?
DR. WURTZ: Because you wouldn't have the population
of menhaden that you do now, you wouldn't have as many, there
would not be the available food to support that population.
-------
U17
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
MR. LEVIN: I see.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett?
MR. CROCKETT: Dr. Wurtz, referring to the report
presented by Mr. Adams, I believe you used dates in November
and December. The study was actually made in June. I don't
think the comparison of temperatures, temperature of waste dis-
charged by Container during the June 1971 study and the August
1970 study, were introduced to show any great benefit. There
is substantial data available in our files which will show that
the temperature effect of Container's wastes is negligible if
measurable.
DR. WURTZ: I would expect this to be the case, as a
matter of fact, Mr. Crockett.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin has one more question and then
I have one brief comment I would like to make.
MR. LEVIN: Dr. Wurtz, I don't mean this to be ugly
and to be nasty, but as a trial lawyer I can't help but ask
this question.
i
Would you mind telling me how many times that you havei
testified for power industries in hearings such as this or in
court for power industries?
DR. WURTZ: I couldn't respond to that, Mr. Levin.
I truthfully don't know. You are talking about 20 years
-------
118
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
experience in the field of pollution biology. I have no way of
responding to that.
MR. LEVIN: Well, would It be way up into the hun-
dreds?
DR. WURTZ: Oh, no. No, sir. In point of fact, it
is only within the last two or three years that administrative
hearings occur with the frequency that they now do and liti-
gation is something that nobody goes to unless their back is
to the wall. I don't think—
MR. LEVIN: Well, the thing—
DR. WURTZ: I don't think that I have ever been in
court for a power industry, with one exception.
MR. LEVIN: The thing I am trying to figure out is—
You are from where? Where is your home?
DR. WURTZ: Pennsylvania.
MR. LEVIN: —why it was that Gulf Power went all the
way to Pennsylvania to hire you; I can't figure that out.
DR. WURTZ: Because I am a specialist in pollution
biology.
MR. LEVIN: You mean there are none in the South who
are specialists?
DR. WURTZ: There are. There are none, however, that
have 20 years experience, including that much experience here
-------
419
Dr. C, B. Wurtz
on the Escambia system. I don't believe that there are any
individual consultants operating as I do that will operate on
a broad geographic area. Most of them operate within their
own State or one or two neighboring States.
MR. LEVIN: Have you ever found any cases where dis-
charge of heated water does any damage to a body of water?
DR. WURTZ: Oh, yes, sure.
MR. LEVIN: You have?
DR. WURTZ: Sure.
MR. WHITE: Just one observation, Dr. Wurtz. I mean
I think we are clearly on record about the waste limits that
were established and I think that certainly the conferees feel
that they can and should be enforced' and I possibly should have
intervened before in this exchange. I think we got a good bit
off the track. But we feel that the companies or someone is
going to have to come up with the engineering technology to
achieve this and the burden is certainly on them at this point.
Any other comments?
MR. MAURIELLO: I would like to ask a question, Mr.
White.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Mauriello.
MR. MAURIELLO: Dr. Wurtz, have you ever in your
background done any work within an estuary itself, not Just in
-------
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
the river as the Gulf Power situation?
DR. WURTZ: As a matter of fact, here in the Escambia,
Mr. Mauriello, I did the oyster and shrimp survey work.
MR. MAURIELLO: I would like to get your opinion of
something. Dr.Hopkins yesterday made a comment and a sugges-
tion, you mentioned it, the White River channelization. What is
your opinion as to man changing the natural flushing character-
istics of a bay? Has this proved to be of an advantage or a
disadvantage?
DR. WURTZ: I think that there are circumstances where
it is an advantage, Mr. Mauriello. I think that what we fail
to recognize is that man is as much a part of the world as the
menhaden and that we move in the world to prevent damage by
controlling it. For example, if you look at Holland, the
whole Zuider Zee is an artificially controlled setup and it has
been in existence for centuries. The Nile Valley Itself has
been.a human artifact for 6,000 years Just through irrigation.
And I do believe that it is beneficial to control,
to design and control, for our superimposed human activities.
This is why we create artificial lakes. We put in hydro plants.
And I think the same philosophy does apply to estuaries.
I think that the head of this estuary, based on what
I have heard, not on any studies of my own, should indeed be
-------
121
Dr. C. B. Wurtz
scoured out one way or another. Now, the engineering and
cost, and so on, as to who does it, how much, and all the rest
of it, this I am not prepared to respond to.
MR. MAURIELLO: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Dr. Wurtz.
MR. LANE: I would Just like to conclude and I
believe, Mr. Chairman, that the rapport between my client and
Mr. Levin's staff is such that I can Jest a little bit. Our
position is that there are millions of little bugs Just praying
to be born into warm water being discharged from Crist steam
plant, and Mr. Levin's staff does not agree with that—or does
agree with that. Their statement yesterday was that:
The plant heat load that reaches the
bay has not been compared to natural heat loads
in the area of acute biological damage to the
bay. If it is required to remove this heat load
from the river and the bay, cooling towers at an
estimated cost of $3 million would be required.
Topography precludes cooling ponds. In view of
the indeterminate effect of thermal additions
to the bay, cooling of the present plant dis-
charges should not be required until thermal
studies of the bay In the vicinity of the river
-------
J. E. Lipe
H22
mouth have been made.
And we concur in that 100 percent.
MR. WHITE: Please proceed.
MR. MAURIELLO: Monsanto Chemical Company and Jim
Lipe would like to make a statement*
JAMES E. LIPE, MANAGER
ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY
MONSANTO TEXTILES COMPANY
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
MR. LIPE: Mr. Chairman, conferees.
I am James E. Lipe, Manager of Environment and
Ecology, for Monsanto Textiles Company, and I am a resident of
Pensacola.
I would like to request that the remarks and presenta-
tion I make this morning become a part of the record of this
conference and in order to—
MR. WHITE: May I ask simply, do you have a slide
presentation?
MR. LIPE: Yes, sir, we have a slide presentation to
assist in the presentation—
MR. WHITE: Are these slides reproduced in the report?
MR. LIPE: —but all copies of the material that we
-------
. 423
J. E. Lipe
present on the slides are attached to the report,
MR. WHITE: Pine.
MR. LIPE: The graphs and charts are the second part
of that package.
MR. WHITE: One other question. Do you plan to go
through the entire written text?
MR. LIPE: In most part, yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Well, fine, then.
We will accept your attachments, then, for the
record, your charts, and then we will Just let you go ahead
with the presentation and it will get in the record that way.
MR. LIPE: Fine. Thank you, sir.
(The aDove-mentioned charts follow:)
-------
!CH SANTO
30D5
NET DISCHARGED (PPD)
*A'iGE OF ORDERED MAXIMUM BY 12/31/71
-------
MOf.SANTU
TOTAL NITROGEN
NET DISCHARGED (PPD)
ORDERED MAXIMUM AFTER 12/31/71
t
tilt ! ! 1- - t
APR KAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV D
1971
-------
C!!A"J NO. 3 U26
wood P'~U=r-zilTl\
/iccess
it ?:odu<:.H .+ro,
-------
COD FROM MONIANTO
1970
1971
-ti-
ro
-------
MO:iSANTO COMPANY
PEHSACCLA PLANT
OVERALL RFHOVAL EFFICIENCY
TOC 99.2
TH 98.8
99.2
-------
CHART NO.'6
ANALYSIS -OF ESCAMBIA RIVER WATER
ABOVE MONSANTO
1971
(PPM)
MIN. MAX AVG.
BOD5 0.2 3.5 1.0
TOC 5.9 11.6 9.0
COD 13.0 29.0 23.0
\
P 0.01 0.04 0.03
TOTAL N 0.17 0.72 0.33
ORG & NH3-N 0.04 0.65 0.20
NO3-N 0.02 0.25 0.13
-------
CHART NO. 7 ^30
ESCAMBIA RIVER DATA
ABOVE MONSANTO
JANUARY-OCTOBER, 1971
BOD5
TOC
COD
ORG & NH3-N
NO3-N
TOTAL N
P
44,000 PPD
360,000
00,000
7,500
4,600
12,200
-------
CHART NO. 8 !J31
THEORETICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
OF ESCAMBIA RIVER WATER
ABOVE MONSANTO
1971
OXYGEN REQUIRED BY TOC 960,000 PPD
OXYGEN REQUIRED BY NITROGEN 34,000
TOTAL TOD 994,000
-------
CHART NO. 9 432
ESCAMBIA RIVER DATA
ABOVE MONSANTO
44,000 PPD
900,000
994,000
B0D5
COD
TOD
B0D5 MEASURES [.ESS THAU 5% OF
RIVER WATER OXYGEN DEMAND
-------
CHART NO.10 *33
ADVANTAGES OF TOC
1. RAPID FEEDBACK - ELIMINATES 5 DAY DELAY
2. CONTINUOUS MONITORING POSSIBLE
3. MORE DEFINITIVE AND MEANINGFUL
-------
CHART NO.11 ^
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOTAL DISSOLVE SOLIDS
VOLATILE DISSOLVED SOLIDS
FIXED DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
ESCAMBIA RIVER WATER
ABOVE MONSANTO
1971
(PPM)
MIN. MAX
69 151
61 124
27 53
25 87
6 27
AVG
102
90
42
48
12
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
FIXED SUSPENDED SOLIDS
24
-------
CHART NO.12 I35
1
SOLIDS CONTENT OF
ESCAMBIA RIVER WATER
ABOVE MONSANTO
1971
TOTAL SOLIDS 2,085,000 PPD
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 1,833,000
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 252,000
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS ¦ 811,000
TOTAL FIXED SOLIDS 1,274,000
-------
CHART NO. 13 436
ESCAMBIA RIVER
ABOVE MONSANTO
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
1971
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
FIXED SUSPENDED SOLIDS
252,000 PPD
70,000
182,000
-------
CHART NO. 14
B0D5
TOC
COD
ORG & NH3-N
N03-W
TOTAL N
P
TOTAL SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
LOAD IN ESCAM3IA RIVER
(PPD)
WITH
MONSANTO
46,400
362,250
906,000
7,850
4,850
12,700
915
2,120,000
253,000
WITHOUT
MONSANTO
44,000
360,250
900,000
7,530
4,635
12,165
875
2,085,000
252,000
-------
CHART NO.15 ^38
26.75
WHITE RIVER
26.77
26.80
ESCAMBIA RIVER
27.02
28.85
MONSANTO
27.20'
27.81
-------
CHART NO.16 tl3c
MONSANTO
CURRENT PROJECTS
DESIGN OF SYSTEM TO REDUCE
TOC LEVELS 30 TO 50?
FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR 60 TO 70%
REDUCTION IN TEMPERATURE OF DISCHARGE
-------
cz
<
1
1965
ESCAMBIA RIVER FLOW
1968
1969
197(1
1971
-------
ESCAMBIA RIVER
COD CONCENTRATION
ABOVt MUNbANTO
1966 1967 1968 1969
o
sc
2:
o
CD
1970
1971
-------
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
1.8
16
14
12
COD CONCENTRATION
IN
ESCAMBIA RIVER WATER
ABOVE MONSANTO
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
-------
ESCAMBIA RIVER
COD LOAD
ABOVE MONSANTO
-------
CHART NO. 21 MH
TRENDS IN COD
(PPD)
RIVER MONSANTO
1969 LEVEL 466,000 10,400
CHANGE 1969-1970 +159,000 -3,000
CHANGE 1970-1971 +275,000 -1,600
1971 LEVEL 900,000 5,800
-------
CHART NO.22
MONSANTO'S CONTRIBUTION
TO
COD LOAD IN ESCAMBIA RIVER
TOTAL LOAD
IK RIVER
^ PERCENT FROM
]£j |32J_ I^ - FROM MONSA;;TO|
1966 1967 '968 1569 1970 197.
¦hlTal ___
E3
-------
J. E. Lipe
MR. LIPE: I would first like to give a brief report
on the status of the Monsanto Pensacola Plant's pollution
abatement efforts. Second, I would like to present to the
conferees data on the Escambia River which I believe should be
of significant value in your deliberations about Escambia Bay.
And third, I would like to present a comparison of Monsanto's
and the Escambia River's discharges into Escambia Bay. This
data clearly indicates that as reported by the Florida Depart-
ment of Pollution Control in September 1971 Monsanto's contri-
bution is insignificant and highlights the need to deal with
other sources. I will then indicate our plans to even further
reduce this already insignificant amount. And finally I will
present data that indicates the level of pollution in the
Escambia River above Monsanto is showing an Increasing trend.
...Chart No. 1...
The Pensacola Plant is currently operating under
two separate consent orders issued by the Florida Department of
Pollution Control. The first of these issued in August 1970
sets a maximum discharge limit for BOD^ and total nitrogen
which were to be achieved by the end of 1971. This first graph
shows that for B0Dc we not only met the order but have operated
at a level some 50 percent below that order and that this level
was reached a full year ahead of schedule.
-------
J. E. Lipe
.. .Chart No. 2.,.
The second graph for total nitrogen again indicates
that we met the ordered requirement a full year ahead of
schedule and are presently operating at a value of about one-
third the order limit. It was reported by an official of the
then Federal Water Pollution Control Administration at the
first session of this conference in January 1970 that 500 pounds
per day of total nitrogen discharged from a source to the river
made no significant contribution to the eutrophication of
Escambia Bay. Our present discharge rate is essentially at that
level.
...Chart No. 3...
The second order issued by the Department of Pollution
Control in February 1971 asked for changes in our main outfall
structure to insure that no sediments in the outfall could be
washed or eroded into Escambia River. To comply with this order,
an entirely new outfall was constructed and placed in operation
in Kay 1971. The old outfall was sealed off from the river and
is being filled with inert material to completely cover any
sediments present.
...Chart No. ^...
The next chart indicates the COD level in our discharge
each year since 1966. I show this only to indicate the long-term
-------
Ui»8
J. E. Lipe
downward trend and that our abatement efforts and environmental
concern have not been recent developments.
...Chart No. 5 • • •
Our present removal efficiencies are shown on this
chart in that TOC, total organic carbon, we have a 99.2 percent
removal rate, total nitrogen 98.8 percent, and phosphorus 99.2
percent.
...Chart No. 6...
Since before the plant be^an operation we have moni-
tored the water quality in the Escambia River. In recent years
we have expanded the number of parameters in the river which
are monitored. This chart shows the analytical results ob-
tained during the first 10 months of last year, 1971. These
values represent some *40 samples taken a short distance above
our plant at weekly intervals and I believe are in good agree-
ment with the data obtained by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
...Chart No. 7...
Analytical results alone tell only part of the story
of the impact of the river on Escambia Bay. This table snows
the average pounds per day of the indicated material flowing
down the river above Monsanto for the first 10 months of 1971.
It is apparent that large quantities of organic carbon and total
-------
J. G, Llpe
nitrogen have reached and are reaching the bay through the '
river.
...Chart No. 8...
The theoretical oxygen demand calculated from
TOC and oxidizable nitrogen has averaged almost one million
pounds per day with some 96 percent of the TOD due to organic
carbon.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Lipe, can I interrupt at this point
to Just ask for clarification?
MR. LIPE: • Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: Is this based on average daily flows
over the whole 1971 hydrological period—
MR. LIPE: They are based on average daily flows
from average to monthly—computed and totaled as to monthly
averages for the 10 months of 1971, Mr. Traina.
MR. TRAINA: Sort of an average annual figure?
MR. LIPE: Yes, sir.
...Chart No. 9...
The next chart shows the three measures of oxygen
demand, 5-day BOD, chemical oxygen demand, and theoretical
oxygen demand. Two points here are important. First, the COD,
or chemical oxygen demand, results agree well with the theo-
retical oxygen demand calculated from organic carbon and
-------
J• Ei Llp6
oxldizable nitrogen. Second, and more important, is that the
5-day BOD measures less than 5 percent of the total oxygen
demand in river water.
Unlike sanitary waste streams often encountered and
Monsanto's effluent where 5-day BOD measures a large percentage
of the total demand, the river contains large quantities of
organic materials which are only slowly oxldizable and thus
not measured by 5-day BOD.
Previous sessions of the conference have reported
that materials in the river tend to be trapped in the upper
portion of the bay. These slowly oxldizable materials accumu-
late and contribute to long-term oxygen depletion of the bay
water. Use of the 5-day BOD analysis leads to serious under-
estimation of this total oxygen demand and consequently is not
a meaningful analytical tool for either study or control
purposes in understanding the oxygen dynamics of the bay.
We urge that the conferees adopt TOG and TKN as the
measures of oxygen demanding materials. If for technical
reasons these tools cannot be used, then we recommend that COD
replace BOD_
J •
•••Chart No• 10•••
The TOC analysis has several advantages over B0Dc
First, It Is a rapid analysls0 There Is no five-day delay. TOC
-------
451
J. E, Lipe
can be monitored continuously and in the case of Escambia River
and Bay is a much more meaningful and definitive tool.
... Chart No. 11...
We have been considering the chemical components in
the river. However, let's turn to the physical, specifically
solids. This chart shows the solids analysis for 1971 based on
samples taken above Monsanto at monthly intervals,
...Chart No. 12...
The total solids load has averaged over two million
pounds per day with over 800,000 pounds per day of volatile
solids. Perhaps in considering Escambia Bay the more Important
index is suspended solids, since most of this material might
be expected to settle out and become part of the sediment in
the bay. I call to your attention that an average of a quarter
million pounds per day of suspended material as measured above
Monsanto has entered the bay from the river in 1971.
...Chart No. 13...
A further look at the suspended solids shows that
over 25 percent of it is volatile material, indicating a high
organic content, and probably a major part of the high oxygen
demand sediments found in the bay.
...Chart No. 14...
Now I would like to show a comparison of the river
-------
45 2
J, E. Llpe
above and below Monsanto. Gentlemen, I think you have to look
quite closely to find the difference between those two columns.
In no case does Monsanto's present contribution significantly
increase the contaminant load in the river.
.«.Chart No. 13.••
This conference in the past has been concerned with
thermal loads to the river. This is a sketch, and this was
discussed at some length yesterday, of the Escambia River in
the vicinity of Monsanto. Above the plant the river splits
with the Escambia flowing past the plant and the White River
flowing on the east side of Brosnaham Island. Below Monsanto
the rivers flow together to form Escambia or the lower Escambia.
The temperature data shown here is taken from a
report by Dr. Thomas Hopkins Issued in 1969. These values are
surface temperatures and show the maximum effect of our cooling
water discharge. Our own data confirms the studies of Dr.
Hopkins and I should say also confirms the presentation made by
Mr. Linne yesterday with regard to the temperature effect of
Monsanto's discharge on the river.
...Chart No. 16...
Although all the evidence Indicates Monsanto's present
discharge is insignificant, we presently have work under way to
make further changes in two areas. We are in the design stage
-------
453
J. E, Lipe
of a project to reduce the TOC in our discharge by some 30 to
50 percent, and second, we are conducting feasibility studies
of ways to reduce the temperature of our cooling water discharge
hopefully by 60 to 70 percent.
Now let's take a look at some of the past history of
the Escambia River.
...Chart No. 17...
This chart shows the average river flow in thousand
cubic feet per second on an annual average basis for the past
six years. It is clear that 1968 was a low flow year and that
1971 was a wet year.
We have for years run COD analysis, but only for the
past 18 months have we had the capability to run TOC bo that
the data I will present here is in terms of COD.
...Chart No. 18...
This shows the average annual COD concentration of
Escambia River water above -Monsanto for the same period, 1966
•to 1971. Notice that there is a distinct upward trend of COD
concentration. One would assume that this might be true for
other parameters.
...Chart No. 19...
This chart represents monthly averages for the same
period and gives a closer look at the COD content in the river
-------
15 It
J. E. Llpe
above the plant. The average COD for the 6-year period is 21
ppm. Notice that the last three years are at a distinctly
higher level than the first three.
... Chart No. 20...
This chart shows the average annual lbs/day loading
of COD in Escambia River above Monsanto. The combined effects
of flow rate and COD concentration Eire apparent. The low in
1968 was a little under 200,000 lbs/day compared with 1971
averaging 900,000 lbs/day.
...Chart No. 21...
To indicate further the true nature of the problems w«
face at this conference, consider these trends in COD loads for
the past three years. In 1969 the river COD load was 166,000
lbs/day. In 1969 Monsanto discharged 10,100 lbs/day of COD or
less than 2.2 percent of that in the river. In 1970 the river COD
load above Monsanto Increased by 159,000 lbs/day. The upstream
Increase alone was 15 times Monsanto1s total 1969 discharge
level. While this increase in the river was taking place up-
stream, our discharge decreased 3»000 lbs/day. In 1971 the river
load increased by another 275,000 lbs/day to a total of 900,000
lbs/day. This increase alone was more them 90 times our 1970
discharge rate. In 1971 our plant discharge was reduced by 1,600
lbs/day so that in 1971 we contributed only 0.6 of 1.0 percent o"
-------
455
J, £. Llpe
the total COD in.the river.
...Chart No. 22...
Here is the data for the past six years. Each bar
represents 100 percent of the total river COD load for the
year noted and the shaded area represents the fraction contrib-
uted by Monsanto. In none of the past six years has our COD
contribution been more than a small fraction of the total.
Even in 1968 when the river load was low, Monsanto contributed
6 percent.
The data we have been reviewing is for the Escambia
River above Monsanto. The river represents only one of many
sources of pollution to Escambia Bay that have previously been
ignored. While the other sources probably are not of the same
magnitude as the Escambia River, they cannot be overlooked.
It is also our contention that Escambia Bay cannot be considered
independently of the other bays and bayous in the area. They
do, after all, make up one body of water and any change in
water quality in any part of the complex will affect the entire
complex.
When the presence of other unaccounted for sources of
pollution in the bay is considered, the fraction of .the total
effluent entering Escambia Bay which comes from Monsanto is
entirely insignificant. Gentlemen, even if the plant were
-------
456
J. E. Llpe
completely shut down, no meaningful improvement in the bay
would be seen.
The State of Florida's reasoning in attempting to
order complete removal of Industrial discharges is inconsistent
with the record of previous sessions of this conference. The
State has indicated that even though substantial reductions
in pollution by industry have been accomplished in the past two
years, fish kills have continued and no signs of enhancement of
;he bay are noticeable.
The record of the first session of this conference
indicates you cannot expect almost immediate recovery of the
bay even if all artificial sources are eliminated and so far
the State of Florida and the previous sessions of this con-
ference have dealt with only a few of the artificial sources,
not all of them. The fact has been consistently ignored that
agricultural runoff, storm drainage from populated areas as
well as State and Federal installations, and changes in drain-
age due to real estate development, urban expansion, highway
construction and storm sewer design are all artificial sources.
Many of these are controllable and failure to consider them as
such for whatever reason is an oversight and inconsistent with
the stated desire for enhancement of the bay.
The Svate Department of Pollution Control has stated
-------
457
J, E. Llpe
in the 1971 year-end report that, and I quote, Massive amounts
of carbonaceous matter and nutrients are present in Escambia
River at the Alabama-Florida line, unquote. How can removal
of trace amounts improve the bay with a large and increasing
load coming from other sources? We have presented data that
indicates a very significant load in Escambia River above
Monsanto. We are concerned that the bay cannot recover so long
as this and other overlooked and uncontrolled sources are per-
mitted to continue.
Monsanto entered into the record of the first
session of this conference two years ago information concerning
the large pollution load in Escambia River above Monsanto. The
conferees at that time took no action on this information and
placed almost total responsibility for pollution of the bay
on five selected sources which at that time were, based on the
reported data, contributing less than 7 percent of the organic
pollution in the bay.
In December of 1970 we provided additional informa-
tion on the river load to the Florida Department of Pollution
Control.
At the second session of this conference in February
1971 the Environmental Protection Agency reported TOC analysis
in the Escambia River above Monsanto but did not carry through
-------
458
J. E. Lipe
and Indicate the large organic loading of nearly one quarter of a
million lbs/day in the river that their analysis represented and
the conference again placed total responsibility on the same
five selected sources.
In July 1971 we again provided Information of the
Escambia River to the Department of Pollution Control.
And finally, in September 1971, only four months ago,
the Department publicly acknowledged that Escambia River above
Monsanto was a major source of pollution.
I am not by any means trying to indicate -that the
five selected sources were not contributors to the problem,
but the total concern of the earlier sessions of this con-
ference was clearly that these five contributed nearly 100
percent of the pollution and that control of these five sources
would solve the problems of the bay. The data presented here
I think shows this to be untrue.
Perhaps everyone concerned can look at the situation
with an open mind and throw out their misconceptions. Some of
the other sources must be acknowledged and corrective action
taken if we are going to solve the problems of Escambia Bay.
Gentlemen, it is and has been Monsanto1s policy to
take whatever action is necessary to protect the river and the
bay from any adverse effect due to our discharge. Our record
-------
^59
J. E. Lipe
on this is consistent and clear. We have outlined plans to
further reduce our discharge, but we know that even complete
shutdown of our plant would not improve the situation in
Escambia Bay. We further believe that the problems of the bay
will never be solved unless all concern themselves with all the
sources of pollution rather than continuing to concentrate on
politically popular targets such as Monsanto.
In conclusion we urge this conference to:
1) Adopt TOC as the most meaningful measure of
organic pollution;
2) Recognize that there are sources of pollution to
Escambia Bay which have not received attention;
3) Adopt recommendations that will have a meaningful
effect in solving the Escambia Bay problems;
4) Base its recommendations on technical and scien-
tific fact regardless of the political implications.
Monsanto has publicly expressed its concern for the
Escambia River and Bay. We have heavily committed our tech-
nological and monetary resources to convert that concern into
meaningful action. We are prepared to assist in further defi-
nition of the existing problems and to help in determining
feasible solutions. To this end we would endorse Air Products
proposal of yesterday for a Joint technical council for problem
-------
H60
J. E. Lipe
definition.
Thank you, gentlemen,
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Lipe.
Let me make one point clear. There are no political
decisions that have been made by this conference or anyone else
that I am aware of associated with the conference in any way.
I think you have added a good bit for comment that I
am sure some of the other conferees will get to. I would like to
make a statement on your statement concerning TOC, You brought
a smile to Mr. Traina's face. This was recommended in the
original conference as a load limit. At the second session
of the conference it was decided that the technology was not
here for us to base treatment requirements on TOC. However,
the conferees did recommend that all discharges monitor TOC and
that we build up this file so that we could make decisions
based on TOC.
I would like to ask, and maybe you went into it, but
where you stand with respect to meeting the conference recom-
mendations which I feel were supported by the facts and a
technical report that was presented to the conference and these
that I refer to are the BOD loading of 605 pounds, the total
nitrogen of 248, and the total phosphorus of ^6 pounds.
Can you give us a progress report on that, where you
-------
461
J. E. Lipe
stand and if you will achieve it?
MR. LIPE: Monsanto's discharge level Is represented
by the percentage reduction figures that I gave in the report,
Mr. White. The 99.2 percent TOC is equivalent to 2,000 pounds
per day discharge level. The BOD figures, I believe it was
indicated on the chart, represented about 2,200 pounds per day.
MR. WHITE: You have lost me. Would you run through
that again, now?
MR. LIPE: I say the BOD, B0D5__
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. LIPE: —in the effluent of the Monsanto plant as
indicated on our progress chart, the second chart that I pre-
sented, equates to around 22,000 or 2,200 pounds a day.
MR. WHITE: Twenty-two hundred.
MR. VICK: Twenty-two hundred.
MR. LIPE: I am sorry, yes. Wrong numbers. And
total nitrogen, as presented by the second chart, we are now
at a level of approximately 500 pounds per day,
MR. WHITE: Possibly you misunderstood me, then. Is
the company planning to meet these effluent limits that were
established?
MR. LIPE: Mr. White, we do not know any way to achieve)
605 pounds a day of BQD loading in our discharge.
-------
J. E. Llpe
The total nitrogen, here again I say we are currently
at 500 pounds a day. We feel that there is a good possibility
of reducing this number probably by another 10 to 15 percent.
Beyond that and continue operation of the plant, technological-
ly we don't know how to remove the remaining quantities.
Phosphorus we are at approximately 40 pounds per day.
MR. WHITE: I Just want to clarify one other point.
On Chart 5 you talk about your percent overall
removal efficiency. Now, you are counting in that your total
discharge that partly goes in the deep well, is this correct,
or am I wrong on that?
MR. LIPE: That number is based on those parameters
generated within the plant as compared to that amount that gets
into our effluent, which, yes, it does include that that is
disposed of through subsurface well disposal, Mr. White, in the
removal efficiency calculation, yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Of course there was another thing in the
report made yesterday about the BOD loads in the river and we
couldn't get any statement from Mr. Little as to what this
translated to. But the BOD concentration below Monsanto was
double in the river during this recent sampling period over
that station above the plant.
MR. LIPE: Mr. White, I am glad you brought up that
-------
463
J. E. Lipe
point because I believe I am right in that these samples taken
below plant were taken at Highway 90 Bridge, which is essential-
ly brackish water area most of the time. Two of these samples
that indicated the highest BOD content also indicated very high
chloride content, which would suggest that that was bay water,
not river water. The third sample that indicated a low chloride
content also had a low BOD value, which I think would be more
indicative of the river water quality and indicative of that
material that is below Monsanto,
Our data taken at a point, oh, some two miles above
Highway 90 Bridge, which we monitor on a continuing basis,
indicates a BOD level of 0.1 to 0.2 abov^ background.
MR. WHITE: Any comments or questions?
Mr. Crocketti
MR. CROCKETT: I have really the same question that
Mr. White just asked you about whether your percentage removal
of TOC included the discharge into the ground. Now, can you
tell us Just what percentage of TOC removal you are attaining
by treating your discharge to the river?
MR. LIPE: Mr. Crockett, all treatment and removal
takes place prior to our discharged effluent. We do not treat
our effluent stream as such because roughly 95 percent of that
water is cooling water, river water passed through the plant
-------
464
J. E. Lipe
for once-through cooling and is returned to the river, so that
stream is not treated as such, it is treated prior to anything
getting into that outfall stream.
MR. CROCKETT: But the 99.2 percent represents a
percentage figure determined by taking, I presume, the concen-
tration of pounds of TOC in your waste prior to treatment and
the same concentration or number of pounds in what goes into
the river, right?
MR. LIPE: Yes, sir.
MR. CROCKETT: Well, can you tell us, then, how much—
what I am trying to get at is how much efficiency through your—
what is the efficiency of your treatment system exclusive, your
surface treatment system, in removing TOC?
MR. LIPE: I don't quite—
MR. CROCKETT': You don't quite follow me?
MR. LIPE: Yes, sir, what you are—
MR. CROCKETT: Let me see if I can say it in a—
Let's assume that you take the pounds of TOC prior
to treatment and then the pounds of TOC that are discharged on
the ground and the pounds of TOC that are discharged to the
river, then you could come up with a percentage of what your
surface treatment is doing, couldn't you?
MR. LIPE: Mr. Crockett, we do not have a conventional
-------
165
J. E. Llpe
treatment system in our plant. We have a physical chemical
treatment and we treat each waste stream independently prior
to collection and transport to our subsurface waste disposal
system. The numbers that you have there are the average pounds
per day of TOC or BOD or other parameter that is generated
within our waste streams on the plant—
MR. CROCKETT: Well, Mr. Lipe, you have--
MR. LIPE: And taking those values that find them-
selves in our effluent and the removal efficiency 'of those is
the difference.
MR. CROCKETT: You have recommended that TOC be used
as the parameter to determine waste loads, 1 don't know whether
those are your words or not, and what I am trying to get at, if
you are going to make that recommendation maybe you ought .to
have or would have some information on Just what you are able
to do in removal of TOC. I don't find any—you have got a lot
of other things listed in here in terms of pounds of what you
are discharging to the river, and I may have overlooked it, but
I didn't find TOC and how many pounds you are discharging today.
MR. LIPE: I hope I didn't mislead you in recommend-
ing TOC to be your measure of treatability, but it would be a
control measure, our recommendation was use TOC for control
because we felt--
-------
168
J. E. Lipe
here, TOC, BOD, and others. In your river stations, how often
do you sample?
MR. LIPE: We sample the river at least weekly and
sometimes—
MR. CROCKETT: At least weekly?
MR. LIPE: Yes. And some parameters we sample it
daily.
MR. CROCKETT: Did you compute on the basis of
flows—I presume it would have to be the USGS flows reported
at—
MR. LIPE: Century.
MR. CROCKETT: —Century?
MR. LIPE: Yes, sir.
MR. CROCKETT: You computed the pounds that those
concentrations represented on the basis of that flow—
MR. LIPE: Yes, sir.
MR. CROCKETT: —for the particular day you sampled?
MR. LIPE: Yes, sir.
MR. CROCKETT: And you computed your average on
that basis, am I correct in that? Or if not, how did' you com-
pute it?
MR. LIPE: The average daily flow summa—I mean
average for the month on a monthly basis, yes, sir, to .give
-------
*»69
J. E. Lipe
you the average river flow based on our sample results.
MR. CROCKETT: Rather than taking for each day you
sampled and the flow for that day and calculating it that way
and determining the average in that manner, you took the monthly
average?
MR. LiPE: A weighted monthly average, yes, sir.
MR. CROCKETT: I have no further questions.
MR. WHITE: I believe Mr-. Levin has a few questions.
MR. LEVIN: First of all, let me say to the other
members of the Federal-State conference that I am sure Mr.
Lipe's remarks concerning politics didn't have anything to do
with you all. For the life of me I can't quite figure out why
it would be politically smart to jump on these five sources.
I can't figure that out yet, Mr. Lipe. It would seem like to
me it would be a whole lot smarter for me to sit back and not
do anything and blame it on something up in North Carolina if
I possibly could, but that is neither here nor there. I expect
if I can't stand the heat I ought to stay out of the kitchen.
If you all want to say this is politically Inspired, that is
perfectly all right with me.
I tell you why we look at—why I look at these five
sources. I can't tell you why they do. Any time that we hear
that there are other rivers similarly situated to Escambia
-------
mo
J. E. Lipe
River that are comparable to Escambia River and the results,
the disastrous results which have taken place on Escambia Bay,
which have obviously occurred—and I don't care what this man
from Pennsylvania said, nobody in the world is going to make
me believe that Mother Nature picked on Escambia Bay to control
the menhaden population. I Just can't go that route. I mean
I don't think anybody eight years old would believe that.
Anyhow, if the flows down these other rivers have
not contributed any disastrous problems in these other estuaries
and all of a sudden we have one here in Escambia Bay, then what
else can you look at except those extra additions that are
added to that which are ordinarily found in these other rivers,
you see. And quite frankly, I would like to express my thanks
for your offering to participate in a study of this bay and
this river and what the problems are. We have got studies
coming out of every nook and cranny that I know of, but still
maybe another one would help, I don't know. And I certainly
think that that would be good.
I was wondering, could you tell me about how much
money you all are talking about in dollars and cents that you
all would be willing to contribute toward this study?
MR. LIPE: No, sir, in terms of dollars and cents I
am not in a position to give you a commitment this morning,
-------
471
J. E. Lipe
tut in terms of effort and expertise and our staff, I can—
we are—
MR. WHITE: Would you speak into the microphone,
please?
MR. LIPE: Oh, I am sorry.
Yes, we are, and I tried to indicate here this
morning, Mr. Levin, we are interested in this thing and my
purpose in being here is to bring to this conference informa-
tion that I think is pertinent to the real solutions of the
bay and that is the purpose, no other reason, for presenting
the information.
We have, I think, a highly qualified staff of people
in Monsanto and we have experts, we have, certainly, very
sophisticated capability within the plant here from an analyti-
cal standpoint, and we offer these services, make these avail-
able to you and to the agency to help define these problems
and to find a cure to the Escambia River and Bay problem.
MR. LEVIN: Is it engineeringly possible for you all
to get rid of your discharge through your deep well instead of
into the river? And still maintain your production, I am
talking about.
MR. LIPE: There are some very significant problems
associated with that, Mr. Levin, and at this point in time,I am
-------
^72
J. E. Lipe
not a geologist, and I could not and certainly would not speak
from that standpoint. I think we would have to have geological
experts to help us determine if that were feasible.
MR. LEVIN: Would you do this for me?
MR. LIPE: My thoughts are that there would be—I
know that there would be some very major problems associated
with this and to commit that type of—to that loading I think
would be questionable. Here again I think we need to call in
the experts on that, and I am not a geological expert in any—
MR. LET/IN: Mr. Lipe, you all haven't hired one of
these northern experts, but what do you think is the problem
with the 8 foot of sludge that we have got out there on the bay
and these fish kills, and so forth? What is your view?
MR. LIPE: I think I have expressed our position in
this, Mr. Levin, here this morning, that we think that, sure,
there are five sources that have been identified as five sources
that the conference has given its attention to for the last
three years, but I think there are other major contributing
sources, maybe not point sources, see, that are making a major
contribution to the eutrophication of this bay, and that until
we can define the total input and how it can be controlled, and
it may not be easy, it may be of course extremely difficult,
but technically I think there are—there is—there can be
-------
*13
J. E. Upe
applied the technology to find the ways and means of control-
ling eutrophication in this bay.
MR. LEVIN: I don't know whether I got the answer to
my question or not.
MR. MAURIELLO: Can I—
MR. WHITE: Mr. Mauriello.
MR. MAURIELLO: Let me follow that trend here a
minute, Jim.
I think what you are saying, if I understand you, is
that you agree that eutrophication in the bay is the problem.
MR. LIPE: Yes, I think that there has been sufficient
testimony to that.
MR. MAURIELLO: We all, I think, feel that eutrophica-
tion stems from four basic factors, one being the introduction
of phosphorus, another being nitrogen, and the other being
carbon, which go to make up, combined with sunlight and several
other physical factors, the eutrophication that we have.
Of the three main contributors, namely phosphorus,
carbon and nitrogen, how much of—let me see if I can get my
question worded properly. These are controllable factors, are
they not? Sunlight you cannot control.
MR. LIPE: Right.
MR. MAURIELLO: Is It true, then, in your mind that
-------
J.. E. Lipe
the three controllable factors, carbon, phosphorus and nitrogen,
should be controlled?
MR. LIPE: Yes, sir.
MR. MAURIELLO: 0. K. The trend, then, I think that
the conferees have is let's take the three controllable factors
that you can physically pinpoint and get rid of these as much
as possible. Now, you say that there are other uncontrollable
factors. What is your thinking in regards to these? How are
we going to control these?
MR. LIPE: Mr. Mauriello, I would like to repeat, now,
the comment that I made earlier about the five Identified
sources or the five key sources based on the 1970 conference
report and if, I am quite confident, the data that I presented
this morning on chemical oxygen demand is valid, that these
five sources only contributed 7 percent of that total. And my
point is that we have got to find and identify and find some
way of controlling the other 93 percent because 7 percent is
not—7 percent is important, but 7 percent is not the control-
ling—is not the way to control the carbon and nitrogen and
phosphorus into the bay through the 7 percent effort. We have
got to find those other percentages of that 93 percent that are
making—finding their way into this bay and find some way of
controlling those too.
-------
175
J. E. LIpe
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Lipe, the thing that bothers me is
why is it, if you just take a look at Choctawhatchee Bay--and
maybe I am comparing apples with oranges, I don't know—but
why if the same stuff is coming down that river feeding into
Choctawhatchee Bay have they not met with the same environmental
disaster that we have met with here in Pensacola if it is not
the addition of what the industries put Into that bay that is
contributing to it? I don't understand it.
MR. LIPE: I can't answer your question because I
have no data on a comparative basis.
MR. LEVIN: They told us yesterday that the studies
showed that the same thing is coming down every river. Why is
it that they haven't had that problem over in Choctawhatchee
Bay that we have got here in Escambia Bay?
MR. LIPE: I wish I had a glass--
MR. LEVIN: Why don't we have the same problem in
East Bay that we have got in Escam6ia Bay? If somebody could
clear that up for me, then maybe I would agree that Mother
Nature has picked out Escambia Bay to help them.
MR. LIPE: I can't answer that question.
MR. LEVIN: Well, neither can I. (Applause.)
MR. MAURIELLO: I want to ask another question.
MR. WHITE: Fine.
-------
J, E. Lipe
Go ahead.
MR. MAURIELLO: Jim, is it your opinion that if all
of the five sources were completely eliminated today, and let's
say within a year, that we wouldn't have any problems in
Escambia Bay or would we still have the problem because of
these unknowns that you are—not unknowns but unidentified
sources that we are talking about? Is this what you are— I
am not sure that I understand what you are saying.
MR. LIPE: No, I did not say that if these five
sources were eliminated that we would not—or we would continue
to have the problem. My reference—
MR. MAURIELLO: Do you think that we would have?
MR. LIPE: My reference is only to the most knowl-
edgeable area that I have and that is Monsanto, that If Monsanto
was eliminated that I did not feel or did not believe that the
problem would be corrected.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Let me say one more thing and then I am
going to hush.
Jim, God knows that the State of Florida wants to
cooperate with you. I mean I have made it Just as clear as I
i'
can possibly make it as late as last Friday. You all contribute
8,000 payrolls. It is not politically feasible or smart for
-------
H77
J. E. Lipe
me to be sitting here trying to push and push and push. Like
I said, that is just not smart at all.
But I took an oath that I have got to—otherwise I
might as well quit. And as I see it, based on the questions
that I have in my mind, we have got to keep working and~
cooperating to try to get this thing solved just as soon as we
possibly can. And let me tell you that politics don't have a
thing in the world to do with it.
MR. LIPE: Mr. Levin, I agree wholeheartedly. We
represent about 25,000 people in this community and our concern
is Just as real as yours.
But my point is, and again I go back to It, that
based on reported data, even in 1970, which was probably our
worst year, from a total discharge standpoint of the 7—of the
5 identified sources, point sources, in 1971,that we are talking
about less than 7 percent of the total chemical oxygen demand
load in the bay. Now, we need to do whatever is necessary to
define the sources of these and try to bring about control. I
think when we do we will see a restoration of the bay. And
that is the point of concern and that is my only reason for
bringing this information to the conference.
MR. WHITE: Let me assure you that the Environmental
Protection Agency is well aware of the problems associated with
-------
i»78
J. E. Lipe
runoff and is maybe belatedly getting Into the game, but efforts
are going in this direction. Now, if you have got any solutions
for us, we would be happy to hear those, because—
MR. LIPE: Mr. White, I realize they are much more
difficult than controlling a point source.
MR. WHITE: --this is an extremely complex problem
1
when you are talking about a *1,000—how big is the basin, I
don't know, ^,000 square miles? It is ju&t a problem that you
can't come to grips with.
But Mr. Levin also made the point that I think con-
cerns the conferees, why isn't this happening in other bays,
and this is the thing that concerns us. And I don't think
that anything has been presented that answers that question
adequately, at least so far.
Mr. Tt-aina.
MR. LIPE: I would hope that the expertise in the
Environmental Protection Agency can define these differences.
MR. WHITE: Well, I hope so too.
Mr. Traina.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Lipe, let's get down to some
technical matters.
First let me say that I think the information you
have provided is very good. I would personally like to
-------
J. E. Lipe
compliment the company on the river data and I would like the
record to show that, for what it is worth.
% •
However, I think that perhaps—again let me ask some
questions. You talk about COD. Now, I notice in the charts,
of course your COD has been going up almost directly proportion-
al to the flow since 1968.
MR. LIPE: No, sir.
MR. TRAIMA: Pardon?
MR. LIPE: No, sir,
MR. TRAINA: That is not the case?
MR. LIPE: Not directly proportional.
MR. TRAINA: But the flow has been increasing from
1968, the average annual flow in the COD has been increasing,
so I think that perhaps it is not all due to some discharges
upstream.
The other clarification I think that needs to be
made, that, of course, with COD you are measuring the total
oxygen demand, as we all know, with the test, and as I think
the point was made yesterday by Mr. Little, there is a differ-
ence in terms of eutrophication between a leaf and some
fertilizer. They might both have the same COD, but their
effect on eutrophication is quite significantly different.
All right, with those general comments out of the way
-------
tt30
J. E. Lipe
let me ask you some specific ones and that regards your dis-
charge.
Now, as I understand it, presently your BOD is down
to 2,200 pounds per day with a TOC of about 2,000 pounds per
day. This conference has required that these figures be
reduced in terms of BOD to 600 pounds per day. Now you are
telling us that you think this is not achievable?
MR. LIPE: Yes, sir.
¦ MR. TRAINA: All right, let me ask you this, sir.
We heard yesterday from Mr. deCastro regarding the orders of
the State of Florida requiring 90 percent treatment.of your
deep well effluent. What would you anticipate when you install
your 90 percent treatment of your deep well effluent will be
the reduction in BOD?
MR. LIPE: We have not finalized our position in
regard to that. Treatment of deep well wastes is part of the
question that Mr. Levin answered earlier and there are some
major problems related to that area that we have to get into
and have to discuss and have to make the Department of Pollution
Control aware of.
MR. TRAIHA: But you are under orders for 90 percent
treatment and I assume that 90 percent relates to BOD. Is that
true, Gil?
-------
J. E. Lipe
MR. MAURIELLO: Right.
MR. TRAINA: And'you haven't made any estimates what
that will result in a BOD reduction, is that it?
MR. LIPE: Mr. Traina, that BOD reduction has nothing
to do with the river at all or the bay. That is an entirely
separate question, is not related to the water quality of the
bay or the river.
MR. TRAINA: I see. Well, did I understand you to
say, though, that this 2*200 pounds is your total?
MR. LIPE: That is the total discharge to the river.
MR. TRAINA: I see. In addition to that there is
additional BOD being discharged into the ground?
MR. LIPE: Yes, through subsurface disposal.
MR. TRAINA: I see. And you have no estimate of what
that figure is?
MR. LIPE: The BOD levels?
MR. TRAINA: Yes.
MR. LIPE: Or the measurable parameters of the
waste being—
MR. TRAINA: Pounds of BOD you are putting into the
ground now.
MR. LIPE: Certainly, we know exactly what it is.
MR. TRAINA: Would you care to tell us?
-------
482
J. E. Lipe
MR. LIPE: I don't think it is pertinent to the prob-
lems of the bay, but for your information it is 250,000 pounds
a day.
MR. TRAINA: I see. 0. K.
Now, the other question comes, couldn't you reduce your
BOD, this 2,200 pounds per day, have you considered reducing
that by putting some of this waste stream into the ground?
MR. LIPE: Mr. Traina, we have spent a great deal of
time and effort and energies trying to find ways and means of
reducing the BOD level to the point where we are. It is not
an oversight or not neglect that it is that level. It is
through a great deal of effort we have been able to reduce it
to that level.
MR. TRAINA: I realize that, sir, but we have got a
figure here and we are trying--v;e went through this yesterday
with the other company. We are trying to establish how we are
going to meet these. Now, I can appreciate the technical and
other problems that people like yourselves face, but we have
got to all get Into this thing to reduce these levels.
MR. LIPE: We only know one way for sure to reach
the 605 pounds a day and that is to cease operation, and that
is Just about that—as far as—it has reached that point. We
know of no other way to reduce our loads beyond what I projected!
-------
483.
J. E. Lipe'
this morning. Now—
MR. TRAINA: Based on the figures, based on the BOD
generated and TOC generated figures that we had available to
us two years ago, to bring it down to this level I think only
represented a 90 percent reduction.
MR. LIPE: No, sir, that represented a 9^ percent
reduction—
MR. TRAINA: Excuse me, sir, you are absolutely right,
MR. LIPE: —from that point at which the conference
convened. It did not take into consideration any—the BOD
generated by the facility as is normally considered when you
calculate treatment efficiency. It did not take into considera-
tion any BOD or any credit for treatment prior to December or
January of 1970 at which point the 10,000 pounds was the target
and it was 9^ percent of that, not of the plant generated load.
So that makes it 99.8 percent removal if you consider the 91*
percent—
MR. TRAINA: So it would seem to me that it would
r
try to focus attention on in-plant controls. What has the
company done in this regard?
MR. LIPE: This is the—through in-plant controls,
improvement in physical chemical treatment and separations and
handling of the waste streams in the plant is the means by
-------
H8H
J. E. Lipe
which we have achieved the reductions that we have reported.
MR. TRAINA: And you don't feel that there is any-
thing you can do further in terms of in-plant controls or
treatment modifications to reduce it any more?
MR. LIPE: Not any major or significant reductions,
Mr. Traina. Certainly we have indicated we feel that we. can
achieve another 20 to 30 percent reduction and have work under
way or have design under way to achieve that as rapidly as
possible, but beyond that point we don't know of any other way.
Mr. Traina, going back to the raw waste load, 250,000
pounds a day, 2,000 pounds a day is what, less than one percent
that we are talking about, in excess of 99 percent removal at
the current time presently.
MR. TRAINA: But there is no way of getting that
2,000—I mean that is the part that is entering the bay, you
see, that is the real problem.
MR.LIPE: I wish we could and I assure you that if
we can find a way we will reduce it to whatever extent possible,
but at this point in time it would be untrue for me to stand up
here and tell you that we could get another 1,500 pounds—
MR. TRAINA: Do you feel the same is true of the TOC,
that this 2,000 or approximately 2,000 pounds is your irreducable
minimum on TOC?
-------
185
J. E. Lipe
MR. LIPE: We are approaching it.
MR. TRAINA: Well, I regret that we have come to an
impasse on this thing. I would hope that—
MR. LIPE: We are not coming to an impasse only from
the standpoint"of capability.
MR. TRAINA: Thank you, sir.
MR. WHITE: Just a couple of quick questions and then
Mr. Mauriello has one and maybe we will move along.
Your flow at the plant, and I am looking at some
figures that I believe were reported on your permit application,
you discharge ^3 million gallons per day, is this correct?
MR. LIPE: The outfall, yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: And bring me up to date on this. You have
no treatment of this? I mean on the outfall alone. Now, I am
Just trying to clear it up in my own mind.
MR. LIPE: This problem comes up at every session of
the conference.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. LIPE: Our outfall is approximately 95 percent
river water. We use river water for once-through cooling for
part of our process.
First let me back up. Approximately 85 to 87 percent
of our cooling is through the use of cooling towers and
-------
186
J. E. Llpe
recirculated water system. Because of the nature of the
process used, cooling water temperatures are too high for the
process control capabilities, so on those bases we use river
water, and the 95 to 97 percent of our outfall flow is once-
through river water that has not been in contact with any
processes in the plant. So that makes up the biggest volume
of our outfall.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. LIPE: So the other three to five percent are
miscellaneous steam condensate and water streams that are a
part of the process. Now, does that help you—
MR. WHITE: Could that not be separated?
MR. LIPE: Not in its entirety, Mr. White.
MR. WHITE: 0. K.
Mr. Mauriello.
MR. TRAINA: May I make just a suggestion or a coir-
ment here?
MR. WHITE: Sure.
MR. TRAINA: We have got into these really technical
problems in other places and it may be appropriate here and I
would Just like to throw it out and maybe discuss it later,
perhaps to have an in-plant review with State officials, our
technical people from our Cincinnati operation, to go through
-------
J. E. Lipe
this plant to see where we can, you know, tighten up this
thing. You know, I can appreciate the efforts that you have
put into it, but I hope you can appreciate the fact that we
need to, you know, reduce these levels. Maybe we can just,
without making commitment here, but maybe Mr, Lipe can consider
this, maybe we need to get some, you know, real highly trained
technical people from our facility, from the State, from your
company to go throughPyour plant, you know, piece by piece,
equipment by equipment, treatment device by treatment device,
and see what we can-come up with.
MR. WHITE: Would the company be receptive to having
it?
MR. LIPE: We would certainly be happy to discuss it
with you.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Mauriello, I believe you had a ques-
tion.
MR. j^AURIELLO: You asked part of the question.
The 2,200 pounds, Jim, that is being discharged is
made up primarily of river water, once-through system?
MR. LIPE: No, sir. The 2,200 pounds is not river
water. It is the plant's contribution to the river, the net
plant contribution to the river,,
rlH. MAURIELLO: What I am asking is this, that the
-------
488
J. E. Llpe
pounds are computed upon the BOD concentration and the volume
of water and that volume of water Is roughly 90 percent river
4
water that you take at an intake, I mean it comes in your
intake and then goes out once-through system, and this is not
treated, then, it is just—is there any treatment? There is
no treatment on this flow that is going back into the river?
MR. LIPE: No.
MR. MAURIELLO: It is strictly made up of that once-
through system?
KR. LIPE: Plus the—
MR. MAURIELLO: Steam and all the condensates.
MR. LIPE: It might be appropriate—Joe, do you have
the transparency on the plant topography?
MR. VICK: Yes.
MR. LIPE: This is a sketch from the USGS scale of
the plant site in relation to its location on the river and
also as Indicated by the broken line is the plant property
boundaries, and the dotted line that tends to make sort of a
horseshoe around the plant and that goes outside the plant
property and back represents a natural drainage basin through
which normal stormwater and rainwater and other sources of
groundwater find its way through the natural drainage contours,
down through the plant property, and into our outfall.
-------
J. E. Lipe
Now, in addition to the process waste stream, our
outfall contains our domestic sewage treatment effluent. And
this entire drainage area, some 1,100 acres, is a part and
finds its way into our outfall and'becomes a part of our out-
fall flow. It makes some contribution from time to time,
certainly, but it is also the most reasonable way of handling
the drainage across our plant into the river.
That might clarify it.
MR. WHITE: Are there any other comments or ques-
tions?
MR. LEVIN: The only thing I want to suggest, if we
could, I think the idea of additional study while we are working
on this and Paul's idea of getting,as many technical experts
as we can, people that have no axe to grind one way or the
other—
MR. TRAINA: Right.
MR. LEVIN: —to come down here and in the meantime
if we can, since they are willing to cooperate—I don't mean
that—to participate in the study, I assume that they would
have no objection to Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Duke, who, of course, have
spent a great deal of their life on this problem, I don't think
we ought to let that slip by. I think we ought to get that
going just as soon as we can while at the same time pursue this
-------
49D
J. E. Lipe
thing that you mentioned.
MR. TRAINA: David, if it is all right with you,
we will Just take the initiative here—
MR. LEVIN: I would appreciate that.
MR. TRAINA: —and set up a meeting date for plant
visits, spend a few days going through the plant. We can check
with your people in Tallahassee.
And Mr. Lipe, we will be back in touch with you.
MR. WHITE: We will discuss this with you soon.
MR. LIPE: 0. K.
MR. WHITE: We appreciate your offer to have us in.
Thank you.
MR. LIPE: Thank you, sir.
MR. WHITE: We stand recessed for 15 minutes,.
(RECESS)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back In session, please.
Before getting started, we are continuing to have
protracted exchanges and it looks like we are going to occupy
most of the day getting through. In fact, it would appear now
that we will run until 5 or 6 o'clock, as just a ?;uess. If
possible, I am going to ask you to tighten up on any presenta-
tion that you have. Of course if it is pertinent, we want to
hear it, and I don't want to overly restrict anyone on this.
-------
491
G. J. Kenngott
But it would help If we could move along a little more rapidly.
We will continue with the Florida presentation. Mr.
Mauriello.
MR. MAURIELLO: Just in line with that, Mr. White,
maybe to get a clarification as to who else, I still have on
the list American Cyanamid, and I think Mr. Kenngott is here.
And, let's see, the city of Pensacola, I thought I saw—right.
And Mr. Lowery, is he still here, from Bream Fishermen? How
about Mr. McGee from the Advisory Committee?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: He will be here shortly.
MR. MAURIELLO: And Commander Hunsley. And I don't
believe I have missed anybody. I don't think there is any other
indication of anybody that I have.
MRS. GUICE: I am Mrs. Guice.
MR. MAURIELLO: Mrs. Guice, who would you be repre-
senting?
MRS. GUICE: A citizen,
MR. MAURIELLO: 0. K., I am sorry, I see it now.
Mr. Kenngott, American Cyanamid.
-------
G. J. Kenngott
G. J. KENNGOTT, MANAGER
SANTA ROSA PLANT, AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY
PACE, FLORIDA
MR. KENNGOTT: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen.
I am G. J. Kenngott, Manager, Santa Rosa Plant,
American Cyanamid Company.
First I would like to report Cyanamid's accomplish-
ments with regard to orders for corrective action from the
Florida Department of Pollution Control. Specifically, this
Case IW-227-69 issued July 18, 1969, as Order 18, and amended
December 16, 1969, August 7, 1970, as Order 109, October 2,
1970, as Order 109A, October 20, 1971, as Order 331, and
December 22, 1971, as Order 358. The first four orders were
intended to obtain substantial reductions of discharges to
the bay. The last two orders require complete elimination of
contaminated wastewater discharge to the bay.
Cyanamid completed Iter^s 1 and 2 of Order 109A and
on August 4, 1S71, requested a meeting to discuss implementa-
tion of Item 3, which read in part:
Upon completion of Phase two and-
Phase three of the proposed project, this
department will issue final orders setting
-------
G. J. Kenngott
forth the allowable quantity of waste discharge
and/or the percentage of treatment required.
This meeting was not held and the subject was no
longer pertinent upon issuance of Orders 331 and 358. Cyanamid
has requested a public hearing concerning Order 358 which would
require complete elimination of contaminated wastewater dis-
charges to the bay.
Secondly, I would like to report Cyanamid's accomplish-
ments with regard to the recommendations of the sessions of
this conference held in January 1970 and February 1971. The
\
first recommendation of both sessions recommended 9^ percent
reduction of both carbonaceous and nitrogenous wastes and a
90 percent reduction of phosphorus wastes discharged to Escambia
Bay. At the 1971 session," the recommendation concerning Cyana-
mid was more specific, namely, ^25 lbs/day of 5-day BOD and
323 lbs/day of total nitrogen. Because Cyanamid*s wastes con-
tain very little phosphorus, no limit was recommended. These
allowable waste loads were to be obtained by December 31, 1972.
Regarding these recommendations, Cyanamid believes
the basis for establishing the limits for nitrogen and carbon
were Incorrect. We have discussed the reasons with the EPA in
June 1970. Neither the EPA nor the FDPC has responded to our
position.
-------
G. J. Kenngott
Laboratory and pilot plant work done for and by
Cyanamld has shown that the presently available technology
can accomplish the major portion of the reduction desired but
not the high reductions specified.
The first recommendation in 1971 also contained the
following sentence, and I quote:
If further Investigation shows these
limits are excessive...(Cyanamid)...raust develop
a plan to completely remove discharges from the
Bay. Unquote.
We are not aware of any further investigations showing
the limits recommended last year to be excessive. Nevertheless,
FDPC Order 358 states:
After December 31, 1972, no waste-
water containing pollutants or contaminants
shall be discharged into Escambia Bay from
Respondent's facilities. Unquote.
The first recommendation in 1971 also contained a
paragraph directing, and again I quote:
All waste dischargers shall monitor
effluents to ensure reductions and conduct
feasibility studies and submit a plan of abate-
ment for carbonaceous-organic-waste to the
-------
G. J, Kenngott
conferees by February 15, 1972. Unquote.
We have identified the sources of total organic
carbon in our wastes. The major contribution is expected to be
drastically reduced by a process change which has been developed
during the past two years and which we expect to implement in
1972. The next largest source has been reduced by two-thirds
as a result of in-plant recovery and the remaining third should
be removed during 1972. The remainder of the major TOC compo-
nents will be disposed of via deep well in accord with the plan
described to the FDPC on October 27, 1971.
The second recommendation of 1970 provided as an
alternative the construction of a sewer collection system to
intercept wastes. While Cyanamid is willing to cooperate in a
Joint study of this alternative, it does not believe it Is its
responsibility to initiate the study because of the relatively
remote location of our plant and because the complexity of our
waste Indicates it may be better handled by self-treatment.
The sixth recommendation of 1970 was that Cyanamid
shall immediately cease discharging acrylonltrlle. As-we
reported in 1971, we have met this objective. Continued sur-
veillance during the past year indicates no detectable acrylo-
nltrlle in our effluent to Escambia Bay.
To summarize:
-------
G. J. Kenngott
1. Cyanamid now has an Order for Corrective Action
from the PDPC for which the technology developed in compliance
with previous Orders will not be adaptable. In addition, new
technology must be developed for the changed Corrective Action.
Under these circumstances, there is no practical way that we
can meet the December 31» 1972, deadline,
2. Cyanamid, employing competent consultants and
our own corporate environmental engineers, has been unable to
demonstrate techniques capable of meeting the high levels of
reduction of nutrients recommended by the conferees.
These are hard statements. I believe they are needed
to emphasize that technology and time are not available to meet
the laudable but, in our opinion, unjustifiable high goals set
by both the conferees and the FDPC.
I would like to conclude on a positive and encouraging
note. As a result of work done to meet the PDPC Orders and the
/
recommendations of previous conferences, Cyanamid reduced
chemical oxygen demand of our discharge by about 60 percent and
the total nitrogen by about *»0 percent. In addition, Cyanamid
has developed a five-step plan which will enable us to limit
our discharges of nutrients to Escambia Bay to levels sub-
stantlally lower than at present and approaching the levels
recommended by the conferees. This plan Includes:
-------
*197
G. J. Kenngott
A) segregation and reuse, or separate
disposal, of clean wastewaters;
B) extending source control practices
to reduce pollutant loadings;
C) recovery of chemicals from selected
streams via physical-chemical treatment;
D) disposal of selected strong wastes
via subsurface methods; and
E) biological treatment of remaining
weak wastewaters.
We know these lower levels can be reached much quicker
than the goal of a highly restricted discharge or the goal of
no discharge. We suggest that the nutrient reductions recom-
mended for Escambia Bay be re-examined in light of contribu-
tions from all sources and in light of data from comparable
bodies of water. We believe such a re-examination will lead
to establishment of nutrient reduction levels which Cyanamid
can meet with our recently demonstrated technology. Prompt
agreement on these levels will permit Cyanamid to move quickly
to further assist the rehabilitation of Escambia Bay.
Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Kenngott.
Comments or questions?
-------
^98
G. J. Kenngott
Mr. Traina.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Kenngott, thanks for your fine
statement. It is very positive. Let me ask you one or two
questions.
Do I understand your statement on page 3 to indicate
that you will remove all TOC from your plant?
MR. KENNGOTT: No. No. We would remove the great
majority of it.
MR. TRAINA: That relates, then, to the next question.
Say that you can approach levels that this conference
recommended with implementing this five-step plan of yours.
Could you give us an estimate of what those levels might be?
MR. KENNGOTT: In the order of 9 0 percent reduction.
MR. TRAINA: Could you give that in terms of pounds?
MR. KENNGOTT: In the area of both nitrogen and TOC
I believe—I know with nitrogen I am correct, we could approach
500 pounds a day. In the area of TOC, I believe that same
number holds, but I am not quite as certain of that.
I do want to point out that the recommendations of
these conferees call for I believe 323 pounds of total nitrogen,
total nitrogen, and I do want to point out that the 94 percent
reduction was based on a calculation only for nitrate nitrogen,
which is only one of three nitrogen components. And as we have
-------
49 9
G. J. Kenngott
stated before, and I state again, we feel that the original
J
basis for establishing a 9^ percent reduction limit was
incorrect.
MR. TRAINA:' Yes, we have gotten together on that
point and I don't think It serves at this point in time to go
through that.
MR. KENNGOTT: Except we have never had a reply.
MR. TRAINA: I think you had a reply in terms of the
recommendations that the conference came out with last time.
But you feel that you can meet 500 pounds, approxi-
mately, for nitrogen and TOC. Would you like to comment on the
BOD part of that?
MR. KENNGOTT: We have found that BOD is not a good
measure. I think we would come, again, close to that 500 pound
limit based on BOD, but, again, we feel the analytical method
and the implications of that are not really most pertinent to
this problem. But we would be in the order of 500 pounds a day.
MR. TRAINA: Again thank you for a very fine state-
ment, Mr. Kenngott. And I also Just indicate that I am glad
you took care of that acrylonitrile problem that was reported
last year.
Thank you, sir.
MR. KENNGOTT: Thank you.
-------
G. J. Kenngott
500
MR. WHITE: ¦ Any other comments?
MR. LEVIN: I just want to ask.
You said in your report that you do not feel like you
Bhould participate in this study that has been proposed by Air
Products and Monsanto?
MR. KENNGOTT: We didn't mention that at all, sir.
Our proposal is before you. If a study is initiated we would
certainly be happy to participate. This was not a subject
which was given consideration. These statements were drawn up
individually and we really didn't address ourselves to the
study.
I would feel that your response might be that this
thing has been studied to death and if you choose and the
conferees choose to have further studies, we certainly would
participate and be happy to.
MR. TRAINA: Would you also be amenable to Mr.
Traina's suggestion that we have these experts from Environ-
mental Protection Agency, and so forth—
MR. KENNGOTT: We will do anything we can to assist
in this problem.
MR. LEVIN: Thank you.
MR. KENNGOTT: In summary, I would like to point out
that by what I feel is a relatively minor revision of the
-------
G. J. Kenngott
501
conferees' recommendations and acceptance of that by the State
that we can get to work fairly quickly in accomplishing the
objectives that were assigned to Cyanaraid.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Kenngott.
MR. MAURIELLO: I have got Just one question for
point of clarification.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Mauriello.
MR. MAURIELLO: Just a point of clarification, Mr.
Kenngott, that there are some—and I guess really for a matter
of the record you make a comment here that there Is expected
to be some drastic reductions in the process changes which
have been coming for the last two years and expected to imple-
ment in 1972. Any estimated date when this will be accomplished?
Early 1972, mid-1972, late 1972?
MR. KENNGOTT: That is a difficult question to answer,
for one reason. Our customers expect to receive fiber that
doesn't change from day to day or year to year, and what we
have had to do was make this change without changing our pro-
duct and this has taken time and field evaluation, and the
ultimate judgment in this will depend on our customers' reaction
to the product that they now see. So if they accept it in
April we can Implement it three months later or four months.
If they don't accept it until December, we are going to be
-------
502
J. Mandy
pushed back that much further.
MR. WHITE: Anything else?
Thank you, Mr. Kenngott.
MR. KENNGOTT: Thank you very much.
MR. MAURIELLQ: Mr. Mandy or—is Mr. Spriggs here
with you, Mr. Mandy?
MR. MANDY: No.
MR. MAURIELLO: Or are you going to" make the
presentation for the city?
MR. MANDY: I will be real brief. It is getting close
to lunch time.
JOE MANDY
CITY OF PENSACOLA
FLORIDA
MR. MANDY: My name is Joe Mandy and I represent
the city.
I would like to offer this report, which closely con-
curs to the remarks that Mr. Linne gave yesterday, and for that
reason I would prefer not to read it. It more or less would be
redundant.
And I also would like to offer you people at this
time the opportunity to ask me any questions you may wish about
-------
503
J. Mandy
the Northeast area treatment plant.
And that is all I have to say.
MR. WHITE: Well, I guess we will need a little time
to glance over this Just a second.
MR. MANDY: All right.
MR. TRAINA: Let me Just review this thing. The city
has decided to put In chemical treatment to reduce the levels
down to what the conference recommended with regard to nitrogen
and phosphorus?
MR. MANDY: Yes. What our ultimate plan--
MR. -TRAINA: On an interim basis?
MR. MANDY: That is right.
MR. TRAINA: 0. K.
MR. MANDY: We are waiting for the expansion of the
Main Street plant and when that is completed we will discharge
the effluent or the influent that is going into the Northeast
plant to the Main Street plant.
MR. TRAINA: When will your equipment be in and
actually in operation for this interim advance waste treatment
facility? When will you be in operation?
MR. MANDY: The Main Street? At this time I really
can't tell you. I^have just received a report from our con-
sultants on the cost estimates, a rough order, for the purpose
-------
501
J. Mandy
of going for State and Federal funds, so, gee, I wouldn't want
to really say exactly.
MR. TRAINA: I am talking now about the Interim
plant.
MR. MANDY: Oh.
MR. TRAINA: That is what I am talking about now,
to your existing plant.
MR. MANDY: Oh, it is in operation right now for
about the last week or so, about the last two weeks. And the
laboratory results are not In yet; otherwise I would give them
to you.
MR. TRAINA: Do you think that you are meeting the
requirements of the conference?
MR. MANDY: Well, visually it looks pretty good.
Now, what that is going to show up on I don't know yet. But
we are prepared—well, we are feeding alum right now and then
if that isn't enough we will follow it with polymers. Also
in discussions with Wayne Tlsdale and Ralph Baker, we talked
about either putting a polishing pond in or a third clarlfler,
and so in our discussions we decided to wait and see how the
flocculatlon—what the results are, and if it is down low
enough I suppose we will go with the clarifier because the pond
Itself might produce its own nutrients.
-------
50 5
J. Mandy
MR. WHITE: Are you saying that the only physical—
there have been no physical modifications?
MR. MANDY: Yes. 0. K., this is one part, chemical
feed.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. MANDY: Now, we also Installed, and it is not in
operation yet, as a matter of fact today I think the electrical
work is being performed on it, a device, it is a relatively new
thing and it is being installed—oh, three or four other units
have been installed similar to it. Thi3 device is a package
aeration unit. Its function is to put about 18 to 20 ppm of
DO into the sewage at the head of the plant, and this, then,
of course, will accelerate or allow the—this is a trickling
filter plant—to really absorb more and do a better Job. Right
now, you know, it is about 85 percent BOD reduction.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Mandy, Just curious, the financing
of this, was this strictly on the part of the city?
MR. MANDY: YeB. Yes.
MR. TRAINA: You are to be complimented for that.
MR. MANDY: Thank you.
MR. TRAINA: I think that needs to get into the
record.
One final question, sir. When you do convert to your
-------
506
J. Mandy
Main Street plant, what kind of plant will that be and what
kind of percent reductions are you Bhooting for?
/
MR. MANDY: Well, we are shooting for—well, again,
now, this report that was just submitted last Thursday—as a
matter of fact, the City Council has Just received it, I think,
Friday and they have not officially acted on it, so perhaps I
shouldn't be saying too much now, then. But it would be con-
ventional.
MR. TRAINA: Conventional secondary treatment?
MR. MANDY: Oh, yes.
MR. TRAINA: Ninety percent?
MR. MANDY: Yes, yes. ^
MR. TRAINA: With discharge to Pensacola Bay?
MR. MANDY: Yes.
MR. TRAINA: Thank you very much,
MR. MANDY: 0. K.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Mandy, please understand, and I have
said this time and time again until I have probably worn it out,
this is a layman's question.
MR. MANDY: 0. K.
MR. LEVIN: What method are you going to use to get
the waste from the Northeast plant down to the Main Street
-------
507
J. Mandy
plant? What is it, Just going to be large—
MR. MANDY: It will be pumped, more than likely. I
can't see how it could get there by gravity. And the exact
location of the pipe, oh, I don't know, more than likely I
would think along the L&N railroad tracks,
MR, LEVIN: I am not too concerned about that part.
MR. MANDY: 0. K.
MR. LEVIN: The thing I am trying to get to is, I
have heard a proposal advanced that it would not be impossible
for the industries that we have been concerned with here in
some way to utilize transferring of their discharge from the
Escambia Bay down to the Main Street plant. Would that be
impossible?
MR. MANDY: Oh, gee, I don't want to say anything on
/
that because I am really not—I don't really know what the
industries have or— You mean you are asking can the Industries
discharge from their location down to the Pensacola Bay?
MR. LEVIN: Well, what I am saying is, to make it- run
through you all's pipes, and so forth, to get it down to the
Main Street plant and perhaps get it out of Escambia Bay like
that.
MR. MANDY: Well, maybe I can answer it a little
differently. Our pipes extend as far as Ellyson Field. That is
-------
J, M&ndy
508
as far as we go today. So the distance from Ellyson further
north, I don't know the economics that would be involved, if
it would pay them, you know, if they could afford it.
MR. LEVIN: But rather it would be an economic ques-
tion rather than an engineering question. Is this—
MR. MANDY: Now, I am not an attorney here, so I
don't know how to answer you. But you have two factors, you
have money, and the other thing is--
MR. LEVIN: I don't know whether I like that or not.
(Laughter.) I think I have been Insulted, but I don't have
sense enough to figure that out. (Laughter.)
MR. MANDY: I don't know what is in their waste. It
might kill our bugs, I don't know. I mean a study of pilot
plant would have to be performed to see if it is compatible.
It has been done already with Armstrong and Tenneco and—
MR. LEVIN: I was Just wondering if their discharge—
if the volume of their discharge is so great that that would be
almost--
MR. MANDY: Well, the other one, Is it—no, no, I mean
the one we Just had, 42 million gallons a day.
MR. LEVIN: Monsanto?
MR. MANDY: Yes, that is more than the entire Pensa-
cola pumps of potable water, that is on a hot day. (Laughter.)
-------
509
J. Mandy
You know, that Is a lot of water.
MR. LEVIN: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Just one point, Mr. Mandy.
When do you expect that the operation of the revised
facility will shake down and you will be able to give us a
final report on efficiencies?
MR. MANDY: Oh, I would say six weeks, something like
that. Because you know, it takes six days to get your initial
BOD's.
MR. WHITE: But we could count on receiving a report
from you then? I guess you would report to the State—
MR. MANDY: Yes, yes.
MR. WHITE: —and we would in turn receive it there.
MR. MANDY: Yes.
MR. MAURIELLO: Let me comment on that there. This
brings up a question.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Mauriello.
MR. MAURIELLO: This is a technical question, it Is
not a layman's question, even though the boss Is here sitting
next to me.
MR. LEVIN: Boy, I am getting it from all directions.
(Laughter.)
MR. MAURIELLO: Joe, the Northeast plant is right now
-------
J. Mandy
510
under a temporary operating permit until May of 1972.
MR. MANDY: Yes.
MR., MAURIELLO: That temporary permit was issued on
the basis that the interim treatment would go into operation
and would be acceptable and meet the levels.
MR. MANDY: Yes.
MR. MAURIELLO: Also predicated on the fact that the
city in conjunction with the city (sic) would adopt and have
adopted the five-year master plan and that by May there would be
an indication from the city as to an estimated date when the
Northeast plant would be phased out and put into the Main Street
plant. Do you anticipate that you are going to be able to have
a determination as to an estimated date when the Northeast
treatment plant will be phased out?
MR. MANDY: 0. K., the entire—your several questions
all hinge ,on one thing which I am afraid I really can't answer,
but I will tell you what it is. That would be the financing
for the Main Street addition. Now, how this would be projected
and obtained, this is outside of my area.
MR. MAURIELLO: Does the recent report which has not
been accepted by the City Council yet on the expansion of the
Main Street plant include the Northeast treatment plant going
into it?
-------
511
J. Mandy
MR. MANDY: Yes.
MR. MAURIELLO: So what you are saying is that unless
the financing of the Main Street plant comes along, then the
Northeast plant may have to stay as an interim plant for several
more years?
MR. MANDY: Yes. Well, you know, there wouldn't be
any place to put it, put the flows.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments?
Thank you, Mr. Mandy.
For the record, this statement will be accepted and
printed in toto.
MR. MANDY: 0. K. Thank you.
(The above-mentioned statement follows:
-------
January 21, 1972
REPORT ON NORTHEAST SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OP PENSACOLA, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
This report compliments previous reports filed by the City of
Pensacola, with reference to its Northeast Sewage Treatment Plant
and offers particular comments on actions proposed in the, August
12, 1971, report.
The Five Year Sewer Plan for Metropolitan Pensacola offered two
considerations for this plant: these are:
1. To abandon the plant and pump all raw sewage, or,
pump partially treated waste from that location.
2. Make modifications to the existing facility to
upgrade quality of treatment to accommodate the new
standards and deadlines that would permit an orderly
approach to the first consideration.
The City indicated in its August 12 submission that it had elected
to follow the second alternative and developed an acceptable pro-
gram that would entail keeping the existing plant in service for
an interim number of years by providing advanced treatment. This
was proposed in order to meet the December 31, 1972, deadline.
Also, it was pointed out that this direction is more feasible at
this time because of the inherent problems, difficulties, and long
-1-
-------
513
lead time involved with extensive design, funding, construction,
and operational check-out that the City does not believe could be
met by December 31, 1972, under the first consideration. In
keeping with the findings of the Pilot Plant Study, completed by
the City's consultants in December 1970, as well as further
research and investigations by City personnel since August 12,
1971, the City has pursued a positive course of action as follows:
Step 1
Established an expanded chemical treatment program that
includes the use of coagulants to reduce nutrients. In-
stallation of chemical feed equipment was completed 14
January 1972. Since this chemical feed operation is now
in its initial stages, adequate dosage or feed parameters
have not yet been established but will be accomplished as
quickly as possible, depending upon appropriate laboratory
analyses. Visual observations indicate optimistic results
will be obtained. It is hoped that these results will be
confirmed as soon as the laboratory tests and analyses are
completed. It can be appreciated that a period of labora-
tory testing will be necessary to define the exact dosages
or parameters for chemical feeds.
-2-
-------
511
Step 2
Installation of mechanical equipment that will accelerate
removal of organic carbonaceous materials is underway and
is expected to be completed by 1 February 197 2. This is
a pre-packaged unit, manufactured by Ingersoll-Rand with
a rating of 1,500,000 gallons capacity, that will enhance
the plant efficiencies by increasing dissolved oxygen.
Step 3
The last report proposed construction of an oxidation pond.
Since then, detailed discussion with personnel of the Bureau
of Sanitary Engineering has indicated that better final re-
sults of the quality of the effluent may be obtained by a
third and larger final clarifier rather than an oxidation
pond. It is expected that as soon as the laboratory results
of Steps 1 and 2 have been appropriately evaluated, a final
decision will be made as to whether a clarifier or a pond
will be constructed- It is believed that this final decision
can be reached by 15 March 1972, thus allowing adequate time
for construction of either the pond or the clarifier on or
before the December 21, 1972, deadline.
-3-
-------
.515
C. A. Lowery
MR. WHITE: Please proceed, Mr. Maurlello.
MR. MAURIELLO: The next one I have down here would
be Mr. Lowery, the President of the Bream Fishermen's Associa-
tion.
CHARLES A. LOWERY, PRESIDENT
BREAM FISHERMEN ASSOCIATION
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
MR. LOWERY: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen.
I am Charles A. Lowery, the President of the Bream
Fishermen's Association.
Before I would go into the prepared text that I would
hope that, Mr. Chairman, you would allow to become part of this
record, I have two other comments that I would like to make
that I feel, representing a sportsmen's organization, possibly
have been omitted from this conference.
Number one is the concern for the number of menhaden
that have been killed in the Escambia Bay. I do want to empha-
size the extremely large number of sports fish along with your
shellfish that has been killed in the area too. I mean,I know
that your concern is primarily right now possibly with the
menhaden, but there has been a significant number of sports
fishes that have been killed.
-------
516
C. A. Lowery
MR. WHITE: Let me clarify that. We are aware that
we are getting a large number and we are concerned with all of
the fish being killed.
MR. LOWERY: All right. I was sure that you were,
but Just for a matter of the record I wanted to be sure that we
did understand this.
Our group has worked extensively in the lower
Escambia River basin for the past three years trying to
arrive at some conclusions or offer some constructive criticism
or constructive attitudes toward alleviating the problem in
the Escambia Bay. We also have worked extensively on the
50-odd miles of river that extend up and into Alabama. We are
now involved in various projects on the upper portion of the
Escambia River that we will hope will offer background data for
this conference in the future.
One other point that I would like to make before I
enter the prepared text would be the statement that was, I
believe, pointed out by Dr. Wurtz here today in the diverting
of the White River. As I said, our group is quite familiar
with this area, we have conducted a number of activities in
this area from water sample, temperature sample, fish kill
investigation, and civilian surveillance. I think that possibly
we might consider his point, from this point of view, that the
-------
¦C. A. Lowery
517
diversion of the White River might get involved with diluting
the thermal effluent from Gulf Power, so he might have a due
consideration there that would need looking into before we
would pursue with the diversionary action there on the upper
White.
MR. WHITE: Let me put your mind at rest there, too.
MR. LOWERY: All right.
MR. WHITE: I mean we would have to have some pretty
thorough—well, we would have to have a thorough understanding
of the area before any recommendation—
MR. LOWERY: Yes, sir, 0. K.
MR. WHITE: —would be forthcoming.
MR. LOWERY: As a sportsmen's group, I will make one
other off the record—I mean off the written report and then I
will continue on and try to be as brief as I can.
The only thing that disturbs our group as a group of
sportsmen, and has been pointed out in a number of reports that
have been presented, was the fact of nature's way of disposing
of the fisheries in our bay and in our river as well. We have
had the kills in the river also. If that is nature's way of
disposing of or maintaining an ecological balance, I would
assume that the big freeze that happened In 19^3 in Texas was
nature's way of removing the cattle that it was necessary to
-------
518
C. A. Lowery
support the farmers of that area. So we don't believe that
this Is nature's way of stabilizing Escambia Bay. Or you could
even relate it to lung cancer as being the way that nature has
of disposing of the unwanted and undesirable human participants
in this society.
Gentlemen, I would like to enter at this time the
written portion of our report.
The members of the Bream Fishermen's Association
respectfully submit the following report as a part of the
official proceedings of this conference.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this report is in press at this
time and we will not have it ready until Thursday morning. If
it will be possible to submit this to you, I want to give you
only a summary of it today.
MR. WHITE: Now, let me clear something up. How
large is the report?
MR. LOWERY: All right. Let me read this in its
entirety. Maybe that will explain the full contents of it.
It is about 8-1/2 by 11 size pages, about 30 pages, I believe,
and there is quite a bit of background data involved here that
would be important to the proceedings.
MR. WHITE: I would like to accept this for the
official record, but not include it in the reproduced version,
-------
519
C. A. Lowery
because you have it.
MR. LOWERY: However you want to handle It. I Just
want to make it available to you.
MR. WHITE: And we will make it and keep it in the
official record, but it won't be reproduced as a copy in the
transcript of these proceedings.
MR. LOWERY: All right. That would be the main
thinfr, that you do have it.
- The title of this report would be Results of a
Creel Census of the Lower Escambia River Sports Fishery.
This report summarizes the results of a comprehensive
creel survey conducted in the spring of 1970 by the
bream Fishermen's Association on behalf of Dr. Thomas
5. Hopkins, Department of Biology, University of West
Florida. The study area involved the tidewater sections
of the Escambia River Basin extending from the mouth of
the Escambia River northward to the township of Molino,
Florida. The data presented in this report supports the
contention of local fishermen that at the time of the
creel census pollution had adversely affected the Escambia
Hiver freshwater snorts fishery.
-------
C. A, Lowery
520
However, our main purpose in entering this report
into the proceedings of this conference is to establish a base-
1 i n e reference on the status of this fishery that may be
used for the evaluation of the results of future creel studies
that may be conducted in the same region. In effect, we hope
that this data would initiate other research concerned with
establishing the present status of our endangered environment.
There have been many comments made, as you know, if we only
knew what was there before, that we would have some background
in order to establish what our fact might be.
I would like to read to you the summary, it will only
take about five minutes to do this, maybe less,and give you a
summary of the results of the Creel Census of the Lower
Escambia River Sports Fishery.
As a result of the excellent support given to the study
by local sports fishermen, it became possible to conduct a com-
prehensive creel census for the Lower Escambia River sports
fishery and thus determine its yield status. The census was
implemented in the spring of 1970 and covered the months of
April, May and June. The selection of the spring spawning
season for the census was deliberate in that the best fishing
conditions arise at this time of year and fishermen actively
participate.
-------
C. A. Lowery
521
The census resulted in the collection of creel data
for 1,234 different fishing trips involving 2,558 fishermen.
These fishermen expended a total fishing effort of 14,231
manhours to produce a creel, of 13,210 fish.
The overall yield for the Escambia River sports
fishery was found to be approximately 0.6 fish per manhour of
fishing effort. This minimum figure was bounded by a 75 per-
cent quartile of 1.3 fish per manhour and a 25 percent quartile
of 0.3 fish per manhour. The yield data also indicated that the
least successful 50 percent of the fishermen caught only 12
percent of the total creel of 13,210 fish. Importantly, over
11 percent of the fishing parties did not catch any fish what-
soever.
}
As a result of weigh-in data collected from a 9
percent sample of the creel, it was estimated that the total
weight of the entire creel produced during the census period
was only 2,744 pounds. This data was used to arrive at a mean
weight for the individual fish that was estimated to be 0.23
pounds or 3.32 ounces. Using this mean as a weight reference,
the weight yield of the Escambia River sports fishery was
calculated to be 0.14 pounds of fish per manhour of fishing
effort.
Using this yield data, the mean estimated fish weight
-------
522
C. A. Lowery
data and the median trip length data in combination results in
the following description of a typical Escambia River fishing
party during the creel census period. The average fishing
party consisted of two sportsmen who spent a total of 5.2 hours
fishing on the Escambia River. Since the yield was 0.60 fish
per manhour, each of these sports fishermen would have a total
catch of three fish. Using this estimated weight of 0.23
pounds per fish as a reference, It could be expected that the
total weight of these three fish would on the average, three
fish, not exceed 0.7 pounds. In local fishermen's words, this
catch does not describe a mess of fish.
In conclusion, It is felt that this survey fully
accomplished Its objectives relative to establishing a base-
line reference for evaluating any changes in the yield of the
Escambia River sports fishery that may be detected by.future
creel census program. Furthermore, in the opinion of the
authors, the creel data properly document the contention of
local fishermen that pollution has indeed adversely affected
the tidewater sections of the Escambia River sports fishery.
Thank you, sir.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Lowery.
Any comments or questions?
Thanks again for your presentation, Mr. Lowery.
-------
523
MR. MAURIELLO: Mr. Chairman, Mr. White, we have
asked Commander Hunsley, who is the representative of the
Woodland Civic Association, to make a brief presentation on
a project that I think has a relationship to what we may want
to consider In the way of a plan of restoration for Escambia
Bay. There is a small project that is being considered for
the Woodland area, which is right out the window here, prac-
tically. It Is a bayou that has had an effect very similar to
the entire Escambia Bay, and I think it would be pertinent to
have this presentation by Commander Hunsley so that you can
get a feel for what can be done and some of the R and D work
that may be required—that could be extrapplated to the entire
Escambia area.
MR. WHITE: I think It would be appropriate to hear
this.
MR. MAURIELLO: Commander Kunsley.
MR. WHITE: We have got to make a tough deciBion on
Mulat-Mulatto Bayou.
-------
L. A. Hunsley
COMMANDER L. A. HUNSLEY
PRESIDENT, WOODLAND LAKE
PROPERTY OWNERS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
GULF BREEZE, FLORIDA
MR. HUNSLEY: I will make every attempt I can to keep
the presentation very brief.
I would like to say that we are working very closely
with various Federal and State agencies. Specifically we have
had invited representation from the EPA, the pollution control
people, the Corps of Engineers, the city of Gulf Breeze, and
members of our own organization in attempting to outline a
program that would be definitive and would be of considerable
value with application to many other areas.
And if I might at this time, as we presently identify
the program, it is a five-phase program, some of which, is not
related to Escambia Bay and I will very briefly gloss over those
particular points.
As was pointed out by Mr. Mauriello, Woodland Lake is
close by. We will have a picture of Woodland Lake very shortly
here so that you can use it as a reference. It is not only
not far divorced from this conference physically, I think it is
not far divorced from this conference as far as application to
restoration of Escambia Bay.
-------
525
L. A. Hunsley
MR. WHITE: Fine. Before you get going, just so
we can keep the record straight on this, we will use these Just
as visual aids and will not Include them in the record.
MR. HUNSLEY: Yes, sir.
...Slide presentation...
MR. HUNSLEY: Phase one of the project—this is a
picture of Woodland Lake.. For orientation purposes, Mrs. Guice,
can you kick back one or kick forward one for orientation
purposes?
The Holiday Inn is in the background and this is the
mouth of the lake as you saw. So you can see it is a close-by
situation.
Phase One, as we presently see it and as we have
presently identified it with input from the -various agencies
involved, would be to document the existing conditions within
the bayou. Several conditions exist In there that require
documentation and rectification. One is we apparently have a
septic tank seepage into the bayou. We have had coliform counts
in excess of 2,^00 documented by the Public Health Service on
several occasions. We are basically sitting on a bowl. We
interchange the top layer of water only due to restrictions
at the mouth of the bayou. We have a certain runoff contribu-
tion. We have a very restricted flow pattern within the bayou
-------
526
L. A. Hunsley
and It is clasically a degraded bayou.
This is the channel that we presently have. The
natural channel,which I will discuss very briefly,is where Mrs.
Guice is pointing now.
But there will be very extensive documentation under
the direction of the University of West Florida, Dr. Collard,
as presently seen, to establish the conditions as they now
exist.
Phase Two, and again I am very briefly touching on
these, would be to provide a deep water interchange within the
bayou with those waters of Pensacola Bay, and it is our endeavor
at the present time to reopen the natural channel which was
abandoned by the developer with an alternate channel provided.
This alternate channel is a dead loss. We recognize it as
such. We are presently in litigation to regain ownership of
not only the small part of land, parcel of land between the two
channels indicated, but the State of Florida has also entered
our suit as a party to our suit and is attempting to regain
ownership of the site of the natural channel. In effect, we
will return the bayou to as close to its natural configuration
as is possibly feasible. And this is basically Phase Two.
Our legal litigation we expect to be resolved
very shortly and we have had considerable litigation on this.
-------
527
L. A. Hunsley
It has been going for six months. In fact, I am a recipient of
a $50,000 lawsuit because of it, but that is another story.
At the time this bayou is reopened to the bay In a
proper format, it is intended to demonstrate the use of an
air curtain as a fish control device under very closely con-
trolled conditions.
Phase Three is a proposed removal of the benthic
sediments within the bayou. And here we have the application
to Escambia Bay as we see it at this time. We are working
very closely with the Corps of Engineers. We expect that their
experimental people from Vicksburg will be on scene the latter
part of this week.
One of the demonstrations that has been asked for
in this requested demonstration grant is the use of the mudcat
system. Some of you may or may not be familiar with it. It is
basically a subsidiary of the National Car Rental Service. It
is fundamentally a giant vacuum cleaner and it is specifically
designed to remove mud. They have done considerable work with
the Corps of Engineers for the Everglades National Park, Dis-
neyland, and so forth. They are fully documented. They are a
very impressive group of individuals. They were here last week.
We would like to determine the desirability and
feasibility of removing the benthic sediments from the bayou
-------
528
L. A. Huns ley
and to document the benefits to water" quality and to the
biological quality of the waters within the bayou by actually
physically removing the benthic sediments. Attendant to that
we would evaluate the use of a diaper, which is nothing more
than a large polyethylene sheet, as you may, used by the Corps
of Engineers. They would like to demonstrate it within the
bayou. It would isolate turbidity attendant to the actual
removing of these sediments.
There are several methods of processing to remove
sediments, one being the conventional settling basins. We are
working with the city. The city lands will be made available
for settling basins for this material. So we have a conventional
method that we would propose to use here.
However, the Corps of Engineers is most interested,
and there is much interest from other agencies also, in the
development of a system for removal of benthic sediments that
would have application to confined heavily populated areas, and
in this particular realm the Corps of Engineers is most anxious
to demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing centrifuge removal
of possible—I am looking for a word. I got my nose fixed and
now my mouth broke. Well, the third system while I am thinking
of the second system.
The third system is a use of bags, which sounds a
-------
529
L. A. Hunsley
little wild. However, it has been used. They would like a
demonstration of the bagging system. It has application to
confined areas such as Fort Lauderdale in the canals down
there, Miami, Bayou Texar, perhaps, here in Pensacola.
But basically it is part of the mudcat system. It
is nothing more than a giant vacuum cleaner bag. It is 1
yard in diameter, 15 yards in length, and the sediments go in
and theoretically the water comes out and when you fill the
bag it is towed away for disposal elsewhere. Perhaps it can
be filled on land and the bag broken open at a later date and
the sediments used therefrom.
They would like to demonstrate the use of flocculants,
polymers, as you may, for settling agents in the settling basins.
They would like to proof the possibility of processing through
incineration. This is another concept, actually steam the
water content of these benthic sediments and leave the sedi-
ments themselves.
We would like to demonstrate the commercial and
domestic values of the dredge sediments for recycling and
reuse. We presently have current experimentation under way
by Or. Bennett to determine the application of these sediments
as a top dressing. We would propose to use these sediments ,if
they so prove out, as top dressings on our school yards in Gulf
-------
530
L. A. Hunsley
Breeze, perhaps, the City Hall, the city parks, things of this
nature. It would appear at this time that a 3- or ^-inch
layer disced into a sandy area develops quite a lot and we have
some application of this material on a nonscientific basis. It
would appear to be very usable and perhaps be very valuable.
We would like to determine the possibility of a com-
mercial venture whereby the costs of dredging such materials
could in part, at least, be recouped by use of these sediments
on lawns. This Is done in the Netherlands all the time. They
dredge up these sediments from the various estuaries, from your
various canals, and they use them. And perhaps this is some-
thing that we should do. We would like to prove this concept
in Gulf Breeze.
We would like to determine the buildup of contami-
nants or toxic substances during the dredging work. We really
don't know what we are going to get into on this, apparently.
It is an unknown entity. We might have dinosaurs come up from
the bottom if we remove the benthic sediments. Nobody is sure
this won't happen. But we are certainly willing to take the
chance as a group of citizens.
Phase Four. We have petitioned the city of Gulf
Breeze to make a study, which they are presently doing, to
provide sewage services versus the septic tank services that
-------
L. A. Hunsley
531
are presently existing around the bayou and are apparently con-
tributory to high coliform counts. We don't know this yet, but
we will document whether they are or are not contributory during
the Phase One of the project.
Phase Five would be an approximately two-year after-
study to determine the long-range effects of the three active
demonstrative phases of the project. We are processing the
grant application at the present time. It is hoped that the
city of Gulf Breeze will be the grant director. We would pro-
pose that the project director would be the University of West
Florida and the financial officer would be the city of Gulf
Breeze.
I think in summary, we who live on this bayou, I have
26 years in the Navy invested in it, we have our own selfish
interests in it, of course, but beyond our own selfish interests
in Improving the bayou we feel that we can make a very fine
contribution to knowledge that could have, perhaps, application
to many larger areas of water. We are small enough to make an
economically feasible and manageable project. We would have the
utmost cooperation of the people within the bayou. Yet we are
large enough to make a meaningful project and get meaningful
data from it.
And we would appreciate the opportunity to participate,
-------
532
L. A, Hunsley
in such a project if it is so approved.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Commander.
Any comments or questions?
Mr. Levin?
MR. LEVIN: These people that have this giant vacuum
cleaner, so to speak.
MR. HUNSLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: That is the way you described it, I
believe?
MR. HUNSLEY: Yes, sir.
MR, LEVIN: Did they by any chance take a look at the
bay and see whether or not that body of water is too large to
consider such a thing?
MR. HUNSLEY: They have surveyed the bay and they
feel that the mudcat concept has application to the bay. This
is a large organization. They have, I think, over 250 small
dredges on the shelf at the present time. They have done a lot
of work. It is a new concept,but they have not done too much
work yet for the EPA or agencies such as State agencies.
They do feel that they could work the bay, yes, sir,
at a dollar a cubic yard in here.
MR. WHITE: Any other questions or comments?
MR. LEVIN: Roughly how much money is that? How many
-------
533
L. A. Hunsley
cubic yards have we got?
MR. HUNSLEY: We have 65,000 cubic yards of tapioca,
I describe it as tapioca as consistency, within the bayou, and
there are parallels to our benthic sediments and those in
Escambia Bay. They are not exactly alike, I understand, but
there are parallels.
MR. LEVIN: When those folks get back down this way,
would you ask them to get in touch with me?
MR. HUNSLEY: Yes, sir. I have some of their presen-
tation material, too, if you would like to take a look at it,
Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: Thank you, sir,
MR. HUNSLEY: They have a very good presentation. I
wish they were here today, seriously, because we were very
Impressed with it, and if I could have stolen their suitcase it
would be here today.
Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Commander.
MR. MAURIELLO: I would like to make Just one brief
comment, Mr. White.
I think that from the Department's standpoint we
feel that this project does have application here in Escambia
County, but we also see possibilities of any results that come
-------
5^
Mrs. J. J. Guice
out of this on a Statewide basis and that there are other areas,
possibly, it could be applicable to. And whatever consideration
EPA could make in regards to the R and D project, I think we
would all benefit by it.
I have one other, Mrs. Guice and a Mr. Boylston.
Is there a possibility that these can be combined? They are
both from the Salt Water Sports Fishermen's Association. Would
you make one statement?
MRS. GUICE: I think that is my child.
MR. WHITE: Would you come forward, Mrs. Guice, please.
MRS. GUICE: I think that is my child, John Guice,
and also his friend who were going to speak today, but they had
to go back to school, couldn't wait. But I am Mrs. Guice and
I have some slides I would like to show you.
MR. WHITE: Fine. Are these slides relating to
Escambia Bay?
MRS. GUICE: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Color photographs?
MRS. GUICE: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: The reason I—
MRS. GUICE: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Well—
MRS. GUICE: I think you should see them.
-------
Mrs. J. J. Guice
535
MR, WHITE: I am not—I am Just concerned with
logistics. I am getting printed material and J would like to
clarify it.
MRS. GUICE: I will give you black and white of them,
MR. WHITE: Pine. After we see them we will decide
whether or not they will be printed in black and white in the
transcript or Just kept in the one official record without
reproduction.
MRS. GUICE: 0, K.-
MR, WHITE: But I will clarify that as you go on,
MRS. J. J. GUICE
UNITED CITIZENS AGAINST POLLUTION
GULF BREEZE, FLORIDA
MRS. GUICE: I have got to have somebody operate this
while I go to the lectern.
MR. SARGENT: I will do it.
...Slide presentation...
MRS. GUICE: All your speakers have told you like it
is. Now I want to show you like it is to a voting citizen.
This will identify the area where I am flying. My
husband happens to be the pilot. He asked me to go up one day
and I had the camera in the plane, so I started taking photographs
-------
Mrs. J, J. Gulce
536
The next one, please.
This is over American Cyanamid and this shows their
dumping area, which I believe has a leaching ability to the
bay.
The next one, please.
This is the two holding ponds and I found something
here with my binoculars. I found some type of hose going out
of this, some type of pipe out into the outside area. It
hasn't been explained to me yet and I would like to know what
is going on there. I feel like that when we have a heavy
rain there is an overflow that goes out into the woods and the
surrounding area. I have black and whites of this, if you
would like it.
MR. WHITE: Color is fine if you Just proceed.
MRS. GUICE: 0. K.
The second one, please.
This is a real bad eroded area where some of these
pipes seem to go out and flood at times. It is near the hold-
ing pond, American Cyanamid.
Go ahead, please.
This is another one of their dumping areas. It
appears from the air that this has containers there that are
partly filled with chemicals that just splash out on the ground
-------
537
i
Mrs. J. J. Gulce
and go wherever' the rain carries It.
Proceed, please.
And you can see this is horrible looking.
Next one, please.
This is Judges Bayou, which is right nearby. You can
see the holding ponds in the background. And I have seen this
bayou when there were six feet of dead fish, mostly menhaden,
in it. I have seen that bayou when you couldn't even get
through there in a boat, all you could see was dead fish.
This is Escambia Chemical. Plying on up the bay we
saw something we didn't like. The water looked like chocolate
syrup and It was coming out of Escambia Chemical. This was
September 10, 1971.
Proceed, please.
It was going out into the bay approximately one to
two or three hundred feet out into the bay. It was definitely
coming out of their outfall. We went back a couple of times
and checked it thoroughly and there were three people looking
down on this. I went home and called every agency I could
think of and could get no one, so I went up the bay myself to
get a sample and later I called Mr. Doherty and he went up the
following Friday and verified the fact that it did look like
this.
-------
5^8
Mrs. J. J. Gulce
The wind was coming out of the southeast blowing
toward the northeast and it appeared that this was carrying
the flow of this material in around Floridatown, in around
the beaches, and it was just terrible looking, really.
That is the pier up at Floridatown.
Proceed, please.
That is the most horrible looking thing I have ever
seen any place in the water.
MR. WHITE: What is that, Mrs. Guice?
MRS, GUICG: I don't know what it is; I would like to
know. It is coming from—
MR. WHITE: What area also?
MRS. GUICE: This is a peninsula that sticks out in
the water Just past—well, it is Floridatown. I can take you
there in a boat or by land. But this material was coming from
Escambia Chemical, Air Products Corporation.
And this is our God given rivers and our God given
grasslands and our swamp area, which a lot of our scientists
would like for us to believe—our imported scientists, pardon
me, would like for us to believe this is what is causing pollu-
tion in the bay. I very much disagree with them.
MR. RAVAN: All these photos on the same day?
MRS. GUICE: Yes, sir.
-------
539
Mrs. J. J. Guice
Ooing on up toward Gulf Power we saw this filtration
or siltatlon of the water of mud and salt and chemicals and
we didn't like the looks of this, so we went and tried to find
out where this was coming from. This was the mouth of Thompson's
Bayou.
Next one.
We saw that this was coming on to some kind of a
retainer wall where Gulf Power has a canal there where they
dump into, so we went further trying to find out the location
of this muck or mud or whatever it be.
This is their holding pond where they do their
scrapings and put it out into this water and it eventually
gets into our river, 1 am sure of that.
Proceed, please.
This is where they pollute the air with their smoke-
stack and that is their coal dump. As you can see, the water
is very dirty there. There are many areas like this around
Gulf Power and we found after a flooding rain the night before
most of this mud was coming from this area.
You can see that that big clay area is in the right-
hand corner, lower corner. It was on Gulf Power's property.
And this is our dear friend, Monsanto.
Proceed, please.
-------
54o
Mrs* Jo J. Guice
This is some of the pollution they put in the air.
Now, I did take this one two or three days later from the
ground. In fact, you can see my steering wheel in the front
of this picture.
I found many dumping areas there that I didn't like
the looks of. I think they should clean their face.
Proceed, please.
And I have been told that this is their holding
pond for the material that they pump underneath the ground.
I don't know whether this is true or not, but I have been told
that this is what this is and it is terrible looking material,
whatever it be.
This was out in front of their plant and I was told
by one of their officials that this was some of their salvage
material, their scrap material, that they Just dump it out in
the open like this.
And this is a stream, believe it or not, and I have
been told by one of their officials publicly at one of our
hearings that they were dumping scrap material in this stream
and I was also told that this is where their first source of
polychlorinated biphenyls was put into.
Another dumping area. And if they have all this
acreage out there with this natural seepage, why would they
-------
511
Mrs, J. J, Quice
leave these open places like this for the rainfall to go ahead
and do whatever it does, drain Into these other areas?
See the green water down in the lower corner? This
Is still Monsanto.
And this is where their barges load on. And by the
way, I had two cameras in the car and I see that my Instamatlc
is much better without a telescopic lens than the other camera
was with a telescopic. This is done with the telescopic lens
and it is not near as good as the Instamatlc without it.
This is a little grand canyon up at Cottage Hill.
I think this little canyon here when we have rainfall puts
soil into the river and it goes from the river to the bay and
I think this is one of our problems. I think things like this
we should look around the countryside and stop this, even up
into Alabama.
MR. WHITE: Could you tell me where Cottage Hill is?
MRS. QUICE: It is in Florida, sir. It Is up near
Cantonment.
MR. WHITE: Up near Cantonment?
MRS7. GUICE: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: 0. K.
MRS. GUICE: Now, we have—this is the peninsula we
are on now. We have a terrible, terrible erosion problem.
-------
Mrs. J. J. Guice
512
From the grand Jury hearing we had last year the State Attorney
ordered the State of Florida to establish bulkheads all the
way around the coastline, and they have not made any attempt to
do this and we need it. As you see there, we are losing many
things, trees, soil and several other things. And our property
is going down in value.
We also have a litter problem. Most of us in Pensa-
cola and in the area are very proud of our bridge out here.
That is a poor picture there because I can get it where there
are truckloads of it. I Just happened to have my camera when
I had a little bit there.
But people that go out on that fishing pier on the
bridge Just dump and dump and dump, and every Saturday you can
go out here and take up boatloads of it, really, or truckloads
of it, and most of it is coming in on Gulf Breeze. I want to
know who is going to clean it up and who is going to pay the
bill.
Now, this is after a menhaden kill in the month of
November and the water looked like soup.
MR. WHITE: Where was this picture taken?
MRS. GUICE: This was taken in the bay.
MR. WHITE: In—
MRS. GUICE: Yes, sir.
-------
5<3
Mrs. J. J. Guice
MR. WHITE: In Escambia Bay?
MRS. GUICE: Yes, sir.
That was taken in a friend's yard right near by.
This was in the bay also.
Proceed, please.
Now, I want to tell you men something. This hasn't
been brought out. I think Mr. Lowery mentioned this. But we
are losing many more fish other than menhaden, although menhaden
is the second most valuable fish, commercialwise, in the State
of Florida because of the fact it goes into fertilizer and bait
and also in the food chain, it is very valuable in the food
chain. But we are losing edible fish, we are losing sport fish,
and I find fish constantly around on both shores of the Sound.
Now, these were taken on the south side of the Sound,
This fish here was about 36 inches long and I should
have got a closeup because he looked terrible, really. There
were no markings of anything like a hook or a gig or anything
like this on him. I checked him thoroughly. All I could find
was spots on his mouth that were red and his gills were all
red and his body in spots were red.
Same thing.
Even the jellyfish are dying. Something is terribly
wrong with the Sound this year.
-------
Mrs. J. J. Guice
Now, this is where our Sound and our gulf meet.
Go ahead, please.
Even last year after all the tons and tons and tons
of sand that was pumped out of the mouth of that place trying
to flush it out. I don't know where you are going to flush it
to because look what you are doing to the Gulf. The Gulf is
turning green with overenrichraent.
Our fishing fleet lies in harbor, our fishermen are
out of work, most of them have left the State. They are wait-
ing, Just like us housewives are waiting.
Now, I used this sign last year when a bunch of our
housewives marched on the county commissioners, and I say that
county, State and Federal politics are the result of our bay
being in the condition it is in. I think they are tied hand in
hand, is what I am trying to say. Not the local, not today's
l
politics, the people sitting here, not these people, at least
not all of them. (Laughter.) I am being truthful.
All right, go back to your Health Department. Who
was in charge when it happened, when it started? Go back and
think. But there is a few people in politics, Federalwise and
Statewise and local, that should be kicked out of the State of
Florida if there is any other State that will take them.
(Laughter.)
-------
545
Mrs.J.J. Gulce
MR. WHITE: Mrs. Guice, I would like to thank you.
This is an excellent group of pictures you have there.
MR. LEVIN: I wish she had waited until after lunch.
(Laughter.)
MR. WHITE: And I would also like to ask you this.
/
Would you make prints available to us and Would it
be too much trouble for you to label what they depict?
MRS. GUICE: I will.
MR. WHITE: - And we will again keep this as a part of
the official record, but won't attempt to reproduce it in our
transcript, although I would love to be able to and do it in
color because the pictures are that good.
MRS. GUICE: You might not want what I said at the
last there, would you? (Laughter.)
(The above-mentioned Exhibit, Exhibit 1, is on file
at the office of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia.)
MR. WHITE: Are there any other comments or questions
by the conferees?
Thank you very much, Mrs. Guice,
Mr. Mauriello.
MR. MAURIELLO: That is all there is.
MR. WHITE: Let's go off the record a minute.
(Off the record.)
-------
J. L. Crockett, Jr.
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record.
Let's take a very short five-minute recess now and
then we will proceed with the State of Alabama's presentation
and try to go to a conclusion. Hopefully we will be through,
say, by 1 or 1:30.
We stand recessed for five minutes.
(RECESS)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back in session, please.
We will now proceed with the State of Alabama's
presentation.
Mr. Crockett.
MR. CROCKETT: I would like to ask Mr. John M.
Bolton, Assistant Director of the Technical Staff of the Ala-
bama Water Improvement Commission, to present a statement on
behalf of the Commission.
MR. WHITE: Before proceeding, we will indicate that
Mr. Ravan is now back with us on the panel.
(Mr. Ravan returned to the conference at 11:30
o'clock.)
-------
J. M. Bolton'
5H7
JOHM M. BOLTON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TECHNICAL STAFF, ALABAMA WATER IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA
MR. BOLTON: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
gentlemen.
My name is John M. Bolton. I am a member of the
staff of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission.
We have been meeting down here in Pensacola as far
back as 1961 regarding this problem and during each one of
these sessions we have heard various people representing
industrial groups and others say I am not the guilty one, it is
somebody else. On many occasions they pointed the finger
toward Alabama. Today we even heard that it is not an indus-
trial source or not an industrial problem that is creating
this situation, it is a natural situation.
I would like to refer you to the Environmental
Protection Agency's report that was given earlier this week
where the TOC values above the city of Brewton were ^.0 ppm,
M.O mg/1, whereas the average TOC values at Century, Just in
Florida, were 6.0 ppm. I submit to you that is ai relatively
insignificant increase coming from the State of Alabama.
I would agree in part that some of our problems are
in fact due to natural forces. And for those of you that are
-------
5^8
J. M. Bolton
not familiar with the Conecuh-Escambia River, who have not
ridden the river from Brewton to Pensacola, I would like to
point out that this river is in fact two different streams.
In Alabama, for instance, it is a swift, shallow, fast-moving
stream. Just below Century this stream deepens, it is affected
by tidal influences and it is quite sluggish. It drains large
swamp areas.
During 1956, prior to the construction of the Con-
tainer Corporation's plant at Brewton, Mr. Crockett referred
to a report in which we had the occasion to run studies from
Brewton down to Pensacola. During that period we ran some
tests that during a period of a major hurricane, how our people
got out in that weather I don't know, but during that period
when the river flows up around 20,000 second feet, the oxygen
consuming values BODj. were up around 2.5; the DO values,
dissolved oxygen values, were depressed; there were also
depressed pH values, indicating the presence of the swampy
waters that were drained out of these swampy areas I am speak-
ing of. I mention this merely for background;
And Mr. Levin, in consideration of your request made
earlier at the conference that you wouldn't like to hear things
that have been said before, the remaining part of our statement
will be quite brief and we will not try to repeat material that
-------
J. M. Bolton
519
has been said before on the part of the State of Alabama.
My statement in behalf of the Commission will be
brief insomuch as only two sources of pollution in Alabama
have been identified as contributing to the problem of the
Interstate waters of Escambia Bay and Escambia River.
One source Involves the discharge of untreated
sewage from the community of East Brewton. The town has a
population of 2,336, of which approximately 1,800 people or
78 percent are now served by sewers. One of the recommendation^
adopted by the conferees following the second session of this
conference in Pensacola on February 23 and 24 was that the
city of East Brewton install secondary waste treatment facil-
ities acceptable to the Alabama Water Improvement Commission
by the end of this year, December 31* 1972. I am pleased to
report to you, as you have heard earlier, that based on actions
taken thus far, It appears that this date will be met. We have
previously asked that Mr. Weaver, who is the Mayor of the city
of East Brewton, appear out of turn In order that he might go
back to his work. We certainly appreciate this action on the
part of the Chair.
The second source of pollution originating in Ala-
bama which has been identified during previous sessions of
this conference as being associated with the problem and again
-------
J. M. Bolton
550
under consideration today is that of the discharge of treated
wastes from the Container Corporation of America's pulp and
paper mill located near Brewton.
During this conference we have heard a report
presented by a representative of the Environmental Protection
Agency describing their findings following an evaluation of
expanded wastewater treatment facilities at this plant. Thl6
was an extended study, one that lasted for some two weeks. The
report rendered by the EPA representative also contains data
accumulated at the time of the study period, namely June and
July 1971, of the Conecuh River and tributary streams in Ala-
bama to the main stem.
Prior to the conference a draft copy of the report
was made available to the Commission's staff, and it was made
available, I might say, in sufficient time so that we could
give a complete review to that report. It was heartening to
learn that the EPA report revealed a percentage reduction of
carbonaceous wastes, as recommended by the previous conference,
in excess of 90 percent. More Importantly, as the result of
in-plant process changes, the quantity of carbonaceous wastes
generated dally has been reduced and as a result the total
number of pounds of BOD or carbonaceous materials discharged
per day after treatment Is substantially less than the amount
-------
J. M. Bolton
551
originally specified by the conferees. As a matter of fact,
the conferees specified that the limit De restricted to 4,850
pounds. I believe that the EPA study revealed that only 2,220
pounds per day were discharged during their study period.
Additions and improvements required to bring about these
reductions were completed and placed into operation 18 months
earlier than the December 1972 date specified by the conferees.
We are of the opinion that the EPA report covering
its evaluation of the Container Corporation's pollution control
facilities accurately reflects the performance of the facil-
ities at the time of the study and wish to commend those
responsible for its planning and execution. It should be
recognized, however, that a major portion of the treatment
units rely on biological processes and since the study was
performed during the relatively-warm month of June, some
decrease in treatment efficiency may be expected during cooler
months.
The EPA study represents an excellent example of a
cooperative effort between State, Federal and industrial
Interests all working toward the same goal. We are pleased to
have participated in some degree in this understanding. The
results of the study should serve as a valuable source of
information, not only to this conference but for use throughout
-------
J. M. Bolton
552
the southeast where similar type mills are located and com-
parable treatment systems employed. Some of the parameters or
tests used In the evaluation study have not been widely used
in the past and consequently a complete understanding of their
significance, the capabilities and limitations of treatment
units presently employed and the effect of contaminants as
measured by these tests Is needed. And gentlemen, I refer, of
course, to Borne of the previous items we have discussed, the
TOC determination and the COD tests which have not been used
in the past. This can, of course, come about, this understand-
ing, only by the duplication of similar studies on other mills
and receiving Btreams. The staff of the Water Improvement
Commission looks forward to a full discussion of technical
aspects of the report with EPA and Florida officials at the
proper time.
On January 20 this agency received a copy—this was
last Thursday—of a report comparing the Escambia River water
quality with other streams In the northwest Florida area. The
letter transmitting the report requested our review with com-
ments as soon as possible. The letter further stated that the
report would be presented at this conference. Needless to say,
we have not had an opportunity to review the report and would,
therefore, request that the record be held open 30 days to
-------
J. M. Bolton
553
permit the incorporation of our comments should they be needed.
MR. WHITE: We will be happy to hold the record open
for that, Mr. Bolton.
MR. BOLTON: I don't think, Mr. White, that there
will be too many comments that we would have, but I do think
that we should be given an opportunity to respond, certainly
more time than what was permitted, and we recognize the press
of time that was Involved in the preparation of that report.
We have been requested by the Container Corporation—
I believe that this is the only representative of Alabama that
wishes to be heard—that they be given an opportunity to pre-
sent a statement here today. I shall call on Mr. David Lang,
Plant Manager of the Brewton Mill, at this time to give a
statement.
MR. TRAINA: Can we get some comments, Mr. Bolton,
before we get to that?
MR. BOLTON: Surely.
MR. WHITE; Go ahead.
MR. TRAINA: The Federal report, John, that you
referred to suggests that additional reductions at Container
could be made by providing additional treatments of bleach
plant and woodyard wastes and eliminating short-circuiting in
the aeration basin and oxidation pond. Is the Commission going
-------
J. M. Bolton
to follow through with those suggestions as orders or recom-
mendations to the plant?
MR. BOLTON: We haven't given complete study to this
recommendation, but we very definitely have some ideas as to
how the short-circuiting can be prevented. We have not dis-
cussed the report at all with the Container people.
I say we received it in ample time. During the last
conference I think we received a copy of the report about two
days before the conference. We did get this one a couple or
three weeks.
MR. TRAINA: I take it since you have had this time
to review it—
MR. BOLTON: We have.
MR. TRAINA: —that you do agree—
MR. BOLTON: We certainly have.
MR. TRAINA: —with the suggestions here?
MR. BOLTON: We very definitely agree with the observa-
tions and with the findings that short-circuiting is occurring
and we have some ideas, such as the moving or shifting of
aerators in the aeration basin and possibly reversing the
rotation of the aerators so that we can induce motion counter-
current to what is being observed now. If you will look at
your sketch there that depicts this phenomena, you will see
-------
•J. M.' Bolton
5 55
that the wastes come In and actually hang to one side, all of
the aerators are turning in the same direction, so they tend
to throw this waste in one direction. We feel like, and we
have actually requested this of another mill in Alabama, where
the alternate aerators operate countercurrently in direction
or rotation.
MB. TRAINA: What about the other suggestion regard-
ing additional treatment to the bleach plant and woodyard
wastes?
MR. BOLTON: I think this would be a matter that
would be taken up with the conferees during the executive
session. The bleach plant Itself is receiving secondary
treatment in their natural pond system. We shall be happy to
discuss this with you if Indeed this might be Included. There
are some problems which I am not familiar with involved in the
treatment of bleachery wastes in the system that they have now.
MR. TRAINA: At this point the State is not going to
take any actions on this particular—
MR. BOLTON: No, sir, I did not say that.
MR. TRAINA: 0. K.
MR. BOLTON: I mean we are at the point where we
must decide whether we are going to take action or not—
MR. TRAINA: 0. K.
-------
J. M. Bolton
556
MR. BOLTON: —right here today, as I see it.
MR. TRAINA: I guess I meant unilateral action with-
out—
MR. CROCKETT: May I make—
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett.
MR. CROCKETT: Let me comment on that point, that
certainly not to the extent that ho action will be taken, that
there is treatment provided for both the woodyard wastes and
the bleaching wastes. In view of the accomplishments at Con-
tainer in reducing this waste load and the difficulties in
treating these named wastes, woodyard wastes and bieaching
wastes, we feel that there should be some discussions made on
that particular requirement.
MR. BOLTON: Mr. Crockett, let me amplify or go
further.
I think very definitely, Mr. Traina, that we will
take action in connection with the reduction of wastes gene-
rated or resulting from the discharge of wastewaters from the
woodyard. We can say that off the top of our head. There are
some technical considerations that I am not well versed enough
on to say what we would require or to what extent we would
require further treatment on the bleach plant wastes alone.
MR. TRAINA: Maybe the company could speak to some
-------
J. N. Bolton
557
of those,
MR. BOLTON: Perhaps they can.
MR. TRAINA: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments or questions?
Mr. Levin,
MR. LEVIN: I Just want to find out. This is my
first go-round on this type conference here in Escambia County.
Have you all made any studies further north of Con-
tainer and East Brewton to determine if there are any other
sources other than natural sources that contribute to the prob-
lems of the river? In other words, are there any other small
cities, for that matter, that are using the Conecuh or any of
its tributaries in order to dispose of its wastes and things
of this nature? I mean is it logical to say that on all the
miles and miles of this river that there are only two sources
of plnpolntable pollution in the river?
MR. BOLTON: I think that I could say very definitely
this first, that this drains a phenomenally rural area of Ala-
bama. The river actually heads up, has its origin around the
community of Union Springs, Alabama, which is just east of
Montgomery. There are communities located on or nearby the
Conecuh River as it traverses down through the State.
My observation in reference to the condition closest
-------
558
J. M. Bolton
to Florida was to the summary that appears in the EPA report
which identifies the water quality lrregardless of what it
might be up there. There are no industrial sources, I can say,
upstream. There are some municipalities that use the stream
for disposal of their treated wastewaters.
I would refer to the parameters that are listed on
Table 5 which identify the nature of the water quality above
Brewton.
MR. LEVIN: I know what you are saying is that it
doesn't make any difference what goes into it as long as you
measure it around Brewton and you have got your water quality
there, it doesn't make any difference—
MR. BOLTON: I really don't mean to say it that way,
Mr. Levin. This conference has addressed Itself in the past
and included recommendations directed at two sources that thlB
conference considered affecting in some way the waters that we
are concerned with here today.
MR. LEVIN: Well, I know. But you see, I have a
problem in my own mind of whether or not there ought not to be
other sources that we ought to look at, for two reasons.
One, not being an engineer or biologist, the thought
occurred to me that there may be some—I believe you all used
the word parameter?
-------
559
J. M. Bolton
MR. BOLTON: Test.
MR. LEVIN: —test that may not be used that could
determine something else that Is In that water besides these
particular substances that we are apparently all concerned
with and that is all these letters that we hear about, BOD's
and TOC's and all. this sort of thing.
MR. BOLTON: I am going to bring you a sack of TOC's
tomorrow before we leave.
MR. LEVIN: No, don't do that. I don't want you to
bring them. (Laughter.)
And the second thing is that I wonder if perhaps,
like you said, the flow of the river, being as swift as it is,
if that would not have some effect on the reliability of the
tests so that whenever It gets down to the Florida part where
it is affected tldally by tidal action that maybe these
things begin to appear for the first time.
MR. BOLTON: I know of no other tests that are used
except perhaps toxic metals or something like that, that you
would have some Justification for Including In this table other
than I don't believe COD Is Included In this test. This is a
test that does not tell the whole story, has many shortcomingsB
we have learned.
But I can tell you without reservation that we have
-------
560
J. M. Bolton
no plants that are generating toxic materials In the Conecuh
Basin, to my knowledge, no materials of that nature are being
discharged, and I know of no other tests that would reveal
something, as you mentioned, by the swift nature. It is
Impounded up near Andalusia, but between Andalusia and Brewton
It is thle free flowing state and does exist down into the,
oh, several miles into Florida before it Is affected by the
tidal influences and swampy and has a very slow movement.
MR. LEVIN: It may not mean a thing in the world,
but I would like to know Just for my own satisfaction whether
you are aware of any other small or large cities or small or
large industries that are using that body of water for dis-
charge of its waBtes that in any way could make its way down
the Escambia River?
MR. BOLTON: Let me answer in part. I think Mr.
Crockett wants to respond too to this.
I am not aware of industries located on the banks
of that stream that are discharging at all. There are
municipalities that are discharging along Its length at various
points or into tributaries.
MR. LEVIN: Untreated wastes?
MR. BOLTON; I believe there 1b one untreated waste
that is just south of Montgomery, Brantley, the community of
-------
J. M. Bolton
561
Brantley.
: MR. LEVIN: How many people live In that community?
MR. BOLTON: Very 3mall. That Is four or five
hundred, I Imagine, that are being sewered*
MR. LEVIN: Are they under orders by your department?
MR. BOLTON: They are under orders by our department.
They appeared at our October 1, 1971, meeting and had some
severe—or had instructions to proceed, yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: Other than Brantley, now,.and East
Brewton, to your knowledge there are no other cities,
municipalities, communities, Industries placing anything else
in the tributaries or branches of the Conecuh—
MR. BOLTON: Would you let Mr. Crockett and I kind
of refresh ourselves here because we would like to examine—
MR. CROCKETT: Let me.
Mr. Levin, all municipal waste discharges were first
documented by our statement to the 1962 conference. It is a
matter of record. In 1970 we again documented the sources of
wastes, the degree of treatment, and the number of miles that
the discharge took place from the State line. It is a matter
of record of this conference in which we are in the third
session now and as a result of the first statement was when
the sources of wastes upstate, so to speak, were deleted from
-------
J. M. Bolton
562
any conference action.
But It Is a matter of record In the first session,
the 1970 session.
MR. BOLTON: Mr. Crockett, is it not true, to your
recollection, that Brantley, which Is near the upper reaches
of the Conecuh, up just 40, 50, 60 miles south of Montgomery,
actually, Is the only community on the main stem of the river
that has untreated wastes?
MR. CROCKETT: On the main stem of the river, and
from Brewton north on the main stem to Andalusia,has secondary
treatment, is some 75 miles. There is a community, Greenville,
Alabama, it is on a tributary and this is up in the extreme
northern section off the basin. If 1 am not mistaken—
MR. BOLTON: It is not on the main stem.
MR. CROCKETT: It is not on the main stem.
MR. BOLTON: It is some miles removed.
MR. CROCKETT: This community or city was also
placed under directive order by the power commission, and if
I am not mistaken that we do have final plans for secondary
treatment in now.
MR. BOLTON: On Greenville, yes.
MR. CROCKETT: Right. Greenville, of course—there
Is no city—well, there is no—we don't have any cities in
-------
J. M. Bolton
563
Alabama within the Conecuh River Basin that I think exceed a
population of around 12,000. From a population standpoint that
basin has lost their population within the last two decades.
But any other information that Is not contained and If this
Information In the 1970 transcript Is not accurate and you
wish It to be brought up to date, we will be glad to do so,
but we did not report on It at this conference because It was
not made a part of the conference after the first statement.
MR. LEVIN: The only thing I am trying to find out
.is whether or not you all are aware of. any other sources,
whether it is on the main stem or the south—
MR. BOLTON: I appreciate that. Well, Greenville
Is some distance from the Conecuh River and by the time—
They will be under construction very shortly, will they not,
Jim?
MR. LEVIN: Greenville discharges into a tributary?
MR. BOLTON: A tributary located some distance.
And when I made my earlier statement about on the main stem,
there was only one, which is still some distance upstream and
could not—any of their wastes—this is a municipality—any
of their wastes would be reflected in the values that 1
referred to in Phase Five.
MR. LEVIN: Again assuming as far as manmade
-------
J. M. Bolton
564
technology, as far as man knows now, that those parameters are
available, that we haven't come up with something else that we
ought to be testing that we haven't tested. Do you see what I
am concerned about? Just because we have been using these
particular standards for all these years doesn't necessarily
mean, in my mind, again as a layman, that we are not overlook-
ing something that perhaps ought to be tested if we were at a
sufficient stage of technology to where it could be tested.
MR. BOLTON: Let me say this. During the course of
the some.11 or 12 years that we have been examining this prob-
lem down here there have been at least one, the TOC test, added
and we do not yet know just exactly all of the significant
factors regarding the meaning of TOC. We feel like that this
will be, as I pointed out in my statement here, and it was
Interesting that some of the Federal people had brought out the
sa.me point, we are beginning to gain a background or a
technological understanding of the significance of TOC. COD
has been used for years, but we have known that It had many
shortcomings. It varied from one industry to another. COD
couldn't be compared. The BOD determination that has been
used, and that the universities used and has been used as a
tool when the 1969 conference conclusions were developed and
recommendations were developed, represented the best tool that
-------
J. M. Bolton
565
we had then. If we have another one today, If you have one
in your little briefcase that you would like to throw out, we
would like to hear about it.
MR. LEVIN: I don't even have the old one. (Laughter.)
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett.
Mr. Traina?
MR. TRAINA: No.
MR. WHITE: Comments or questions?
Well, then, we will proceed with the next presenta-
tion.
MR. BOLTON: Mr. Lang, I believe, will give the
Container statement.
DAVID LANG, GENERAL MANAGER
BREWTON, ALABAMA, MILL
CONTAINER CORPORATION OP AMERICA
MR. LANG: Mr. White and conferees, ladles and
gentlemen. I am David Lang, General Manager of the Brewton,
Alabama, mill of Container Corporation of America.
Again this year, Mr. Chairman, we have divided our
statement into two parts. The first is a progress report on
our water pollution abatement accomplishments and research
activities since this conference was last convened on February
-------
566
D. Lang
23-24, 1971. Since this report will be of Interest to everyone
here, I would like to present It orally.
The second section Is primarily a compilation of
technical reports supporting my verbal statements. Also
Included are reports on our extensive Investigations of pro-
cedures that have been suggested for removal of color from
our effluent, I would like permission to have this section
Inserted Into the public record without going into details
now because of the technical nature of the subject.
MR. WHITE: It will be accepted into the record.
Here, too, let me make another point on this. I
believe we will make this an exhibit of the official record
and not reproduce the appendix in toto in the transcript of
the conference. I am just concerned with keeping the volume
down a little on this.
(The above-mentioned Exhibit, marked Exhibit 2, is
on file at the office of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia.)
MR. LANS: At the 1971 session of this conference we
described in detail the $750,000 aeration system we placed in
operation in October 1970. At that time we did not have
performance data to present. We can now report that the
addition of the aeration system has increased the reduction in
-------
567
0. Lang
5-day BOD of our effluent by 9 percent. This improvement in
BOD removal has allowed us to achieve a maximum of 91*5 percent
BOD reduction during the month of June 1971. It should be
pointed out, however, that this high degree of BOD reduction
is not achieved during the colder months of the year when lower
water temperatures slow down bacterial action.
Between June 21, 1971, and July 2, 1971, EPA
research personnel and Container Corporation employees con-
ducted a river and waste treatment survey. The EPA results
were presented to this conference earlier. Our own data are
submitted in our written statement.
Both studies confirm the improvement in effluent
treatment mentioned earlier. The EPA data show even a greater
degree of pollution abatement than do our own. This difference
however, reflects only the reasonable variation that is
expected in scientific studies of this nature.
In August 1971 stream biologists from the Institute
of Paper Chemistry in Appleton, Wisconsin, conducted the 15th
annual biological water quality survey of the Conecuh-Escambia
River between Brewton, Alabama, and Escambia Bay, Florida.
The final report of this study has not been issued,.
However, a copy of the preliminary letter report la contained
in our written testimony. I would like to quote the summary
-------
D. Lang
568
paragraph from that letter:
In summary, an improvement has been
noted In the section of 'the Conecuh-Escambia
River which is influenced by treated paper-
making wastes from the cooperator's mill in
Brewton, Alabama. An absence of slime growths
at Stations 4B (downstream Brewton Lake outfall)
and 5 (Pollard) was accompanied by an Increase
in diversity and density of intolerant macro-
benthic organisms to levels similar to Station
1 (Edward's Bridge).
What that all means to those of us who, like myself,
are not scientists, is that the effluent from the Brewton mill
has been so thoroughly treated that it does not have any
measurable effect on the normal living creatures in the river
downstream of Pollard, Alabama. Beyond Pollard the quality of
the water is essentially the same as It is upstream of the
mill.
At the last session of this conference we indicated
that we would continue our studies on removal of color from our
waste discharge. We have done this, but regretfully must
report to you that an industrially feasible method of removing
color from our effluent does not exist at this time.
-------
0. Lang
569
Our technical and research personnel have diligently
continued their studies on methods which might be of possible
use In removing color from our effluent. As stated earlier,
. detailed reports of these studies are presented In our written
testimony. However, I would like to highlight the investiga-
tions which have been made, or are continuing, in our search
for a suitable method of color removal, with particular empha-
sis upon a project we think is most promising. These include:
1) The massive lime treatment
pilot plant, operated under an EPA grant by
International Paper Company at Springhill,
Louisiana, which was studied in operation on
August 10, 1971, by our people. The Brewton
mill laboratory also carried out additional
lime precipitation studies.
2) The alum precipitation pilot
plant of Gulf States Paper Company at Tusca-
loosa, Alabama, was visited. Alum precipitation
studies were also carried out by the Brewton
mill laboratory alone or in conjunction with
Allied Chemical Corporation and Nalco Chemical
Company.
3) The use of Amberlite XAD-8 resin
-------
D. Lang
in ion exchange for removal of color bodies is
being evaluated in conjunction with Rohm and
Haas Company.
A) The study of activated carbon
for color removal was continued by the Brewton
mill laboratory.
5) The current state of the art was
reviewed for hyperfiltration and reverse osmosis
as possible processes for color abatement.
6) The use of ozone, a powerful
oxidizing agent, is currently being evaluated
in cooperation with Air Reduction Company,
Incorporated, and W. R. Grace and Company.
7) The addition of direct oxygen to
the bleach plant effluent was evaluated by the
Brewton mill laboratory as a potential aid in
color reduction.
B) Finally, a little over a year ago,
we became aware of introductory research by the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Owens-Illinois
Company on the effect of gamma radiation on
kraft mill effluents. Our evaluation of this
work led us to believe the process might offer
-------
571
D. Lang
a most useful method of color abatement. Even
further, It might offer a procedure for the
degradation of other organic materials which
are normally resiBtant to biological oxidation.
We, therefore, stimulated renewed interest in this
concept on the part of the Washington office of EFA and the
paper industry. In conjunction with Owens-Illinois Company, we
have outlined a feasibility study to evaluate the process.
This study is currently in progress at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory under the supervision of the National Council for
Air and Stream Improvement. If the feasibility study is suc-
cessful, the EPA has Indicated Interest in participating in a
pilot plant study of the process. Such a pilot plant study
would develop design and economic parameters that would permit
scaling up of the system for commercial pollution abatement
use.
The conference has recommended that we provide
secondary treatment to the bleach plant waste. It should be
noted that the bleach plant effluent does not contain sus-
pended solids and, hence, it does not require primary treat-
ment. At this juncture I wish to emphasize that our bleach
plant effluent is currently receiving secondary treatment.
Secondary treatment, simply defined, is the removal
-------
572
D. Lang
of soluble BOD using biological treatment processes. (FWPCA
Publication No. 1.W.P.-3). The passage of the bleach plant
effluent through our ,biological treatment ponds does Indeed
furnish adequate secondary treatment for that waste.
We have summarized our pollution abatement progress
during 1971 for you. This progress has reduced our BOD dis-
charge to the lowest level realistically attainable through
use of today's technology. At this level of achievement no
effect of our effluent upon water quality 1b noticeable below
Pollard, Alabama, and Indeed no biologically available residues
of our effluent have been demonstrated in the Conecuh-Escambia
River below this point.
We will continue our efforts to develop a satisfactory
process for color removal and to achieve further reductions In
BOD as these become possible.
However, we again must disagree with the concept of
effluent discharge allotments as contrasted with water quality
standards, and more specifically, we question the justification
for establishing the 4,850 lbs/day limitation recommended by
the conferees at the February 1971 conference. Not only, and
Importantly, does such a limit discount the pollution abatement
Improvements we accomplished between the original and second
sessions of this conference, but It also overlooks the lower
-------
573
D. Lang
degree of BOD stabilization attainable during the colder
seasons of the year.
We respectfully request that the record of this
conference be kept open for 30 days so that we may review and
respond to further information presented at this session of
the conference.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Lang. We will be happy
to keep the record open. We are doing this in a number of
cases.
I would like to observe that as far as effluent
limits are concerned, I think they are here to Btay. I think
we are going to have them industrywide In the near future.
Pending legislation addresses this problem. Of course, now,
establishing the absolute limit for various mills will be a'
problem that we will have to face as we go along.
But I do feel that the conferees, 1 am sure, feel
that there was justification in making the decision that was
made with respect to the effluent limit for Brewton mill.
MR. LANG: Excuse me.
MR. WHITE: Well, I was just going to go into any
questions from the~
MR. LANG: What I would like to do~
MR. WHITE: Would you like to make a response?
-------
D. Lang
MR. LANG: I would like to make three additional
short statements.
MR. WHITE: Proceed.
MR. LANG: The record contains a question as to
whether any sediment studies or other bottom studies have been
made that would Identify bottom deposits as containing effluent
from Container Corporation of America*
We have a 15-year history of benthlc studies—these
are the studies of the bottom dwelling animals--made by the
stream biologists from the Institute of Paper Chemistry. These
show no evidence of paper mill or bark deposits on the bottom
of the Conecuh or Escambia River, Limited studies of bottom
deposits In Escambia Bay have shown no material that was trace-
able to the Brewton, Alabama, mill.
The problem of short-circuiting of the effluent move-
ment through our aeration basins was mentioned. We are aware
of this. We have done some correction work such as relocation
of aerators, et cetera. We are continuing this program. We
do monitor the basin using DO profiles and on a routine basis
monitor the system both Into and out of the aeration system.
We are evaluating the system and appreciate the EPA data.
I am sorry Mr. Levin Is not here, but I would like
to put this In for the record. I would like to respond briefly
-------
575
0. Lang
to several points raised In yesterday's session. It was sug-
gested that Container Corporation of America may have reduced
production during the period of the EPA study so as to depress
the value obtained for effluent.discharge. In order to dispel
any doubts on this account, we offer the following production
totals for the period of the study preceding the 12-day period
and the two 12-day preceding periods.
Twelve days before the study was 9^5 tons per day.
That is a total of 11,347 tons.
The 12 days during the study was 980 tons per day;
11,769 tons.
The 12 days after the study was 1,123 tons per day;
13;^75 tons.
The 12 days following this period, 980 tons per day,
11,773.
If there is still any doubt in your mind, I would
like to extend you a personal Invitation to visit our mill
unannounced and you can bring anyone that you wish to to sample
our effluent.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin, Mr. Lang was answering a
question raised yesterday about the production by the mill
during the period of the study and the time surrounding it.
He gave us some figures for that time frame and that Invitation,
-------
576
0. Lang
you know, was to check further to satisfy any problems,
MR. LEVIN: All right.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Trnlna?
MR. TRAINA: Yes. Mr. Lang, a few questions.
First with regard to these studies you have done on
color removal. You mentioned eight systems that you have
looked at. With the exception of the last one, the gamma
radiation, I assume that the company has rejected the others.
Is this on the basis of their technical feasibility, their
economic feasibility, or a combination?
MR. LANG: Well,I think on the color removal, Mr.
Traina, you will have to agree that the associate benefit to be
derived from utilizing these various methods is not commensurate
with the expense Involved at this time.
MR. TRAINA: Is that saying that they are technically
feasible but you don't feel economically that they should be—
MR. LANQ: Well, each one of these studies apparently
have their shortcoming and I couldn't go into details on each
one of them.
MR. TRAINA: But the fact is these other industries
you have mentioned, of course we have participated financially
and otherwise in these studies—
MR. LANG: That is right, we know--
-------
511
D. Lang
MR. TRAIN A: —are actually in operation and are
removing color.
MR. LANG: Yes, sir, but to Borne degree. I am
talking about I don't—some of them—I know of two and one
of them I am not sure whether he is putting all his effluent
through it or not and the other one I know he is not.
MR. TRAINA: Well, Mr. Lang, you know this conference
has gone on record now since the beginning—
MR. LANG: I understand.
MR. TRAINA: —of reducing color, and of course the
State of Alabama has committed itself to color reduction at
the Brewton plant when technology is available. I would like
to suggest that that technology is almost available, it is
agreed on a demonstration basis, but it is being employed on a
large scale basis now with the plants you have mentioned. And
I am concerned that apparently you folks have rejected—
MR. LANG: The plant that I mentioned, I am sorry,
I think that was Just a pilot plant study, wasn't it?
MR. TRAINA: The one at International—well, you
mentioned one in Louisiana.
MR. LANG: Sprlnghill, Louisiana, that Is Internation-
al Paper. That was Just, to my understanding, a pilot plant
study.
-------
578
D. Lang
MR, TRAINA: There Is a plant in Oeorgia, Riceboro,
of course, that does have mass lime treatment and they are
reducing color. We discussed this a year ago, I recall, at
the last conference.
This system, you feel, Is not economically feasible
at this time at the Brewton plant?
MR. LANG: Well, the other one, I am not—1 am like
Mr. Levin, I am not an engineer either. I am no lawyer nor
engineer. (Laughter.) So 1 do not have all of the Information
from Riceboro at my fingertips.
The other one that you probably know about, I think
the EPA knows real well about, Is the Georgia Pacific mill.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Lang, can I ask that your technical
reports and studies be made available to us? I don't believe
they have been. With regard to your evaluation of the seven
systems that you apparently—
MR. LANG: May I ask one of my people?
I have here Dr. Paul Trout, who is our Environmental
Director.
-------
578-A
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT
February 17, 1972
Mr. John White and Conferees
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Gentlemen:
You have recommended that we provide further secondary treat-
ment of our bleach plant effluent and woodyard waste. It is our
position that the bleach plant effluent now receives extensive
secondary treatment in our system of natural lakes and that the
woodyard waste is largely contained by our system of traveling
water screens. We have never witnessed any woodyard waste entering
the Conecuh River from the Brewton Lake outfall and hence we must
believe that any debris which escapes the water screens is trapped
by our ponding system.
Nevertheless we wish to cooperate with you on these recommen-
dations and as a consequence we wish to inform you that we have
ordered two additional aerators which will be installed in that
part of our ponding system which receives both the bleach plant
effluent and any woodyard waste that escapes the water screens.
We will then be adding air for accelerated treatment of these
effluents by means of the additional aerators.
-------
578-B
- 2 -
We have recently learned of a different type of screening
system designed to entrap and contain woodyard waste and we wish
to inform you that we will review this installation with a view
to adopting it if it proves more efficient than the system we cur-
rently utilize. In this connection it should be understood that
the woodyard waste contributes only 664 pounds of B.O.D. per day
to our waste treatment system.
The 1971 session of the conference stated that our B.O.D.
allotment would be reviewed when the expansion of our pulping
capacity was complete. Please be advised that this completion is
imminent and accordingly we respectfully request that you extend
our B.O.D. allotment to account for the increment of 150 tons per
day added to our pulping capacity by this expansion. The Water
Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina
"Survey of Water Utilization and Waste control Practices in the
Southern Pulp and Paper Mills", cited at the 1971 session of the
conference, would establish 60.7 pounds of B.O.D. per ton of pro-
duct as the industrial norm for our expanded production mix (i.e.,
43 pounds of B.O.D. per ton of unbleached pulp production with
production at 52 5 tons, and 78.5 pounds of B.O.D. per ton of
bleached pulp production, with production at 52 5 tons). On this
basis, using our total expanded capacity of 1,050 tons of produc-
-------
578-C'
- 3 -
tion, the allotment should stand at 6,376 pounds of B.O.D. How-
ever, by means of in-plant control, it has been demonstrated that
we generate roughly only 54 pounds of B.O.D. per ton of production
which the conferees recognized and adopted in setting our current
allotment at 4,850 pounds of B.O.D. for 900 tons of pulp produc-
tion. Logical extension of this reasoning leads us to conclude
that our allotment should be set at 5,670 pounds to accommodate
the expansion of pulp mill facility.
The remainder of this response will address itself to the
problem of color removal which will be the subject of an April
meeting with your office. Your recommendation on this subject,
indicates that the conferees are expecting a firm program for
color removal from Container at this meeting. Undoubtedly this
recommendation was put forth in the belief that container would
have the results of the Gamma Irradiation study by that time.
Unfortunately, it will be impossible for us to make a recommenda-
tion with respect to color removal at our April meeting for two
reasons. First, the Gamma Irradiation study at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory did not commence as scheduled so that we will
not have the results of this study by April. Second, and more
importantly, the most we can hope for, as a result of this study,
is an indication that a pilot plant is justified. Favorable
-------
- 4 -
578-D
results from a study of this limited scope should not be relied
on to establish a full-scale operation. At best the study will
furnish us with sufficient information to design a pilot plant,
and at worst the study will show that Gamma Irradiation is not a
feasible means for removing color from our effluent. At this
point all we can report is that Gamma Irradiation of our waste for
color removal is the most promising approach we have found to date
as a result of our studies on the subject, but this prognosis may
largely result from the fact that we know less about this process
than we do of others which are currently the subject of government
grants.
Both the oral and written statements presented by container
at the third session of the conference document our objections
with respect to the systems of color removal now extant. We will
not reiterate these here, but we will be pleased to discuss these
objections more fully with you at our April meeting. In this
connection it has recently come to our attention that one kraft
mill operator who evaluated the massive lime system in a pilot
plant to treat its mill effluent has concluded that the process
is not reasonable or advisable for treatment of bleach plant waste.
It occurs to us that the EPA is privy to a good deal of
information being developed on this subject of color removal and
-------
578-E
- 5 -
we believe that a better understanding can be reached on this sub-
ject if we engage in a candid discussion with you in which test
results are jointly analyzed, it is possible that the EPA is
attracted to the Massive Lime system by reason of the fact that
they have information which we lack. We engage in this conjecture
because at this juncture, based on the test results we have, it is
difficult for us to understand how this process can be considered
as a reasonably viable means for treatment of our waste. We
believe that our relationship with the EPA, formed as a result of
our joint participation in this conference, furnishes precedent
for such a free exchange and evaluation of information relevant to
this subject. We would appreciate receiving your comments on this
suggestion and stand ready to meet with you again at a time of
your selection.
CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA
By.
XI
*&-'¦» '-m
Donn O. Jenning/E
Senior vice President
-------
Dr. P. Trout
579
DR. PAUL TROUT
ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTOR
CONTAINER CORPORATION OP AMERICA
DR. TROUT: You, as we know, carried on this search
for color removal procedures for some years and, in fact,
during the last two sessions of this conference we made some
reports on this subject, and basically the massive lime treat-
ment at Riceboro, which we are aware of and discussed at last
year's conference, is not applicable to our process.
The main problem we feel with this, probably the
larger share of our color derives from the bleach plant
effluent, which is a highly acidic material, and we are
striving for processes in pollution abatement that will not
contribute a new pollutant to the effluent. Bleach plant
effluent when treated with massive lime does indeed result in
the formation of a new pollutant which we feel, even though it
has not received much discussion at this point, is not desir-
able and we, therefore, prefer to class this as technically
not feasible for our process, our mix of about 50 percent
bleach plant-50 percent nonbleach waste.
MR. TRAINA: What is this pollutant, sir?
DR. TROUT: Calcium chloride.
MR. TRAINA: Excuse me?
-------
Dr. P. Trout
580
DR. TROUT: Calcium chloride.
MR. TRAINA: Do you think this would have—your
biologists have, told you this would have a deleterious effect
on the river with calcium chloride in it?
DR. TROUT: I think any new foreign material is
undesirable in any watercourse. We do feel that—
MR. TRAINA: But you can remove the color by this
process?
DR. TROUT: —the gamma ray—pardon?
MR. TRAINA: You can remove the color by this process?
DR. TROUT: I would say you could get a degree of
color removal. We have seen this demonstrated at the Inter-
national Paper Company pilot plant.
MR. TRAINA: Have you in your pilot studies made any
evaluations of if you went to this method how much TOC you
would remove along with the color?
DR. TROUT: We have done some work in this area and
much of the color relates to a TOC, so certainly there would
be some TOC removal as there is also BOD removal by a massive
lime treatment.
MR. TRAINA: Then we could possibly get at this TOC
problem, which you know has been gnawing at us for several
years now, if we addressed the color removal problem. And I
-------
581
Dr, P. Trout
would like to suggest here that maybe we need to get together
with some biologist to evaluate whether or not calcium chloride
is going to be any worse in that river than the TOC is now, if
we can get at TOC and color and maybe take the calcium chloride
as it comes later.
But it seems to me that a system now has been
developed for application to your mill.
DR. TROUT: May I make a comment on TOC? We also
addressed this problem or this method of analysis at last
year's conference.
I think that the TOC is a tremendously useful moni-
toring test in proper context, it is quick, easy to run,
reproducible, but it has the very tremendous drawback
of not measuring simply the biologically available carbon. In
other words, the TOC test, as you know, measures a combination
of the biologically available and the biologically unavailable
carbon. In the eutrophlcatlon of Escambia Bay or any other
body of water we have to be concerned with that source of
nutrients or those nutrients that are available for bacterial
and algal action, so that it is somewhat misleading to be
concerned exclusively with total organic carbon when really
what we are talking about is that carbon which contributes to
the deterioration of the watercourse.
-------
Dr. P. Trout
582
An easy way to break it down is to suggest that if
you took a charcoal briquette, ground it up and threw It in
your swimming pool, an average-sized backyard swimming pool,
also threw a half a pound of sugar in that swimming pool, you
would have a total organic carbon of about 3 ppm. However,
only half of that, the one and a half parts, is biologically
available, the sugar, which could grow microorganisms. The
other would simply settle out to the bottom and act as sand.
MR. TRAINA: Oh, we have gone into these discussions,
you know, many times, and I don't think it is appropriate here.
1
I appreciate that.
However, here we are with a treatment system that is
being demonstrated elsewhere that apparently you folks have
looked into and it Just seems to me that you are at the verge
or should be at the verge of implementing a system that is
being proven right now to get at a problem that has plagued
this group and other groups, and specifically that is color
and TOC. And also this would solve your problem with regard
to another recommendation of this conference regarding the
treatment of bleachery wastes, again which has been a problem
for us over these past few years.
DR. TROUT: Yes, we—
MR. TRAINA: Here you have a system that can address
-------
Dr. P. Trout
583
all three of these things, and as I understand your comments,
the only thing that is holding you' back is you are afraid of
creating a possible other problem in the discharge of calcium
chloride.
DR. TROUT: Oh, no, this is not the sole factor, and
indeed we are considering further evaluation of the various
lime treatment processes, either the massive lime or the
stoichiometric lime.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Lang talked about going into this
gamma radiation thing—
DR. TROUT: Right.
MR. TRAINA: —which I really don't know anything
about.
DR. TROUT: And I would like to make a comment on
that, because we feel at this point—and of course we may be
totally wrong, but until we have this feasibility study, which
is a three months study, we won't know that. And this does
offer the process or a possible approach that would give a
treatment of refractory materials, in other words the TOC that
is not biologically available, permit that to be handled and
simultaneously destroy the color without adding any new con-
taminants to the watercourse, which 1 think has got to be a
goal of everyone that is concerned with the social good. We
-------
Dr. P. Trout
584
cannot add anything new to any stream. And we do feel this
has tremendous potential at this point.
MR. WHITE: Can I get clarification on a point here?
You say you are going to have a feasibility report in
three months from today?
DR. TROUT: The contract which began January 1 is
for a three-months feasibility study by Dr. Case at Oak Ridge.
MR. WHITE: Do you feel, then, that you will have all
the answers to the questions in your mind concerning this
process?
DR. TROUT: Well, I would be a fool to promise all
the answers at that time. We will—
MR. WHITE: That was a bad choice of words.
DR. TROUT: We will know at that time, however, whether
the process is feasible,and if so, it will stop us from making
a grievous mistake in going precipitously into another method
of treatment even though that other method may be the best
available at the moment.
MR. TRAINA: Dr. Trout, I am going to have to pursue
this a little bit, because here again I think we have so many
technical problems that are unsolvable and I think we are at the
point here of having one that can be solved with the system, I
am talking specifically about this lime system, that is now
-------
Dr. P. Trout
being proven. EPA has put considerable money into research,
the industries involved have put considerable money into
research, and it does concern me that you feel at this point
you are not ready to do this because of this question of
calcium chloride and that you are now going into another system
which may end up with a radioactive byproduct, I don't know, I
really don't know anything about that.
DR. TROUT: No, it won't.
MR. TRAINA: But you know, we can Just keep looking
at systems and never get to making a decision about using one.
Now, all of us, you know, we don't have all the answers and it
would be nice to tie down every single possible byproduct of
what we do, but here again you have got a system that has been
proven and I Just can't see reluctance, apparent reluctance, on
your part to implement a lime system for the removal of color,
TOC and treatment of bleachery wastes at the plant, which all
three this conference has directed some controls be placed on.
DR. TROUT: I can appreciate your sense of parent-
hood on this process and the EPA interest in the process, but
I am honestly convinced that it is not the satisfactory process
that you feel it is and I do not feel that it warrants wide
introduction into the kraft industry.
MR. TRAINA: We can't solve this here.
-------
586
Dr. P. Trout
Could I ask that we be given copies of all your
technical studies, your evaluations of the eight—seven systems
I guess, if you haven't finished the eighth one, and your
reasons why they are unacceptable at this time?
DR. TROUT: Surely.
MR. TRAINA: Can this be given to us within a 30-
day period?
DR. TROUT: Surely.
MR. WHITE: Just loglstically I want to clarify some-
thing.
Is this a great wealth of material or what? I mean
what are we talking about by way of paper?
DR. TROUT: Well, much of it is not of our own
research activity and—
MR. WHITE: Let's go off the record Just a minute.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record.
If you would, then, submit It directly to the techni-
cal staff or Mr. Traina for his perusal and we won't make it a
part of this record at this time.
MR. TRAINA: I can also assume that we can get
together with our technical staffs to review these bleachery
studies.
-------
587
Dr. P. Trout
DR. TROUT: Oh, absolutely.
MR. TRAINA: We have had good relationships with you
and I am sure this will continue in the future.
DR. TROUT: We always appreciate the opportunity to
learn from you.
MR. TRAINA: All right.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Levin.
MR. LEVIN: I defer to you, Mr. Ravan.
MR. RAVAN: Dr. Trout, Just aquick question that Mr,
Lang brought up.
I don't believe, generally speaking, that enough work
has been done, especially in the sense of recovery, with regard
to sediments, and it was Interesting to hear about the benthic
studies that you have conducted over 15 years or some parts of
your industry. I wonder if we could also see those studies?
DR. TROUT: Yes, they have been made available every
year to the Alabama Stream Improvement Commission and either
they have copies or we could send copies to you.
MR. RAVAN: I am especially Interested in how wide
the—how much in depth you have gone here. Did you actually go
out into the bay, Escambia Bay?
DR. TROUT: Our commission studies from the Institute
of Paper Chemistry normally go only to Escambia Bay. There was
-------
588
Dr. P. Trout
some brief work, very preliminary, and I believe the Environ-
mental Protection Agency in the early days of the original
study also did some bottom work. Now, I, of course, can only
mention ours.
MR. TRAINA: For clarification, Mr. Ravan, these were
biological studies and not sediment studies. In other words,
nobody characterized, actually, the sediment chemically* They
were biological studies of biota that reside in the bottom
materials. Is that correct? These have been biological studies
and not sediments?
DR. TROUT: Those were the reported studies, yes.
MR. RAVAN: That was my understanding.
DR. TROUT: Perdido Bay was also chemical bottom
studies.
MR. RAVAN: And the thrust of my question here is
simply that we need more information, and if you have got
technology or if you have got method or something that we
might latch onto, we would appreciate it.
DR. TROUT: Ours is very sketchy, but certainly what-
ever we have is freely available.
MR. RAVAN: Thank you.
MR. TRAINA: Just one more question.
At this point in time, Dr. Trout, the plant has no
-------
.589
D. Lang
plans to do anything to their bleachery wastes, at this point
in time?
DR. TROUT: We have no plans to install a massive
lime process for treatmentt if this is what you are asking.
MR. TRAINA: Or any other system at this time?
MR. LANG: Yes, sir. Could I make one—
We have some more aerators on order and we are
putting in this system. They are supposed to be delivered the
first week in February.
MR. TRAINA: Will these be put in natural ponds?
MR. LANG: No, we are going to put them in—yes, in
our natural pond system.
MR. TRAINA: So they will be—
MR. LANG: They ,will be in this bleach plant waste,
yeB, sir.
MR. TRAINA: When will those be into operation?
MR. LANG: We are supposed to receive them the first
week in February and it will probably take a mouth to -install
them, a month to six weeks.
MR. TRAINA: And I assume that you will be monitor-
ing it?
MR. LANG: Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: And give us the information on the
-------
590
D. Lang
results of those?
MR. LANG: We will go around and study It as soon as
we get them In, start running some background studies*
MR. TRAINA: Thank you.'
MR, WHITE: Mr. Levin has a question.
MR. LEVIN: Dr. Trout, I don't know how else to ask
this question, but can you conceive of anything being added to
the water north of your plant that would be in any way con-
tributing to the eutrophlcatlon of Escambia Bay? You have been
here the entire two days, haven't you?
DR. TROUT: Yes, sir.
MR. LEVIN: And you heard what maybe to you was the
dumbest question you ever heard In your life that I have asked
about these parameters and tests, and so forth, that perhaps
there are other things that we should be concerned with that
we are not even testing for. Can you see the fact that, for
example, Greenville Is using one of the tributaries of the
river as a discharge of Its effluent which could possibly be
In any way contributing to the eutrophlcatlon of the bay,
knowing what you know about the water at the point where your
plant Is? Or do you think that this and East Brewton are the
only two things we ought to look at insofar as the State of
Alabama Is concerned and its role in the problems of Escambia
-------
Dr. P. Trout
Bay?
DR. TROUT: I certainly am not familiar with the
river above the Brewton mill, so I am naturally deferring to
Mr, Crockett. I can't honestly conceive of a difference in
water quality based on the studies presented here today that
would show there is any material in the Conecuh River or its
tributaries that is different from natural organic runoff.
MR. LEVIN: Now I will ask you the same question
about your plant. Is there anything that your plant is dis-
charging into the Escambia River, or whatever you call it up
in Alabama, that is in any way contributing to the problems
that we have in Escambia Bay?
DR. TROUT: We feel, based on our own tests and the
information we have seen, no.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett.
MR. CROCKETT: Dr. Trout, on the question of Mr.
Levin concerning, let's put it, the quality of water at your
mill3lte near Brewton, could you make any comment on the basis
of the use of the Conecuh River as a source of water supply for
the manufacture of products including food board?
DR. TROUT: Yes. Of course the—
MR. CROCKETT: Pardon me. The treatability, do you
have to provide any special treatment, water treatment, to
-------
Dr. P. Trout
592
condition this water for appropriate use in your processes?
DR. TROUT: Yes, we do use the Conecuh River as our
water supply for manufacture of both bleached and unbleached
paperboard. The bleached paperboard normally goes into food
board production, packaging of foods.
It is necessary to treat this water primarily for
color removal. Most of the southeastern United States waters
are highly colored naturally and it is essential to remove this
color and whatever natural sediment that 13 present in order
to have the highest brightnesses that we can obtain in our
bleaching process.
I don't know if that has answered your question or
not.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Maurlello.
MR. MAURIELLO: Dr. Trout, just let me make one
comment and then I have got a couple of questions. 1 was
interested in your definition of TOC. That is about the third
one that I have heard and they seem to all be different,
I gather that you are familiar or I mean you know the
background, you have been with the Container Corporation up
there and you have got—I am sure Container, like many indus-
tries, monitors the river as well as their own industry, I mean
within their own industry. Within the past two or three years
-------
Dr. P. Trout.
593
have you seen any change in the water quality above the Brewton
mill?
DR. TROUT: I have to admit something that I hoped I
wouldn't have to and that is that I am from Philadelphia.
(Laughter.) Because of that* Mr. Mauriello--
MR. LEVIN: How did George Wallace let you get into
Alabama? (Laughter.)
DR. TROUT: Because of that, Mr. Maurlello, I am not
as familiar with our incoming water tests, I am not completely
familiar with it. We do have to monitor the intake water
because that is how we adjust the chemicals that we feed for
our water treatment.
I think possibly, if you would like to be inflicted
with another one of us, I could call John Fay, our Technical
Director from the Brewton mill, and have him answer your ques-
tion.
MR. MAURIELLO: I would like to have an answer to the
question.
MR. WHITE: Pine, if Mr. Pay will—
MR. MAURIELLO: I have got another question to you.
DR. TROUT: All right.
MR. MAURIELLO: Well, let's get—
MR. LEVIN: You are from Philadelphia too, Mr. Pay?
-------
Dr. P. Trout
591
MR. WHITE: Let's get off—
MR. PAY: No, sir, I am from Brewton.
MR. LEVIN: Oh. Well, 0. K., we will listen to you.
MR. FAY: I was born in Wisconsin.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Fay, if you would, step forward to
the mike and identify yourself.
JOHN FAY, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA
BREWTON MILL, BREWTON, ALABAMA
MR. FAY: My name is John Fay. I am Technical Director
of the Brewton Mill in Brewton, Alabama. I live in Brewton.
Number one, we report to the State of Alabama both
in our tests and the quality of the river. Our tests do not
Indicate that the river quality either above as measured at
Highway 41, which is above Murder Creek, which is above Brewton,
or the tests at Pollard or at Century Bridge indicate a deter-
ioration of the river quality. In fact, I would say that the
quality of the river has Improved some and this related to DO
levels and may be related to flow and it is probably Indicated
by the IPC studies.
Our effect in the river is less than what we have had
previously and I think that Just about summarizes it* The
-------
595
J. Fay
Information is all. available at the State of Alabama.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Crockett has a question.
MR. CROCKETT: Mr. Fay, the Container mill at Brewton
does have the capability of analyzing for TOC, do they not?
MR. FAY: Yes, sir.
MR. CROCKETT: And is this a routine analysis that
you perform not only on your wastes but also on the Conecuh
River both above and below your mill's discharge?
MR. FAY: Yes, sir.
MR. TRAINA: May I ask a question?
MR. MAURIELLO: You asked my question.
MR. WHITE: Well, just a minute.
Mr. Mauriello.
MR. MAURIELLO: I had a couple other questions.
MR. WHITE: Of Dr. Trout?
MR. MAURIELLO: Maybe Mr. Fay will have to answer
them too.
MR. TRAINA: May I Just proceed on that one question?
MR. WHITE: Go ahead.
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Fay, I believe you were here during
a presentation made by one of the industries with regard to COD
levels and TOC levels—
MR. FAY: Yes, sir.
-------
596
J. Pay
MR. TRAINA: --increasing since 1968« Do you have
any—
MR. PAY: I have no comment. The TOC, of course,
we have only had since the previous session of the conference,
so we have no data going back to 1968 and we would have no
COO information. Our TOC data doesn't go back that far so there
would be no way of knowing.
MR. TRAINA: Just by your knowledge of the area,
would you have any reasons why you think that that might have
Increased since the 1968 period, those values?
MR. PAY: Prom my knowledge, I know of no reason.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Mauriello.
MR. MAURIELLO: Mr. Crockett asked part of my question,
whether the mill or the analytical procedures, whether you use
TOC as part of the—as a parameter that you use for measurement
and I gather that you do for an evaluation of the treatment
process and background and monitoring of the river. Is this
basically correct that you do use TOC in that way?
MR. PAY: That is correct.
MR. MAURIELLO: How do you evaluate the TOC? What
kind of evaluation do you place on TOC when you get results?
I mean what do you look for when you get a TOC result In the
plant? What Is the Interpretation that you place upon it?
-------
597
J. Fay
Dr. Trout Just mentioned that It Is a measure of both the
biological and the nonbiodegradable portions of carbon. What
do you UBe it for? What is the reasoning for it?
MR. FAY: Well, the reason that we started using it
was because It was. Introduced at the sessions of this con-
ference.
MR. WHITE: I might interject, it was a recommenda-
tion of the conference that they monitor their TOC's and they
have been sharing this information with us and I don't know
that we have formed any conclusions yet on It.
MH. MAURIELLO: The other question I have, and I don't
think it has really been answered and maybe you can't answer
this, but the report of EPA Indicates that the BOD levels
above the plant are half that of what they are below the Con-
tainer Corporation plant in the river. Is there a reason for
this?
MR. FAY: Maybe I am misreading the—
MR. WHITE: Would you restate it? I missed that too,
Mr. Maurlello.
MR. MAURIELLO: Well, I am looking at Table V, which
says that for Conecuh River at Highway 41 near Brewton, the
average BOD is 0.8, and yet at the Escambia River at Highway 1
near Century it is 1.9 ppm BOD.
-------
J. Pay.
598
MR. FAY: Table 5?
MR. CROCKETT: You may want to take this.
MR. FAY: There are several reasons for that. One
Is If you compare Pollard to Highway 4l you will find that
within the meaning of BOD they are the same. You also have
other streams and things coming In there. I think you would
have to look at those. Pollard, I believe, Is CO 6.
MR. MAURIELLO: What you are saying Is that there are 1
possibly, then, other sources that are entering the stream below
the plant discharge but prior to It reaching Highway *»? Is
this what we are saying?
MR. FAY: Well, you have to look at, for example,
Big Escambia, which 1s 1.6, and so on. That Is a possibility.
MR. MAURIELLO: The other question that I had I
think has already been answered and that Is concerning the
bleachery wastes, so I will pass that.
MR. WHITE: Any other comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. WHITE: Let's go off the record a minute.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record.
I believe Mr. Ravan has a comment or two.
MR. RAVAN: Mr. Chairman, I did want to make this
-------
599
General Discussion
comment.
It might be interesting to let the record reflect
that in fact the original conference and this conference
reconvening has been attempting to get at perhaps major
sources and it is my feeling that there is perhaps information
available from study at the Federal level that would indicate
that in addition to these major sources, while they are major,
there are also some minor sources, and I suggest to the Chair-
nan that we review this possibility and if such is the case
that it be made a part of the record within the next 30 days.
I am talking about the minor contributors, perhaps, to the
problem, which when added up as a total might be a significant
factor.
MR. WHITE: Well, I think certainly we can get those
in the record and a source of information of this sort would be
the information developed under the Refuse Act permit program.
If we do this, we need to, I guess, allow some time
for comments and at least for some clarification of what is
involved in these.
I think that I will propose that we make available to
the conferees within 15 days a list of the total industries dis-
charging anywhere throughout the basin and give it to the
individual conferees for a chance to comment within 15 additional
-------
Tcble 1
Discharges to Escambia or Pensacola Cays
or Tributaries Thereof
599-A
Discharger
brewton, Ala.
E. Brewton, Ala.
T. R. Miller Co., Inc.
Brewton, Ala.
Container Corp. of America,
Brewton, Ala.
Century, Fla. & Alger-Sullivan
Jay, Fla.
Boise Cascade Corp.,
Cantonment, Fla.
Monsanto Chemical Corp.
Pensacola, Fla.
Gulf Power Co.,
Pensacola, Fla.
University of West Florida
Scenic Hills Country Club Estates
City of Pensacola Northeast
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Fllyson Field (Navy)
Westinghouse Corp.
American Cyanemid
Air Products
City of Pensacola Main St.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Newport Division - Tenr.eco
Cticmicals
Treatment
Waste Stabilization Pond
None
Settling-evaporation &
percolation ponds
Aeration & oxidation ponds
Waste stabilisation pond
Contact stabilization
Process wastes to i.olding
tanks for septic tank drain-
ing, surface drainage - no
treatment
Deep well injection &
inplant controls - Indus,
waste; secondary-domestic
waste
Settling pond3 - flyash;
lagoon recirculating
Contact stabilization
Extended aeration
Secondary (trickling
filter)
To Northeast WTP
To Northeast WTP
Settling ponds - indus.
waste;, secondary-domestic
waste.
Settling fit biol. treatment
industrial waste; septic
tanks - domestic waste.
Step feed-step aeration
To l!air.
Receiv i_ng_ Waters
Murder Creek
Murder Creek
Murder Creek
Conecuh River
Swamp to Escambia River
Bray Mill Ck. to Escambia Riv
Escambia River
Escambia River
Escambia River
Escambia River
Bayou to Escambia River
Escambia Bay
Escambia Bay
Escambia Bay
Escambia Bay
Escambia Bay
Pensacola Bay
Pensacola Bay
-------
599-B
iou . irfier
^Bliland Chemical Co.
irmstror.g Cork Co.
Iscambia Treating Co.
J.S. Naval Air Station
¦Javal Air Station -
vessels in port
\merican Creosote Co.
•loreno Courts Sub-division
WTP
/arrington (West Fla.
Utilities)
iorry Field (Navy)
'en Haven Sanitation Co.
Treatment
To Main WTP
To Main WTP
Evaporation pond -
overflow to Main WTP
Physical, chemical &
biological.
None
Evaporation-percolation
ponds
secondary (aeration)
Secondary (aeration)
Receiving Wat e.rs
Pensacola Bay
Pensacola Bay
Pensacola Bay
Pensacola Bay
Pensacola Bay
None
Bayou Chico via Jones
Swamp Creek
Bayou Chico via Jones
Swamp Creek
Secondary (trickling filter) Bayou Chico via Jones
Swamp Creek
Secondary (trickling filter) Bayou Chico via Jackson
Branch
u.i.con, i Lonoa
Jhiting Field (Navy)
oeconaary (tncming niLei) nmcKWuLei rvxvei
Oil & grease trap
Clear Creek & Coldwater
River to Blackwater River
-------
General Discussion
days to get it clarified for the record.
Does anyone have any observation or comment to make
on that?
MR. CROCKETT: The only observation or comment, that
we did not Include a report on gravel washes. We do have some
in Alabama. We have reported on it previously and the latest
inspections reveal that they are working satisfactorily.
If you are going to Include industries of that type,
they should be made baslnwide, the Inclusion.
MR. WHITE: Fine* We will make it baslnwlde.
MR. CROCKETT: And perhaps we Bhould define, I don't
know whether we can do it right sitting here or not, to what
extent we should go.
MR. WHITE: Well, I think that as far as we are con-
cerned now we would go as far as the information that,we have
submitted to the Corps of Engineers and to EPA under the Refuse
Act permit program, and I will—
MR. TRAINA: Mr. Chairman, would you want to explain
that to Include municipalities as well?
MR. WHITE: Yes, I think we should. And I understand
from Mr. Crockett's testimony before that he Included this in
the original report, but we could have an update on what has
been done by all the municipalities.
-------
601
General Discussion
MR, CROCKETT: I would like to correct that. I found
I was In error, that the latest submittal on municipal wastes
other than In the area which Is considered to have an Inter-
state effect was not made to the 1970 session of this confer-
ence but was made in 1969 at a hearing here In Pensacola called
by the former Governor Kirk. I promised Mr. Levin to make that
available, that it was available In the transcript of the
session. It isn't. And I would include municipalities In this
report that we are talking about, but I want more thin 15 days.
MR. WHITE: How much time would you need, Mr. Crockett?
MR. CROCKETT: I would like to have it within 30 days.
I would like to have 30 days to do It. Primarily we have
several Important matters coming up, Including meetings of our
commission, that we must prepare for and participate In. But
we will make an update on the municipal wastes within a 30-day
period.
MR. WHITE: All right, fine. Well, then, we will
Just set a 30-day period for the submission to the conferees
of all of this information, Including that developed by the
Corps of Engineers, EPA, and the State of Alabama on municipal-
ities.
MR. RAVAN: Is that all right with the State of
Florida? Because I know this exists In both cases.
-------
General Discussion
602
MR„ MAURIELLO: We have no objections,, It is all in
our permit system. We will Just pull it out„
MR0 WHITE: Then if there are no objections,, we will
proceed that way.
Are there other comments or questions?
MR. RAVAN: I would like to make one further comments
Mr. Chairman. If you would„ I think it would be a matter for
the record and for the public at large that you might make a
statement as to the availability of the information that we
will be gathering as far as the public is concerned,
I will 3ay that this will be on file with the
Environmental Protection Agency and each of the States involved
and would, of course, be available for review for anyone who
desires to do so.
I believe Mr. Levin indicated he had a comment to
make.
MR. LEVIN: Yes. We have sat here now for a day and
a half and unless you all think I am a complete fool,, when we
talk about Philadelphia and northern experts and things of
this nature, I am not trying to relive the Civil War„ Being
a trial lawyer, I happen to know how I try a lawsuit when it
comes time for needing an expert. This is not to say that
these experts are not qualified, capable and intellectually
-------
603
General Discussion
honest men. It is just that any time you have got two people
Involved in a particular field you are apt to get two different
opinions.
Now, we even have a book amongst the trial lawyers
that goes about telling us the names and addresses of these
experts and how we can go about finding them and then naturally
we call the ones and we keep calling them until we find the
ones that tell us what we want to hear. Now, that is no big
secret. .1 mean let's face it. And then the defense counsel
will do the sane thing. Obviously he is not going to hire an
expert that is going to come down and lose the case for him.
It Just makes sense.
I have heard several definitions of experts. One
of them is it is someone from out of town with a briefcase.
The second definition of an expert is somebody who knows more
artd more about less and less until he ends up knowing everything
about nothing.
But what I am trying to say Is this, that the reason
why I questioned the location of the place where the expert
came from was only to the extent of where it Just seemed to me
a little bit unusual, especially when I heard the doctors
testify that a 17-degree above ambient discharge contributed
nothing materially to the eutrophlcatlon of that bay. It Just
-------
604
General Discussion
seemed to me unusual that Qulf Power had to go all the way to
the State of Pennsylvania to find somebody to come in here and
testify as to somebody:else's opinion.
So while I enjoy a good Joke, Dr. Trout, and I
certainly appreciated what you had to say, I don't want you
to think that I am that much of a fool that a place where a
person comes from has anything to do with his testimony only
to the extent which I Just mentioned. So I hope you understand
that.
MR. WHITE: Are there any other comments by the
conferees?
If not, we will recess now in Just a minute and plan
to get back together In the morning at 9 a.m. before we get
into another meeting, a progress meeting on the Perdldo Bay
situation, and will at that time come forward with conclusions
and recommendations and findings of the conferees.
Before leaving today, I would like to thank each
and every one of you who participated and all of you in
attendance for coming and say that we have a pretty big Job
in front of us now trying to decide where to go with this prob-
lem. As you know, we heard a good bit of testimony. And we
will give it due deliberation and come up with our best findings
on this.
-------
General Discussion
605
We stand recessed until 9 a.m. in the morning.
(Whereupon, at 2 o'clock an adjournment was taken
until 9 o'clock, Wednesday, January 26, 1972.)
-------
MORNING SESSION
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1972
(9 o'clock)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back In session., And I should
point out for you here today who weren't here yesterday that
this Is the tall end of the Escambia Bay conference that was
held Monday and Tuesday.
The conferees met In executive session and I am
happy to report unanimously agreed on revised conclusions and
recommendations,which I will read now.
The numbers and sizes of fish kills in Escambia Bay
during 1971 have provided continued evidence of critical water
quality conditions. The seriousness of the problem requires
that stringent measures be taken to enable the bay to regain
the natural ecological balance needed to make this water body
a resource reather than a detriment to the State of Florida,,
The conferees arrived at the following conclusions:
1. General progress continues to be made in reducing
waste loads entering the bay. The conferees take special note
of the achievements of the Container Corporation of America
plant in meeting loading requirements established by the second
session of the conference.
2. The conferees are concerned that plans submitted
by Monsanto, Air Products and American Cyanamid plants do not
appear to be adequate to meet conference recommendations.
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
607
3. The conferees commend the city of Pensacola in
financing and providing interim modifications of their Northeast
sewage treatment plant to meet the recommendations of the con-
ference.
4. While Monsanto has discontinued the use of poly-
chlorinated blphenyls, the continued presence of this substance
in the waters and sludges of Escambia River and Bay remain a
concern.
5. The report of the Menhaden Conference conducted
under the auspices of the Gulf Breeze Laboratory provided
valuable information to the conferees regarding the life cycle
of menhaden as well as the problems associated with the cleanup
of these fish in Escambia Bay.
6. The conferees recognize the progress made by
Container Corporation of America in studying methods for
removing color.
7. Information provided to the conferees strongly
Indicates past dredging activities in the Mulat-Mulatto Bayou
area have contributed to the fish kills which have occurred.
The efforts on the part of the Department of Transportation in
Btudylng the effects of these dredging activities should provide
a basis for specific recommendations for alleviating this
apparent problem.
-------
600
Conclusions and Recommendations
8. The Corps of Engineers has informed the conferees
that it is without authority or funds to acquire upland spoil
areas or sites in the Escambia Bay area. The conferees are
of the opinion that authority should be sought to permit the
Corps to dispose of spoil material in areas that do not
adversely affect the bay.
9« The evaluation of the effects of thermal dis-
charges from Monsanto and Gulf Power Company plants on biota
of Escambia River and Bay are not conclusive, and further
studies are indicated.
10. The conferees commend East Brewton, Alabama,
for retaining an engineer and developing a grant application
for construction of a waste treatment facility to meet confer-
ence requirements. The conferees note with concern that
Century, Florida, has not taken similar actions.
11. In addition to. the control measures that must be
taken by the municipalities and Industries in the area, informa-
tion provided to the conferees shows that a positive program
from bay restoration must be undertaken. While many technical
questions remain unresolved, the conferees recognize the need
for action In implementing its previous recommendations as well
as undertaking additional measures directed toward restoring
the ecological balance of Escambia Bay.
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
The general heading of Recommendations:
To reduce or eliminate the accelerated eutro-
phication of Escambia Bay and Mulat-Mulatto Bayou, and
to provide water quality suitable for a wide diversity
of desirable uses, the conferees make the following
recommendations without prejudice to the rights of the
States of Alabama and Florida to enact more stringent
requirements. ^Fhese recommendations would be accomplished
by not later than December 31, 1972, except as otherwise
specified.
1. There shall be reductions of 90 percent
5-day BOD, 94 percent nitrogenous wastes, and 90 percent
phosphorus wastes discharged to Escambia River and Bay
from major sources in Florida, Including American Cyana-
mid Company, Monsanto Company, and Air Products, Inc.
Due to the distance from Escambia Bay of Container
Corporation of America's plant site, a reduction of
90 percent 5-day BOD waste will be required. These
percent reductions permit the following allowable waste
effluents.
Let me deviate from the reading to point
out that this recommendation is in essence the same as
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
610
the previous recommendation with some very minor modifications.
Container Corporations 5=day BOD 4,850 pounds, total
nitrogen, not applicable, total phosphorus not applicable.
Monsanto: BOD 605 pounds, total nitrogen 248 pounds,
total phosphorus 46 pounds *
American Cyanamld: 5-day BOD 425 pounds, total
nitrogen 323 pounds, total phosphorus not applicable,.
Air Products: 5-day BOD 17 pounds, total nitrogen 477
pounds, total phosphorus 35 pounds.
The foregoing allowable waste loads shall be obtained
by December 31, 1972. If further Investigation shows that
these limits are excessive, Monsanto, American Cyanamld, and
Air Products must develop a plan to completely remove their
discharges from the bay.
There shall be maximum feasible reduction of carbon-
aceous organic material,, All waste discharges shall monitor
effluents to ensure reductions and conduct feasibility studies
and submit a plan of abatement for carbonaceous waste to the
conferees by February 15, 1972.
Container Corporation shall provide further secondary
treatment of bleach plant and woodyard wastes.
2. The Environmental Protection Agency and the State
of Florida technical staffs shall schedule a series of in-plant
-------
611
Conclusions and Recommendations
investigations into treatment techniques and process control
of the Monsanto„ American Cyanamid, and Air Products plants
to determine the effectiveness of present attempts to meet
conference requirements. A report of such Investigations snail
be made to the conferees as soon as possible, but not later
than May 1, 1972. These investigations are not in lieu of
continued efforts by the company to effect the results as out-
lined in paragraph 1 above. In addition, any other industrial
waste sources which may discharge Into Escambia River and Bay
or its tributaries shall be reported on, with recommendations
for abatement.
3. The city of Pensacola shall submit to the con-
ferees by May 1, 1972, operating data on the effects of the
plant modifications made to the Northeast sewage treatment
plant showing its compliance with the recommendations of this
conference. The city of Pensacola and the County Commissioners
of Escambia shall report to the conferees by May 1, 1972, the
status of the 5-year master plan developed by the Escambia-
Santa-Rosa Planning Council and adopted by the city and county.
The status report should Include estimated dates for the
implementation of the 5-year plan.
!|. The Environmental Protection Agency's Gulf Breeze
Laboratory shall monitor the effluent and adjacent areas of the
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
612
Monsanto plant to determine the presence of any polychlorlnated
biphenyls and provide monthly reports to the conferees.
5. The conferees recognize the critical situation
concerning the life cycle of menhaden and are forwarding copies
of the report of the Menhaden Conference to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency and the Southeast Fisheries
Association urging a plan for protection of this valuable
commercial species.
Because of the additive problems attendant to dead
fish decomposing and recycling nutrients into the bay, as well
as presenting a health hazard, the conferees recommend that the
Governor of the State of Florida take actions as he deems
necessary for the immediate removal of such fish in the future
until such time as corrective measures are completed,
6. Color In the Escambia River at the Alabama-
Florida State line as measured at the Highway 4 Bridge near
Century, Florida, shall be reduced to levels meeting Alabama,
Florida, and Federal standards. The conferees require that
the Container Corporation of America shall present a progress
report 6y April 1, 1972, with its recommendations for color
removal.
7. It is recognized the Department of Transportation
of the State of Florida has retained a consultant group to
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
613
evaluate and make recommendations concerning the Mulat-Mulatto
Bayou and the 1-10 Canal System. The Department of Transporta-
tion shall provide the conferees by March 1, 1972, Kith their
evaluations, recommendations, and a plan of implementation for
corrective measures as recommended by their consultant. Upon
approval or modification by the conferees, this plan will be
referred to the Governor of Florida for appropriate action.
8. No further construction dredging shall be per-
mitted in Escambia Bay and Mulat-Mulatto Bayou until the
artificial buildup of organic sediment deposits ceases and
stabilizes. Maintenance dredging of existing channels shall
be by hydraulic pipeline or by hopper dredge. Disposal of
all dredged materials from hydraulic dredging shall be done in
a manner and to spoil sites acceptable to the conferees.
9. The conferees recommend that the Environmental
Protection Agency in cooperation with the University of West
Florida and the State of Florida conduct field studies to deter-
mine the effects of thermal discharges from Monsanto and Gulf
Power Companies on the biota of Escambia Bay and River and
report their findings to the conferees by September 15, 1972.
10. Century, Florida, and East Brewton, Alabama,
shall install by not later than December 31, 1972, secondary
waste treatment facilities acceptable to their respective State
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
614
water pollution control agencies. These municipalities shall
report to their respective State water pollution control
agencies on progress being made beginning March 1, 1972, and
each 90 days thereafter.
11. Because of the many questions which have been
brought to the attention of the conferees regarding the overall
ecology and over-enrichment of Escambia Bay, the conferees
recommend that a recovery study team be organized under the
overall direction of the Environmental Protection Agency. This
recovery team shall include the University of Florida System,
working through the University of West Florida, the Florida
Department of Pollution Control, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and any other public or private agency, institution,
or industry with an essential contribution to make. Specific
plan for the recovery study—including staffing, financing, and
basic investigative methods—shall be submitted to the con-
ferees by April 1, 1972. Independent plans for gathering
information in the next several months that would complement
the basic objectives of the recovery program are encouraged
to proceed. Among other things the team shall consider the
desirability of diverting the White River or a portion thereof
into Escambia Bay.
This concludes the development and proposal of the
-------
615
Conclusions and Recommendations
revised conclusions and recommendations. And as I pointed out
to you at the beginning of the conference, these conclusions
and recommendations must be submitted to the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency for his approval. Prior to
that time they will serve as administrative guides to all of
the participants in the conference. We would hope that approval
of the conclusions and recommendations will be forthcoming
within the next 30 days.
I would now like to call on the other conferees to
see if they have any statements to make at this time.
Mr. Levin?
MR. LEVIN: No.
MR. CROCKETT: Could we go off the record for Just a
MR. WHITE: Off the record.
(Off the record.)
MR. WHITE: Let's go back on the record.
Mr. Crockett, do you have any statement or observa-
MR. CROCKETT: I think that this report and summary
and conclusions you have read show that there has been consider-
able progress and I would like to express appreciation of
Alabama for that progress.
minute?
tion?
-------
616
Conclusions and Recommendations
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
Mr. Traina?
MR. TRAINA: I have no comments to make.
MR. WHITE: I would like to clear the record on some-
thing that I said yesterday with respect to a report submitted
by the Southeast Fisheries Association or in fact the promlBe
to submit a published report within 30 days, that this will be
accepted Into the record and made a part of the transcript that
will receive distribution.
With that« I would like to thank again all of the
participants and attendees of the conference and give a special
thanks to Dr. Tom Hopkins and Dr. Duke, who is Director of the
Gulf Breeze Laboratory, for their valuable assistance.
We stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 9:15 o'clock an adjournment was
taken.)
-------
RESULTS OF A CREEL CENSUS OF THE LOWER ESCAMBIA RIVER SPORTS FISHERY
W. Carroll Hixson
Jorma I. NIven
Thomas S. Hopkins
Published and Distributed
As a Community Conservation Project
by the
BREAM FISHERMEN ASSOCIATION
1333 North Spring Street
Pensacola, Florida
32501
-------
6l8
RESULTS OF A CREEL CENSUS OF THE LOWER ESCAMBIA RIVER SPORTS FISHERY
W. Carroll Hixson
Jorma I. Niven
Thomas S. Hopkins
December 8, 1971
Bream Fishermen Association
1333 North Spring Street
Pensacola, Florida 32501
-------
619
FOREWORD '
A major problem in evaluating the ecological status of an area is generally the
lack of background information against which changes, whether for the good or the
bad, can be measured. This report presents such information with respect to the status
of sports fishing in the lower Escambia River near Pensacola, Florida.
The basic creel census data were collected in the spring of 1970 by members of
the Bream Fishermen Association (BFA). During this period, these individuals spent
nearly 1000 manhours at various fish camps assisting in the completion of the creel
survey forms. The following officers and members of the BFA contributed sacrificially
of their time and energy in completing this project: C. A. Lowery-President,
G. T. Turnipseed-Treasurer, J. R. Bowman, E. L. Bridges, Jr., A. N. Dennis III,
A. N. Dennis, Jr., T. A. Griner, Wayne C. Hixson, J. A.-Martin, J. W. Norman,
and D. H. Russell. In addition we wish to acknowledge the indispensable assistance
of the BFA wives and children.
Particular thanks also go to the many local sports fishermen who participated in
the creel census program. Without their willing and cheerful support, it would not
have been possible to implement the study.
This report is published and distributed as a community conservation project by the
Bream Fishermen Association, 1333 North Spring Street, Pensacola, Florida 32501.
It is our earnest hope that fishermen as well as conservationists, biologists, and others,
officially or unofficially interested in the maintenance of good sports fishing, will
find these data of value. For the convenience of those who wish a cursory review of
the findings, a short summary is included at the end of the report.
W. Carroll Hixson, Secretary
Bream Fishermen Association
Jorma I. Niven
Bream Fishermen Association
Thomas S. Hopkins
Dept. of Biology, University of West Florida
-------
620'
• INTRODUCTION
In northwest Florida the effects of water pollution have been most pronounced in the lower Escambio.Rlver
and its estuarine link to the Gulf of Mexico, Escambia Bay. Since 1967, Escambia Bay and many of its con-
necting bayous and backwaters have been exposed to numerous massive fish kills that have occurred regularly
during the late summer and fall months (refi. 1). The causes of the degraded water quality conditions in the
bay are not atypical in that they originate from a wide variety of mon-produced discharges including industrial
waste, municipal sewage, septic tank seepage, street and development drainage, dredging byproducts, and
agricultural runoff. Though many of these sources are concentrated in the urbanized Escambia Bay area,
additional contributions are received from the Escambia River proper and its drainage basin which extends
northward from .Pensacola, Florida to the Alabama border; and then northeastward across Alabama via the
Conecuh River system.
At the time this study was initiated, it was a well established fact that the cumulative effect of these
pollutants hod been the serious degradation of the Escambia Bay sports fishery relative to marine and brackish-
water game fishes. Commercial fishing operations, particularly those involving shrimp, were at a near stand-
still. Furthermore, it was the opinion of many local sports fishermen that the related fresh-water sports fishery
in the tidewater sections of the Escambia River proper had also suffered to a considerable extent from pollution.
Though some indirect evidence was ovailable to indirectly support this contention (refs. 2 and 3), few quanti-
tative dato were available to aescribe the octual yield status of the Escambia River sports fishery.
In" this light, it was decided to enlist the cooperation of local sports fishermen in the conduct of a compre-
hensive survey of the creel produced in the tidewater sections of the lower Escambia River. The basic objective
was to design and implement a creel census that would evaluate the papulation status of the sports fishery in
terms of the "catch-per-unit-of-fishing-effort" obtained by the sports fishermen who routinely fish ihis section
of the river. An equally important objective was to structure the creel census in'such a form that the current
results could serve as a baseline measurement reference for evaluation of the results of similar surveys that
would occur, hopefully, in the future.
This latter objective is made difficult by the Fact that though the sports fisherman's yield is an indirect
measure of the game fish population of the fishery, changes in the yield that may be detected by furore creel
surveys may not necessarily reflect a corresponding change in the fish population. For example, in the future
it is quite possible that a greater number of fishermen may become more knowledgeable of the best fishing spots
within the river system. An increase in their yield could result even though the fish population remained con-
stant. In contradistinction, if fishing pressure increased to a morginal level os a result of a significant rise in
the number of sports fishermen, it is conceivable that the yield might decline even though the fish population
might be on the increase.
Because of this difficulty in differentiating between the contribution of the fish population and the contri-
bution of fisherman characteristics to the yield measured by such a creel census, considerable attention was
given to collecting census data thot would delineate the basic fishing habits of the participating sports fishermen.
1
-------
622
To overage out the day-to-day variations in yield that occur as a result of weather changes and tidal effects,
the survey was scheduled on a three-month longitudinal basis. Furthermore, to gain a measure of the yield
under maximum fishing pressure conditions, the three-month survey period was scheduled during the spring
spawning season when both fishermen activity and fishing conditions reach their peak levels.
PROCEDURE
Since the survey was to be conducted on a complete volunteer basis, special attention was given to the
problem of gaining the sustained support of the participating fishermen over the rother extended survey period.
In this direction, the data collection task was assigned to the Bream Fishermen Association, a local fishing
and hunting conservation organization. Because of this organization's previous work in alerting the community
to its pollution problems, its sportsmen members were readily able to gain the full cooperation of the Escambia
River fishermen. To strengthen rapport with the fishing public, advance publicity as to the objectives of the
creel census was prepored and distributed to the local news medio. Posters describing the census were also
prepared and displayed in numerous fish camps, tackle shops, and related sporting goods stores.
A further point relative to the volunteer basis of .the survey involved the realization that, in general, the
returning fishermen would be tired and in a hurry to trailer their boat after a full day of fishing. Accordingly,
emphasis was placed on minimizing the tolai amount of data collection time required of each returning fishing
party. In this direction, a simplified questionnaire was prepared for collection of the census doto. As shown .
in Appendix A, one side of the questionnaire listed the basic information to be entered. Data requested
included the nurher of fishermen in the given fishing party, the totol number of hours spent fishing by the party,
the total number of fishes caught according to species, the approximate length of thelargest fish caught within
each species classification, and information as to the various locations within the river sy;tem that the party
fished during the given trip.
To assist in securing the location doto, a mop of the river was printed on the reverse side of the question-
naire. As shown in Appendix A, the survey region extended northward from the mouth of the Escambia River
to its junction with the Delaney River near the township of Molino, Florida. This region provides area fisher-
men with over 60 miles of fishing'waters with o surface area considerably greater than 1000 acres. A grid
superimposed on the map divided the area into 35 one-square-mi le subregions that were individually identified
by a numerical symbol. This division of the survey region into the rather large one-square-mile areas was
selected in the belief that any further subdivision might discourage some fishermen from revealing where they
had fished. That is, it was felt that the identification of fishing areas of this size would not give a cautious
fishermen the impression that the intent of the creel census was to uncover his "secret fishing hole." As indi-
cated by the questionnaire, the fishing parties were requested to list by map number all areas that they had
fished within during the given trip. In addition, they were asked to identify separately those listed oreas
where they did not catch any fish.
To initiate the survey, questionnaires were distributed to each of the fish camps within the survey region
and the related fish camp operators given a complete briefing on the project objectives. To assist the fishermen
in the completion of Hie questionnaire, members of the Bream Fishermen Association were onhand at each of
2
-------
622
the major fish campi from dawn to dusk throughout each weekend of the three-month survey period. These
Individuals distributed the survey forms to departing fishermen and, upon their return, assisted in the count
and identification of the catch.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
¦o< y
The survey program resulted in the collection of creel dato that described the catch produced by 1,234
different fishing trips that occurred on the lower Escambia River during April, May, and June of 1970.
Taking into account the number of fishermen involved in each of these 1,234 fishing parties, the over-all
.creel was produced by a total of 2,558 sports fishermen. Since some of the fishermen made two or more trips
during the survey period, the total number of individual fishermen who participated in the survey was less than
this total. These fishing parties spent a to to I of 6,912 hours fishing on the Escambia River and produced a total
creel of 13,210 fish. In terms of the time spent fishing by the individual fishermen, this creel was produced
by a total fishing effort of 14,231 manhours.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE BASIC ANGLING TECHNIQUES OF THE FISHERMEN
The hook-and-line methods used by the Escambia River fishermen follow, in general, those practiced
throughout the southeastern section of the country. That is, either natural or artificial baits are presented
with some form of spin-casting, bait-casting, fly-casting, or cane pole type fishing outfit. During the period
of this survey, the most commonly used live natural bait was the earthworm (local names for the most popular
species included wigglers,, redworms, and "earthworms"). Other live bait offerings included crickets, catalpa
worms, oak worms, bait minnows, and shrimp. In the cose of artificial baits, the most commonly used lure
was ~ feathered popping bug followed by the conventional line of floating and sinking type cast-and-retrieve
lures. Though not validated, it was a general observation that the majority of the survey fishermen used one
or more forms of live natural bait in conjunction with one or more cane-pole type fishing rigs to produce their
creel. A further point concerns the rather extensive flood plains thot bound both sides of the Escambia River
in the survey region. Since these flood plains limit access to the river, the contribution of bank or shore-
based fishermen to the over-all creel was negligible. In effect, the creel was produced by individuals fishing
from small, outboard-motor powered, fishing boats,
NUMBER, SPECIES, AND WEIGHT OF FISH CAUGHT BY PARTICIPATING FISHERMEN
The names of the principal species of fish caught during the survey, and their relative incidence expressed
as a percentage of the total catch of 13,210 fish, are shown in Table I. Though the tidewater section of the
Escambia River supports many different families of fresh-water and brackish woter fishes (ref. 4), the survLy
.data (the left-hand column of numbers in Table I) show that the Centrorchidoe family of sunfishes was by far the
predominant element of the sports fisherman's creel. The most common member of this family that was caught
was the bluegill (44.8 percent of the total catch), followed by the redear sunfish (29.1 percent), the spotted
sunfish (7.7 percent), the lorgemouth bass (7.5 percent), and the warmouth (2.8 percent). In total, these
members of the Centrorchidoe family accounted for 91.9 percent of the totol catch. The "other species" listing
in this table includes striped mullet, flounder, sheepsheod, American eel, pumpkinseed sunfish, and assorted
croakers.
3
-------
623
To gain tome insight info the average weight of Che fish caught- during the census period, weigh-in stations
were setup at two fish camps (Smith's Camp and Beck's Lake Camp) on three successive weekends. A total of
1,193 were weighed during this period representing a 9 percent sample of the total number of fish caught. The
total weight of this sample was 248 pounds giving an approximate mean weight of 0.23 pounds per fish. Using
this mean weight as an extrapolation reference, it can be estimated that the total weight of the entire creel of
13,210 fish was approximately 2,750 pounds.
TABLE I
Species and number of fish caught by Escambia River sports fishermen compared to the species and number of
fish collected by the electroshock method in the Little White section of the Escambia River. Number expressed
os the percentage of the total catch. .
SPECIES
CEN5U5 CREEL ELECTROSHOCK
RESULTS RESULTS *
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
LOCAL
NAME
pttCEwr of
13,210 FISH
KKEnT w
950 FISH
Lepomis macrochilia
Bluegill sunfish
Bream
44.8
36.1
Lepomis microlophus
Redear sunfish
'Shellcracker
29.1
18.6
Lepomis punctatus
Spotted sunfish
Stumpknocker
7.7
10.6
Micropterus solmoides
Largemouth bass
Green trout
7.5
17.8
Chaenobryttus coronarius
Wormouth
Goggle eye
2.8
1.7
Ictoluridoe
Catfish family
2.0
0.4
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Block ciappie
Speckled perch
1.1
0.3
Amia colva
Bowfin
Grinnel
0.3
2.3
Lepisosteidae
Gar family
0.2
3.6
Esox niger
Chain pickerel
Jock fish
0.1
0.1
Other species
4.4
8.4
100.0
. 99.9
Date collected by Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission using AC electroshock method on the
Little White River. A total of 950 fish were collected as a result of nine separate samplings that occurred
during the fall of 1970 and the spring of 1971 (ref. 5).
COMPARISON OF CREEL CENSUS DATA TO ELECTROSHOCK COLLECTION DATA -
Throughout the country, fish biologists often use the electroshock method of collecting fish for evaluation
of the productivity and population status of fresh-water sports fisheries. When capture-mark-recapture statis-
tical techniques are applied in conjunction with this collection method to a given fish species of a given size,
a valid measure of the population of this specific species classification results. Becouse of the considerable
amount of time and expense involved in these mark-type population studies, it is sometimes an economic
necessity to bypass the marking procedure and utilize the raw data, e.g., the number and size of each species
caught, to arrive at an estimate of the productivity of the sports fishery; In this case, It is important to estab-
lish some quantitative relationship between the species distribution of the game fish recovered by the electro-
shock method and the species distribution of the game fish actually present in the sports fisherman's creel.
Fortunately, some quantified insight into this matter can be gained for the creel census region as o result
of o comprehensive capture-mark-recapture study (ref. 5) conducted by fish biologist members of the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission in the Little White section (Area 26 on the map presented In Appendix A)
4
-------
6214
of the lower Escambio River. This study, implemented in the fall of 1970 and the spring of 1971, utilized a
240 VAC alternator to power two water-immersed cable-type electrodes attached to the bow of a wort boot.
Using this specific electroshock technique, a total of 950 fish were collected as a result of nine different
three-hour electrofishing sessions in the denoted area.
The percent distribution of the various species of fish caught in this electroshock study are shown to the
right of the corresponding creel dato in Table I. It is obvious that the species distribution produced by the
sports fishermen differs from that produced by the electroshock method. This would be expected in part since
the electroshock method is far less selective than the hook-and-line method. There is a general correlation,'
however, in that the top four species caught by the sports fishermen corresponds to the top four species recov-
ered by electroshock. The bluegill, redear sunfish, spotted sunfish, and largemouth bass accounted for
approximately 89 percent of the creel census data and 83 percent of the-electroshock data. An attendant
discrepancy, however, involves the relative incidence of the largemouth bass. For this specific four-species
subpopulotion, largemouth bass represented 8.4 percent of the fish caught by fishermen and 21.4 percent of
the fish caught by electroshock. In effect, the electroshock method indicated a lorgemouth bass incidence
that was 2.5 times greater than the incidence indicated by the creel data. Even when one takes into account
the total number of fish of all species caught by the two methods, the electroshock measure of bass papulation
is still 2.4 times that actually yielded to the sports fishermen. It is reasonable to consider that this discrepancy
might be due in part to the fact that the creel census data were derived from an area much larger than that
where,the electroshock data were collected. However, an analysis of the creel census data collected in the
electroshock region (Area 26) shows a bass incidence, relative to the total number of fish caught, oF only 6.3
percent.
THE YIELD OF THE LOWER ESCAMBIA RIVER SPORTS FISHERY
Because of variations in the amount of time different fishermen actually spend fishing, it is convention to
measure the yield of o sports fishery in terms of the catch-per-unit-of-fishing effort. In the case of this creel
census, fishing effort for a given trip is represented by the number of manhours spent fishing. This manhour
figure was calculated for each of the' 1,234" trips by multiplying the number of fishermen in the given party by
the total amount of time the party spent fishing/ These calculations showed that Esccmbio River fishermen who
participated in the survey expended o total fishing effort of 14,231 manhours.
Though the over-all yield could be expressed simply as the total number of fish caught during the survey
divided by the total number of manhours spent fishing, the resulting figure would be relatively meaningless
because of the wide variations that exist in the skills or, more kindly, luck of the individual sports fishermen.
For this reoson, the yield for each of the 1,234 trips was calculated by dividing the number of manhours spent
fishing into the total number of fish caught during the given trip. A plot of these individual yield data is
presented in histogram form in Figure 1. This figure shows the number of fishing trips, expressed as a percent-
age of the lotol of 1,234 trips, that produced the denoted yield in 0.2 fish-per-monhour increments. The
considerable variation in yield and the nonsymmetrical distribution are quite obvious.
5
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF 9 FISH CAUGHT PER MANHOUR OF FISHING
ON EACH OF THE 1,234
FISHING TRIPS
20
CO
a.
a.
~-
o
*
X
CO
E
b
H
Z
¦u
U U U <1 tl uu
FI*H PER MAMHOUR
Figure 1.
Frequency distribution showing the relative incidence of a given yield for the
1,234 different fishing trips recorded by the 1970 creel census of the lower
Escambia River sports fishery. Note the nonsymmetrical nature of the distribution.
These same individual yield data, with the exception that the yield increment is 0.1 flsh-per-manhour,
ore shown plotted in cumulative distribution form in Figure 2. These data indicate that the median yield for
the Escambia River sports fishery was slightly greater than 0.6 fish-per-manhour. The 75 percent ortd 25 per-
cent quartiles were approximately 1.3 and 0.3 fish-per-manhour, respectively. The yield at the 75 percent
quartile {denoting the most successful fishing parties) was twice the yield at the median level and over four
times greater than the yield at the 25 percent quartile (denoting the least successful fishing parties). Expressed
in sports fisherman language, the "average Escambia River fisherman" required approximately 1.7 houn of
fishing time to catch each fish in his creel. Average in the median sense denotes that fisherman who had a
yield that was greater than the yield of the least successful 50 percent of the fishermen and less than the yield
of the most successful 50 percent of the fishermen.
These variations in yield are similarly expressed by the cumulative distribution plot presented in Figure 3.
These data were obtained by making a frequency count of the number of fish that were caught on each of the
1,234 fishing trips. This distribution indicates that the least successful half of the fishing parties caught only
12 percent of the fish while the most successful half caught BB percent of the fish. In terms of the upper and
lower quartiles, 25 percent of the fishing parties caught 65 percent of the total creel while the lower 25 per-
cent caught only 2 percent of the creel. It should be observed also that over 11 percent of the fishing parties
did not catch any fish at all.
-------
626
100
6
ft
I
I
4
2
rtsa (imit mo aiHHi
Figure 2.
Cumulative frequency distribution oF the yield produced by the 1,234 Fishing trips
based on a 0.1 fish-per-manhour increment. The median yield was 0.6 fish-per-
monhour. The upper and lower quartiles were 1.3 and 0.3 fish-per-manhour,
respectively.
— ?»i
»ot
?ofil «gam or
mi eoiiai
40'
0
«•
10
IB
Figure 3.
Cumulative frequency distribution of relative number of fish caught by the 1,234
fishing parties. These data show that the least successful 50 percent of the fishing
parties caught only 12 percent of the totol creel of 13,210. Similarly, the upper
25 percent of the parties caught 65 percent of the fish while the lower 25 percent
caught only 2 percent of the creel. Note that over 11 percent of the fishing parties
caught nothing whatsoever.
7
-------
A further Interpretation of the 0.6 fish-per-manhour median yield of the Escambia River sporti fishery can
be made by using a mean weight estimate of 0.23 pounds-per-fish as a measurement reference. Combining the
median catch datum with this mean weight figure results in 0 weight yield estimated to be 0.14 pounds of fish-
per-manhour. In this context, the median fishermon was required to spend approximately 7 hours of fishing
time on the Escambia River in order to produce a creel with o gross weight of one pound.
VARIATIONS IN YIELD AND SPECIES DISTRIBUTION AS A FUNCTION OF LOCATION
A secondary objective of this survey was to derive some insight into possible geographical variations in
the yield and species distribution within the survey period. As mentioned previously this objective was
approached by asking each fishing party to list each orea within which they fished as identified in grid fashion
by the map shown in Appendix A. Since il would have been impractical to hove each fishing party guess at
the actual time they spent fishing in each listed area, this time was estimated on the assumption that each area
was fished on equal amount of time. Though this assumption would not be valid for all trips, it was felt that
the considerable size of the sample would tend to average out individual trip variations. Hence, the amount
of time spent fishing in a given area was calculated by dividing the total number of areas the fishing party
stated they had fished into the total number of fishing man hour? expended on the trip. Also, an estimate of
the number of fish caught in each area was calculated by dividing the total number of areas that the fishing
party had indirectly stated produced fish into the total number of fish caught on the trip. The resulting flih-
per-manhour yield was then calculated on an individual area basis for each of the 1,234 different fishing trips.
For the creel associated with a given area to be included in the statistics that follow, 100 manhours was
arbitrarily selected as a minimum fishing effort. With this qualification, summary statistics became available
for 23 of the 35 different one-square-mile fishing regions included in the survey. Those areas not reported
upon include area 1 through 10 at the northern boundary of the survey region and areas 20 and 28. As base-
line reference for future Escambia River creel surveys, a plot of the manhours of fishing time calculated for
each of these 23 areas is shown in Figure 4. These data indicate that fishing pressure was greatest in area 25
(Governors Bayou), area 14 (Becks Lake), oreo 30 (western section of Saltzman Bayou), and areas 34 and 35
(river morshlands near the mouth of the Escambia River).
In Figure 5, a plot is made of the average duration in manhoun of the trips mode to each of the 23 regions.
This overage was calculated by dividing the total number of trips made into a given area by the total number of
manhoun spent fishing in the area. Note that trip durations were of maximum length in areas 12, 13, and 14.
The calculated median yield in fish-per-manhour produced in each of these areas is shown in Figure 6. These
data indicate that, except for area 29 (Thompsons Bayou), the yield was greatest in that portion of the northern
end of the survey region defined by areas 11, 12, 13, and 15..
To investigate any differences present in species distribution as a function of geographical location, the
mean (not median) yield was separately calculated for the three most popular gamefish, i.e., the bluegill,
the redear sunfish (shellcracker), and the largemouth bass. These data are plotted in Figures 7 through 9.
The bluegill data of Figure 7 indicates that, in general, the yield for this species improves as one moves north- -
ward away from the river mouth. For the redear sunfish data shown in Figure 8, the opposite conclusion is
-------
628
TOTAL MANHOURS SPENT FISHING IN EACH AREA ( 1.0 %«14231 MR)
12
IA
K
I.o
-J 6
<
U. 6
o
11 ill I 11
111
~ilT2l 13 I 14 113 116 1 l" I 16 119 I 21 IMI a 12 4123 I fc I ft 129130131 132 133134 ] ft
AREA
Figure 4.
Total number of monhours spent- fishing in the denoted areas (see map in Appendix A
for location of these areas). Fishing pressure was greatest in Governors Bayou (area
25) and near Becks Lake (area 14).
AV
'Eft
AGE
w
INH
OUR
S
>ER
FIS
HIN
C
RIP
B1
A
REi
1 112 113 1 14 119 1 16 117 116 1 19 121 1 2X1231Z4I IB 126127 1291301
1 132133134133
AREA
Figure -5»
Mean amount of fishing effort expended in each of the sfudy areas* Effort was
greatest in areas 12, 13, and 14 toward the northern end of the survey region.
9
-------
629
I.B
I.S
O 1.2
X
X
2
K .9
u
a.
x
CO
Z .6
MEDIAN-NUMBER FISH CAUGHT PER MANHOUR
I B ifl Il4 I B 1 ic ! 17 I IB lift lai ia2iai24IMlZ6l27l29iaol3l IszImI&Im
AREA
Figure 6.
Median yield as a function of fishing area. Except for area 29 (Thompsons Bayou),
the yield was greatest in the northern section defined by areas 11, 12, 13, and 15.
reached since the yield tends to increase near the river mouth. However,the change in yield as a function
of location is not as pronounced as that observed for the bluegill. The high yield present in area 29 (Thompsons
Bayou) is interesting in that this body was permanently closed to fishing the year before the survey was initiated
as a result of its acquisition by the University of West Florida for fish and gome refuge purposes. Because of
an impending hurricane late in 1969, fhe "No Fishing" signs posted ot the mouth of this bayou were removed.
When this creel census was initiated, the sign had not yet been replaced ond many fishermen inodvertently
entered the area to fish the "Shellcracker beds" long-known to exist in the grassy regions of this Bayou. The
yield data of Figure 8 raises the question as to whether or not this one-year closure led to this excellent yield
in area 29.
The largemouth bass data shown in Figure 9 show o pronounced folI—off in yield at the northern end of the
survey region. For regions 11 through 14, the yield wos less than 0.04 bass-per-monhour. These data indicate
that, on the average, it would require approximately 25 hours of fishing effort to catch a single lorgerrouth
bass. In Figure 10, a plot is made of bass incidence expressed as a percentage value of the total number of
fish of all species cought within each area. These dato also show o marked geographical difference in the bass
population. One interpretation of these data might account for these differences by assuming that the river
mouth region is an exceedingly productive bass fishery. However, it is well known locally that this section of
the Escambia River, compored to other rivers in northwest Florida, is not at all an outstanding bass fishery.
10
-------
AVERAGE NUMBER BLUEGILLS CAUGHT PER MANHOUR
I.O-
5
o
X
z
<
s
o
tei
3
li
li
iti i?) ivi in i;i n i> j n i;i mi i-i hi m fvj i-:i tr
-------
AVERAGE NUMBER BASS CAUGHT PER MANHOUR
.16
.04
AREA
Figure 9i
Meon number of largemouth bass caught-per-man hour-of-fishing-effort as a
function of location. The greatest yield was produced in areas 23 and 35.
Note the decided decrease in yield for this species as one moves northward
away from the mouth of the river.
20-
16
i- 12
z
u
II
BE
III
«¦ e
PERCENT BASS OF ALL FISH CAUGHT WITHIN EACH AREA
I I I I I I I
iiiiiiMEiiaiaiHiaiijHiaiiiKnatiiifliatatiitataEiEi
AREA
Figure 10.
Relative incidence of largemouth boss as a function of location. Incidence of
this species is expressed as the percentage of the total number of fish caught in
each area. These data also show a pronounced decrease as one moves north-
ward oway from the mouth of the river.
12
-------
In this context, it is probable that the bass yield in the northern section of the survey region is considerably
lower then what should be expected.
VARIATIONS IN YIELD AS A FUNCTION OF TRIP DURATION AND NUMBER OF FISHERMEN IN A GIVEN
PARTY
In this section, data are presented which detail a few fisherman-related characteristics important to the
evaluation of the yield results of future creel census programs that may be conducted on the Escambia River.
A first point involves the individual differences in trip length and its effect on yield. Since the 1,234 porties
spent a total of 6,912 hours fishing, 'be mean trip length was approximately 5.6 hours. To document the
individual variations in trip length, a frequency count was made of the durations of the 1,234 trips. These
data, based on one-hour increments, are plotted in Figure 11. The median trip length was found to be approxi
mately 5.2 hours.
18
IS-
CIS-
DISTRIBUTION-LENOTH OF TRIP
< 1.0 HOUR INCREMENTS )
0-V
1
Li
i i
0 I 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
LENOTH OF TRIP - HOURS
Figure 11.
Frequency distribution of the duration of the 1,234 fishing trips. The median
trip length was 5.2 hours.
To determine the effect of trip duration on the yield of the trip, the yield dota for the 1,234 trips were
sorted according to the length of the trip In one-Hour increments. The median number-of-fish-caught-per-
manhour was then determined for each of these length classifications. These data, plotted in Figure 12, show
that the greatest yield, approximately 0.8 fish-per-manhour, occurred for trip durations between 8 and 9 hours
The lowest yield resulted for trips of less than 4 hours duration. Since there was relatively little variation in
yield for trip durations greater than 4 hours, it appears that trip length had little effect on the yield beyond
13
-------
633
this m in [mum time period. It should be noted, however, that though the yield does not increase with time,
the sports fishermen who sustains his effort is rewarded the largest total catch.
1.2
s 10
0
1 0.8
ae
w
°- 0.6
K
M
" 0.4
0.2
0
LENGTH Of TRIP-HOURS
Figure 12.
Frequency distribution of the median yield in fish-per-manhour as a function of
trip duration in one-hour increments. Note that there was a decrease fn yield
for trips of less than four-hours duration. However, for trips longer than four
hours, there was little effect on yield as a function of duration.
Another variable in the habits of fishermen involves the total number of fishermen in a given fishing party.
To investigate the effect of this factor on yield, the yield data for the 1,234 fishing'trips was sorted according
.to the total number of fishermen in the party. The median yield in terms of fish-per-manhour was then separate-
ly determined for fishing parties involving one, two, and three fishermen. These data, listed at the left in
Table II, indicate that the greatest success was achieved by the lone fisherman who produced 1.2 fish-per-
manhour. However, if one ignores the number of fishermen in a given party, and calculate: a new yield
figure based on trip hours instead of manhours, a different conclusion is reached. This new yield figure, cal-
culated by multiplying the basic yield figure by the number of fishermen in the party, is listed at the right in
Table II for each size fishing party. For this measure of yield, i.e., fish-per-trip-hour, the two-fishermen
party has a slight advantage. In general, however, these latter yield data show that the number of fishermen
in a party has little effect on the trip yield. This finding should be of interest to sports fishery management in
that if a measure is required of the total fishing pressure placed on a fishery by boat fishermen, a count of the
total number of boats present, rather than a count of the total number of fishermen, would produce the best
estimote.
14
-------
63^
TABLE II
Effect of the number of fishermen in a given fishing party on yield
fish-per-triphour.
expressed as fish-per-manhour and
Number of Fishermen Median Yield
In Fishing Party Fish-per-Manhour
Median Yield
Fish-per-Triphour
1 1.2
2 0.6
3 0.5
1.2
1.2
1.0
OVER-ALL YIELD EXPRESSED AS A FUNCTION OF THE SIZE OF THE SPORTS FISHERY
To facilitate the comparison of the yield data produced by this study with yield data that may be avail-
able for other sports fisheries of different geographical size, a listing of the length and surface acreage of
various waterways within the lower Escambia River basin is presented in Table III. The reference source for
these data were three aerial photographs reporduced on single-weight photographic paper to a scale of approxi-
mately 1 to 18,000. To arrive at the surface acreage figures, each denoted waterway section was cut out of
the aerial photographs with o scalpel. These cutouts, as well as reference cutouts of Jcnown area, were Indivi-
dually weighed on a Mettler Model S5 Analytical Balance. The resulting weight data were then converted to
their acreage equivalent.
It should be noted that the data listed in Table III pertain to that section of the Escambia River system
located south of Williams Ditch. As indicated by the map shown in Appendix A, this region corresponds to
areas I) through 35 of the creel study. The Table III data show that there are nearly 80 miles of fishing waters
in this region. Since this table does not include acreage data for many of the smaller bodies of water within
the survey region, it is estimated that these fishing waters have a minimum surface area of at least 1000 acres.
When these length and acreage data are combined with the total creel figure of 13,210 fish and the total
estimated creel weight of 2,750 pounds, the following yield dota result for the three-month survey period:
In terms of the length of the fishing waters, the total catch in number was approximately 165 flsh-per-mile;
the estimated catch by weight was approximately 34 pounds-per-mile. On an acreage basis, the catch was
approximately 13 fish-per-acreo; the estimated weight yield was approximately 3 pounds-per-acre.
An estimote of the yearly yield of the lower Escambia River sports fishery is made difficult by the fact that
fishing pressure is not constont throughout the year. Following the spring season peak, fishermen activity falls
off considerably during the hot summer months, decreases even further during the fall months, and is nearly
nonexistent during the winter. This yearly estimote is further complicated in that the creel census data cannot
be expected to account for every fish caught in the river system during the census period. For example, as dato
collectors were not present at the fish camps on weekdays, the return of completed questionnaires from weekday
fishermen would be less than from weekend fishermen. However, several fish camp operators stated that 80 to
90 percent of their business occurred on weekends. Combining these offsetting factors, one may estimate that
the creel census represents at least one-fourth the total yearly yield. Such an estimate is conservative in that
it probably overestimates the yield of the fishery, if anything.
15
-------
635
Estimated length and area
TABLE III
of selected waterways in the Escambio River Creel Census Area
NAME OF WATERWAY
PORTION OF WATERWAY LENGTH
MEASURED (miles)
AREA
(acres)
MAIN RIVER
Escambia River
Mouth to Highway 90 Causeway
1.5
72
Escambia River
Causeway to Thompsons Bayou
1.6
103
Escambia River
Thompsons Bayou to Gas Canal
2.6
104
Escambia River
Gas Canal to While River
5.0
100
Escambia River
White River to Williams Ditch
1.4
' 30
Subtotal 1
12.1
410
MAJOR TRIBUTARIES
East River
Escambia River to Escambia Bay
1.6
46
Gum River
Escambia River to Escambio Bay
1.2
12
Sullivans Ditch
East River to Escambia Bay
1.0
19
Saltzmans Bayou
Escambia River to Causeway
2.7
23
Governors Bayou
Escambio River north to Escambia River
2.3
32
White River
Escambia River north to Escambia River
6.2
128
Little White River
White River south to junction with Xs
3.1
52
Big Simpson River
Causeway to White River
3.7
72
Xs Region
North of Causeway - all four prongs
7.4
131
Subtotal 2
31.2
\
515
BACKWATERS OF MAIN RIVER AND
MAJOR TRIBUTARIES
Escambia River
Mouth to Gas Canal
1.8
*
Escambia River
Gas Canal to Wihlimns Ditch
7.3
*
East River
Near Escambia Bay
3.7
*
Saltzmon Bayou
Along entire length
2.2
*
Big Simpson River
Including Woodbine and Bass Cove
4.0
*
Little Simpson River
Along entire length
1.9
*
Xs Region
Not including Coulters Basin
2.3
*
White River
Little White River north to Escambia
River
5.6
*
Little White River
Along entire length
2.6
*
Governors Bayou
Shinney Bayou, Snake Creek, Clear
Creek
2.0
*
Ferry Pass Bayou
Bayou proper
1.2
*
Subtotal 3
34.6
GRAND TOTAL
77.9 miles
925
* Surface acreage of these smaller waterways not measured.
Accordingly, the following rough estimates of the yearly yield are made: In terms of the length of the
fishing waters within the survey region, it is estimated that the total catch by number during 1970 wos approxi-
mately 330 fish-per-mile; the estimated cotch by weight was 136 pounds-per-mile. In terms of acreage, it is
estimated that the total catch by number was-52 fish-per-acre; the total weight yield was approximately 12
pounds-per-acre. These estimations can be interpreted to mean that current fishing pressure had a minimal
effect on the population status of the Escambia River sports fishery.
16
-------
636
SUMMARY.
As o result of the excellent support given to the study by local sports fishermen, it became possible to
conduct a comprehensive creel census for the lower Escambia River sports fishery and thus determine its yield
status. The census was implemented in the spring of 1970 and covered the months of April, May, and June.
The selection of the spring spawning season for the census was deliberate in that the best fishing conditions
arise at this time of year and fisherman activity is at its peak.
The census resulted in the collection of creel data for 1,234 different fishing trips involving 2,558 fisher-
men. These fishermen expended a total fishing effort of 14,231 manhours to produce o creel of 13,210 fish.
The predominant fish species caught included the bluegill (Bream) sunfish (44.8 percent), the redear (Shell-
cracker) sunflsh (29.1 percent), the spotted (stumpknocker) sunfish (7.7 percent), and the largemouth bass
(7.5 percent). A comparison of these creel data with similar species data collected by the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission using the eleetroshock method showed a similarity in the principal species of fish
collected. However, in the case of the largemouth bass, the number collected by eleetroshock was over two
times greater than the number actually yielded to the sports fisherman's creel.
The over-all yield for the Escambia River sports fishery was found to be approximately 0.6 fish-per-
manhour-of-fishing effort. This median figure was bounded by a 75 percent quartile of 1.3 fish-per-manhour
and a 25 percent quartile of 0.3 fish-per-manhour. The yield data also indicated that the least successful
50 percent of the fishermen caught only 12 percent of the total creel of 13,210 fish. Importantly, over 11
percent of the fishing parties did not catch any fish whatsoever. As a result of weigh-in data collected from
a 9 percent somple of the creel, it was estimated that the total weight of the entire creel produced during the
census period was only 2,750 pounds. These same data were used to'orrive at a mean weight for the individual
fish that was estimated to be 0.23 pounds. Using this mean weight as reference, the weight yield of the
Escambia River sports fishery was calculated to be 0.14 pounds-of-fish-per-manhour-of-fishing-effort.
The creel census data also showed marked differences in yield for different species as a function of the
location of the fishing area. The best yield for the bluegill was found to occur toward the northern boundary
of the tidewater survey region. In contradistinction, the best yield for the redear sunfish and the largemouth
bass was found to occur near the mouth of the Escambia River. Most noticeable was the low yield of bass, less
than 0.04 fish-per-manhour, produced in the northern section of the river.
An analysis of certain fishermen-related data indicated that the median trip length was 5.2 hours. These
data also indicated that the yield fell off if the trip duration was less than four hours. However, though there
was a greater yield for trips of longer duration, there appeared to be no great difference in yield for trip dura-
tions beyond the 5.2 hour-median. The census data also showed that though the yield for the lone fishermen
was greater than the yield for fishing parties of larger size, the number-of-fish-caught-per-trip hour (not
manhour) was relatively independent of the size of the fishing party.
Using the median yield data, the mean estimated fish weight data, and the median trip length data in
combination results in the following description of a typical Escambio River fishing party during the creel cen-
sus period. The median or "average" fishing party consisted of two sports fishermen who spent a total of 5.2
17
-------
637
hours fishing on (he Escambia River. Since the median yield was 0.6 fish-per-mcnhour, each of these sports
Fishermen would have a total catch of three fish. Using the estimated average weight of 0.23 pounds-per-
fish as reference, it could be predicted that the totol weight of these three fish would, on the average, not
exceed 0.7 pounds.
In conclusion, it is felt that this survey fully accomplished its objectives relative to establishing a base-
line reference for evaluating any changes in the yield of the Escambia River sports fishery that may be detected
by future creel census programs. Furthermore, in the opinion of the authors, the creel data proper document
the contention of local sports fishermen that pollution has indeed adversely affected the tidewater sections of
the Escambia River sports fishery.
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Proceedings of the Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Escambia River
Basin (Alabama-Florida) and the Intrastate Portions of the Escambia Basin Within the State of Florida,
held at Gulf Breeze, Florida, 21-22 Jan 1970 (2 vols.) Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, U. S. Department of Interior.
2. Tlsdale, W. E.. Report of Investiflotions Into Pollution of Pensacolo Arec Waters. Pensacola, Fla.:
Northwest Regional Office, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, Florida State Board of Health,
19 May 1969.
3. Blanchard, J. (with the assistance of J. L. Crew, R. E. Carr, and R. L. Seigler), Escambia River
Report. Defuniak Springs, Fla.: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, January 1968.
4. Bailey, R. M., Winn, H. W., and Smith; C. L., Fishes from the Escambia River, Alabama and
Florida, with Ecologic and Taxonomic Notes. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. (Philadelphia), 106:
109-164, 1954.
5. Crew, J. L., and Vaughn, T. L. (with the assistance of R. L. Seigler and J. K. Robertson), Escambia
River Summary Report. Defuniak Springs, Fla.: Florido Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
May 1971.
18
-------
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE FORM USED FOR COLLECTION OF CREEL CENSUS DATA
-------
639
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE PROPER
UWF-BfA ESCAMBIA RIVER FISHING SURVEY
CONDUCTED BY YOUR BREAM FISHERMEN ASSOCIATION FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA
attention fishermen
This survey Is belnq conducted by members of tne local BPEA* FISHERMEN ASSOCIATION on behalf
of Or. Tom Hopkins^ Chairman of the Department o# Biology, UNIVERSITY OF *IST FLORIDA. The
Information yaw supply wilt provide a baseline reference on the type and quality of fresh-
water fishing fn Escambia River, The Information wilt be of Inmdlate value ta Identifying
those erevs •here FISh RESTOCKING Is required* It will artsa be of «oiue to the study of
aoMutlon tffee's In the Esevabla River and the uoper bay neer the mouth. Peieember, the
survey is being conducted tor ano by local fishermen so help them/yourself by participating.
Date o* this
Flsninq I'io
Ntanber of Fishermen
In your oarty
Total n«jbb*r of
hours fished
Look al the mao on the back of tni» form and locate ALL the are**
you fished In today regardless of whether or not you caught any
fish* Write In the Aap N^sber of every aree fished.
This Is a KEY QUESTION, List the *eo Numbers above «tf*ere yaw old
WOT eaten fish, We repeat. List the Map Numbers of the locations
¦h»r» you fl«h*d but OI^KOT citch fish.
' ¦
ttPE OF FISH YOU CAUGHT
on this trip
MUMBB? FISH YOU CAUGHT
OF EACH Ty«
length of largest fish
IN INCHES
LARGEMOUTH BASS
BLUEGlLL (Bream)
SHELL CR*Ck£R (Redear SoMisM
STUttPKNOCKER 1 Soot ted Swnfish)
GOGGLE EYE (Wartnouth)
0>APP|"E ISoecbled Perch 1
CHAIN PICKEREL
l JacfcfIsh)
PRCSMUTER CATFISH
saltwater catfish
OA
BO^IN (Grindfe# Cotton fish)
Sh»
OTHER TtPt FISH
lew of *l»h
Camp yew uaedi
H yov h»ve suggestions on how lo l«prov
In this saace, Thanh y*u«
» fisnlnq In th« Efcamcie-«rlte
*ei11nq AUdresn
telephone no.
A-1
-------
MAP OF SURVEY REGION PRINTED ON REVERSE SIDE OF QUESTIONNAIRE
-ESCAMBIA RIVER
fROM MOLINO TO E5CAMBIA &AY.
U. a. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1072—74£5S7/7,zo
------- |