PB-230 729

POLLUTION OF  THE INTERSTATE  WATERS OF
THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER,  LITTLE CALUMET
RIVER,  CALUMET RIVER, WOLF LAKE, LAKE
MICHIGAN AND  THEIR TRIBUTARIES.   CON-
CLUSIONS  OF TECHNICAL SESSION.  HELD  AT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ON  FEBRUARY 2, 1966

Federal Water  Pollution Control Administration
Washington, D.  C.

2 February 1966
                       DISTRIBUTED BY:
                       Nation) Technical MmutiM Swvtei

-------
                          COM1IHTS

Agenda Itea                                            Page

Opening Statement by Mr. Murray Steio                    4
                                                        54

Report of Water Quality Criteria, Calumet Area -
     Lover Lake Michigan, January 1966                  12

Questions and Answers                                   56

Statement of Joseph Chantigney, Chairman of the
     Great Lakes Region, Izaak Walton League of
     America, and General Vice-Chairman, Cook
     County Clean Streams Committee                     83

-------
               CC»CLUSIONS OF TICHHieAL J,ISSICIt








                      In the Matter of:




          Conference on the Pollution of the Interstate




Waters of the Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet River,




Calumet Riv*r, Wolf Lake, Lake Michigan and their




Tributaries, convened at 9:05 a.m., Wednesday, February 2,




1966, at the Lincoln Roo^  Bismarck Hotel, Chicago, Illinois,

-------
ATTENDANCE AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE
           PARTICIPANTS

       Murray Stein
       Chief, Enforcement Program
       Federal Water Pollution Control
           Administration
       Washington, D, C.

       H. W. Poston
       Regional Program Director
       Federal Water Pollution Control
           Administration
       Chicago, Illinois

       Blucher A. Poole
       Conferee representing Indiana
           Stream Pollution Control
           Board

       Colonel Frank W. Chesrow
       Conferee representing
           Metropolitan Sanitary
           District of Greater Chicago

-------
               Opening Statement - Mr.  Stein
                     OPENING STATEMENT




                            BY



                      M9,  MURRAY STEIN



          May we get started?



          I do think that we have achieved a remarkable



breakthrough in water pollution control here now.



          Before we get into the substance, I think we



should for the record indicate the tremendous efforts made




by the various people here.



          On ny right, of course, we have Blucher Poole of



Indiana.  Next to bin is Mr. H. W. Post on of our office




here, the regional program director with headquarters in



Chicago.  On ay left is Mr. Frank Chesrow.




          Mr. Clarence Klassen sat through all the sessions,



but he could not be here today.




          In addition to that, going through these negotia-



tions while I was in the snow has been ay long-time



colleague and former Chicago citizen and member of the




staff of the Sanitary District, Mr. Peter Kuh.



          They say the mark of a good administrator is



where someone delegates all the stuff and Just has to

-------
                        Murray Ptein




snowbound, that is just about what I have done.




          In addition, I would like to call your attention



to the Technical Committee.  The members of the Committee




were as follows:



          F. W. Kittrell of our Department.




          Dr. C. A. Bishop of thti U. S. Steel Corporation.



          H. H. Gerstein, City of Chicago Department of




Water and Sewer*.



          Harold C. Jordahl, Department of the Interior,




Madison, Wisconsin.



          Dr. A. J. Kaplovsky, Metropolitan Sanitary




District of Greater Chicago.



          R. C. Mallatt, American Oil Company.




          Perry Miller,  Indiana Stream Pollution Control




Board.



          R. S. Nelle,  Illinois Sanitary Water Board.



          The alternates were as follows:




          Grover Cook of the Department of Health,




Education,  and Welfare, who is our enforcement repre-




sentative in Chicago.



          Joseph L. Minkin of our Department.




          Ross Harbaugh, Inland Steel Company.



          James Vaughn of  the City of Chicago Department




 nf Watftr and S«nr«rr«.

-------
                                                        6




                        Murray Stein



          John CUT, Department of the Interior.



          Dr. David Lordi, Metropolitan Sanitary District



of Greater Chicago.



          J. S. Baua, Cities Service Oil Company.



          Benn J. Leiand, Illinois Sanitary Water Board.



          I read these names into the record to indicate



all the effort that has gone into this.  These people



have »et constantly.  I would also say that the results



achieved in no small measure stem from this Technical



Committee and the Conferees.



          The Technical Committee and the Conferees I



think constitute as distinguished a board as I have ever



seen on water pollution and on industrial matters.  I



think if you would go through the country anywhere and



try to come up with a board as distinguished as that,



aside from a few friends I see in the audience whom we



left out, you could not assemble a better group than this.



This is why I think these results were achieved.



          This may be an indication of the magnitude



of the problem from the standpoint of the State, the



Federal government and the industry side.  I think working



in the Chicago problem we had the recognized top technical



and professional talent  in the field.  So you caa see you




did  have a problem,  because this is where the people have

-------
                        Murray Stein



gravitated to.



          I also do believe that we have achieved what



many of us through the years sometimes believed was im-



possible.  I think we got a major breakthrough, and we



have achieved three things.



          One, I think we have m program that will save



Lake Michigan,  It will save the lower end of Lake Michi-



gan.  It will clean up pollution in the Lake and preserve



the water quality of the Lake for the maximum number of



uses, present and future.  This is a specter that has been



haunting many of us for many years.  I think we have a



program that will do it.



          Secondly, I think we have a program which will



be accomplished in a reasonable time.  Within a few years



you will be able to see it — in your lifetime and my



lifetime I hope.  I certainly think our children and



our friends and neighbors will be able to enjoy it.



          This isn't one of these long-range programs



where the millennium may come and we all may see greener



pastures.  We're going to see our way to clear, clean



water in the Lake and preserve that clear, clean water



within a few  years.



          We're going to be so specific that the citizenry




 and the press and the industry and everyone can check on

-------
                                                         8




                        Murray Stein



us and see if we have done our job.



          The third point is that I think the program is



such that it can be lived with.  This is a program which



can be endorsed, as it has been endorsed in the Technical



Committee, by the State agencies, by the city authorities,



by the Sanitary District, by the Federal agencies, and by



the municipalities and industries involved.



          Now, not everyone is going to like everything



in this program, but I think in view of this sort of com-



plex matter this is really an achievement.



          I think we also have two or three more



generalized points before I go into the main part of the



development.



          One is that I don't believe we have had a more



complex pollution problem anywhere in the country.



          Secondly, because we were dealing with a re-



source like Lake Michigan, which is one of our great



fresh water resources and which if it goes very probably



could not be recovered, we had to be very, very careful



and in many cases have had to make very exacting demands



and ask for heroic efforts.



          I think it is to the everlasting credit of the



municipalities  involved here and of the industries to




recognize this, to recognize that  we may be asking for

-------
                                                        9




                        Murray Stein



things to preserve Lake Michigan that possibly Bight not



be necessary where you hud a fast-flowing river,  because



if the lake ever went we could never recover it.   And I



think they came across.



          The third may be of interest to the professionals



in the room.  I think what we have cone up with here in



terms of a program may be the blueprint of what pollution



control will look like throughout the country.  I think



because of the complexity of the problem and the necessity



to do a job we have come up with answers which very well



may be the bible for other parts.  I wouldn't say they



are going to duplicate this exactly, but I cannot see a



solution to another pollution case or the development of



standards, as we are required to do under the new federal



law, taking place without using what we have done here



as the document to take off from.



          Now, you will recall at the original conference



held last March we had agreed that the municipalities



should take immediate action to clean up pollution.  Spe-



cifically, we said:



          "The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board,



the Illinois Sanitary Water Board and the Metropolitan



Sanitary District of Greater Chicago will institute immedi-




ate action  in their respective jurisdictions that all

-------
                                                       10




                        Murray St«in



sewage receive at least secondary treatment plus adequate



effluent disinfection wi+Mn one year after tb* Issuance



of the summary of the conference."



          The siuuiary of the conference was issued April



14, 1965.  The date hare that we're going to check is



April 14, 1966,  Let's see how well we've done.



          I think we have to in this aspect of the prograa,



as well a* in other aspects, give all credit to the



treaendouft help and cooperation we have received froa



Mayor Dvley, from Governor Kerner and from Governor



Branigin.  I don't think without their help and assistance



we could have moved this prograa forward.



          I'm a "big city" boy, au4 I recognize how



difficult running a city is.  But with all his problems,



Mayor Daley has never beon too busy to give a sympathetic



ear to this prograa and to help us aove the prograa for-



ward.  1 think without that we would not be so far ahead.



          Mow, what we are going to deal with here largely



is the industrial waste prograa.  May we have those sheets



distributed, Mr. Kuh and Mr, Cook?



          We have at the last conference established a



schedule for municipal waste treataent.  As far as I



know, except for some specialized cases where there is




tertiary treatment, this prograa we have for secondary

-------
                                                         11




                        Hurray Stein



treatment and adequate disinfection of the effluent is



generally about as high a regimen of treatment as you have



fro* cities anywhere in tbe country.



          The Conferees, as we agreed when we were here



last, met in executive session on January 31 and February 1,



1966 and agreed to the following:



          1.  Based upon the report of the Technical



Committee and review of comments submitted to the Indiana



Stream Pollution Control Board, the Illinois State



Sanitary vater Board, and the Metroi ilitan Sanitary District



of Greater Chicago, the Conferees ft*ree to the "Report



of Water Quality Criteria, Calumet Area-Lower Lake Michi-



gan," January 14, 1966 with the following provisions.



          These criteria are contained in this book



(indicating).  As you will recall, there are some 200



items.  These criteria will be placed in the record.



          (The Report referred to follows:)

-------
                                          12
     Water Quality Criteria








           REPORT OF




     WATER QUALITY CRITERIA




CALUMET AREA-LOVER LAKE MICHIGAN
       JANUARY 14th 1966




          4th Edition

-------
                                                          13





                    Water Quality Criteria




                    WATER QUALITY CRITERIA



               CALUMET AREA-LOWER LAKE MICHIGAN




                         INTRODUCTION



          This report on the Calumet Area and Lower Lakes



of Michigan is adapted from a report "Recommended Water



Quality Criteria" submitted by a Technical Committee




appointed in April, 1965.




          A conference on pollution of the interstate waters



of the Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet River, Calumet




River, Wolf Lake, Lake Michigan and their tributaries



(Indiana-Illinois), called by the Secretary of Health,




Education, and Welfare under the provisions of Section 8




of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC 466 et




seq.), was held in Chicago, Illinois, March 2-9, 1965.



          Conclusions and recommendations of the Conferees




included the following items that are pertinent to this




report:



               "The Conferees will establish a




          Technical Committee as soon as possible which




          will evaluate water quality criteria and




          related matters in the area covered by the



          conference and make recommendations to the




          Conferees within six Months after the issuance




          of  the summary of  the  conference."

-------
                                                        14





                   Water Quality Criteria



               "The Indiana Stream Pollution Control



          Board,  the  Illinois  Sanitary later Board, and



          the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater



          Chicago,  maintaining close liaison with  the



          Technical Committee  created by the Conferees



          will develop a time  schedule for  the construc-



          tion of necessary industrial waste treatment



          facilities.  Such a  schedule shall be submitted



          to the Conferees for their consideration within



          six months  after the Issuance  of  the summary



          of this conference."



          Subsequently the Conferees met on April  7,  1965



and appointed the Technical Committee which held  its



initial session on the sane date.  Since than  the  Committee



has met at approximately two-week intervals, with  most



of the meetings continuing for two days.



          The Committee consisted of one representative  of



each of the four regulatory agencies (the States  of



Illinois and Indiana, the Metropolitan Sanitary District



of Greater Chicago, and the Federal government),  two repre-



sentatives of Industry (U. S.  Steel Corporation  and



American Oil Company) and one each of the City of  Chicago



Department of Water and Sewers, and the U.  S.  Department of




the Interior.

-------
                                                         15





                    Water Quality Criteria








            GUIDE LINES FOB ADOPTING BASIC CRITERIA



          At its second meeting the Committee agreed on the



following guidelines for its deliberations:



          "Water quality criteria for various uses will



be applied to the existing situations.  The criteria that



are developed will recognize the existing water quality,



the need for improvement of water quality in certain areas,



and the possibility that criteria will not be United by



existing levels in all cases.  It is realized that quality



criteria set at present cannot be binding for all time



but will need reconsideration and possible revision at



regular intervals in the future.  Water quality needs for



present and potential uses will be considered.  Effluent



standards will not be considered by this Committee."



          Considerable discussion was devoted to-definition



of the phrase "water quality criteria" used by the



Conferees in their charge to the Committee.  Relying on



the usual interpretation of the word "criteria," it was



concluded that the Conferees intended that limits of



constituents recommended by the Committee would be used as



guides in judging the suitability of water quality for



various uses and in planning improvements  in water quality




through waste reductions where needed, but would not

-------
                                                        16





                    Water Quality Criteria



necessarily be applied as standards or requirements.








               BASES TOR DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA



          After considering various bases for development



of water quality criteria the Committee agreed that criteria



should be based on:



          1.  Present ami potential water uses.



          2.  Preservation of present good quality.



          3.  Improvement of degraded quality where



              technically and economically feasible.



          4.  Reconsideration and revision of regular



              intervals as future developments may dictate.



          It was concluded that adoption of uniform



criteria for specific uses, regardless of location of uses,



would not provide a practical basis for a pollution



abatement program for Lake waters.  For example, the



sheltered areas between the Calumet Harbor Breakwater and



the Indiana Harbor Bulkhead (Figure 1 - Appendix) receive



the major discharges from waste sources.  Obviously,  it is



impractical to expect water of the same high quality in



this area, regardless of the degree of waste treatment



achieved, as that which will be found several miles out



in the open Lake.  If the sources of municipal supply in




the sheltered area are given adequate protection, the water

-------
                                                         17




                    Water Quality Criteria



in the open Lake inevitably will be of still better quality.



          Based on this reasoning, the water area of the



lower Lake was divided into three zones as shown in



Figure 1.  Most of the water area is defined as Open Water,



which is that area aore than 200 yards offshore and outside



of a line from the outer end of the Caluiet Harbor Break-



water to and along the outer edge of the Inland Steel



Bulkhead Line and thence through the U. S. Steel Water



Supply intake to the outer end of the Gary Harbor Break-



water.  The Inner Harbor Basins is the area shoreward of



the above line, but not including Shore Water.  Shore Water



is all water within 200 yards of shore except in the Inner



Harbor Basins, where it is that water within 200 yards of



existing onshore recreational areas.



          (Figure 1 follows:)

-------
                                             18
	j-«m CO
                                    H
       LAKE
MICHIGAN
                  LOCATION MAP
            CALUMiT-LOWER LAKi MICHIGAN
                                 f HUM 1

-------
                                                         19





                    Water Quality Criteria




          Other water bodies for which criteria were



developed included the Little Calumet River,  the Grand




Calumet River, and Wolf Lake.  The reach of the Little




Calumet River involved is from the State line to the  con-




fluence with the Cal-Sag Channel.  In accordance with




Federal jurisdiction in interstate enforcement it was con-



cluded that the Committee should concern itself with  only




those reaches of the two Rivers that are downstream from




the State line in Illinois, and with that portion of  Wolf




Lake that lies in Illinois,




          General water use categories were adopted for




the development of criteria.  These water uses are:



          1.  Municipal Water




          2.  Industrial Water




              Process - Cooling



          3.  Recreation




              a.  Whole Body Contact




              b.  Limited Body Contact




          4.  Fish and Wildlife



          5.  Commercial Shipping




          6.  Esthetics



          7.  Wastewater Assimilation




          Existing and  potential uses of the delineated




 bodies of water for which quality criteria were considered

-------
                                                        20





                    Water Quality Criteria



are noted in Table I (Appendix).  The location!! of principal




water uses are shown in Figures 2A and 2B (Appendix).  Al-



though there has been use of water for irrigation in the



Little Calumet Basin, it has been so limited that it was



concluded this very minor use did not justify special con-




sideration.



          Constituents for which water quality criteria




were considered for each of the bodies of water are indi-



cated in Tables II through VI (Appendix).  It should be



noted that the constituents for both Ope. Tater and the




Inner Harbor Basins, given in Table II, are the same.



          (Table I, Figures 2A and 2B, and Tables II




through VI follow:)

-------
            TABLE I
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL WATER USES
                                                 21


a
s
AREA AS DEFINED
Open Water
Inner Harbor Basins
Shore Water
Little Calumet River
Grand Calumet River
Wolf Lake
X - Present Use
O - Future Use


S
£
Municipal
X
X






o
i c
S3
£ °
Industrial
easing am
X
X


X



41

»
e <<
Recreatio
Body Cont


X


X


1
g
a
' s
Recreatio
Body Con
X
X
X
X

X



 •-*
Wastewat
Assimilat
X
X
X
X
X
X



-------
              V , '
             "*!'
                ii
 Rainbow Beach  78OOS
 ftamoc* Baach  TWOS
 JockwnPaik-SSnl St Baoch
 57lh St Beach
 49th. St Beach
 3lft St. Beach
 RooMOTitM-iith St. Baach nOOS
 Oh« SI Beach SOON.
 Ook St Beach IOOO
 North AM Beach I7OON.
 »rm*oot Aw. Baach 20OO
 'vrebtter Avt  Beach 220O
 Fuller-on Ave B«och 24OON
 Monlrote AM Btach 4400
 Fo*ttr Ave Beach $200
 Hollywood A« Btoch S7OO
 Thornaala Ave Beach 5934
 AlbwnAve Beach 66OO
 North Shore  Avt Beach 67OO
 Catumbra Avt Beach 6726
 Pratt Ave Btoch 6800
 Forx»ll Btuch 69-7100
 Touhy Ave -Roqtr» Pk Blach 7I-72OO
 Jorvit Avt  BtOCh  74OO
 Howard Si Beach 7COO
 Roger* Ave  Btoch  7700N
 Junewiy Terract Btoch 'BOON
          Inawtry, Railrooo* and Caflmercial

          IkMfciitrial OiKharaa Area

     Q   Foretl Prattrva, Parks

     *    Cantor Ra
             yj"
—	1	S'-'yA
66th St Crib
Four Milt Crib
Carter Horritan Crib
                     Watarwomt Intake

-------
              USES
ALUMf T AREA-LOWER LAKEMICHI9AM
    -MiMM M*rMMt C«M*rmc*

-------
                                                 -                 ^.

Muitrial Diicharg* Arto
Far*H PrtMrvt , Pork*
C*nt»r R«tid*ntiol Ntighbarhaodt
OuorriM,Clay
Stwogt TrMtnwfll W«rh«
Golf Couritt , Country Club*
Water Supply Intokct
Storm SM«r
Marino or Launcning Roropt
Diichargt Point
Mann , Swamp
Wooatd Ar«at
Airport
                                                                                                                      WATER USES
                                                                                                           CALUMET AREA-LOWER
                                                                                                           Hlinoit- Indiana Inttntatt

-------
     	fflkft	
                                                                                                               '    I   .     ) \
                                                                                                               k    ^W)
          WATER USES
CALUMET AREA-LOWER LAKF MICHIGAN
IHinoi*-lndiona Inltrtlat* Conftrtne* Rtgien
Pinw»< '•• T«eh«.t«l CwraitlM M Wilti Cmli'r

-------
             LECENO
Norttiorn Indiana Power Ce. - BinWwni SlMl
Midwtit Stttl
Gor,-M<*orf No. 2
Gory-HobortNo I
U S SlMl
Universal Atlo* Ctmarrt
Nortnwn Indiana Powtf Ce
      Sl'vici
Eati Chicago WW imokt
Inland Stttl
Sincloir Oil
Yo«ng«lown
Union
Whiting—
Hommonfl Wattrworkt kitak*
CommomMaHh-Ediion
Llvir  Brelhcn
Amtncar, Mam
U S Sltil
USSltfl
Wiscontin
                  Bl  John»on Btach
                  B2  Oqdtn Btach
                  B3  WtlH B*ach
                               B«ach
                  B5.  Eo« CMc««0 SMCh
                  B6  Whrtinj Btach
                  BT.  Hammond Btach
                  BB  Calunwl Btoch 99OO5
                  B9  Calumtt Stack 9600S.
                642  last S*  Start-Wolf Lak«
Gtntral Chtmcal
Ford
Mobil Intake
       Inlokt
Sptnctr
InttflAkt Stttl

-------
                    TABLE H
CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Open Lake and Inner g
Harbor Basins en
*3
CONSTITUENTS
Coliform Bacteria
Fecal Streptococcus
Turbidity
Color (True)
Threshold Odor Number
Odor
Temperature^ "
Oil
FloatingjSolids and Debris
Bottom Deposits
pH
Dissolved Oxygen
BOD
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrogen (Total)
Meth. Blue Act. Substance
Chloride
Cyanide
Fluoride
Dissolved Iron
Phenol-like Substances
Sulfates
Phosphates (Total)
Filtrable Residue (Tot. D'dSolids)
Misc. Trace Contaminants
Radionuclides
Municipal Water
X
X

X
X





X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Industrial Water -
Processing


X
X


X



X
X

X

X
X



X


X


Industrial Water -
Cooling


X



X



X















Recreation - Whole
Body Contact


























Recreation - Linated
Body Contact
X
X



X

X
X

X
X



X










Fish and Wildlife


X



X
X

X
X
X

X

X

X


X



X
X
Commercial Shipping







X
X

X















Esthetics


X
X

X

X
X





X
X






X



Wastewater Assimilation






X




X
X














-------
                                                         25
                    TABLE HI
CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
$
Shore Water 3
CONSTITUENTS
Coliform Bacteria
Fecal Streptococcus
Turbidity
Color (True)
Threshold Odor Number
Odor
Temperature
Oil
Floating Solids and Debris
Bottom Deposits
EH
Dissolved Oxygen
BOD
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrogen (Total,1
Meth. Blue Act. Substance
Chloride
Cyanide
Fluoride
Dissolved Iron
Phenol-like Substances
Sulfates
Phosphates (Total)
Filtrable Residue (tot, IV d Solids)
Misc. Trace Contaminants
Radionuclldes
Municipal Water


























Industrial Water -
Processing


























Industrial Water -
Cooling


























Recreation - Whole
Body Contact
X
	 x 	
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X



X

X








Recreation - Limited
Body Contact
X
ic 	



u_x_

X
,., x-

X
X



X










Fish and Wildlife


X



X
X

X
X
X

X

X

X


X



X
x
Commercial Shipping


























Esthetics


X
X

X

X
X





X
X






X



Wastewater Assimilation






X



1
X
X














-------
                      TARLE IV
CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
                                                               26
Little Ci lu met HIVIT
From St.ite Line to %
Junction With 2»
Calumot Sa)f. Channel
CONSTITUENTS
t"«»lifitri>i M.ii li'n.i
!-V<%ll SI r«>nlui'iic<-ii«;
hirtii.lilv
Col'itr (True)
Thri-shrucl OtU.r Numlwr
Odor
Temperature
— - -,-— ^ .,-.-.--. . . ™™ — - - . — _ . — .
.Oil
Floating fiCflitis ami Debris
Bottom Deposit s
PH
Dissolved Oxvgfn
BOD
Ammonia Ni1n»j;rn
Nifw^-n (Total)
Moth. Blue Act. Sulwl.iiH-e
Chloride
CvanUlo
Fluoride
Dissolved Iron
Phenol-like Suhstanc-es
Sulfates
Phosghatcs (TfJtal)
Filtrablp Residue (Tot. D*d Solids)
Misr.Trarc Contaminants
Radionuclides
. Municipal Water


. _ _
















!
Industrial Water -
• , ' Processing




















' j Industrial Water -
| Cooling


	

















] ' Recreation - Whole
i : . • Body Contact


	

















!
v ... Recreation • Limited
; * Body Contact

X
~ x~
X

X
... -x--



X










x Fish and Wildlife


X
...... x
X
X
X

L x

X

X


X



X
X
i i , Commercial Shipping
1 •




















X i*1 ! • Esthetics
1 i : '

X
-^
X





X
X






X



Tl i !
j I j Wastewaier Assimilation


X_

X
X
X














-------
                     TABLE V
CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Grand Calumet River
State Line to
Junction with
Calumet River
CONSTITUENTS
CoUfortn Bacteria
Fecal Streptococcus
turbidity
Color (True)
Threshold Odor Number
Odor
Temperature
Oil
Floating Solids and Debris
Bottom Deposits
pH
Dissolved Oxygen
BOD
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrogen (Total i
Meth. Blue Act. Substance
Chloride
Cyanide
Fluoride
Dissolved Iron
Phenol-like Substances
Sulfates
Phosphates (Total)
Filtrable Residue (Tot. D'd Solids)
Misc. Trace Contaminants
RadionucMdes
Municipal Water


























Industrial Water -
Processing


X
1 	 X


X



X
X

X

X
X



X


X


Industrial Water -
Cooling


u_l_



X



If















Recreation - Whole
Body Contact


























Recreation - Limited
Body Contact


























Fish and Wildlife


























Commercial Fishing


























Esthetics


X
X

X

X
X
X



X
X







X



Wastewater Assimilation






X ^



X
X
X














-------
                                                                     28
                              VI
CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Wolt Ulke «
M
:_>
CONSTITUENTS
Coliform Bacteria
Fecal Streptococcus
Turbidity
Color (True)
Threshold Odor Number
Odor
Tcmppr.it ure
Oil
Floating Solids and Debris
B«Uom Deposits
pit
Dissolved OxvK''f
'IJOB
Ammonia NitroKW
Nitrogen (Total)
Meth. Blue Act. Substance
Chloride
Cyanide
Fluoride
Dissolved Iron
Phenol-like Substances
Sulfatcs
Phosphates (TotalT
Filtrable Residue (Tot. D'd Solids)
Misc. Trace Contaminants
Radionuflides
Municipal Water


























Industrial Water -
Processing


























Industrial Water -
Cooling


























Recreation - Whole
Body Contact
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
" ' X""
X



X

X








Recreation - Limited
Body Contact
X
X



X

X
X

X
X



L_jx_




'/





Fish and Wildlife


X



| ^_j
X

X
' X""
X

X

X

X


X



X
X
Commercial Shipping


























Esthetics


X
X

X

X
X





•X
X






X



Wastewater Dissimilation






X



L_X_I
X
'X














-------
                                                         29




                    Water Quality Criteria



          Criteria first were selected for each constituent



for each water use in each area.  Once the complete tabula-



tion of criteria for all water uses in an area had been



developed, the most stringent criteria for any of the water



uses were selected as the governing values for that area.



          Sone of the criteria recommended are at or near



the lower limits of detectability of analytical procedures



included in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water



and Wastewater."  The Committee concludes that "Standard



Methods" of analysis should be employed where applicable,



but recognizes that other approved Methods nay be required



in judging compliance with some of the criteria.  For



example, the Committee recommends an annual average of



0.02 mg/1 and a single daily value of 0.05 mg/1 of ammonia



nitrogen in the open water of the Lake.  The limit of



detectability of this compound by the "Standard Methods"



procedure may be as low as 0.03 mg/1, but reproducibility



is erratic below 0,. 1 mg/1.  However, the accepted method



used by the Great Lakes-Illinois River Basins Project Labora-



tory has a sensitivity and precision of 0.01 mg/1.



          Successful application of the criteria requires



that analytical results be reproducible among the several



laboratories involved in  the program.  A round-robin pro-




gram of replicate sample analysis recommended by the

-------
                                                          30




                    Water Quality Criteria



Committee has been initiated by the laboratories to ensure



reproducibility of results.




          A major, and probably the major, water quality



problem of the area is taste and odor in municipal water



supplies.  The types of taste and odor n.ost difficult and




costly to control by water treatment are "chemical," or



"hydrocarbon," and "medicinal," or "phenolic."  Since the




"Standard Method" for threshold odor is recognized as sub-




jective rather than objective, it is especially important



that every effort be exerted to ensure the maximum possible



reproducibility of threshold odor results among the labora-



tories .








                           CRITERIA



          The criteria recommended by the Committee are




incorporated in the following tables, 1 through 6.  The



Committee feels that it is establishing  * precedent in




recommending criteria which,  if attainable, will ensure the



highest quality water that is reasonably feasible.

-------
                                                        31


                    Water Quality Criteria

                           TABLE 1

                          CRITERIA

                         OPEK WATER

Control Points - Chicago South District Filtration

                 Plant and Gary-West Plant Intakes

Collform Bacteria - MPN/100 ml

     Annual Average (Arithmetic)       Not more than   200

     Single Dally value or Average (1) Not more than 1,500

FecalStreptococci - Number/I00 ml
  (Tentative) (2)Not more than    25

Turbidity

     No turbidity of other than natural origin that will

     cause substantial visible contrast with the natural

     appearance of the water.

True Color - Units

     Annual Average                    Not more than     S

     Single Daily Value or Average     Not more than    15

Threshold Odor(Hydrocarbonand/or
  Chemical)  (3)

     Daily Average                     Not more than     4

     Single Value                      Not more than     8

Odor

     Ho obnoxious odor of other  than natural origin.

Temperature -   Degrees F               Not more than    85

-------
                                                         32




                   Water Quality Criteria




Oil



     Substantially free of visible floating oil.



Floating Solidsand Debris



     Substantially free of floating solids and debris



     from other than natural sources.



Botton Deposits



     Substantially free of contaminants that will:



     (1) adversely alter the composition of the bottom



     fauna;  (2) Interfere with the spawning of fish or



     their eggs; (3) adversely change the physical or



     cheBical nature of the bottom.



pH - units



     Annual  Median                     Within range 8.1 - 8.4



     Dally Median                      Within range 7.7 - 9.0



Dissolved Oxygen - Per Cent Saturation



     Annual  Average                    Not less than 90



     Single  value                      Not less than 80



AnuBonia Nitrogen  (N) - m/\ (4)



     Annual  ..verage                                  0.02



     Single  Daily Value or Average                   0,05



Total nitrogen  (N)  (4)                               0.4



Methylene Blue  Active Substance  - ag/1



     Annual  Average                    Not more than 0.05



     Single  Daily Value or Average     Not more than 0.20

-------
                                                        33
                    Water Quality Criteria

Chlorides (CD - «g/l               1965 1970 1980 1990 2000

     Annual Average   Not sore than   8   9
                        10
11
12
     Single Daily Value or
       Average        Not more than

Cyanides (CN) - ag/1

     Single Value

Fluorides (F) - ag/1

     Annual Average

     Single Daily Value or Average

Dissolved Iron  (Fe)- ag/1

     Annual Average

     Single Daily Value or Average

Phenol-like Substances - ag/1
   (Tentative) (5)
                     15 (through 1970)



                Not more than 0.025



                Not more than 1.0

                Not more than 1.3



                Not aore than 0.15

                Not acre than 0.30
     Annual Average

     Single Value

Sulfates  (SCU) - ag/1

     Annual Average
                Not more than 0.001

                Not acre than 0.003

             1965 1970 1980 1990 2000

Not more than  23  24   26   28   30
     Single Dally Value or
       Average     Not More than

fotal Phosphates  (PO4) - «g/l
   (Tentative) (6)

     Annual Average

     Single Dally Value or Average
                     50 (through 1970)
                Not acre than 0.03

                Not more than 0.04

-------
                                                        34


                    Water Quality Criteria

Flltrable Residue                  1965 1970 1980 1990 2000
  (Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)

     Annual Average                 162  165  172  179  186

     Single Daily Value or
       Average     Not More than         200 (through 1070)

Miscellaneous Trace Contaminants and Radionuclidee

     Shall not be present in concentrations that will

     prevent meeting PBS 1962 Drinking Water Standards

     after conventional treatment.
(1)  If more than one sample per day is examined, the limit

     shall be the daily average.  If only one sample per

     day is taken, the single value shall govern.

(2)  Pending accumulation of adequate data on existing

     densities of Streptococcus.  Probably can be lowered.

(3)  The Chicago South District Filtration Plant Control

     Laboratory will be the reference laboratory for

     Threshold Odor.

(4)  Tentative pending study of additional data and

     evaluation of potential reductions at the sources.

(5)  Pending study of additional data and evaluation of

     potential reductions at tne sources.

(6)  Pending thorough determination of existing concentra-

     tion  in Lower Lake Michigan Conference  Area.

-------
                                                         35

                   later Quality Criteria

                           TABLE 2

                          CRITERIA

                     INNER HARBOR BASINS

Control Points - Hamaond and East Chicago Water Intakes

ColHor» Bacteria - MPN/100 •!.

     Annual Average (Arithmetic^       Not aore than 2,000

     Single Daily Value or Average     Not more than 5,000 (1)

Fecal Streptococci- Muaber/lOO »1     Hot »ore than   100

Turbidity

     No turbidity of other than natural origin that will

     cause substantial visible contrast with the natural

     appearance of water.

True Color - Units

     Annual Average                    Mot more than     5

     Single Daily Value or Average     Mot Bore than    15

Threshold Odor  (Hydrocarbon and/or
  Cheaical) Units T2T

     Annual Average                    Not aore than     8

     Single Daily Value or Average     Not nore than    20

Odor

     No obnoxious odor of other than natural origin.

Teaperature - Degrees F                Not isore than    85

Oil

     Substantially free of visible floating oil.

-------
                                                          36

                   Water Quality Criteria

Floating Solids and Debris

     Substantially free of floating solids and debris

     from other than natural sources.

Bottom Deposits

     Substantially free of Muck and debris of other than

     natural origin.

pH - Units

     Annual Median                     Within range 8.0 - 8.5

     Daily Median                      Within range 7.S - 9.0

Dissolved Oxygen -Per Cent Saturation

     Annual Average                    Mot less than    80

     Single Daily Value or Average     Not less than    65

     i^ Nitrogen - «g/l (2)
     Annual Average                             0.05

     Single Dally Value or Average              0.12

Methylene Blue Active Substance - «g/l

     Annual Average                    Mot More than 0.10

     Single Daily Value or Average     Mot aore than 0.30

Chlorides - ag/1                    1965 1970 1980 1990 2000

     Annual Average   Not more than  16   18   20   22   24

     Single Dally Value or
       Average        Not more than        30 (through 1070)

Cyanides - ng/1

     Single Value                      Less than     0.1

-------
                                                        37

                   Water Quality Criteria

Fluorides - mg/l

     Annual Average                    Mot worm than 1.0

     Single Dally Value or Average     Not more than 1.3

Dissolved Iron - mg/l

     Annual Average                    Mot more than 0.15

     Single Daily Value or Average     Mot more than 0.30

Phenol-like Substances - iag/1
  (Tentatlve)
     Annual Average                    Not more than 0.002

     Single -ally Value or Average     Not more than 0.005

Sulfates - mg/l                     1965 1970 1980 1990 2000

     Annual Average   Not more than  35   36   39   42   45

     Single Daily Value
       or Average     Mot More than         75 (through 1970)

TotalPhosphates - mg/l
  (Tentative) (2)

     Annual Average                    Not more than 0.05

     Single Daily Value or Average     Not more than 0.10

filterable Residue                  1965 1970 1980 1990 2000
  (Total Dissolved Solids) - mg/l                 "

     Annual Average    Not more than 187  190  197  204  211

     Single Daily Value or
       Average         Not more than       230 (through 1970)

-------
                                                       38
                   Water Quality Criteria



Miscellaneous Trace Contaminants and Radionuclides



     Shall not ba present in concentrations that will



     prevent Meeting PBS 1962 Drinking Water Standarda



     after conventional treatment.
 (1)  Except during periods of stormwater overflow when



     coliform ahould not exceed 24,000/100 •!.



 (2)  Tentative pending study of additional data and



     evaluation of ootwntial reductions at the sources.







     If vore than one sample per day  is examined, the limit



     shall be the daily average.   If  only one sample per



     day  is taken, the singls value shall govern.

-------
                                                         39




                   later quality Criteria



                           TABLE 3



                          CRITERIA



                         SHORE WATER



Control Points - Existing Sampling Points At Bathing Beaches.



Bacteria - number per 100 «1 by MF Techniques (Tentative)(1)



     (a)  The number of bacteria snail b* the Arithmetic



          Average of the last five consecutive s&nple



          results.



     (b)  Satisfactory area if MF Conforms are less than



          1000 and MF Fecal Streptococci are less than 100.



     (c)  Satisfactory area if MF Collforss are fro* 1000



          to 5000 and MF Fecal Streptococci are less than 20.



     (d)  A single sample result of over 100,000 Coliforms



          shall require Immediate investigation as to the



          cause.  Items to be considered in the judgment



          of cause and action to be taken Include th*



          sanitary survey, winds, currents and weather



          conditions.



Turbidity



     No turbidity of other than natural origin that will



     cause substantial visible contrast with the natural



     appearance of water.

-------
                                                          40

                    Water Quality Criteria

TrueColor - Unite

     Annual Average                      Mot »ore than  5

     Single Daily Value or Average       Mot More than 15

Odor

     Mo obnoxious odor of other than natural origin.

Temperature - DegreesF                  Hot more than 85

Oil

     Substantially free of visible floating oil.

Floating Solids and Debris

     Substantially free of floating solids and debris from

     other than natural sources.

Bottom Deposits

     Substantially free of Buck and debris of other than

     natural origin.

pH - Units

     Daily Median                    Within range 7.0 - 0.0

DissolvedOxygen - Per Cent Saturation

     Annual Average                      Not less than 90

     Single Value                        Mot less than 80

Aamonia nitrogen (if) - ag/1
  (TsBtstiYe) (2)

     Annual Average                      Mot more than 0.05

     Single Dally Value or Average       Mot »ore than 0.12

-------
                                                         41

                    Water Quality Criteria

Methylene Blue Active Substance - mg/1

     Annual Average                      Not more than 0.02

     Single Daily Value or Average       Not more than 0.05

Cyanides (CN) - mg/1

     Single Value                        Not more than 0.025

Phenol-like Substances - ng/1 (Tenta-
  tive) (?)"                              Hox more than 0.05

      Phosphates 0*%) ~
  (Tentative) (3)

     /nnual Average                      Not more than 0,03

     Single Daily Average or Value       Not more than 0.04

Miscellaneous Trace Contaminants and Radionuclides

     Shall not be present in concentrations that will

     prevent meeting the PHS 196? Drinking Water Standards

     after conventional treatment.
 (1)  Pending evaluation of data on bathing beaches during

     1965 which are now being collected.

 (2)  Pending study of additional data and evaluation of

     potential reductions at the sources.

 (3)  Pending thorough determination of existing concentra-

     tions  in Lower Lake Michigan Conference Area.  Lower

     limits may be desirable.

     If more than one sample per day is examined, the

-------
                                                   42
               Water Quality Criteria




limit shall be the daily average.   If only one




sample per day is taken, the single value shall




govern.

-------
                                                        43




                    Water Quality Criteria



                           TABLE 4



                          CRITERIA



                     LITTLE CALUMET RIVER



Control Point - Wentworth Avenue Bridge.



Colifor* Bacteria - MPH/100 ml



     Maxlmua Value 5000 except during periods of stormwater



     runoff.



Fecal Streptococci - Number/100al



     Maximua value 500 except during periods of stormwater



     runoff.



Turbidity



     Mo turbidity of other than natural origin that will



     riuae substantial visible contrast with the natural



     appearance of the water.



True Color - Units



     Annual average not more than 25.



     Single daily value or average not »ore than 50* *1



Odor



     No obnoxious odors of other than that of natural



     origin.



Temperature Degrees F



     Single daily value or average not »ore than 90.




Oil




      Substantially free froa visible floating oil.

-------
                                                         44




                    Water Quality Criteria




FloatingSolids and Debris




     Substantially free of floating solids and debris




     from other than natural sources.




Bottom Deposits




     Substantially free of sludge banks.




pH- Unite




     Annual median within range 6.5 - 9.0.




Dissolved Oxygen - mg/1




     Average (May through September) not less than 4.0.




     Single daily value or average not lesa than 2.0.




BOP - mg/1




     Single daily value or average not more than 10.0.




Ammonia Nitrogen - mg/1 (2)




     Single daily value or average not more than 1.5.




Methylene Blue Active Substance - mg/1




     'Jingle daily value or average not more than 0.5.



Cfyanides - mg/1




     Single daily value or average not more than 0.025.



Phenol-like Substances - mg/1




     Single daily value or average not more than 0.02.




Total Phosphates-mg/1 (2)




     Held for additional data analysis.   (Appears to be




     from surface runoff.)

-------
                                                          45




                    water Quality Criteria







(1)  If more than one sample per day IB examined, the Halt



     shall be the dally average.  If only one sample per



     day Is taken, the single value shall govern.



(2)  Tentative pending study of additional data and



     evaluation of potential reductions at the sources.

-------
                                                        48




                    Water Quality Criteria




                           TABLE 5



                          CRITERIA



                     GRAND CALUMET RIVERA




Control Point - Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad



                Bridge.



Coliform Bacteria MPK/100 ml.  (Tentative)




     Maximum Value 5000 except during periods of stormwater



     runoff.



Fecal Streptococci - Number/100 ml



     Maximum value 500 except during periods of stornwater



     runoff.



True Color - Units (Tentative)




     Annual Average                                    25



     Single Daily Value or Average*^'    Not more than 50



Odor




     No obnoxious odors of other than that of natural



     origin.



Temperature - Degrees F                  Not more than 90




Oil



     Substantially free of visible floating oil.



Floating Solids and Debris



     Substantially free of floating solids and debris from



     other  than natural sources.

-------
                                                         47
                    Water Quality Criteria

Bottoa Depoa its

     Substantially free of sludge banks.

pH - Unite

     Annual Median                  Within range 6.S - 9.0

Dissolved Oxygen - «g/l (Tentative)

     Average (Hay through September)

     Single Daily Value or Average

BOO - ag/1 (Tentative)

     Single Value

ABMOO la-Nitrogen - mg/1 (Tentative)

     Single Value
              3.0

Not less than 1.0
Less than
10.0
Mot more than 5.0
Methylene Blue Active Substances -
       (Tentative)
     Single Value

Chlorides - »g/l (Tentative)

     Annual Average

     Single Dally Value or Average

Phenol-1 ike Subs tances - «g/l
  (Tentative!"

     Single Value

Total Phosphates - «g/l (Tentative)

     Reid for additional data analysis.
Filterable Residue (Total Dissolved Solids) -
        (Tentative)
Not more than 0.5
               75
Not more than 125
Not «ore than 0,020
     Single Value
Not more than 500

-------
                                                         48



                    Water Quality Criteria







(1)  It is recognized that the Grand Calumet River at the



     State Line is essentially treatment plant effluent



     from Hammond due to the nature of the natural drainage



     flow.



          In addition to the concentration limits, the



     pounds per day of each constituent shall be limited



     to the loads that would occur at these concentrations



     with a flow of 20 cfs.



          Combined s tor mater overflows shall be eliminated



     as soon as possible.



          Criteria consider only existing conditions.  If



     the proposed dam changes conditions, then the criteria



     should be reconsidered.



(2)  If store than one sample per day is examined, the



     limit shall be the dally average.  If only one sample



     per day 1* taken, the single value shall govern.

-------
                                                        49
                    later Quality Criteria




                           TABLE 6




                          CRITERIA



                          WOLF LAKE




Control Point - Illinois -Indiana State Line - Wolf Lake




                Culvert*1*




Bacteria - Number per 100 ml by MF Techniques
     (a)  The number of bacteria shall be the Arithmetic



          Average of the last five consecutive sample



          results.



     (b)  Satisfactory area if MF Coliform are less than



          1000 and MF Fecal Streptococci are less than



          100.



     (c)  Satisfactory area If MF Conforms are from



          1000 to 5000 and MF Fecal Streptococci are less



          than 20.



     (d)  £ single sample result of over 100,000 Coliforms



          shall  require immediate investigation as to the



          cause.  Items to be considered in the judgment



          of cause and action to be taken include the



          sanitary survey, winds, currents and weather



          conditions.

-------
                                                         50




                    Water Quality Criteria



Turbidity



     No turbidity of other than natural origin that will



     cause substantial visible contrast with the natural



     appearance of water.



True Color - Units



     Annual Average                    Not more than  5



     Single Daily Value or Average     Mot More than 15



Odor



     No obnoxious odor of other than na'.urxl origin.



Temperature - Degrees F                Not more than 85



Oil



     Substantially free of visible floating oil.



Floating Solids and Debris



     Substantially free of floating solids and debris from



     other than natural sources.



Bo11 am Depos i ts



     Substantially free of »uck and debris of other than



     natural origin.



pH - Units



     Daily Median                  Within range 7.0 - 9.0



Dissolved Oxygen - Per Cent Saturation



     Annual Average                    Not less than  90



     Single Value                      Not less than  80

-------
                                                        51



                    Water Quality Criteria



Ammonia Nitrogen (K) - mg/1 (Tentative (3)



     Annual Average                    Hot more than 0.05



     Single Daily Value or Average     Not more than 0.12



Methylene Blue Active Substance - mg/1



     Annual Average                    Mot wore than 0.02



     Single Daily value or Average     Not more than 0.05



Cyanides (cv) - ag/1



     Single Value                      Not more than 0.025



Total Phosphates (PO4) - mg/1 (Tentative) (4)



     Annual Average                    Mot more than 0.03



     Single Daily Average of Value     Mot more than 0.04







(1)  Criteria apply at beaches as well as at Toll Road



     Bridge Station.



(2)  Pending evaluation of data on bathing beaches during



     196S which are now being collected.



(3)  Pending study of additional data and evaluation of



     potential reductions at the sources.



(4)  Pending thorough determination of existing concentra-



     tions in Lower Lake Michigan Conference Area.  Lower



     1in its nay be desirable.



          If more than one sample per day is examined, the



     limit shall be the daily average.  If only one sample




     per day is taken, the single value shall govern.

-------
                                                         52




                    Water Quality Criteria




            PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATION OF CRITERIA




CONTROL POINTS




     The committee recommends that the following sampling




stations serve as control points to judge compliance with




the recommended criteria.  This recommendation is not in-




tended to exclude sampling at such other points as may be




found necessary to ensure effective pollution abatement and




continuing monitoring and control of pollution.




OPEN WATER




     1.  Chicago South District Filtration Plant - Dunne




         or Shore Intake Crib, or both in combination.




     ?.  Gary Water Intake, West.




INNER HARBOR BASINS




     1.  Hammond Water Intake.




     2.  East Chicago Water Intake.




SHORE WATER




     Existing sampling points at bathing beaches.




LITTLE CALUMET RIVER




     Wentworth /venue Bridge.




GRAND CALUMET RIVER




     Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Bridge.




WOLF LAKE




     Culvert through Earthen Dike Road on Illinois-Indiana





     State  line.

-------
                                                         53




                    Water Quality Criteria




                      LABORATORY METHODS




     Analytical methods shall adhere to the procedures




approved by the Laboratory Directors representing the




Illinois and Indiana pollution control agencies, the




Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, the




Chicago Bureau of Water and the Great Lakes-Illinois River




Basins (GLIRB) Project.




     The Technical Committee is aware of the variations in




the procedures followed in determination of threshold odor




by the several laboratories involved and that none adheres




to "Standard Methods," and recognizes that quantitative




values reported by the laboratories quite probably have




little true relationship to each other.  In order to place




threshold odor results on a comparable basis until a uniform




procedure can be adopted, the Committee recommends that all




official determinations be performed by one organization,




such as the Chicago South District Filtration Plant.  In




this way the South District Filtration Plant method would




serve temporarily as a standard for reference procedure.




     Recent discovery of wide variations in ammonia results




obtained by four laboratories on two samples has cast some




doubt on the comparability of analytical results.  The pro-




gram of the Laboratory Directors to achieve uniformity in meth-





ods and results should be pressed with all possible speed.

-------
                                                         54



                         Murray Stein



          MR. STEIN (continuing):   I might say that,  except



in possibly specialized cases where we haven't got criteria



yet, except in cases where you have an exceptional situation



like Tahoe or some other crater lake of that kind, as far



as I know these criteria are as high as I have seen estab-



lished anywhere for water quality control other than possibly



for shellfish beds.  These are extremely high, and I think



they will clean up and preserve the Lake.



          The Conferees accepted these criteria with the



following provisions:



          (a)  These Water Quality Criteria are subject



               to subsequent adjustments by the Conferees



               when investigations or laboratory findings



               so justify.



          (b)  Laboratory techniques and methodology are



               to be coordinated by the Federal Water



               Pollution Control Administration laboratory.



          2.  The Conferees adopt the following maximum time



schedule for control of waste discharges of industries:



          Preliminary Engineering Plan Documents    Dec. 1966



          Final Engineering Plan Documents          June 1967



          Construction complete and facilities



             in operation                           Dec. 1968

-------
                                                          55




                         Murray Stein



            Such documents »re to be filed in sufficient



            ti»e so that they may be approved by the



            appropriate water pollution control agencies



            by the above date*.



          3.  The Conferee* recognize modifications in this



schedule may be necessary.  These may include:



          (a)  A leaser time where the control agency



               having Jurisdiction considers a practical



               method of control can be in operation prior



               to the time stated.



          (b)  la a few industries some variation from this



               schedule may be sought from the appropriate



               State and local pollution control agencies.



               in such cases after review the Conferees



               may make appropriate recommendations to the



               Secretary of the Department of Health,



               Education, and Welfare.



          4.  The conference is to be reconvened at the call



of the Chairman to evaluate progress toward pollution control



in the waters of the conference area.



          If any of the Conferees has anything to add, we



will call on .him, or if you people have any questions to



ask, we can sit up here en masse and try to answer them for




 a while.  We will be available individually after we

-------
                                                          56





                         Murray Stein



adjourn here to answer your Individual question*.



          But does anyone have anything to say now or does



anyone have a question before we break up?



          QUESTION:  I have a question back here, Mr.



Chairman.



          ME. STEIN:  Would you identify yourself?



          MR. RICHARD LEWIS:  I am Richard Lewis from the



Chicago Sun-Times.



          You indicated in your opening statement that it



would be some little time but not a millennium before this



program was carried out, and in the printed sheet you indi-



cate that it is agreed that construction will be completed



and facilities will be in operation about two years from



now.



          MR. STEIN:  Yes.



          MR. LEV IS;  My question is:  Can you five us an



estimate on when the Lake will be clear and on when you will



be able to Judge by routine tests and visual observations



as to whether this program is going to work?



          MR. STEIN:  By the way, we will be doing that



during the two-year period.  You don't have to wait for the



end of the construction.



          I think you were here, Mr. Lewis, at the last




conference.  We heard, even up  to now, that many of  the

-------
                                                           57






                    Questions and Answers



Industries had made improvements in reducing their waste load



of various substances by as much as 90 per cent.  I think



the city programs are going into effect this spring.



          Now, the effect on the Lake, on the improvement



of the Lake, should be continuous.  We should be able to see



by this summer the effect of the program up to now.



          I think you have to always expect a little time



lag, and this is .just the mechanics of the way nature



operates between the cessation of a discharge, or the ade-



quate treatment of wastes, and the showing up of improvement



in the watercourse.  But I expect that if this program is



working, we should see a steady and progressive type of



improvement from now on.  We are going to keep this under



surveillance.



          To answer your question as to how soon after



December 1968 we should achieve optimum results in the maxi-



mum kind of clean-up, we have not been able to get an abso-



lutely definitive answer on that from oux scientists.  That



is not because they are ducking.  It is much, much easier to



predict the clean-up in a stream.  We haven't had too much



experience with lakes.



          But I might say in streams we have gotten sub-



stantial clean-ups from one to three years after the work




was completed.

-------
                                                          58
                    Questions and Answers



          I think here you are just going to see a spectrum



of a clean-up, and I expect that these waters will be getting



better and cleaner all the tine from now on.



          MR. LEWIS:  Thank you.



          MR. STEIN:  Are there any further questions?



          Yes?



          QUESTION:  What happens if, say in December of this



year, you discover one or more industries don't have their



preliminary plans ready?  What happens if they are not



meeting the time limit?



          MR. STEIN:  Again, I think we believe,in talking



and dealing with these industries, that they are going to



have their plans ready.  We feel that we have given then a



reasonable schedule.



          But, as you know, the law is very clear.  If you



don't have the plans ready, then the notice of the violation



is sent to the Secretary, and the next step in this is a



hearing.  If that doesn't work, the next step is court



action.



          I might say though, sir, that we have dealt with



some 1,200 industries, in my experience in water pollution



control, and with some of the major industries  in the



country, as we're dealing with here.  Never once have we




been to court with an industry.   I don't anticipate that

-------
                                                         59




                    Questions and Answers



here.



          I anticipate that the industries will work with



it* very closely to get the plans ready.



          How, I do know — and I think I speak for Mr.



Klassen, who is not here, but certainly for all the Confers*



here and for myself — that industry after industry has been



coming in to see Be, both on a formal and on an informal



basis, and I am sure they are seeing the State and the



District people too, making an effort to get these plans



ready.



          I think we till have to be realistic and logical.



          I see a tremendous change in industry la doing



this.  Let me put it as bluntly at I can.  I don't think a



major steel company puts a couple of fellows on an airplane



and flies them to Washington to visit with me just for a



social visit.  X think they mean business.



          Thank you.



          QUESTION:  IB there any one major substance



polluting the Lake, the elimination of which could enable



the program to get off with a major leap?



          MR. STEIN:  I would not like to specify a major



substance polluting the Lake.  I think one of the really



complicated problems that we have in the Chicago area  is that




we have a variety of materials polluting the Lake.

-------
                                                         60





                    Questions and Answers



          Now, there is one substance that we are grappling




with at this point, and that is phosphate removal.  This




is a nutrient that may contribute to the premature aging or



putrefaction of the Lake.  While this is a etibeCance of



which we don't have that much control, you may hear a lot of




talk about phosphate removal.



          However, there are bacteria going into the Lake



which are from human wastes.  This will be stopped with dis-




infection in the spring.  This should make a big difference.



          We also have industrial wastes, and we know what




they are.  They are largely from the petroleum, or oil,



industry and from the steel industry.  Each of these wastes




is fairly well cataloged.  Each one of them can be trouble-



some.  They are going to be expensive to the industry to




remove.



          They recognize these wastes as well as I do.   I



think  if you want  a detailed list of the wastes from the



various  industries, I will be glad to talk to you later.



          QUESTION:   In putting this together in the last



few days, did you  give any consideration at all to what  this




is going to cost industry and, secondly, to whether you



might  recommend some  bill for Federal aid to help them build




some of  these facilities?




           MR. STEIN:   Let me answer your second question

-------
                    Questions and Answers



first, because that is easy.  Recemendations for legislation



come from the President.  And I work on legislation.  That's



another "halo" I wear.  One of the beauties of the job I



have is that, because I work on legislation and help prepare



the Administration's report on legislation, I can't talk



about it.  (Laughter)  But there have been legislative pro-



posals for help for industry.



          On the other point, these people here can tell you



quite a bit about public financing.  I have at least a



feeling that in the administration of this law, unless an



industry volunteers to us what it costs, this really is not



much of our business, what the private financing is.  We



are interested in industry doing the job.



          Very often they have reasons, either competitive



reasons or financial reasons, to arrange their long-tent or



short-term financing in a certain way.  They nay not wish,



for whatever reason they have, to reveal this kind of



financing.



          We are happy to get these figures when we can get



them.  However, we respect that aspect of industry.  I



think, if thes? figures are made available to us, we wi'l



collate them, and we will make them available, but I suggest



any question you have on industrial costs be directed to the




 industry.

-------
                                                       62





                    Questions  and Answers




          QUESTION:   What about  the State and municipality




figures?  Have you got those?




          MR.  STEIN:  I think  I  would  like  each  of  the




people to speak for himself.




          QUESTION:   Could we  get some sort of Just "boxcar"




figures?




          MR.  STEIN:  Do you have State  and municipality




figures to clean this up, Mr.  Poston?




          QUESTION:   Just a round figure.




          MR.  POSTON:  t don't have one  offhand.




          MR.  STEIN:  Grover,  do you have one?




          MR.  GROVIR COOK (Chief, Enforcement Activities,




Region V, Federal rater Pollution Control Administration) :




No, I don't.




          QUESTION:   Well, Mr. Stein,  Just  off  the  top  of



your head, would you be willing to make  an  estimate what'




both the public and private figures Right be?




          MR.  STEIN:  I an surrounded  by engineers  here.




I would prefer they do it.




          MR.  POOLE:  I will yield  to  Poston.   I can't  do



it.




          MR.  STEIN:  Mr. Poston, do you want  to try?




          MR.  POSTON:  I can't give  a  figure.




          QUESTION:  One million?  Two  million? Ten

-------
                                                       63




                    Questions and Answers



million?



          MR. STEIN:  I suspect it will be more than two



million.



          MR. POSTON:  I would say over ten million.  I



wouldn't say now much over.



          QUESTION:  Ten million for everything or Just



for the public bodies?  We just want a round figure.  Nobody



is going to hold you to it.



          MR. PCSTON:  I think Youngstown has a figure



of $11 million that they gave for their own one plant.



          QUESTION:  Are you talking about a municipal



plant or about all industries?



          MR. POSTON:  This is an industrial plant.  This



is Youngstown Sheet and Tube.



          MR. STEIN:  Let He say this:  I can see the re-



luctance of these people, but I don't want to mislead you



on this.  I suspect a figure like $10 million is very, very



low.  That's not even in the ballpark.



          MR. POSTON:  That's right.



          MR. STEIN:  It's going to be considerably higher.



          Do you want to give them a figure (to Mr. FOBton)?



          MR. POSTON:  No, I'm not going to —



          MR. STEIN:  You once gave a figure for mil the




Great Lakes, didn't you?

-------
                                                       84




                    Question* and Answers



          MB. P06TON:  That's easier.



          MB. STEIN:  Wit? don't you give them that figure?



What dit. you say?  This is just to give an idea of the



magnitude.



          MB. P06TOW:  i*e nere talking about a five-year



program or a ten-year program to clean up all of the pollu-



tion in the Great Lakes, that it would be something in the



magnitude of $20 billion.



          QUESTION:  Billion?



          QUESTION:  Million or billion?



          MB. P08TON:  Billion.  This is a big problem.



          QUESTION:  Did you say a five- or a ten-year



program?



          MB. P06TCW:  Ten-year.  This would include com-



bined sewers — elimination of combined sewers — and cer-



tain research needed.



          MB. STEIN:  Just a moment*  Just to give you an



idea, we have some figures here for  the District alone.



Colonel Chesrow probably can give those.  This Is just the



Sanitary District.



          COLONEL CHESROK:  The Metropolitan Sanitary Dis-



trict of Greater Chicago anticipates that our present needs



are close to $200 million, and our anticipated expenditures




within the next ten years will be,  in round figures.

-------
                    Questions and Answer*



approximately $400 million additional.



          QUESTION:  Just for this purpose alone?



          COLONEL CHESROW:  Yes.



          QUESTION:  Just for pollution control?



          COLONEL CHESROW:  Yes.  That is for building new



plants and for doing the work that is necessary to prevent



pollution and for control of the pollution of Lake Michigan.



          QUESTION:  This is all new?  This isn't something



you were doing?



          COLONEL CHESROW;  No, no.  This is new.



          MR. STEIN:  That is Just the District.



          I Bight give you another idea of the magnitude.



I don't want to speak for this area, but this might help.



I think in the future years  it is pretty well agreed that



when we talk in terms of "water resources" — and don't



forget we are dealing with Corps of Engineers* projects and



big dams, Bureau of Reclamation dams, and so forth — the



biggest single item of expenditure in water resources is



going to be for pollution control.



          In other words, nationally, an item in water re-



sources, and a major item, is going to be for pollution



control.



          You can, going back, Just look at the amounts that




we spent for dams  in this country in  the  past.  These

-------
                                                       66




                    Questions and Answers



amounts will appear small in the future when we are going



to have larger expenditures nationally for pollution con-



trol.



          In other words, I don't think anyone should be



aisled by the notion that this is not going to be a Major



cost.  This nay very well be, after the roads program, the



area of public works that is going to be the most signifi-



cant in cost in the country.  I think the Chicago area,



having a problem like that, would have to recognize this



if we are going to do the job.



          Y«s?



          QUESTION:  Mr. Stein, you spoke of secondary



treatment of domestic wastes.  Does that mean that you are



going along with the dumping of sewage effluent into the



Lake after it has been treated a second time, that that is



permissible now?



          MR. STEIN:  The situation we have here is that



Indiana puts out effluent that gets into the Lake after it



is treated, or it gets into a tributary of the Lake.  Isn't



that correct?



          MR. POOLS:  That's right.



          MR. STEIN:  We recognize that this is a question



that is before the Supreme Court, and we are a party to that




case too.   We take no position on that.   If anyone decides

-------
                                                        67




                    Questions and Answers



this question of discharge of effluent to the Lake or not,



the Court is going to decide it.



          What we are doing is taking the situation here



as we find it, where these people discharge wastes into the



waters, and our job is to abate it, that is, lessen it as



much as possible.  We are doing the best we can with that.



          By the way, there are some Illinois sources that



discharge into the Lake too.



          QUESTION:  But you are still going to allow it?



          MR. STEIN:  There will be no prohibition, and I



don't know that we have that authority, sir.  There will



be no prohibition against the discharge of wastes at all



into any waters of the country.



          Let ae again make this abundantly clear, because



this is a very pertinent question, but I think you have to



understand this.



          One, this question right now is before the Supreme



Court of the United States.  We are a party to the case,



as are Illinois and the other Lake States.  We are going



to abide, as everyone else is I'M sure, by the Court's



decision.



          Secondly, our law speaks in tens of "abating"



pollution.  Again, I aa an old crossword puzzle fan.  "Abate"




•eans  "diminish."  That Beans you don't  tell  the  people

-------
                                                       68
                    Questions and Answers



not to put anything in at all.  If we did that, then we



would possibly have been given a different statutory Ban-



date.



          In other words, we find where the wastes are



going, and we try to get then to do the job as best we can.



          You can be sure there will be no increase of



sewage going into the Lake.  At the end it will be better.



          QUESTION:  Has the Sanitary District gone along



with this abatement program?



          COLONEL CHESROW:  We are against all pollution



going into Lake Michigan, and our stand is that we're opposed



to pollution of all sorts, of any type, going into Lake



Michigan.



          QUESTION:  Is the District planning to put sewage



that has had secondary treatment into the Lake?



          COLONEL CHESROW:  Never.  No effluent of any sort.



          QUESTION:  Mr. Stein, you called this a "remark-



able breakthrough."  Could you describe in layman's terms



Just what these criteria mean and what industry and the



municipalities are going to be doing so as to  indicate to



the general public just what  this is going to mean?



          MR. STEIN:  Yes.  I think a few of the criteria



can give you an indication.




          One,  the conform count refers to bacteria or a

-------
                                                       69




                    Questions and Answers



bug found in the intestines of a warm-blooded animal at



water intakes.  Generally speaking, it has been considered



satisfactory if the count was 5,000.  The count we are



shooting for at the Chicago water intakes is 200.



          for example, you have industries here, the



petroleum industry and the steel industry, both of then,



which have very vexing oil problems.  The criterion here



is "no visible oil discharge."



          What I think we have is a cutback of pollutants



to practically the irreducible minimum.



          I think in all reasonable respects we are going



to keep the Lake practically pure, considering the multi-



millions you have living along the shores and the tremendous



industry you have along the shores.



          Obviously, you cannot return this to the days of



Fort Dearborn or the Indians, but I think, with the criteria



that we have here, some people may think we have come



pretty close.



          QUESTION:  Is there anything major that you have



compromised on, that is not in this report, that you think



ought to be in it?          S



          MR, STEIN:  No.  As a matter of fact, this is



what I think, sir, is so remarkable, when I talk about the




 "remarkable breakthrough" in here.

-------
                                                        70




                    Questions and Answers



          I think that, with industry, with the localities,



with the States, and with us, we have gotten a pollution



control program that I do not think cowpromises in one



respect, and I don't want to qualify this by even saying



"essential" respect.



          I think if you got some professor, for example,



in one of the respected universities, to cone up with a



"blue sky" plan to clean up Lake Michigan, or if we put



one of our planning staffs to work on that, they would not



have cone up with anything that is much different than



what emerged here.



          That is what T think is so remarkable.



          Yes?



          QUESTION:  Mr. Stein, would it be premature to



think that these criteria will be adopted, say, along the



Ncrth Shore and up around Milwaukee where they are having



problems?  I aa just talking about our immediate vicinity



now.



          MR. STEIN:   I would answer that, yes, I would



hope they would do something around Milwaukee where they



are having problems.



          Now, again,  let me give you what our law provides,



We can only come in, on our  initiative, when pollution  in




one State endangers health or welfare in another State.

-------
                    Questions and Answera



Obviously — at least ve think that is the situation in



Milwaukee — while this may affect the Lake generally,  it is



at the present tine largely a Wisconsin problem.  We would



love to see Wisconsin get at that.



          I think the fact of those Milwaukee beaches being



closed is an indication that everything is not just fine



around there.



          If the Governor of Wisconsin should ask us to



come in, we would be delighted to come in and help to try



to clean that up.  So far, we haven't had the invitation,



and I don't know that we are holding our breath expecting



it.



          QUESTION:  How about the North Shore, now, where



you have Abbott Laboratories, Johnson Motors, etc.?



          MB, STEIN:  Well, again, I think that tiie North



Shore is something that we would like to see cleaned up.



That is outside the area of the case.



          Again, I think it's outside your jurisdiction too,



isn't it, Colonel?



          COLONEL CHESROW:  Yes.



          MB. STEIN:  We do think Mr. (Classen has a very



active program.  He has done a very good job in the State in



cleaning up almost all areas of pollution, and, as Mr.




Klassen  and  the rest  of  the Illinois  people  know, we stand

-------
                                                       72




                    Questions and Answors



ready to help again.



          Now, again, we cut the case off on both Bides,



and in Indiana too, around the Burns Ditch area in Indiana,



because we had to cone in on an interstate area.



          I Bight say in Indiana, in the Burns Ditch area,



the National Steel and Bethlehem are doing a superb Job.



In other words, there is no couplaint.



          I would say that the people in Indiana outside



the area of the jurisdiction of the case are doing and are



going to do as much as we are asking for inside the area.



          I hope on the Illinois side they will do the



same.



          QUESTION:  Mr. Stein, to your knowledge, do any



other countries have this water pollution problem?



          MR. STEIN:  They rll have.  Mow, I say that on



the basis of experience, reports and knowledge.  I don'r



want to talk about the other countries, because I will



leave that for the State Department, in specifics.



          But I have taken many trips to Alaska and Hawaii,



where you are supposed not to have pollution problems, and



the pollution problems that you have in the so-called



remote or undeveloped areas Hake our problems look easy.



There are tremendous problems in these areas.




          Mow,  let me say I think this again deals with

-------
                                                       73





                    Questions and Answers




the problem of infant mortality and the kind of life we



live in this country.  We're in one of the few countries




where you can go to any town in the country and, with




safety, turn on the faucet and drink a glass of water.  I



don't know that you would want to do this in any other



countries.



          Again, let me tell you, because I worked in




these programs for many years, that in the Indian health




program we discovered that the infant mortality of those



Indians was many, many times what it was in the rest of the



population.  Of course, they had many diseases.



          That has been reversed.  And do you know why?



We found that the big problem cane when the children were




weaned.  Once we got the public health nurses out and had



the mothers boil the nipples on the bottles, because of




the kind of water supply, it completely changed the picture



in infant mortality there.



          Of course, then, once you do that, you see, you




are living with a rising birth rate, and you begin having



other problems, but at least we got then over that hurdle.



          The answer to this is, I think, the essential



point in our standard of living.  The reason we can live




the way we do is because of the quality of water we have




 in  this country,  and we have to keep it that way.

-------
                                                         74





                    Questions and Answers



          QUESTION:  Mr. Stein, I am a layman,  but I fail



to understand why things get so bad up in Milwaukee that



the beaches are closed.  Why wouldn't it affect just a few



•lies down the shore, the North Shore, here?  And how



about Michigan across the Lake?



          MR. STEIN:  Our scientists have been working on



this all the time, and, you know, I wish you'd work with



us.



          To go in, of course, we have to prove that pollu-



tion goes across a State line.  The hardest thing you can



do is trace a bug, particularly out in lake currents.



          Sir, before we cane here there was very little



known about these lake currents.  No one knew where the



waters went.  Sure, we can trace the bugs outside of a



sewage outfall, but to trace a Wisconsin bug over a Michigan



or Illinois State line is something else.



          Now, our people have done a tremendous job here.



          By the way, one of your distinguished Congress-



men, *nd a man who I think ran for the Senate, Sidney Yates,



was on the Appropriations Committee handling the Weather



Bureau's appropriation, and he, naturally, is a very in-



fluential man at the Weather Bureau.  He got us maps of



the weather going back into the 1800*s to try to trace




currents.  What  the people would do is  drop oranges in  and

-------
                    Questions and Answers



folio* the oranges around and try to develop current



patterns.



          We found this couldn't be done, because the



currents vent one way on top, below that they went another



place, and below that they were different.  They varied,



and you had to do then for a period of time.



          What we did was got something like inverted



Texas towers that went down into the water with electronic



devices, at various levels, checking the currents.  We are



Just beginning to get a picture of that.



          The way it looks here, the lower end of Lake



Michigan is a kind of self-contained cul de sac, and I an



not sure that that material from Milwaukee really does get



down here in viable state.



          Yes?



          QUESTION:  Speaking of beache  , what about the



beaches down around the lower end of the Lake that are



closed now?  Are they going to be opened?



          MB. P06TON:  It is anticipated that the beaches



will be opened.



          QUESTION:  When?



          MR, POSTOW:  June.



          QUESTION:  Oh, really?




          MB, PCS TON:  Or  the  norval ti»e.

-------
                    Questions and Answers



          QUESTION:  All of then?



          ME. PCBTON:  The Conferees came out in March a



year ago with the recommendation that chlorination be in-



stalled by June of this year.



          QUESTION:  How many are closed now down there?



          MR. PQSTON:  Well, Hammond.  That is the only one



that is closed.



          QUESTION:  Hammond is the only one closed?



          COLONEL CHESEOW:  I'd like to qualify that.  There



is none in Illinois.



          QUESTION:  I understand.  Hammond is the only one



that is closed?



          MR. POSTON:  Yes.



          QUESTION:  We are almost out of film.  Could you



answer two questions, very briefly?



          No. 1, by what percentage will Lake pollution be



reduced from its present level with full compliance?



          MR. STEIN:  You are going to like the answer.  I



think full compliance will reduce pollution to a maximum.  I



would consider that, in a practical program, a hundred



per cent reduction.  That is, the Lake will not be pure, but



you do have a polluted condition, and it will restore it to



a non-polluted condition.




          QUESTION:  Secondly,  what penalties may be invoked

-------
                    Questions and Answers



against municipalities and industries which do not comply



with these criteria?



          HE. STEIN:  We can have a public hearing or take



then to court, and we have done that.



          QUESTION:  What penalties?



          MR. STEIN:  That would be up to the court to



assess.



          We have never had to go to trial.  In the St.



Joseph case, at a pretrial session, the City Attorney said,



"Are you going to put us all in Jail or put a padlock on the



City Hall?"



          The Judge said, "Well, not prejudging the case



and not making any assumptions, of course, I won't do that,



but I sure can dip into your till."



          QUESTION:  There must toe some maximum penalty.



          MR. STEIN:  No, there is not a maximum penalty.



          QUESTION:  Death?  (Laughter)



          MR. STEIN:  No, I think this is in terms of a



civil offense, not a criminal offense.  And the point i*



that you have in your experience seen people who have tried



to defy Federal court orders, and what has happened to



then.  You don't do that.  Either you become poorer or your



movement is restricted, because, while it might toe a civil




penalty,  if you don't obey a court,  you  are in conteapt of

-------
                                                         78




                    Questions and Answers



court.



          QUESTION:  The court could levy a floe?



          MR. STEIN:  They could levy a fine, or, if you are



in contempt of court, they can lock you up, I assume.



          QUESTION:  Mr. Stein, what did you mea.i when you



said that the honeymoon for industry is over?



          MR. STEIN:  Did I say it here?



          QUESTION:  You were quoted on the wires as saying



that.



          MR. STEIN:  Specifically in relation to what?



          QUESTION:  In reference to water pollution in



lower Lake Michigan.  Did that illustrate, for instance,



that industry had not been cooperating with you, or what?



          MR. STEIN:  I don't recall that.  I'm not saying



I didn't say that.  But the point is I don't know that we



have ever had a honeymoon with industry.  As a matter of



fact, I think the honeymoon with industry is beginning.



You can quote me on that.  Because I think we're getting



along with industry very well, and ve're going ahead with



a cooperative, Joint program to clean up Lake Michigan.



          If I described the situation that we had with



 industry before as a "honeymoon," it wasn't very apt.



          OUESTION:  Could vou describe, say, three key




things  that  industry is going to be  doing now,  in layman's

-------
                    Questions and Answers



terms, that they haven't been doing?



          MR. STEIN:  I don't know that it is three.  One



major thing is to keep the maximum wutte* out.



          What they will be doing — and I don't want to



underestimate this -- is installing housekeeping facilities.



The has1, way you can keep a pollutant out is to keep it out



of the pipes.  Mice you get it in the pipes, you have to



treat it, and you have a problem.  If you can keep it out



in the process, not let it get into those wastepipes, you



are that far ahead.



          The second thing industry will be doing is



constructing, installing and maintain!^ collection and



treatment systems for all the wastes that they can't possibly



keep out.  They will have to reduce them to the maximum



practicable limit, within the scope of the criteria and the



objectives.



          The third thing they will have to do, of course,



is keep an accurate surveillance program, or someone will



have to keep an accurate surveillance program, to see how



this  is working,



          QUESTION:  Will you be keeping a surveillance pro-



gram?



           MR. STEIN:  We will be working with  the State and




local government to keep a surveillance program.  We would

-------
                                                        80




                    Question* and Answers



hope the States and local agencies would abeorb as such



of that as possible.



          But, as I pointed out, a surveillance program will



be accomplished, and it will be done, whether we have to



do this ourselves or not.  In other words, we are under-



writing it.



          Again, let me wake this k<*y point with this,



because none of these facilities is worth very much unless



they are operated, speaking of the municipal facilities,



seven days a week, 36S days a year.  With the industrial



facilities, if they are open around the clock, that's when



they have to be operated.



          There is no point, for example, in having a



beautiful water facility  in Chicago that doesn't give you



clear, good, potable water 365 days a year, 24 hours a day.



          By the sane token, there is no point in putting



in all these installations unless they work around the



clock, because the waters will get polluted if they don't.



          If you want to  go to many large cities, particular-



ly in the Eastern half of the country, and ask me where the



•ajor pollution discharge sources are, I will take you to



the discharge points of the sewers and the Industrial waste



treatment plants.




           In  other words, they have to work,  and we have

-------
                                                       81





                    Questions and Answers



to recognize that you are going to have to have an adequate,



continuous surveillance operation.



          Now, let ne again take one More second on that.



If your electric utility doesn't work or your gas or



your telephone doesn't work, you know it immediately, and



you get customer response.  We have no built-in protection



like that with water pollution control facilities.  The



people don't know it.  It's insidious.  The only way you



can do that Is to have automatic monitoring, with check-



ups, and to have our scientists out there all the tine to



see that the system is operating at its optimum capacity.



          QUESTION:  When you get it cleaned up, how much



dirtier will the Lake be than when the Indians were here?



You said it won't be absolutely pure.



          MR. STEIN:  I don't know how much.  I think very



little.



          In other words, I would hope, when we got these



Lakes cleaned up, particularly Lake Michigan, that we would



be able to utilize these Lakes for all the water uses for



which the Lakes were capable of being utilized when the



Indians were here.  I would hope that we would be able to



support tne same biota and the same kind of fish it could



support when the Indians were here, and I think that's doing




pretty well.

-------
                                                         82





                    Questions and Answers



          QUESTION:  Will you have time for Individual



interviews, Mr. Stein?



          MR. STEIN:  Yes.  I an available all day.



          MR. JOSEPH CHANTIGNEY (Chairman of the Great



Lakes Region for the Izaak Walton League of America):   Mr.



Chairman, my name is Joseph Chantigney.  I aa representing



the Izaak Walton League of America and also the Cook



County Clean Streams Committee.



          I have prepared a brJ«sf statement on behalf of



both organizations, and I want to know, and ask in Mr.



Chesrov's presence, if we could have this entered into the



record today.



          MR. STEIN:  Yes.  We will place that in the



record as if read.

-------
                                                         83





                     Joseph Chantigney








               STATEMENT OF JOSEPH CHANTIGNEY,




               CHAIRMAN OF THE GREAT LAKES REGION,



               IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA,  AND



               GENERAL VICE-CHAIRMAN, COOK COUNTY



               CLEAN STREAMS COMMITTEE



          MR. CHANTIGNEY:  My nane is Joseph Chantigney.   I




aa Chairman of the Great Lakes Region for the Izaak Walton



League of America.  I an here today to present  the  views  of



the Izaak Walton League's entire membership.




          I would like to start my comments by  saying we



welcomed the Federal hearing held March 2, 1965,  which



eventually led to the signing of the new water  pollution




bill by President Johnson, and which became effective



October 2, 1965.



          President Johnson showed his concern  and sincerity




when he said, and I quote:  "No one has a right to use



America's waterways — that belong to &11 the people — as




a sewer."  We of the League were heartened and encouraged



by this statement.




          When the Izaak Walton League was organized, they




had the foresight to see what a hazard pollution was in any



form.  Soon  afterward, they advocated legislation to control




all pollution on coastal and  inland waters.  I would like

-------
                                                        84




                      Joseph Chantigney



to emphasize the /act that the Izaak Walton League has been



fighting in every conceivable way for 44 years to prevent



water- pollution.



          I would like to quote from a speech Senator Paul



Douglas delivered on January 15, 1966 at the 44th Annual



Founder's Day Dinner of the Izaak Walton League of America:



          "Throughout the Nation and in Washington,



     D. C. as well, the League was in the forefront



     of the campaign to alert the people to the problems



     of pollution and to secure enactment of enforcement



     legislation.  There can be no doubt that the decades



     of work by hundreds of Izaak Walton League chapters



     across the country laid the groundwork for public



     insistence that effective action be taken by the



     Federal government.  Without the work of the League



     on the local and State levels, this overdue public



     concern would still be largely unnoticed."



          I attended the two-day session on Water Quality



Criteria held  in the Prudential Building on January 4 and  5,



1966.  I want  to say it was most encouraging to hear the



tremendous reduction in water pollution some of our large



industries have accomplished since the original hearing.   I



would  like to  publicly compliment Wisconsin Steel Company.




          Through  my own  work as  General  Vice-Chairman of

-------
                                                         85



                      Joseph Chantigney



the Cook County Clean Streams Committee, I have been in-



formed that their overall program calls for the complete



elimination of all outfalls.  This,  in my opinion,  is the



ultimate in water pollution abatement.  Knowing what Wis-



consin Steel's program is, I must express grave disappoint-



ment in some of our other industries, who do not appear



to be trying to attain this goal.



          At this point I would like to give our views on



the Water Quality Criteria.  We are pleased to have these



standards set up, but we feel that these standards still



fall far short of fulfilling .his Nation's health and



recreational needs.  If the end results will produce water



of a quality for fishing and water contact sports, then the



Izaak Walton League of America, which is pledged to



defend all of this Nation's natural resources, will feel



that the thousands of Izaak Walton League members who have



worked so diligently and voluntarily for more than 44 years



will not have strived in vain.



          We of the Izaak Walton League of America wish



to thank you for this opportunity to present and express our



views here today.

-------
                                                          86



                         Murray Stein



          ME. STEIN:  Are there any other further questions



or comments?



          (No response.)



          If not, Colonel Chesrow, Mr. Poston, Mr, Poole



and the technical staff — and I ask then to stay with me --



will be available for comments.



          I night say to you fellows front the press that



this is your chance.  Looking around the room, I see we



have got more top scientists in here from various levels of



government and industry than I have seen assembled in one



place for a long time.  So here's your chance to ask your



questions.



          Thank you for coming.



          (Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., the meeting was



ad j ourned.)

-------