Volume 1
Fourth Session
September 19-21, 1972
Chicago, Illinois
ILLINOIS
Pollution of Lake Michigan
and its Tributary Basin,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
FOURTH SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF POLLUTION OF LAKE MICHIGAN
J^*
AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN
IN THE STATES OF
WISCONSIN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, AND MICHIGAN
VOLUME I
Bal Tabarin Room
Sherman House
Chicago, Illinois
September 19., 1972
Urltfiilyn <9iall ^Associates
COURT AND CONVENTION RIPORTINO
1372 THURELL ROAD
COLUMBUS. OHIO 43229
614 • 846.3682
-------
ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
CONTENTS
Opening Statement - Francis T. Mayo
H. W. Poston
Dale S. Bryson
David Kee
Donald Wallgren
Commander Alfred Stroh, Jr.
Captain Frederick Huff
William L. Blaser
H. William Byers
James C. Vaughn
Oral H. Hert
Ralph W. Purdy
The Honorable John Krey
Thomas G. Frangos
David Dinsmore Comey
James D. Griffith
Howard Zar
Dr. E. F. Stoermer
Dr. G. Fred Lee
Dr. E. F. Earth
Thomas E. Dustin
" ™*U
Page
1
a
15
17
55
60
66
73
77
aa
104
136
151
15*
181
197
209
217
255
275
281
-------
iii
1 Fourth Session of the Conference in the Matter of
2 Pollution of Lake Michigan and Its Tributary Basin, in the
3 States of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, held
4 in the Bal Tabarin Room of the Sherman House, Chicago,
5 Illinois, on Tuesday, September 19, 1972, at 9:30 a.m.
6
7 PRESIDING:
8 Francis T. Mayo, Regional Administrator,
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
10 Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
11
12 CONFEREES:
Thomas G. Frangos, Administrator, Division
14
of Environmental Protection, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Madison,
16
Wisconsin.
17
William L. Blaser, Director, Environmental
Protection Agency, State of Illinois,
19
Springfield, Illinois.
20
2i Perry Miller, Technical Secretary, Stream
22 Pollution Control Board, Indiana State
23 Board of Health, Indianapolis, Indiana.
24
25
-------
IV
1 CONFEREES, Continued:
2 Ralph W. Purdy, Executive Secretary,
Michigan Water Resources Commission,
Lansing, Michigan.
5
James 0. McDonald, Director, Enforcement
6
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
7
Agency, Region Y, Chicago, Illinois
$
9 ALTERNATE CONFEREES:
10
Lester P. Voigt, Secretary, Division of
11
Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Department
12
of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.
13
Carl T. Blomgren, Manager, Standards
Section, Division of Water Pollution Control,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Chicago, Illinois.
David P. Currie, Chairman, Illinois Pollution
Control Board, Chicago, Illinois.
20
Oral H. Hert, Director, Water Pollution
21
Control Division, Indiana State Board of
22
Health, Indianapolis, Indiana.
23
0. Carlos Fetterolf, Chief Environmental
24
Scientist, Michigan Water Resources Commission,
Lansing, Michigan.
-------
1 CONFEREES, Continued:
2
3
Dale S. Bryson, Deputy Director, Enforcement
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region ¥, Chicago, Illinois.
5
6 M
PARTICIPANTS:
7
H. W. Poston, Commissioner, Department of Environ-
mental Control, City of Chicago, Illinois.
9
David Kee, Chief, Compliance Section, Enforcement
10
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V,
Chicago, Illinois.
12
Donald Wallgren, Acting Chief, Federal Activities
13
Branch, Surveillance and Analysis Division, U.S. Environmental
14
Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
Commander Alfred Stroh, Jr., Great Lakes Branch,
16
Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Great Lakes, Illinois.
lo
Matt Stahl, Sanitary Engineer, 9th Naval District,
Great Lakes, Illinois.
Captain Frederick Huff, Chief, Lands Office,
Office Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army, Washington,
23 D*G*
2, H. William Byers, General Manager, North Shore
Sanitary District, Chicago, Illinois.
-------
vi
1 PARTICIPANTS, Continued:
2 James C. Vaughn, Engineer of Water Purification,
' Department of Water and Sewers, Bureau of Water, Chicago,
4 Illinois.
* Philip A. Reed, Filtration Engineer V, Division
of Water Purification, Department of Water and Sewers,
7
Chicago, Illinois.
d
The Honorable John Krey, Mayor, Manitowoc,
9
Wisconsin.
Lester 0. Hoganson, P.E., City Engineer, Racine,
Wisconsin.
12
David Dinsmore Comey, Director of Environmental
13
Research, Businessmen for the Public Interest, Chicago,
14 Illinois.
James D« Griffith, Committee on Lake Michigan
16
Pollution, Glenview, Illinois.
17
Howard Zar, Physical Scientist, Enforcement
18
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V,
19
Chicago, Illinois.
20
Dr. E. F. Stoermer, Great Lakes Research Division,
21
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
22 '
Dr. G. Fred Lee, Professor of Water Chemistry,
23
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,
24
25
-------
vii
PARTICIPANTS, Continued:
Dr. E. F. Earth, National Environmental Research
Center, Advanced Waste Treatment Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Thomas E. Dustin, Executive Secretary, Indiana
Division, Izaak Walton League of America, Huntertown,
7
Indiana.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
Y1X1
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER 19-21, 1972
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Mr. Dennis Adamczyk, Director
Inland Waterways Project
Citizens for a Better Environment
Chicago, 111.
Mr. James L. Aikin, Sanitary
Engineer
H. Q. Fifth U. S. Army
ALADD-EFS
Fort Sam Houston, Tex. 78234
Ms . Joanne A1ter
568 Hawthorne Place
Chicago, 111. 60657
Mr. J. E. Anderson, Chairman
Pesticides
Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Co,
Shell Chemical Company
823 Commerce Drive
Oakbrook, 111. 60521
Ms. Joan G. Anderson
Candidate for MSD
5308 Central
Western Springs, 111.
Mr. James L. Androff
Niles College of Loyola
7135 N. Harlem
Chicago, 111. 60631
Ms. Mary C. Ansbro, Editor
Water in the News
The Soap and Detergent Association
475 Park Ave. South
New York, N. Y. 10016
Mr. Carl L. Armour, Aquatic
Biologist
Environmental Analysts, Inc.
3 W. Wilson
Batavia, 111 . 60510
Mr. Alan Aront, Engineer
Consoer, Townsend & Assoc.
360 E. Grand Ave.
Chicago, 111. 60611
A. F. Aschoff, Head
Environmental Division
Sargent & Lundy
140 S. Dearborn
Chicago, 111. 60004
Mr. Eric Aynsley, Vice President
Particle Data Labs.
P. 0. Box 265
Elmhurst, 111. 60126
Mr. Joel E. Bair, Law Student
Notre Dame Law School
Notre Dame, Ind.
Mr. Joseph M. Balanda, Senior
Weather Equipment Technologist
City of Chicago
Department of Environmental Control
320 N. Clark St.
Chicago, 111 . 60610
Mr. Henry R. Balikor, Administrative
Assistant
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington
Chicago, 111. 60602
-------
-2-
Ms. Lillian M. Banahan, Assistant
Chief Counsel
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
Chicago Operations Office
9800 Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111 . 60439
M. Barber, Jr.,
Administrator
Sport Fisheries
Fish and
and
Mr. Yates
Wildlife
Bureau of
Wildlife
U. S. Department of the Interior
8505 Chapel Dr.
Annandale, Va. 22003
Mr. Ed. Barth
Environmental Protection Agency
Advanced Waste Research Lab.
National Environmental Research
Center
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Mr. Don W. Bartholomew
duPont Co.
5215 Kennedy Ave.
East Chicago, Ind. 46312
Mr. James H. Baxter,
1128 Maple Ave.
Evans ton, 111.
Ill, Student
Ms. Marjorie Beane, Graduate Student
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
2929 Curry St.
Madison, Wis. 53713
Mr. Lawrence P. Beer, Manager
Environmental Services Div.
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111.
Mr. Walter G. Belter, Senior
Environmental Engineer
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
Washington, D. C. 20545
Mr. Keith W. Bennett, Chicago
Editor
Iron Age, Chicago Bureau
100 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Robert Bennett, Associate
Professor
Northwestern Law School
357 E. Chicago Ave.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. John C. Berghoff, Jr., Attorney-
At-Law
Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, etc.
135 S. LaSalle St.
Chicago, 111. 60603
Mr. John T. Bernbom, Attorney
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
309 W. Washington
Chicago, 111.
Ms. L. W. Bieker, Chairman
Great Lakes Basin Task Force
AAUW
1154 Ridge Rd.
Munster, Ind. 46321
Mr. Harry V. Bierma
Conservation Committee
Illinois Audubon Society
6425 W. 32nd St.
Berwyn, 111. 60402
-------
-3-
Mr. R. M. Billings, Director of
Environmental Control
Kimberly Clark Corporation
Neenah, Wis.
T. Blomgren
Environmental
-Mr. Carl
Illinois
Agency
2121 W. Taylor St.
Chicago, 111. 60612
Protection
Mr. Hal Bohner
Businessmen For
109 N. Dearborn
Chicago, 111.
The Public Interest
Mr. Paul J. Bockstahler, Graduate
Student
University of Notre Dame
507 N. River Side Dr.
South Bend, Ind. 46556
Ms. Lee 8otts, Executive
Secretary
Lake Michigan Federation
53 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Joesph D. Bradley, Law Student
Notre Dame Law School
Notre Dame, Ind. 46656
Mr. D. H. Brandt, Director
Environmental Quality Control
Consumers Power Co.
1945 Parnall Rd.
Jackson, Mich. 49203
Mr. Louis J. Breimhurst, Director
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Minneapolis, Minn.
Mr. Karl E. Bremer
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111.
Ms. Harriet K. Brooks
P. 0. Box 28
Bridgman, Mich. 49106
Mr. John R. Brough, Director
Air and Water Control
Inland Steel Co.
3210 Watling St.
East Chicago, Ind. 43312
Mr. Choate A. Brown, Environmental
Engineer
Sargent & Lundy
140 S. Dearborn
Chicago, 111.
Mr. John D. Buffington, Biologist
Argonne National Lab.
Building 11
Argonne, 111. 60439
Mr. Oliver D. Butler, Assistant
Vice President
Commonwealth-Edison
Chicago, 111.
Mr. H. William Byers, General
Manager
North Shore Sanitary District
P. 0. Box 900
Waukegan, 111. 60085
Mr. Terrance L. Campbell
Manager
Dow Chemical Company
2020 Arc
Midland, Mich. 48640
Project
-------
-4-
XI
Mr. William Carter
Inland Steel Company
3210 Watling St.
East Chicago, Ind. 46312
Ms. Constance
Citizen
2829 Iroquois
Wilmette, 111
K. Casey, Interested
Rd.
. 60091
Mr. RobertJ. Catlin, Director
Div. of Environmental Affairs
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
Washington, D. C. 20545
Mr. Todd A. Cayer, Chief
Construction Grants Branch
Air and Water Programs Div.
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Dennis J. Chase, Correspondent
McGraw-Hill World News
648 N. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Ann Chellman
PEP
49 S. Greeley
Palatine, 111.
Mr. Mi Hard W. Cherry
American Electric Power Co.
2 Broadway
New York, N. Y. 10004
Mr. Ralph G. Christensen, Section
15 Program Coordinator
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Gary K. Coates, Engineer-
Manager
Water Pollution Control Department
City of Racine
2101 S. Main St.
Racine, Wis. 53403
Mr. George L. Coil, Captain
U. S. Army - JA6C
Office of the Post Judge
Advocate
Fort Sheridan, 111. 60037
Dr. A. L. Cole, Associate
Professor (Meteorology)
Department of Geography
Northern Illinois University
Dekalb, 111. 60015
Mr. David Dinsmore Comey, Director
Environmental Research
Businessmen For The Public
Interest
109 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1001
Chicago, 111. 60602
Mr. Kevin W. Conlon, Fiscal
Coordinator
City of Milwaukee
701 f - City Hall
Milwaukee, Wis. 53202
Mr. Francis B. Coon, Head
Chemical Department
WARF Institute, Inc.
P. 0. Box 2599
Madison, Wis. 53701
Ms. Eleanor Coup
League of Women Voters of Park Forest
359 WiIs hi re
Park Forest, 111. 60466
-------
-5-
Xll
Mr. A. H. Cratty, Commissioner
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Great Lakes Basin Commission
1405 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, Mich. 48823
Mr. Dan Crevensten, Physical
Scientist
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Ms. Irene M. Cunningham
State Water Committee
League of Women Voters
5316 Central
Western Springs, 111. 60558
Ms. Carol A. Currad, Attorney
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
231 W. Michigan Ave.
Milwaukee, Wis. 53202
Mr. David P. Currie, Chairman
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington St.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Quincy Dadisman, Reporter
Milwaukee Sentinel
10817 N. San Marino Drive
Mequon, Wis. 53092
Ms. Miriam G. Dahl
Wisconsin Div. Izaak Walton League
of America
5832 N. Lake Drive
Milwaukee, Wis. 53217
Mr. Don M. Dai ley
Citizens of Greater Chicago
18 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, 111 .
Mr. Andrew C. Damon, Attorney
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 450
Madison, Wis. 53701
Mr. J. P. Danahy, Chief of
Utilities
U. S. Army
Fort Sheridan, 111.
Dr. Stacy L. Daniels
Dow Chemical Company
2020 Dow Center
Midland, Mich. 48640
Dr. Joseph J. Delfino, Head
Water Chemistry Section
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs, Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111. 60062
Mr. Howard J. Deli nek, Group Leader
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111. 60062
Mr. Fred P. Dobbins, Sanitary
Inspector
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
2121 W. Taylor
Chicago, 111. 60612
Mr. David M. Do!an, Environmental
Engineer
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Ms. Helen Elon Donlon, Conservation
Chairman
Evergreen Garden Club
11007 W. Roosevelt Rd.
Westchester, 111. 60153
-------
-6-
Xlll
Mr. A. Joseph Dowd, Associate
General Counsel
American Electric Power Service Corp.
2 Broadway
New York, N. Y.
Mr. William H. Downey, Nuclear News
Coordinator
Commonwealth Edison Co.
P. 0. Box 767
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Nicholas G. Dozoryst, II, Assistant
Attorney General
State of Illinois
188 W. Randolph, Suite 2315
Chicago, 111. 60620
Mr. Joseph E. Draley, Senior Chemist
Argonne National Lab.
Building 11 A
Argonne, 111. 60439
Mr. Robert E. Driessen, Professional
Engineer
Hammermill & Thilmany Pulp & Paper Co.
Kaukauna, Wis.
Mr. Jerry Drobilek, Teacher
2423 Dugdale Rd.
Waukegan, 111. 60085
Mr. Jack A. Druckemiller, Manager
Environmental Affairs
Indiana & Michigan Electric Co.
2101 Spy Run Ave.
Fort Wayne, Ind. 46805 ^
Mr. Thomas H. Duffy, Attorney
Soap and Detergent Association
7 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Michael P. Dunbar, Graduate
Student
University of Notre Dame
814 E. Wayne
South Bend, Ind. 46613
Mr. John T. Dunn, Pollution
Control Engineer
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
P. 0. Box 248
Chesterton, Ind. 46304
Mr. Frank W. Duntemann, Environmental
Engineer
Peoples Gas Company
122 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, 111. 60603
Mr. E. M. DuSold, Engineer
Commonwealth Edison Co.
P. 0. Box 767
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Thomas E. Dustin
Coalition For The Environment of
Fort Wayne, Ind., Inc.
1802 Chapman Rd.
Huntertown, Ind. 46748
Mr. Thomas E. Dustin, Executive
Secretary
Indiana Izaak Walton League
1802 Chapman Rd.
Huntertown, Ind. 46748
Mr. Paul H. Duvall, Research
Associate
Businessmen For The Public Interest
109 N. Dearborn
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Jacob D. Dumelle, Member
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington St.
Chicago, 111. 60606
-------
-7-
XXV
Mr. Arthur W. Dybdahl
National Field Investigation Center
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Denver Federal Center - Building 53
Denver, Colo. 80225
Mr. J. R. Dyer
Consumers Power Company
Jackson, Mich.
Mr. Stanley N. Ehrenpreis, Program
Manager
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Nuclear Center
P. 0. Box 355
Pittsburgh, Penn. 15230
Mr. Harold 0. Eiler, Associate
Biologist
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111.
Mr. Jonathan P. El a, Midwest
Representative
Sierra Club
444 W. Main
Madison, Wis. 53703
Dr. James B. Elder, Wildlife Biologist
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building, Fort Snelling
Twin Cities, Minn. 55111
Captain Don Enright, President
Chicago Sportfishing Assoc.
Charter Boats
321 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2000
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Mildred Erhardt
League of Women Voters
338 Forest
River Forest, 111. 60305
Ms. Louise Erickson, Conservation
Chairman
North Central Audubon Council
3328 N. Main St.
Racine, Wis. 53402
Mr. Pentti Erkola, Chief Engineer
The Association of Finnish Cities
Eduskuntakatu 4, Helsinki 10,
Finland
Lab, Director
Mr. Lawrence A. Ernest,
Sewerage Commission
City of Milwaukee
P. 0. Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wis. 53201
Mr. Lloyd D. Everhart, Associate
Biologist
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111.
Mr. Ted Falls
Izaak Walton League
Wheeler, Ind. 46393
Mr. C. R. Faulkender, Environmental
Control Manager
Charmin Paper Products, Co.
P. 0. Box 1520
Green Bay, Wis. 54305
Mr. A. Daniel Feldman, Attorney
Commonwealth Edison Co.
1 First National Plaza
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Carlos Fetterolf, Chief
Environmental' Scientist
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Mason Building
Lansing, Mich. 48926
-------
-8-
xv
Ms. Mary Finley, President
Ridgeville Neighborhood Assoc.
829 Reba Place
Evanston, 111. 60202
Ms. Regan A. Flemming
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
2200 Churchill Rd.
Springfield, 111.
Ms. Nancy Flowers, Information
Director
Lake Michigan Federation
53 W. Jackson
Chicago, 111. 60604
Mr. Edward 6. Fochtman, Manager
Water Research Center
11 T Research Institute
10 W. 35th St.
Chicago, 111. 60616
Mr. James A. Fowler
Atlantic Richfield Co.
3500 Indianapolis Blvd.
East Chicago, Ind. 46312
Mr. Thomas G. Frangos, Administrator
Div. of Environmental Protection
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P. 0. Box 450
Madison, Wis.
Mr. Michael D. Freeborn, Attorney
1319 W. Sigwalt St.
Arlington Heights, 111. 60005
Ms. Linda M. Fuoco, Newswoman
WCFL News
300 N. State St.
Chicago, 111. 60601
Mr. Dan Galloway, Engineer
Dow Chemical Co.
Des Plaines, 111.
Mr. Donald Gerrard, Sales Engineer
Waste Treatment Systems
Fram Corp.
Glen Ellyn, 111.
Mr. Paul Gipe, Chairman
ENACT
Ball State University
Muncie, Ind. 47306
Mr. Thomas 0. Glover, Liaison
Officer
U. S. Bureau of Mines
504 E. Monroe
Springfield, 111. 62701
Mr. John C. Golden
Commonwealth Edison Co.
P. 0. Box 767
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Morton I. Goldman, Vice President
Environmental Safeguards Div.
NVS Corp.
4 Research Place
Rockville, Md. 20850
Mr. Anthony F. Gollata, Alderman
City of Manitowoc
Manitowoc, Wis.
Ms. Gretl Goiter, Chairman
Conservation Committee
South Shore Commission
6843 S. Chappel
Chicago, 111. 60649
Mr. Patrick Green, Manager
Cook Nuclear Center
Indiana & Michigan Electric Company
P. 0. Box 115
Bridgman, Michigan 49106
-------
-9-
xvi
Dr. Theodore Green, Professor
University of Wisconsin
Department of Meteorology
725 Seneca Place
Madison, Wis. 53706
Ms. Elaine Greening, Environmental
Scientist
Illinois Institute for Environmental
Quality
309 W. Washington
Chicago, 111. 60602
Mr. James D. Griffith
Committe on Lake Michigan
636 Hunter
Glenview, 111. 60025
Mr. Gary L. Groat, Planner
DeLeuw Gather & Co.
165 Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Snorre Gronbeck, Engineer
Services Coordinator
Department of Local Affairs and
Development
123 W. Washington
Madison, Wis. 53711
Mr. A. Christopher Gross, Research
Ecologist
Wapora, Inc.
659 Southlawn Lane
Rockvilie, Md. 20850
Mr. Frederic M. Grosser, Assistant
Attorney
Metropolitan Sanitary District
100 E. Erie St.
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Rosemarie Gulley, Staff
News Announcer
WLS News
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Janice E. Gulo, Associate
Biologist
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1530 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111. 60062
Mr. Philip F. Gustafson, Coordinator
Great Lakes Research Program
Argonne National Lab.
Argonne, 111. 60439
Environmental
Mr. Jerald V. Halvorsen,
Projects Manager
Atomic Industrial Forum
475 Park Ave., South
New York, N. Y. 10016
Dr. Paul R. Harrison, Chairman
Environmental Committee
Chicago Technical Society Council
1 First National Plaza
Chicago, 111.
Mr. C. D. Hartman, Superintendent
of Utilities
National Steel Corp. & Indiana
Stream Pollution Control Board
Portage, Ind. 46368
Ensign Michael Hassan, Assistant
Law Enforcement Officer
U. S. Coast Guard
Coast Guard Captain of the Port
610 S. Canal St.
Chicago, 111 60607
Mr. Michael Hawley,
City of Manitowoc
817 Franklin St.
Manitowoc, Wis.
City Engineer
-------
-10-
xvi i
Mr. Paul G. Hayes, Reporter
Milwaukee Journal
Milwaukee, Wis. 53201
Mr. Esk 0. Heinonen, Chief
Chemist
Helsinki City Waterworks
Kaivosrinteenk 2C22
Helsinki 44 Finland
Mr. James B. Henry, Vice President
and General Counsel
American Electric Power Service Corp.
2 Broadway
New York, N. Y. 10004
Ms. Betty Herlihy, Environmental
Quality Chairman
League of Women Voters of Chicago
67 E. Madison
Chicago, 111. 60603
Mr. Robert Herlocker
Calumet Area Branch
American Association of Union Women
8528 Schreiber Drive
Munster, Ind. 46321
Mr. Oral H. Hert, Director
Water Pollution Control Div.
Indiana State Board of Health
Indianapolis, Ind.
Mr. Tom Higgins, Graduate Student
Civil Engineer
University of Notre Dame
P. 0. Box 287
Notre Dame, Ind. 46556
Mr. Jack L. Hipke, Environmental
Chemist
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
222 W. Washington Ave.
Madison, Wis.
Mr. Lester 0. Hoganson, City
Engineer
City of Racine
730 Washington Ave.
Racine, Wis. 53403
Mr. Barton Hoglund, Assistant
Director
Center for Environmental Studies
Argonne National Lab.
9700 S. Cass
Argonne, 111. 60439
Mr. Edward H. Hohman, Staff Assistant
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Peter H. Howe, Staff Biologist
Commonwealth Edison Co.
P. 0. Box 767
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Dorothy Howe11, Microbiologist
Metropolitan Sanitary District
5901 W. Pershing
Cicero, 111. 60650
Captain Frederick Huss, Chief
Lands Office
Office Judge Advocate General
U. S. Army and Fort Sheridan
HQ SA DAJA-LO Pentagon
Washington, D. C. 20310
Mr. John H. Hughes, Special
Assistant to the President
Commonwealth Edison Co.
1 First National Plaza
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Norman H. Jacobson
American Nuclear Society
244 E. Ogden Ave.
Hinsdale, 111.
-------
-11-
xviii
Mr. E. W. James, Senior Vice President
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
600 N. Adams St.
Green Bay, Wis.
Ms. Sarah Jenkins
Sierra Club - MRCC
633 Sheldon St.
Madison, Wis. 53711
Mr. Leonard Jensky, Stockbroker
Howe, Barnes & Johnson
208 S. LaSalle
Chicago, 111. 60604
Mr. B. G. Johnson, Technical Manager
Environmental Sciences
Industrial BIO-TEST labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111. 60062
Ms. E. C. Johnson, Environmental
Quality Chairman
League of Women Voters
965 Westmon Rd.
Winnetka, 111. 60093
Environmental
Ms. Eileen L. Johnston,
Quality Chairman
League of Women Voters
505 Maple
Wilmette, 111.
Mr. Antti Joke!a, Engineer
National Board of Waters in Finland
Hiekkaharjo Vanamonkuja IK
Finland
Mr. Paul F. Jones, Environmental
Protection Agency Trainee
University of Notre Dame
P. 0. Box 574
Notre Dame, Ind. 46556
Mr. Thomas W. Jones, Jr., Attorney
Procter & Gamble Co.
P. 0. Box 599
Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
Mr. Jim Jontz, President
Indiana Eco-Coalition
P. 0. Box 48
Valparaiso, Ind. 46383
Mr. Thomas William Kalinowski
Northwestern University
Department of Environmental Health
Engineering
Evans ton, 111.
Mr. Charles Kamps
780 N. Water St.
Milwaukee, Wis. 53202
Mr. John F. Kattner, Environmental
Engineer
Sargent & Lundy Engineers
140 S. Dearborn
Chicago, 111.
Mr. William L. Keepers, Coordinator
of Environmental Affairs
Wisconsin Power and Light Co.
P. 0. Box 192
Madison, Wis. 53701
Mr. Fenton Kelsey, Jr. Publisher
AWARE Magazine
615 N. Sherman Ave.
Madison, Wis. 53704
Mr. Charles W. Kern, Environmental
Technologist
Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
5265 Hohman Ave.
Hammond, Ind.
-------
-12-
xix
Mr. James L. Kerwin, Reporter
Detroit News
615 W. Lafayette
Detroit, Mich.
Mr. Paul Keshishian, Director of
Power Production
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
222 W. Washington Ave.
Madison, Wis.
Dr. John H. Kitchel, Commissidner
Michigan Water Resources Commission
414 Franklin
Grand Haven, Mich. 49417
Mr. John Henry Kleine, State
Representative - Illinois
Illinois Water Resources Commission
155 Wood Lane
Lake Forest, 111.
Mr. Harold J. Kleiss, Staff Soil
Scientist
Dames E. Moore
1550 Northwest Highway
Park Ridge, 111.
Mr. Karl J. Klepitsch, Jr. Deputy
Chief
Refuse Act Permit Program
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Conrad 0. Kleveno, UC Coordinator
L). S. Environmental Protection Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Carl F. Klein
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Erskim Klyce, Research Planner
Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission
400 W. Madison
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. G. M. Knapp, Environmentalist
11653 Wauwatosa Rd.
Mequon, Wis.
Mr. Earl Knight, Superintendent of
Sanitary Engineers
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 E. Erie
Chicago, 111. 60611
Mr. Anthony R. Koltunicik, Project
Engineer
Bauer Engineering, Inc.
20 N. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Ms. Christine V. Kondrat, Assistant
Biologist
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111. 60062
Mr. Richard Kondrat
4946 S. Kedvale
Chicago, 111. 60632
Mr. John G. Konrad, Supervisor of
Special Studies
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
1308 Sweeney Drive
Middleton, Wis.
Mr. John L. Krey, Mayor
City of Manitowoc
911 Columbus St.
Manitowoc, Wis. 54220
-------
-13-
xx
Mr. Terry Krohe, Hydraulic Designer
Pioneer Service & Engineering
2 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Paul W. Kruger, Environmental
Protection Agency Trainee
Notre Dame University
10 Brownson Hall
Notre Dame, Ind. 46383
Mr. Garith R. Kuester, Project
Engineering Manager
Charmin Paper Products Co.
Green Bay, Wis. 54301
Mr. Melvin
Biological
Industrial
942 Meadow
Northbrook,
0. Lamble, Head
Sciences
BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
Road
111
Ms. Lillian A. Lasch
Conservation Committee
The Prairie Club
8937 Harms Rd.
Morton Grove, 111. 60053
Mr. Edwin J. Laszewski
City of Milwaukee
841 N. Broadway
Milwaukee, Wis.
City Engineer
Mr. Will C. LaVeille, Agricultural
Waste Specialist
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Samuel T. Lawton Jr.
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington
Chicago, Illinois
Mr. Ray D. Leary, Chief Engineer
and General Manager
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission
P. 0. Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wis. 53201
Mr. Arnold E. Leder, Coordinator
Human Environment House
Kalamazoo Nature Center
6634 N. Westnedge
Kalamazoo, Mich. 49007
Mr. G. Fred Lee, Professor of
Water Chemistry
University of Wisconsin
Water Chemistry Lab.
Madison, Wis. 53706
Mr. Dennis J. Legenski, Engineer
Commonwealth Edison
1 First National Plaza
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Kenneth Lehner, Superintendent
of Chemical Services
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
231 Michigan St.
Milwaukee, Wis.
Mr. G. E. LeMasters
Indiana & Michigan Electric Co.
2101 Spy Run Ave.
Fort Wayne Ind. 46801
Mr. Paul Levin, Associate Professor
University of Illinois School of
Public Health
P. 0. Box 6998
Chicago, 111. 60680
Ms. Barbara Ann Lewis
Argonne National Lab.
9700 Cass Ave. - Building 11
Argonne, 111. 60439
-------
-14-
xxi
Mr. Alvin Liebling, Acting Regional
Counsel
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Eric Lile
Friends of Our Native Landscape
408 Pennsylvania
Glen Ellyn, 111. 60137
Mr. A. Charles Lincoln, Chief
Pesticides Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Gerald E. Lindquist
19239 N. Shore Drive
Spring Lake, Mich. 49456
Mr. Lloyd A. Lueschow, Chief
Lab. Services
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P. 0. Box 450
Madison, Wis. 53701
Lieutenant Douglas D. Lundberg, Operations
Officer For The Captain of the Port
U. S. Coast Guard
610 S. Canal St.
Chicago, 111. 60607
Mr. Erling H. Lunde, Volunteer
Administrator
Citizens of Greater Chicago
18 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, 111. *60603
Mr. D. T. Lundy, Partner
Alvord, Burkick & Howson
20 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Horace P. Lyle, Vice President
Electric Products & Engineering
Northern Indiana Public Co.
5265 Hohman
Hammond, Ind. 46325
Ms. Betty N. MacDonald, Chairman
Lake Michigan Inter-League Group
League of Women Voters
1155 Edgewood Avenue
Madison, Wis. 53711
Mr. D. MacFarlane
Argonne National Lab.
Argonne, 111.
Ms. Gary J. Mai kin
3500 Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Arthur P. Malm, Environmental
Designer
Pioneer Service & Engineering
2 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Janet H. Mai one, Executive
Director
Council on Population & Environment
100 E. Ohio St.
Chicago, 111. 60611
Mr. A. H. Manzardo, Chief
Refuse Act Permit Program
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
-------
-15-
xxii
Mr. Maurice L. Markey, Assistant
City Attorney
City of Milwaukee
800 City Hall
Milwaukee, Wis. 53216
Dr. Gary J. Marnier
Argonne National Lab.
9700 Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111. 60935
Mr. Charles J. Marnell, Environmental
Engineer
Pioneer Service & Engineering Co.
2 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, 111. 60606
Ms. Helen M. McDammon
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111. 60062
Mr. Edward A. McCarthy, Member
Illinois Water Pollution and Water
Resources Commission
69 W. Washington St.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Andrew J. McErlean, Senior
Staff Biologist
Office of Technical Analysis
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D. C.
Environmental
Mr. Don L. McGregor,
Scientist
Argonne National Lab,
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111.
Mr. Michael V. Mclntire, Professor
of Law
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Ind. 46556
Mr. Jerome McKersie, Chief
Water Quality Evaluation
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 450
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
Mr. William G. McMaster, Researcher
Businessmen For the Public
Interest
109 N. Dearborn
Chicago, 111.
Mr. W. J. Mecham, Associate
Chemical Engineer
Environmental Studies
Argonne National Lab.
Argonne, 111. 60439
Mr. Stephen Megregian, Director
Water Quality Programs
Wapora, Inc.
1725 DeSales, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Mr. Thomas P. Meinz, Chemical
Engineer
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
P. 0. Box 1200
Green Bay, Wis.
Ms. Pamela Merry, Biologist
Argonne National Lab.
Argonne, 111.
Mr. Gary S. Mil burn, Aquatic
Biologist
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive €
Chicago, 111. 60606
-------
-16-
XXlll
Mr. Perry Miller, Technical Secretary
Indiana Stream Pollution Control
.Board
1330 W. Michigan St.
Indianapolis, Ind. 46207
Dr. Roger A. Minear
Illinois Institute of Technology
Chicago, 111. 60616
Mr. T. A. Miskimen, Senior Engineer
American Electric Power Service Corp.
2 Broadway
New York, N. Y. 10004
Ms. Joan Mokrycki, Concerned Member
Save the Dunes Council
3020 Hollywood Ave.
Michigan City, Ind. 46360
Mr. Thomas E. Moloney
Notre Dame Law School
Notre Dame, Ind.
Mr. Philip R. Monroe, Pulp Mill
Engineer
310 Wisconsin St.
Oconto Falls, Wis. 54154
Ms. Gertrude B. Moore
1700 Central
Wilmette, 111.
Mr. David L. Morrison, Manager
Environmental Section
Battelle-Columbus Labs.
505 King Ave.
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Mr. Robert G. Mowers, Environmental
Services Respresentative
Standard Oil Company (Ind.)
910 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, 111. 60605
Dr. Charles B. Muchmore, P.E.
Chairman, Environmental Quality
Commi ttee
Illinois Society of Professional
Engineers
612 S. Second St.
Springfield, 111.
Mr. Thomas J. Murphy
DePaul University
1036 W. Bel den
Chicago, 111. 60614
Mr. James Napoleon, Director of
Safety
Chicago Park District
425 E. 14th Blvd.
Chicago, 111. 60605
Mr. Michael D. Naughton, Chemical
Engineer
Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric
206 E. Second St.
Davenport Iowa 52800
Mr. Jack R. Newman, Chemical
Engineer
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. John W. Noerenberg
Consoer, Townsend & Assoc.
360 E. Grand
Chicago, 111.
Mr. John Nowak
6110 W. Peterson
Chicago, 111. 60646
Mr. Robert J. O'Brien, Public
Affairs Representative
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
P. 0. Box 700
Green Bay, Wis. 54305
-------
-17-
xxxv
Ms. Patricia S. O'Guin
Crisis Biology
Indiana University
205 Morrison
Bloomington, Ind.
Ms. Maria T. Oharenko, Editorial
Assistant
Information Office
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
9800 S. Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111. 60439
Ms. Charles J. O'Laughlin
Brookfield Township Land Committee
6149 N. Knox
Chicago, 111. 60646
Ms. Mary Oniki
League of Women Voters
166 N. Ridge!and
Oak Park, 111. 60302
Mr. Paul Oppenheimer
Hyde Park Kenwood Community Conference
1400 E. 53rd St.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. John B. Palmer, Research
Associate
Argonne National Lab.
Argonne, 111. 60439
Mr. John L. Parker, Member
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington Blvd.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Paul Partak, President
Cook County Chapter Illinois
Wildlife Federation
5508 W. 23rd St.
Cicero, 111. 60650
Mr. James W. Patterson
Illinois Institute of Technology
Chicago, 111. 60616
Mr. Nicholas J. Pawluk, Environmental
Engineer
Sargent & Lundy
140 S. Dearborn
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Jon Payne, News Editor
Nuclear News Magazine
244 E. Ogden Ave
Hinsdale, 111 60521
Mr. James Pearre
Chicago Today
445 N. Michigan
Mr. Robert E. Pearson, Aquatic
Biologist
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. W. Pentelovitch
Businessmen For The Public
Interest
5220 S. Kenwood
Chicago, 111. 60615
Mr. Werner A. Peot, Div. Engineer
Sewerage Commission
City of Milwaukee
P. 0. Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wis. 53201
Mr. Ed. Perkins
South Bend Tribune
223 W. Col fax
South Bend, Ind.
-------
-18-
XXV
Mr. 0. K. Petersen, Senior Attorney
Consumers Power Co.
212 W. Michigan Ave
Jackson, Mich. 49201
Mr. James H. Phillips, Chief
Program Operations Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. James M. Piala, Group Leader
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111.
Ms. Angela M. Peironi, President
Pollution Fighters Committee
2732 S. Sacramento Ave.
Chicago, 111. 60623
Mr. John H. Pingel
Atomic Energy Commission
Argonne, 111. 60439
Mr. Wesley 0. Pipes, Professor of
Civil Engineering
Northwestern University
Evans ton, 111. 60201
Ms. Mary L. Piros
League of Women Voters
3043 Olive Rd.
Homewood, 111 .
Mr. Henry L. Pitts, Attorney
208 S. LaSalle St.
Chicago, 111. 60604
Mr. Ted Piwowar, Chemist
Food & Drug
Main Post Office - Room 1222
Chicago, 111.
Dr. Anthony Policastro, Assistant
Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111. 60439
Mr. Roy Porteous
Winnetka Environmental Council
940 Greenwood
Winnetka, 111.
Mr. Douglas R. Post, Associate
Biologist
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111.
Commissioner
Mr. H. W. Poston,
City of Chicago
320 N. Clark
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Chris P. Potos, Chief
Water Quality Standards
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Charles F. Powers, Resident
Aquatic Biologist
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Pacific North West Environmental
Corvallis, Ore.
Mr. Glenn D. Pratt, Sanitary
Engineer
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Lab.
-------
-19-
XXVI
Mr. Theodore L. Priebe, Assistant
Attorney General
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Capitol Building
Madison, Wis.
Mr. Donald W. Pritchard, Consultant
Commonwealth Edison
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Ellen M. Prosser, Great Lakes
Basin Commission
220 E. Huron
P. 0. Box 999
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48106
Mr. Ralph W. Purdy
Executive Secretary
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Lansing, Mich.
Ms. Catherine T. Quigg, Vice President
Pollution and Environment Problems
49 S. Greeley
Palatine, 111.
Mr. Norman L. Rabbiers, Civil and
Structural Engineer
Lake Michigan Federation
101 E. Ontario
Chicago, 111. 60611
Mr. Joseph H. Rains, Associate
Biologist
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111.
Mr. Edward C. Raney, Consultant
to Commonwealth Edison
301 Forest Drive
Ithaca, N. Y. 14850
Mr. Walter L. Redmon, Biologist
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Philip A. Reed, Filtration
Engineer
Chicago Department of Water
and Sewers
1000 E. Ohio St,
Chicago, 111. 60611
Mr. R. W. Reeves, Head
Environmental Engineer Div.
American Electric Power
Service Corp.
2 Broadway
New York, N. Y. 10004
Mr. Richard P. Reilly, Resources
Planner
Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission
400 W. Madison
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Anthony Restaino, Biologist
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Road
Northbrook, 111. 60062
Mr. John Z. Reynolds, Director
Environmental Planning
Consumers Power Co.
Jackson, Mich.
Mr. M. D. R. Riddell, Partner
Greeley and Hansen
222 S. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, 111. 60606
-------
FOURTH SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF POLLUTION OF LAKE MICHIGAN
J^*
AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN
IN THE STATES OF
WISCONSIN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, AND MICHIGAN
VOLUME I
Bal Tabarin Room
Sherman House
Chicago, Illinois
September 19., 1972
Urltfiilyn <9iall ^Associates
COURT AND CONVENTION RIPORTINO
1372 THURELL ROAD
COLUMBUS. OHIO 43229
614 • 846.3682
-------
-21-
XVlll
Mr. Robert A. Schacht, Supervisor
Lake Michigan Surveillance
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
2121 W. Taylor
Chicago, 111 60612
Mr. R. F. Scheibel, Associate
Sargent & Lundy
140 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Gary Schenzel, Physical
Scientist
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. R. V. Schneider, Director
Air and Water Programs Div.
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. F. H. Schraufnagel, Director
Bureau of Standards and Surveys
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P. 0. Box 450
Madison, Wis. 53701
Mr. David Schwarz, Director
Corporate Environmental Control
Abbott Labs.
1400 Sheridan
North Chicago, 111. 60064
Mr. Robert L. Scott, Environmental
Protection Agency Trainee
University of Notre Dame
613 N. Lafayette Blvd.
South Bend, Ind. 46601
Mr. Peter Raymond Scullen, Attorney
Commonwealth Edison Co.
1 First National Plaza
Chicago, 111.
Dr. Shaw
Argonne National Lab.
9700 Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111.
Mr. Harvey M. Sheldon, Assistant
Attorney General
Office of William J. Scott
Attorney General of Illinois
188 W. Randolph St.
Chicago, 111. 60601
Mr. Kenneth Shih, Technical
Manager
Cook County Environmental
Control Department
159 N. Dearborn
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Robert A. Sigg, President
Illinois Division AAUW
2330 Maple
Homewood, 111. 60430
Ms. Mary P. Sinclair, Co-Director
National Intervenors
153 E St.
Washington, D. C. 20003
Mr. Philip C. Singer, Assistant
Professor
University of Notre Dame
Department of Civil Engineering
Notre Dame, Ind. 46556
Mr. John T. Sixsmith, Pollution
Control Coordinator
E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
5215 Kennedy
East Chicago, Ind.
-------
-22-
XXIX
Mr. Vernon G. Skogan
American Oil Co.
Whiting, Ind. 46394
Mr. Harry G. Slater, Special Assistant
City Attorney
City of Milwaukee
City Hall
Milwaukee, Wis.
Mr. Walter Soderstrom, Environmental
Engineer
U. S. Steel - South Works
3426 E. 89th St.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Matt Stahl, Sanitary
Engineer
9th Naval District
Great Lakes, 111.
Mr. Jack Steiner, Sanitary
Engineer
City of Chicago
1000 E. Ohio St.
Chicago, 111. 60611
Mr. Andrew Stoddard, Staff
Engineer
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. E. F. Stoermer, Research
Algol ogist
Great Lakes Research Div.
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104
•*
Ms. Mary Lee Strang, Steering
Commi ttee
Lake Michigan Inter-League Group
Glenview, 111.
Mr. Alfred Stroh, Jr., Commander
Assistant Director
U. S. Navy
Great Lakes, 111. 60088
Mr. Robert Styduhar, Civil
Engineer
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Fred 0. Sullivan, Sanitary
Engineer
U. S. Corps of Engineers
Chicago District
219 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, 111. 60604
Mr. John L. Swartz, Legislative
Assistant
House Minority Leader
Illinois General Assembly
Springfield, 111. 62206
Mr. Leo W. Tempieton, Superintendent
Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Manitowoc
Manitowoc, Wis. 54220
Mr. Jerry Teplitz, Technical
Advisor
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
309 W. Washington
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Lew Theohapous, Associate
Director
Environmental Water Quality Research
Procter & Gamble Co.
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
-23-
XXX
Mr. Nelson A. Thomas, Acting Director
Grosse He Lab.
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
9311 Groh Rd.
Grosse He, Mich.
Mr. Wm. Thomasma
Izaak Walton League
P. 0. Box 303
Green Bay, Wis.
Mr. Richard S. Thorsell, Environmental
Protection Manager
Edison Electric Institute
90 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10016
Mr. John V. Tokar, Engineer
Argonne National Lab.
9700 Cass Ave.
Argonne, 111. 60402
Mr. Orville G. Tranby, Principal
Engineer
Commonwealth Edison
Chicago, 111.
Ms. Sylvia Troy, President
Save The Dunes Council
1512 Park Drive
Munster, Ind. 46321
Ms. Arleen Trump
Environmental Quality Committee
League of Women Voters of Indiana
P. 0. Box 34
Valparaiso, Ind. 46383
Mr. Arthur W. Tuemler
17204 Holmes Ave.
Hazel Crest, 111.
Mr. Royden Tull
Wisconsin Environmental Decade
Birge Hall
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wis. 53597
Mr. Joseph R. Tybor, Writer-
Reporter
Assocaited Press
128 W. Randolph
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Robert Uram
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
309 W. Washington
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Gary F. Vajda, Physical
Scientist
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Srini Vasan
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. James C. Vaughn
Department of Water and Sewers
City of Chicago
1000 E. Ohio St.
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Jacob Verduin, Professor
of Botany - Southern Illinois
Univers'Lty
Commonwealth Edison Co.
Botany Department
Carbondale, 111. 62901
-------
-24-
XXXI
Ms. Alma Voita
Dunewood
Bridgman, Mich.
49106
Mr. Gilbert Vosswinker, Civil
Engineer V
City of Milwaukee
841 N. Broadway
Milwaukee, Wis. 53202
Mr. Ralph S. Wadleigh, River Basin
Staff Leader
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
1405 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, Mich. 48823
Mr. G. W. Wadlet, Assistant
Technical Manager
Industrial BIO-TEST Labs., Inc.
1810 Frontage Rd.
Northbrook, 111 60062
Mr. Deyarman Wallace, Director
Environmental Control
Youngs town Sheet & Tube Co.
P. 0. Box 900
Youngstown, Ohio 44406
Mr. Steven R,
Biologist
Commonwealth
72 W. Adams
Chicago, 111.
Walters, Staff
Edison Co.
Mr. Ralph M. Weaver, Manager
Environmental & Hydraulic Engineers
Pioneer Service & Engineering Co.
2 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, 111. 60606
Ms. Anne Weiss, Vice President
Chicago Chapter National Health
Federation
902 Reba PI.
Evans ton, 111. 60202
Mr. David P. Welch, Sanitary
Engineer
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Lee A. White, District
Manager
Dow Chemical Co.
1400 E. Touhy Ave.
Des Plaines, 111.
Mr. Donald G. Wieland, Division
Engineer
Sewerage Commission of The City
of Milwaukee
P. 0. Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wis. 53201
Mr. Oliver D. Williams, Assistant
Administrator
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P. 0. Box 450
Madison, Wis. 53701
Mr. Thomas Windau, Water Resources
Planner
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Wayne L. Wingert, Director
Environmental Affairs
Detroit Edison
200 Second Ave.
Detroit, Mich. 48226
Dr. Mary Woodland
League of Women Voters
Flossmoor Area
18345 Perth Ave.
Homewood, 111. 60430
of Homewood -
-------
XXX11
-25-
Mr. Ward Worthy, Assistant Editor
Chemical & Engineering News
743 Eighth St.
Wilmette, 111. 60091
Ms. Pat Yaney
Environmental Quality - Indiana
(Interleague)
League of Women Voters
7412 Magoun
Hammond Ind.
Mr. Woody Yaroch, Real
Property Officer
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N', Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Ms. Louise B. Young
755 Sheridan Rd.
Winnetka, 111.
Howard Zar, Physical
Scientist
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Mr. Richard W. Zimmerman, Environmental
Law Student
Notre Dame Law School
3026 Ardmore Trail
South Bend, Ind. 46628
Mr. Ronald A. Zussman, Staff
Biologist
Argonne National Lab.
Argonne, 111.
-------
1 Opening Statement - Francis T, Mayo
2
3 PROCEEDINGS
4
5 1 OPENING STATEMENT
6 BY
7 FRANCIS T. MATO
8
9 MR, MAYO: Ladies and gentlemen, the conference
is now open. I am Francis T. Mayo, Regional Administrator,
11 Region V of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am the
representative of Administrator Ruckelshaus.
13 This is the Fourth Session of the Conference in
the Matter of Pollution of Lake Michigan and Its Tributary
15 Basin in the States of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and
1° Michigan
At this point, I want to acknowledge that it has
-1 A
xo been the custom of the conference to hear statements from
Federal, State, or local elected officials immediately fol-
lowing the opening statement of the chairman. If any one
of those elected officials desires to make a statement,
2?
I please contact Mrs. Jan Mason, the lady standing in the aisle
at the moment.
* The first session of this conference was held in
^ 1968, in accordance with a request from the Honorable Otto
-------
1 Opening Statement - Francis T. Mayo
2 Kerner, Governor of Illinois, as well as on the basis of
3 reports, surveys, and studies by the Secretary of the
Interior. Authority for the calling of such a conference
came from Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (now 33 U.S.C. 1150). The second and third sessions of
this conference were held during the years 1969-1971.
This meeting is being held to discuss the current
problems that are being faced by those State and Federal
agencies charged with the duty of protecting Lake Michigan
11 from the deleterious effects of the various types of
12 pollution. Several topics of major concern have been placed
13 on the agenda for discussion. These major topics are dis-
cussed as follows:
15 1. The first major item addressed is a review of
the status of compliance by the various dischargers with
17 the recommendations of previous conferences, involving
adequate treatment, BO percent total phosphorus removal
from municipal wastes, industrial waste control, and elim-
ination of pollution from combined sewer systems.
2. The second major item is the report of the
22 Phosphorus Technical Committee.
^ 3. Another major problem to be reviewed is the
^ Pesticides Committee report. This committee was initiated
as a result of several recommendations from previous
-------
1 Opening Statement - Francis T. Mayo
2 conferences. The committee has been expanded to include a
3 study of PCBs, phthalates, and heavy metals. The
4 committee's findings on all of these items will be reported
5 on at this conference.
6 4. The chlorides report by the Federal conferee
7 is a fourth area of importance. The report was requested
by the conferees and will include a discussion of present
9 water quality in the lake, the effect of chlorides on the
10 control of total dissolved solids, and possible future
11 action to control chloride input to the lake
12 5, The final scheduled item of major importance
13 includes the thermal question. I have requested each State
14 to report on programs they have instituted, and regulations
15 they have adopted to implement, to the fullest extent, the
16 recommendations arising from previous sessions of the Lake
17 Michigan Enforcement Conference
It is proper to note here that any additional
areas of interest can be discussed after treatment of the
major topics. Those wishing to discuss additional areas
should inform their respective State representative of the
22 subjects they wish to comment upon.
23 It is our goal that each topic be discussed suf-
ficiently by the conferees and participants of this con-
25 ference to ensure that appropriate information is presented
-------
1 Opening Statement - Francis T. Mayo
2 upon which proper conclusions and recommendations can be
3 heard.
4 Both the States and the Federal Government have
5 interrelated and interlocking responsibilities under the
6 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The States have pri-
7 mary rights and responsibilities for taking action to abate
8 and control pollution. It is the duty of this conference
9 to recommend appropriate action to be taken by the States
10 of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, regarding
11 pollution abatement in Lake Michigan and to encourage these
12 States to act uniformly within reasonable time limits.
13 Under the same Act, the Federal Government is
14 charged with specific responsibilities in the field of
15 water pollution control in connection with pollution of
16 interstate and navigable water. This Act provides that
17 pollution of interstate or navigable waters that endangers
18 the health or welfare of any person shall be subject to
19 abatement. This applies whether the matter causing or con-
20 tributing to the pollution is discharged directly into
21 such waters, or reaches such waters after discharge into
22 a tributary.
23 The parties to this meeting are the official
2^- State water pollution control agencies of Michigan, Illinois,
25 Indiana, and Wisconsin. The conferees representing the
-------
: 5_
1 Opening Statement - Francis T. Mayo
2 State water pollution control agencies at this conference
3 are at the table*
4 It is appropriate, at this point, to ask the con-
5 ferees to introduce themselves and those who are accompanying
6 them at the head table. And I would like to start on my left
7 with the State of Illinois.
8 MR. BLOMGREN: My name is Carl Blomgren of the
9 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
10 MR. PURDY: I am Ralph Purdy, the Executive
11 Secretary of the Michigan Water Resources Commission; and
12 with me I have Dr. Kitchel, the immediate past Chairman of
13 the Water Resources Commission; and Carlos Fetterolf, our
14 departmental scientist.
15 MR. MAYO: Excuse me a moment, Mr. Miller.
16 Excuse me, Bill.
17 MR. BLASER: I am Bill Blaser, Director of the
18 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
19 MR. MAYO: Mr. Miller.
20 MR. MILLER: My name is Perry Miller; I am
21 Technical Secretary of the Indiana Stream Pollution Control
22 Board; and I have with me Oral Hert, who is Director of the
23 Division of Water Pollution Control of the Indiana State
24 Board of Health.
25 MR. FRANCOS: My name is Thomas Frangos, and I am
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
25
Opening Statement - Francis T. Mayo
the Administrator of the Division of Environmental Protection
of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, With me
is Mr. Oliver Williams, who is the Assistant Administrator.
MR. MAYO: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
is repressnted by Mr. James McDonald, on my left, who is the
Federal conferee. Accompanying him is Mr. Dale Bryson of the
Office of Enforcement, Region V, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Participation in the conference is open to all
conferees, their invitees, and interested parties wishing
to make a statement. For the purpose of assuring orderly
presentation, those members of the public wishing to make
a statement are requested to advise the State representatives
of the State in which they reside. Each State will be per-
mitted to manage its own time and order of presentation
according to the topic at hand.
Written statements may be presented on behalf of
persons not able to be physically present. Depending on the
nature and length of the statement, the Chair may decide
to introduce such a statement into the record as if read.
fhe Chair and the official conferees will question
the participants and each other. In the interest of running
the most orderly and productive conference possible, cross
examination and direct questioning of participants by others
-------
1 Opening Statement - Francis T. Mayo
2 will not be permitted.
3 A record and verbatim transcript of the meeting
is being made by Mrs. Marilyn Hall. This is being made for
5 the purpose of aiding us in preparing a summary and also for
° providing a complete record of what is said here. If any
7 interested parties wish to purchase a copy of the transcript,
they should make arrangements directly with the reporter.
An agenda for this conference has been made avail-
able to all interested parties and reflects discussion with
all conferees. It is ray desire to address each agenda item
12 separately and completely so that tentative conclusions and
13 recommendations can be reached prior to moving on. You will
note on the agenda that we will enter into an executive
15 session to finalize any conclusions and recommendations.
Following the comments of any elected officials
17 who wish to address the conference, I will call on Mr. Dale
Bryson, Chief of the Enforcement Branch, Region V of the
Environmental Protection Agency, who will coordinate the
Federal presentation.
21 Are there any elected officials who desire to
po
address the conference?
I understand that Mr. Wallace Poston of the city
of Chicago has a statement on behalf of the mayor.
5 Are you prepared to make a statement now, Mr.
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
15
17
20
^
^
H, W. Post on
Post on?
MR. POSTON: Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF H. W. POSTON,
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL, CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. POSTON: Thank you, Mr. Mayo.
I am H. W. Poston, Commissioner of the Department
of Environmental Control for the city of Chicago. Mayor
Daley has asked that I make this statement on his behalf.
He expresses his regrets that he is unable to be here this
morning
Mr. Mayo, distinguished members of the conference,
ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure on behalf of the
people of Chicago to welcome the reconvening of the Lake
Michigan Enforcement Conference. The future of the city
depends to a large degree on the continued purity of Lake
Michigan which is our source of drinking water as well as
adding to recreational and aesthetic features of the city.
Therefore at this Fourth Session we shall be
listening closely to the progress reports presented here by
the States of Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and
those reports by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
1 H. W. Post on
2 We await the recommendations that will be presented as a
3 result of this important conference.
4 The August 10, 1972, report of the Phosphorus
5 Technical Committee to the Lake Michigan Enforcement Con-
6 ference concludes that the discharge of phosphorus at
7 present levels has an adverse effect on Lake Michigan.
8 The Technical Committee, as you know, is composed of repre-
9 sentatives from the Federal Government and each of the States
10 participating in this conference. The Technical Committee
11 report also states that the "loadings of phosphorus to the
12 should be decreased to the lowest level consistent with
13 engineering feasibility and economic reasonableness."
14 In light of these findings, I urge this conference
15 to adopt uniform laws to control phosphates in detergents.
16 As you are well aware, Chicago's ban on phosphates in most
17 detergents became effective in July of this year. Although
13 it still is too early to determine what the ultimate effects
19 will be, the July 1972 sample from the Metropolitan Sanitary
20 District showed a lower content of phosphorus compared to
21 the previous month in all three major treatment plants.
22 The city of Chicago does not add to the pollution
23 of the lake since we do not discharge wastes into the lake
24 but the other communities do.
25 VTe remain convinced that the removal of phosphates
-------
10
1 H. ¥. Post on
2 at the source is the fastest, most economical and the best
3 solution to the problem.
4 We have been pleased with the cooperation of most
5 manufacturers, store owners and managers and consumers in
6 conforming to the local ban on phosphates in detergents,
7 The third annual report of the Council on Ekiviron-
mental Quality reports that the Great Lakes Basin has 2,191
9 more polluted miles of streams than were reported in its
10 1970 findings. The need for action in reducing pollution
11 from phosphates is obvious.
12 An iS-month engineering study seeking solutions to
13 the combined sewer overflow problem and flooding after storms
14 in areas drained by Illinois waterways and the canal system
15 was completed recently. The study, undertaken by the city
16 of Chicago, the State of Illinois, Cook County, and the
17 Metropolitan Sanitary District, offers the most economical
IS and environmentally acceptable plan in solving these prob-
19 lems. It calls for the construction of large diameter
20 tunnels, 200 or more feet below ground, paralleling the
21 existing river and canal system. It would also utilize
22 existing quarries.
23 This program, costing nearly $1.25 billion, will,
24 when coupled with scheduled improvements by the Metropolitan
25 Sanitary District, meet the new strict pollution standards
-------
1 H. W. Poston
2 set for the State waterways. The plan also will eliminate
3 the need for releasing river water into Lake Michigan in
4 times of unusually heavy rains.
5 Because of the urban growth of the Metropolitan
6 area and the related flooding, the necessity of releasing
7 river water to Lake Michigan at the Wilmette Gates, the mouth
8 of the Chicago River and the Calumet River, is on the
9 increase. It is essential that steps be taken immediately
10 to implement this plan which will eliminate the need to
11 divert excess stormwaters into Lake Michigan.
12 The work of developing this plan is a good example
13 of the cooperative effort of the State of Illinois, Cook
14 County, the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
15 Chicago, and the city of Chicago, in approaching the
16 metropolitan problem of protecting our valuable waterways
17 and Lake Michigan.
IB The standards set for pleasure craft by the Federal
19 Environmental Protection Agency are not sufficient to cut dowi
20 on sewage discharges from boats. They would allow the con-
21 tinuation of discharges on existing vessels indefinitely.
22 All owners are required to do is install devices that merely
23 grind up and chlorinate the human waste. The States border-
24 ing Lake Michigan should insist on the more stringent
25 measures which prohibit any discharge of waste from any
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
13
15
17
vessel.
___ _ 4 _ 12
H. W. Poston
Since 196? , Chicago has required retention tanks
on all vessels, including pleasure crafts, using its harbors.
It has also required boat owners to dispose of these wastes
at pumpout stations.
One of the benefits of these four-State conferences
has been the enactment by the States of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, and Wisconsin of laws requiring holding tanks.
it has been the recommendations and findings of these confer-
ences which have benefited all the users of Lake Michigan.
We believe that strict regulations are necessary and we
urge Federal adoption. Strict Federal regulations regarding
retention tanks should apply particularly in matters of
interstate commerce.
It is our hope that this conference will make
recommendations and adopt rules which will have a beneficial
-I r»
xo impact on Lake Michigan as a whole.
Our own studies of water quality — taken over
a 25-year period — established a trend of deterioration.
But since 1968 we have noted improvement particularly in
po !
I the bacteriological area. However in the chemical area
•* there still is an increase of phosphates, chlorides, and
^ sulphates. A more detailed report will be given at this
25
J conference later by the Chicago Department of Water and
-------
n ___ 13
1 H. W. Poston
2 Sewers.
3 At the conclusion of the first enforcement con-
4 ference in 196#, it was noted that "Lake Michigan is a
5 priceless natural heritage which the present generation
6 holds in trust for posterity, with an obligation to pass it
7 on in the best possible condition."
8 Let this first conclusion continue to be the
9 watchword for this magnificent body of water.
10 I thank you.
11 MR. MAIO: Thank you, Mr. Poston.
12 Do the conferees have any questions or comments
13 that they want to make regarding Mr. Poston's evidence?
14 MR. McOONALD: I have a question, Mr. Poston, on
15 the ordinance that Chicago passed banning phosphates, that
16 became effective on June 30 of this year.
17 MR. POSTON: les, sir.
l£ MR. McDONALD: What reaction have you had from the
19 housewives? You know we always hear on the phosphate-free
20 ordinances that you are going to be plagued with complaints
21 from the housewives. Has this happened here in the city of
22 Chicago?
23 MR. POSTON: I think only one complaint has come
24 to my attention from a housewife, and this particular
25 complaint was from a resident of a suburban area complaining
-------
14
1 H. W. Poston
2 that there were no phosphates on the shelves of her grocery
3 store and that she would like to have the opportunity to
4 purchase such material.
5 MR. McDONALD: So since the enactment of the
6 ordinance, you have had no real complaints at all.
7 MR. POSTON: No real complaints; that is correct.
g MR. McDONALD: Thank you.
9 MR. PURDY: Mr. Poston, on the combined sewer
10 overflow control program -- this is a rather massive program
11 that is being developed — do you have, at this time, a time
12 schedule in which this program will be implemented?
13 MR. POSTON: I can't give you that time schedule
14 exactly. As you may know, it will depend, I am sure, upon
15 the Federal Government's ability to support with their funds
16 construction.
17 MR. PURDI: You have preempted my next question
18 because I was going to ask if Chicago was prepared to move
19 forward on that project in the absence of a construction gran
20 and I think you have already answered that.
21 I MR. MAYO: Are there any other questions from the
22 . conferees?
23 Thank you, Mr. Post on.
24 MR. POSTON: Thank you for the opportunity to be
25 here. I am very happy to see many of my acquaintances at
-------
15
1 D. S. Bryson
2 this meeting. I am sure that some very weighty decisions
3 will be made at this meeting and much good can come from
4 them.
5 ME. MAIO: Thank you.
6 Before moving into the first item on the agenda,
7 I would like to recognize that we have with us this morning
I
8 I five waterworks specialists from the nation of Finland who
I
9 j are visiting with the staff of the Chicago Department of
10 Waterworks and Sewers, We are pleased to have them join us
11 this morning, and to share with us an interest in the items
12 that are on the agenda.
13 As indicated in the opening statement, I am now
14 going to call on Mr. Dale S. Bryson to begin the Federal
15 presentation.
16
17 STATEMENT OF DALE S. BRYSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
18 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
19 PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION V, CHICAGO,
20 ILLINOIS
21
22 MR. BRYSON: Because the conference will be
23 addressing separate and distinct topics, EPA's statement
24 will reflect that same approach. I will be calling upon
25 various people to present appropriate information at the
-------
16
1 D. S. Bryson
2 proper time in the proceedings. In some instances, EPA
3 will have a separate report such as on Status of Compliance,
4 and in other cases our presentation will be included as part
5 of a committee report,
6 The first item under consideration by the conferees
7 is status of compliance. Assessment of status of compliance
# is the foundation of any conference such as this. Without
9 appropriate monitoring of status of compliance, the confer-
10 ence becomes meaningless. At this point it is appropriate
11 to remind this conference of the first conclusion made back
12 in 196S. Mr. Poston has quoted that recommendation. That
13 recommendation was that: "Lake Michigan is a priceless
14 natural heritage which the present generation holds in trust
15 for posterity, with an obligation to pass it on in the best
16 possible condition." On the basis of this and other conclu-
17 sions, a number of recommendations were decided upon and
13 timetables set to accomplish the stated objectives. It is up
19 to the regulatory agencies, State and Federal, to see that
20 proper efforts are taken by the dischargers so that the
21 recommendations are complied with. It follows naturally
22 that proper enforcement actions must be taken should a dis-
23 charger become recalcitrant.
2^- Status of Compliance
25 The EPA has compiled detailed status of compliance
-------
„ — . 17
1 D. Kee
2 information on the various municipal and industrial dischargers
3 | in the basin covered by the conference recommendations. We
4 have also developed certain statistical information on the
5 basis of current status of compliance with the conference
6 recommendations, I think you will find this information
7 quite interesting.
g At the time the conference recommendations were
9 established, water quality standards plans of implementation
10 were also being placed into effect. On the basis of these
11 items, the EPA has taken a number of enforcement actions
12 within the Lake Michigan Basin.
13 At this time, I would like to call upon Mr. David
14 Kee, Chief of our Compliance Section, to present a summary
15 of the Federal enforcement actions in the basin and to
16 present a summary of certain statistical information on
17 status of compliance.
IB Mr. Kee.
19
20 STATEMENT OF DAVID KEE, CHIEF,
21 COMPLIANCE SECTION, ENFORCEMENT DIVISION,
22 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
23 REGION V, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
24
25 MR. KEE: Thank you, Mr. Bryson.
-------
id.
1 D. Kee
2 If it is acceptable to you, Mr, Chairman, I will
3 present both of my reports as if they were one since they
4 are relatively brief.
5 MR, MAYO: Please proceed.
6 MR, KEE: The following is a summary report on
7 the status of Federal enforcement actions against individual
8 municipal and industrial dischargers in the Lake Michigan
9 Basin,
10 Although these actions have not resulted as a
11 direct legal consequence of this conference, they do supple-
12 ment State enforcement efforts designed to meet the require-
13 ments of the conference. In large measure, water quality
14 standards are similar to the enforcement conference require-
15 ments and it is as a result of standards violations that many
16 of these actions have been initiated.
17 It is our belief that an assessment of this overall
18 Federal enforcement program in the basin would be of interest
19 both to the conferees and to the public,
20 Present Federal water pollution regulatory activi-
21 ties are based on two statutes: 1) the Federal Water
22 Pollution Control Act; and 2) the 1899 River and Harbor
23 Act, also known as the Refuse Act. Section 10 of the Water
24 Pollution Control Act provides for 180-day notice proceeding
25 and subsequent legal action, as necessary. Section 11 (b)(4)
-------
n 19
1 D. Kee
2 of the Act provides for criminal penalties in those instances
3 in which there has been failure to notify appropriate auth-
4 orities of an oil spill. Other sections of the Act are
5 implemented under Coast Guard proceedings with Environmental
6 Protection Agency assistance in certain instances.
7 Violations of the Refuse Act can result in either
$ civil or criminal actions, depending on the nature and dura-
9 tion of the discharge. Civil actions are intended to correct
10 ongoing pollutional discharges while criminal actions are
11 initiated in instances of oil or hazardous material spills
12 i into navigable waters or in those cases where a discharger
13 has failed to file a permit application for discharge to a
14 navigable water.
15 To the present date, the Environmental Protection
16 Agency has issued ISO-day notices to eight dischargers in
17 the Lake Michigan Basin. The recipients were the Gary Sani-
IB tary District, the city of Hammond, the Hammond Sanitary
19 District, and the city of Whiting, in Indiana;, the city of
20 Sheboygan and the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District,
21 in Wisconsin; and two paper mills in the Green Bay area,
22 Charmin Paper Products Company and American Can Company.
23 While most of these cases are still in the negotiation phase,
24 the Sheboygan and Charmin Paper Products matters have been
25 settled with the establishment of detailed cleanup programs
-------
20
1 D. Kee
2 for both dischargers*
3 In addition to the above cases, the Environmental
4 Protection Agency has referred seven matters to the U.S.
5 Attorneys in the Districts which adjoin Lake Michigan for
6 criminal prosecution under the Refuse Act. The subjects of
7 these actions were United States Steel Corporation (Gary
# Works); United States Steel Corporation (South Works), in
9 Chicago, Illinois; the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Corporation,
10 East Chicago, Indiana; the American Oil Company, Whiting,
11 Indiana; the Schafer Manufacturing Company, Union City,
12 Michigan; Benton Harbor Malleable Industries, Benton Harbor,
13 Michigan; Speedway Wrecking Company, Chicago; and Valentine
14 Fisheries, Inc., Suamico, Wisconsin.
15 Civil actions have been filed against E. I. du Pont
16 of East Chicago, Indiana, and the United States Steel
17 Corporation of Gary, Indiana. Both of these civil cases
13 are still in the pretrial stage.
19 A civil action has also been filed against the
20 city of Whiting, Indiana, following a failure to reach an
21 acceptable settlement during the 130-day negotiating period.
22 In addition to these formal abatement actions, the
23 Environmental Protection Agency has moved with the States to
obtain voluntary commitments to acceptable cleanup programs
25 as an alternative to court action when an industry or
-------
_____ 21
1 D. Kee
2 municipality adopts a cooperative attitude towards its
3 responsibilities to the environment. At present, two of
4 these voluntary agreements have been negotiated in the
5 Lake Michigan Basin. They are the Scott Paper Company at
6 Marinette, Wisconsin; and the Chicago and Northwestern
7 Railway at Green Bay, Wisconsin; and many more are presently
8 in the negotiation stage.
9 It should be recognized that in all the above-
10 mentioned enforcement actions, cooperation between the
11 States and the Environmental Protection Agency has been of
12 importance. The preponderance of enforcement activity with
13 respect to both enforcement conference requirements and
14 water quality standards has been done by the States. There
15 has, however, been an increasing Federal role within the
16 Lake Michigan Basin which has paralleled the growth of
17 Federal enforcement activity nationally.
1# In summary, the story of Federal enforcement in
19 the Lake Michigan Basin is one of a steadily increasing
20 tempo with more actions filed in the last year than in all
21 previous years combined. These actions have complemented
22 State activity against recalcitrant polluters and have
23 given substance to the joint Federal-State responsibility
24 for the cleanup of Lake Michigan.
25 As Mr. Bryson has indicated, the review of the
-------
22_
1 D. Kee
2 status of compliance of the industrial and municipal waste
3 sources in the Lake Michigan Basin with the conference
4 requirements must be viewed as one of the most important
5 tasks of this reconvening. In particular, the progress
6 toward implementing the major four recommendations aimed at
7 controlling pollution from individual point sources is the
& most significant measure of the success or failure of the
9 conference in reversing the trend toward degradation in the
10 lake.
11 These four recommendations (numbers 1, 2, 4 and 7)
12 resulted from the first conference sessions in the spring
13 of 1963 and called for the following:
14 1. A general upgrading of municipal waste
15 treatment and an SO percent reduction in total phosphorus
16 reaching the lake by December 1972.
17 2. An upgrading of industrial waste treatment,
IS also by December 1972.
19 3» The provision of continuous disinfection for
20 municipal effluents by May 1969.
21 4. The control of pollution from combined sewers
22 by juiy 1977.
23 if the schedules established in 1963 had been
24 adhered to, the next few months of 1972 would have seen a
25 period of significant reductions of the levels of phosphorus
-------
23
1 D. Kee
2 and industrial wastes entering Lake Michigan and its tribu-
3 tary basin. However, the massive amount of schedule slippage
4 in the implementation of the phosphorus and industrial
5 cleanup programs has dimmed the prospect that those areas
6 of the lake presently most severely degraded, the Green Bay
7 and Southern Lake Michigan areas, will soon enjoy enhanced
8 water quality.
9 As indicated in Table 1 (See p. 24) of this
10 report, only 53 out of 145 waste sources serving about half
11 of the total population subject to the phosphorus removal
12 requirement are presently in final compliance or on schedule
13 to meet the deadline. That the percentage in compliance is
14 even this high is due largely to the efforts of one
15 community, the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the largest
16 city in the Lake Michigan Basin, and one of the first to
17 provide phosphorus removal. Twelve communities in the
IB State of Indiana with more than 60 percent of the State's
19 population in the basin needing phosphorus control are
20 behind schedule.
21 It is our present understanding that both Federal
22 installations subject to the requirement will provide
23 interim phosphorus removal during the period prior to
24 their connection to the North Shore Sanitary District. A
25 list of the 92 dischargers behind schedule has been appended
-------
TABLE I
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
SUMMARY OF PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
STATE SUBJECT TO
Sources
Illinois 7
Indiana 18
•Michigan 75
Wisconsin 43
Federal
Installations 2
BASIN TOTAL 145
REQUIREMENT
Served
Population
114,000
100%
586,323
100%
1,353,823
100%
1,834,383
100%
45,000
3,933,529
100%
IN COMPLIANCE
Sources Served
Population
1 65,000
57%
3 32,370
6%
6 216,312
16%
6 949,690
52%
0 0
0%
16 1,263,372
32%
ON SCHEDULE
Sources Served
Population
6 49,000
43%
3 188,600
33%
23 641 ,297
47%
5 53,630
3%
0 0
0%
37 932,527
24%
s.
BEHIND SCHEDULE
Sources Served
Population
0 0
0%
12 365,353
51%
46 496,214
37%
32 831 ,063
45%
2 45,000
100%
92 1,737,630
44%
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
D. Kee
to this report as Table 6, and that appendix is available.
The second compliance requirement is for indus-
trial waste dischargersi and of the 76 sources identified
as influencing Lake Michigan water quality over three-fourths
are in compliance or on schedule. Table 2 (See p. 26) pro-
vides summary information on the compliance of these dis-
chargers and Table 3 (See p. 27) identifies those industrial
polluters who are less than 1 year and more than 1 year
behind schedule.
At this time I would like to turn to Table 3 and
specifically identify for the record each of the 16 industrial
waste sources which are behind schedule. In the column
entitled "Less Than One Year Behind," in the State of Illinois
we have the Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation of North
Chicago. In Wisconsin, we have the Anaconda American Brass
Company, Kenosha; the Badger Paper Mills, Peshtigo; Bergstrom
Paper Company, Neenah; the Appleton Paper Company, at Com-
bined Locks; the John Strange Paper Company, Menasha; the
Kimberly Clark facilities at Neenah; the Scott Paper Company
at Oconto Falls; and the Scott Paper Company at Marinette.
In the listing of those "More Than One Year
Behind" schedule, we have the United States Steel Corporation
(South Works), Chicago, Illinois; the United States Steel
Corporation, Waukegan Works; E. I. du Pont, East Chicago,
-------
STATE
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
BASIN TOTAL
TABLE 2
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
SUMMARY OF
SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENT
5
28
5
38
76
100%
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
IN COMPLIANCE
2
26
4
17
49
64%
CONTROL
ON SCHEDULE
0
0
1
10
11
15%
BEHIND SCHEDULE
3
2
0
11
16
21%
N)
-------
TABLE 3
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SOURCES BEHIND SCHEDULE
STATE
Illinois
Indiana
LESS THAN ONE YEAR BEHIND
Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. (North Chicago)
None
MORE THAN ONE YEAR BEHIND
U.S. Steel (Chicago)
U.S. Steel (Waukegan)
E.I. duPont (East Chicago)
U.S. Steel (Gary)
Michigan
Wisconsin
None
Anaconda American Brass Co. (Kenosha)
Badger Paper Mills (Peshtigo)
Bergstrom Paper Co. (Neenah)
Appleton Paper Co. (Combined Locks)
Strange Paper Co. (Menasha)
Kimberly Clark (Neenah)
Scott Paper Co. (Oconto Falls)
Scott Paper Co. (Marinette)
None
American Can Co. (Green Bay)
Charmin Paper Products (Green Bay)
Consolidated Paper (Appleton)
-------
„ 22
1 D. Kee
2 Indiana; United States Steel at Gary, Indiana. And in
3 Wisconsin, we have the American Can Company at Green Bay;
4 the Charmin Paper Products Company also at Green Bay; and the
5 Consolidated Paper Company in Appleton.
6 It is noted that of the seven dischargers more
7 than 1 year behind schedule, four have been the subjects of
# Federal enforcement actions. Of the remaining three, the
9 United States Steel (South Works) in Chicago has agreed to
10 install a closed system by October 1975 in settlement of a
11 case brought by the State of Illinois and the Chicago
12 Metropolitan Sanitary District. Consolidated Paper Company
13 of Appleton, Wisconsin, and United States Steel, Waukegan
14 Works, are presently under active evaluation by the Environ.*-
15 mental Protection Agency's Enforcement Division,
16 The status of recommendation number 4 which
17 required continuous disinfection of municipal wastes is
1# brighter, as would be expected in the case of a deadline
19 which is already more than 3 years past. Only four of
20 160 communities still fail to provide this basic health
21 protection. They are Ashley, Goshen, and South Bend, Indiana;
22 and Clintonville, Wisconsin. Unfortunately, one of the
23 cities in this category, South Bend, Indiana, is among the
24 largest in the Lake Michigan Basin.
25 Because the control of pollution from combined
-------
29-
D, Kee
sewers is subject to only a final compliance date of July
1977t it is not possible to assess the present status of
this program in a detailed manner.
\
Twenty communities with a total population of over
1 million have been identified as contributing to this prob-
lem. Clearly identified interim dates by which the dis-
8 chargers and the regulatory agencies could monitor this
program is the primary change needed here. Although a
10 deadline 5 years distant appears to be generous, the com-
11 plexity and expense of solving combined sewer discharges
12 mandates that early attention be afforded this problem.
13 Providing interim progress milestones now will ensure that
14 pressure is brought to bear at all levels of government to
address this issue.
16 Re commendations
17 In view of the present status of compliance with
the four conference requirements outlined above, the
19 Environmental Protection Agency recommends the following:
20 1. All sources of phosphorus input to Lake
21 Michigan subject to the phosphorus removal deadline of
22 December 1972, which are now behind schedule, should be
23 required to utilize interim facilities to effect the maximum
24 possible phosphorus reduction by the deadline date. The
25 Environmental Protection Agency and the States should issue
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
D. Kee
a joint report by December 31» 1972, outlining the progress
or lack of it being made by each discharger and the status
of Federal or State enforcement action under way,
2. Industrial waste sources which are behind
schedule and which have not been subjected to enforcement
action resulting in an acceptable cleanup program should
! have such action initiated without delay. The Environmental
Protection Agency and the States should issue a joint report
detailing the status of action taken against each of the
recalcitrant polluters listed in Table 3. This report should
be issued by December 31, 1972, which is the final deadline
for industrial waste control.
3. Interim disinfection facilities should imme-
diately be installed at all four municipalities still in
violation of the May 1969 final compliance date.
4* Each community subject to the combined sewer
control recommendation (No. 7) which has not already done
so should submit by July 1, 1973, a detailed implementation
plan for attaining compliance. The plan should contain the
following as a minimum: (1) A comprehensive report cover-
ing (a) a determination of the scope of the problem including
a quantification of runoff volume and an assessment of the
nature of pollutants from storm flows; (b) a delineation of
the areas involved in the problem; (c) a staged program for
-------
1 D. Kee
2 addressing higher priority areas first; (d) an identification
3 of specific engineering solutions with reference to the currenjt
4 technology of combined sewer overflow abatement; (e) an esti-
5 mated cost of the identified abatement method for each area,
6 and; (2) Staged interim progress dates for the following
7 tasks: (a) submit final plans (last stage no later than
8 December 1974); (b) start construction (last stage no later
9 than December 1975)•
10 Mr. Chairman, that is the end of my statement. I
11 would like to enter a copy of the detailed status of com-
12 pliance listing into the conference record at this time,
13 along with the tables which accompanied my oral presenta-
14 tion.
15 (Tables 4, 5 and 6 and the Status of Compliance
16 with Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference Requirements
17 report follow in their entireties.)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
TABLE 4
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
MUNICIPALITIES IN VIOLATION OF MAY 1969 DISINFECTION DEADLINE
STATE MUNICIPALITY
Illinois None
Indiana Ashley
Goshen
South Bend
Michigan None
Wisconsin Clintonville
-------
TABLE 5
STATE
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
BASIN TOTAL
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
SUMMARY
SUBJECT
Sources
2
2
3
14
21
OF SEWERS
TO REQUIREMENT
Served
Population
40,000
185,200
241 ,000
858,5.95
1,324,795
100%
IN
Sources
0
0
0
1
1
COMPLIANCE
Served
Population
0
0
0
2,000
2,000
.21
-------
Supplement to Status of Compliance
Report - September 19, 1972
34
TABLE 6
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
SOURCES BEHIND SCHEDULE IN PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
ILLINOIS
None
INDIANA
Angola
Chesterton
Crown Point
East Chicaqo
Gary
Goshen
HI-U- ..4.
luDai i
LaGrange
Michigan City
Mishawaka
Nappanee
Whiting
MICHIGAN
Albi on
Allegan
Andrews University
Battle Creek
Bern"en Springs
Big Rapids
Boyne City
Bronson
Cadillac
Charlotte
Constantine
Delphi Twp.
Dowagiac
Eaton Rapids
Fremont
Gladstone
Grand Haven
Grand Ledge
Grandvilie
Hartford
Hillsdale
Ionia
Iron Mountain
-Kingsford
Iron River
Lansing
Lowell
Ludington
Mam" stee
Mam's tique
Marshall
Mason
Menominee
Michigan Reformatory
New Buffalo
Niles
Norway
Otsego
Paw Paw
Plainwell
Portland
St. Johns
South Haven
Spring Lake
Vi cksburg
Wyomi ng
Zeeland
WISCONSIN
Algoma
Appleton
Berlin
Chi 1 ton
Clintonville
DePere
Fond du Lac
Germantown
Green Bay MSD
Kaukauna
Kenosha
Kewaunee
Kiel
Kimberly
Little Chute
Manitowoc
Milwaukee-South Shore
New London
North Fond du Lac
Oshkosh
Peshtigo
Plymouth
Portage
Racine
Ri pon
Shawano
Sheboygan
Sheboygan Falls
Sturgeon Bay
Thiensville
Two Rivers
West Bend
FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
Fort Sheridan
Great Lakes Naval Training
Center
-------
II/Lli! O.E C.P.M.£k!A N.C.E.
w lliL
LAK.I M_!C.H.!iA N. IN.L2R.iIM III ^
E. i s. y. i i i M i N. 1 1
-------
ILLINOIS DISCHARGERS
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
Page 1 of 3
August 1, 1972
Illinola District Office
ui![.uu] suuaa > ixtnm
RKUVlftt HATERS
ILLINOIS MUNICIPALITIES
NSSD -
Korth Chicago Plant
(Lake County)
NSSD -
LeOsa Forest KLaa*
(Lai* Ccxmty)
NSSC -
Lake Bluff
(Lake County)
A - Retain engineers.
B - Submit preliminary
C - Initiate detailed e
D - Submit detailed eng
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Michigan
engineering i
nglneering p
ineering spec
ftfCQIAl SCCDS
* , 6
3, *
CSTINftUD TOTAL
COST (itlUlO* $)
3, *
»>
•eport.
Lans and specs.
:ificatlons.
REQUIRED CWMRUCTllM
SCIilUliU
6
A 1967
B 1967
C 1-70
D 10-70
E 11-70
F 9-71
G 7-72.
4
G 12-31-72
3
A 1967
B 1967
c 6-69
D 1969
E 1968
F 1-70
G 7-72
4
G 12-31-72
3
A 1967
B 1967
c 12-69
D 6-70
E 1968
F 9-70
G 7-72
E - Arrange financing. c 12-11-72
MAUtt Qf CO'V'L ifo,;-
0>!S;«UU10.<
6
A =
B -
C «
D =
E 1968
F =
GO
4
G
3
A »
B =
C =
D - 11-69
E = 1968
F -
GO
4
G
3
A -
B -
C =
C -
E » 1968
F =
G
4
G
stAJus or crmlAi'd
AflD'L. *EgifiaU'li»ti
COMMENTS AND/OR REASONS FOR DELAY
North -Chicago J>] ant: Separate Sewer, P.E. 20,000, Present t-rp*t-
1 Yes
2 Yea
3 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
tnent is secondary and chlorination 6-The
Xorth Chicago Plant is going to be a pre-treatment facility
for the new Gurnee Plant. Completion of the Gurnee Plant is
scheduled for February 1974, and it will discharge into the Des
Plaines River. Construction of the interceptor which will
divert wastes from the North Chicago Plant to the Gurnee Plant
'./as delayed due to litigation concerning bond issue and Gurnee
Plant zoning difficulties. However, as of July 1, 1972, the
interceptor is 12% complete.
4-Statc ordered North Chicago Plant to use alum in process for
phosphorus removal by January 1, 1973. As of July 1, 1972 con-
struction is 60% complete.
Lc'.'.e Forest Plant: Separate Sewers, P.E. 8,000, present treat-
ment is primary and chlorination.
3-Wastes from the Lake Forest Plant are to be diverted to the
Clavey Bead Plant which will be completed November 1974. State
advanced the completion date of Lake Forest secondary treatment
or the equivalent to Jan. 1971. As of July 1, 1972, the punp-
ino station is 99% complete. The interceptor has been com-
pleted.
4-Construction of facilities for phosphorus removal, required
by Jan. 31, 1972, is on 'schedule.
Lake Bluff Plant: Separate Sewers P.E. 1,400, Present treat-
i ment is primary and chlorination.
3-Wastea from Lake Bluff Plant are to be diverted to Clavey
1 Yes Road Plant which will be completed November 1974. State
2" Yes advanced the completion date of Lake Bluff secondary treatment
lor the equivalent to August 1971. The Force main and sewer,
section 1 (to Skokie sewer), is 92% complete as of July 1, 1972.
Section 2 (Skokie to Middle Fork) is presently under design.
4-Conatruction of facilities for phosphorus removal, required
jby Jan. 31, 1972 is on schedule.
1
? - Initiate construction.
j - Complete construction and place in full-time oper-
ation.
~r.y :.i. 41 .'i ,,,«*i« <»! i»c«« su
(-1 o., :
-------
STATUS OF
GREAT
COMPLIANCE
LAKES REGION
WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
Page 2 of 3
August I. 1972
ILLINOIS DISTRICT OFFICE
UiliJHD MUKC i UUTItn
ILLINOIS MUNICIPALITI
NSSB
Park Avenue Plant
Highland Part
(Lake County)
NSSD -
Ravine Ave. Plant
Highland Park
(Lake County)
NSSD -
Cary Avenue Plant
Highland Park
(Lake County)
A - Retain engineers.
BICUVHC IUICK
S (Continue!
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Michigan
•
unoiu MUK
)
3,««
3.fc
*9
3>
CST1WTCD TQTJU.
COST (HIILIM I)
B - Submit preliminary engineering report.
C - Initiate detailed engineering plans and specs.
D - Submit detailed engineering specifications.
E - Arrange financing.
F - Initiate construction.
G - Complete construction and place In full-time
operation.
aiQolUO CDWBUCTKU
SUM. GUI C
3
A
B
C
D 10-70
E
p
0 7-72
\J I I *-
G 12-31-72
A 1967
B 1967
c 9-69
D U-70
ETQ68
±y\J\J
F 7-70
G 7-7?
4
G 12-31-72
3 A 1967
B 1967
c 9-69
D U-70
E 1968
F 7-70
0 7-72
4
G 12-31-72
iltilB Of COVU/UCI
UUS1UCIIU
A =
B =
C =
D = 10-70
E » 1968
F =
G o
4
G
A =
B =
C =
D • 10-70
E = 1968
F =
G 0
4
G
A =
B =
C »
D 8-70
E = 1968
F 10-70
G
It
C
SIATUS or cimiuict
«OD'L. MaaUt.TUtS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
cnKu.uv A-'tu/uc nuai ion MA»
Park Avenue Plant: Separate Sewers, P.E. 6,000, Present
treatment Is prlir.ary and chlorination.
3-Wastes from Park Avenue Plant are to be diverted to Clcvey
P.oad Plant which will be completed November 1974. Construction
of protection works for the interceptor sewer has started.
4-Ccnstruction of facilities for phosphorus removal, required
by 12-31-72, is on schedule.
P.avine Drive Plant: Separate sewers, P.E. 4,500, Present
treatment Is primary and chlorination.
3-Wc.ctes from Ravine Drive Plant are to be diverted to Clavey
Road Plant which will be completed November 1974. State
advanced the completion of Ravine Drive -secondary treatment
cr the equivalent to Sept. 1971. Construction of protection
works for the interceptor sewer has started.
4-Construction of facilities for phosphorus removal, required
by 12-31-72, is on schedule.
Cary Avenue Plant: Separate Sewers, P.E. 6,500, Present
treatment is primary and chlorination.
3-Wastes from Cary Avenue Plant are to be diverted to Clavey
Road Plant which will be completed November 1974. State
advanced completion date of Cary Avenue secondary treatment or
the equivalent to October 1971. Interceptor is 99% complete and
and the pumping station is 83% complete as of Jujy 1, 1972.
4-Construction of facilities for phosphorus removal required
ay 12-31-72, Is on schedule.
(l,'| ln
(II) fl
(IV) l»
, i ..
M'UHJ »'« i.ndulo (00) »rti»« Sewdult
(•) On '.iiifjjf (0«r I j«r|
(a) IfhlM i.hi-Julf (•) Unlllttnl Litmla
(Itii Kit 1 ytir) Clw» by iuu
(!) Dltl
(1) Sfc
itttcllon
utory IrtlMllt
(4)
Nutrlvnt B
IS) an or lwro«t« Tit.
(i) No! li|i«nlo«
IT) MvctlM, «««ortl or
Nffglriltiitior. of:
*lt«, {CD CMorl
(Co) Cog|*r, IU)
(r,) inn. (•) i»ttli.
N) i4ltrni)rA. OH , ,
OIW) 0-
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION *•• s «r 3
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS August l, ,1972
. . LAKE MICHIGAN ILLINOIS DISTRICT nvnrr
BiiuniB smict i IKIIIU I uuiiiwunn
ILLIHOIS MUKTCIPALrriES (Continued
NSSD -
Gillette Avenue
Sever Bypass
Waukegan
(Lake County)
KSSD -
Water Street
Sever Bypass
Waukegaa
(Lake County)
NSSD -
Vaukegan Plant
Waukegan
(Lake County)
A - Retain Engineers.
B - Subcit preliminary
C.- Initiate detailed i
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Michigan
engineering
mgineerinn i
Kit Ol» «l«
)
9
9
•4,6
report.
ilana and
HTIMnO TOIA
cost (BIUIOI D
specs.
KdUlUD CSttlluCTiai
SCIUIWIC
9
A
B
C
0
E
F
0 7-72
9
A
B
C
D
B
F
0 7-72
g
A 1967
B 1967
c 6-69
D 11-70
E 1966
F 3-71
0 7-72
D - Subir.it detailed engineering specifications. 4
E.- Arrange financing.
F - Initiate construction ** "'"•"
G - Cc::?let2 cor.ctrscticr. and place in full-time
SlAtlA Of C&'PLlfcCI
curtHyciiiW
9
A »
B -
C -
D .
E =
F -
0 0
9
A -
B *
C *
D =
E "
F »
00
A =
B =•
C -
D 00
E - 1968
F 00
00
4
G 9-1-71
operation.
oi: unti-t K* M«e sum ur ere
" trt) ' rli- :iif|' nun ^>V*'">~> '
(if) 1 r..l rim (.) On vn
ffitA'-n
I .v >'J,I. (»] IMIM
.1.1. {!>»
feHM.lt "Tn'ix^'ll/tr tnun (I) ?M!|MrM cr
1 mr) (2) Olil»t«u!*i l«lri(«t lomil
&i«us « omiwa
wo'i. «oumit.i!s
1 Tes
2 Tes
3 Yea
k Tes
I) Mull*. Hn*Mt ir
N.lrjlli.uo" lr.ai« (mi IIIM 1 7Mf) (IM tr lull »r H.l««l«« (I) flMl li««ilw (C.) Cow. («) Crwf«. r«) >wnol, (S| 1
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
Page 1 of 2
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE
WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN ILDO
August 1. 1972
DtM&iAUi) SojRCt I LOCATION
ILLINOIS INDUSTRIES
U. S. Steel Corp.
Waukegan Plant
(Lake County)
Abbott Laboratories
North Chicago
(Lake County)
A — Retain engineers.
B - Submit preliminary
C - Initiate detailed
D - Submit detailed en
E - Arrange financing.
F - Initiate consturct
G — Complete construct
mUIVIHC MT[«
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Michigan
engineering
engineering
gineering sp
ion.
ion and plac
REflfOIAL HCEDS
7 (Fe,
Acid.
s)
1U,7
(BOD,
s)
report.
>lans and
icificati
s in full
CSTIXATEO IOI«l
COST (HILLIOT I)
specific
>ns.
•time ope
BCQJ1BID CXISIRUCI1IU
SCHtDULt
A
B
C
D
E
F
0 12-68
A
B
C
D
E
r
GT-72
it Ions.
•at ion.
SUruS OF CO.'VU MCE
CCMSTRUCIKM
A
B
C
D 00
E CO
F 00
G 00
A =
B =•
C =
D =
E =»
F "
G =
STATUS Of COm[A:iCC
AUOT. «5ul«uiu;s
1 Yes
1 Yea
2 Yea
; o
At Waukesan Department 1968 objectives to reduce discharge to
Lake substantially met by the collecting and hauling of
industrial wastes.- At present, however,- 'some industrial wastes
are treated by settling and acid reduction with discharge to
Lake !'ichican.
Sanitary wastes are discharged to the NSSD Waukegan Plant.
At North Chicago Department 1968 objectives to reduce discharge
to Lake substantially met by the collecting and hauling of
industrial wastes. Some industrial wastes are discharged
through storm sewer to Lake Michigan.
Sanitary wastes are discharged to NSSD North Chicago Plant.
New IPCB Rules and Regulations require -heavy metal reduction
for both departments by 12-31-73.
A permanent AWT facility was completed in 10/71. This
facility does not handle all the flow. Combined waste
stream and cooling water system in operation.
Abbott is presently in compliance with SWB-7 requirements,
however, new IPCB standards require additional tertiary removal
by 12-31-74. Abbott is considering connection to the USSD
Gurnee Plant which will be completed in February 1974.
(III ru
(10) Con
smns OF q>-ri i i-:rt
(•) b..-u~of"Siiii.liito (00) fculnil 5cMO«le
(•) On W.vdulc (Over 1 year)
(0) 3f"iM kwdalt (•) UnlUttril [ittn
(Itli thin 1 ytir) Civtn by St«t«
RE HE DIAL :if EDS
~~TT) Sjfuplin/or (deport (4) PWipharui or
(2) OU infect ion .Nutrient Henow)
()) Secondir/ Trt>iti«Bt (4) ^e« or l^rdvt* T>ft.
or Equlvtltnt (*) PlMt UpMilon
O) fllilvctfon, Rvtpovil or
ileutrllflttion of:
Kelt. ((I) Cmorl*.
(C«) Coptir, («) CfMl
(Is) Iron (•) M.U, (1) C.™»ct
(PI) Jllrn^i. OH, (1) So.r.l
OOJ) O./nrn OfMnfl,' Corti
(Pn) Pnrnol. (i) SollM. (M) Sto™ S
(10) !l"f.t.«)a Dor,
o -a^KiwI S/»M« fII) (.cl^as Cl««f rf4tw (IS! trtltats Pm«« UtOitu
n or Contfot ef (i:) ^-«*f\ !1*J «*a.ctto* oi ill C'>nc*J
i?wn (U) A^iuai* Tr»«t-wt ttntnjpf't*
«f !«*l^nt (U) J-^fBvff &g#r8tto« tH) Atfwttfl utlt Twrt-r-t
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
Illinois District Office
LAKE MICHIGAN
Pace 2 of 2
August,,J
UES!(.iAU3 '.JLHLt 1 LOfATlu.1!
ILLINOIS HTCCSTRIES i
RLCLUMG UATEBS
Continued)
Chicago Hardware and \ Lake
Fcur.dry
Korth Chicago
(Lake Cour.ty)
Fanstcel Metal-
lurgical Corp.
Korth Chicago
(Lake County)
U.S. Steel Corp.
South Works
Chicago
(Cook County)
A - Retain engineers
B - Submit prelimina
C - Initiate detailei
D - Submit detailed i
E - Arrange financin;
F - Initiate construi
G - Complete construi
time operation.
HT: CO" TpiKTK'i r,.v,( STATiri t,F E-
Michigan
Pettibone
Creek to
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Michigan
and
Calumet
River
•y engineerii
1 engineer inj
mgineering f
:tion.
:tion and pl<
T\ {l-.lt
fiEttUIAl. »EEDS
7 (M)
7(Pe.
g report,
plans ai
peclficat
ce in fu]
ESTIMATED TOTAL
COST (HILllOn t)
d specs.
ions.
1-
KNTOUE .'IICK
SCIIEOI.LE
A
B
C
D
E
P
0 7-72
A
B
C
D
E
P
C 12-68
A -
B =
C =
B
E
P
G 0
A -
B -
C =
D CO
E 00
F 00
G 00
• [ iji j.rii.,,.,, HIM "TO sC\,i „( i,,,..,*u (M) »rM«l MM.M -m- SwlVI/or boot W flwiwwrw w
, '"'"' ' '"" H «" Vl" •*•'* '"•) !) Olll»l«HM .nirum liwit
j 1 'i»4»n"i (VI IkM* SJ.rd,,lt (•) |»llltcr.l E. union ()) Stcondir, trcit«MI (J) ;M or Imrund Irt.
[ 0) Cum (null on (ioi tin" 1 /Mr) linn or tUEl orUulnlflt (i Pint t.^jniln
ST,M,;S OF CC.VUA.iU
ADVL. S^jIr.L.'lL-lJS
1 Tes
1 Tea
Industry closed .
Company operates
of collection by
scavenging.
Fansteel dischan
water quality E>b ]
concerning thesi-
n CN waete collection system which consists
water, evaporation, and residue disposal by
I'M to storm sewers not in conformanee with
crtives. Illinois EPA enforcement case
In currently in process.
Company considering eventual discharge of wastes to NSSD.
This discharge vm
Interstate Stand.'i
are still being p
Court order ISHHC
1. Elimination <
n required to be In compliance «lth
r»ls by 12/68. Final plans and specifications
repared.
.1 January 18 , 1971 1
1 all cyanide, phenols and ammonias from
• plant discluirRus by Oct. 31, 1972. MSDGC reports this
phase on sclu'
2; Completion of
1 Mills of tht»
!?} frtfwctlon. *rav«l or
3. Completing !li
April 30, ]'»/
4. Completing re
Oct. 31, 19/'.
(f<) Inin, (n) Ivtilt, 1
NeutrillitElon of n) ,H'.M,.J- n, (Ji 1 . (
«clo, ICII ChlorKI, «:;,.) (11,^11 [»..<
(M <•">»'. (U| CrmlDt, Tnl I'l.nul. (S) 'mlKi, (1
TJi In.clhOla 1100 r.
ilule.
facilities for recycling wastes from South
plant by Oct. 31, 1974.
1 H recycling process for Northside Mills by
'> .
cycling installations for the West Mills by
) < ..".-•, 1 lo "v,ntclp*l Vltf* (11) 1 t- !„« ClMr U4t*T (IM NaWlr »rv\*fll f«{lllt
-------
INDIANA DISCHARGERS
-------
STATUS OF
GREAT
COMPLIANCE
LAKES REGION
WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
a^li.iuu W.KU l Luuno:t B.CLHI.IO *AUBS 1 imjiAi -;ttps ''•'i^'io IOIAL KQ<;]kio crvi^wjciio.* IIAIJS t,r cci-Ll-ViCE
| ' [ C-hJ (HILLllwiij SCHlOiiil | CO,.STauCTlC.i
EDIAIIA MUNICIPALITIES
Angola
Ashley
Chesterton
STHOL FOR DTTTAILKD
Pigeon Cr.,
Pigeon
River
Turkey Cr.
Pigeon R.
Little
Calumet
River,
Burns
Ditch
COKSTHUCTIO?
A Retain engineers i
1» ,17
2
li
r SCHEDUL3
B Subait prelieinary engineering report
C Start plans and tpeciflcatior
D Submit plans ar.dl specificatic
E Arrtr^e fir.nr.eirs.
F Etrxt constructlcn.
G CcT.plete construction and fa
is,
D8.
1 operat
i
on.
•
4
A
B 2-1-71
C U-l-71
D 9-1-71
E 12-1-71
F U-l-72
0 12-31-72
17
G 1977
G 1969
A 10-1-70
B 2-1-71
C U-l-71
D 9-1-71*
E 12-1-71
F U-l-72*
o 12-31-72
A =
B =
C =
D 11-15-7,
E =
F 0
G
17
G
COO
A =
B =
C =
D 8-4-72
E 0
F 0
G
iiAiui Of cr,,-M'UA,ta
Atii'l. BLiiUIUl^illS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 No
2 Yes
*
el of 11
August 8, 1972
ILLINOIS DISTRICT OFFICE
Engineer retained but there Is no apparent progress.
Hearing 12-1^-71. Under.ISPCB order', city filed tn
j objection to Implementation dates followed by full
hearing 2-15-72. Final order Issued at that tine
requiring schedule: D U-30-72, F 7-31-72, G 12-31-72.
ISPCB referred case to U.S. Attorney General 5-23-72
for nonconpliance.
on '
liJl II
(00) Bel.lM '.cfejulo
(Ortr I fi-tr]
(•) ..Ml(lrril I itwil
I Ul.tn b) '.lilt
lKflM MM
TtTJwliT/w looort
(?) ^illnfccllOA
{)) Seio»,ur, IrelUHt
or tqululonl
(I) P
ilutrirfll Etnovol
Trt.
(M UfM ur
It) Hint l
Ntwtr«lll4tlOA of:
till, IC1) CXIorli,
(Co) Coiwor, |CI) C,..
r (ft) Iru
IN) ..a,
,
r*nl4t,
UOJ) 0<
f")
10) Ihr
n. (M) M»t«U,
e^n. Oil.
I'ffn [minjftd.
nil, {'. ) 'xilltft
tth«l< Odor.
(•) row^cl 10
O) Sr;i«r«livN
CoMnitrd
OOf M«f W*
•Vnctfit Syitr*
Or C(»olrol Of
t*?r\
Trtttufnt
(in
(U)
0)1
IH
• :)uvr ' '.
lijc.juoll
\HitUlt
Cl»*r coitr
» Trr«trlrrt
l>i-«r«Iluii
(iij UtlM
ill) fc-flat
(If) »*^I
f fr»*f«l *oj
en l' Ail U
I jt"' *
j .«•.!• Tr««
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
*«*e 2 <* u
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIPFMFNTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
June 26. 1972
INDIANA MUNICIPALITIES (Continued)
Crocwell
Crown Point
Turkey Cr.,
Elkhart R.
Beaver Dam
Ditch, Deet
R., Burns
Ditch
East Chicago Grand
Calumet
River
2,3,12
b , IT
4, 10,
17
COST {HIUI&! 1)
(i i <"•tir\ (J) Ditinfcctio
I^UJ U'ntru. liur Hell (,.«« 1 fitr) tt»fi. I)/ Uitt fcr Uul"
3
A 10-1-70
B 2-1-71
C lt-1-71
D 9-1-71
E 12-1-71
P 1-1-72
a 12-31-72
A 10-1-70
B 2-1-71
C lt-1-71
D 9-1-71
E 12-1-71
P U-l-72
a 12-31-72
17
G 7-77
4
A
B
C 10-1-70
D 7-1-71
E 11-1-71
F 1-1-72*-
G 12-31-72
10, 17
G As soon
as prac-
ticable
(ASAP)
*
3
A »
B --= U-16-69
C 00
D C
E 0
P 0
G
A -
B ?
C ?
D 00
E 00
P 0
G
4
A =
B =
C =
D -
E 0
F 0
G
\ulruTit Mtoovl)
ritntnl |S1 »n« uf i»|iio.id Tn.
nl \ii\ CUiU I <,^ntlun
'I.L1WMS DISTRICT OFFICE
-!»TuS Of C.Ui'l lAJ.Cf
1 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
5A..L./,« .,.W.,«, ,«.
Engineer retained and plans for sewers and plant addition
submitted 2-70. Phosphorus removal not included. State
sent letter reminding community of requirement. City
directed engineer to proceed with study.
*Under ISPCB order issued
1-28-72 for phosphorus removal: 6-30-72; 8-15-72; 11-15-72.
Piasis ioi phobphorus removal under way.
Pilot projects are under way for AWT and demonstration
project for storm sewer treatment supported by USEPA
R&D grants. Final plans for phosphorus removal and AWT
have been approved. Financing being considered. *ISPCB
ordered phosphorus removal -1-28-72: F by 7-1-72: G by
12-31-72
KtulrthlltiO" Of' (IO .•ntro^t-n, On, ( »f I',1! '.-^r^ (It) At -1*1 for, o* All C rift., 1
Add, (Cl) ChloriOp. Htr^n3, (ur,o>«'<: ir«»'t ()J) k.u»,U4(» Tmf-rU Cons t '(.*•' li
10 IiM.ihulJ udur.
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
Page 3 of 11
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS J^e 26»
LAKE MICHIGAN ILLINOIS DISTRICT OFFICE
- -. -
INDLW. MUNICIPALITIES (Continue
East .Gary
Burns
Ditch
Elkh&rt
•11: CT..M«.d'f. n.-.« ST«US in ci:
St.
Joseph
River
RUliMM ;tUQS
•a)
i*
3, >»
6
ISTD1AHD TOTAL
COST IHIUION i}
tcguiwc co'isrduno.t
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-72
3
A
B
C
D
E "
f •
G 12-31-69
4
G 12-31-72
SIAI,,-, Of U VII Met
A =
B =
C =•
D =
E =
F =
G +
3
A =
B 1-70
C =
D =
E 10-27-7
P -
»G 00
4
G
'''"•'•'[ VtV'l"' I U«U,.U «,.W,.« •! ,H,-.i. "
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yea
2 Yes
)
Connected to Gory mala sewer system.
Project complete.
k Nev state schedule: "E" 8-1-70, "F" 9-1-70,
"0" 12-31-71- Facility is under construction and
will have phosphorus reraoval as part of the
expansion. Project completion August 1972 anticipated.
10; liiivtnold Otter,
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
-[ • '
rroi/OJA MUTIICIPALnilES (Continu
Cory
Grrjid Cal.
Ri-ver to
Ir.-llona
Harbor
Car-rd ,
Little
Calumet,
River
Bur 113
Ditch
, -
ed)
* , 10,
17
COST (MILLION Jt
iUiHiULl
U
A
B
C 10-1-70*
D 7-1-71
E 11-1-71
F 1-1-72*
G 12-31-72
17
A
B
C
D
E
F
G ASAP
10
A
B
C
D
E
F
& ASAP
HJ.^IiVJM.<
ru,.i!wiin!u.<
1^
A =
B =
C =
D =
E 00
Al/(i'L KigulkUtlitlS
1 Yes
2 No
F 0
* G
17 !
A =
B =
C
D
E
F
G 1
10
A =>
B =
C
D
E
F
0 1
Pcge 1* of 11
August 8, 1972
_ ILLINOIS DISTRICT OFFICE
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
May 1971 cet the following datea:
*For phosphorus removal facilitleo, C by 10-31-71,
F by 3-31-72, G by 12-31-72.
For advanced wnste treatment facilities,
C by 3-31-72, F by 12-31-72, G by 12-31-71*.
For stora tcvc-r treatr.c-^t, sutnlt tiire schedule
and r.ctliocl of flm;noiny; by 7-31-72.
Infijrir..T.tion fron letter of 10-21-71.
Plan.- ;md i pi'.; i t i c^ Lions foi mod i!'ica t ion of primary
LrtatiiicnL laciliticb and oddiLion of plioLphoru^ removal
facilities approved by 1SPCB May 17, 1972.
180-Day Notice issued 7-27-72.
(i) Reduction, B*<*ov*l or
.Uut rdliitlOfl Of
*cid, (CO (nlorlftr .
(Cu) Cupp«r. (U| lr«
|t«j in
JN) 4il(
(H) (..fii
{•)) '...T.
(Ml) \
li) (»tly«t» trntrl ft,
i! ( Sro.tt'ofl of ill U<
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION r.-.,e 5 or u
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
June 26, 1972
LAKE MICHIGAN
ILLINOIS DISTRICT OFFICE
;.>„..» 13 ,„ ,,,i n.M;iM
_ _..
EroiATA KraiciPALr
Go shea
Hannond
«u-i»i.c«n«s
PIES (Contin'
Elkhart
River
Lake
Michigan
(also to
Illinois
River
Systea)
BE'KMAl 'IftDS
ied)
8.1.
6
9,10
CSllfWriD TOTAL
COST (KIUIOH M
RLqulftlU miHUM.IIQ.1
suiujj.r
4, 6
A
B 2-1-71
C U-l-71
D 9-1-71
V'»iji ai'ttvnufi
CUtSUoUIO.
4, 6
A -
B =
C -
D =
E 12-1-71 E 00
P U-l-72*
G 12-31-7;
9, 10
A
B
C
D
E
P
a 12-31 -7<
•
F 0
! 0
9, 10
A
B 12-69
C =
D =
E =
F =
I G 00
SIATUi UP CM h 1 Uiit
ALiO'l. HiQ.,!;iHli.-«lS
2 Partial
1 Yes
1 Yes
-.--.... -. .. . . . . .
I-.M ,.,IS A'.n'llJI CM,U< > t r**0 ««'• bf !>utni*td Irl.
(*) fitflt t.y*.tiw*
(7) MrAwrllan, •ww»it or
Atti, UD Utoriifr,
(ul Cm«t, UK) (rlr,trn. Oil. , (lj S.'.-^r.lrn or O.'.U-.t (
!«H*t 0'>,i-« t*-.«n.|, tUfltiOfp Spw.i
rn) ri,..,,)), (.} '.ulfK, 111) 1l(»* Vwe> Irtll-r^l
(1*1 (*4tu*l« 'mr«l '*(
Ob) **
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
Po<:e 6 of 11
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
June 26, 1972
LAKE MICHIGAN
of (IJC.PI lA.f I
.
~TTT SJ'Vl <~I/or i
(?) Dil infection
(S! »« ..r
U) flint
in.
IKVUZA MUirrCTPALITIES (Contin
Haaaond (continued,
Hobart
)
Deep
River
jed)
•» ,17
caluliuioi'l)
M>L!tUU
A 10-1-70
B 2-1-71
C U-l-71
D 9-1-71
E 12-1-71
F lt-1-72
G 12-31-7:
17
A
B
C
D
E
¥
G 12-31-7
CWSIMUlTlOi
u
A =
B -
C 00
D 0
E 0
F 0
> G
17
A =
B
C
D
E
F
) 0
ADIVL SlUum/h
1 Yes
2 Yes
ILLINOIS DISTRICT OFFICE
(continued from page 5)
AWT Facilities Retain Engineer 5-16-72
Complete Design 2-15-73
Complete financ-
ing i Start
construction 8-15-73
Completion 2-15-75
Although Hammond has agreed to this schedule, there Is a
question as to the maintenance of sufficient financial re-
serves to initiate the AWT project.
Preliminary plans for phosphorus removal, plant expansion
and reduction of combined sewer bypassing approved 10-19-7(3-
Hobart objected to 1SPCB order on phosphorus removal,
followed by full hearing on 2-15-72. Plans promisi-d for
June 1, 1972, not received as of 6-21-72.
Avid. (Cl| {
i1.) \tthih, (Wl *!»'• '»*•«*« i»i
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION p-ee 7 or u
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS AueusL 17. 1972
MICHIGAN
IM- • •> i, • '- . ,t t I .Aft' Iu.1 81U lv; .G --1LSS RirftUiAL tttOS
I!T>I.'0;A MinrTCIPALtTES (Continued)
Kecdallville
LcCrang*
Ligonier
Henderson
Lake,
II. Branch
Ellchcirt
River,
St. Joseph
Kiver
Fly Creeh
Pigeon
River
Elkhart
River
. ',•! . r. • • V1''. 11 •'•!'». 1
' '• '/ '1411 f.'i ''• .. i.1 Hi.'.. . Jult (JO) Dftilnd
1;
* ^
3, ^
6
CSTl-UHD TOTAL
C»ST (KHLIOa I)
ai«ii>iM 'in DS
"HI ^J(,.l.'£/nr
fityJIBtu C "jif.'JL! 10.1 ^l.',:j^ ui CO'li L1A..CI jTAIdj ul ; i.llj 1 i ;. II t
A
B
C 5-1-70
I
A = 1 Yea
B = 2 Yes
C =
D 9-15-701 D =
E 12-1-7Q E =
1
F 1-1-71
G 9-15-71
A 10-1-70
B 2-1-71
C fc-1-71
D 9-1-71
E 12-1-71
F =
G =
A =
B U-5-73
C =
D 5/1/72
E 0
F U-l-72 F 0
G 12-31-72 G
3,^,6
A 10-1-70
B 2-1-71
C lt-1-71.
D 9-1-71
3A6
A =
B =
C =
D =
E 11-1-71! E =
F 1-1-72
G 12-31-7
F =
2 G =
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Tea
2 Yes
* Under ISPCB orders; D by 4-30-72; F by 7-31-72; G by
12-31-72.
>' '"> <•> !"•" 1 I'1"") ill Oivinloliui Vilri...! »r.»nl H,at,, 1 1 1,1 ,„» ol |«| ;. 1 1 , ., ,,-. . '.. 1 , I'll '., :, i, ,i . .oin.lol !' | u , ... j .. I . . .lilli.,! .
''.•""'"' lul ui-ninil S Ik-iidlt (•) UlMUIcnl luniilui | )) SuMOjry Tn.WIlt (S| ... .
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
Page 8 of 11
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
August 8, 1972
ITDI A!IA • ! OCTdPAL]
Michigan City
Mlddlebury
Milford Junction
' . . i . • • •. PUn» H Ai" * :
; 1" i -"., (0) irniM
I (.."»!'», 1 ion {leu
Trail
Creek
Little
Elkhtrt
River
Turkey Cr. ,
Elkhart R.
<•< K.il
ll.jn 1 rp»r) tlw*
r
ued)
J* , 10
17
2,3,12
2,3,12
tijr Sl*t#
lSft«JWO TOIAt
COS1 (MIUIO:. Si
*As
fttWDUl '(('US
IT! OKInlriHO
Or U.»ll
KUjlhllj r.i.ltv rnu
Sc 111 .,..1 ,
A 10-1-70
B 2-1-71
C U-l-71
D 9-1-71*
E 12-1-71
F U-l-72*
G 12-31-72
10, 17
E '
F
G ASAP
soon as prec
3
G 1977
A
B
C
D
E 12-1-71
F 1-1-72
0 12-31-7£
Wn,
i It) rum i
ilAi.i'. Jl Cv ;. L!f-«i
D =
E 0
F C
0
it !-<•««««!
V.MlOK
"M.:.:JI in i.,Tiis...i
Aj'i'i. hij,,]»:«,n
1 Yea
2 Yes
^
1 Yee
2 Yes
1 Yes
.IPiilfllllltiur. of
' " ' -' > A -, « (.1 i .• I . ,C .> . Al
Plans and specifications approved for sanitary and storm
sewer separation May 22, 1972. New state schedule for phos-
phorus removal:
Final Plans 6-1-72
Start Construction 8-1-72
Complete Construction 11-1-72
) -hlr ,.ru, ml , _ ( t) '.r;..r,it i...i nr lomri-1 nf {I,') .... r\ j tb , rf« • ,t I . «,-, of i 1 1 C r
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION p«eo 9 or u
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS August 8, 1972
.. . ....ILLINOIS DISTRICT OFFICE
LAKE MICHIGAN
«-ir -'14 UIAII y 1
i-'""' "'.".. ' !--*"'"' _| ^l"'.'""""1 1 *"'"1"1 ;"tos
E.TT-\::.\ w^rrciFAi.ri'ins (coctintied)
Mlahsa/oka
Nappannee
Portage
St. Joseph
River
Trlb.
Turkey Cr.
Elkhart R.
Bums
Ditch
k ,6
k
2,1.,
13
coir {NiuiO'i !
S1BT|i\ ,)
-(•) '•-.
(•) 0,, '.
filQutmo i ,<.tw, dot
KI.H..IC
A
B
c
MAI..'. t,S ..Gl.LlA.'.t.i.
^iMttxf-JiCi
A -
B =
C =
D I D =
E E
F ! F
G 12-31-72! G
6
6
A A =
B B
c c
D D
E E
F p
G 12-31-72' Q
A A - 3-71
B B -
C C =
D D = 4-18-72
E E 0
F F 0
G 12-31-72 0
2
A
B
C
D
E
F
0 12-70
2,
A
B 8-68
C =
D =
E 11-9-70
F
G 6-72
G t2-31-72j G + 6-72
'.UJ.pi
Aif!.' L Ht^.l
1 Yea
2 Yea
1 Yea
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
New State schedule: B by 2-1-71; C by 4-1-71; D by 9-l-71j
E by 12-1-71; F by 4-1-72.
New State schedule: D by 4-30-72; F by 7-31-72.
WC) MliK SchrJolt
linn 1 pitr)
lcnl lilnilM
n b/ Still
(1 S -,,!« I/or n.-pon
I? 1> >ml«tlon
(•) r*«»n>r« «t (f) HiO.clliin, Ibmitll er (ft) lr,m, (») It-l.ll. («) 1».,~.) S' v.nt K.'i or Cft'.lrol of
(Si 1C- ur i.(1j»eil Trt. *£!«, (tD OtUrldf, (UUU) O.^j.-n £*•»««(!, u^itN-a Sp«frt
iii H.nl tv«,uiHl (C») Cilfinr. (CIl) L/.nia., (f») P»,.K,J|, (S) Soil*, (10) Slum S(-r Initail
(10) l«r.il.«la uaor,
[III l.il,.« Clt.r Mtrr
U) Al.,.,1, l.tfivnt
[14} li«iuwr O^r.llon
[I1,1 l.il^H I'CIKI Ilill'll.
fib* fc* Jj'I u> »i All LrilM<<
[ur'.t'l • -It
(17) JU.«n(rd ..tit Iratt ."1
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION pa-=10 of 1X
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS Aueust 8- l972
LAKE MICHIGAN ILLINOIS DISTRICT OFFICE
IKMA::A rjiircipALrr
South Bsnd
Topeka
Valparaiso
tO«S'» i 1 n <«•• t SUti,", uf [i'
Bill !«:.<£ ^AUIIS
CE3 (Continue
St .Joseph
River
L.Elkhart
River
Salt Creek,
Little
Calumet R . ,
Burns
Ditch
•'! '.;.U
B£f*DI*i :itCOS
d)
Ii ,6
2,3,
12
t,6,
IT
CSTlKAItD 10IAL
cmr (MILLION fj
RiWDl.U 'itlOi
BiQUlfllC C3:«SlfiyCTl&(
SdUUult
A
B
C
D T-l-71
E 11-1-71
F 1-1-T2
G 12-31-72
A 10-1-70
B 2-1-71
C U-1-T1
D 9-1-71
E 12-1-71
F 1-1-72*
G 12-31-72
U,6
A
B
C 10-1-70 *
D 7-1-71
E 11-1-71
F 1-1-72
G 12-31-72
17
G 7-77
SIAItii Of CuvLI/^c!
Cu.IS3HM.!iOi
A
B »
C =
D =
E —
F -
Ii
A »
B =
C =
D + 5-11-70
E =
F =
G
k,6
A
B
C =
D * n-i3-7<
E B
F =
G
17
G
(..),, :.<:,lta«
1 Yes
2 No
1 Yea
72
1 Yea
2 Yea
Under construction, anticipate completion September 1973.
Disinfection and phosphorus removal facilities being
constructed with plant improvements.
Start of construction date extended 120 days by State.
Additional 60-day extension period granted during March 1972
board meeting. Under construction, completion anticipated
April 1973.
Federal and State grants approved. Under construction--to
6.0 mgd Including phosphorus removal. Completion anticipated
by September 1972.
hit. (CD ChlorlUf,
(C.) Cupptr, (C*) l,,«l«
(fsl Ir
(ii) iitr
(10) Tliretnolt! (Mor,
C. %nui|*l S/l'«" (ID ("I-IM Cl«.r
n uf iO'.lrul B' (C) '.. . ;
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION Page u ot
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
C*',lu *l.u V ,ii t iOi.*IIO\ Sltl I*I.G -AllrfS
1
roi;-::,\ J-^TICIPALITIKS (continu
Whiting
Lake
Michigan
(tt'ttomt .Mtos
Bd)
9,10
ISflHATta 101*1
COST (HltLlUS i}
(UQUlkiQ Ort^IRoCTIO-i
SCi'tLuU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-31-70
I
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
LAKS MICHIGAII
Jur.e 26,
ILLINOIS DISTRICT OFFICE
1972
I
Yes
Yea
n-15-ri
Whiting is now discharging dry weather flow to the
Hanmond Sanitary District. The city was ordered by the
State to treat and disinfect storm water overflow by 5-71.
City to build its own STP and get out of the Hariirnond Sani-
00
tary District. Informal 180-Day Notice
USLPA on DL-tt'ri'ix r 1, 1971. Financing piobl
implementation ol plans Jor cons true t: ion of
ment plant.
hetd with
,s have d,,-I:
eparatc tr<
IU>. nun I ,..r)
UnlUh-rj! I «lrnsl
UK HI U. Mips
(T) V-nv'i1'I/or fl
(! Oitlntriltm
(3) Setliitifcri liva
or Utllllinl
tttd, ICl) Cnlorlde.
(Co) Uvi»r. it«) (,4
, |M '-Mai, (10) Mil
ittlo u^jr.
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
DiS.S.A'ID H,,'*U J ItXAIIC'*
UrDIAHA UTTXJSTHIES
Adolph Plating, Inc.
East Chicago
American Maize
Products
Ea;^r.o:;d
Anerican Oil Company
Whiting
A.M. General Corp.
(South Bend) or
Kaiser Jeep, Inc.
SYy~OL FOR DzTT AILED C
Grand Cal.
River
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Michigan
St. Joseph
River
5XSTRUCTION
A Kctain i-r.-;in£crs.
B Sub-it preliminary engineering
7 (BOD)
17
7 (BOD,
Oil, S,
TO) 17
7 (M)
SCHEDULE
report.
C Start plans and specif icatlcnSj.
D Submit plans and specification
E Arrange financing.!
F Start construction.
G Cc.r.plete construct
ion and full
•-
ope ratio
ClM (Hill !UI 1)
1.
H'U ui;. 1
A 10-1-70
B 3-1-71
C 5-1-71
D 9-1-71
E 10-1-71
F 12-1-71
G 12-1-72
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-31-70
G 12-69
_ , .
(.iMilKUl ' 10.
A =
B =
C =*
D =
E =
F =
G =
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-31-70
0 »
AOi.'L. kLuu:*.
1 Yes
1 Yes
1 Yes
Page l of 8
ILDO
June. 26, 1972
(4) fw
»ul
(i) .Ir.
Ill
CiMU'ffS UiQ/as. KA'jt>« (ok IN i
Plant closed 12-69.
rroject completed during 1969. Advanced waste treatment
facility to be completed 12-31-72.
Tertiary treatment consisting of flocculatioa and all
flotation was constructed with assistance of USEPA
P&D grant. Results chow that design effluent lir.its arc
being met on the average. Studies are being made to
establish ways to reduce periodic high values for
BOD and suspended solids.
Diverted all flow to South Bend sewage treatment plant.
btuUIWI. >r«3«l or
NtutrillKllon of.
Add. Id) ChlorliK.
{Co) lOFptr, IUI l)in
. (fl) luili,
roijrn. Oil.
(I) Co~u.il to itmKloil Snlo
(9) ifp.rltloo or toMrvl ef
Tl Pl.nul, (S) MIA, (10) Slur, io^f l™.l»«l
11) litluM Cltor U
I!) '•••II
U) A.k'.^.l* lif.'
11) I.TM.,1 ll|»r,|l
{]&) t*«lMt* rrvtmt r«
(16) K.«,..llu« Ot ill l
Cit'.. Ill r-l'.
111) »J..HIJ ...If In.
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
Page 2 of 8
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN ILDO
August,,,8..1;
«„..-.: S,...tlrf,,lln r^,,:,^
IKDIAIIA II^JSTRrSS(Contlnv.ed)
Atlantic : Lake George
Richfield Co.
East Chicago
filMJOIAt ,'«tOS
7 (BOD.
3r. Indiana Oil, S,
Harbor
Cor.al
Angola Reduction CoJ Sliver Lak<
Angola
Cities Service
Oil Coirpany
East Chicago
Continental Can Co.
Elkhart
M». t .< .)" ' n . >• T r VMT, nf ("•
St. Joseph
River
Grand
Calumet
River
Elfchart
River
.(1. .' f
TO)
3,7
(BOD,
011,8)
IMIHA1ID TOIU
u/.l (M!LUO:i i)
«w,«inv.;r,,o,
G 12-68
3,7
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-69
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 7-1-71
ilAHA OF ;0!,H1/.,.' £
r^HKm nut
G = 12-1-70
3,7
A
B
C
D = 7-70
E -
F = 9-70
G = n-70
A
B
C
D
E
F = 6-70
G - 6-71
AWL. KL,jliiiii"Ui*IS
1 Yes
1 Yes
1 Yes
COKIt^TS ANO/OB
Plant to be closed 1-1-73.
Mill vas closed February 1971.
I1'.'; '.'"I "."' "'"' ['! -'••""•' ywJul, (OOI ».nin,l i nm^r* or (7) «««>.< tlW. •.-».. 1 IK Fol In*. {») nrlllt, («) fvnnr, t «e »«UI|i«l
(,'lj , '"' ,| , '""'' ' '''""' (!) tl..i»l.,n,,n \a1rlf«l »,«,,.! Unlrilliolicn of: ») ,IH™.,f n . Oil . (1) S,.,Mr,ln,., or li.tf»l
1 '•' • ' ' ""' <"" '"" ' '"'1 """ "•' '•l<" «r H|.l«ltn| It) Mini l.pinilun |l«l Copm . ll«) l,inlA, Pn| 1 ™1,(S|ioil», (10) Slor. li-«-i Irtilwnl
10) thirthnlfl U.lnr.
to «-nU*i'«l ijms« f)1H"l««e Cl«f *trr (li) i..l«*If »r«pnl '.< llitd
(I?) '..^i-'i (It) He<)H.t'^ Of All trill,,!
(II) A,l..|,jtf Tri^'.ovftt (-,nM.tu".lv
il4J lit
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
ols;u,vt-s.,,.l HJUIKU
urDi'u.'A rrx'JoTPiHs
E.I. DuPont
dc!,'e-our3 St. Co. tlnc
East Chicr.|70
Centner Packing Co.
South Bend
Inland Steel Corp.
TerainsJ. Basin
East Chicago
Inland Steel Corp.
All Other Facilitie
East Chicago
1.1 a i*i "'. .AIIRS
(ContinuedY"
Grcr.d
. Collect
River
Autin mtc
to Bovman
Creek
St. Joseph
River
Ind. Harbor
Canal and
Lake
Michigan
Indiana
a Harbor
Canal
«*!>•»
.
1 (Acid
s)
i 7 (BOD,
S), 3
7 (Fe,
S, Oil)
7 (BOD,
pH, CN,
N,S
Oil)
CiTIIAHCI TOHL
CCSf 1MIUIG* 11
WQulfitD EJ'.SIRJUHU
UiuLVU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-68
7, 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-31-69
A
B 12-66
C
D 6-67
E
F
G 5-70
A
B 12-66
C
D 6-67
E
I
G 12-68
suim or c«- IH..CI
ci/.-siJuKrio.!
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =
G 00
7, 3
A =
TJ
C =
D =
E =
F =
G 6-29-71
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =
G i»-70
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 10-68
Page 3 of 8
ILDO
June 26, 1972
SIAIUS Of l l»l -~~"i 0*1 «-J..Hi." 1.1 ilU'in..
(C«) CoKitr, ((«) t(M.!», (Fi>) Miinitl. |M SulKl, (10) Sloie Ir^r treitwnl (III IIW'IIK O.itrtllg« (II) »«>•», .J >i>lt ''«! • I
(ID) If. .ll.tlfl D.«jr,
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
<* a
August 8, 1972
CU; ..V . ', .B , 1 UUtlui
r^'.-\ r-r-JTHiES
Lehrin Veal and
Poultry Packers
W&karusa
Lever Brothers
Hacnaond
MIT Chealcal Compan
East Chicago
Union Carbide Corp.
Cheaical Division
Whiting
•IT: t01*^'11'-"71'"'^1^? HB!"5rt(r f"
("| f '"*! . Ijni (-) Cn V-
'"sit '1 .t A'l K\
(Continued)
Baugo Cr.,
St .Joseph
River
Wolf Lake
y Indiana
Harbor
Canal
Lake
Michigan
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
•: 1 1 ire
< . >.ri.ll (00) feMiM
rtul (Ow
7 (BOD,
Oil,S)
7 (H,
BOD,S,
TO)
7 (BOD,
Oil, S,
TO), 8'
f.nwio w«
CUSl {*tU!U» t)
"m'sEiil5!/.,
(? OMInfectian
»IQU!«LO C:n'.l«utMlW
1CU1 0,11 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-68
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-68
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-68
Report (4) rhotpna
IIAIlAot COVU"A.I>(
CWSKuCIIOI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 1-69
A
B
C
D
E
F
G - 1968
A
B
C
D'
E
F
c - 1968
rtrt «r
iun,s o> CuVnaii.'
MO'l. Hlj'llttniilh
1 Yes
1 Yes
1 Yes
J) Urductten. Rr*ovil or
III! !ln*ot!"' *u* athinif U" dglt (•) IXIUlcnl l.tfnilM (3) Secondary Irr.twnt |i) ..«( or i»orov,d Trt. Aitd, (CM thlorldt,
(CO) CaiU"i,Ctt,y, (i«» th| 1 fttr) fil,vn by it,tf or !quu»lent (&) ftjnt LV*"'*" (Ct*» C^P**-, |C") £/*
11,1)0
covi.m A:.:)/,* PIawi Kia ut-'
Plant is closed.
Complies with voter quality criteria at control point
on Wolf Lake, but additional work la needed to icprove
conditions in Wolf Lake Channel.
Bio tower not started yet. Color and solids are
excessive at times.
Connected to East Chicago Sanitary District coverage
system. Adequacy is questionable--backups
cause overflow to canal. KiT installed facilities
to reduce: deposito in sever and recover tin. Facilities
Judged as adequate by State.
Connected to East Chicago Sanitary Diotriet in
12-68. Also connected to Whiting severs. State
rated treatment adequate. Periodic high values reported on
BOD will require additional in-plant controls.
Repair program in effect to improve effluent.
(trl Iran. («) PVI.Ii. («) Co"~i! to KunH
(I) .J'lrov-n. (Ml. O) Sra.'.tu.n or C'
(BUD) Oinrfl be*."*. Co**>»fird Sr<*n
IPo) Phcnn!, U) SpH*l. (10) Slor* Srurr Im
110) IhrtiMIH (Mo,.
I Si>ti«« 111) r.4iun« ci
il .f (ir) •..-,„
(II • ».;,
II (III lwro« OPT
(li) !,«!«.••* f-»l
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
Page 5 of 8
June 26, 1972
LAKE MICHIGAN
ILDO
*>;,„,, ,,,IIO;MM
UrDIA^IA E(DVS7RES
U.S. Steel Corp.
Gary Works
Gary
U.S. Steel -Gary
Tube Works
Gary
Youngstovn Sheet
& Tube (Central
Trcatn.2nt Plant
fc Blast Furnace, etc
East Chicago
'. ' • ' '•' H i( '•'•;,• " '(
> • . . : . . s J.I ... •.„
".! ' '",.'. i',,,. '"' ",7^'
(Continued)
Grand
C.il'Kiet
River
La''.e
Michigan
Grand
Caluaet
River
Lake
Michigan
Indiana
Harbor
Canal &
Michigan
1 1 . !
•i.l • ft,-''
(.,,„ i f, ,,-j (,,„.,
T (Fe
S,01l)
8
7 (CH.
1 •rtrj
t.v 'it. If
(Iftt (MiUIU'l II
(!) Illlinfrllioi
(J) v.oMir, 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-69
A
B 12-66
c
D 6-67
E
F
0 12-68
A
B 12-66
C
D 6-67
E
F
G 12-69
lulnl
..i ((,) ri.»t
A
B
c
D
E
F
G 00
A
B
c
D
E
F
G - 1968
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 3-70
1.1 h.'.'UV«l
lM«..*..tf 1ft.
AUli'L. Rf g-ilnlU.UV
1 Yes
1 Yes
1 Yes
ftcltf. U!) (Morli*.
(C.) Uplicr. |U) I,
Ciliciiidi Viu/UH PlA'jU* lu" Hiiai
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board study March-
April 1970 shoved treatment not adequate. Hearing
held 5-26-70. Comp;uiy ordered to provide odequate
treatment by 12-31-72. Tin mill and oheet mill
wastes directed to Cold Reduction Mill trep.taont
plcnt 6-69. Coking w.-oU.s aiix-.e.; to C-ry ED cr.4
uced to rr;;nch co>.-.-. All cokir- wcs.,t:: work c;.":>lcted
and in cv..rdtlc:i 12-31-69. Wn:,tc w.'.'or fr< :.:i 1. | 11, ,.,,1. (M S..il«l. 110) M,,,. \,^, lrr.t-.«l I K) I,, ,,„,, IV.,. ( !„„ (In «J..W,.J .,.!• Ir, ,' .. . 1
-------
STATUS OF
GREAT
COMPLIANCE
LAKES REGION
WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
""*"'
Page 6 of 8
ILDO
June 26. 1972
• i »fj.)
frit I .IpnilOA
^II,"J>TiO TOTAL
OSI (MILLION i)
(1) V.VvVl/.r
«[WIMD(.0'.slkacilO.I
5C.ill),Hi
A
B 12-66
C
D 6-67
E
F
G 6-69
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-68
A
B
C
D
E
F
o 6-1-69
A
B
C
B
£
F
G 12-68
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-70
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 1968
A
B
C'
D
E 9-23-70
F 11-70
G =
A
B
C
D
E
F
G » 1968
rii\ or
STATUS OF c.i-'^i ir..a
1 Yes
1 Yes
1 Yes
1 Yes
_ . „ __ __ —
f./'.^.Ui fcld/ut BiA'.U. If* Jil«»
Facilities consist of cyanide destruction anl isola-
tion processes. Results Judged inadequate by State.
Facilities are under construction for additional oil
and solids removal.
Construction of oil separation facilities com-oleted
in first quarter of 1971. All effluent now goss to
City of Elkhart sever system. Oil separator in
operation.
IFll Inn. (H) »l~ M ( 1 Jj ».:, |.Jl« 1rf .|TI I t.,nin
or Irjtluloil It) fl.nl i .,-.,. Ion (Cg) CJH>". (i») l»««l*, (I'l.) I'lu-ul , (S| Sdl IM, ( Id) Slur, irrtr InilWdt ( l<) |r, n,.r C.f ,,| ,„„ (l?|»J,
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
Page 7 of 8
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
ILDO
August 8, 1972
ttuu..'.:o i,^u i -j -;iw '
t.lll.iii .HIM
rJDTA"A irrr/J-TTRIES ((continued)
Stoir.or Tissue Div.
Grand
Georgia Pacific Corp. Calunet
Gary
Union Carbide Corp.
Linde Air Division
East ChiCv^o
Middlebury Coopsra-
tive Creor.sry, Inc.
Middlebury
Mobil Oil Company
East Chicago
River
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
Little
Elkhart
P.iver
Lake
George
Brar.ch
Indiana
Harbor
Canal
MnfOIAl -It EDS
8
7 (BOD,
s)
7 (BOD,
R, S)
C.STIHAHD 10IAL RC^ISiED CJ',iHnXn&.
CCSI (XIUIO* J)
'CHLU.iU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-68
3, 7
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-31-69
A
B 12-66
C
D 6-67
E
F
G 12-68
!.IAI..", i;f U','i l/v..
i,-.it"o-J !J.
A
B
C
D
JP
F
G * 9-69
3, 7
A «
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =
G = 1971
A
B
C
D
E
F
G » 2-69
Jjc (00) DrhlM ,irr
(0,,; I ,,,
(•) U«i!>t.»l I
. 1.1
M*fE)!M "lips
" (1) l"l'l« I'M
|!l a.linlfHi.,,
(3) S u'r ;>
(M
il.) P
A!,.", i;f U','[ l/v,u
i,-.it"o-J !J.
A
B
C
D
£
F
G * 9-69
3, 7
A «
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =
G = 1971
A
B
C
D
E
F
G » 2-69
S1»ioS f,( tu u'UViCi
A^ff'i. Hv,...?.::! .fS
1 Yes
1 Yes
/ 1 Yes
1 Yea
7) Rfdutllo", hi .fl»ll or
' - - - -
(•V.3..IJ ,„„/.« B.A.,,1 ((.» (,,.,t
Connected to Gary Sanitary District. State rates
treatment adequate.
Settling ponds and oil separation. State rates
vasts control inadequate. Additional treatment for
removal of chromium requested by State will be completed
by late fall, 1972. State notes better control on
oil and pond operations is needed.
Hearing held end stipulation ncrced to with coaple-
tior. date of 12-1-71. Facilities have been completed.
Facilities considered temporary when cospleted.
Connection to municipal sever system coapleted 1971.
State rates treatt-.er.t adequate.
(TF: In", (Ft' ^UU. jll {illicit to ^nuir'l SnlM) III) l>r)u« (l*.r M.i,.r no f..l._ii. e«t?*i lafilin
Ki'-'Ofil <1tytr*1UiUt* of !«' .Ot»'-rf«. Lit. t {•)) -H-jinn** fir (o'.lrol of (1?) *-.,»•. (it) «.• J, 1 1 .(,«•• of 311 UUi.st
rjnd Irt, Atu, (Cij fftlori.li-. (it,;!'. O.-^i (i.-n«i»d, (r • ^tPfj S»*ff| (ij) »•.-,««(» tfr**^"' < . " t>f^"-,
"ViOO (Cu) (^|"-f, |(fij CHI|«*. ('"1 *"'i-"«». i'.) .oMih, (101 ^tgra 'plBcr lrp*twrt( ()j) |f(,fOT, ppemtioit |]|) to,t"tra a^Je lrr*|*-t
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION P^C s of s
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN JL
June 26, 1972
».!... -.:.s v. '-a i i*c»m» MtiiiMcuiitai
I~:DIA::A irr-UCTRISS (Continued)
Kevr Paris Creaeery,
Inc.
Kew Paris
Penn-Electrlc
Switch Company
Goshen
Turkey
Creek
St. Joseph
River
Bock Run,
St . Joceph
River
ItHDIU M13S
7 (BOD,
s)
7 (CH,
M)
tVlfttllD tOIAl
CuiT {MULlOn 1)
knulMI} CX.ilRuUIO.1
Stul Ml
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-68
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-69
'.;;.h>-. Of CCVLIA.IU
i&.MaiA.i!u.<
A
B
C
D
E
F
G - 1968
A
B
C
D
E
F
G - 2-69
ilAIOS OF tu.M-li.ViCl
AJ.VL. HfQUtHi'lh.li
1 Yes
1 Yes
CCi-.'sfl
*(• ) I
II.) I,..,I . U»,
M I) t.nj.f 1n.|
|:.:i i ,.ir.. lion
' I r«0
(JO) Br'ilnl V.,-,1.,1!
(U.cr I /.-.r|
C) Ihllilrnl I.If.
.r» I, '.Ul,
.irimu jiiftrt
0) ••"t.l« I/KI
&rron«i,irr tfvil
or UMlv«U-nt
Sulrln.t Rrnxull
(S) Mn or !*i>ru>i<4 Trl.
U) PUnt t>;u«lM
(!) kdwllw, «, ...ll «r
Irvtr4lu«tio.») (.>•"*.
(f«l Irm. (») Ifcu
[N| rfttrtt-pn. Ull.
(UWl O'f.J'-n U.«*"
(«) Co»«*
-------
MICHIGAN
DISCHARGERS
-------
MtJICIPAMTtES
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
IAKE MICHIGAN
nSIbiAHD SOURCE 1 IOCAT10N
Al.LlO'.J
ALLEGAN
ALPINE TOWNSHIP
SYMBOL FOR DETAILED CON!
A Retain Engineers.
B Submit preliminary ei
C Start plans and spec
D Submit plans and spei
E Arrang financing.
F Start construction.
G Complete constructioi
(It) t p| •irMrfNm "T.f'AVij «
IIP) r «. Kli.1 -| On •,!„
I'll 1 1, in, |(J| Itnlru)
(CO) t ... iirtlm (ttl,
RECEIVlhG WATERS
Kalamazoo R
Kalamazoo R
York & Mill
Creek
Grand R.
TRUCTION SCr
gineering n
fications.
.ifications.
i and full Of
HHOIAl WEDS
lf
4
4
EDULE .
port.
eratlon.
f Sciito«T« (00) StMml '.cht1.lt
Unit (Our 1 rrjrl
Stfttdull (•) OnlltKril lnlwllo
tdw I J»«r) tl»n M SUIt
ESIIMATEO TOTAL
COST (HIIUM 1)
1.75
0.5
REQUIRED COMSTRUCT1DH
SCHEDULE
A
B 6/1/69
C 7/1/69
D 9/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71*
C 12/1/72
A 6/16/69
B 7/1/70
C 8/1/70
D 1/1/71*
E 9/1/71
F 10/1/71*
G 12/1/72
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 7/1/69
STATUS OF CUrLtAfiCE
CONSTRUCT IC.1
A =
B=
C 9/70
D 6/71
E 00
F 00
G
A=
B=
O
D 10/1/71
E 0
F 0
G
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 7/69
STATUS OF COMPLIWirt
AUD'i.. fU.l}iitKim<(TS
1 Yes
2 Ye.-,
1 Yes
2 Yes
«»«om mtn
(\) VwTt1/or l'»N Trt. «cl4. Ill) nlorl*
or El. 1. il.nl |<) >lmt f.p«Ml«« (O) Coppor, (CH| C
8-3-72
DA7t I* MrOWMlUN
MIDO
«»I-W, 3 bf
1 of 30
s wo/on KASOI rw
Stipulation 5/16/69
*City declared in default 3/16/72; Show Cause Hearing with
EPA participation 5/72. Final Order for phosphorus removal
only adopted 6/15/72 requires K - 9/1/72, G - 12/1/72
*City declared in default by JiWKC 6/71. FOD No. 1518 adopted
with extended inturim dates. Declared in default 3/72. S'.iow
Cause Hearing with EPA participation 4/72. City ready to
precede if grants available. Hearing recessed for further
consideration. State extension: D - 10/71, F - 3/72.
Connected to Grand Rapids system.
Ft) Iran. («i "ttlll,
I) Hllrutcii, Oil. ,
wo) o«,n« tmi.ii*,
hi) rVnoi. (51 soim.
to) IhttluiK (Htor.
II) Coor.it to ItalclOOl >r>UI
J9) Sni'.t'or, or Contnl «f
(10) StoniSnir Ti,,u.ot
(111 [VI** ClMr WUr
I! S««ra
Jill fc*vu<
(III l*io«
111 iMlMM 'mm I.MIiilii
It) hfatllw t< All i-iiiiil
it* 1r»tl«t»t CcflkttltfM:
Optrtt'on Of) M?MrtJ HMU 1rmtM.il
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
MUNICIPALITIES
LAKE MICHIGAN
8-3-72
0*H 0* IMfufiMTIM
KIDO
mpAHi D ar
of 30
OtSI',«T£0 SQJJSCt t LOCATION
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
(lierrien Springs)
BATTLE CREEK
BEHTON ilARBOR AND
ST. JOSEPH (joint
treatment)
KfCCIylNG «AURS
St. Joseph 1
Ka lama zoo R
St. Joseph I
ttrlOIAl NEEDS
4
4
4
ESTIMATED TOTAL
COST (NILLIOM i}
0.07
0.26
0.07
WGUIHtO C3H5TRUUIOK
SCHEDULE
A 4/20/69
B 6/1/70
C 7/1/70
D 1/1/71
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
A
B 9/15/70
C
D 3/1/71*
E
F 6/1/71*
G 12/72
A
B 6/1/69
C 7/1/69
D 9/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
STATUS Of r.O*Ufc.CE
COMSlRUCMUit
A =
11 =
C=
D=
E=
F 7/71
G
A=
B=
C=
D 3/72
E
F 00
G
A=
B 6/69
C=
D 12/70
E=
F 6/71
G
SIA1US OF COHPUAliCt
ADD't. fit'QUiRUftNTS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
CCMCillS INQ/0* KttOI FDD DtLAT
Under Construction. Stipulation 3/20/69
Stipulation 9/18/70
Final plans delayed due to difficulties with grain from cerea
mills. City declared in default by MWRC 3/16/72. Show Cause
Hearing with EPA participation 5/72. *Final Order for phospho
removal adopted 6/15/72, D - 8/1/72, F - 9/1/72, G - 12/1/72.
Under Construction, nearine completion.
"T.I D...J of Stliiuli
•I IM SiMd.l.
(U) tfliiiK) SctwdnU
(00) h«<«l ScMdu
(0«r I ,t.r)
(•) UnlllUril [itml
t yftir) KtMn tiy SUU
Hint if
li
ten I Si
BlHOIAl HHK
«TTI/«r Iwort
I) &li!nr«cliM
i) S«con*^y I^ctwitt
or tquittUnl
Billrlent ftMOMl
*p»MI on
r
JS) DM or
U) PUnl C
(I) katictln. taonl or
tell. 1C!} OlIorlDt,
(Co) Copptr. IU1I t,«t«.
T«) Inn, |M) Iklili,
HI »Uro^». Oil, .
BOO) OiyoFn Dnuntf. Co^liwd
hi) rlw.ol. IS) sollik, (10) Slo
10] Ihrvihuld (Mor.
11} C»MC| U KunldHl IflUe III
(9) Stp«r«tton or Control of (II
tulwfe
Stwtn
fvel&au Pmt*l feeflUtn
fedwttw «f All trUUfil
CnflttUWNtt
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
MlTiTf.TPALITlES
LAKE MICHIGAN
3 of 30
CSIt'-AUD SOUflCE t IOC/HO*
:I:..-IUN iow;,s,ar
BKRRIEN SPRINGS
BEULA.H
«f: tW.TI.LICI 1* PHASE STATUS Of CW
alCelVING UATltLS
Taw Paw K,
St. Joseph {
Crystal L.
(Eeteie R.)
n lAnrt
REfttUlAi MEEDS
12
4
5
4.5
ESTIMATED TOTAL
COST (HHllOW 1)
0.49
WHscm fiftTjs
RfQUlfitD CONiTHUCTICH
SCKfDUU
A 4/1/70
B 9/15/70
C
D
E
F
G 12/1/72
A 4/20/69
B 12/1/69
C 1/1/70
D 12/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
D 12/1/70
E 3/1/71
F 4/1/71
G 6/1/72
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12/1/72
SIAIUS Of COtfUA'CE
COUSTHUC1ICH
A^
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =
G=
A=
B= 12/69
C=
D= 12/70
P —
F 7/71
G
D=
E=
F 7/71
G
A=
B=
c=
D 10/69
E=
F 5/70
G+ 2/72
STAIUS OF (OHI'LIAIIU
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
CO**£ldT^ AND/QG BIASQH FOR OtLAIT
Connected to benton Harbor
Under Construction 7/71
Nutrient removal and improved treatment combined into one
project.
Completed
[T>H 7rr1».ln/ry rim it) Arnjo"' StteJult (00) stMnd Sihfdult fT]"5Sin'n/or «wor, (4) fhoi phurin or (71 Itductlcn, Dnnnl or Ft) Iran, (» Mtttll, (1) Connect to IMUlBil Srltw (II lulu* ClMr Uur (IJ) I«l«tt rrwtnt l«illlll
(I") Midi Plin !• On feniduli (Over 1 ye«r| |! DlUnHtllon nutrUnt KnOMl Il>«tr4lll«loi of: «) Hltroafn, Oil . . («) Stptrltlon or Control of IJ SfMrl |UJ blluctlon of All CrltUll
(H Hnint'nq (0) Icnlntt SchfduU (•) UnlUtenl [.tefiilofl (3) Secondiry TretlMfit (51 »tw or Iwnvod Irt. Acid, (Cl) Chloride, 800) 0«yy«i nwynd. Cortlned S»«*rt /I] AttequAto Trttlwnt Convtltutntl
(CO) C-nitriirll* (I*! |t,,n | ,Mr) (Inn ur Stilt or[qul>llfnl [<) rlint tiplnllon (Cu) Co»tr, (Ol) C/inl*. Pn) Ph.nnl . IS) iolllS, (101 Stora StKtr InlKKIt (l< lTro« OfXrillin (17) «4>W<>1 MIU Trailmil
(10) IniohoU Odor,
-------
8-3-72
V* 1 * k* r » 1 ^H » """» * » 1— %^ • » t^ ^^ * >^ 1 » Wt£ 0* MIOKmUlUM
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS JSJX,,
NCNICIPALITTKS LAKE MICHIGAN U of 30
aSI*,AflO SOURCE i ICCJUIO"
i;IG RAPIDS
BOYNE CITY
BRON'SON
MaiVIMG HATERS
Muskegon R.
L. Charlevc:
Pine R.
Swan Creek
St. Joseph !
HHDIAL .1HK
4
x 4
4
CSTIHATCO TOTAL
COST (NIUIOX 1}
0.022
0.04
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
SCHtouU
A 8/28/69
B 4/1/70
C 5/1/70
D 12/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
A 4/20/69
B 12/1/69
C 1/1/70
D 9/1/70
E '4/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
A 6/16/69
B 3/1/70
C 4/1/70
D 9/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
STATUS 0* C0:*l IMCE
COHS1HUCT10.1
A=
Ii«
C=
D 00
E 00
F 00
G
A-
B= 12/69
C-
E 12/71
E 6/72
fm
G
A=
B=
C=
D 00
E 00
F 00
G
STATUS OF COW'IIAIJU
ADO i.. IttgulRl'ttitTS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
COWCMTS MD/0* UUOI fW (ALAT
Show Cause Hearing witli EPA participation 4/72. Lxpect P
removal 11/72, plans 8/72. Hearing recessed to 8/72
Contracts Awarded. P removal; under construction, expect
complete 11/72, 100X city financing
City has requested further extension for plan submittal
(expected 7/72). Action tabled (5/72) by MWRC until 9/72.
• ]~Khc*d uf '..i.i.iwl. (M) Nhlnd ScMult ft} Imtftl/w l*>«i
• On SthHvli (0**f 1 jr**r) (2) OUInftctlon
0) Ifhtnd SfKrfjIa (•} Uniittertl Ciimln (j) StTondif/ Trtttn
(I) Ptatphorfll tf
Dutrltnt lMt**l
(S) itei. er I9raM« Irt.
(I) flint tipwlton
17)
Ktglriltttllcm of'
«cl(, (Cl) Cklorlih,
(C.) Copf«t. (U) C,i
|K) Ntllll,
fn, Oil, .
(I) CKMCI lo Mnlclpil Snl«
(9) Snirlttwi or Cgnlral If
:1u* dear K*t*r ttS) CvtliMtt fretwt Ucttlttti
«ri (Iftl iKducitM of All IruiUl
r')n*U tn*t«flt twiiHli««U
trow Op*r*ttM (II) *<*»**H« UMU IfMlMit
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS MTOQ
yVN'ICIPAMTIES LAXE MICHIGAN 5 of 30
OE5IS1AT-D SO-JKCE t LOCATION
BUCriAKAN
CADILLAC
CHARLEVOIX
RECEIVING UATEHS
St. Joseph F
Clam R.
Muskegon R.
Pine R.
M«3IAL HEEDS
4
5
4
4
ESTIWTED TOTAL
COST (rILLION J)
1.0
0.85
1.28
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE
A 3/23/70
B 4/1/70
C 5/1/70
D 12/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
D 12/1/70
E 3/1/71
F 4/1/71
G 6/1/72
A 6/16/69
B 2/1/70
C 3/1/70
D 9/1/70
'E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
A '3/14/69
B 6/1/69
C 7/1/69
D 9/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
STATUS OF CO'IPLIAMCE
COHSIRUCT10.I
A=
B=
C=
D=
F+ 4/71
K-r 4/71
G
D=
E 4/71
F 4/71
G 0
A=
, R=
C=
D 1/72
E 00
F 00
G
A-
B 6/69
c-
D 9/70
E=
F 6/71
G
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE
AOO'L. KOUIRE'KNTS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
COWEHTS AND/OR REASON FCR DELAT
Under Construction - 95% complete, exoect CO 8/72
Show Cause Hearing with EPA participation 6/15/72. Hearing
recessed to July MWRC meeting at which it was reported that
plans for interim phosphorus removal .were submitted and that
construction was expected to start within 90 days after
approval.
Under Construction - nearing completion.
,
STuTijs o* ceigiiyta
1-TlF«iiTof~$che4il« (OOJ tefHnd ScheAit*
•} On SchHul* (Over 1 year)
}) Bchlmf ScJicdut* (*) UnMiteri! Extensf«
(Lett thin I yeir) Gfwn by SUt*
REPfPtH rttEOS
Ml Sjnplt S/or R
(!) Dll1»flct«n
(3) Sccontfiry TrcltMfit
or Equtvtltnt
(4) PMipHorm or
Nutrient R«mmT
(SI Nffv or Iiprewd Trt.
If) Hint [jpinUen
l» fci'Jctlcpn. fcPO.il or
Neutr*lliatrgen CW4it«. CottlMil Srwn
t«( Ifcenol, (S) Soll«, (10) Ston SrMr Tre«ie>d ««te Tmtnnl
IS) l«lnt> rmem ftetltttn
It) Reihctloii 0< All CrUlill
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
MUNICIPALITIES
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
CltAKLOTTE
8/3/72
QAU pi MFQftNAtl
MIDO
'^"of"30
Union i'ier)
COTDWATER
QUtta 1 LOCA1IOH
TOWNSHIP
Lakeside,
er)
liattle Creel
R.
Galien R.
Coldwater R.
St. Joseph I
4
4
4
.
COS! (MILLION t)
0.79
0.58
1.4
5LKIDUU
A 2/26/70
B 5/1/70
C 6/1/70
D 4/1/71
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
A 4/28/68
B 6/1/68
C 7/1/68
D 10/1/70
E 11/30/70
F 12/31/70
G 12/31/71
A 9/1/69
B 3/1/70
C 4/1/70
D 1/1/71
E 2/1/71
F 3/1/71
G 12/1/72
A=
11=
C=
D 00
E 00
F 00
G
A=
B=
C=
D 00
E 00
F 00
G 0
A=
B 12/69
C=
D 1/71
E=
F 3/71
G
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
COtMHTS AMD/Oft fUULM FOfl UlAT
Plans and specifications (D) in preparation for int
removal. Rate study for local financing (E) unden*
staif to get details 6/72
See City of New Buffalo
Under Construction, npnr rnmplsHon
Ftn*l Pl«r>1
rin«fictfl
| On ichcdult
) 8fM«! SOifdut
(Ittl thin 1
(00) fttHfid ScMtfwlt
(Ovtr I ft if}
(*) UntUttr*} fittntln
) Cf»«n t>r SUft
_
$Mp1> I/or M
?) DUInUctlon
3) Set»nd*rj frt«
(4)
Null-Itnt
(5) MM or Im
(IJ fUnt t*j>
(?)
.
HttitriII»tlBR of;
Add. (dj Chlort*.
(CuJ Coptnr. (») C>«>
Ft) Iron, (M) frtaft,
N) itttroftn. 01',
SOU) Olyqw Ofwtnd,
Pit )>hcno!, (S) ioll*i.
10} Ihrtihoid O'tar,
Connect to Nunlclp*1 1/tlM
Spptrilfon or Contral *f
00)
Cl.tr MUr (I!) [»>«!• PreiMI rullltlll
(111 tr of til Crlllitl
t Tmlivnt CoattlturntB
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
8-3-72
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS %%$„
"MNICII'AI.TTIES LAKE MICI'fCAN 7 of 30
COI.DWAIKR STATE HOME
A.ii) 'I!'AK.]iiC SCi.GGL
COI.'STAi-iTIHE
DELHI TOWNSHIP
(Ingharn County)
ttf: Cfw' It-iCM(jW FUME JWtft Of {!»
«a,,,«c,.r«
;!udd Cr .
St. Joseph I
St. Joseph !
Grand R.
flfrl OlAt ,tEEDS
4
4
5
4
tUIHATCO IOIAL
CQSI (MiLtlON t)
0.55
MqumD COI^FROCTiOl
A
B
C
D 3/1/71
E 11/1/71
V 12/1/71
G 12/1/72
A 9/7/69
B 12/1/69
C 1/1/70
D 12/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
D 12/1/70
E 3/1/71
F 4/1/71
G 6/1/72
A -5/23/69
B 3/1/70
C 4/1/70
D 1/1/71
E 11/1/71
F 12/1/71
G 12/1/72
SIATU5 Of (.">•!' ' iR<-'£
A-
L-
C-
u=
E=
F=
G
A=
B+ 9/69
C=
D=
E=
F 8/71
G
D=
E=
F 8/71
G
A=
B=
C=
D 00
E 0
F 0
G
sutus at f.o'f-i !«int
ADD'L. Ht!jvl«tHl,itS
1 Yus
2 \'es
1 Yts
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
COrHKTS WtD/M KE«W ft* WUI
Completed •- connected to City of Coldwater
Under construction, near completion.
Show Cause Hearing with EPA participation 6/15/72. Hearing
recessed for 30 days to permit review of alternatives.
Irt) tr«il.liurjr Flm l.j tt*M of Sil»iiiill <») BtMnd Sch«d«l» (1) Swpll I/or Utoort (4) Pl»
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
MWJ 1C I I'M, ITU'S
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
8 of 30
{XSlbJmU SUURU ft LOCAI1M
DELTA TOWNSHIP
DL'WITT TOWNSHIP
DOWAGIAC
Rlli tOMMmrTliH pmsr jTAitrt or d*
ill) 1 r, M.,r,,., Plm .] ih,,d
RtCUVIMC UAT[RS
Grand R.
Lcoking
Glass R.
Grand R.
Douagiac Cr
St. Joseph
HCWOIAL .tECOS
4
4
4
Scteoult
tSIIHATEO TOTAL
Ctnl {HILLIOfi i)
•mum srios
-IT) SiVoI/or
UQUIRfD CONSIRUCTI01I
SCHIDUIE
A
B 6/1/69
C 7/1/69
D 9/1/71*
E 11/1/71
F 12/1/71-
G 12/1/72
A
B
C
D
E -3/1/70
F 4/1/70
G 9/1/71
A 7/24/69
B 1/1/70
C 2/1/70
D 9/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71*
G 12/1/72
P49ort (>) Phoiph
STATlli OF CO*. IftHCE
COiiSIRUUlO*
A=
B= 6/69
c=
u 9/70
E =
K 6/71
G
A =
B=
C=
D=
E=
F=
G=
A-
l 1/70
D 9/70
E=
F 00
G
rat or
SIATUS 0( COHPI IAIICC
ADII'L. R[QU]RO«N!S
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
7) tttacltm, Ht~.il or
(OtfCNH AMD/CM) MASON fut ULAT
Under Construction
*State changed D to 9/70 and F to 6/71.
Completed
Stipulation 6/24/69.
City declared in default by MWRC 9/71; Final Order No. 1565
adopted 10/21/71. * New schedule: F - 8/1/72, G (phosphorus
removal) - 12/1/72
IN) Iron. In) Pktili, (1) Connect to ftxltlul SfltM II del.* door Mur hi) Ivilxlo Proton! Facllltin
Iff) fln.l Pl.ni • ) On ScMtalo (0«' ; y»r) (!) Olilfil.ttlen MH.nlkaaa.il Hotitraltiallon of «) a)ltr«jen. Oil. . (ll S»«r«tlo« or Control o« \! Sn-r, (It) bfectlon of »ll CrltUil
(II) flnaiHtnq 0! l«M«d ^chfdul* (*) IMttatartl [ilcnllon (3) Soconfcry Irtalomt (SI Ko» Of l*>n>ved Irt. Acid. (Ct) Otlorl^. IMKI) Ot/osn DeMito', CoMblMd SrMn U Adc<|uat* IrottMflt lonttllyonu
(CO) Conitiuctlon Ulll thtn 1 roor) Slvon by ilito or [quivilint lot PUnt Eiptftllon (Cv) Coppor, (Clt) tyintoo, Pnj Phenol. (S) Soil*, (10) StyrB Sf««r IrfotPMt 14 !•?<»•« OF«r«tto« fl}) U««ncod Malta 1r«atiM«t
!0) Inrr^hold Odor.
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
Ml'N'TCIPALETIES
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICMICAN
3-3-72
,l™»,,
Q Of
1IWATEO SOURCF. i LOCAIIC*
JORDAN
LANSING
RAPIDS
IJCU» K 5E_ STATUS OF Cl*
BECEIVING WTEBS
L. Charlevo
Pine R.
Red Cedar R
Grand R.
Grand R.
BErtDlAi WEDS
x 4
4
9
4
ESTIMATED TOTAL
COST (MILLION 1)
0.682
•IWDIAI nerm
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE
A 7/24/69
15 12/J/69
C 1/1/70
D 9/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
A 9/5/69
B 8/1/70
C 9/1/70
D 8/1/71
E 11/1/71
F 12/1/71
G 12/1/72
--
A 5/21/69
B 3/1/70*
C 4/1/70
D 3/1/71*
E 11/1/71
F 12/1/71'
G 12/1/721
STATUS OF CC'ri IUCE
CONSTHUU hi*
A=
B 12/(>9
c~
D 9/70
E=
F 6/71
G
A=
B 2/71
C =
D 3/72
E=
F 4/72
G 6/72
A=
B= 10/71
C=
D 6/72
E 0
: F 0
G
STATUS Of COMr'LIAJKf.
AKU'L. (It^UlRLItiHTS
1 Yes
2 Ye s
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
COMMHTS AND/OR REASON FOK DtLAT
Under construction, near comi)let.ion.
Construction completed - adequacy not yet completed as of
6/72
State schedule: D - 2/1/73, E - 4/1/73, F - 5/1/73, G - 12/31
1-fWRC Final Order #1255 - 4/21/69.
State referred matter to State Attorney General. Judgement
entered Eaton County Circuit Court 8/12/71. *PP 9/1/71;
FP 6/1/72; F 8/1/72; G 3/31/74. Final Plane (D) submitted
and approved as of 6/72.
Pnlir, ,, ,,' Fltni T^V'li.iHo' of Xfeilull (M) WllrU 5tl»i)ijlt "Ml 5SvlV I/or «o»ort (1) PMl»t>or« or )) fcductlor, Inw.ll of n) Iran, (ft) NlUll. l>) Conflict to ftwltlpol Sr>« 111) (>cln« CToor lUUr (IS) l.ll^H >mf*t F.il Mtlrl
Mnl1 ' nl (•' 0" SchMuli (0»«r T y*lr) (?) OHtn/taltin Nulrlrnt Rfiwvll tteulnlllllton of. H) nitrogen, Oil . (9) Sfplrttlon or Control of (1?) Swrl (If ] teihictlon «l AH Ulltiot
""•'" " W «»<™l '.(Hfiliilt (•) UnllilerilliliMlM (l| Stc»J«t/ Ti.llont (11 Iti. or Iwrcrtd Irt. «il«. (Ell ChlorliH. l«») Ongrn Unuirf, Eo*lmc) i»«n Jl 1) A.lr^ulll lr»ili.nt Unllll»Bl>
CoxiTr < Ign |l ill Inin 1 r»r) tlnn tr Mm or Fniil.ilinl |t) riint .pinion (r.«) topn«r. (C«) CjiMlM, Pnl rn.ni'l. (',) Suit*. (ID) Stot« Sixr Inilnnl ||4) Kiun 0|
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
MUNICIPALITIES
ESCANAliA
FREMONT
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
8/3/72
HAH Ul Ml i«HMIU«
.,,;:„*, ;;,„,;,* ~
liA
I H"4 I'M* ,| MAlii' dl 'ii1
u.-l ft,,,,, (.) ,)„ •„„
t >. >«i) (U) iii-htf.'
""•'••••" ''-" Ur^
StCt ivt .•., WAI! fc\
. . .
Portage Cr.
darling Cr.
4uskcgon R.
,(>,!.- {ilwr
•..h..luU. {') HnfUl
t"*it 1 y^Jfl Given
HMUDIAi riftuS
4
A
ci tl t iten-,iun
b/ SUte
i SHHAIffc IOIAI
LO^T (Hit* IU* <)
2.25
0.04
MHi»ni :inm
(1) !,«^.lei/or
or iQutvdlc
*M(UlMiJ Cj.'.lKiMHM
^l«i'.. .__
A 3/14/69
B 6/1/69
C 7/1/69
D 3/1/71
E 11/1/71
F 12/1/71
G 12/1/72
A ft/20/69
B 5/1/70
C 6/1/70
D 9/1/70
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71
G 12/1/72
Hepcrl (4) Ptto*(*h
Nutrii
«t ft) Mjnl
lur^M,,,.. "
A=
B 10/70
^=
D 11/70
E=
F 6/71
C
A=
B=
C=
D 4/72
E=
F =
G
rus Cr
nt R>-<«v^l
<>|jnj«t.d !rt
tptnsion
Si".'J- 'fr'.'iLJ'iu:!
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
7) UeJuUloii, keniQviH or
AUd, (tl) U.lunjf
(Cti) Copier. (CM) C>
I't'fif ITS «(lt/L» fit *«,(*( KIM i#U»
Under Construct ion
Under Construction
H'f'ltl U«>.|i-i' U^.iod, ImijiM'.! '..-wi-ii (H) ftsii-joi
dnfde. O'fl) Hi,'t.t,l. (s) Solids, (101 Shrf» Wwfr Tivjttwnt {14} Jm-ra*
10 of 30
UlHFflttOtt jf?) A
-------
MUNICIPALITIES
GLADSTONE
GRAND HAVEN
GRAND LEDGE
SIA[;ii uf CU
- "
GREAT LAKES REGION 8/3/72
UAH i.i I..IJHMAI KW
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS ,?tnx).
l.tCLivl ,C -Alt^L
..-__.
L. Michigan
RllHUi !,E£DS
4
Grand R.
Grand R.
ruA.;!AL HEEDS
m ~ cT^.!v=~r , ^ ,
G 6/1/72 G 0
A 5/23/69
B 9/1/69
C 10/1/69
D 9/1/70*
E 5/1/71
F 6/1/71*
G 12/1/72
A 1/11/70
A=
B=
C-
D 4/72
B=
F 5/72
G
A=
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
B 11/1/70* B 11/71. i 2 Yes
C 12/1/70 C 00
D 6/1/7.1* D 00
E 8/1/71
F 9/1/71*
G 12/1/72
E 0
F 0
G
Joint project with Spring Lake. Under Construction.
*State extension: D-12/71, F - 2/72.
*WRC Final Order Ho. 1566 (10/21-22/71: "B" 11-15-71,
"D" 1-15-72, "F" 3-1-72, "G"12-l-72. .
City (5-72) requested further extension of "D" to 9-1-72.
Action tabled 6-72 by MHRC until 7-72.
•I"1'- (Uv t 1 yi'jr-) (?) insulation Nuliii-fit krwovd 1 \tutrat i/.it toti of. ,'N) .JitM^n, "ii, (')) VyiTjiinn or (ftntrul of (}2) Sewc. (Id) ticduiluw of All UK:
'••nf.hilc (*} imtlali-nl 1 uli-mlort (3) bciwiUiy Irejlwttt (<>) ,4.-H or li^rovt-d Irt. Add. (Ll) Uiiorlilt. (iUj'i) ".y.^-n Uv^iid,' loi.liliMfil lewi-. (13) Ailf>|uAte ln-«1tiwnt Lonitiluenlv
-------
MUNICIPALITIES
GRAND RAPIDS
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
8/3/72
OATt 0* UFG
MIDO
GRANDVILLE
GREENVILLE
IJC»F ION
; '.'' !< -J
11...
<4UCIV] *G WAIUS
Grand R
Grand R
Flat R
Green R
I ,".,!„„ MOI M.m
in.., 1 i--.ll III...
RE'UDIAL NEELS
k
k
k
j.i»*ilt
1., •!.!•
E'TIIAUO IOIAL
COSl (h-KLJOU I)
1U.5
0.66.
«Mf»n> -iffrrt
(lj Wr l(o.
"1 l'Hl«ll
«EQUIHED COMSTfiUCTIO.1
SCHEDULE
A
B 6-1-69
c 7-1-69
D 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
A 9-1-69
B 5-15-70*
c 6-15-70
D 9-1-70*
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71*
G 12-1-72
A 5-23-69
B 11-1-69*
c 12-1-69
D 12-1-70*
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
««KO'l (ti nn»,.i
nl |l,| H«..l I
SIATUi LF LO IP, ' >LE
A=
B=
C=
D=
E=
F+ 12-70
G
A=
B 8/70
C=
D 5/71
E =
F =
G
A=
B 6/69
C=
D+9/70
E=
F= 6-71
G
H-V. or
SfSTUS OF COMPI IAI...L
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Ybs
1 Yes
2 Yes
III «.-«»• ll«i. If-,.l jr
A<.i'l, 11 M ilii^i ! It
LWtSHTS ANP/Wt MASiW 'Dfi DELAY
Under conotructlon.
Under Construction.
*State schedule: B - 8/70, D - 3/71, F - 8/71.
Under construction, near completion.
*State schedule: B - 6/69, D - 9/70.
!F|) Iran, (ft] *V1*!i. (8) Coiwwct tu Municipal SyttM (II) fKludl Clfir Wlter
HI ^lln.,jrn. (HI , . (')l Si-liarallon er Cwtrol of "(I?) ipw»rj
12 of 30
-------
MUNICIPALITIES
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
_LAKE MICHIGAN
Mil V 1 if jfMAI luM
8/3/72
'"MIDO 13 of 30
HARBOR POINTE.AESOC.
HARBOR SPRINGS
HARTFORD
HASTINGS
Ktf: Li) SIU'tiMl'.1! f'HA'jl SIAfti-l Of COf
m frcll "iruiy p]ans (.) Al^-dd 0
M » 1 (ill ttrlnn.1
'""' """
L. Mich.
L. Mich.
PavPaw R.
Thornapple
R., Grand
R.
If I lA'lU
f IJiedijle (00) Behind
riule (0«r
ln,in 1 yrirj iilwi
"*, 5
"»i 5
4
V
^chrduli
•Mu"L.i«
l» Mile
UM^'.mS'il
0.90
0.90
TP SwlTl/or
(!) Cliinfeelioi
or l,|»l,. I
Sultui.lE
A 7-2^-69
B 12-1-69
C 1-1-70
D 12-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
A 5-23-69
B 9-1-69
c 10-1-69
D 12-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
A I4-2U-69
B 9-1-69
c 10-1-69
D 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
A 4-20-69
B 6-1-69
c 7-1-69
D 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
Report (4) Phospho
ftutrk
1 1 (6) PUnt L
s'a't!.,iiu!,;.'Ma''''
A=
B=
C=
D=
E=
F=
G
A=
B=
C=
D 12/70
E=
F= 6/71
G
A=
B=
C=
D=
E 00
F 00
G
A=
B 6/69
C=
D 9/70
E=
F= 12/70
G
rus or
nt HI»*JV«]
rivrowd Irt.
•I""110*
^fftTUS Of (y'KMHU
AJid L RL(JuU':l'.i fl-.
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
7) Reduction. Rrovi! or
Ni>i.trilfi«tian of:
Add. l< 1) uilorldt,
L.J'tUlilS AliD/,.P f-tA^'l KIH WLAr
Under Construction (Treatment by City of Harbor Springs), nparinE
completion.
Under Construction . near completion.
WRC Final Order adopted 3/2U/69 (#12^9)
Will provide interim facilities with city funds.
Under Construction f near completion.
(Fe) iron. (H) N*l*h , (8) Cumwct to Hjfiitip*! S/itea ()i) {ncludi Cletr thtcr (IS) rvtlutU Fr»i»t Fittlttiti
(«) .i1 '..-w-rs (lij Aih-j^lr Irrttwnt (t.oMMurntk
(10) lh.i",holj UJur,
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
«,..., .-.»*!• .»..«,
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES
H1LLSDALE
HOLLAND
HUDSOMVILLE
ItlCUtrHO MA!EK$
(CON'T)
St. Joseph R
L.Macatawa
Ruttermilk
Creek
Grand R
MICOIAL .ICCHS
4
4
4
ISIJW1EO TOTAL
COS! (MlUIOH 1)
0.08
2.0
RCjUlflEfi C3!I$!RUCI!UI
SUtOUl
i 4-20-69
B 9-1-69
C 10-1-69
D 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
STAtuS 0* LfVPLIAiCC
CO.ISIRUCTI0.4
B+
C 5-72
*D=
E 00
F 6-l-7l!*F 00
G 12-1-72J G
1
fi 4-20-69 A"
B 6-l-69|*B= 9/69
C 7-1-69
0 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
3 12-1-72
fc
3
0
D= 9/70
E=
F= 6/71
G
A=
B=
= :&..
}
L
r
J 5-1-7C
D-
E=
F-
G- 1970
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
City indicated 6-72 need for grant monies, HWRC staff to ask
for costs on interim phosphorus removal.
*State schedule: D - 2/72, F - 6/72.
Under construction, near completion.
*State schedule: B - 9/69.
S WIB/W PUSW MM WtAT
OAU OF MFtWUTIWI
8/3/72
PWKAttt, til
~MlPajJj-Q£_30
Connected to Grandville
• mi i
(fo i
.l l*l,«.
jttln'j
(00) kcMmi ).ht*ttt
(*} IMtlnutt Ul*ntftm
Rf if ii 11 wrns
TV, r.««lc t/or N»ort
(?i Iliilft*i(tln.«
(j) 'j*ityi'H(y ImlMtnt
... l.,.i,.l.nl
(4) PhwphurM «r
MutrUnt 9MK>««)
(!) -tt* ui i^.urti Irt,
(f.1 t>t*nt I.!••>.«h.A
NtutrtKiatlin tt
AUd. |H} thU.. Ijr,
|Cu) ropptr. (in) I/cnliH,
(f.l Iran. (») Hrlllt.
[«} 'ilri^ro. OH, ,
IIUIII 0,W» OuwrKl.
(Pn| ft,«i.il. (',) '.oil*.
(1) Com«tt la *ui!cl»l SjntM (11
(J) S.p.r4Hw or CBIIml of 1?
II
14
t.clufc ClMr UUr (1*1 t«l«t« tltMM iKl
•»,„ j|»j hOuclloll «f »ll Crlf
!*,„(. li«,MM CumlllMnll
li
-------
";-'-"I1:' '•'••" 1;-""<"'
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES
IONIA
IRON MOUNTAIN-KINGSFORD
in 1 t ••,! iiv, t-l .;.. '..ii
REGION V „„*„„«
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS 6-22-72
LAKE .MICHIGAN OTTO IS of «
RECUVifir. WATERS
(CCN'T.)
Grand R.
Menominee R
i >„- :.il« Mil 9«*!! I "u
(I) '.i-iuiilur 1
BtqutREO CONSTRUCT I'M
SCI1EOUU
A 6-16-69
B 4-1-70
C 5-1-70
D 12-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
A 10-22-69
B 3-1-70
C 4-1-70
D 9-1-70
E 4-1-71
F 5-1-71
G 12-1-72
D 3-1-71
E 3-1-71
F 4-1-71
G 6-1-72
KflVJtl (4} Hwi|*
lulrl
talMtnt IS) 4m in
•1 If) ,' I...I
STATl*. Or COHI'LI' .a
C'JuSlHUCTK'.i
A=
B=
C=
D 3-72
E 00
F 00
G
B 7-70
D 12-71
E 3-72
F 00
G
D 12-71
E 3-72
F 00
G 0
rut or
S'ATUS nf C0'r-'l IA;iCf
AOD'I BtJ'lHinnlS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
/
/) tedwllun, ltpm<*il gt
«I,',,I,,,1U.. of
•ill, |i II (hUil.w.
iuWlHIS Ah[)/UR BlAStVl TUB Oil**
MWRC 6-72 scheduled a hearing with City and EPA to discuss
interim phosphorus removal.
MWRC 3-72 scheduled a show cause hearing with EPA participation
(probably 8-72 at Marquette)
State schedule: D - 3/71, F - 6/71.
Both nutrient removal and improved treatment combined into
one project.
(I.) liim. (»; H-UH. {«) Coi-J.1 U Huxldiul S/itn (||) E.iluJ. Clfif lUI«r (HI I>il«tt fmt«l IK<
"I'l"'/"*'"'!'1"1' ' ''' '"""V COTIr<' "' jl?| »""^ (HI k»i.ll«m«»ll Crt«
• »l*. (l'»l riii.il. I'l '.i.llilt, (III) ii,. in '.c-i tmilBiil (HI 1^11 .,» ipe-.llim I17|
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES
IRON RIVES
[CONT.)
!Iron R.
jBrule R.
i Menominee R i
JACKSON
I Grand R.
KALAMAZOO
Kalamazoo R
0.05
0.5O
~«l««o ov,i;";i'iVr
SCHEDUL.
A 8-22-69
B 4-1-70
C 5-1-70
D 1-1-71
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
A
B
c
D
E
F
G 12-1-72
A 3-1^-69
B 6-1-71
C 7-1-71
D 1-1-72
E 2-1-72
F 3-1-72
G 12-1-72
fi.i'urt 14) li.r.spl,
SUIIR .'I rciPl!A.iC[
A
B= 2/72
ri_
D 00
E 00
F 00
G
A=
B=
C=
D 11-70
E=
F 12-71
G
A-
B=
C=
D=
E=
F=
G+ U-71
i -i\ or
HIATUS Of t1'^ i lAiiCf
AIV\ PL; 15cl!f IfS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yea
7) fa.lu'tlull, |ti:Hi,4l ti.
• i
MIDO_ 16 of 30
Plans delayed by controversy on area wide plant.
Show cause conference held in April 1971 aa to why Iron River,
GaaBtra, Caspian, and Stambaugh should not be declared in
default of terms of respective stipulations. Conference
recessed to May meeting to allow invetitigation of possibility
of obtaining a Federal Grant for a ot.idy on feasibility of
all possible approaches.
Report on engineering to settle dispute about prospective
location of four-town facility approved 2-25-72.
Under Construction
Completed
(0} (.-.-v^u i,, )MUt<)|I S/ttff* (II)
(')! Sn**.*'*,,*! or Control of It?
jui • t '•«',. wti rn«(«r>t
AJc |.<«tr
(Hi CviiMtt Pm««t fici
(1*1 HeJiXtlo* of AH CHI
Coflitlluvfllt
(U) Advin.rd Will* IrvttM
-------
U^l^i*lt3 SiJ'JHCE t LOUMON
MICRICAN MUNICIPALITIES (
KENWOOD (FORMERLY
PARIS TOP. )
LANSING
LSONI OVP,
1 1 I_ VJ i W 1 1 V OfflOFI iFiMNATllM
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITyfjFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS *£'™
_ ... vnrtvi IT «
HOOT.)
Plaster Cr.
Grand R.
Grand R.
Grand R.
MrlDIAL :iUDS
k
k
9
k
CU-..T tHRuai i)
0.66
RllJUIflEO CXr.IRllCnCM
A 9-1-69
B 4-15-70
C 5-15-70
D 3-1-71
E 11-1-71
F 12-1-71
G 12-1-72
--
A
B
C
D
E.
F
G 12-1-72
VI MO! If CO'"11 JAiU
G= 1970
A=
B=
C=
D 00
E 0
F 0 /
G
A=
B=
C=
D=
E=
F=
G
StUlir., OF tu-B1! Hurt
AUtJ'L. f|. jiilREilt.tr i
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
am,,, !.-«-! 1AM
(J».
<•) I'hlljl,
l/ur Bcywl (4) htctfittcrus «r
t« 'lujtMnfit I! I nv« in t*fiiHfv,l Ir
.!•• It) M."l l.|...i.l,ci
I tr.ta(l.n. fc«,,4l Of {(t| lr-«. («l "rult, (e| :»roa to IwHIwI Sjilc. ni)[.tl,« Cl«r IMUr |l») tnlMU'mml
*»lr«lt«ll» at («| i«i. (Ik) funlfc. jl,,|'|.|,,M.l, |M '.till*. (Ill) M,.,. >«., li
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
MU Of ! coftMTIIM
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES (
LOWELL
LUDINGTON
MANISTEE
«[ ii»i lunr
X)NT. )
Grand R.
Pere Mar-
quette R.
Manistee R.
k
U
»
cSHHtrtD iot«.
tu^i {Hii.U'J.1 I)
0.033
1.78
2.1
nuulttu .-w.rj.L.mj,.
SCHCliUl t
A 2-20-70
B 9-1-70
c 10-1-70
D 5-1-71
E 11-1-71
F 12-1-71
G 12-1-72
A
B 10-1-70
C
D 3-1-71
E 11-1-71
F 12-1-71
G 12-1-72
A 3-14-69
B 6-1-69
c 7-1-69
D 9-1-70*
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71*
G 12-1-72
iUMlTi "JjviKia "
t.0..iUl.'L! J'H
A=
B=
C=
D 00
E 0
F 0
G
A=
B=
C3
D- 3-72
E=
F=
G
A=
B=
C=
D. 4/72
E 00
F 00
!,[ftiui f" ).o*iPi lAiirr
ADD t »UJiP£!knU
1 Yes
2 Yea
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
_l8_qf 30
uwoa ttmon MW
-------
MANTSTIQUE
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
MARSHALL
MASON
luLATi'Jl
ALITIES (
30NT. )
Manistique R 4
Kalamazoc R
Sycamore Cr
Grand R.
u
k
COs! ("lUlC.t J)
2.59
iCHlUUll
A
B T-l-70
C 8-1-70
D 7-1-71
E 8-1-71
F 10-1-71
G 12-1-72
A 4-20-69
B 6-1-69
c 7-1-69
ID 9-1-70*
0.5
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71*
G 12-1-72*
A 11-16-69
B 3-1-70
C U-l-70
D 12-1-70
E 7-1-71
F 8-1-71
G 12-1-72
ILn.iikUCI llH
A
B=
C=
D 0
E 0
F 0
G
Af
B 7-23-71
C=
D 1-72
E 00
F 00
G
A=
B=
C=
B 3-72
E 0
F 0
G
MjLi i R. Ji.lfi.
1 Yes
2 Yea
1 Yea
2 Yea
1 Yea
2 Yea
MT[ Of MtuRNATIUH
8/3/72
PKI t.'mO "V
.MIDO-.-19-Qf 30
(OK'l^TS ANO/E>R S
Hearing held 8-20-69-
WRC Final Order No. 1372.
Stipulation deadlines not net. Engineering report aubmitted
6-69 did not Include aecondary treatment.
final Order No. 11*59, Jan. 1971: D - 1/1/72, F - 5/1/72,
G - 12/1/72, and additional treatment by 6/1/73.
Stipulation 10-16-69
Plans aubmitted for Tertiary Treatment and Phosphorus Removal.
City declared in default of stipulation by MWRC at 3-72 meeting.
fjU) BfiHnr ',|'iMt>tn
kOu,llin, inuvi
N«ulr«ltfjtlofl o
Ai lit, (I h O'lui
If) liwi. IK) Mil
«) lltro'|r«. OH.
o r^uip.1 S,tt« (II)
n or CwtroV of
iuH
-------
'i .', .»*!;•: SO'jftU 4 LJCAUOl
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES (
MEKOMINEE
MICHIGAN REFORMATORY
(IOJOA)
It i . *' ImirtMN IT".f <.J*t"<. ' '.
" itt] 'f',a*i: inn, p.™ (•; u. M
HI) il.., 1, I (u| Jt'lml
REGION V w,iw,,™
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS */w
LAKE.MCHIGA?I ^°"on ... ,„
X)NT. )
Menomlnee R
Grand R.
1 i>lv.!lile (Otl) flHlll.d
.C-.D..I «£»S
k
5
U
"r'«r|
CO^I (NRUUI V)
2.78
U) DUin('"tto
(Ji WtWPtfi,, I
SCHCUuLt
A 3-14-69
B 6-1-69
c 7-1-69
D 9-1-70*
E 5-1-71*
F 6-1-71*
G 12-1-72
D 12-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 02-1-72
A
B
C
D 3-1-71
E 11-1-71
F 12-1-71
G 12-1--72
rlilWftt m Urm or
STATUS Of tC'HM^U
CO..bl«UtUiM
A=
B=
C=
It 5/72
E
F= 5 '72
G
D 6-72
E 00
F 00
G
A=
B=
C=
D 00
E 0"
F 0
G
r,-M,,,J Irt
STUIuS Of COf»HIAMtf
Wfi'L. «i JUIfiUltili
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
7) toilMtl^. Rr*-vv«l ar
cemrfTs MD/ua *moK fo« ottA*
*Under Final Order dates changed to "D" 8-1-71, "E" 9-1-71,
Tr 10-1-71.
Under construction.-
Plan to Join City of Ionia's system. Negotiations with
reformatory have delayed sever project at Ionia.
PlarB essentially complete, vill connect vhen City of
Ionia completes its project.
(!•) Inn, (*) %tltt. (8) Conned m "unlclpll i,lt«- (II) l.il.O, Cleir Mtlr JI5I [.llmlr PmMI F«l
«.'*. Ull Oiljlj*. (ODD] O.wn l« «««. (.rllr.d-.Mn 1)1 •*,«(« IreH-M l,,n;lll«,tl
(f.) PUnl I -tl»i,i Ion
{17} Advancrd Hid* Triitlh
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN ^JtflCIPALTPXES (
KUSKSGON
MUSKEGOn HEIGHTS
NEW BUFFALO
iM . ••• •*> )»>. I.I«T •,.*•!•<; .'! (.f
'•' . »•!< i'»,f ?1«m (•} ife.- .1
(K'S r-jl Mar.-, f-1 t... V.
', ) ; ,n j ( ii », Mi"!
(.'i, .,-tiui.tlyi (u*>
SONT. )
Muskegon H.
Muskegon R.
Gallen R.
* '. •„ I,,1* (0 MM*.
(lit) lt.
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
MTC Of UFJMUTIM
jii.^tATF1; iOtft.E t u>l»THif»
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES (
NEW BUFFALO TWP.
(UNION PIER AREA)
NILES
NORTH MUSKEGON
"utivmc *ut«$
:ONT. )
Gallon R.
St. Joseph I
Muskegon R.
RI'kOIAl 1UOS
13
t. 4
9
*
LSTIHATED 10TA1
COST tHUUtti 1)
8-3
0.05
SOffGblf
A 4-26-68
B 6-1-68
C 7-1-68
D 10-1-70
E
F 12-31-70
o 12-31-71
A 4-20-69
B 6-1-69
c 7-1-69
D 12-1-70*
E 3-1-71
F 4-1-71*
G 12-1-72
--
A
B 6-1-69
c 7-1-69
D 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
STATUS Of CQ'I LlftlU
A=
B=
C 00
D 00
E 00
F 00
G 0
A=
B- 9-70
c=
D 4-72
E 00
F 00
G
A=
B-
C=
D=
E=
F=
G
STATUS (IF COWUWU'
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yea
2 Yes
. - _ . _..... mjjju fi^ nT
CGtrUTS MD.'Ufi ftCASffl FOO DfLIT
WRC Final Order No. 1135 not complied with.
They have formed the Galien River Sanitary District with
Chikaming Twp. and New Buffalo. A new schedule will be
submitted to the WRC shortly.
Plans to be submitted 12-71 and hope to be under construction
early 1972.
(See New Buffalo)
•Schedule for "D" and "F" extended 8-1-71 and 10-1-71.
WRC 'Final Order No. 1460, 1-22-71.
State schedule: D - 8/71, F - 10/71, G - 6/77.
Under construction (Muskegon County Project).
1 ,t.r)
ni v.-
t«ittt>iliriitoi<
A' i,t. |I l't ttih,
miu9fi, d<,
(1, Venation or Ccnir«l of Tl.'! i**r»
UMiMil ',«*ri MJJ A-lr-tyitt Ir<*tMnI
(U) I
(in'
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
D*»t Of I.mttN
8/3/72
•^M;^K,\"^nu.
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES (
NORWAY
OTSEGO
PAW PAW
(it) I'r.V. ..,,., rum •' ;.; .„. ,'i .
" iM i.ii'-- .- , (i ; iM.imi
1 .-1 1..- H.* I..1,
*EU IVInC WUEAS
20NT.)
Menomlnee R
Kalamazoo R
Paw Panr R.
I't lUff
I ,<>,.. l.,l« 100] loli-.
111.'.
%>>."lu!» (') UnlUI
...... 1 ,..f| I.,',,,
KII1EL.1A1 !tUl»
4
4
k
1 ,«r)
r.ll 1. 1.. ,11.x.
•1 H.l.
t-IIHATUi TOIAl
tULl (KIILI0.1 I)
0.05
0.14
0-7
«/wai vj^ WEDS
BCOUtfiEO C3:iSTHUCI10.l
SCHEDULE
A 10-22-69
B 3-1-70
C 4-1-70
D 2-1-71
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
A 7-24-69
B 6-1-70
c 7-1-70
D 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
A 4-24-70
B 5-1-70
C 6-1-70
D 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
ftpvrt (4, PL.itptic
Hulri.
.,1 («! II
STAIUS U' CO:
A=
B=
C=
D 9-7
E 00
F 00
G
A=
C=
D 4-7J
E 4-72
F 00
G
A=
B=
D 2-7£
E 00
F 5-7,
G
rw or
At StTOvll
I^.n,,r4 Trt.
PIIA..I
1
>
I
1
SIAH'S OF COM''! !A!;rf
Auiri. HU'jlklflC'ITS
1 Yea
2 Yea
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yea
JUDO..._23__o_f 30
WRC Final Order No. 1306, 9-22-69.
To provide interim phosphorus removal until Federal funds
are available.
State schedule: D - 7/71, F - 10/71.
Under construction.
11} hd.rclrUI, Ino.ll or
i , lid, C/«).IA
F«] 1™, IB) Iktili,
«) iroarn. 1)11. ,
Caiwct to rtoKlpil Ifi
-.n.irltM Ir COBtrnl «»
-
'
(Illi M...
(l|) [,dude Cl»r wur
II) Sntn
ui ift-txli Ir»l>M
Ul l^urt llptnlloii
(IS) (nl«u PrMMt Fid
|l|) «rd*tt« nf til Crll
tgmlllMMl
(U) ID.MKJ M>ll Irtllo
-------
rt-TOoRBI
PLA1RFIELD TtfP
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE- WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
*-a>-72
Kl 4 1 4Cit ION
CIPALITIES (
!WP
nai.i« -n»
JOKT.)
L. Mich.
York & Mill
Or.
Lanberton L
Grand B.
• *.,«««
k
5
k
uTiiiiio ink
C
Under construction
Connected to Grand Rag Ida system.
>>>rMV am
(li .^.1. t/w k«Mrl
|7J (littM«>tl4M
(I) >iM..• U»t
Imlml
U»tr
-------
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS vi-zT"""
- - — ~, ._ - , - «>?_M;anaAN MT™ !>«;«, *•»
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES (
PLAINWELL
PORTLAND
^)NT.)
Kalamazoo R
Grand R.
1
REED CITY
Hersey R.
Muskegon R.
"• i/ '• i
k
k
k
£$UnAHU TOTAL
COiT IMIlLiai 1)
0.05
0.516
MQUlftED Of.i ! BUC T 10,1
SCHtt-UU
A lt-2l+-69
B 10-1-69*
c 11-1-69
D 3-1-71*
E 11-1-71
F 12-1-71*
G 12-1-72
A 5-21-69
B it-1-70
c 5-1-70
D 12-1-70
0.69
Mwo'ii -irrns
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
A 6-16-69
B 3-1-70
C lf-1-70
D 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
STATUS Cf Cu-'?Li/.tU
IU.MHUCIIO.I
A=
B 11-69
c 9-70
D+ 1-71
E 0
F 0
G
A=
B= 4/70
C=
D= 12/70
E=
F 10/71
G
A=
C=
D= 10/70
E=
F= 6/71
G
SIATJS nF C0i*'t ift'td
Atm-i. »tjjint-4.ni
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Tea
2 Yes
• -^ ___^«.^^_ ? "^ ^^
lOtMJIS APIC M HUM It* BlAI
WRC Final Order of Determination No. 12l»0, 3-2U-69-
*WRC Final Order No. 158! (11-71): "B"4-72, "D" 7-72
"F" 9-72, "G" (PR) 12-72. '
Under construction.
Under construction, near completion.
''•"•• '•' >i t t jdiil Hci-inj '..MJiih I", ,„,.;, I/.,, iw. i In «mi«.>.i» or (;) M«tl». HM»M| w (»«) IIM, (H) Hruli. Ill Comtt In FVMclp.1 Sjltn (11) l.cl.M Clur Hlir (II) lulMIi Fmnl fid
' •- '.-"1 I.1) .I:M ,«.-tl.m S«u i-itt Ri.-*u««l di-ttinlUiHwt nf IH) Hilru'jtH, IMI . , 19) Souf«lc.l> 6r Contra! of (1?) Snt*r) (1*1 teAietlod Bf AM Crlf
>*.'i (' 1 1^^ -I tx|Murf.4 Irt fald, fvi( ll.luilj*, Ir-iil) iit-if" ^"«'nl, (tKfctiwif '.f«»rt Mjj Al«.|u«tt Tr«lt««At ContltwMt
t,"- '<»' In'-t*, lr,:i »-'.,H 1, ,• t -olith, (IOJ Vl»t« Ve«*i if*«nwtl! (uj l^-iot* Of«ritftifl |t7J Atl*«R(r4 b«U Ir»*t»
-------
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS il-3-72
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES (
ROCKFORD
LAKE MICHIGAN MIDO 26 of
JON'T)
Rouge K.
Grand R,
ST. JOHNS
Hayworth Cr
Grand R.
4
SOUTH HAVEN
SPARTA
Black R.
Nash Cr.
Grand R.
4
4
t'.TIHtHO TOTAL
COST ISILLIOII i)
0.36
Rt QUIRED C3:«SThuCTI"•',',' """ '•'.'• r!'.",,"', ,""'"" ""'' *"'','"" "p*4"!'' !:,| iV!*'; *'.','' """"' '" 'i"""""5 ™ . 'I kJitiim. ««»«l or (I.I i™. Hit Nrtilt. (1) CMWCI to ftnlclHl SritM (III lulu* Clwr tttur (IS) (nluiti Pmtrl f«r
, ' , ',-'" . /.iiia f? i '. ,' i" /,, »««lr.lliiliiy> of. («| ,111,0.,™. oil, , («) ix,«>iloiiwcmn>lof 1?) s«r, III) Myctlua M til Crtt
I.".' i ",' , i'. , " i \ , ',", . i '•'"p;1"'-;".;-;™-'" !" •';•';••'•;' ]";—' i;-j *"»'"•••;' ' '•«• «,.,., m, t»i,,,i*. (ran ow,. u,,,,,^. „«.,„,, •.„„ ii .*«(,),«!-.! ig.vtii».u
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
M1r nf MrilHMATlt
_.LAKE MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES
SPRINGFIELD
SPRING LAKE
STATE PRISON
(JACKSON)
STURGIS
(!•• i >'>•!" / H.n> ' '.) d.jj
tl-1 F'.t.jl I '.int /-) Hi, VI,
(t..'j (..! -IMI. II, -n {Itn
RtLHVHa WAJtltS
CCON'T.)
Kalamazoo
Grand R.
Grand R.
White Pi-
geon R.
St. Joseph R
1 , 'A'H 1
r , ii- ,!uir (JOi Bel in.
• •I.. t,,e {•) II
4
4
4
4
i',r,r|
[SIJMAIEO I0r»l
cull ,11(110.) S!
0.547
WMtir'i .-iff pi
" Tl! :irt,l« l/i>r
' ' ji'tlj|"111 '
StMtU^Lt
A 4-20-69
B 9-1-69
C 10-1-69
D 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-72
A 5-28-69
B 9-1-69
C 10-1-69
D 9-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
"efTf (4) H'OikK
Mutrli
STAlu'j Of CO'lfi ;A^C£
Cli'-lHUCTU i
G=
A=
B=
D 2-72
E
F 5-72
G
A=
B=
C=
D=
E=
F=
G
A=
B= 11-70
C=
0=12-70
E=
F=6-71
G
rul or
lit KvMtvll
l^.rnvM frt.
IMI'IIOA
STArtti OF Ct)>'i'llfl'lrt
ADO 1- fcE^UI »Ult, IIS
1 Yes
i Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
7} Rtduilion. Ri-itiovd! wr
hlil. (i 1} fnli.il*.
-- __MIDO -'• --'— — •*•
CUftSNIS Ul'jttjlt BtASCW fUR !XU)
Connected to Battle Creek system
Will connect with Grand Haven's system
WRC Final Order #1541 (8-20-71) "D" by 12-1-71, "F" by 2-1-72,
"G" 12-1-72.
Construction underway to join Jackson County interceptor
Under construction
(It) I'W. t») Kjtill. (1) (omit to lulclril IJIIM (111 C.i.!u«t Cloir Ulttr MS) (nlwtt »r*tmt fief
inlSl If It 11 "T !"^' f»*'|»« '.~r, j|i) i*.1-t, Trauml (gntlldxitt
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
„,„„„„
liSI ..A!:'., SW,H-:t 1 luUfll*
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES
THREE RIVERS
TRAVERSE CITY
VICKSBURG
ii.'i IH.II i u... (.j .... i.im (00) flchl..
. .uj.li (•llfciu
1,1.. 1 ,M.) 1,1.,,
4
5
4,5
4
; *«•
iSrUWKO I01AL
COST IKILUCK t)
1.26
8.5
0.47
crwrnn: .-IF fu
ri -.j^,i i(»f
(,l 'Ll«. «•» 1
LAKI
RE1UIMO CJ:iSlRlrt;tlu.l
A 6-16-69
B 9-1-69
C 10-1-69
D 12-1-70
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
D 12-1-70
E 3-1-71
F 4-1-71
G 6-1-72
A 9-30-68
B 10-15-69
C 11-15-69
D 6-1-70
E 6-15-70
F 7-15-70
G 12-31-71
A 3-14-69
B 8-1-69
C 9-1-69
D 9-1- 70 *
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71'
G 12-1-72
««,..n («! fro*
ftj'.ru
it |t.] Hint
: MICHIGAN
STATUS ilf CC'!!M '..iCt
UiSisutnc..
A-
B»
c=
D-
E-
F 4-71
G
D=
E»
F= 4-71
G 0
A-
B" 8-70
C=
D" 11-70
E-
F- 12-70
A»
B=
C=
D 00
E 00
F 00
G
In.r-.t0 Irt.
STATUS OF CO*LiAH[[
AOD't R£^l«Cttf,iU
1 Yea
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
n RrigMlufl. HttKxl! u,
NtutrtUltllon at
ftc*.j. {{ I) (ftldti'le.
MIDO 28 of ^0
COIKfillS MU/Ut RiAVUl »(lt Ul«t
Under construction
Both 4 & 5 combined Into one project
Complete.
Final Order of Determination #1493 adopted 4-22-71
extended "D" to 7-1-71, "F" to 10-1-71.
(Ill him, .«) fruit, !»! Connetl to Itaiklwl !»nt« (11 C •( >-« Cltl. «.ttr (1!) [.ilxtf frtlint fid'
l»»l'i"il("'l°"' ' '" !"""""" «' c»<'»1 " ill ^""-'1 (It) ktotton of 111 Crlt
.mo.. (K,,, li,,,,,,|. (.,) ;«ilj>. (Ill) SH..'.c«tr Iftltunt l< lr(,,'o,/OfiT"tlen' (HI M^irititii lr.lt.
Jill) II.IMI,,,I.I li,l,.| ,
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
DAU OF UFOSHA1 ION
6-20-72
LAKE MICHIGAN
'jfi.jiAKO su-jBct i UCMIUN fciuivn;, ^IEI.S
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES (CON'T)
WALKER
WEQUETONS1NC
WHITEHALL
Ml. ' i" •Bo'IH* 111 '.r M4IIK •!( 1,
Tellman Cr.
Grand R.
L. Michigan
tfliite R.
i"! iv;< i
DEMI DIAL MfEDi
4
«,5
4
5
t'.rlHATtD TOTAL
CUSI (MILLISJ i)
0.30
EtKfnui .'rffos
Btyjiato ccmiauaiui
SCHEDua
G 12-31-68
A 9-1-69
B 12-1-69
STATUS i!t CO 111
C^.STRUClk
G=
A=
B= 12-69
C 1-1-70 JC=
D 12-1-70 }D= 12-70
E 5-1-71 E=
F 6-1-71 F= 6-
G 12-1-72
A 11-16-68
G
A=
B 7-1-70 te=
C 8-1-70 C=
D 9-1-70 JD=
E 5-1-71
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
3 3-1-71
: 7-1-71
F 8-1-^71
G 10-1-72
? —
F+ 5-
G
D=
7 =
F+ 5-
J
• ') ....-Its.'-! ,, flint ['(JL-'I i .:«.I.,U. tofl) H.lnu 'jvhrJgU " (1) Siiiil* "l/w i«f.. rt (4) PhoipMrirt or
' H '">»l M n, (•; 0', '.'r.lule Unr 1 yrir) (?) Dl.inft. lion «utrl«nl IU«a«tl
'MllnlMi. (,)>!, M., \ l..jul. (»J IMIl !»,«! KlrntllM (l) W< W. | f rfl[M*nt (S) JM. 0« t.^.f..v«.] Irt.
[ tj) C,M1\li-u' 'on (mi tiun 1 y**rl (.i,i-n 1,, 'iHtf orl.|ul.«cil -.(Mr lc»il«»l
11) AJr'IIMll T>T4tWl
H] loi-'uvi 0|.tf«lln
(IS) CvltMto Prtktrtt r«
JIM HK^cilw or nil c
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
DMC OF I.<(IWH«T1W
8-3-72
LAKE MICHIGAN
:tii i-ii.i j ^jMict i uuriiw
MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITIES
WILLTAMSTON
WYOMING
ZEELAND
.1. ) I'rr'i,, MI, Mini ' 't I ',(•, ! r
,*»•} f.u.: >••**> , •) Si vt.
««,,„,-»,<«
(COS'T)
Grand R.
Grand R.
Black R.
• . •.. J.,1* (Oil) Brht'<
'.'...,!, C) J,V,"
Rm^lM .'IUK
4
4
4
i »«-!Ufit1..» Of
il.ll'.; lf.,^.1 Ih ...trs.|, I.w*,l,,.,l 'r.
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
n*H Of I .fOWMTIOJ!
8-3- 72
LAKE MICHIGAN
^ ,J-,J :, ,rf-t , t ,„,,,
MICHIGAN INDUSTRIES
AMERICAN CAN CO.
MARATHON DIVISION
MENOMINEE, MICH.
MEAU CORPORATION
ESCANAEA DIVISION
ESCAHAEA, MICH.
MORGAN MC COOL, INC.
TRAVERSE CITY, MICH,
,1 * f -„• fs;« TftW l"|A*l «.fMrK tl|' ,
Me nominee R
««oi>. ,aus ^-•'"•i'" '«J'
5
Traversa
Bay
a't I'.'i'T
fli') I'm! 1 i«ft-. /«) .:.. ' !.•!„'., {.,»!•.
'•0 fi-it- "-J (ilj J1.-I. i M \,t-f Jut* {•) ynil*'
s
5
VI' UU-.ltlufl
A 3-9-70
B 6-1-70
C 7-1-70
A—
B=
C—
1 Yes
D 1-1-71 C=
E 5-l-7l|E=
F 6-1-71
G 12-1-72
F= 6-71
G +
A
n
D
' F
ic
RfMTItl-n fTFHi
!t !•..«,!. 4,'gr
1?) IHtir.lvtlM
(Jl '*«,!,,, 1 =
A 6-16-69
B 5-1-70
C 6-1-70
D 3-1-71
E 5-30-71
F 6-3C-71
G 12-1-71
tepjft U) ffijipic
i-ULiA^ JL OX ,
Stipulation 2-9-70.
Completed.
1
A= 1 Kef |oD #3161 5-68
B=
D 7-70
F |
G= (see notej)
A=
B=
C=
D=
E=
F=
G A-72
rut of
It R?Mt4l
HinirtJ Irt.
1 Yes
7} hduftiofl, Mwil or
Aif I, u Ij Cu..f i !c.
Company plans to expand plant. Portions of additional treat-
ment facilities In operation; phased program will require
additional wastewater treatment facilities as paper production
Is increased.
Completed
Tart cherry wastes disposed of via land disposal.
Apple and plum wastes accepted by City system.
(F«> Iran. (X) x»ult, (II COTMM ID Hnildiul Sytto (II) f,il»cH ciMrtticir (li) [iilmli fnimt f«1
«] ,) fr^lritioi or Conlrol n( jl.> s.,,.,1 (14) fctellon of ill Crlf
ff'll'l (J*/'JCI. '.V.IIHI, U«*.lnr.t '.fwn (It »'tr,Mit« !tc«t**l>l l.(»lll t tup"ll
4,1*. (li.) 1". .,«>!. , | -.oil*, (1,1) 'L.m '.<.«•! Irrilicnt {11 lf(,.j,[ (l(.itninii (II! *),.n.ea «•;!« tr«l*
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
A^i^aTtj SOURCE 1 LOCATION
MICHIGAN INDUSTRIES (COT
PACKAGING CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, AMERICAN
BOX BOARD DIVISION,
FILER CITY, MICH.
TRAVERSE CITY -CANNING
COMPANY
TRAVERSE CITY, MICH.
««,„««,£«
'T)
L, Michigan
Mania tee
Lake
Soardman R.
KttOIM. KCEDS
3
5
ESTIMATED TOTAL
COST (MILLION i)
LAKE MICHIGAN wrnr. 9 „*• 9
«EQUlttO C3NSTKKTIO.I
SCHEDULE
A
B
C
D 4-1-71
E 6-1-71
F 7-1-71
G 12-1-72
*. 6-16-69
5 5-1-70
: 6-1-70
) 3-1-71
B 5-30-71
F 6-3Q-71
5 12-1-71
STATUS OF CCKtPlHrtCE
CONSTRUCTION
A-
C"
D=
E=
F 2-72
G
B=
C-
D-
E»
F=-
STATUS Of COHPLIAIJCE
1 yea
1 tea
am NTS «w/« UASON FOI aur
ifader construction^ Baring completion.
Completed
municipal system.
1.1 * ', t
(.1 i.i.h.
(JO) Mxtn
|ll,i-
(•) ttnll,.
; frflt l/«r
(•)
»«lrl«.l kHMl
(5) M> or l^nivtd Irl.
(t) fl».t t^«.|lo.
(7)
((.I Ifo, (•) Iktlll,
(») Jllm«cn, Oil.
(II C«««tt Ig lUIUHl Srftt* (II
(9) S*9*f*tlM ftr CMtr«l »f ^1?
(h.| l'
. ['.) '...II*. (10)
(111 (xlixlt »r«M tier
(II) Itluttlvr of «ll Crtf
Ill) U.Mtrt »>!• I
-------
WISCONSIN DISCHARGERS
-------
Page I of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
AUGUST 7
MWDO
?kSIVAi[2 !'l.«Cl t IJC^TIO1"
W 1 SCOfiS i N MUM 1 C 1 PAL 1 T 1 ES
A 1 goma
Appleton
A - Retai.n engineers.
B - Submit preliminary er
C - Initiate detailed enc
0 - Submit detailed engir
E - Arrange financing.
F - Initiate constructor
G - Complete construct ioi
RECE IVI.^G V.ICK5
Ahnapee R.
Fox R.
glneering re
ineering pla
eering spec!
(
and place 1
nuiDiAtnte
3, 4
1, 2, 4
6
>ort.
ns and sp
f icatlons
n full-tl
irt. T.-IT i:.i«'.[ -.'v. •' t."?u»rr
,,,. ,, .|, .. -•, f\y, " (• > l'..4l tl i.'M.le (05) CthlM SilwJuIr
|l.; f..'.l rlj.-i •) "n M. M. («.« 1 j.Mr)
.;!,„ ...1 i:|::l...i:»-.Vr C)l.ll.l.T.I I.I...MM
(..., r . i- .. (Inl l-.ii 1 >••<•) UiU !. il.l,-
tSIl.-.MEO 10IAI
COST IHIUIO'. 1)
jcificatic
ne operat
fri-fci.'.t ;in ns
(?) Oll'llf^ClIC
(J) Jruuiiy 1
KLQJIKED CO-'iSTPUCIICii
SCi.IMC
(4)
A 1-71
•B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(4H6)
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 9-72
ns.
on.
SIAIl! : OF CCMIAiCE
A
B 4-1-71
C
D 4-1-72
E 0
F 0
G
(4X6)
A
B 7-27-72
C 00
D 00
E
F 00
G
nipoil (4) h,c><.|>hjiul or
.•iutrui.t E.i«vll
o|a.-nl M '«•:. rr I'iitivd Irt.
suns cr creiiKXC
1 Yes
2 Yes-
II No
1 Yes
2 Yes
1;) rx'iltctlen, Ri-tprJl or
A!IJ! Id) CM, M'I,'
MC.I-..-I. (.Ml.
CKI'i.I- K!?.'C7. (-IMC1 '*JB Cf'.At
State order issued 12-15-70:
For (4): B 3-31-71 For (II.): B 6-I.-7I
D 8-31-71
F 3-31-72
G 12-31-72
Extension granted 12-3-71 for (4) : D 3-1-72
F 8-1-72
Clear water report submitted 3-l5"72.
Final plans for treatment facility including phosphorus
removal were approved 5-16-72
Amended State orders issued 3-5-70: For (2) G 6-1-70
For (13)(4) G 9-30-72
M !,«.. CD :-uii. (e; t..v«i to ^idf,l S,>IM jiij t.,i, •< Cl.ir vatr ml t.jK.u /.,-,;! ij;-;i::-
1.) .IIKU-j.'O. Oil, , |J) '.ii-irlwcr r.nlitl 01 J •' .' ''"' ,, ,, , ' ' ;,' 'IJ..;.,
-------
Page 2 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
cm ot :."-".;tMi
-WISCONSIN Mm 1C 1 PALI TIES COt
Austin-Straubel Airport,
Green Bay
Berl in
Butler
Cedarburg
,tU,7
T.
Trit
Fox
Sil
Fox
Men
Riv
Ced
: • I.'.},.'.. .../HIM ' M'S ...,,.. ..r!»l, (001 B.M.1 JcWulCf' -]l
(l.ill'lilM. •) .'I '•• • 'ilt- J.ir I/rjr (?
,,,!., . ..1 M .MM'. -'.I' C) >•!'•' ..lli'.-itlw (i
IPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS ^GUST 7,Jg_%
LAKE MICHIGAN
KAIED TOtAL
(MUlei 1)
ot.li :irri«
Sj .iiie" i/f
tiliinl.'i.ii'i
'.I. Ill l!l, ll
RWJlftfD C3.liT?.u:TIO.(
G 12-72
(3)(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(81
G 12-72
(13)
D 9-70
E 10-70.
F 1-71
G. 11-71
(4)
G 12-72
SI"£&In",":£
G 1970
(3)(4)
A
B 10-21-71
C 00
D 0
E 0
F 0
G
(8)
G partial
113)
D 8-4-70
E 12-71
F 9-71
G 0
(4)
G 8-72
sums Of cu-fu.-iiot
AIQ'L. fitVJIUilifllS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes-
n.-VOit («) rittlrfonn or (7) WarUon. IrMHl ur
MM. nt rr ...ll .luilrillNlIP "1:
4t.vl,| (',) •>, IT -i Lit J III. * U. (1 1) Ulllll 1 .
ccttais «.'.J/cn UAHO i» c:ta
In' compl iance.
Amended state order Issued 1-30-70 for (3M4HII):
G 12-31-72. Preliminary plans submilted -10-21-71 . Clear
water problem surveyed and partially eliminated; adequacy
not determined.
Connected to Milwaukee Met but must by-pass during peak
dry weather flow. Milwaukee will not accept peak flows
until 1974. Excess flow treated by septic tank and
chlorinatlon.
Amended state order 4B-68-05I-05A issued 2-27-70:
For (2) G 4-31-70 For (4HI3) G 12-72.
ird IIM. (ID !»m«. to) tw-vi in iviitipiv.1.. (ID i.ii.« etur uiirr (is) [••'";"';».?
(ill IIII-..I-1. (III. 11} '•>?••• 'I'". »' 'enrol tl |l;li.-"l (") Hjil"" -' •'
.V .,.'•',!. .M.' f. H.*H !• "1 IJI •• ,u.lr l.wl--.,| t,..,l.l.-!V
,, Ll 1, .''|, III -...liil.. (l'.| M,,. ' ...I IM.I..-.I (llj J IV.ull« |U| *•'•- ••' --'
-------
Page 3 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
CAH 1.1 :.':
AUGUST 7. 197?
MWDO 'a';i-:"
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES CO!
Ch i 1 ton
Cleveland
Cl intonvi 1 le
»n f,sl- •'•'! , r-.-.',f VM>', If c.
•/, , fl ,„. ,,) 1 !
KlUlVlfG -AitHS
IT.
Mani towoc
River
Centervl 1 h
Cr.,
Sheboygan
R.
Pigeon R.
Wolf R.
l' .."." V,c l«l IV'I.
KIXOtAL nHBi
2, 4, l<
2, 4
tSTI«HD TOTU
CUiT (HlUIO'i i)
in IK
•"•""^r"4'
(4)( 14)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(II)
B 3-31-71
(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-7 1
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
IM (t) "•Oil*
iUU'S or co'i'ii; .a
A =
B =
C =
D 2-14-72
E =
F =
G
G 00
(4)
A =.
B 0
C 0
D 4-12-72
E 0
F 0
G
tin tr
STAIuS Qt U -,'UAJIvt
AOr'-L. KUl'ilii"!*
1 Yes
2 No
1 1 No
9 No
') «::*•«';•• •""'!."
;:i:::;i'.:;-: i;h, ;.;",„ (.,:S::::-!.rr:L,. !!isv:r,r „ ,,,^1.^,7!,,. nri;;;1;;;,";,,
For (II) G 12-31-74 For(l3) G 12-31-72
'Amended state order 4B-69-7-6A issued 4-15-71.
Currently under construction.
State order 4B-7I-060-07 Issued 1-7-71 for preliminary
report for clear water exclusion and adequate treatment
by 3-31-71. Letter to WDNR dated 11-20-71 stated that
violations of clear water ordinance were corrected and that
house to house check was continuing.
Revised state order 4B-7I-III-08 issued 7-27-71:
For (2) D 9-1-71; F 1-1-72; G 3-1-72.
For (I I) G 4-1-74.
For (4) D 6-1-72; G 1-1-73.
For (9) G 1-1-73.
ii/n .
-------
F'OIJU 4 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION ,„„„.,,-,
t Ml Y 1 1 Q7 7
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS ^ '• £/,%•,
LAKE MICHIGAN MWJO
SIMC.I;:'' i,.-.t i UC.'.TIO.I
WISCOUSIN MUNICIPALITIES CO
Cudahy (Water Treatment)
De Pere
RUt IV! .* t,',HVS
n.
Lake Mich.
Fox R.
FV'CDKl :.tl.K
7 (S)
1, 4, 9
IStWUO lum
U'M |K!U!(W i)
!:VJl'riofnntllina''
7(S)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(4)'
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 9-72
(9)
G 9-72
iulu:. 01 CO : : !/. '.I
7(S)
A t
B 00
C 00
D 0
E 0
F 0
G
(4)
A =
B 11-15-71
C 00
0 0
E 0
F 0
G
(9)
G
SUKLI or c-jm«.v:i
Al'U'L. Kfl,.l!.':ltf-;tS
1 Yes
2 Yes
13 No
CKTwet/Kiue..-...^
State order 4B-70-052-OI issued 2-27-70 for 7(5):
G 12-31-72. Progress report submitted 8-M-7I.
Amended state order 4B-68- 1 1 V- 1 OA issued 3-5-70 for:
(4)(9)(I3): G 9-30-72. Preliminary plans for additions to
existing treatment plant submitted 11-15-71, but insuffi-
cient information for adequate review. Letter requesting
additiona1 information sent to city 2-3-72 by WDNR.
Resolution requesting extension of completion date to 7-74
was submitted 2-28-72. Regional plan has not been approved
(••.-1 n.
|fl) fir
l.o) '-••
(53) 3'»
(0
C) tM
(!) ti-.li-.'.'Uimi
()) S.u-i,',,, In
(7} IVAKtlc*, Icwll *r
re) lr<». (H) Mill. («) CWMKI « «^IHp'' !»»"* (II) ' «''* Cl«r V.lfr till tnl.il. '•»"-« J«"':;
B)a'lr,,'vl.0,l. |» Vr .H'.Hi W Ct.lt.1 If |l?IS'"« (H| r,.«ln. 4f i'Kfllilll
cunl C.»--B ", -jKt ' ti-il"' t Sf«-n Hi) *••' .--tr ln-at--*t tt.'»ittwti
'") PM,';I. 'iM Soli'-.. (IU) lur,,l...tr I.T.I, nt III) K»"« Ci.'.llo. (I/I «,,..«! ...-.« tr«jl-..l
jiU) [biL.t.tlil IVi'
-------
Page 5 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS A^ST 7Um
LAKE MICHIGAN . . ..._., ..-.
us:s^:is i'r.scc t tourist
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES CO
Fond Du Lac
Fox River Heights
Sanitary District
Frank! in Sanitary
District #1
Germantown
«ii- rn."i t: i Mi'i I'A"". "f <••'
(,.j, ,,..., ./MM 1') £'•;'/
RLCMV:.i2 I.AKRS
n.
E. Br.
Fond du
Lac R.
Fox R.
Fox'R.
Trib. to
Root R.
Menpmonee
River
t •.>.<;Mc (i"J) G'Mp
.!.!,• 10. n
. . .. l.l ....n .
A[T:iOIAL ."[EPS
1, 4, 6
4 or 8.
9
1, 2, 8
i, 4,; 6
2
W,r*,1.
ESTIMATED 101 Al
COSI (MUICTI f)
"'(!} V'-vh- l7ur
(?) Uh.itifrclU
fit Vr.-.'.rv tt
"sCii£*Ji.1E
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
(8)
G 12-72
(8)
G 12-72
(4)
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
hlfitl (<) n*H>.
iliilrli
• iih«ii iu ii-u ui
STAIUS or Ci»>tiA-.;E
coisirtciioi
A =
B 4- 10-72
C 00
D 00
E 00
F 0
G
(8)
G accornp 1 1 sh
(8)
G 12-71
(4) i
D 5-24-72
E =
F 0
G
nrt tr
nt Fi «ti1
1 ^.-4 Irt.
SIAIUS or ccc?L!;j.;t
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 1 No
;d
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
7) M.itlw. fc».-Jl i"
Ailil. (CD 0.1 '"
Ctt:it.iIS KO/CtL «AStl fOH WlAf
Amended state order 4B-68-I 1 I-55A issued 1-30-70 for (4)
(6) (II): G 12-31-72. As of 4-27-71, planned to have
sanitary sewers televised prior to 12-72 fn an effort to
locate clear water sources. Full scale phosphorus removal
study and a 4 GPM activated sludge pilot plant in operation
Has indicated that they can provide 70? phosphorus removal
with a temporary facility by 12-72. Estimate completion of
expansion program 7-31-74.
Satisfied requirements of (4) or (8) by connecting to
De Pere SD and Green Bay MSD.
In compliance. Connected to Milwaukee Met.
Grant made 1-70. Addition to treatment plant. Amended
state order 4B-68-050-I IA Issued 2-27-70: G(6) 6-71
G(4) 12-72
(M In... (lit 'vt.H. (I) C» cl („ H«lrl|il 5,«« ll'l »«1.* Clr.r W,r (IS) |'''»;«' '-"Jj '•'™\\-
L.IIIM. ». I'll. . (•j|4,p.Mli.i.i-rto.n»l«i '••••••",, , , llnlf-'i.' ;;**!•.»'""••'
(lioi) O.rvii i' -at, Cr Mi"(Si-.'i» (U) »' ,.'lr UMltn ("'""r .. i. , ..
-------
Page 6 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS ;"JJ '• l&§.,«
LAKE MICHIGAN MWUU
C.:!-..A::: s-.xe i irc.'.'ic\
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES CO!
Graf ton
Green Bay Metro Sewerage
District
Greendale
HI f.-'i-n •! *••>•.' sun-, i ( n
|ni ...:...!••» rlj« (•) •' •ji
li.) i., ,: ti .1 (•; i '••'•
..i (ii ;. .1. t
main i: --MW.
T.
Milw. R.
FOX R.'
Root R.
M'l'f
i n.iVe (OS) Ml"'
lit IU..-I
•...••.if (•)!'• 'l.i
tarcajAL .'IIECS
1, 2, 4,
9, II,
13
4, 9,
13
8
'•linlulc
1 !••«)
nt 1 •ti-n\ltU)
ESIIIMEB 7CI«.
Cull (MIUIOI S)
U'ldl.'t SUM
" (1) V",'tf I/W
(?) l.l-.ll.f.-.ll'.<
(1) •.,<... ',t/ 1,
SIMRtO CTISHuCIICl
SC:tLO:tt
(4)(I3)
G 12-72
(9)
G 7-77
(II)
G 12-72
(4HI3)
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7r7l
G 9-72
(9)
G 9-72
G 12-72'
R'-,>ml «) ri«>M>!'
.'..HI.
• ili'«l Uliluw
SIATLS or cam U'CE
raiKTCiui
C4XI3.)
G 11-29-71
(9)
G
(II)
G
A =
B 0
C =
D 00
E 00
F 00
G
G
G 1970
rrt or
t( ;. -rifll
r, t-.u-J Irt.
SIA:US or ct.ni.v;:£
ACD'L. ft-^UIFtlTfilS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
7) MirllMl, «-'.'«l »f
^.-blijll;jlii''> of-
«.|l. |tl) Ililnil.'-.
It .1 r ... . II il It
CCfrtalS A'.'D/CR REASDI TOR KLAT
Amended state order 4B-68-05I-I 2A issued 2-27-70:
For (4MIIKI3): G 12-72
For (9): G 7-77.
WDNR order 4C-68-I la-02 Issued 9-2-69:
For (4) (13) (9): G 9-30-72
Sewer separation 95? complete. R & D grant for combined
municipal and industrial waste pilot plant study completed
1970. Has contracts with American Can Company and Charmin
Paper Products Company for joint treatment. 180 day
notice issued 5-9-72. Hearing held 6-20-72.
Connected to Mi Iwaukee Met.
(If) lion. (II) n-Ull. (SI Cw.itil to UnUllul S/tlm (11) r.Orf. Clr«rlHur J1S) twli»ltr~.».'l '«''"•
MJlli.i.1. OH. . (!) 1.VJIM. rt l.nt.,,1 .1 {I.-JV..II OHM" «;f.lll.i|i..l
(....i ,....„ t ,* * Cl>'^|li •! *-r»'i> lit) f 1 ,;.»lr ll''.»t''l'l fif.il 11^" H
...!.!,. ftl'.,;.' 1. ill -fi|.|... (H,)!"^'.,..rr|,,..i.,t III) 1 r l>. ™ (1/1 fc-.^.J '- >U In -.-I
-------
Page 7 of 24
GREAT LAKES REGION c,,,,.,,,,
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS *^ST 7'J2?i
LAKE MICHIGAN . .
.....
: '.:c A'.J ' .-.. i i -. •' lei
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES COI
Ha les Corners
Kdukauna
Kenosha
• • -
IT.
Hales
Corners
Creek
Ruot K.
Fox R.
L. Mich.
1 , 8
1, 2, 4,
9
1, 4, 9,
11,13
Cu>f (fluid; J)
G 12-72
(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-7 1
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 9-72
(9)
G 7-77
(4X13)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(9)
B 10-68
G 7-77
(II)
6-1-70
SIAIUS gf CO • ; I..ICI
G
A =
B 12-2-7.1
C 0
D 0
E
F
G
(4HI3)
A =
B -
C =
D 10-6-71
E =
F 0
G
B =
G
0
SlATJj Of CO. *LI/..U
1 No
2 Yes
1 No
2 Yes
1 1 No
1 No
2 Yes
CO..H..1S X.l/K K./-CI I0» KUT
... - . . -
State order issued 2-27-70 to connect to Milwaukee MSD by
12-31-72. Letter f rom Hi 1 waukee MSO indicates connection
by 1973.
Amended orders issued 3-5-70 for (11X13): G 12-30-72
Preliminary plans for major additions to existing facility
submi ttcd. Regiona 1 treatment system with Kimberly, Little
Chule i Combined Locks; tentatively wastewater from these
three villages would be piped to Kaukauna where a new
treatment facility would be constructed next to the old
one.
Report due 1 1-1-70 not submitted.
9B. Tentative program to complete separation of sewers
through 1976. Demonstration project on separation of
sewers approved 7-10-70.
II, I3B. Report to show that completion of proposed
projects will provide adequate ^reatment by additions.
Amended state orders 4B-70- 3 - 3A Issued 2-27-70:
For (4) G 12-72; For (9) G 12-1-77.
;;:;.:;•;::•:;„,, >'X," !.:."£',» M. .-.,«* "nK;:^,,,.,, w -« , « «*••-. *•«« .- ui'.ir W- }Sl-".;:..!:^Bl,V j"!-'.-"" '" !£1 <"'"- ''<"•! <:::;
i. I.-.-".-' !!'•••••:.••'•... ,.,,"; :!.{7L..,~ k!?':'±:';', ...» ?:';;• ;',f:,;TL rwntfi. rm^-r;,.- ""«„,...,,•..,„ U ........ i
-------
Page 8 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN.
till or . .-.'>•"
AUGUST 7, 1972
MWDO '-•••'«
..,..:«,, S.. it. L.:«,..
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES COr
Kewaunee
Kiel
Kimberly
!';i' '•••'• ' }'\ '•'':.',
RLCUV! it b/.UhS
T.
Kewaunee R.
Sheboygan
River
Fox R.
i .'.., M. In"! r.-.i-
• It (3."i
' - Mi IM I'M,!
fiifi^lAl :ifCDS
4
2, 4
1. 2,' 4,
13
i',.'»r
Ml 1 llrhllM
«!!"$
kllEIIU
Win
dl •"
iD TOTAL
1}
F'-JU'O C-'H'tilOi"
— ^---'
(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(4)
A 1-71
3 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
14H 13)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
0 9-72
STAT.S Of CO . LI/..CE
(4)
A =
B 4-1-71
C =
D 6-30-72
t 0
F 0
15
(4)
A =
B 3-14-72
C 00
D 0
E 0
F 0
G
UHI3)
A =
B =
C 00
D 0
E 0
f 0
G
suijs u u ••'U.M;;I
AC-D L. d'V-l .'*•-.'*
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 1 No
1 Yes
2 Yes
II No
1 No
2 Yes
CC'.'Eili ,v;/0iv 1-UiCI ft= 5TUI
State requires elimination of clear water problem by 12-72.
Survey on Sheboygan River 9-70 states need for elimination
of clear water. State order 46-71-060-18 issued 1-7-71 for
(4X13): B 3-31-71; D 8-3-1-71; F 3-31-72; G I2-3I-72.
Extension granted for B 4-28-7I: PP due 4-30-7I. Prelimin-
ary report for clear water exclusion submitted 3-29-7I.
Preliminary report for STP additions approved 3-I4-72.
Amended state order issued 3-5-70 for (2) (4) (1 3):
G I2-3I-72. Satisfied disinfection requirement IO-I8-7I".
Plan for regional treatment system with City of Kaukauna.
m ;.
"t til *r
I ,i .,•! in.
I/I I
..
1. 11, |l'l| (III-
(I'lli'i (III IVUll (Pit I 1C HnHlfll 5/>If« (II) («t.*r Ck*r ITllrr (HI t»ll«'l»'"'"t '•<"";
(I,) .lit, M, (>.l, . !' •...- ul'."-
-------
Page 9 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS AUGUST 7' J£?-?tv
LAKE MICHIGAN MWDO
KSIGIA1E9 S-.i/ICE t lOCAIlin
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES CO
Little Chute
Manitowoc
Maribel
,ri .".MI i|;, i im-r JUf'"> vt rv
IICEUI.ffi WATERS
T.
Fox R.
Manitowoc
River
W. Twin R.
Twin R.
in .'i
fUKOIAl :IEEDS
1. 2, 13
4, II
2, 4, 6
II, 13
None
isiirjjto TOW.
con (KIUIOI !
il'IIIIAL .1MM
sciusVic
(I3),(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 9-72
(4)
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71-
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
(6XIIXI3)
A
B
6 12-72
STATUS Of CC'niV.CE
CC-ISIBUM10I
(13) (4)
A =
B
C 00 •
D 0
E 0
F 0
G
(4)
A
B 12-11-71
C
D 4-6-72
E
F 0
,3
(6XIIXI3)
A =
B =
t
STATUS or co:vLt.*;<:t
APO'L. rtL^UlUMi.llS
1 No
2 Yes
II No
1 Yes
2 Yes
CCtt£illS KC/Gr. UASCTI FSR CTIAV
Amended state order 4B-68-I la-29A Issued 3-5-70:
For (II) G 12-31-70
(2) G 6-1-70
Got (4X13) G 9-31-70
Amended state order 4B-69-070-IOA issued 4-15-71 for
(4X6X1 1X13): D 9-1-71; F 3-31-72; G 12-31-7?.
Clear warer report submitted 12-1-71.
Grant applied for aerated lagoons and chlorlnatlon.
Construction completed 5-72.
I,.'"'1- ffli'l (•) :• 'in M.I.MII (JO) C.hlr4 f>l.n1i,1f -<|j Uvir iV»r r.forl («) ftiM|.>i.i™i «r (?) fedintlwi, *n*tit «• IN) lion, (ll)MVltli, (u) Ci-cn"' ' «• K-nl«'r«l V-l'- (IDUUfe tlurVIUrr (IM tultilr If..-! •••'I'l
(Iri I".'1 '"'•> (•) Cn Vn.l.,1,. (litrr 1 JIIMI) |l| OltlalrctliM ilultliiil tnnlt .VululluliOT «(: M Jltii^vv. ml, , |'J) '.i-p-ui!:". M tmlnl ol jl.'l li.,u III) f-Ju !•.•• 0' :!l l-lnl
(III IIMI. .••.',' W) C.M..I :t ..|»l, (•) IMIJI«it l-trailm ()) Icna-:ir/ lrcj|w«t M '•>!••< " \ttimrt Jrt. AiU. (CD Oilc-il-. U*) t./jtn U-nnd, l,.:,u»'j 'i.m jlj) st •,»•«' '"•'' 1;l Cu'.iut-"tj
-------
Page 10 of 34
STATUS OF
GREAT
COMPLIANCE
LAKES REGION
ci'i 01 : .-;'v.•-'!'.'•*
WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
AUGUST 7, 1972
MWDO '•Ji;;:i"
WISCONSIN WIN Id PALI T|fS COJT.
M,jr motto
Mcsnom i nee
River
1,13, 4
Menasha Sanitary
District #4
Fox R.
I, 4,
13
Menomonee Falls
Menomonee
River
2. 4.
Or 8
D TOIAL
LIU'I })
C«l!«0 CO,;m,C!10.l
,
C4MI3)
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
0 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 9-72
(13)
G 9-72
(8)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 6-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 17-72
STAMS or C.'VLlAiCE
(13X4)
A =
B -
C =
D = 4-70
E = 5-70
F = 12-70
G =
(4)
A =
B =
C =
D +
E +
F +
G
(13)
G 12-20-71
(B)
A =
e =
c =
D +
E +
F + (parti a
0
SlAljS Of CO: ••'(.! ,V>:C
ACC'L. ft^V-'i i."L.-lTS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
)
"
Sta
G 1
Nev
se|
Pro
sho
Sta
Mil
reir
terr
Mi 1
cor
sor
Tht
(IV
CI l.illj
r 1 7.'jr|
l rjl t.li
(.'I I'll'll.l.cU.JI
(II k-c.«!ir/ Ir.-rt-.Tl
MI iv>f ..... -.
0 r,,..,i.-. * .«
State order 4D-70-I60-03 Issued 1-28-70 for
12-13-72. Grant offered 5-70 for additions to plant.
New treatment plant to be In operation by 9-72. Sewer
separation Is continuing.
Progress report indicated phosphorus removal facility
should be in operation by 12-72.
State order 4B-68-5-I8A Issued 2-27-70 to connect to
Milwaukee MSD by 12-72 or provide temporary phosphorus
by 12-72. Sewers under construction to connect
temporary treatment plant to Milwaukee. Discharge to
Milwaukee is contingent on completion of Milwaukee sewers
connecting the Jones Island & South Shore plants. At pre-
Milwaukee does not havo capacity to accept sewaqe.
Ir, no prop
-------
Page I I of 34
n •'•',- f r - ••'t " ;''
in) M...I HJ-
\J \ \ 1— /-\ I l_ r*\ I \ i— *-* i \ i— xx i >-" ' » 4"11 j | _~~ '
TATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS ' /«,.-=.:.,
MV/UO
LAKE MICHIGAN . — - -- -- - -
. R.
llch
4ich.
[Jill C'Mi..
I't 1 1
RLMOIAL nttiis
8
1. 9, 1
2, 4, 6
3, 4
„,,„
CSflKATiO 10U!
cu^i IMUUC.; t)
?i ift;:r;,.
PtlJIfitO C3'rtlSl"CTiai
SU iLJJl f
G 7-77
(6)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G 12-72
(3)
A
B
C
0 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
!,,.,,! («) «„.-.,'.
SIAIUS Of Cf B'l tA-CC
Cu.MUiUIll.1
G
(6)
A «
B =
C =
0 =
E =
F =
G
(3)
A =
B =
C =
D 10-29-70=
E =
F =
G
n.l UP
, i r, ,.,il
sutui cr cc -iLt.'-.t
AJU'L. C.V [IdlilJi
8 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
4 Yes
2 Yes
DM.!!...*-^!*
COMiilS t.'J/jn HIAiOl IW L.IA»
Connected to Milwaukee Mt . 1969.
Number of grants made for Intercepting sewers under con-
struction.
80% phosphorus removal now provided. The state requirement
is 85$ phosphorus removal which is to be met with method-
ology developed through FWQA funded research project. R 4
D grant for improving phosphorus removal. Grant application
made for plant modernization. Under construction.
Grant applied for (Initial phase of secondary treatment. ).
Plans and specifications for secondary treatment received
10-29-70. Plans approved for sludge thickener and final
clarifier 7-12-71. Presently under construction.
(It) In*. ("I "nil. (ill C .1 i. «.»i'" ;;] '••"
(i.| . in. ..,-«. in. , I') ' •••"" " •' '""jl " •' " ' ' .. , '
|'| VI.M.I '•'< r.i.ii'.lnn 0 vi" i.i( 1 •••! 1 IS) ' l-.,.i. •: In. » "i. UH U.I- '!'•. (.1'1,1'. '''•'." '.''. '!'';.. ,,,.''' : .' '.T", -. ',''',..'"'.'•"'.';'.,'' MM :.i. .. "• . •,',.,••
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
Page 12 of 34
wi i" !..'.wn>«
JULY I, 1972
tll'l'.ttl
MWDO
.ii:i.sui '.',js:. i iwau*
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES CO
South Shore Plant'
(Mi Iwaukee Met) cont.
.
Milwaukee (Howard Ave.
Water Treatment )
Milwaukee (Linwood Ave.
Water Treatment)
II,. (...-.in IK, MV.I »uir. 01 (
,..,..., ....... MI« • (•)*' •'.
|t. I..<1M.-I |-|i» 1.-
ui n... ri |ti|i. '•'••!
MCI i»:..: ttitB
ft.
L, Mich
L. Mich
• -....-ill (W) Mill.
•,lr ill.'.
:. . LI. (•) IIiill.'
ttl20IAL .'IllDS
7(S)
7(S!
MirJvlg
«ll l>ll-.l\IC1
.. '.!••-
tsnwno TCIU
COS] (HILLIU'I »
Mi'inl.M Mln'i
I) i.vli- i/er
i\ ulilntiiiii.
nr I XI. ft.
fKlJlRIO CO'ISIKOCTIO.!
SC.IIDUE
(4)
A
B 4-70
C 1 0-70
D I -7 1
E 6-7 1
F 7-7 1
G 1 2-72
A I-7I
B 3-7 I
C 5-7 1
D 8r7l
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 1 2-72
A I -7 1
B 3-7 1
C 5-7!
D 8-7 1
E 2-7?
F 3-72
G 1 2-72
hvni (() I'lmrii
.V.lil
ft I 'n"«'i
SMttS Or CCl-llKCE
ClilSlkUil IM
(4)
A =
B =
C 0
D 0
E O'}
F 03
G
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
iui «r
Ml f-l»4fll
Ivwl in.
SIAIUS or casi iw.£
AIltl'L. PiQJir.Ll^.fS
I Yes
L Yes
j'jiuniirivI'Jfi"
A.|.|, (Cl) fiilin.l.-
a*™ ***«**, »**
Has requested authorization to connect to Mi Iwaukee Met.
Has requested authorization to connect to Milwaukee Met.
IM iim. («) ituti. t«l tw«f' «• iiwu'p'i »/«i"> ijij i"'"*1 "'•"• Ultrr jj|j J;;1",1"/'"-!! I!'.!!1;!
.». . te'SffiiJ*. d!i HSS!! "' iiii Sliv1:"1.^
-------
Page 13 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS MWDO %u,..3,
LAKE MICHIGAN
~y,;te. »:(ll. .-•!::-.
WISCONSIN t.UJNICI PALI TIES CON
Mt. P!eas,1nt
Neenah-Menasha
Port Washington
„,. ,. .•' . ii, , i.tf-1 )•«•'• "' '•
«usiur.y,:i«
-_
P i ke R .
Fox R.
L. Mich
"Hi ;rr
'..u" J'' l'i.'.
.... 1 , ..1 11,..
«.»!* «B
8
1, 2, 4,
13
f3, 4, 9
fii'iLi.
[ / M«lt>
tMiKAUi) WAL
ItAl (MlLtlUI ()
trrrfiiAi nrrnt
1) ',-.,•(«. i/H-
J) W(.,..'t.r 1.
v. HUUJ|.
RfQJIftiil C3.Vj1fluCTI&l
SCIIltiXI
(4)
ft 6-70
3 8-70
; 10-70
3 1-71
E 6-71 .
F 7-71
G 9-72
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
(9)
G 7-77
5 Of CO ^-i I/- IE£
CUISHir.lKi
J 11-24-71
) =
E =
p =
O
A =
B =
C =
D 4-
E +•
F +
G +8-72
G
im «r
i r.' ...it
|.,M... •! III.
suius ci tc rt i. •••.:£
AtiD't. fii.gK'i-'U;^
8 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
;) f, luittpn, * '»*' «r
« |.|. [ll| llrl.,1.1.,
[t«IhTS^K*»C,.:fKt«
WDWR held hearing 12-5-67. Sewer lines constructed
5-26-69 to connect to Racine SO.
Amended state order issued 3-4-70: For (4HI3): G 9-30-72.
For adequate solids handling: G 9-1-70. Preliminary
plans for treatment facility submitted 11-24-71. Final
plans for sludge disposal facility approved 5-2-72.
Currently removing 80* phosphorus.
Grant applied for (secondary treatment end phosphate remova1).
Have been working on separation of combined sewers since
1568. Secondary treatment facility Including phosphorus
removal completed.
ff) IIM. (KJ M.ll, !«| <»"<•« IH""'!'' V>l« (HI I.
-------
Page 14 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS A^GDU0ST 7'«l?&
LAKE MICHIGAN ... ....
*-.i:..-:i«i .-. s i,.:.-.::oi
WISCONSIN MIIMIdPALITILS CO
Racine
New London
North Fond du Lac
ifl- :••'"- :!•• Pi»'.l jU'rt iV M
RiCtlVLiC V.UHS
NT.
L. Mich.
Wolf R.
Trlb.
Fox R.
P: I '--.rf
MHI-I.V. M[«
li 4, 9
2, 4
1, 2. 3
4
(SIIMTID 10»L
lu,l (MIUIC-I S)
smoiAiX""
FEQjlftUi C^'^IRl'CnO.I
(4)
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
(9)
G 7-77
(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
0 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
0 12-72
siAiui a c n<.-»i c,)\,..u i-..i,.,.-«-irt. *.'•!•„_., i,".! I';.,,*. f!Ii V.' °i? i\i "!ii*. (iuHh..'-s-- i.-»i no i..-'-"-..'.-"."' |ui AJ..-.;.J •.-.;' 'i •••
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
Page 15 of 34
DM! Cf !.r.-vil!u<
AUGUST 7, 1972
MWDO "*"*•"
>rt- r-i-.u-
i, r.nl N ,,
ii i.i... 1. 1
CiSIOiAKC S, 'nCE 1 tOCAJIO'i
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES CC
Oak Creek (Oakview Sub.
#3)
Oconto
Oshkosh
RCCEIVMC UAUHS
NT.
Trib.
Oak Creek
Oconto R.
Fox R.
Ki'iatn .iccos
1, 2, 8
2, 4
1, 2,'/3
4, 9
csnturco TOIAL
COST (miL10:i J)
uni\
(8)
D
G 12-72
(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(3)
D. .
G 12-72
(4)
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
(9)
G 12-77
L. 1*1 1 t_ti 1 1 v?r\ii
SIAIUS or CO-PLIKCC
0 1 1-70
G 7-25-72
(4)
A =
B =
C = .
D = 8-3-7
E
F 1-21-72
G
(31
D II -1-71
G
'(4)
A =
B =
•c =
D II-I-7I
E 0
F 0
G-
(9)
G
SIAIUS or CttrUKiCE
AWL. HCCiUIHIKNTS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
9 No
1 Yes
2 Yes
cc::;tiiis sia/tf. RLASC:I m oru»
State requires combined sewer separation, by 7-77. Phos.
removal facility presently under construction, 75? complete.
Grant offered for intercepting sewer. Amended state order
issued 1-30-70: For (2) 5-1-70; For (3X4) 12-31-72;
For (9) 12-31-77. Final plans for secondary treatment with
phos. removal approved 1-18-72.
-------
Page 16 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION .:„,,:-,»«
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS f^^7 ',}&?„
LAKE MICHIGAN . . . . - -
&.i: •. i=s.i<:i »IK*II» ruci 1.1 ":::." srKKi'sr " i'\";* t""r """ l!Ji '"XX'y™ «"!
i.".! .'::" '•'.'• !'•»' ••-'•••" o-i-N"..!"'' • i> *rvr."?!.!;:! "l l?ls:.r,!r;J"'> IttiEJV.'i.'lM; *. M^": Kjw.*. w c;7:;'r::,,.,. i; I,.,1:,;,.,,....,,, m> .<-...."..<
-------
Page 17 of 34
U K t A 1 L A l\ t b K L (j I U IN
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS AMUwr^ST •7',J,?JS2,,
— —- . - - .. - ,
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES CO'
p-rtd fe
Ri pon
Shawano
,,, r .••,- • ! , r.'T IU"1. rf (
,.., ., .-.., Hi--, (•) ; -;i
T.
Fox R.
SI tver Cr.
Fox R.
Wolf R.
•'...'. ij1f WM'Mi-
1, ? 4
1, 2, 3,
4
4
t »''.rl
(»j l,*t.tlr l/w
LAH
(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(3X4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
0 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
,,,,,., (,) nmt,
E MICHIGAN
(4)
A =
B 00
C 00
D 0
E 0
F 0
G
A =
B 0
C Q
0 4-3-72
E
F
G
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
m tr
t n evil
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
II No
1 Yes
2 Yes
II No
n^,.. ,.;r...
CO.VXI.Tj XIC/OI1 kLA',0, (01 DfLAT
Modified state order Issued 1-18-72 for (3)(4):
D 7-14-72; G 12-31-73. State requires elimination of clea-
water problem by 12-71.
State order issued 7-27-71: For (4) D 1-1-72; F 4-1-72;
G 1-1-73 or connect to Shawano Lake SO. For (9) G 1-1-73.
Resolution by city to contract with Shawano Lake 12-9-71.
Clear water report submitted 1-13-72. To connect with
Shawano Lake SO.
r,| I,.,., [NIK nit. Mfi tun.iHpil v.io ("1 '"!"* ('•>" »«" (1(l '•«'«'<• '•":'« .'•""'
i.) j'ii.'!«. I'll, . I1'' i'.-"""-" " ""•>'<>< •' !'-'l '-'•'" , 1"' r'*"'"" '.' •" '"""
!,;!!, ,'.''.' (J;. ,',.••. ..•',!• (•) i"i'.'."'l i.i,«l«i (I) htu'.Mii I ''."-it (i| .w-rr I ,,»..< in. fcM, mj um.. ; -. ; • ;i -/•,-.» '/, ;••;, .. ;; •";..•..;•;•.••..,.. !;.; V,1 ,;,.,,;,,,..• nil «;•,., -<•..-.. it,-.' ."i
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
Page 18 of 34
tut or :.ir:i,*.yi»M
AUGUST-7, 1972
MWOO : " "
BM'. .eim v vii I i.ia.iiM
WI'jOWOIN MUNICIPAL! 1ILS CO
Shawano Lake Sanitary
District
Sheboygan
Sheboygan - Water
Fi Itration Plant
tft; ri.'H'ill.l PIV.I JIMl*. IT Ot
(II In .1 H..-1 (•) *. VI.
CIIIIVMI.VMIK'.
IT.
Wolf River
L. Mich.
L. Mich.
I'l HIT
i .,,. l.lr (00) O'liln
J.I, |0.n
).,)• (•! l!,ill.,l
Mil DIM III IPS
2,13, 4
4, 9, 2
l!,/3
7(S)
l",'^)'
.•i il liii'Mtlm
IMIWIIU 1UIAI
HIM (nuiw 1)
tiiiiniM atim
"111 ij.,,l« H"
It) OHn.l.alm
1 l, 1
rafflsr11"
G 12-72
(4)
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 3-71
D 6-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
(9)
G 7-77
7(S)
B 3-71 .
G- 12-72
lYlWlt (0 fliOMJ,
MH
••iln'nl (I) Hru ar
\\M\ft III CIM II.VICI
G
A =
B =
C
D 6-20-72
E 00
F 0
G
6
7(S)
B 5-19-71
G
mi or
ill fl.-li'jl
l.muwd Irt.
MAIi'i 01 Il.nl-Vi'l
An. a. n'liiii-iniMS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
A,u, |LI) dili.ii>''
U::UuU MU/Ot". MMtit IUH UlAI
•'*
Grant applied for (secondary treatment, phosphate removal,
chlorinatlon) , Final plans for sewur system and secondary
treatment facility were approved 9-2-71.
About 5% of sewers remain to be separated. 180-day notice
'issued 5-9-72. Hearing held 6-21-72.
*
ft) lira. (II) Mill, («) dii'-it It K,,Mtlril «/««• 11) ;••)«* tlnr U4ltr JIM t,,t»ilr ^Mr jl fjjJJJJj-
WK-i?'^- , .'! ^''^['"T'!! "' i;l vr;p,'i!;'.t.r:t .»,.*VI::H'!ri..-...i
-------
STATUS OF
GREAT
COMPLIANCE
LAKES REGION
WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
Page 19 of 34
wit cr : .';vwno»
AUGUST 7, 1972
'?ut:t:s EI
MWDO
a,:c.-.:.: SV-:E i i-acsiitt
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES CO
Sheboygari Fal Is
Sturgeon Bay
Thiensvi 1 le
BECUYI (0 U\UKS
JT.
Sheboygan
River
Sturgeon
Bay Canal
Mil*. R.
RtliDIAL atEOS
4,M
4. II
1, 2, 4
II, 13,
9
rsntuTto TOTAL
REQUIRED C3:tSTRUCliai
SCHEDULE
(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(4)(II)(I3)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
0 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
(9)
G 7-77
SISIOS Of USOl IKEE
UMSIMJCIIU
(4)
A =
B = 8-5-71
C 0
D 12-28-71
E 0
F 0
G
A =
B =
C .
02-11 -72
E
FO
G
A =
B =
C
D 3-14-72
E
F 0
G
G
SltlUS OI.CO&LlffiXE
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 1 No
II No
1 Yes
2 Yes
CC.>:XIiIS MO/SK RlUCi IOR Ct'LAT
Sh'eboygan River Survey 9-70 states need for clear water
elimination. City has initiated sewer inspection and
elimination program. State order issued T-7-71:
FoH(4) B 3-31-71; D 8-31-71; F 3-31-72; G l'2-3l-72.
Clear water report submitted 3-3-71.- Extension granted
for submission of FP until 5031-71. Final plans for phos.
removal were approved 3-23-72. No regional water quality
has been approved.
State order 4B-70-IOO-OI issued 12-15-70:
For (4) B 3-31-71; D 8-31-71; F 3-31-72; G 12-31-72.
For (II) B 6-1-71; G 12-31-72.
Clear water report submitted 5-24-71.
. Must provide a temporary phos.
removal facility if permanent facility is not completed
by 12-72.
State order 4B-68-05I-24A Issued 10-20-71:
For (9X1 I): G 7-77 For (4): G 12-72; For (8): G 12-75.
Grant applied for (phosphate removal and chlorination).
Will connect to Milwaukee Met. Final plans for phos.
removal approved 3-14*72. Final plans for water main and
sanitary sewer extensions submitted 4-6-72.
••• T, /:,:'::;,.,„ *fiwx» ««««-* "KV, <<>---,,, "'»,:rr iM:^:":- fflMraw- IK '-JT Rf!L±^B?r::::;
1' '» ! " ''• •"""• I'.!?1,,',1, .!',.!, |.|ll«ll'.!..a''"'i«l« |1M« b',l,.-rt»nt (5) *•- OP l.|.P«wd TPt. * Id. (El) IM..I*. . II si)_JVf.» «. , •«": . „ , .<' ''I J ;7 r>... ... Ill {.^''l',, .T.!"',' MM W.,'1.1 ..?,'.,.•>:
-------
Page 20 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
AUGUST 7, 1972
tup.:,,? 31
MWDO
6-',!C.«H3 i'.JCi t l-'.Af:0"i
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES CO
Southern Colony
South Mi Iwaukee
South Mi Iwaukee Water
Treatment
KltnVl'S WAIUS
vlT.
Root R.
Canal, W.
Br. Root R
[.. Mich.
I. Mich.
fc-KCUIAl .tt£C5
2, 4
2, 3, 4
7(S)
UHKATfO TOTAl
CUil (KlUIOt 1)
KRulHD C3:olRl>Cllftl
iCIiiDUU
(4)
G 12-72
(3)
A
B
c- ,
0 7-68
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
(4)
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
0 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
IU1US Of COI-'UMCC
unsTfvcntu
G
(3)
A =
B =
C =
0 =
E «
F =
G -*
(4)
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =
G 1-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
sutus OF ci>-mu.;[
AOD't. atguiRUk'f.rS
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
1 Yes
13 No
CttI
Determined by Stale tha
If hospital Is bui It th
Grant offered for secon
removal 10-8-70. Constr
State order 4B-70-5-6 !
Plans to connect to sefc
Will be in compliance a
S A'iO/CK M«,Ctt ft* MUf
G 12-31-72.
j.l I .,1 1 '..LrUlt
!;b;,,i;;.±,,.
J tifM.1t
r 1 )r"!
'.-ul |.lrml«
',. .,1* i/|.f 1
Ol.i'.J. iU..»
ll.nnljr, h,
»wtft«>l Pi- -ortl
I!) Hn »r l-l»un'< It.
(I) f Vllw, «r
Xrulfjtiutt
>>K, Mi (
'fd Itw, 1«) Ihltll,
Jlliuc », Oil.
(I) CK..-.I M HiMclfil S/<
W i.,>.n(i».. or tinml »l
till, JV.
S/
-------
Page 21 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
em oi !.'.-'.;iu«
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
AUGUST ,7. 1972
MWDO W :"
:.-.-.. A,l5i,..:t l «;,;c:,
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES co
I WO KJVfjT'j
Wauoaca
, i, Hi r v IK"' i'i '
,.,: ,, i, ....,,!.», j'l ;'.„.'.
KUU1.1G ...MIRS
JT.
1 win R.
L. Mich.
Waupaca R.
H' ,'f
i ,i, (M ftUi.i
•.t. I"..-.
r .,|. (•! Ml,
MI-iUIAL MEK
2, 4
3, 4
i',r,J)
tSTIMUO TOIAL
IOM (MILLIE I)
hrriiint :m«
' 1) !...!( l/vi
I) U.lnl Ul, i
1} V i -.1.111, 1,
^""scuSl'*^1"1''
(4)
A
B 1-69
C
D 6-69
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
(3)
G 12-72
(4)
D 1-1-72
G 1-1-73
«i -in (i|'"'"'
SUIuS 0." COVIIAICC
CCUilhUTIG.1
A -
B =
D 6-28-72
E
F 0
G
(3)
D II -14-60
E =
F = 6-22-70
G
(4)
A
B
C
D
E
G 10-71
r»l a
•\ t. .<•>!
»" (HU.< "< '"",'" fc-"1"1 "' j|'' .'."'", 1, „! "" "il'^lii'l-'l
-------
Page 22 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
DATI cr :.r:;
JULY I, 1972
MWUO WK'ic"
Ifr: (".'U-ll''! '"'•'
DIS1C-AKD S'.VKt I ItXAMO*
WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES CO
West Bend
ncaivi.ic uicis
IT.
Mi Iw. R.
RtrXDIAl SEEDS
1, 4,
13
ESTIIUTEO lOr/U.
CUM (MUltM I)
RCQUIRED C0.1S1RUCIIU
SCHEDULE
(4)
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
6 12-72
(11X13)
A
B
G 12-72
SIAIUS or amuncc
cttismucno.(
(4)
A +
B =
C 00
D 0
E 0
F 0
G
(1 IHI3)
.A +
B H-
G
STATUS or catfiiA"CE
AOO'L. eEOumitrms
1 No
2 Yes
WrZHIS X'10/OK KfAMM fOR OrLAT
Amended state order 4B-68-05I -25A issued 2-20-
UHIIMI3): G 12-72. Preliminary report on c
and secondary treatment did not Include ph'osph
'I..-U til •-. ,r-M« (UO) tliMri'l ^iMJult
«„ -, I, (U.ri 1 inrl
(.-I :n.li-.l *,t.i-.l.ili (•) Uiill.-l.-ril tiln.l
• -v !i,n I ..<•! Cl.ui I./ Mile
" (1) \nf\i Ha Hi-
U) llllll.lctllun
.u
(M iti-M ur 1»i-iu«c4
Id n<»i IY<">II>«
(I) (.-^iHllxi, Itwil or
.XnluMigllKi «'•
fcld, (Cl) IMwl*.
(OI Cu|.,>:r. (HI) (j.i.
I.) linn, (II) IWlll.
ii) Ju..,„.-,. mi. ,
IU4I) n.*ijrn [. rjn-1.
I,.I 11.1-lljl. f.) '.ullJl.
I.I I-.I. .
{() CmiMI 10 rt.ilrlpil !,li
ti • Mi--J ^r--r»
(ID) \lvi« li>tr licili^nt
(11
f •(!«* tint wmr III) tuliulf rmiji ''j'j'JJ'
•It In-il-K-nl (ii>in^
-------
Page 23 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
cm ci !.':.%XIIIH
JULY I, 197.?
MWDO ^'"•"°5'
KsiCiAito i'j.":t i ICCAMXI
WISCONSIN INDUSTRIES
Anaconda:Amorican Brass
Company, Kenoshd
Badger -Paper Mi 1 Is, Inc.,
Peshtigo
American Can Company,
Green Bay
RCUIVInC WURS
L. Mich.
Peshtigo
River
Fox R.
RCIIDI/U. xm
7(Cn,Cd,
Cr., N'i,
Cu, Zn,
Pb, Fe,
Phenols!
1, 7
(BOD &
S) or 8
1, 1
(BOD &
S) or 8
[SIIIUUO 10MI
CUi! (
,,,! |,i ..... ,.,
11*1". if ti»vn/:'[
-I A'.cin v.ijjlj
• On '..'. I.It
0) r.l.l,,-! Vi,,Mt
(M| MM '.ilcrtiW
(0>rr 1 Jrrir)
(•) V ...... "Jl Itlnu
I) lj-|i). t/K B.
I) Oltlnlctllu
(I) fhtil
.
*iuluMljtli« of:
Ail«, (Cl| Illluililr,
ll) hmi, (n) H'Ul
It) :mni>;cn( Oil.
15!
|IJ) Cdimi-d 1ft HViltltll */t1l
l.-|.jrjtlnn or tnMio! til
tt bl»fJ *.r->-n
II) I..1.J. ClnrWiIrr (IV) l.ilwu ''••«••! 'nMlli.
ir! St.,,, [li| r-j.iiun ui -'11 Ciiinil
IJJ HI ,.,.!. I»-4l--nl I III."I!
t n
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
Page 24 of 34
PHI ci i. •;
AUGUST 7, 1972
MWOO «<'•>-=»
,'V.erican Motors (Main
Plant) Kenosha
Berg^trom Paper Company,
fleenah
Charm in Paper Products
Company, Green Bay
LAKE MICHIGAN
L. Mich.
L. Mich.
Fox R.
Fox R.
8, 15
7 .(oi 1)
1, 7
(BOD &
S) or 8
1, 7
(BOD &
S) or 8
G 12-72
G 12-72
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
7 or 8
A 6-70
6 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
G 1970
G 1970
7 or 8
A =
B =
C 0
0 0
E
F 0
G
8
A =
B =
C 00
0 00
E
F 0
G
1 Yes
1 Yes
ln.pl ant comb i net
PJating wastes 1<
separat ion f ac i I
completed.
DNR order 48-68-
explored several
connect to Neena
received approve
cause a modest r
DNR order 4B-68-
I2-3I-72. Contr
Bay MSD I-I8-7I.
held" 6-20-72.
!•!(
i I ,r.r)
UIIMV :ilf«
(I) 1.•<•!'• l/Kr R'lidil
M IMllnlral.o
|j) iiiu.>ln/ li.JJI-.nl
(I) nw
Contract signed for joint treatment with Green
180-day notice issued 5-9-72. Hearing
«.M, (fU I"l '»
(til '-H'Ki. lUil <
I.) lio». In) Mi
M :illi(,fn, oil,
(«) d*" 'i »
(9) '.i.i.ijlioi.
'
*»'
-------
Page 25 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION »,.,...,„-
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS AUGU5T 7f'J,9;7»
LAKE MICHIGAN MWDO
.1 ,.-.. i 4. -•• H i-
. Fox R.
Fox R.
Fox R.
, ,,',i,l, (,)t)|Mln
BLUDIAL .ItlDS
1 , 7
(BOD
& S) or
8
1, 7
(BOD &
S) or 8
1. 7
(BOO &
S) or e
ESTIMATED TOTAL
COST CUUICI J)
" 1) v'i.,ile l/rr
ngjiun csisTnucnai
stii;i,j'.i
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
7
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
0 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
.,, r, ,
STATUS CE CT-J'LIA;.:;:
ccMill^cnoi
7 or 8
A =
B =
C 0
D 3-22-72
E
F 6-72
G
7
A =
B =
C =
D 00
E 00
F 0
G
7
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =
F »
G
MI or
STATES or C'3 -ru,v:t
1 Yes
1 Yes
1 Yes
1} T.'.'Su tltw, Pi"'tiv*l W
CO.--UIS MO/Ok HiAlU, rcia tflAT
Amended state order 4B-68-I 1 3-6HA issued 12-16-69 for
(7) or (8). Final plans for primary industrial waste
treatment facility approved 3-22-72.
Modified state order 4B-68-lla-9B 'Ssued 5-9-72 for treat-
ment facility by 6-30-73 with effluent characteristics of
35 pounds/ton BOD (maximum 4900 pounds/day) and 20 pounds/
ton suspended solids (maximum 2800 pounds/day). Mill may
close.
Amended WONR order 4B-68-lia -| IA issued 12-16-69 for (7) or
or (8). State stipulation amending order to require 90?
BOD (10,200 pounds maximum) and 90$ suspended solids
(27 ,300 pounds maximum) by 12-31-72 agreed upon 3-4-71.
Proceeding with construction.
ii,| i,*. (in ",i.ii. (ii) t D «-• i Vi" ii) I..),.., ci,.r ».irr MM f..i-..i. '.;••;• '«!»•;
u .in,.., ..mi. - '<) ',..'- -Ji'.". cr rf-iui PI I.)'.. -.. (n| r.d,..i,,,» , .11 iniiui
,,,) i...,i H. . ]>'•'•• ••<• i'"'> ' '"'i it in' .ii"> -." .. "••-;,•-:• -;., ii. n a.,' .'t..«'i ' c,..i.J't-rs 1.1 »- , i.- ii,..i>.»t i.-.m-.-.i
' '' i
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
Page 26 of 34
CMl Cf Z.^-.
AUGUST 7, 1972
MWDO '"""-="
CLl!C«m3 S*l..;t < lOCAiltt
WISCONSIN INDUSTRIES CONT.
Ft. Howard Pdper Company
Sewage Treatment Plant
George A. Whiting Paper
Company, Menasna
Gilbert Paper Company,
'Menasha
KUtlVI-iC WAUHS
Fox R.
Fox R.
FOX R.
RilIDIM. MUD!
None
I, 7
(BOD &
S) or 8
i; 7
(BOD &
S) or 8
ESllKAUO TOTAL
cost (Billion I)
KQV1RED CO:iSTRUttlO.I
:ciitoou
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
0 U7I
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
STATUS or cxetLUU
CCUIII:J:MO.<
7 or 8
A =
B =
C =
D =
E
F
G
7 or 8
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =
G +
SIAIUS OF CO •j'LIAiJCE
ACO'L. KQumiSHlS
1 Yes
1 Yes
CC::».IIS KO/IA U»U l» UtAI
In- 1969 connected to Green Bay SD, abandoned p
Amended WDNR order 4B-68-I 1 9-I4A issued 12-16-
(8) by 12-31-72. Appears to be 'making adequa"
toward compliance.
Amended WDNR order 4B-68-I la-15A issued 12-16
Connected to Nee
system 7-1-70. All process wastes being disc
municipal system since rag pulping was discon
7-1-71, except water clarifier sludge which c
by 7-73.
<-.'U ui i>..t!jlc (00) ll'Mi"! '.il*d»1f " (I) l-vl' «V"r »'TU1'
CT '..•.. I.It Vn" 1 f"'l 111 Dlslnr«llcn
- «-. > i. l'\ I'till.i MI di.n'.tnn (ilVo*-l.tr» ttt-U-'i-nt
(S) :ii. af t'l'mtti lit.
(I) IWmllon, ti-tovit o
^itttullJJlir'i of:
«. IK, (CD Oilu i-i<>.
(fr) Iron. (H) 'Vt.ll. U) Ccm-, I t. R,.lcl,il S,«t^ (II) r .«!.* Clr.r Wrr MM t,.lo,l, f,,.;-t JjMllli.
Ill IllinVn Oil W Iv,'J'JMu. or tmliol ol I!,1 •....•» .«= (H) lnl«|i.n i!l -II Itlll.H
K)0 y,JJ't "
-------
STATUS OF
GREAT
COMPLIANCE
LAKES REGION
WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
Page 27 of 34
mil or : if;
AUGUST 7, 1972
MWDO fuf":D"
CLSit-iMiO S-.-SfC I I30\rt0*
WISCONSIN INDUSTRIES CONT.
Green Bay Packaging, Inc.
Green Bay
Hipke Packing Corp.,
Cleveland
J. 1 . Case Company,
Racine
John Strange Paper Compar
Menasha
ICCEIVUC WMUS
, Fox R.
Center vi 1 1
Creek
L. Mich.
y. Fox R.
RirioiM. nctrs
1, 7
(BOD '&
S) or 8
s None
13
1, 7
(BOD 4
S) or 6
ESTtllATEO TOTAL
CUil (KIIL10.1 {)
f«ul»£o c-aicucnai
ttiilOJlE
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
G 11-69
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-60
C 10-70
D 1-71 '
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
STATUS OF CO FUME
CICBIMJCIIOI
8
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =
G
G = '3-1-70
7 or 8
A =
B =
C
D
E
F
G
suiuS OF ccmtAJiiC
ACD'L. RLQUIfcU&llS
1 Yes
1 Yes
OKXIIIS toO/OK UttC.1 ItIR 0£LAT
DNR order 4B-68-I la-!7A Issued 12-16-69 for (7) or (8) by
12-72. Has been implementing changes since 1970. Latest
progress report indicated they 'are in compliance with water
qua 1 ity- standards at nearly all of their outfalls.
Indicated that further system improvements to provide
capability to handle upset conditions will Insure meeting
all requirements by 12-72.
WDNR reports company in. compliance with State and Federal
requirements. Treatment facility began operation 3-1-70.
Have experienced a few operational failures. Shore protection
under construction 7-12-72.
Amended WDNR order 4B-68-I la-22A issued 12-16-69 for (7)
or (8) by 12-31-72. Concentrated waste waters discharged"
to municipal system. Further evaluation Is necessary to
determine if order requirements have been satisfied. Con~
tract not yet signed with Neenah-Menasha Sewerage Commission,
however, company is depositing $10,185 per month for use of
the Menasha sewer system until contract is signed. Mill
is implementing a close-up of its sewer system and elimina-
tion of outfal Is.
SIM", a C<"ll«Cf
' (.] J... ..I I .. ..-"l.V
Mr., -..,.•.I,
|*| trtlnJ •.'..Me
(CO) M.lll Ttt.c4..1l
(U..-r I ,r.,r)
(•} h.lljt Til Ill'tlllolt
tmntu. wrni
-MVli.VVc'i/Orr
(») r
(S)
w or l>;>iow< Irt.
lMlli«> cil:
», IJ. (I I) (MuM.-.
lr..l r. -i r fi'M '<
(I.-l hfn. (II) :v|jl>,
(li) -n, nil, ,
(!,:>} . ;-..n I ..»!.
(n) Co«wrt In
(HI l.ilu*Clwrlljlrr I'M rvjli.
(l.'| •,....» lltl r ,:•:
(Hi >l ,«tr lirH-Ql ti—
ml |..,<„:,,•.,I.,... (l/i/.M>
-------
P.iqo 28 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
AUGUST 7,"|972""
MWDO "'->.!"
.
>.1!C..-HC S'.,*tl I ij.AT.Oi
WISCONSIN INDUSTRIES CONT.
Kimberly-Clark, BaJger
Globe Mi 1 1
Kimberly-Clark, Kimberly
Mi 1 1
KlUlVi.tG ^Alt«
Fox R.
Fox R.
U 7
(BOD 4
S) or 8
1, 7(S)
COS! imi'.ICH It
^umif)-KHxnu]
SCtllDUtC
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D I.-7I
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
7
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
STATUS Of £0^1!-' £1
Cy-iSIKU^UO.1
7 or 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G =
7
A =
B =
C +
D =«
E =
F =
G =
SUTJS OF CG;PUAl.a
1 Yes
1 Yes
CCT2.JS A.'10/C'f: fifASGI f&ft OCU1
_
WDNR order no. 4B-68-I la-24A Issued 12-16-69. All except
a small portion of wastes directed to Neenah-Menasha
Sewerage Treatment Plant. Has completed in-plant co! lectiai
and monitoring facilities of all process wastes tc allow
all wastes to be discharged to Neenah-Menasha sewerage
system when it is enlarged. Present discharge meets
State order requirements.
WDNR order ho. 48-68- 1 la-25AA issued 3-5-70.
* Plans and funding for collection sewers complete.
Plans for waste water treatment facilities submitted -
2-12-71 and approved on 4-12-71. Contracts have been
let and construction is proceeding with no apparent
problems in meeting deadlines. Sewer construction
essentially complete 7-5-72.
-------
Poge 21) of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS /™"r 7v,,l?7?,
LAKE MICHIGAN
P.SI-.SUE v..s.ci i icCAUCi
WISCONSIN ^INDUSTRIES CONT.
Kimberly-Clark,
LaKeview Mill
Kimberly-Clark,
Neenah Di vis ion
Kimberly Clark STP
Midwest Breeders,
Shawano
I/I C-'.''l I! ''I ' "'! Smt", nr C
1 ••'•! 'l-'l " ('I »'- •'•
|l.| li. .1 H. . j-j IV '..'_
fox R.
Fox R.
Fox R.
Wolf R.
n !» I'l
1 ,.,. Mr (DO) It+lml
•..I* lli.'l
••-,1,1. I'l u. Ill
1, 7(S)
or 8
1. 7
(BOO &
S) or 8
None
2 and £
or 13
•:l\fl lit
1 >•")
Ttl l.lrdtiM
srttom WM
' (1 "U,ili I/or
I/ OIUM.UI...1
li Vtuiillff 1.
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-7Q
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
(8X13)
G 12-72,
7 or h
A =
B =
C
D
E
F
G =
7 or B
A =
B =
C =
D-
E '
F =
G
(8)(I3)
G
1 Yes
1 Yes
2 Yes
K.Wt (1) Pl«phrr«l m W 'i'««"l«. »"»«' •'
Ikllliul Hi'.JMl ImlnllUllv" •(•
cUi»ll< lil it. «r If»au4 1ft. fclJ. (Ill lulu I*.
WDNR order no. 4B-68- 1 la-26A issued 12=16-69. Strong
wastes go to city. Others go to primary sod imontat ion
then to river. Clari tiers were approved 5-10-67 and are
operational. Present discharges within requirements of
order.
WDNR order 4B-68- 1 1 a-27A issued. 12-16-69 for (7) or (8)
G 12-31-72. All pulping wastes directed to
Neenah-Menasha sanitary sewers. Two-thirds of paoer mill
effluent to sewage treatment plant. Company indicates
it will cooperate with Neenah-^enasha Sewerage District in
joint facilities. Has completed in-plant collection
faci 1 ities under approved plans to al low al 1 waste waters
to be discharged to Neenah-Menasha sewerage system when
adequate capacity is available.
Wastes to go to Shawano Lake SD.
!Ie) Iron. (H) Mill, (1) ttwrl u »i»1clp>l V>»"
II) .lll.ujjr,, oil, . |») 1, ,ijli«i«r fi-nlill •»
IUI'| 0-rjl" 1. .»«. d l.lir«l,..f»
11) (uUM Clcir llJlrr (111 [««lmli fr«ii»« f'dlll
I:) :, ,-,« (Ill 1. ' .ti«" (' i» Ulliil
II) «.i ,, '!" I'l'l'-'" ,„ .'"""' ""''
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
Page 30 of 34
0/,-i tii i.
JULY I, 197?
MWDO '"'""'•'"
RS.Ci..:c ,,.,„! , ixa,rj,
WISCONSIN INDUSTRIES CONT.
Nicolet Paper Corp.,
West De Pere
Paper Converting
Machinery Company,
Green Bay
Peter Cooper Corp.,
Oak Creek
Peter Cooper Corp.
Waste Treatment Plant
B!C(IVI r, MICKS
.Fox R.
Trib.
Dutchman
Creek
L. Mich.
L. Mich.
niXDUL .1ECDS
1. 7
(BOD '&
S) or 8
5 or 8
5
13
tsntwHD TotAi
COST iniiiKn i)
REQUIRED CO-'iSTRUCTIO.!
5CI.EIM.E
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
G 10-68
A 1-71
B 3-71
C 5-71
D 8-71
E 2-72
F 3-72
G 12-72
S1AIUS Of CO!PLlA:tCE
7
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =
F =
G = 4-71
G 10-68
A
B
C
D
E
F
G =
SIAIUS OF CiiVLlA'KC
AtilTl. KGUIUIItolS
1 Yes
catxim MO/OR SLtt.cj fOj otur
WDNR order 4B-68-I la-33A amended 12-16-69.
Plant in operation by 3-71. Facilities to consist of a
collection system and two clari tiers.
10-68: Connected to Green Bay Met.
Connected to MI Iw. Met. Sew. Comm. 7-5-70.
Connected to Milwaukee Metro.
: fl<|1.'.:|V"'il'.'?J"!r!i.| ''l.'"/-''"'".^!. (00) MM '.clr*.1c -MV J»>lc"/»r nrtort (() Pto1?sorrt .r
! I,,!',.!..: .) .l.-.l. .1. Ir (Hu-i I yr
-------
Page 31 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION ^ «,«,,,,«,«
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS 'J^87 7'J£??,
LAKE MICHIGAN
DISIC.AICO v--<:c t LOCAIIC.I
WISCONSIN INDUSTRIES COMT.
Pine River Dniry Co. ,
Mani towoc
Riverside Paper Corp.,
Appleton
Scott Paper Company,
Oconto Fa 1 1 s
til. Mi1. iMHn l.»'l }1AH*. II' f*
' ' I. i r,ft--«ni film ('i '•«•!
jl I lii.il rlj-l (•) Cn '.I'.
|l i I.,.. I-, j.||f'-'ll
li r.. 1. r: -i (l«u
RCCEIVI..G W'MLHS
L. Mich
Fox R.
Oconto R.
I'll '•:<•!
1 >..cl,i!< (00) Mlir
|'..,n 1 Jr.r) GIII'I
StliUIAl .'ICIOS
None
i; 7
(BOD 4
S) or B
1, 7
(BOD &
S)
i'y'.r)
•ul [ ili.itlcn
t>r SUic
ESI llttitt 10IAL
CU>I (HILIIC.-I 1)
Ml^ntAI Iill^
' (1) l^ulo |V»r
/ UIU.ll.ctl"
1)) •••IH.J../ 1.
br I.^ltJ.t
REdUIRIO CK.SISlKIIO.1
7 or 8
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
A 5-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
n.-imii (0 ri.oti*'
Mid
•II-.-I.I ('.) ill-w 1"
.a o MJ..I t
SIAUS 01 CC.=II^:E
7 or 8
A =
B =
C =
D 1 1 -8-7 1
E 1-72
F =
G
A =
B =
C =
"D = 10-4-71
E
F 0
G
ml or
H tlK'UMl
!•!.. ..,.-« Irl.
sJS!£."««Smi'iSfl
1 Yes
1 Yes
A'lil"|CI) Oillil*.
COSJ.'ITS A'.O/OK fit«til fOR OfUT
Ridge and furrow system and pond for cooling water installs)
1970
WDNR order no. 4B-68-I la-36A amended 12-16-69. Portion of
wastes going to city. Negotiating with city for treatment
of balance of the wastes. Appleton Sewage Treatment
Plant cannot handle wastes now, but might by end of 1972.
Project under construction.
Amended WDNR order 4B-69-I40-05A issued 7-26-71 for (7)
by 12-72. Final plans were approved 12-6-71. Time
extension granted for initiation of construction by
6- -72. Petitioned city for joint treatment 5-1-72.
M lion, |H) IW.1l, . Ill Cc.™-a to thnlclpll :>llr« 11 l«l»l. flv»r Uj|,r (IS) t«l.;l» '«»;« [•;'"<•
II) ailioitn. Oil. , |v| l.|..utl.'ii or tuiltol ol l;i,.rn (H) I..J...1IW yl^'l li'l-ll
jnldr. 1*1 lta.';i',' (iMoildt. III!) Sl'.inlr.cr I,, ..I II \..!M IVi-«lliiii |l/) AJ,.",u 1 .<.;.'-''.••'!
.,1 1. . ' M ' .1
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
Page 32 of 34
AUGUST 7, f1972
MWDO
(Oil
10! Ai.
inn D
r OS
i ih"
' "i'i\,
KC3JSREO CXISIHUUIO.I
SCI.[OUIC
7
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
L 0-71
F 7-71
G 12-72
G 12-72
7
A 6-70
B 8-70
C 10-70
D 1-71
E 6-71.
F 7-71
G 12-72
fiv«i («l fwii''
it"""' |i) fiJ."
STA1US OF C&!?IIA;tCt
C6..SIIU.IIOI
7
A =
B =
C =
D = i:'-2-7l
I
F i 5-72
G
G
7
A =
B =
C =
D = 8-10-71
E
F 10-18-71
G
'Jl W
t.t K.'«vl1
is .J irt.
snius or co •'LIDICE
I Yes
I Yes
r) EiduitlPfl, K^Kjill «r
»U4, (III CliU., I.V.
Ci.-.tM »S/C> K^.11 (OP KL.«
WDNR mod 1 f i ed orders issued 12-14-71 tor (7) by 12-31-72.
Extension granted on plans to 4-1-71. Research grant on
reverse osmosis water reuse.
WDNR order 48-68- II a-41 A Issued 12-16-69. Presently
have savealls and lagoons. Final plans for primary and
secondary treatment facility approved 9-16-71.
Construction proceeding according to engineering timetable
Expects to be in compliance by 12-72.
Factory c 1 osed 1 n 1 ate 1 97 1 .
c,-! li«i, (»:! ruiU, It) ti.i».ui it *»"••:"•"'• (ll) li.i... f,ecj|in III) AJ. -.(rt.utt •"•<
-------
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN
Pogo 33 of 34
Cttf C*l
AUGUST 7, 1972
MWDO
D'.ir.-a: i vsa t ua.UC*
WISCW. l?l INDUSTRIES CONT.
U.S. f'jper Mill Corp. ,
Wc-,t IK- ;V:ro
Wl'.i un-.in 1 Irc.trfC
Pi.wor (,orn|i my, 0 I>.-J|L.l l» Hj»IUMl 5»lli« HO I'-I"J>
'
I'll l'lt»"t lf«-l l
(U) I '^ u>» vf -U t
-------
Page 34 of 34
GREAT LAKES REGION
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS JJ^ST 7J,I??,
LAKE MICHIGAN .. -
MIS..!* *..«•-. IKSIW,
wr.niiT.m iiiinr.iMi '. ami'.
WK< oir. In I'lirtui olid Liijhl
Corripony, Ldguwater
Power FMjnt, Sheboygan
in: E'-'"'",'11;; ';;"„„., i'j'iV'r.iv'
HUM**™
L. Midi;
1 v.riilt 100) OiMnil
M. (O.'i
'. i.i.M> 1*1 lullil
MI10IIU. NLlOl
itl.cJule
1 ,wr)
^tit 1 iii'itlon
[SI1MIIO TOMl
CM (nliilra I)
"('irsiiVf/or
(; IllilnlnlUo
(l) ll'lUI'lll^ It
uintmo coniRuciio-i
ICIIlMI
BiV"t (*) ""»?>>
.lulll
ujlmnt (S) .'In or
Slain! Of CcKUIA-itt
rut or
III Kl'lUVll
Kl'tutfil Irt.
SIHUS Of CO.-i'llil-t
ADO'L. KKjulhUkHIS
1 Yoa
ccsniiiis /ttu/CR aiASOi FCR D:IAY
r.) Iron. (K) IWjl». (8) tt«.Kl to n..lcl.il S»ilt. 11) t«l,o. Cli-ir Mr' jl!j trtlult rrr.t-t riilllli
1) .llliiiij'n. Oil. (») Ju.rjlli.nl-t 'anlul of l.'j't-itl (H| frO-iliM- .f -11 trltiiil
HM.)II.,».,,IK..,,I,' CI.H..-I'."-» i' "• •,-"'• TI»I.-»I .„. ';•••" ""',
...1.1. I.1I......1 HI '...ii.1... llul MM.. •.,-.. r h,.|..-.il III !-...,• r,.,j|l,-,l |l>)«.Mtif4.j.t. t>M -i|
-------
FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
MU Or ;,.r*WT!i*
Aug. 1972
rn.tt.ni i ti
».M.»h«..UC«,U
-UM)IS
U.S. \'3vy. Great Lakes
r.ava 1 i ra i ning Centei
Great Lekes (Lake Co
Naval Reserve
Training Center
(Armory)
Chicago (Cook Co. )
1
S
UCIKM ««U«S
L.Mich.
L.Mich.
L.Mich.
L.Mich.
L.Mich.
Chicago
Harbor
( 1 nner)
- Industrial
- Sanitary
UI40IAI MIOS
4 or 8
4 or 8
7
(FeHM)
3
3, 2
3, 2
M
H
Present
Treatmen'
3, '
3, 2
None
None
None
None
' - Mace
" - Hold
M*IHD COISTRUCTIW
SCHCOUU
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
-ator-Chlor i
ing Tank
STATUS OF CC^LIAHt
Fl -
CO C
CO 7-72
PP
CO 0
CO =
nator
Poo, and/or
I,560 GPD
S 3500
1 400
S 27,500
S 8.8
SB - Settl i
ST - Septic
COtlHTS 4HC/M RCU01 FOU Kl»T
Construction of the NSSO Gurney Plant is estimated to be
completed by February 1974. Connection of the Great Lakes
sanitary sewer system to the North Shore Sanitary District
will be made after construction of the plant.
No phosphorus removal is anticipated before the Great Lakes-
North Shore hook-up. Request for funds for phosphate removal
has been denied by the Naval Chief of Coirmand.
Concept plans are being initiated for bjck stop at the Skeet
Field and Rifle Range to prevent fire arms from being dis-
charged into the Lake.
Boiler blowdown contract should be completed by f'eceffiber 1972
Boiler blowdown line will be connected to NSSO sewer system
when NSSD plant is finished.
Water treatment plant filter backwash and sedimentation sludg
discharged into the Lake via the storm sewer system. Present
plans call for diversion of these wastes to the Great Lakes
sanitary sewer system, and then to the NSSD facilities.
Construction completed to divert Armory effluent to municipal
sewer system.
ng Basin for removing solids SC - Start construction
Tank
riMiil Kc «•)
' lu.,r.,,.il Itl.
(I.) 1,1,11. !") null, («) Cuimt.t III nunlilptl Ifttw
fell). Ill) MailJ.
.
...I. IM ..,]!*. (10) Slur,. S
II) r.:l.,» (Itv I
Ill »j., ,*!• Tr*a|r«nt (,^iMj*u
III Kfv^ Oytntloo (U) M'ln.tJ lull lrMl»
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
Aug.1972
^...,-i3S.,.:i. LX.no,
L :-.~'is
L1 . S . ^ rrr.v
Hj. Ft. Sheridan
FT. Sheridan (Lake Co. )
1
S
. ' . .1.'. ..,,, ru* ' (•) . -..i
' , i.... .in, i.| .,. •..«
«ctivi>c utms
L.Mich
L.Mich.
• Industrial
• Sanitary
' • u.i« «M 9*t*i
4 or 6
4 or 8
';'«*!•
Present
Treatmen'
3, 2
3, 2
MC -
HT -
ill i.-rw fc»
ii "±ii;;'i"
SCrtiDulE
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
Holding Tan
*V* {•) ».il*
^^Mi| {tl i«« «r
ST*TUS ^ L-JVL!;j,k
CO 0
i lor in* tor
f«i »r
i», -< m.
BASIN
Po~6T"an3/or
I ,000 GPD
S 542
SB - Se
ST - Se
iu?it>trs JLNO/M KASCM FCM HIM
Concept plans have been compleled for diverting Ft.Sheridan
effluent from Lake Michigan to North Shore Sanitary District
Clavey Road plant. However, 1 he construction completion date
will not be before FY 74, because Skokic Valley intercept-
ing sewer is behind schedule.
It is not anticipated 1hat phosphate removal facilities will
be installed before the tie-in between NSSD and Ft.Sheridan
sanitary sewer systems.
tllng Basin for removing solids SC - Stort
itlc Tank
(••) lc.«. |»| «,«H. Ml f...«. I I. *»1, lf*l V«M> (Ml I., I.* Our
(>, 411,,.^, on, , |l! WU.IIOTH t«,»l rf („! .^,,,
M»H«I (IT) 4d.#.u
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
aut w lU
Aug. 1972
ai;-J7CD $;•.«.•£ t IOUTIM
IfSIA'iA
-'^ __!_,
U.S. Coast Guard
Indiana Harbor
' East B«*. C.G. Statii
(Lake Co.)
U.S. ' Arny
.VJIKE .C-G Site 32
Cnesterton (Porter Cc
NIKE C-G Site 45
Gary (Lake Co.)
NIKE C-3 Site 47 '
1 -
S -
UCCIVIHS 4«CU
Lk.Mich.
in
Coffee Creel
.JLittle Cal
met River,
Burns Ditch,
Trib. to
Lk.Mich.
Dl.'ch Trib.
to Grand
Calumet R.
to L.Mich.
Ditch Trib.
to Burns
Ditch to
L.Mich.
Industrial
Sanitary
RMD1JU. MiOS
Nona
None
u-
MC
HT
Present
Treatmen
3, 2
3, 2
- Macerat
- Holding
KQOIUD CMSTBUCTIO.I
SCUCWU
ar-Chlorlnat
Tank
STATUS OF mnilKl
CO.ISIEUCIIO.I
CO -
CO =
DP
T?8ooaSP6or
S ,.45
S 7. 1
SB - Settlfn
ST - Septic
cowtxis UD/M itun ro> ui«r
In compl iance.
In compl iance
Not In operation
Not In operation
3 Basin for removing solids SC - Start construction
rank
(•! •'•' '..iif'uir " U.rr I ,CU
(I, ,H|I,|..: '..I <.:.,)» (•] UalliKril (X
Iflll.
V Ui^itt* i/nr »^
t! [) In*, M Mil-
K) Jltrnvrn. ail.
llOU) lUy-jrn U-UR4.
h.j I'No.ul, f.) '.gllti, (ID) St
101 Ikrtil.uU Ofor.
II) rumnl (• ft*ld|Ut !««<•• (II
(tl VMriclo. ir Conlrtl If (\!
T TmMnt
r«lu« ClfKlMWr (111 Cxlult fmxit '«(!'
I* Tr«lt"*nt Cvnttlt^ntl
I OjxntloK (1)1 MnniH Vuli Trait*
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT
CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
«,«„,,««,.*
-972
xsiiMAic; sou«E i lourio*
i Chi GAM
• —
U.S. Coast Guard
Charlevoix Station
Cr.arlevoix
(Charlevoix Co.)
Grays Reef Lt. Station
Cross'Vi 1 lage
( Ercmet Co . )
Lansing Shoal Lt.Statioi
(Mackinac Co.)
Menominee Pierhead Ligh'
Station (Menominee Co. )
Minneapol is Shoal
Light Station
{Menominee Co.)
North Manitou Shoal
Light Station
(Leelanau Co. )
White Shoal Light ,S tat u
(Leelanau Co. )
1 •
S •
*«!.,« -AltB
Pine River
to L.Mich.
i L.Mich,
Green Bay
L.Mich.
Green Bay
L.Mich.
L.Mlch.
n L.Mich.
Industrial
Sanitary
D , LAKE MICHIGAN BASI
KEK01M. SEEDS
14
3, 2
3, 2
3. 2
3, 2
3. 2
3, 2
1 1 C30III
Treatmen
3, 2
None
None
None
None
None
None
MC --Mac
HT - Ho
«£«JI«EO co:isi8uaiw
SCHEDULE
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
erator-Ch 1 01
ding Tank
STATUS OF CO-etlAKCE
COUSIfiUCtlO.1
Fl =
CO 0
CO 0,
CO 0
CO •+ 1971
CO 0'
CO 0
CO 0
i nator
N
T?66oaGp6or
S 2.5
S 0.12
S 0.12
S 0.05
S 0.12
S 0.35
S 0.12
SB - Settl-
ST - Septic
CO»X»TS wo/on KASIX re* ctur
Project Is under construction to connect Charlevoix Station
to municipal sewer system. Estimated time of completion
Spring of 1973.
Funds have been tentatively approved to automate light sta-
tion. Estimate completion construction by Spring of 1975.
A waiver was requested from the 9th Coast Guard District on
proposed water pollution project. The waiver was denied
by EPA on this matter and it was requested that holding
tanks be provided during d--his period until automation.
Same as Grays Reef
in compliance. Station has been automated and unmanned.
Same as Grays Reef.
Same as Grays Reef
Same as Grays Reef
ng Basin for removing solids SC - Start Construction
Tank
./ HI
•.nl'* '• ••'•": i -MI
i'i •:• • N'.U- ' "" !',';!n- i'£«r)"
(•.!'. n: I,,...,!.. H i.i.tl,trill l<-.mllwl
f.wi'i.M .-urn-,
*(ij '.l-vir './I*'' Klin"
?i !mInlration
J) Vxn'hiy lrrJI«
(4} tliutl^iri
hulrlcnt
(t) HOI «ir ii
Hd 1ft.
(1\ (tcilnctlui. Iti'Miv^l wr
faulrtlUitlui «f:
Acl.l, (ll) ink'il.k'.
(In) Cwi. (ill) l,m
(Ir) lion. («) Htl It. (•) rimw.t In Itmlclptl S/lH> (II
{«) .lUivjrn. l:ll, (1| l.i.UJllcjn or Cmlral ul (I.-
(UI'D) O.x.ira ll.min.1. CiMilnr' Se«»f» (I)
IP,i| ll.n«l. (-.) -.ullih, (ID) Stvm W««r Ireilwnt (14
tuluf C'Mr IMHr MS) (nlutt firitnt '•
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
'LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
1972
:.^:.i-,,a,^«,»
'C1-' "-•'•'. (Cor t inuod)
L1.'".. '.'.f-ct. of tr,e Inter i
bjr.^,* Sport F i sfiur Set,
i V,' i 1 ,j 1 i i e
Jordan Hiver natural
f i sh Hi t.;!'._ry
E Inira (Otst; ,;o Co. )
1- !n<
S - S<
.. ..' "".,,:.„ ' .
BiCiHltC. WAURS
Jordan Rive
To L.Mich.
lustria 1
mi tary
, . .,,. {.!.,! »,M,
•
- SB
MC
HT
.,,,.
Tresent~
Treatment
SB
- Macera
- Ho 1 d i nc
(•; , .'. r.r
I,'5 . !-,lfll, . t I..
. . ' < ' .1 .,...:«
1
OtQJlRfQ C3'"STSuCT(0-i
CO 7-72
or-Chlorina
Tank
Hl-I,.t.t (4) HB,,|«|«
,!,» 1 |tl -^ u.
.1 !i, rl,i,l
CO 12/7/71
or
r»ii if
ot icAUMl
,'i^.t .*<-4 Irl
Pop. and/or
1 ,000 GPD
8,900
58 - Sett! in<
5T - Septic :
/) fc-.lu- • u«i, «.-i wal or
»...„:, :.•!.., of.
fc 14. (l!| IMuiOi
CGW1.tTS A.\0/0« fl£ASO!l »U« HUT
Facl 1 ities completed 12/7/71
Basin for removing solids SC - Start construction
ank
ft] ifoi. (HI I^Ult in) l.>'-«*>t u AiAltlpal S^ttM II) fO.,* CiMr Mt«v fit) Cvlluilt »m«nt '««
li.0) '..}'.-.> t .41,4. t.... «.J Ve-ttl Hj l.lr.-ltf; U*i!w»t to<'.l !^f>(t
-------
R E G I 0 P! V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
urt or ufjflwTij*
Aug. 1972
CO. Station
C^.jc i re- Co. )
Root River
Root R i ver
to L.Mich.
3, 2
L.Mich.
f-'arito^oc Breakwater L.Mich.
Light Station
'•'an i tc»(oc ('-'an i toi*oc CcJ. )
!
I -
S -
I ndustrial
3, 2
3, 2
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
Present
Trea tmerv
ST
None
None •
None
None
MC - Mac
HT - Hoi
StluDULI
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
CO 7-72
3rator-Chlor
Jing Tank
STATUS Of CG'VUAWF.
CO 6
Fl =
CO 0
CO
inator
rop . ana/or
1 ,000 GPD _j
S 1 .0
S 0.3
S 0. 12
S"' 0.09
S 0.005
SB - Settli
ST - Septic
CGtMlcTS IM>/« UKCn 10* «UI
The Station has become a seasonal sub-unit of the Ker.osha
Coast Guard Station. Portapottie service is provided by a
private contractor to dispose of the wastes from the RCGS.
Same as above
Same as Grays Reef
Funds provided under continuing program to automate all
light stations. Completion of unmanning and automating
station during Spring 1973.
Has been unmanned and automated.
ng Basin for removing solids SC - Start construction
Tank
-it (
.«) .11
(Will)
I hi) I'
(101 I
i, (TOM""
(H| i..'u,(, CUtr Mjl.f (I!) (n!»tl »rr ft ltd'
'l.iirt-ti. ; It) fcr a*,' lort 0* «l • Cf >f
[I.'J
-------
REGION V
STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
MIC OF UfOWl*
Aug. 72
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
Uiii.l.-ID ,1X1 1 12UIIUI
VESSELS
ILLI'OIS
U.S. Coast Guard
Tug-oat A3UNDEL
Chicago (Cook Co.)
U.S. Coast 0-uard
Cutter SUNDEW
Cr.arlevoix Harbor
(Cfiarlevoix Co. )
Cutter WOODBINE
Grand Haven
(Ottawa Co.)
Tugboat RARITAN
Grand Haven
A'lSCOtiSIN
U.S. Coast Guard
Cutter WISQUITE
Sturgeon Say
(Door Co.)'.
Ice Breaker EDISTO
Mi Iwaukee, Wis.
"Num
• .1 •• .• -.[it • •
i
UUKIftC WIIK
L. Mich.
L.Mich.
L.Mich.
L Vich.
L.Mich.
L.Mich.
irr^fol lowed
IIIXDIU. MEEDS
HT
HT
3. 2
HT
HT
HT
by "P" i
Tr'e'tflfie'iW
MC
HT
None
MC
HT
HT
JSUFAtfis
HEQUUEO COKSTRttTiai
SCHEDULE
CO FY 75
CO FY 75
CO FY 75
CO FY 75
CO FY 75
>opulation.
STATUS (IF CCmi/J>U
CfaSISUCIIO., '
CO =
CO =
00
1>?6oonGPDr
20 P
40 to 45 P
47 P
20 P
47 P
160 P
CCWJKIS IMD/W llUtn IM HIM
Connected to municipal sewer system when in port.
Docks' at Charlevoix. Is in the design stage for additional
HT capacity. City provides sewer connection. No funds have
been appropriated.
The vessel has been decpmmissioned and placed in an inactive
status as of February 15, 1972.
to longer in Milwaukee. Is now docked at Grand Haven, Mich.
Shore tie under construction. Ties into Muskegon sewer system.
Mty has provided tie-in with vessel.
-imited retention in HT. Need additional capacity.
(»Md Trl.
«r iqilillcnt (() rlmt l>|i«»ttn
(() h.luitlun, k-njiil o"
Kiwtrililitlui of:
Acid. (LI) ChlurliJ*,
1C.) tt|i|*r. (Ul) Cr.lu« ClMr »4l" '14) Cnlult fm«n| Mil1
(>) Srp.rjllon or Ccnlrol of ,IJ Sr«rt |n c>dv:llj4ni.i4 xiu IrMUi
-------
35
1 D» Kee
2 MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Chairman*
3 MR. MAYO: Yes.
4 MR. FRANCOS: What are the ground rules here in
5 terms of discussion of the presentation by the EPA? May we
6 do this now, or would you prefer to wait?
7 MR. MAYO: We will do that now.
g We can take it a State at a time in any order that
9 the conferees desire to proceed*
10 MR. FRANCOS: May I proceed?
11 MR. MAYO: Yes.
12 MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Kee, I think that we would agree
13 with your statement in terms of the contention that one needs
14 to communicate the status to the conferees. Certainly there
15 is a benefit in making the status known to the public gen-
16 erally.
17 I do get a little bit concerned sometimes when
lg we use some of the subjective adjectives in phrasing the
19 progress or lack of progress that we would hope to perhaps
20 offer a little bit more encouragement when we make our pre-
21 sentation to the conference.
22 But 1 have a couple of questions relating to the
23 l#0-day notice proceedings with respect to two entities in
24 Wisconsin: 1) one, the city of Sheboygan; and 2) the other,
25 Charmin Paper. And I am wondering if you could tell the
-------
__^____ 36
1 D. Kee
2 conference here today what were the results of the conclusion
3 of that action? Sheboygan first.
4 MR. KEE: In the case of Sheboygan —
5 MR. McDONALDs Mr. Kee —
6 MR. KEEs Tes.
7 MR. McDONALD: — I think Dale Bryson was the
3 Chairman of that hearing, Tom, and I think maybe he could
9 answer this more appropriately.
10 MR. BRTSON: As the result of the ISO-day notice
11 that was issued to Sheboygan, the State and EPA entered into
12 discussions with the city and the surrounding communities —
13 and the State of Wisconsin participated in the discussion —
14 to arrive at a mutually agreeable schedule to have the
15 city of Sheboygan construct adequate secondary treatment
16 facilities with phosphorus control. The city of Sheboygan
17 has developed the detailed schedule that includes a regional
IB concept with outlying communities, has submitted that to
19 EPA and the State. We have agreed that that is a reason-
20 j able schedule and the city of Sheboygan is now going forward
21 to install those facilities.
I
22 MR. FRANCOS: What are the details of that
23 schedule?
24 MR. BRYSONs The detailed dates?
25 MR. FRANCOS: Yes.
-------
37_
1 D. Kee
2 MR. BRYSONs I don't have those at my fingertips.
3 Dave, do you have those?
4 MR, KEE: Phosphorus removal as of September 11,
5 1972; construction of the phosphorus removal facilities
6 under way with completion well before the December 31,
7 1972, date.
8 I may note here, Mr. Bryson, that in preparing
9 to give this report on status of compliance, we utilized the
10 official conference interim deadlines which for phosphorus
11 removal generally called for a mid-1971 start construction
12 date.
13 Now, although we recognize that phosphorus removal
14 can be installed in a much shorter time — in a year or a
i
15 year and a half — in all of my statements up to now, when
16 I have referenced a community or groups of communities behind
17 schedule I am speaking, of course, of the official interim
lg dates that the conferees established, and this is the only
19 basis upon which I can make a status of compliance report.
20 Thus, this is the reason, for instance, that Sheboygan would
21 be listed as behind schedule on the official conference
22 requirement, although we recognize that they may well meet
23 the final deadline. In fact we hope that they will.
24 MR. BRISON: That will be the case with a number
25
-------
_^__ 33
1 D. Kee
2 of other municipalities listed under Table No. 6«
3 MR. KEE: That is true.
4 MR. BRYSON: And Charmin — that they may be in
5 compliance.
6 MR. KEE: Well, primarily this has to do with the
7 phosphorus removal requirement.
3 MR. FRANGOS: Yes. But, again, we talk about the
9 increase in Federal enforcement activities, and I think,
10 again, it would be helpful if we all understand the full
-IT details of the negotiated settlement with the city of
12 Sheboygan, for example.
13 MR. McDONALD: Well, let's go into those details.
14 Let me go into them as head of the Enforcement Division to
15 the extent I can.
16 The hearing that was conducted at Sheboygan — the
17 180-day notice hearing on June 21, 1972, with Dale Bryson
13 as Chairman of that hearing — followed the Charmin hearing
19 the previous day. At both of those hearings, well in
20 advance of the hearing, the State of Wisconsin was invited
21 to participate as a full partner in those hearings.
22 In fact, you and I, I believe, had discussions
23 on this some months ahead. You did have State representa-
24 tion there at the hearing — both of those hearings.
25 Details were set forth so that we could have followup
-------
- 39
1 D. Kee
2 negotiating sessions with the city of Sheboygan and with
3 Chanain Paper Company and with American Can and with the
4 Green Bay Metropolitan Sanitary District. Those sessions
5 were held. It is my understanding that at each of these
6 sessions there was State representation in an attempt to
7 come up with the quickest schedules that could come forward
8 consistent with getting the job done.
9 The Sheboygan schedule was submitted to us. I
10 assume a copy went to the State agency.
11 MR. BRYSON: Right.
12 MR. McDONALD: We did notify you, I believe, last
13 week by letter, in addition to notifying the Mayor of
14 Sheboygan, that the schedule that was submitted as a result
15 of those negotiations was approved.
16 We went through the same situation with the
17 Charmin Paper Products Company, and we are going through
18 the same situation with the other two entities that had
19 ISO-day notices in the Green Bay area*
20 It was my impression here that we tried to work
21 as closely as possible with the State agency in arriving
22 at these agreements.
23 MR. FRANCOS: I think we have, Mr. McDonald, but
24 I am just looking for — again, in terms of public education
25 here —
-------
40
1 D. Kee
2 MR. McDONALD: Okay.
3 MR. FRANCOS: — for what the final schedule was.
4 MR. McDONALDs Okay. Let me continue on that for
5 a minute, Mr. Frangos, with the city of Sheboygan — and
6 this will be subject to correction. Mr. Bryson is looking u]
7 the details on this now.
8 MR. KEE: Jim, I have those} if you want me to read
9 those into the record, I would be happy to. It is in three
10 phases —
11 MR. McDONALD: Very good.
12 MR. KEE: — and there are sections within each
13 phase.
14 If you would like, I will go over the agreed-on
15 schedule.
16 For Phase I, which consists of digester renovation,
17 final plans are to be submitted by September 30, 1972;
IS financing completed by December 31? 1972; start construction
19 by February 1, 1973? and complete construction by May 31,
20 1973.
21 Phase II consists of four different itemss first ijs
i
22 i the interceptor connection, and in that case the final
23 plans, January 31, 1973; financing, June 15, 1973; start
i
24 construction, August 15, 1973; and complete construction,
25 January 31, 1974.
-------
— Jkl
1 D. Kee
2 What is entitled the Basin Complex — a portion of
3 Phase II — final plans submitted June 30, 1972; financing,
4 December 15» 1973 — I think that is an error. I think it
5 must be final plans, June 30, 1973; and financing, December
6 15f 1973; start construction, March 1, 1974; complete con-
7 struction, August 31» 1975; and final operation and effi-
8 ciency attained December 31> 1975.
9 The solids building: final plans, June 30, 1973;
10 financing — well, it follows along exactly the same as the
11 basic complex. Instrumentation for this phase: final plans,
12 August 31» 1973; financing, December 15» 1973; start con-
13 struction, May 1, 1974; complete construction, April 30,
14 1975; and attain final operation, December 31| 1975» along
15 with the basic complex on the solids building.
p
16 And then Phase III, which is a plant renovation,
17 but which I understand will not have any effect on the
I
I j
13 ij effluent levels attained by the complete facility — this
19 i is Phase III — has a schedule of final plans, April 30,
i
20 i 1974; financing, October 15? 1974; start construction,
21 : January 1, 1975; and complete construction, January 31»
22 j 1976; and place in final operation, March 31> 1976.
23 [j That, I think, covers completely the agreed-to
24 schedules.
25 MR. FRANCOS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kee.
-------
42
1 D. Kee
2 Now, just very briefly — I don't want to take too
3 much time here — with the Charmin Paper Company, my under-
4 standing is that this company is scheduled to tie into the
5 Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District program, and indeed
6 compliance with the conference deadlines or orders issued by
7 the State of Wisconsin is contingent on the availability of
3 capacity, hydraulic and treatment capacity, at the Green Bay
9 Metropolitan Sewerage Commission.
10 Now, if you could perhaps indicate the details of
11 that schedule with Charmin,
12 MR. KEE: Perhaps it would be useful if I could
13 provide a little background information on this discharger.
14 Charmin Paper Products Company discharges about 14
15 million gallons a day of sulfite pulp and papermaking wastes
16 containing large quantities of biochemical oxygen demand, sus
17 pended solids, and ammonia to the Fox River, which contrib-
1$ utes to the degradation of water quality in Green Bay and
19 violates federally-approved interstate water quality stan-
20 dards.
21 In December of 1969, the firm was ordered by the
22 State of Wisconsin to participate in a joint treatment
23 project with the Green Bay Sewerage District, which was to
24 have been in operation by December 31» 1972, which is the
25 enforcement conference deadline date. Increased cost, due
-------
1 D. Kee
2 to construction delays, caused the company to reconsider
3- its participation in the joint project, and the project
4 fell 3 years behind schedule*
5 On May 9, 1972, an ifiO-day notice was issued to
6 this company, along with the American Can Company, and
7 Green Bay itself* An informal hearing was held on June 20,
& 1972, and a followup meeting was held on July 14 of this year*
9 The commitment that the Environmental Protection
10 Agency has received from this firm does call for the execu-
11 tion of a contract with the Metropolitan Sewerage District
12 of Green Bay, for them to complete present in-plant construc-
13 tion projects, including a sewer collection system to tie in
14 with the Sewerage District plant by December 1972; and to
15 reduce the loadings of suspended solids by up to 6,000 pounds
1$ a day ~ I believe this is on direct discharge — by
17 12-31-73.
lg If it is okay with the Chair, I would like to insert
19 the complete agreement and the correspondence on this matter
20 into the record of the conference*
21 MR. MAYO: Any objection?
22 (The documents above referred to follow in their
23 entirety,)
24
25
-------
July 26, 1972
Mr. 0, B. F-i'tier
Viet President
Charain Paper Products Company
Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
Dear Mr. yutitr:
I. am plear.fcd to Inform you that the proposed pollution abatement program,
subnd.tt.ed by the Cha^iln Paper Products Company on July IV, 1972, Is
accepted by the "Mvi-ironmentr, 1 Prelection Agency (EPA) in satisfaction of
the 130-dny notice istued to your company on Hay 9, 1972 „ The aba toman t
program is sunrasrized as follow**:
As C-M^rmin v?ill execute a contract 17;. th the Metropolitan
Sanitary District (r.'SD) r.nd the' City of Green )>.y
which will provide for the- KSD to noodle an tvcintual
loud of:
58,000 pounds of BOD per dr.y
12,000 pounds of SS per day
12 rngd volume - 13 tigd peak.
B. Charmin will complete its one and one-half million dollar
construction project now underway including a sower collection
system to tie into the MSD plant by December 1972. It is
understood by FPA thr.t the final connection to KH) crainot be
made until the MSD treatment facility is completed,
C* After Charmin connects to MSB there will be only one dis-
charge to the Fox River from Chinnin's Fox River and East
River Kills. This dischf.i'ge from Charrain's pulp and paper
operations will contain a insximuri dr.ily loadinf, of 11^000
pounds per day of HOD-.5 a:>.d a meximuni daily loadin;r of
11 ^ 000 pound r- per day of suspended solids, including settle-
able solids. Further thai, the suspended solids discharge,
including settieable solids, from all operations, including
water trcatr.cut* , shall not exceed a maximum daily loading
of 15,850 pounds, after Charmin connects to MSD.
-------
. 2 -
D» Charmin will apply the best practicable control technology
currently available to reduce loadings by up to 6,000 pounds
of suspended solids per day, by removing suspended solids from the
water treatment plant. Plans and specifications for the treatment
facility will be submitted to the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. This work will begin promptly and will be
completed by December 31„ 1973*
E, Charmin will continue to operate its pollution control equip-
ment at its highest practical efficiency. With regard to
Charrain's statement requesting i.fA'f. concurrence that, "Chai'mia
wi.ll not be required to provide additional capital investments
nor shell EPA impose additional operating restraints on
Chnrnln for its pulp nill waste planned for delivery to MSD
during the period prior to the completion of the MSB plant,"
EPA cannot at the. present time, in view of the uncertainty of
what future legislation may require, give such a commitment.
EPA, can however, state that based upon all information avail-
able at this tine Charmin will not be required to provide addi-
tional capital investment nor does EPA contemplate imposing addi-
tional operating restraints on Charmin for its pulp mill wastes
planned for delivery to USD. Should new legislation require any
addition?! capital expenditures or operating restraints, EPA will
give Chermtn a reasonable opportunity to comply.
This acceptance is baaed upon the conditions as cited In paragraphs A thru E
above.
Your adherence to the approved abatement program will obviate the necessity
for referring the matter to the U. S. Attorney General for appropriate legal
action under Section 10(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, or in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
This letter represents the best Federal analysis of the requirements which
must be met by Charmin for its discharges. The final Federal position as to
the acceptability of Charmin's discharges to navigable waters of the United
States must be finally determined following comments received as a result of
public notice and/or public hearings.
Your cooperation in reaching this agreement is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
OBTGI1UI SIGITED BY JAMES 0. McDOlIALD
James 0. McDonald, Director
Enforcement Division
-------
THE CHARM1N PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY
P. O- BOX 599, CINCINNATI. OHIO 45JC1
July 17, 1972
Mr. Louis Breimhurst
P. E. Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
7^01 Lyndale Avenue, South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55^23
Dear Mr. Breimhurst:
The purpose of this letter is to propose this agreement for resolving the issue between
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and The Charmin Paper Products Company
(Charmin) concerning the matter wherein you have alleged that the Green Bay Metropolitan
Sewerage District (MSD), American Can Company, and Charmin have violated federal and
State water quality standards for Green Bay (Lake Michigan) as set forth in Mr. Adamkus'
letter to Mr. E. G. Harness dated May 9, 1972. EPA has informed Chansin that it has not
approved or disapproved the State of Wisconsin Department of natural Resource? (DNR)
order dated December 16, 19^9 establishing efflue-nt limits to the Fox River for Char-ran
and has suggested that the proposed guidelines for the pulp and naper industry dated
June 9 5 1972 serve as the basis for establishing effluent criteria..
It is Charmin's understanding that so long as it complies with the Limits imposed by the
orders issued by the DIIR that it will be in compliance with all State and federal laws.
However, in the spirit of cooperation with EPA in achieving water quality standards that
recognize the best practical degree of treatment, Charmin is prepared vo go forward with
this agreement. It is agreed that the following provisions constitute full compliance
with the federal water pollution control standards for Channin's integrated paper and
pulp mill facilities that discharge into the Fox River, eventually flowing into Green Bay
and ultimately to Lake Michigan. The limits for BOD and solids removal stated in this
agreement are based upon production of kl6 tons per day of sulphite pulp manufactured at
Channin's Green Bay sulphite paper mill, 110 tons per day from its de-inking process
(broke) and 1+71 tons per day of purchased pulp.
1. Charmin reaffirms its intention to continue its active program of environmental
control. For the past twenty years Charmin has been continuously working to
improve its waste treatment efficiency. Charmin is now achieving an 80% BOD
removal and a 90$ suspended solids removal. Through in-plant changes in process
and equipment, Charmin has achieved a threefold reduction in water usage per unit
of production. Since 1957 production has increased nearly threefold without any
increase in water consumption. This recycling and reuse of water has resulted
in an appreciable decrease in the loadings in the Fox River.
-------
Mr. Louis Breimhurst
July 17, 1972
Page No. 2
Large capital expendtrtwc.-t ->j:ive been made for waste treatment facilities so that
90$ of suspended solids couid be removed and BOD could be reduced by 80#. We-
understand that reducing the BOD level by 80$ represents one of the best records
in the Fox River Valley and in the United States for a sulphite mill. These are
overall figures for Charmin's combined operation at the East River and the Fox
River mills. Discharge to the proposed MSD super plant of the residual pulp mill
wastes has been planned as the final phase of an extensive present program for
pollution control. <;harmin has, from the inception of the proposed MSD super
plant, played a majc.r part in the various stages of development of this project.
Charmin is also in ., tion of particulates and sulphur dioxide.
2. Charmin will executive.'-ctxrlract with KSD and the City of Green Bay committing
Charmin to a yearly expenditure of over a million dollars for twenty years based
upon the pulp mill wastes planned for MSD's new super plant scheduled for
completion in mid-1975- It is anticipated that the average raw waste load to
MSD will amount to:
41,000# BOD/day
6,000# SS/day
12 mgd volume - 15 mgd peak
The contract will provide."for Metro to handle an eventual load of:
58,000? BOD/day
12,000# SS/day
12 mgd volume - 15 mgd peak
3. Charmin will complete its one and one-half million dollar construction project now
under way including a sewer collection system to tie into the MSD super plant by
December 1972. It is understood that the final connection to the MSD system
cannot be made until the MSD treatment facilities are completed.
4. After Charmin connects to the MSD super plant the residual BOD discharged directly
to the Fox River will be reduced to a maximum of 11,000# per day which is signifi-
cantly below the federal guidelines for an integrated sulphite pulp and paper mill.
The suspended solids including settleable solids discharged directly to the Fox River
will not exceed 11,000# per day which again is significantly below the federal guide-
lines for an integrated sulphite pulp and paper mill. Further, that the total
suspended solids, including settleable solids discharged from all operations
including water treatment, shall not exceed a maximum of 15,850# per day after
Charmin connects to the MSD super plant.
5. Charmin will use its best efforts to engineer and design a system to reduce
loadings by up to 6,000 pounds of suspended solids per day by removing said sus-
pended solids from our water treatment plant. Plans and specifications
for the treatment facility will be submitted to the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. This work will begin promptly and will be completed by December
31, 1973.
-------
Mr. Louis Breimhurst
July 17, 1972
Page No. 3
6. Charmin will continue to operate its pollution control equipment at its highest
practical efficiency. Charmin will not be required to provide additional capital
investment nor shall EPA impose additional operating restraints on Charmin for
its pulp mill wastes planned for delivery to the MSD during the period prior to
the completion of the MSD super plant.
Charmin would appreciate your acceptance of this agreement no later than July 2k, 1972
in order that it can execute its contract with MSD.
THE CHARMIIT PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY
0. B. Butler
Vice President
-------
September 11, 1972
The Honorable Roger D. Schneider
Mayor, City of Sheboygan
City Hall
Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081
Pear Mayor Schneider.:
It is a pleasure to inform you that the proposed schedule reflected in
Sheboygan's Resolution No. 188-72-73 has been approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in satisfaction of the 180-day notice issued to
your community on May 9, 1972 for violation of Lake Michigan Water Quality
Standards.
Your adherence to the.approved schedule will obviate the necessity for
referring the matter to the United States Attorney for appropriate legal
action under Section 10(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act-
In order to assess compliance with the schedule., an initial progress report
should be submitted to this office by October 1» 1972* Additional progress
reports should be submitted VTithin one week after each date set in the
approved schedule. During the period that the projects are under construc-
tion, progress reports should be submitted the first vreek of each calendar
quarter. Copies of all reports should be sent to the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources and the Minnesota-Wisconsin District Office of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The cooperation demonstrated by yourself and your representatives during
the negotiations resulting in the approved schedule is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
ORIGINAL SIGNED B? JAMES 0. MoDONALD
James 0, McDonald, Director
Enforcement Division
-------
SHEBQYQAIM OEPARTIVIEf\fT OF CITV DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL eae CENTER AVENUE SHEBOYBAN WISCONSIN saoen PHONE 457-50-
August 30, 1972
Mr. Francis P. Mayo, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
One North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Attention: Mr. Robert Luss, Staff Attorney
Mr. Mayo;
Enclosed please find a copy of Res. No. 181-72-73 by the Common Council
of Sheboygan, Wisconsin adopting the proposed project schedule for the
Sheboygan Waste Water Treatment Facilities. Also enclosed is a revised
copy of the construction schedule that was adopted. The City agrees to
stick to the schedule and subsequent activities have already been initiated,
I hope that this enclosure satisfies the EPA and that you will reply
accordingly.
LJi
I
V I ' '
Frank J. Paquette
Di rector
ESHEBOYGAN CITY PLAN COMMISSION
SHEBOYGAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR!
-------
/ •f-'1^
Kes. No._ii>i -72-73 By Alderman Falk' Arpke, Kind f*
Schauer
Dated August 21, 1972.
A RESOLUTION approving the proposed project schedule for the Sheboygan
waste water treatment facilities.
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States
Government on May 9, 1972, pursuant to Section 10 (c) (5) of the Federal
Water Pollution Act and applicable regulations thereto, issued to the City
of Sheboygan a 180-day notification of violation of established water
quality standards, and
WHEREAS, in the event the matter is not satisfactorily resolved with-
in 180 days from the date of said notification, abatement action may be
brought against the City o'f Sheboygan, and
WHEREAS, officials of the City of Sheboygan have been meeting with
officials of said Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
Natural Resources, State of Wisconsin, to ascertain what necessary reme-
dial action may be taken on a voluntary basis, and
WHEREAS, said officials have agreed that progress made by the City of
Sheboygan in its program to provide for the adequate treatment of its
waste water is sufficient to permit the federal government to "sign off"
on the 180-day notification, subject to adoption by the City of Sheboygan
of- a project implementation schedule, and
WHEREAS,, the attached project schedule has been prepared by the con-
Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THI
CITY OF SHEEOYGAN that the attached project schedule be an°4 it is herecy
approved in all its phases and the City commits itself, with respect to
actions within the power of the City and its officials, to adhere to sale
schedule.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appropriate Common Council committee
and officials of the City of Sheboygan are hereby authorized and directed
to take all actions, including but not limited to, submission of plans
and specifications and applications for federal and state grants, neces-
sary to implement said project schedule in all its phases.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded
to the .Environmental Protection Agency of- the United States Government
and to-;the Department of Natural Resources, State of Wisconsin.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly passed by the Common Council of the City of
i —
Sheboygan, Wisconsin, on the_ -^ '
Datcd_
Approved ^.^-^/ ^ y ^yj : .(/^ . .X.' tt//^ <-<, (','. Mayor.
Proceedings Pubb'shed
Certified 19__
-------
. . 44,
1 D. Kee
2 MR. FRANCOS: I guess the point that I would like
3 to make here is that it is my understanding that because of
4 the recommendations of the conference and at the urging of
i
5 i the State of Wisconsin, the company did with others agree
6 j| to tie into a regional system, which I think all of us agree
| i
7 J is the way to go generally® And it is further my understand-)
8 || ing that the company was in a position or would have been in
9 | a position by December of 1972 to make a connection to Green
10 Bay* I just have a little bit of trouble when given
11 those factual situations characterizing the company as
12 being recalcitrant.
13 i I think it is incumbent upon us to just use our
14 descriptive terms a little bit more carefullye I am not
15 saying we don't have recalcitrant entities, but I think
16 sometimes we need to be careful with the broad brush,
17 MR. McDONALDs I would like to comment on that
IS | Charmin case in particular, Mr. Frangos, regarding the use
i
I
19 of the word "recalcitrants,,"
20 | it seems to me that Gharmin and the American Can
21 i Company had contracted with the Metropolitan Sewerage Dis-
22 trict at Green Bay to do something, and then the costs went
23 up and the contracts were in a state of limbo. At that
24 time, we had negotiations with the State of Wisconsin —
25 this was in April of this year — with Green Bay, and with
-------
_45
1 D. Kee
2 the two paper companies, regarding how they could get back
j on track. And as a result of those sessions and the
4 fact that they did not reaffirm the contracts because of the
5 escalated costs, we issued ISO-day notices. The companies
5 and the Sewerage District were all put on notice.
7 It seems to me whether we called them "reealci-
g trants" or not may not be material. But the project had,
9 for all practical purposes, come to a halt until those 1$0-
10 day notices were issued. Now the contracts have been
11 reaffirmed; the project is proceeding with all due haste,
12 and it looks like a very hopeful situation in the Green Bay
13 area.
14 MR. FRANGOS: I agree with your comments, Mr.
15 McDonald.
16 MR. MAYO: Did you have any further comments, Mr.
17 Frangos?
lg MR. FRANGOS: No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman.
20 MR. MAIO: Mr. Miller.
21 MR«, MILLER: I would like to make a few comments
22 on that — of course, I note as we go along, and I know full
23 well that reporting on compliance is one of the important
24 aspects of this conference.
25 As I noted, there was some change insofar as the
-------
1 D. Kee
2 Federal installations were concerned in the report. I think
3 and know that we in Indiana have a number of changes, too,
4 that will be made when we report upon status as far as
5 phosphorus removal, and that we have some disagreement over
6 the statements that are provided as far as the percentage.
7 But this is a changing thing, and I am sure that we have more
3 up-to-date data, but we look forward to doing that as we
9 go along.
10 I would like to point out that two of the ISO-day
11 notices in Indiana, to the city of Hammond and to the city of
12 Whiting, were for stormwater discharges of combined sewers
13 to Lake Michigan. I think that most of the other actions
14 that I see are for treatment where these two are really more
15 for combined storm overflows, and the one with the Sanitary
16 District of Hammond certainly does involve treatment as it
17 goes down to the Grand Calumet River and flows west.
IB I have a little problem, as Tom was saying, with
19 semantics, when you talk about South Bend, and unfortunately
20 saying that South Bend is among the largest cities in the Lake
21 Michigan Basin that does not provide disinfection.
22 South Bend has disinfection under construction.
23 We have looked at this project in the hopes that we could
24 get in some type of disinfection while under construction.
25 It does not appear to us that this is possible, but I would
-------
rr . 4Z
1 D. Kee
I
2 say other than the adverse effects that we have, as far as
3 the State of Michigan, that the disinfection of South Bend
|
4 is not in any way affecting the water quality in Lake
5 Michigan itself, and I think that this should be pointed
6 out in connection with the comment which was made,
7 MR. McDOIALD: Mr. Miller and Mr. Frangos, too,
and maybe Mr. Purdy and Mr. Blaser — in terms of this com-
9 pliance report that was prepared, if there are variances
10 I from the individual States — that is, if more has been
11 done than is reflected in the report that we present here
12 today because the information is either in error or there
13 is additional information available — I have asked Mr. Kee
14 to — before this conference concludes — give us an updated
15 report to reflect the current situation, I would hope
16 that if your reports are completed early today or by early
17 afternoon that he will have that report available before
IS the end of the day. But, if not, he will have such a
19 report available prior to the end of the conference, and we
20 will note the differences publicly by coming back up to
21 the podium because I think that is very important.
22 Much of this information — if not all of it —
23 of course, is based upon State records, which we have
24 tried to have verified and reviewed, and we realize that
25 there has been some activity recently which should be
-------
43
D. Kee
incorporated in this report, and we will do that.
MR. MILLER: I have no question in that area, Mr.
McDonald, because I know this* We had actions yesterday
in Indiana that would affect the report. You must get out
a report, and you draw a deadline, and I think this is the
7 purpose of the conference — that we update the information
8 that you have and bring the up-to-date facts to it.
9 MR. MAIO: Mr. Purdy.
10 MR. PURDY: Yes.
11 Mr. Kee, the report that you gave today represents
12 some revisions, and the report was made available earlier for
13 public distribution, and the corrections, as givan today,
14 are those that should be in the record, and not the first
15 report.
16 MR, KEE: That is correct. There were a number of j
17 changes — specifically Michigan — where we did get comments
13 in time to incorporate them into the final version. And
19 there were some changes that were made, and we have available
20 copies of those revisions and, of course, as we make addi-
21 tional revisions through the day we will those avail-
22 able.
23 MR. PURDY: And I would like to, again, point out a
24 comment that Mr. Frangos made. I understand the basis
25 for your Appendix 6, and expect that it does accurately
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
49.
D. Kee
reflect those communities that missed an interim date. But
it does not accurately reflect those communities that will
miss the December 1972 deadline. The picture is not as bleak
as pointed out in that Appendix 6.
MR. KEE: The December deadline, of course, is not
here yet. Hopefully, a number of the communities will meet
the final deadline. But, on the other hand, the conference
with good reason set interim deadlines. From the standpoint
of monitoring status of compliance, although 1 would like
very much to project what is really going to happen — and
I think we maybe can do that by taking the information that
will be presented by the States in trying to project those
that will actually be in compliance — I think it is incum-
bent upon at least me to present to the public and to the
conferees where we stand in terms of the official development
of just who met those deadlines and who didn't, I appreciate
the fact that the reality of the situation may change
quickly.
20 MR. PURDY: I agree on this, but then again I am
I
21 j concerned about those communities that did move forward and
|
22 II prepare final plans and specifications for a so-called
23
24
25
permanent installation of phosphorus removal facilities
with the hopes that they would receive a construction grant
to construct those. In many instances this has not unfolded
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
D. Kee
in the way anticipated*
There are a number of communities that have pro-
ceeded now on an interim phosphorus removal program with 100
percent local funds that will meet the December 1972 date,
that are listed on Appendix 6, and 1 want the audience to
understand that; I want the news media to understand that,
so that this list is not simply printed, and that those
communities that have proceeded with 100 percent financing
to meet the December 1972 date will not receive a black eye
from this conference.
MR. KEE: I think that equity demands that we make
that distinction between those two. We will certainly be
happy to publish other lists so indicating, as we get the
State reports, as we get these identified specifically; we
will update this list and make that distinction, because 1
think it is an important distinction.
MR. MCDONALD: Well, I think the distinction that
we are talking about here is meeting the phosphorus removal
deadline, and how that is met I think is immaterial.
If you say it is going to be met, I think these
communities ought to be identified and stricken from this
list.
MR. PURDY: Well, we will present that as a part
-------
51
1 D. Kee
2 of our information. You have it actually in your detailed
3 report, in some instances, the listing of those behind
4 schedule.
5 If you look in the table in your full report, it
6 will show that they intend to meet the December 1972 deadline
7 in some instances by interim facilities. It is in the
8 report. It is the way this was pulled out. It does
9 accurately reflect those that missed an interim date, but
10 it does not accurately reflect those that are going to miss
11 the December 1972 date.
12 MR. McDONALD: Okay. Well, that is something we
V
13 definitely want to correct on this list: those that are
14 going to meet that date. We will do that before this con-
15 ference is adjourned.
16 MR. PURDY: I have a question with respect to the
17 Federal installations. You indicated that those are going
IB to connect to a municipal system. Will that connection be
19 made by December of 1972 and will that municipal system
20 provide phosphorus removal?
21 MR. KEE: No, sir. Donald Wallgren of our Federal
22 Activities Section Will be going into greater detail/. But
23 to specifically answer your question: The connection
24 will not be made prior to the deadline but hopefully phos-
25 phorus removal will be provided during the interim period
-------
i 52
1 D. Kee
2 until that connection is made'. I believe that the State
3 of Illinois probably will comment on the question of whether
4 or not the Sanitary District will meet the final deadline.
5 Our records indicate that they will.
6 MR. MAYO: Excuse me, gentlemen, I understand
7 there are representatives here from Fort Sheridan and the
8 Great Lakes Naval Training Station who perhaps would be
9 available following Mr. Wallgren's report on corrective
10 actions at the Federal facilities.
11 MR. PURDY: Another question in your report: You
12 mention the closed system for the U..S. Steel (South Works),
13 and I am wondering if you could define for me what the closed
14 system, in this instance, indicates.
15 MR. KEE: I believe that that has reference to the
16 fact that there will be no discharge to the Lake Michigan Basjin,
17 MR. PURDY: But this does not mean that there is a
1# closed system and that there is no discharge —
19 MR. KEE: There is no discharge of surface waters.
20 There is a blowdown discharge, I understand, to the Metro-
21 politan Sanitary District, so it will be closed from the
22 standpoint of the discharge of surface waters.
23 MR. PURDY: But does not the Metropolitan Sanitary
24 District discharge some surface waters?
25 MR. KEE: Yes, sir. It is out of place as far as
-------
53
1 D. Kee
2 the report is concerned,
3 MR. PURDY: Well, I think this is a distinction
4 that we ought to make when we talk about a closed system —
5 that there will be blowdown from the system. Is this
6 correct?
7 MR. KEE: Yes, recycling system might have been a
better choice of words. Whenever you have a recycling of a
9 steel situation, such as this, you will have some blowdown
10 that will either go directly to the surface waters or to a
Sanitary District for additional treatment.
12 MR. PURDY: I am somewhat sensitive about it
because it has been quoted as a means of reaching a zero
14 discharge in this plant, and I don't think they have quite
done that.
15 MR. MAYOs I think Mr, Purdy's point is well taken,
There certainly was no intent to indicate that there has
been some new special high level of technology employed
in this instance, but that rather the discharge will be
20 removed from Lake Michigan, and through a series of recyc-
2i ling operations, the volume of the discharge is going to be
22 substantially reduced. There will indeed remain a rather
23 significant discharge to the Metropolitan Sanitary
24 District.
25 MR. KEE: That is correct, although I think it is
-------
1 D. Kee
2 not significant compared to the present discharge,
3 MR. MAYO: Mr. Blaser, do you have any comment
4 from the standpoint of the State of Illinois?
5 MR. BLASER: Not at this time, other than — do
6 you want a complete review of our situation now?
7 MR. MAYO: That would come later. I would be
8 interested in your comments when it comes to the opening
9 statement.
10 MR. BLASER: Well, I think I should add that there
11 really are two different standards of time schedules that we
12 are trying to achieve: 1) one is the schedule of the Lake
13 Michigan Enforcement Conference; 2) the other is that set
14 by the State of Illinois.
15 Generally speaking, the State of Illinois has set
16 a timetable shorter than the Lake.Michigan Enforcement Con-
17 ference.
1# The information I provided to you was based on the
19 shorter schedule, the Illinois standards rather than the
20 Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference schedule. And we will
21 have available for distribution a revision showing that
22 some of those that you list as being in violation of Lake
23 Michigan Enforcement Conference schedules are not in viola-
24 tion of those. We will have that for distribution and I
25 will discuss it in my presentation.
-------
1 D. Wallgren
2 MR. MAYO: Mr, Bryson,
3 MR. BRISON: Thank you, Mr. Kee.
4 As you know, the Federal installations that dis-
5 charge waste into Lake Michigan are also covered by the
6 conference recommendations. It is equally important to
7 focus attention on how the Federal Government is going to
g achieve full compliance with the applicable recommendations,
9 as well as the other municipalities and industries in the basin1*
10 Mr. Donald Wallgren, Chief of our Federal Activities
11 'Program here in Chicago, is here to present a summary of
12 status of compliance of the Federal facilities with the con-
13 ference recommendations.
14 Mr* Wallgren.
STATEMENT OF DONALD WALLGREN, ACTING CHIEF,
FEDERAL ACTIVITIES BRANCH, SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS
DIVISION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
IB
REGION V, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
19
20
MR. WALLGRENi Status of Compliance with Enforce-
21
ment Conference Requirements; first, military installations.
22
A. Great Lakes Naval Training Center
23
The Naval Training Center is planning on connecting
24
its sanitary sewer system to North Shore Sanitary District
25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
D. Wallgren
in February 1974 when it is estimated that the NSSD Gurney
Plant will be completed. At this point, I would like to
point out a change on the report. The Training Center will
provide interim phosphorus removal facilities until the
connection with NSSD is complete. Funds have recently been
approved for this, and the Navy is working towards the com-
pletion of these facilities by January 1, 1973•
A project to discharge boiler blowdown water to the
sanitary sewer system should be completed by December 1972.
Current plans are to divert water treatment plant wastes to
the sanitary sewer system by 1974* Concept plans have been
initiated for a project to eliminate the discharge of
firearms into Lake Michigan.
The Naval Reserve Training Center, Armory Division,
has completed their construction to divert the Armory efflu-
ent to the municipal sewer system.
3. Fort Sheridan
"7"""""*
Fort Sheridan plans to connect its sewer system
to the North Shore Sanitary District sewer system for treat-
ment of its wastewater at NSSD's Clayey Road plant in FY 74*
This connection is expected when the Skokie Valley inter-
ceptor sewer is completed, which is necessary before the
connection to the NSSD sewer system can be made.
Here also there is a change from the report that wab
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
57
D. Wallgren
23
sent out earlier. Fort Sheridan will provide interim phos-
phorus removal facilities. It is expected that plans will be
approved shortly and they are working towards meeting the
January 1, 1972, deadline.
With regard to these two installations, I will
introduce representatives of these installations following
my report in order for them to give more specific plans.
C. U«S. Army
There are three NIKE sites in the Lake Michigan
Basin, one of which is in compliance and the other two are
not in operation.
D. U.S. Coast Guard
There are 12 Coast Guard Stations in thi&
basin. One of the stations has a project under construction
to connect a municipal sewer system. The Racine Stations
have become seasonal stations, and have provided disposal
of wastes by Portapottie service from a private contractor*
Two of the stations have been unmanned and automated. For
the remaining stations, fuids to automate have been tenta-
tively approved. However, the estimated completion of con-
struction is not until spring of 1975* A waiver was re-
quested from the Ninth Coast Guard District on the provision
24 | of treatment facilities for these installations until they
25 are unmanned. This request was denied by EPA and it was
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
19
20
21
22
23
D. Wallgren
suggested they be equipped with holding tanks and pumpout
facilities in this interim period.
E. Vessels
The Coast Guard vessels, when in dock, are con-
nected to the municipal sewer system with the exception of
one. These facilities are currently under construction. All
vessels at this time have some type of treatment. However,
it has been recommended that these vessels install holding
tanks with enough capacity so that when they are not in dock,
there will be no discharge. One of the vessels has been
decommissioned and placed in an inactive status.
F. U.S. Department of the Interior
The Jordan River Fish Hatchery at Elmira, Michi-
gan has completed a settling basin for removal of solids.
This concludes my report.
MR. MAYO: Do the conferees have any questions?
Excuse me, Mr. Wallgren, were the representatives
from the Naval Training Station and from Fort Sheridan avail-
able to make comments at this time?
MR. WALLGREN: Yes, they are. I will introduce
them at this time.
MR. MAIO: Fine.
MR. PtffiDY: Mr. Mayo.
MR. MAYO: Excuse me. Yes.
-------
59.
1 D, Wallgren
2 MR. PURDI: I am wondering what has happened on the
3 recommendation of EPA on the matter of equipping these sta-
4 tions with holding tanks and pumpout facilities on an interim
5 basis. Has there been a response to that?
6 MR. WALLGREN: Do you mean on the Coast Guard
7 Stations?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
9 MR. WALLGREN: We have not received a formal
10 response from the Coast Guard. By way of phone we have been
11 advised that they are planning on providing interim facili-
12 ties, but we do not have this by way of written response.
13 MR. McDONALD: When will those interim facilities
14 be provided?
15 MR. WALLGREN: We understand within this fiscal
16 year, which would mean by July 1, 1973.
17 At this time, I will introduce Commander Stroh,
of the Great Lakes Branch, Northern Division, Naval
19 Facilities Engineering Command, to comment on the specific
20 plans at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center.
21
22
23
24
25
-------
60
1 ! A. Stroh, Jr.
2
STATEMENT OF COMMANDER ALFRED STROH, JR.,
3 I
I GREAT LAKES BRANCH, NORTHERN DIVISION,
4
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND,
5 I
I GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS
6
7 ( COMMANDER STROHs Mr. Mayo,
g In order to meet the Illinois Sanitary Water Board
9 | regulations, Congress approved for Fiscal Year 1971 construc-
10 tion the connection of the U.S. Naval Base Great Lakes,
11 Illinois, into the North Shore Sanitary District at a total
12 project cost of $12,209*000. Negotiations began with the
13 North Shore Sanitary District and culminated 14 December 1971
14 with a contract for the treatment and disposal of all wastes
15 generated at Great Lakes for a maximum amount of $7,500,000.
16 The North Shore Sanitary District is proceeding with eon-
17 struction and their facilities are scheduled for completion
lg in February 1974.
19 The Naval Base Great Lakes is proceeding with
20 needed on-station work to deliver its sewage to the North
21 Shore Sanitary District. A contract for this work was
22 awarded in June 1972 at a cost of approximately $1 million.
23 The target date for completion is July 1973.
24 In June 1972 the Navy awarded a contract for the
25 treatment of the Great Lakes water treatment plant filter
-------
1 A* Stroll, Jr,
2 backwash water and the connection of the Great Lakes steam
3 plant boiler blowdown into the station sanitary sewer system
4 at a cost of approximately $150,000. The target date for
5 completion is December 1972* By this contract the Navy will
6 provide treatment for boiler blowdown and filter backwash
7 water at least 14 months earlier than the scheduled North
& Shore Sanitary District connection,
9 In December 1971, the Naval Base requested funding
10 for a treatment facility to reduce phosphates in Lake Michigan
11 sewage effluents until the North Shore Sanitary District
12 facilities are operative,
13 On 13 September 1972, funding for the phosphate
14 reduction facility at Great Lakes was approved. The proposed
15 time schedule for this project calls for award of a con-
16 struction contract by 31 December 1972 and completion by 30
17 June 1973* The possibility of improving these dates is being
1$ explored with several chemical companies. According to present.
19 plans, all sewage effluents will be diverted from Lake Michi-
20 gan, for the Great Lakes River Basin, by February 1974*
21 Are there any questions?
22 MR, McDONALD: Commander Stroh, could you repeat
23 those dates for when the phosphorus removal will be on line
24 again — the interim phosphorus removal?
25 COMMANDER STROH: Well, we just received approval
-------
62
1 A* Stroh, Jr.
2 from the station military construction fund — the same
3 source will be used for the construction that was approved
4 on 13 September* So commencing now, why, we are selecting
5 an A and £ to develop plans and specs*
6 Now, our schedule, at this time, is to have the
7 plant inspection completed in November of 1972; make a con-
g tract award sometime in December of 1972. We have an outside
9 completion date for construction of phosphate treatment of
10 30 June of 1973*
11 MR. McDONALD: Is that the permanent phosphorus
12 removal in June of 1973 or is that interim?
13 COMMANDER STROH: That will be interim. Since we
14 are getting out of the lake completely, permanent compliance
15 will be achieved when we connect to the North Shore Sanitary
16 District.
17 We have had some difficulty getting approval for
lg this project because it was not contemplated at the time we
19 asked to take all of our effluent out of the lake* So
20 Washington, our Navy Department, has reconsidered, and has
21 decided to allow us to use approximately $70,000 to provide
22 this interim treatment* That will be the interim solution*
23 There will be a question what we can do with that equipment*
24 It will be used for just a short time — you might say from
25 1973 to 1974.
-------
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A, Stroh, Jr.
MR. McDONALD: What type of removal would this be?
How are you going to effect this?
COMMANDER STROH: We plan to erect a tank contain-
ing alum and will inject the alum into the sewage treatment
system.
We estimate that we will have to buy chemicals
that will cost $50,000 a year for this operation. We are
considering getting another employee to provide this ser-
vice, and attach it to the Public Works Center.
Operational costs are estimated, at this time, at
about $100,000 a year, but we are going ahead, and they
should be completed and in operation in the spring of 1973-
MR. McDONALD: How much are the capital improve-
ment costs? How much construction would be involved?
COMMANDER STROH: Our estimate now is $70,000.
MR. McDONALD: You know the one problem I think
we have in the Federal establishment ~ and I am surprised
at the Federal conferees or the State conferees in the
likeness of their question — but I think the one question
we always have in the Federal establishment is that if the
Federal Government doesn't come forward as quickly as it
can, we are the Achilles' heel in this whole pollution
abatement.
It would seem to me that anything that Great Lakes
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
24
64
A. Stroh, Jr.
can do to accelerate that date by all means ought to be done,
and we would like to offer you some of our technical assistance
to see what we could do to expedite the on-line delivery of
that phosphorus removal. I will suggest right now that
if your technical people want to contact our David Welch,
he has, I think, some innovative ideas that could and may
well result in expediting that date. We would like to work
toward that end to get as close to December 31 as we can,
and as far away from June 30 as we can.
COMMANDER STROH: We are doing that, and I appre-
ciate the advice.
We have to operate within the contract regulations
to give everyone an opportunity, but we will work with your
people in an effort to improve this date.
MR. McDONALD: Very good.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman™
MR. MAYO: Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: I can't help technicating for a
minute. All these installations, Commander, are on the
lake shore, are they not?
COMMANDER STROH: Yes, sir.
MR, MILLER: What are you going to do with the
sludge after you precipitate it out?
COMMANDER STROH: You mean from the phosphates?
-------
n 6$
1 A, Stroh, Jr.
2 MR. MILLER: Yes.
3 COMMANDER STROH: I will ask Mr. Stahl to answer
4 that question.
5 MR. STAHL: We are presently lagooning it. No
6 sludge processing is done —
7 MR. MAYO: Would you come up to the podium, please?
8 Please identify yourself.
9 MR. STAHL: Matt Stahl from Great Lakes.
10 Presently all of our sludge processing is done at
11 our secondary plant on the west side of the basin, which
12 does not discharge into Lake Michigan, and it is anticipated
13 that during this interim phosphorus treatment that we would
14 continue in the same manner.
15 The design is not completed; it is only in a very
16 preliminary stage.
17 MR, MILLER: You say these are lagoons?
18 MR. STAHL: We are presently lagooning our sludge,
19 yes, after treatment, of course.
20 MR. PURDY: Mr. Mayo.
21 MR. MAYO: Yes.
22 MR. PURDY: I would like to inquire as to the
23 average resident population of this center. Are we talking
24 about a few hundred people, a few thousand, or what?
25 MR. STAHL: Approximately 35,000.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
15
20
21
22
23
66_
F. Huff
MR. PURDY: 35fOOO?
MR. STAHL: Yes. Now all are not residents; about
25,000 are full-time residents.
MR. PURDY: Thank you.
MR. MAYO: Are there any other comments or ques-
tions?
Thank you, very much, gentlemen.
MR. WALLGREN: At this time, I will ask that
Captain Huff of the U.S. Army discuss the plans at Fort
Sheridan for their interim phosphorus removal facilities.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN FREDERICK HUFF, CHIEF,
LANDS OFFICE, OFFICE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
U.S ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
16
17
CAPTAIN HUFF: Ladies and gentlemen —
FROM THE FLOOR: Mr. Chairman, we are having
difficulty hearing back here.
phone ?
MR. MAYO: Would you speak directly into the micro-
CAPTAIN HUFF: I would be glad to.
I am Captain Huff from the Office of the Judge
Advocate General from the Department of the Army in Washington
-------
„ 6?
1 F. Huff
2 and I am here on behalf of Fort Sheridan and the U.S. Army.
3 We have been engaged in this program for awhile,
4 too. Our original plan was submitted for the Fiscal year 197
5 budget. With the consolidation of the Fourth Army and the
6 Fifth Army, there was some question as to what would be the
7 status of Fort Sheridan,
8 At that time, the original plan was to remove the
9 military construction budget for the year, and the soonest
10 that it could be reinserted was FY 1973, which is this year.
11 This line item for connection to the Clavey Road
12 plant of the North Shore Sanitary District is now before the
13 Congress. It has been the general rule that the moneys are
14 made available roughly in November of the year, which is
15 November 1972 that we are now talking about. And we expect
16 that the project will be completed to connect Fort Sheridan
17 with the Glavey Road plant in February of 1974, which is,
l£ of course, the fiscal year of 1974,
19 We have also begun an interim plan — and there
20 is an urgent military construction bill now before Congress
21 roughly in the amount of $70,000 — to provide for interim
22 treatment. It was submitted sometime ago. We expect
23 approval will be forthcoming shortly.
24 We have not had any difficulty in the past in
25 getting moneys for these kinds of projects, so we suspect
-------
6B
1 F. Huff
2 that it will come soon.
3 We will proceed as rapidly as possible with that
4 project. It takes roughly 90 days from the time of funding
5 until the bids are presented, and roughly 2 months construc-
6 tion time after that to measure competitive bidding and pur-
7 chase of equipment. So that provided it doesn't freeze
8 solid as a rock for the whole rest of the year, we should have
9 no particular problem with getting the thing done.
10 Fort Sheridan currently has about half a million
11 gallons a day of sewage. We have already implemented a pro-
12 gram to stop the use of phosphate detergents in the laundry
13 on the post. We have turned to low phosphate detergents and
14 low phosphate detergents are now sold at the commissary,
15 which, for those of you who are not familiar, is the military
16 store. So the military housewife is now buying low phosphate
17 soap and is using it at home in her washing machine. We are
13 hoping that this will assist us even more in reducing the
19 level of phosphates.
20 Now I have only one other comment, that being
21 that our major impediment, of course, is connecting with
22 North Shore before completion of that plant. We are ready
23 to go. When they are done, we will be ready to connect.
24 We have — to answer a question in anticipatory
25 manner — we have a population of roughly 4»000 at Fort
-------
. . 69.
1 F. Huff
2 Sheridan. That includes both the military and their depen-
3 dents. The population is relatively stable at this point.
4 It has been much higher, and I suppose it could get much
5 lower. But that is where it stands at this point.
6 I would be very happy to answer any questions that
i
7 I can at this point.
g MR. MAYO: Mr. McDonald.
9 MR. McDONALD: Captain Huff —
10 CAPTAIN HUFF: Yes, sir.
11 MR. McDONALD: — assuming that you get your
12 appropriation in November, when would the phosphorus re-
13 moval facilities be in operation?
14 CAPTAIN HUFF: If everything went well, 5 months
15 would be April. That would probably be the soonest. That
16 is provided we get going before the hard freeze of winter-
17 time. It is very difficult to do the construction, of
l£ course, in the wintertime in Chicago.
19 MR. McDONALD: Again —
20 CAPTAIN HUFF: That and the equipment are the
21 major- impediments.
22 MR. McDONALD: Again I would offer the technical
23 assistance of our man, David Welch.
24 CAPTAIN HUFF: We would be most happy to have it,
25 I am sure.
-------
^__ 70
1 F. Huff
2 MR, McDONALD: We would leave this at your initia-
3 tive, and any way that he connects with that kind of project
4 he will do his best.
5 CAPTAIN HUFF: We are most appreciative of that.
6 MR. McDONALD: I have one other question also.
7 It is sort of a followup to a question that we asked Mr.
8 Poston. You say that the laundry is now using phosphate-
9 free detergents.
10 CAPTAIN HUFF: Low phosphate.
11 MR. McDONALDs I thought you said the commissary
12 was selling low phosphate but the laundry —
13 CAPTAIN HUFF: By directive we are using low
14 phosphate detergents in the post laundry, and we are selling
15 low phosphate detergents in the commissary on the post,
16 MR. McDONALD: Is this a general policy throughout
17 the Navy now?
13 CAPTAIN HUFF: Well, I am in the Army. (Laughter)
19 MR. McDONALD: Excuse me.
20 CAPTAIN HUFF: I don't know about the Navy.
21 MR. McDONALD: You know since the services have
22 tried this new approach now, and they don't wear uniforms,
23 it is hard to tell the difference.
24 CAPTAIN HUFF: We all work for the same govern-
25 ment, but we don't speakJ
-------
r- : 7L
1 F. Huff
2 MR. McDONALD: I am sorry?
3 CAPTAIN HUFF: We work for the same government but
4 we don't speak to each other!
5 MR. McDONALD: Maybe we ought to start wearing
6 uniforms. (Laughter)
7 CAPTAIN HUFF: I would go for that.
& It is increasingly popular in the Army to do this
9 kind of thing at the urging of a great number of persons
10 including myself. I do not have any great power but, you
11 know, we do our bit, and we are trying to more and more
12 encourage the use of low phosphate detergents and soap —
13 not just in Chicago either but in places where phosphate
14 contents are not quite so much in controversy as here. We
15 are looking to do as much as we can to clean things up.
16 Most of the people in the Army at this stage are probably
17 about my age anyway. We are young people who are most
13 interested in this whole business.
19 MR. McDONALD: You say you don't get much power.
20 When I was a Private First Class and I saw a Captain, he was
21 an awesome individual, so don't sell yourself shortJ
|
22 MR. MAYO: Are there any other comments from
23 the conferees?
24 MR. FRANCOS: Captain —
25 CAPTAIN HUFF: Yes, sir.
-------
: 72.
I F. Huff
2 MR. FRANCOS: — do you have a contract signed with
3 the North Shore Sanitary District?
4 CAPTAIN HUFF: No, we do not at this point, sir.
5 Part of the problem is that everybody wants the
6 money up front. We have to have money.
7 MR. FRANCOS: Okay. Thank you.
8 CAPTAIN HUFF: May I answer anyone else's ques-
9 tions?
10 MR. MAYO: Are there any other questions, gentle-
11 men ?
12 Thank you very much, Captain.
13 CAPTAIN HUFF: Thank you very much for the
14 opportunity.
15 MR. MAYO: We will take a 15-minute recess. We
16 will be back here at 11:35.
17 (Short recess.)
1# MR. MAIO: Ladies and gentlemen, to continue with
19 the agenda, we have reached the point of receiving the
20 reports of the individual States.
21 The usual procedure is for each State — as I
22 mentioned in the opening comments — to manage its own
23 time. Generally one request we have made is that when a
2^" party from an individual State has comments to make about
' the conference in general or about circumstances in more
-------
rr— ___ Zl
I W. Blaser
2 than one of the States, perhaps it is more appropriate for
3 those comments to come at the end under the public section
4 rather than as part of the commentary from one of the
5 individual States.
6 The order in which we will have the State presen-
7 tations will be Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Following that, there will be time for public
9 presentations
10 If Illinois is ready, we can proceed with the
11 Illinois presentation at this point.
12
13 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BLASER, DIRECTOR,
14 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
15 SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
16
17 MR. BLASERj If I may, I will just make my pre-
13 sentation from this spot.
19 David Currie joined us a few minutes ago and he
20 will be back. He is the Chairman of the Illinois Pollution
21 Control Board.
22 For the background information, for those of you
23 Who are unfamiliar with the Illinois system, Illinois has
not one pollution control agency but three: The Institute
25 for Environmental Quality, which is a research institute;
-------
' , 74.
1 W. Blaser
2 the Pollution Control Board, which is the standards-setting
3 and judging group — David Currie, Chairman; and the
4 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency of which I am
5 i Director, which is the enforcement and service arm.
6 As far as the background of the compliance
7 schedule here in Illinois, the lake is important to the
8 people in Illinois. Not only is it the water supply for
9 Chicago but for the suburbs as well. It represents the
10 public water supply for roughly half of the population of
11 the State.
12 Concern for a clean lake here in Illinois goes
13 back to near the turn of the century when first the Metro-
14 politan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago began convert-
15 ing sewage effluent away from the lake down to the Illinois
16 River. More recently the Illinois Sanitary District has
17 embarked on a similar system and construction is well under
IB way. Progress is being made. We have new effluent standards
19 and we have a program in Illinois calling for complete
20 diversion of all wastewater away from the lake. The con-
21 struction program is well under way, but until then we are
22 requiring disinfection and phosphate removal,
23 Generally speaking, Illinois point sources are
24 on schedule with the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
25 recommendations. Part of this is because the Illinois
-------
n 75.
1 W. Blaser
2 standards set a tighter time schedule, as I mentioned
3 earlier in the morning — a tighter timetable than that
4 required by the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference,
5 The original list that was provided to the Federal
6 Government was based on the tighter of the two timetables,
7 and in order to make the material more comparative with the
g rest of the States, we have provided and do have available
9 to anyone interested a. revised schedule showing Illinois
10 sources generally in compliance,
I
11 We also have prepared, again available for those
12 who are interested, a brief summation of the comparison
i
13 between the Lake Michigan Enforcement timetable and the
14 Illinois State timetable,
15 In terms of progress, as far as disinfection, the
16 point sources in Illinois not discharging to the Illinois
17 River system are in full compliance with disinfection,
1# Further, as far as phosphorus removal, as far as the Lake
19 Michigan Enforcement Conference requirements — these are
20 either in operation or are on schedule where we feel there
21 is no doubt they will meet the December 1972 requirements,
22 As far as the industrial, generally speaking,
23 this is on schedule, or some form of enforcement proceeding
24 is in progress. Some of these are under compliance
25 schedules through the circuit eourts of Illinois which do
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. ___^___ . 76
W. Blaser
not match the compliance schedule of the Lake Michigan
Enforcement Conference, However, we are bound by the circuit
court decisions and t,he companies involved are on schedule
with those circuit court schedules.
As far as upgrading of sewage treatment, this
refers primarily to the North Shore Sanitary District, the
one remaining unit that discharges effluent to the lake.
They have a construction schedule of $116 million worth of
construction in process right now. This is behind schedule.
It is behind schedule because the whole complex of North
Shore Sanitary District problems had to be resolved through
consolidation in a case before the Pollution Control Board
which over a year ago resolved it and it is now moving, but
moving behind schedule.
We have here today Mr, Byers from the North Shore
Sanitary District who will outline in greater detail the
situation in that important portion of the Illinois dis-
charges.
Last is the question of combined sewer overflow,
Generally speaking, here we have an accelerated deadline on
the part of the Pollution Control Board,
There have been questions raised as to the feasi-
bility of achieving those deadlines, particularly until the
Federal financing question is resolved. Even if Federal
-------
. _ 77_
1 H. Byers
2 financing were to be available tomorrow, the timetable looks
3 very tight to us, and we have committed ourselves to raising
4 the question with the Pollution Control Board for review of
5 the accelerated Illinois timetable. But in preparation for
6 that we are having the Research Institute of Illinois do a
7 study to better assess, better determine the facts on those
8 deadlines.
9 Now, since the remaining sewage effluent discharges
10 into the lake are within the scope of the North Shore Sani-
11 tary District, if it would be appropriate, I would like Mr,
12 Byers, the General Superintendent of the District, to outline
13 the situation now,
14 Is this acceptable, Mr, Mayo?
15 MR. MAYO: Yes.
16 Would you introduce yourself, please, Mr, Byers?
17
18 STATEMENT OF H. WILLIAM BYERS,
19 GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH SHORE SANITARY DISTRICT,
20 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
21
22 MR. BYERS: I am H. William Byers, the General
23 Manager of the North Shore Sanitary District. And, Mr,
24 Mayo, I would like to read the prepared statement that I
25 had made for this conference.
-------
1 H. Byers
2 MR. MAYO: Please proceed.
3 MR* BYERS: At the first meeting of the four-State
/,. conference which was convened on January 31> 1968, the late
5 Raymond £, Anderson presented a statement outlining the plans
5 ©f the North Shore Sanitary District to construct the facili-
7 ties necessary to protect the waters of Lake Michigan, A major
g feature of these plans was the proposal to divert all effluents
9 from Lake Michigan and discharge them to the Des Plaines River*
10 The effluent from the Clavey Road Sewage Treatment Plant was
11 also to be pumped to the Des Plaines River* Stormwater over-
12 flows would be controlled by the construction of retention
13 basins at Clavey Road, Highwood, North Chicago, Waukegan, Zion,
I/,, and Winthrop Harbor* The basins would retain most of the storm
15 flows and return them to the intercepting sewers, after the
16 flow subsided, for subsequent treatment at the sewage treatment
17 plants. Amounts in excess of the capacity of the basins would
lg be settled and chlorinated before being discharged to the re-
19 ceiving waterway. The cost of the entire project was then
20 estimated to be about $5$ million* Various delays and changes
2i in effluent and water quality standards have since resulted in
22 escalation of the total project cost to about $116 million.
23 Oh May 4, 19&&, the voters of the District approved
24 a $35 million bond issue, the maximum amount permitted under
25 the Sanitary District Act of 1911. Subsequently, the District
-------
79
1 H, Byers
2 applied for a Federal construction grant and, after passage
3 of the State antipollution bond issue, for a State grant also*
4 To date, (August 31, 1972), State and Federal grants amounting
5 to about $51.7 million have been offered* About $3*1 million
6 of this amount has actually been received by the District*
7 Significant delays in implementing the foregoing
& plans were caused by difficulties in obtaining a site for a
9 third major plant near Gurnee and, in particular, by prolonged
10 litigation instituted by persons opposing the expansion of
11 the Clavey Road plant. Delays were also caused by successive
12 revisions to the water quality and effluent statndards, which
13 have recently (March 7, 1972) been extensively revised by the
14 Illinois Pollution Control Board.
15 In October 1970, the District authorized its con-
16 suiting engineers to develop a long-range plan for sewage
17 disposal for the District, and the remainder of Lake County,
lg taking into account restrictions on future expansion of the
19 Glavey Road plant as imposed by court order* The completed
20 report was accepted in November 1971*
2i As a result of the litigations, rulings by the
22 Illinois Pollution Control Board, delays related to an
23 Environmental Impact Statement by the U.S. Environmental
24 Protection Agency and the long-range plan recommended by the
25 consulting engineers, a number of changes have been made in
-------
H. Byers
the original plans of the District. They are summarized
briefly, as follows:
1, Advanced waste treatment facilities for sewage
tributary to the Waukegan plant will be constructed at
Waukegan instead of at Gurnee. The effluent will be dis-
charged to the Des Plaines River as originally planned,
8 2. The Gurnee Sewage Treatment Plant will treat
sewage from Great Lakes Naval Training Center and from part
10 of Lake County west of the District boundaries as well as that)
11 from the upper Skokie Valley, North Chicago, Gurnee and
12 vicinity. An agreement with the Navy has been reached and
13 negotiations with Lake County are proceeding.
14 3. Stormwater storage and treatment facilities
15 at Highwood will not be constructed. This wastewater will
16 be conveyed instead to Clavey Road for storage and treatment.
17 4« The capacity of the Clavey Road plant will be
IB limited to 17•# mgd and elaborate odor control facilities
19 will be provided. The effluent will continue to be dis-
20 i charged to the Skokie River instead of to the Des Plaines
21 River as previously planned.
22 5. Additional capacity for the southern part of
23 the District, when required, will be provided at a new plant
24 to be located at the Des Plaines River near the Lake-Cook
25 County line road. This plant will also serve part of Lake
-------
H. Byers
County west of the District boundary.
6. All sludge dewatering facilities for the Dis-
trict will be located at Waukegan. The dewatered sludge will
be disposed of in a remote landfill instead of by incinera-
tion. *
7 j In addition to planning and constructing facilities
8 for the long-range plans of the District, considerable effort
and funds have been devoted to providing interim facilities
10 for disinfection and phosphorus removal at the plants presently
I
11 discharging effluents into Lake Michigan. Phosphate removal
12 has been accomplished at the Waukegan plant since September 1,
13 1971? utilizing ferric chloride and an anionic polymer* The
14 concentration of phosphorus in the effluent has averaged
15 below 1.0 mg/1. Equipment to feed alum is presently being
16 installed at five small lakefront plants and the North
17 Chicago plant. This equipment will be installed and in
IS operation to remove phosphorus prior to December 31» 1972.
19 This will have the side benefit of obtaining a higher degree
20 ! of removal of BOD and suspended solids,,
21 The polishing pond at Clavey Road plant has been
22 ! completed and the District is doing a much higher degree of
23 treatment during the construction of this plant. A contract
I
24 is also awarded for the construction of the necessary equip-
25 ment to treat chemicals to obtain an even higher degree of
-------
32
H. Byers
treatment during construction at the Clavey Road plant. This
contract for chemical treatment equipment will be completed
prior to December 31, 1972.
An extensive program of laboratory and pilot plant
studies has been conducted to determine the most suitable
methods of advanced waste treatment to comply with the new
effluent and water quality standards.
The substantial progress made by the District is
10 attested to by the fact that about $40 million in construc-
11 tion work is under contract or has been completed. Plans
12 and specifications for an additional $21 million in con-
13 struction work are essentially ready for review by the Illinois
14 EPA. This work will be under contract as soon as possible.
15 Thank you very much.
16 MR. MAYO* Are there any questions or comments
17 that the conferees have of Mr. Byers?
MR. McDONALD: I have a question, Mr. Mayo.
19 On page 3 of your statement, Mr. Byers, you
20 indicated, item 6, that: "The dewatered sludge will be dis-
21 posed of in a remote landfill instead of by incineration."
22 I I understand that the project is currently
23 designed for incineration, and you are now preparing an
24 Environmental impact Statement to dispose of it by landfill?
25 MR. BYERS: Originally the plans were completed to
-------
33.
H. Byers
dispose ol' it by incineration. The plans have in the last
years been revised, and we are tinder construction with the
sludge dewatsring facilities and have obtained, a State of
Illinois EPA permit for operation of a landfill.
MR. McDONALD: Has an Environmental Impact State-
ment been prepared on the landfill site?
MR. BIERS: The statement has gone — yes — has
been prepared and submitted to the State.
10 MR. McDONALD: I see.
11 It has not yet been received by the Federal Govern-
12 ment?
13 MR. BIERS: I am not sure.
14 MR. McDONALD: Well, the sooner that statement
15 gets to us, the quicker we can move on that end of the project
i
16 1 I have another question, Mr. Byers. Were the swim-
17 ming beaches open at Lake County this past summer?
MR. BIERS: I believe the beaches were posted by Lak
19 County Health Department as closed all summer long.
20 MR. McDONALD: In your judgment, when will the
21 beaches be open in Lake County?
22 MR. BIERS: Well, I think, according to the program,
substantial changes in the beach should happen in 1973 and
24 1974» part of it, the higher degree of treatment going on at
§
2 5 Waukegan now — there has been some improvements.
-------
1 H. Byers
2 j However, the small lakefront plants are phased in
the latter part of 1973, early part of 1974, to be taken off
completely, and I think that is when you get the big increase
5 on the beach.
6 MR. McDONALD: Is there chlorination now on the
7 lakeside plant?
MR. BYERS: Yes, we chlorinate both the regular
sewage and also the storrawater.
10 MR. McDONALD: Do you see any possibility of those
11 beaches being open next summer as the result of actions by
12 the District?
13 MR. BYERS: No. The changes that are coming about
14 will be programmed to come on line really after the summer
15 of 1973.
16 MR. McDONALD: So, in your judgment, it is just
17 physically impossible to do anything additional to get those
beaches opened by next summer.
19 MR. BYERS: Right. We are going, of course, ob-
20 viously — which I have already said — ahead with the phos-
21 phate removal which will give us additional BOD and suspended
22 solids. However, I think the total answer to the beaches on
23 Lake Michigan, in Lake County, is the completion of the total
24 program. And I think to say that you are going to see sub-
25 stantial change prior to the completion of that w6uld be in
-------
H* Byers
2 error.
3 I MR. McDONALD: When, then, would you see the
|'
4 beaches open?
5 • MR. BIERS: Probably in the middle of 1974.
6 MR. McDONALD: Thank you.
7 MR. BLASER: May I ask a question, Mr. Byers?
8 Some people have raised the question that even
9 though Clavey Road plant is not yet complete the facilities
10 are now nearly complete to pump some of the effluent from
11 some of the shore plants over to the Clavey Road plant.
12 Would you care to comment on the desirability or
13 lack thereof of diverting that sewage even though Clavey is
14 not yet complete?
15 MR. BIERS: Well, on the Clavey Road, the contracts
16 as presently awarded will bring that plant up to a 17.8 mgd
17 plant as a full secondary plant, followed by the polishing
1# pond.
19 These contracts that are awarded and are under con-
20 struction right now are due to be completed in September and
21 October of 1973. Until these particular contracts are com-
22 pleted, plus the construction of a relief sewer in the middle
23 part, which is also scheduled for the latter part of 1973 for
24 completion, there is not adequate capacity to handle any
25 one of the particular lakefront plants. So we have to live
-------
86
H, Byers
with the situation as it is, and keep pushing to complete
the contracts presently under way,
MR, BLASER: All right, but it is not a shortage
of transport capacity now, or is it?
MR, BIERS: Well, let me back off here and explain
it to you this way. The three plants at Highland Park ~ the
8 pump station is approximately 90 percent complete, probably
9 95 percent complete — will be on line, be tested within the
10 next 2 or 3 months. The contract to connect the three
11 small plants together has just been awarded, I would expect
12 the contractor to construct on that intercepting sewer this
13 fall until late into the winter when it finally gets stopped,
14 and to complete construction next spring,
15 The amount of flow and the piping arrangement is suc|h
16 that at Perry Avenue even when the pump station is on line,
17 we will not be able to take that flow from Clavey Road until
18 we finish the additions that are being accomplished,
19 When you move on up to Lake Bluff and Lake Forest, wje
20 have to get additional relief capacity in the intercepting
21 sewer before we will be able to convey that properly to the
I
22 | Clavey Road plant,
23 MR. BLASER: Then, even though the Lake Forest
24 plant — the pumping station — those facilities are 99 per-
i
25 cent complete, you cannot in good conscience divert effluent
-------
1 H. Byers
2 from that to the Illinois River watershed without adequate
3 Clavey Road treatment?
4 MR. BYERS: That is correct.
5 MR. MAYO: Are you through, Mr. Blaser?
6 MR. BLASER: Yes. Thank you.
7 MR. MAYO: Are there any other questions of Mr.
Byers?
9 MR. BYERS: Thank you.
10 MR. MAYO: Thank you very much, Mr. Byers
11 MR. BYERS: Thank you.
12 MR. MAYO: Mr. Blaser, do you have any other —
13 MR. BLASER: We have one other gentleman to make a
14 presentation, James C. Vaughn, who is the Engineer in charge
15 of the Water Purification Division for the City of Chicago.
16 Mr. Vaughn has been with us for many years. He is just
17 retiring. This is his last official presentation — at least
18 of this District.
19 There are copies for the conferees, and I think
20 Mr. Vaughn has some additional copies.
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
15
J. Vaughn
STATEMENT OF JAMES C. VAUGHN,
ENGINEER OF WATER PURIFICATION,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SEWERS,
BUREAU OF WATER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
7
MR. VAUGHN: Thank you, Mr. Blaser.
Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and gentlemen of
the audience. I had a few slides — that is, I had a few
slides, but unfortunately the projector won't arrive until
a little bit later. However, the conferees have the charts
13 that have been made from the slides, so they won't have any
problem, but the rest of you might not be too interested in
what the slides have to show anyway.
(Mr. Vaughn's statement follows in its entirety.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
PROGRESS REPORT ON WATER QUALITY OF LAKE MICHIGAN NEAR CHICAGO
A Report of the Department of Water and Sewers, City of Chicago
by
James C. Vaughn, Engineer of Water Purification
Philip A. Reed, Filtration Engineer V
Introduction
The Chicago Department of Water and Sewers is charged with the
responsibility of treating and distributing water to the City and to
the suburbs, presently numbering 72, which obtain their water supply
from the City. In total, 4,500,000 persons are dependent on the
Chicago Water System.
The source of supply is Lake Michigan. The City maintains intakes
located several miles from the shore, using tunnels to convey water to
the filtration plants for treatment. Each plant also possesses an
intake as part of the plant structure, to supplement or, if necessary,
to replace the supply from the intake cribs. The cribs are located in
approximately 35 feet of water; thus they receive water from the layer
above the thermocline. The intakes at the plants receive water from
the relatively shallow waters near the shore. In general, the shore
intakes are used as little as possible, since the water quality at the
shore tends to be poorer than that at the cribs.
The Water Purification Division of the Bureau of Water makes
numerous analyses of raw water, water in course of treatment, and water
in the distribution system. It also conducts surveys of the inshore
w
^
area of the Lake along the Chicago shore, and to the north and south.
Figure 1 may be used for orientation to the area within which surveys are
conducted.
It is necessary to emphasize that the portion of the Lake covered
by the investigations of the Water Purification Division is small
compared to the entire Lake, but is nonetheless of great significance.
-------
FIGURE !
WISCONSIN
ILLINOIS
WEST SHORE OF SOUTHERN PORTION OF LAKE MICHIGAN
SHOWING DISTANCES BETWEEN MOUTHS OF INDIANA
HARBOR SHIP CANAL AND CALUMET RIVER AND
VARIOUS WATERWORKS INTAKES.
WAUKEGAN
NORTH CHICAGO
GREAT LAKES
LAKE FOREST
FORT SHERIDAN
HIGHLAND PARK
LAKE COUNTY
COOK COUNTY
LAKE
MICHIGAN
WINNETKA
KENILWORTH
HARRISON £
DEVER CMS
OLD TWO-MILE CR18
C.W.ER
N
DEPART:.;ENT or \VATER a SEWERS
BUREAU OF WATER
I CITY OF CHICAGO
LlAI'UAfiY Z(-AWl
-------
- 2 -
Our surveys sample perhaps one cubic mile of the 1,200 cubic miles in
the Lake's volume,, and about 100 of the 22,400 square miles of its area.
However, this small fraction of the Lake constitutes the water supply for
the largest population aggregate on the Great Lakes system. Data concern-
ing it are, therefore, of greater significance than the area or volume
concerned would suggest.
We have found that data collected at the South Water Filtration
Plant (SWFP) are valuable for estimating the quality of this portion of
the Lake's waters, both because the period of record for this location
is longer and because it is subject to greater variation in water quality
than is the Central Water- Filtration Plant (CWFP). The data discussed
in this report come primarily from SWFP operating and test information.
Bacteriological Quality
Variations in bacteriological quality of the Lake at the intake of
the SWFP are summarized below:
TABLE 1
Coliform Organisms per 100ml
Year Annual Average
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
14.0
9.7
13.9
20.0
42.3
38.7
70.8
63.1
85.6
65.2
52.4
69.5
200.8
110.2
46.3
35.6
260.0
82.0
59.0
20.0
22.0
Maximum Day
375
495
534
959
1,300
1,400
9,600
6,400
3,200
2,900
3,000
1,700
5,800
1,900
1,100
1,200
13,000
2,400
980
670
1,100
-------
- 3 -
Examination of the table demonstrates several facts. Numbers of
coliform organisms per 100ml, even annual averages, have been highly
variable, moving irregularly from low to high values. However, with
the- exception of the inconsiderable increase in 1971, the trend has
been distinctly downward since 1967. The unpredictable high values
recorded in the past make prediction hazardous, but the consistent
decline for the last few years—the only such lengthy decline in
numbers in the 21-year period covered—leads to the hope that perhaps
an irreducible minimum concentration has been reached.
Hydrocarbon Odors
While odors present in water may come from a variety of sources,
and possess a variety of characteristics, certain ones are more signi-
ficant than others. Those characterized in the twelfth edition of
Standard Methods as hydrocarbon, and abbreviated as Ch, are especially
important in this connection. (This table has not been included in the
current, thirteenth edition.) The odors so characterized are typical
of certain types of industrial waste, make water wholly unsuitable for
drinking unless removed, and are difficult and expensive to remove.
The treatment technique used in Chicago is the addition of activated carbon
which is removed after it has adsorbed the odorous compounds.
Table 2 summarizes information on occurrence of hydrocarbon odors
at SWFP for 1950-1971, inclusive. Two terms used in the table may require
definition. An "odor period" is any number of consecutive days on which
a hydrocarbon odor is present in the water entering the plant. An "odor
day" is any day on which such odors are present. Thus a period of four
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Twelfth Edition, APHA: New York (1965) p. 306
-------
- 4 -
consecutive days when hydrocarbon odors are present would be recorded
as one odor period and as four odor days.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF HYDROCARBON (Ch) ABNORMAL ODOR PERIODS
IN RAW LAKE WATER SUPPLY TO SOUTH WATER FILTRATION PLANT
1950-1971
Maximum Threshold Maximum Activated
Odor Total Odors During Periods Carbon Dosage Applied
Year Periods Odor Days 4-20 21-50 51-100 Ib/mil gal
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
10
20
17
16
12
15
13
18
17
19
21
23
23
28
28
15
26
21
22
15
8
18
36
127
30
18
23
36
28
49
43
40
42
94
76
72
89
46
95
89
57
42
18
26
6
16
16
16
11
15
12
18
16
17
20
23
23
27
27
14
25
20
17
13
8
18
3 1
4
1
-
1
_ _
1
— -
1
2
1
_ _
- -
1
_ i
1
1
•I —
1
1
-
- -
1158
446
590
266
356
279
415
325
503
712
324
388
270
680
745
320
385
557
411
557
213
214
None of the last three years has exceeded the average number of odor
periods for the period (18.4 per year),although 1971 had nearly that many.
Similarly, there has been a decrease in the number of odor days. All the
last three years have been well below the average of 53 days per year. During
the last third of the period reported, there has been a tendency for maximum
odors as measured by threshold odor numbers to decrease. Maximum activated
carbon dosages, which are perhaps a more sensitive measure of maximum severity
qf odors, have shown a similar tendency to decrease, as well.
-------
- 5 -
Ammonia Nitrogen
Concentrations of ammonia nitrogen are determined in the course
of routine plant operation. In surface waters its presence is often
interpreted to suggest the presence of pollution by sanitary sewage, It
is also present in many industrial wastes. In Chicago it is removed by
treating the water entering the plants with sufficient chlorine to
remove the ammonia and leave a "free" chlorine residual.
The highest concentrations are of most interest because they
impose the severest demands on the plant. In Table 3, data are presented
on maximum ammonia nitrogen concentrations and chlorine doses. Because
high ammonia concentrations are commonly associated with severe odors,
data on maximum activated carbon dosages are repeated here.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM AMMONIA NITROGEN IN INTAKE WATER SUPPLY, AND
ACTIVATED CARBON AND CHLORINE APPLIED DURING ABNORMAL ODOR POLLUTION PERIODS
SOUTH WATER FILTRATION PLANT, 1950-1971
Maximum Ammonia
Year Nitrogen (ppm)
1950 0.28
1951 0.20
1952 0.25
1953 0.12
1954 0.15
1955 0.12
1956 0.18
1957 0.25
1958 0.68
1959 0.29
1960 0.27
1961 0.36
1962 0.59
1963 0.23
1964 0.50
1965 0.20
1966 0.26
1967 0.26
1968 0.25
1969 0.25
1970 0.14
1971 0.20
Maximum Activated
Carbon Dosage
(lb/mil gal)
1158
446
590
266
356
279
415
325
503
712
324
388
370
680
745
320
385
557
411
557
213
214
Maximum Chlorine
Dosage (lb/mil gal)
84.0
.5
.1
.4
45,
45,
35.
20.8
24.3
24.4
26.8
19.4
24.5
16.0
20.3
27.2
42.8
56.
53.
53.9
70.0
51.1
37.8
39.0
40.6
,1
.1
-------
- 6 -
The maximum ammonia nitrogen concentration was rather low at the
beginning of the period reported, tended to be higher in the late fifties
and early sixties, and has fallen in the last few years to approximately
the level characteristic of the start of the period.
The changes in maximum chlorine dosage are somewhat more difficult
to interpret because they include the effects of changes in operating
techniques in the plant, but it is fairly clear that maximum dosages
for 1969, 1970, and 1971 have been lower than for the years immediately
previous.
Activated Carbon
Because activated carbon use tends intrinsically to be the most
expensive treatment operation used, and because the extent of its use
provides a useful overall measure of water quality, more extensive data
on the subject are presented in Table 4. Once again, the maximum
carbon dosages are included for ease of comparison.
Of the data in Table 4, the most significant as a measure of
overall water quality are the figures for the average carbon dosage in
pounds applied per million gallons of water treated. Like some of the
data presented earlier, these demonstrate the need for a rather high
level of treatment, especially during the middle years of the sixties,
and a decrease in the extent of treatment required during the last
three years.
The dosage for 1971, it should be made clear, must be considered
on a different basis than earlier ones. Recently installed butterfly
valves at the shore intake permit rapid variations in the amounts of
water taken from the two intakes; since undesirable odors are more
frequent on the shore supply, the result of their use has been to reduce
-------
_ 7 —
carbon requirements. Water entering the plant from the crib supply may
now be treated with carbon in two stages; this also leads to more
economical use of carbon. The combined effect of all changes is
reflected in the extremely low average carbon dosage.
The total quantity of activated carbon used is a measure of water
quality, but is only an approximate one, since the plant treats some-
what different amounts of water each year. These figures are valuable
for defining the scale of water treatment required in Chicago. The
maximum dosages illustrate the treatment capacity required to meet the
most severe conditions of odor. In a sense, they represent additional
investment in storage, piping, and feeding systems required to meet the
peak demand for carbon.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF ACTIVATED CARBON APPLIED
FOR REMOVAL OF ODORS IN LAKE WATER
SOUTH WATER FILTRATION PLANT
1950- 1971
Maximum Hourly Carbon
Total Activated Average Carbon Dosage During Odor
Year Carbon Applied (Ibs) Dosage (Ib/mil gal) Periods (Ib/mil gal)
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
2,874,905
3,545,552
3,203,426
1,775,063
2,011,359
2,057,781
1,981,108
3,032,729
2,762,540
3,035,509
2,727,005
2,632,923
2,865,541
3,194,443
3,773,655
3,094,606
4,678,661
4,455,273
4,879,309
2,542,600
1,535,500
782,200
26
31
26
14
16
17
16
24
22
23
21
21
22
23
27
23
33
32
33
18
11
9
1158
446
590
266
356
279
415
325
503
712
324
388
370
680
745
320
385
557
411
557
213
214
-------
- 8 -
Illinois State Standards - SWB-7
As one consequence of the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965,
Illinois, like all other states, formulated standards for interstate
as well as intrastate surface waters. The standards for Lake Michigan
were stated in the Sanitary Water Board's SWB-7, and remained in effect
with a few changes until they were superseded by the omnibus standard
adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) on March 7, 1972.
Pending federal approval of the IPCB's document, the SWB-7 standards
are still effective at the federal level.
Chicago's SWFP was designated as a control point with respect to the
open waters of Lake Michigan in the Water Quality Criteria formulated
by a Technical Committee of the 1965 Illinois-Indiana Conference on
Pollution of Lake Michigan and Its Tributaries. These criteria are
virtually identical with the Lake Michigan open water standards of SWB-7.
Data collection on a frequent, in most cases daily, basis was begun in
1965 at SWFP and is continuing at this time.
In Table 5 are summarized data on the extent to which sixteen
water quality parameters conformed to the SWB-7 open water standards
for Lake Michigan. All figures are on a per annum basis; the numerator
of each fraction represents the number of times per year the parameter
value exceeded the standard, while the denominator represents the
total number of determinations per year made on the parameter.
Even cursory inspection of Table 5 shows that a number of param-
eters never exceeded the limits set in the standard (temperature, pH,
MBAS, cyanides, iron, fluoride, filterable residue). A number of
others exceeded the standard too seldom for the exceedances to be
significant (total coliform, fecal streptococci, color, dissolved oxygen).
Significance should be attached, however, to certain parameters which
-------
TABLE 5
CONTROL POINT - OPEN WATER
SOUTH WATER FILTRATION PLANT
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL RESULTS WITH WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
PARAMETER
Coliform Bacteria
(MPN/100 ml)
Fecal Streptococci
(Number/ 100 ml)
True Color
(Units)
Threshold Odor
Temperature
pH
(Units)
Dissolved Oxygen
(Percent Saturation)
Ammonia Nitrogen
(mg/1)
Methylene Blue Active Subst.
(mg/1)
Chlorides
(mg/1)
Cyanides
(mg/1)
Fluorides
(mg/1)
Dissolved Iron
(mg/1)
Phenol-Like Substances
(mg/1)
Sulfates
(mg/1)
Total Phosphates
(mg/1)
Filterable Residue
(mg/1)
Legend: ^> Not more than
~y More than
QUALITY CRITERIA
Annual Average
Daily Average
Single Daily Value
Annual Average
Single Daily Value
Single Value
Daily Average
Single Daily Value
Annual Median-Range
Daily Med-Range
Annual Average
Single Value
Annual Average
Daily Average
Annual Average
Single Daily Value
Annual Average
Single Daily Value
Single Value
Annual Average
Single Daily Value
Annual Average
Single Daily Value
Annual Average
Single Value
Annual Average
Single Daily Value
Annual Average
Single Daily Value
Annual Average
single Daily Value
<. Less than
<£• Not less than
f- 200
A 25
£J
* 8
if* 4
8.1-8.4
7.9-9.0
~£- 90
•£ 80
^0.02
^-0.05
%* 0.05
3> 0.20
¥• 9 (8)
^ 15
> 0.025
^- i.o
f- 1.3
9«-0.15
>0.30
^0.001
f- 0.003
£> 24 (23)
> 50
>0.03 (0.02)
> 0.04
P 165 (162)
^ 200
EXCEEDING DAILY AVERAGE EXCEEDING SINGLE VALUE
1965-1970 Avg. 1971 1965-1970 Avg. 1971
1/363
7/305
0/261
14/365
27/365 3/365
0/361
0/365 0/365
1/15
27/365 5/365
0/107
1/310
0/32
0/323
0/297
50/253
4/306
164/343
0/164
Number of days exceeding criteria
Number of days tested
0/359
3/352
0/80
1/364
0/365
1/55
0/161
24/349
0/56
0/365
0/365
41/364
20/337
224/353
0/250
-------
— 9 -•
either exceeded the standard frequently or whose exceedances are important
regardless of their frequency.
Of these parameters, the most important is total phosphate. There
is strong evidence that phosphate is the nutrient whose concentration
limits the total mass of biological growth in fresh waters. The limit-
ing concentration of 0.03 mg/1 was originally used in SWB-7 because that
was the best available estimate, at the time of the standard's adoption,
of a maximum safe concentration. That is, evidence then available
indicated that 0.03 mg/1 of phosphorus as orthophosphate was the highest
concentration that was unlikely to cause excessive growth of algae. Later
information, developed in public hearfngs by the IPCB, caused that body
to lower the permissible maximum concentration by one third, to 0.02 mg/1
as orthophosphate.
Actual concentrations of phosphate in Lake Michigan at Chicago have
consistently been higher than those set by the State agencies as desirable
maxima. This has been true at both plants, and both plants have demonstrated
essentially identical concentrations. Furthermore, the concentration of
phosphate has been increasing, as Table 6 demonstrates.
TABLE 6
QUARTERLY AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1) TOTAL P04
LAKE MICHIGAN AT SWFP RAW HEADER
1966-1971
Year & Qr. Total P04 (mg/1) Year & Qr. Total PO/, (mg/1)
1966-1 0.024 1969-1 0.064
-2 0.033 -2 0.063
-3 0.016 -3 0.039
*4 0.042 -4 0.049
1967-1 0.053 1970-1 0.063
-2 0.053 -2 0.072
-3 0.062 -3 0;065
-4 0.074 T4 0.072
1968-1 0.120 1971-1 0.076
-2 0.091 -2 0.061
-3 0.055 -3 0.082
-4 0.058 -4 0.086
-------
- 10 -
Because of the strong interest in phosphate concentration, we
examined the SWFP data somewhat more closely (Fig. 2). Use of 5-month
centered moving averages to reduce random variation indicated a rapid
increase in total phosphate in 1966 and 1967, followed by a decrease
in 1968 and 1969, and this followed in turn by a consistent increase
in 1970, 1971, and the first half of 1972. A linear regression line
fitted to data from July 1969 to June 1972 suggests that phosphate
concentrations are now increasing at 0.015 mg/1 per year, a rate
sufficient to cause concern.
A group of three related parameters—sulfate, chloride, and filterable
residue (total dissolved solids)—deserves some attention. These are
generally regarded as being biologically conservative; that is, their
concentrations are unaffected by biological activity in water. They enter
the water as the result of varied human activities. Thus changes in their
concentrations provide a measure of the effect of human activity on the
Lake that is not complicated by participation in biological activity. The
absolute concentrations of these materials in Lake Michigan are too low
to be of any concern; what is of interest are the changes in concentration.
These are summarized below.
TABLE 7
ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
CHLORIDE, SULFATE, AND FILTERABLE RESIDUE
SOUTH WATER FILTRATION PLANT RAW HEADER, 1966-1971
Year Chloride Sulfate Filt. Residue
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
7.7
7.6
7.3
7.2
7.7
9.1
24.5
22.7
22.8
22.9
23.1
22.7
158.7
160.6
162.5
162.1
165.9
172,6
-------
o
(S
o
TOTAL PHOSPHATE (mg/J as P04)
LAKE MICHIGAN AT S.W.FR
5-MONTH MOVING AVERAGES
O.iO
0.08
E
£ 0-06-
x
a.
CO
o
004
©
oo.
o
0.02
0 l,i || i n i MI i
1966
M i I ! ! I Ml I
1967
I M I I I I 1 1 I I
1968
i M 11 n i n \
1969
I 1 I I I I M M I
1970
JJJUUJJJJLLJL
1971
n |ii M HI n
1972
-------
CHLORIDE (mg/i as CT)
LAKE MICHIGAN AT S.W.F.R
5-MONTH MOVING AVERAGES
10-
in
o
o»
e
UJ
Q
1
X
O
7 ~
I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I M I I . I I I I I
lilt
I I I I I I I I t I
t I 1 I I 1 I I
I II III
1966
1967
1968
1969 I 1970 I
1971
1972
-------
SULFATE (mg/X as S04)
LAKE MICHIGAN AT S.W.EP
5-MONTH MOVING AVERAGES
25—
24-
o
00
o
a
'.§
Ul
23-
U; 22—
21 —
20 L i i 1
1 i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i iii ill i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i
1966 I 1967 I 1968 I 1969 I 1970 I 1971 I 1972 I
FIG.-4
-------
- 11 -
Recently chlorides have definitely increased; sulfates have decreased
somewhat in average concentration; but filterable residue has increased
consistently and rapidly.
Examination of data on these three parameters by the same methods
(centered 5-month moving averages, linear regression) as used for phosphate
data confirmed the conclusions evident from Table 7S and provided better
estimates of rates of change of concentration. Sampling programs covering
other areas of the lake would undoubtedly modify these trends.
Until a time apparently near the beginning of 1970 (Fig. 3), chloride
concentration was probably decreasing very slowly. Since that time, there
has been a sharp and continuing increase in chlorides, at the rate of
1.5 mg/1 per year. During this period the seasonal changes which were
previously well marked have tended to disappear, as well.
Sulfate concentration (Fig. 4) has generally tended to decrease at
about 0.4 mg/1 per year during the entire period, although obviously
the rate of concentration change has varied considerably.
Concentrations of total dissolved solids (filterable residue),
(Fig. 5) have changed in a manner generally similar to phosphate and
chloride. From 1966 to 1969, the rate of increase was slightly over
1.0 mg/1 per year; in the last 2-1/2 years it has been nearly 5 mg/1
per year.
Data for the first half of 1972 were used here, but not elsewhere
in this report. The reason is that elsewhere data are considered in terms
of annual average. Six consecutive months may give an average biased by
seasonal effects. The values collected for January-June 1972, however,
tend to support the discussion and conclusions in this report.
This sort of change suggests that relatively little of the increase
in dissolved materials is likely to have come from sewage plant effluents.
-------
200
190-
FILTRABLE RESIDUE (mg/Jt)
LAKE MICHIGAN AT S.W.FP
5-MONTH MOVING AVERAGES
3 180—
ui
ZJ
o
UJ
QC
LU
_J
CO
-------
- 12 -
The probable causes are industrial wastes and perhaps agricultural sources.
The small numbers of coliform bacteria and of fecal streptococci reported
support this view.
Phenol-like substances constitute another parameter whose occurrence
depends on human activities, in this case predominantly one kind of industrial
activity. One year's data are not enough to let one be sure, but the
decrease in occurrence of these substances in 1971 is a hopeful sign.
IPCB Standards
On March 7, 1972, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) adopted
a set of water quality standards for all the waters of the State, includ-
ing the portion of Lake Michigan lying within Illinois. Simultaneously
the Board repealed regulation SWB-7. The new standards were developed
on a different basis than those in SWB-7, and differ in numerous ways
from them. Consequently it seemed likely that reexamination of data
collected at Chicago in the light of the new standards would provide some
insight into the probable significance and effects to be expected of the
new standard.
To preserve comparability, only the data for Chicago's South Water
Filtration Plant were examined. Data for 1966-1971, inclusive, have been used,
as before.
Fecal Coliform, pH, Iron, MBAS, Cyanide
Several water quality parameters can be disposed of summarily. The
IPCB standard specifies fecal coliform as the only bacteriological parameter
used and specifies a geometric mean of no more than 20 per 100 ml over a
30-day period. Even using 30-day moving averages, no period in 1966-1971
would exceed this standard.
-------
- 13 -
Specifications for pH are 7.0 to 9.0, much looser than those in SWB-7.
Since the SWB-7 standard for pH was not exceeded, neither was the IPCB
standard.
The IPCB standard for iron is essentially the SWB-7 standard. No
result for 1966-1971 exceeded the standard.
The IPCB standard for methylene blue active substance is less rigid
than the SWB-7 standard. No sample exceeded either standard.
The standard set by the IPCB for cyanide is 0.01 mg/1. Three
scattered samples, one each in 1967, 1969, and 1971, exceeded this
standard slightly. They amounted to about 1 1/2% of the samples tested.
These results are not significant.
Chloride
A number of other parameters exceeded the permissible values in
the IPCB standards to greater extents. None of the 1,691 tests for
chloride run during 1966-1970 exceeded the 12 mg/1 maximum permitted in
the IPCB standard, but 14 values scattered between February and November
of 1971 exceeded this limit. During 1971, 359 tests were made, so about
4% exceeded the prescribed limit.
Dissolved Oxygen
Routine determinations of dissolved oxygen were begun in April 1969.
Between that time and the end of 1971, only three of the 141 tests
performed failed to meet the SWB-7 standard. However, 44, or 31%, failed
to meet the IPCB standard. It will be obvious to anyone familiar with
both standards that many of these failed by a small margin to meet the
IPCB standard.
-------
- 14 -
Ammonia Nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen determinations were made several times each day
during the six-year period and averaged daily. On comparing the daily
averages to the IPCB standard of 0.02 mg/1, one obtains the following
TABLE 8
No. of tests exceeding No. of tests % of tests exceeding
Year IPCB standard made standard
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
187
152
84
76
11
12
365
365
366
365
365
365
51
42
23
21
3
3
Obviously the occurrence of higher ammonia nitrogen concentration decreased
rather steadily for four years, and has remained stable at what is probably
a minimum frequency of occurrence for the last two years.
Total Dissolved Solids
On considering the results for total dissolved solids, for which
the IPCB standards set a maximum of 180 mg/1, a very different pattern
emerges:
TABLE 9
No. of tests exceeding No. of tests % of tests exceeding
Year IPCB standard made standard
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
3
5
13
13
30
63
98
102
253
257
270
250
3
5
5
5
11
26
In the last two years, the proportion of tests exceeding the IPCB standard
has been significant, and has been increasing. It is not impossible that
in 1972, one half of the tests run may exceed the standard.
-------
- 15 -
Sulfate
When one looks at sulfate results, another pattern emerges:
TABLE 10
No. of tests exceeding No. of tests % of tests exceeding
Year IPCB standard made standard
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
187
152
84
76
11
12
272
345
358
362
365
353
69
44
23
21
3
3
The results of tests for sulfate ion, coincidentally, virtually duplicate
those for ammonia nitrogen, the fraction of tests exceeding the IPCB
standard being nearly identical for the last five of the six years.
Phenol
Examination of determinations of phenols for the same period, in
terms of the IPCB limit of 0.003 mg/1 maximum permissible concentration,
demonstrates still another pattern:
TABLE 11
No. of tests exceeding No. of tests % of tests exceeding
Year IPCB standard made standard
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
203
82
58
32
45
126
272
198
261
360
354
364
75
41
22
9
13
35
Where the other parameters examined have exhibited rather clear
and consistent increases or decreases, phenols show a decrease, followed
by increases for the last two years. There is no reason to expect
phenols necessarily to be correlated with the parameters examined
-------
- 16 -
previously, so there is no inconsistency in this sort of change. Taking
both standards into account it is obvious that concentrations in the
range 0.001 - 0.003 mg/1 became more common in 1970-1971.
Total Phosphate
When one examines results for total phosphate (max. permissible
concentration 0.007 mg/1 as P, or 0.02 mg/1 as PO^), a consistent and
unpleasing pattern emerges:
TABLE 12
No. of tests exceeding No. of tests % of tests exceeding
Year IPCB standard made standard
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
137
318
329
288
353
344
266
337
362
363
365
353
52
94
91
79
97
97
Throughout the six-year period, most of the results exceeded the
IPCB standard; in four of the six years, nearly all results exceeded
the standard. If one assumes that the Board's judgment was correct
when it set the standard—and all available evidence tends to support
it—one cannot avoid the conclusion that there is little chance that
the Lake will meet this standard in the near future. Phosphorus inputs
into the Lake are clearly large and continuous. The temporary drop in
1969 is interesting, because it suggests that at least part of the
input is controllable. Further study may provide evidence to allow
identification of the sources concerned.
Lake Sampling Surveys
The Department conducts a limited number of surveys of the Lake
each year. These surveys involve collection and analysis of samples
-------
- 17 -
from 21 locations, from Waukegan to Burns Ditch. In 1971 five such
surveys were made. Average ammonia nitrogen concentrations at all
points were above the 0.02 mg/1 maximum annual average concentration
specified in SWB-7 and in the current IPCB standard. Eighteen of the
21 sampling points averaged greater concentrations of total phosphate
than the 0.03 mg/1 maximum originally specified in SWB-7; twenty of
the 21 exceeded the 0.02 mg/1 permitted by the IPCB standard. Only
two locations, both near the mouth of the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal,
exceeded the 200 per 100 ml total coliform standard of SWB-7; both
these locations showed high eeunts of fecal coliform as well.
Interpretation
The comparisons with the IPCB standards lead, not surprisingly, to
the same general conclusions as those based on SWB-7. One may tentatively
conclude that relatively little sewage plant effluent is entering the
Lake in the area of interest. Our data do not permit exact analysis or
differentiation, but the principal sources of pollution appear to be
industrial wastes and possibly runoff.
The spotty pattern of changes in concentration, with improvement in
some respects (coliform, phenol, and ammonia nitrogen, as examples) and
deterioration in others, also suggests that the most useful method of
further investigation would concentrate on investigation of specific
possible sources. Any other approach would probably be out of date and
inappropriate.
-------
r— li.
1 J. Vaughn
2 MR. MAYO: Mr. Vaughn, thank you very much for
3 what has been historically a series of very useful and at
4 least for the last 2 years rather encouraging reports from
5 the city of Chicago.
6 As you mentioned in the report, there are reasons
7 for feeling encouraged and obviously reasons for concern in
& the material which you have presented.
9 The conferees are welcome, at this point, to
10 address Mr. Vaughn's report in whatever questions they feel
11 are appropriate.
12 Mr. Fetterolf;
13 MR. FETTEROLF: Mr. Vaughn, since 1950, at the
14 South Water Filtration Plant, you have applied some 63
15 million pounds of activated carbon. What does activated
t
16 carbon cost a pound?
17 MR, VAUGHN: Over the years the price remained
13 constant — $156 a ton — which was 7.& cents a pound. But
19 for the last 3 years — and we had a 3-year contract —• we
20 paid $173 a ton, which is about £.65 cents a pound.
21 MR. FETTEROLF: Well, if we said 10 cents a pound,
22 We would come up with the fact that it cost $6 million or
23 so for this activated carbon over the years, plus storage,
24- piping, and feeding systems. And you used this to control
25 the odor in the water. What is the cause of the odor in the
-------
-20.
1 J. Vaughn
2 water?
3 MR. VAUGHN: Well, the hydrocarbons, which are the
4 terms we use — the hydrocarbon wastes, of course, caused
5 from chemical plants and refineries — we used to call them
6 refinery wastes — and back with the old Technical Advisory
7 Committee we got into a lot of arguments over that, so we
8 dropped that term and picked up the term "chemical wastes"
9 from refineries, to some extent, and chemical industries
10 that manufacture organic material.
11 MR. FETTEROLF: Is there a characteristic
12 descriptor of the odor which your odor testers apply to the
13 water?
14 MR. VAUGHN: In general, we use the term "Ch" for
15 hydrocarbons and chemicals. "C" stands for chemicals and
16 "h" for hydrocarbons.
17 There are 25 or 30 other parameters or descriptive
13 terms which we use for various other odors: musty; fishy;
19 and then the one for the blue-green algae, pig sty.
20 MR. FETTEROLF: les. But apparently you are
21 relating these odor problems to industrial wastes of some
22 sort rather than to biological causes, such as algae or
23 this type of bacteria.
24 MR. VAUGHN: We do periodically have those —
25 the answer to your question is yes. But we do periodically
-------
2 91
1 J. Vaughn
2 have problems with the algae. For instance, the one that some
3 of you heard me mention before, the little Irishman, Denny
4 O'Brien — better known to biologists as Dinobryon — creates
5 a cod liver oil taste and odor which is very disagreeable.
6 Even a count as low as 30/ml will produce that taste and
7 odor, and we have had counts up to 10,000 to 20,000/ml and
g it took a lot of carbon and a lot of chlorine to get rid
9 of that material.
10 MR. FETTEROLF: Have your chemists or your bacter-
11 iologists ever tried to culture actinomycetes?
12 MR. VAUGHN: Yes, they have done considerable
13 work on that. A paper was presented at the recent Conference
14 of the American Waterworks Association here in Chicago.
15 MR. FETTEROLF: Is this a problem in Chicago's
16 water supply?
17 MR. VAUGHN: It is present, and at times it does
18 produce an obnoxious taste and odor, but it is not very
19 great in magnitude ana it is not very persistent.
20 MR, FETTEROLF: And have your chemists tried
21 to take a geosmin of the carbon filters or have they ever
22 taken an analysis?
23 MR. VAUGHN: We have experimented with that but
24 the results of our experiments haven't been very successful.
25 We have sent some cultures to the EPA lab in Cincinnati,
-------
1 J. Vaughn
2 who provided the geosmin analysis,, and we are familiar with
3 their work and have been trying to duplicate it. We are
4 working in that area. We are glad to be working on this
5 area.
6 MR. FETTEROLF: Thank you.
7 MR. MAYO: Mr. Miller.
8 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I too would like to
9 thank Mr. Vaughn for his report.
10 As you said, and as we all know, he has been making
11 these reports — I think even going back beyond this confer-
12 ence to the Calumet area conference — and reporting on the
13 I quality of the southern end of Lake Michigan, We certainly
14 look forward to it as one of the things that really keeps
15 track on the progress that is being made, because I think
16 that Chicago consistently, during the years, has run many
17 more samples than anyone else on the quality of water in the
1# southern end of Lake Michigan.
19 I have a couple of questions, Jim, that I would
20 like to ask you that relate to it.
21 On the table on coliforms, you indicated a decrease
22 of course, and I would have to say that the data here indi-
23 cates a very good quality water, but on the maximum days,
24 have you ever tried to tie these down to storm runoff or a
25 high rain, and this kind of thing?
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1°
19
20
21
22
93
J. Vaughn
MR. VAUGHN: We have tried on occasion to tie it
into wind direction and velocity but with no success.
MR. MILLER: I was just curious if you might have
the dates on some of these incidents — when they occurred
— which might indicate some of these effects.
MR. VAUGHN: The wind velocity and direction for-
tunately in the recent daysf when they have opened the lock
gates to the lake — the wind direction has been such that
it took it out to the lake and not past one of our intakes.
MR. MILLER: Well, I know that one is of concern.
I didn't have that particularly in mind when I asked the
question. You had a comment in your paper that problems
can still be the result of industrial waste or maybe runoff,
and this was my question as to whether they may be from
runoff.
MR. VAUGHN: We have not been able to tie it up
with any particular weather condition. We don't have any
particular evidence.
MR. MILLER: Then the table — and I want to make
sure that I understand — that is Table 5 in the material —
I don't know whether I understood you correctly. Is this
table made according to the SWB requirements, or does this
go back to the standards that were developed by the Lake
Michigan Conference?
-------
94_
1 J. Vaughn
2 MR. VAUGHNi Well, these are based, I believe,
currently on the IPCB standards, but were over the years on
the SWB-7 standards which were practically identical to the
5 conference standards.
6 MR. MILLER: Well, what I wanted to get for my
information at least is whether what we were comparing here
in Table 5 is the same thing that we have been comparing in
9 past reports.
10 MR. VAUGHN: I can't tell you. I wanted to introdue
11 my colleague, Phil Reed, who actually wrote this paper anyway.
12 Phil, will you stand up and answer that?
13 MR. REED: Table 5 is based on SWB-7 exclusively,
14 all of the way along.
15 MR. MAYO: Would you identify Mr. Reed for us?
16 MR. VAUGHN: Mr. Reed is Filtration Engineer V on
17 the staff of the Water Purification Division and has been
my technical assistant for the last 4 or 5 years.
19 MR. MAYO: Thank you.
20 MR. MILLER: I only have one other question.
21 This is my curiosity. Is the sludge from the settling basins
22 now at the South District Filter Plant going to the city of
23 Chicago?
24 MR. VAUGHN: About 2 or 3 weeks ago we started
25 pumping the sediment — Mr. Baylis never let us call it
-------
95
1 J. Vaughn
2 sludge — from the south plant to the Sanitary District,
3 and just the past week we started pumping the sediment from
4 the central plant. We are still more or less on an experi-
5 mental basis, but we are continuously trying.
6 MR. MILLER: These, then, will be no longer going
7 to the lake?
g MR. VAUGHN: As of now. We are a long ways from
9 getting the equipment in, but we hope to be recycling the
10 wastewater in early next year.
11 MR. McDONALD: How much volume of sediment is
12 going in the treatment plant now?
13 MR. VAUGHN: Well, my guess is something like —
14 well, 40 tons per day of dry solids at the central plant;
15 20 tons per day from the south plant. But we don't measure
16 the volume of water. From time to time, when we have the
17 system going, we will be able to have volume plus dry solids.
18 MR. MILLER: Thank you very much.
19 MR. MAYO: Mr. Frangos, do you have a question?
20 MR. FRANGOS: No, just a comment, Mr. Chairman,
21 that I too would like to express our appreciation for the
22 contributions that Mr. Vaughn has made to these conferences
23 over the years. Apparently he has never been concerned about
24 confusing us with the facts. I think his reports are indeed
25 very helpful and, again, we thank you for the effort on the
-------
. . ^__^__ . 96
X J. Vaughn
2 part of the eity water department,
3 MR, VAUGHN: Thank you, gentlemen.
4 MR. MAIO: Mr. McDonald.
5 MR, McDONALD: Mr. Vaughn, in terms of your reports
6 on increases in phosphorus and chlorides, both of which are
7 subject to debate here later on in the conference, I think
B that this type of information lays out somewhat of a blue-
9 print of the need for controls in these two areas. And I
10 for one find this information very,'very useful in terms of
11 coming to some conclusions before the conference ends.
12 Do you have any additional information that you
13 can make by way of a prognosis on these increasing levels,
14 or information that is not in your statement?
15 MR, VAUGHN: No, We make these analyses from
16 these various surveys. We find that a maximum of phosphorus
17 results of high value are coming from, shall we say, the
18 south end of the lake and from the north side, too, in the
19 Waukegan area. We are getting some pretty high phosphate
20 values off of some of the installations up there.
21 MR. McDONALD: You are getting a fairly equal
22 spread both north and south?
23 MR, VAUGHN: No, it has its low points in between.
24 I In other words, the high points occur in the vicinity of
25 the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal and off the Lake County Illinoib
-------
1 J. Vaughn
2 region.
3 MR, MAYOs As an observation on my part and the
4 conferees, as I recalled, at the last two sessions of the
5 conference in which I participated, at the last session as
6 a conferee, we were most willing to express our pleasure at
7 the fact that there were indications of improvement in water
3 quality* I am a little dismayed that we haven't had
9 any real expression of concern on the part of the conferees
10 about the information in Mr. Vaughn's report. And it sug-
11 gests at least for 1971 there were some readily identifiable
12 and rather significant indications that that trend for improve
13 ment in water quality did not take place until 1971*
14 I think this invites — at least invites the con-
15 ferees — that we proceed with the remainder of the program
16 to give particular attention to the information provided by
17 the city of Chicago as we address those issues. Because in
IS a variety of respects it is quite eTident that there are
19 water quality issues that either need to be readdressed or
20 perhaps addressed in a somewhat different fashion than we
21 have been looking at them in the recent past in order to try
22 to understand why the water quality levels reported for 1971
23 are significantly higher than those reported for 1969 and
24 1970, in a number of instances.
25 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment
-------
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
J. Vaughn
on that. I think I do have some awareness and great concern
for the increases that occurred in 1971> but I would have to
say that I think I have been involved in Lake Michigan with
Jim for almost 25 years, and you look at 1 year of data from
Lake Michigan, and I don*t think I can feel that I know for
sure where I really am. And I would only cite to you that
if you want to look at the data that is in the tables, that
you go back to 1965 — and. this was the year before we even
started on the programs — and we had an exceptionally good
year in water quality parameters in Lake Michigan.
So that while I certainly agree with you that this
is something that we must focus our attention upon, I think
that we have to look at it in the broad context of what is
happening, and certainly the trends that have been given to
us are indicative of what is happening.
Now I would certainly say that we ought to look
to the critical things that are going up without a doubt,
but I have some reservation in my mind whether I can take
a date of 1971 and say, based upon the last 3 years, that
there is increase in the trends because of the unknowns in
my mind as far as what is actually happening to the water
in Lake Michigan.
MR, MAYO: Well, I think your comments are quite
appropriate, Mr. Miller, particularly as they relate to the
-------
_ 99
J. Vaughn
information on chlorides and sulfate in the total problem
of filterable residue. But I think we are invited at least
to look at Mr. Vaughn's commentary with regard to phosphorus
5
6 MR. MILLER: I agree
7 . MR. MAYO: — which indicates that from 1966 to
1969 the rate of increase was slightly over 1 mg/1/year;
9 for the last 2 and a half years, this has been at the rate
10 of nearly 5 mg/1.
11 MR. MILLER: I agree with you 100 percent. I
12 think that there are specific ones — phosphorus, I would
13 sayj total solids; chlorides — that we have to look at.
14 The phenols particularly bother me, because Jim knows, and
15 I know, that there have been tons and tons of phenols taken
16 out of Lake Michigan over what was there in 1947. And we
17 still run into some of the same values that we had back in
1947. So that I am only saying — and I think we do have
19 to look at some of the parameters — and I certainly would
20 agree with you 100 percent that phosphate does have to be
21 of concern, chlorides, and total solids, without a doubt.
22 MR. MATO: Are there any other comments, gentlemen
23 MR. PURDT: Only to express, again, our apprecia-
24 tion, too, for Jim's contributions here to the data that the
25 conferees have available to them. We wish you well in your
-------
100
1 J. Vaughn
2 retirement, Jim.
3 MR. VAUGHN: Thank you.
4 MR. MAYO: Thank you again, Mr. Vaughn,
5 MR. VAUGHN: I wish to express my appreciation to
6 the conferees. You have all been nice to work with. I
7 have enjoyed appearing before you, and I just wish you the
3 best of luck in your continued efforts. Thank you.
9 MR. MAYO: Thank you. (Applause)
10 Mr. Blaser.
11 MR. BLASER: The end purpose of the enforcement
12 conference is, of course, to end up with better quality water
13 in the lake. The perspective that Jim has given us today,
14 and I think in other days, has been a major contribution and
15 it helps to have solid facts on which to base our decision.
16 This concludes the Illinois portion of this segment
17 of the agenda. There are some comments from members of the
IS public who will be picked up when we get to the public
19 section.
20 MR. MAYO: Mr. McDonald.
21 MR. McDONALD: Mr. Blaser, on your Status of
22 Compliance report, during the break earlier today, at least
23 two people asked me — and maybe they should ask you also
24 — why Republic Steel is not on the conference list. And
25 if I recall, this had been debated some years ago whether
-------
101
, J. Vaughn
2 to include them or not.
3 But could you, on behalf of the State, or one of
l+ your representatives, answer why it is not on the list?
5 MR. BLASER: Actually the question not only applies
6 to Republic, but to Wisconsin Steel Division of International
7 Harvester, and the Allied Chemical plant, essentially because
g they discharge not into Lake Michigan but into the Calumet
9 River.
10 Now, those of you who are familiar with the geog-
11 raphy here — the Calumet River, which at one time flowed
12 into Lake Michigan, has been reversed, and with rare excep-
13 tion flows down the Illinois River system.
14 I realize it is a marginal question: Is that part
15 of the lake or not? But the conclusion is that practically
16 all of the time it is part of the Illinois River system and
17 it is only under rare exceptions where for one reason or
IB another the locks are closed, that there is a reversal and
19 that is a temporary matter, generally being a matter of hours,
20 MR, McDONALD: I think that is important to clarify
21 for the record, because on the basis of the questioning to me
22 there seemed to be some misunderstanding of some intent by
23 Illinois to eliminate these from conference jurisdiction.
24 I don't think your answer is indicative of that.
25 MR. MAYO: Are there any questions of Mr. Blaser
-------
„ ___ 1Q2
1 J. Vaughn
2 or any comments with respect to the Illinois presentation?
3 MR. PURDY: None.
4 MR. MAIO: If not, gentlemen, it is almost 1:00
5 o'clock. It is time to recess for lunch.
6 MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Chairman.
7 MR. MAYO: Excuse me.
MR. FRANCOS: I just need some clarification on
9 how we are going to proceed here. Do you want just the
10 official statements of the State and then we will come back
11 and hit either public officials or members of the public?
12 MR. MAYO: No. As I indicated a little earlier,
13 Mr. Frangos, each State is presented with the opportunity
14 to manage its own time. With respect to the public state-
15 ments, I think to the extent that their statements are
reasonably specific for the State involved, that they ought
17 to be made a part of the package of the State's presenta-
tion. But if there are public statements that are inclusive
19 of the States generally, or Lake Michigan generally, then
20 i think those statements ought to come at the conclusion of
21 all the State presentations.
22 MR. FRANGOS: Thank you.
23 MR. MAYO: With that, we will recess for lunch and
begin again at 2:00 p.m.
We expect to have people in the room so, at least
-------
103
J . Vaughn
2 for the conferees, if you want to leave your materials here
3 on the table, please feel free to do so,
4 (Noon recess.)
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
104
1 0. Hert
2 TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION
#~ j
3m*f
\
4 MR. MAYO: Ladies and gentlemen, if we may have
5 your attention, please.
6 I understand the conferee from Wisconsin is on his
1
7 way. That being the case, I think it is appropriate that,
8 in order to keep the session moving, we go back into session
9 and continue with the State presentations under the portion
10 of the agenda dealing with Status of Compliance,
11 According to the agenda, the State of Indiana is
12 next,
13 May we have your attention, please? It is a good
14 deal too noisy. Thank you,
15 MR. MILLER: I would like to ask Oral Hert to
16 present the Status of Compliance for the State of Indiana.
17
13 STATEMENT OF ORAL H. HERT, DIRECTOR,
19 DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL,
20 INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH,
21 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
22
23 MR. HERT: Mr. Chairman, conferees. I would like
24 to present the report in order of phosphorus removal and then
I
25 some of the other activities.
-------
- 105
1 0. Hert
2 MR. MAYO: Excuse me, Mr. Hert. Is there some
3 material that has been passed out?
4 MR. HERT: Yes, I had it passed out this morning —
|
5 copies of our report — at least to all of the conferees,
6 and there are some copies available at the registration desk
7 MR. MAIO: Thank you for waiting, Mr. Hert. Would
g you continue?
9 MR. HERT: All right. The report on phosphorus
10 removal — we have four communities that have completed:
11 Elkhart, Kendallville, Ligonier, and Portage. South Bend,
12 jl Nappanee, Lagrange and Valparaiso have projects under con-
13 struction which include phosphorus removal facilities.
14 Angola, Gary and Goshen have projects approved which include
15 phosphorus removal. These projects are approved for con-
16 struction grant funds which are available for 1972 Fiscal
17 Tear, and it is anticipated that construction will be under
1$ way within the next few months. Final plans and specifica-
19 tions for phosphorus removal facilities have been approved
I
20 i for Chesterton, East Chicago, Michigan City and Mishawaka.
21 || All of the communities except Hobart and Mishawaka
I
I
I
22 jj have thus made a commitment toward phosphorus removal. Both
23 Mishawaka and Hobart are under orders of the Stream Pollution
i
24 Control Board and those orders have now been referred to the
I
25 Attorney General for enforcement under the law.
-------
_ ___^_ 106
ji
1 0. Hert
!
2 | Every effort is being made to follow through on
|
3 i these projects. It should be noted that processing of interidi
ji
ii
4 water quality management plans and construction grant applica-j-
5 tions has materially slowed down municipal sewage works
6 projects.
j
7 |j In addition to the projects which included phos-
i
8 phorus removal, the city of East Gary has completed its con-
1
9 i nection to Gary; Middlebury, Wakarusa and Wolcottville have
10 completed sewage works projects; and Hammond and Topeka have
11 sewage works projects under construction, which includes
12 plant improvements as well as correction of the stormwater
13 overflow problems into Lake Michigan.
14 Michigan City has continued to make substantial
15 progress towards separation of combined sewers in major
16 areas of the city, and Mishawaka and South Bend have pro-
17 vided combined sewer separation in some areas. East Chicago
I
IS i has completed a demonstration project to provide control of
19 pollution from combined sewers serving approximately one-
i
20 ! third of the city; however, a study and evaluation of this
21 project has not been completed. East Chicago has also com-
22 j pleted construction of separate storm sewers for a portion of
23 its drainage area and the Gary Sanitary District has sub-
2^- mitted a master plan for sewer improvements, which includes
Or \\
*•? |j control of combined sewer overflows. The supplement to
-------
i 10?
1 0. Hert
2 the report contains a schedule which establishes dates for
3 provision of facilities to abate pollution from combined
4 sewer overflows. It should be noted that compliance with
5 this schedule will depend on the availability of Federal and
6 State financing,
7 An order issued to the city of Hammond provided
3 for control of combined sewer overflows and disinfection
9 of stormwater discharges to Lake Michigan with the project
10 to be completed by December 31» 1970, They did not get the
11 project under way in time to comply with the order. However
12 the disinfection control of the stormwater overflow is well
13 under way now and should be completed prior to the next
14 rainy season,
15 Construction is well under way on plant expansion
16 and control of combined sewer overflow. This construction,
17 incidentally, was under way prior to the filing of the l#0-day
1& notice,
19 The city of Whiting is under order from our Stream
20 Pollution Control Board to provide disinfection and control o$
21 its discharges to Lake Michigan, It did not comply with the
22 order, and that order has been referred to our Attorney
23 General for enforcement. The city has submitted plans for
24 a new sewage treatment plant to treat all of the flow from
25 the existing combined sewers, including that flow now
-------
io8
1 0. Hert
2 discharging to Hammond with the effluent discharge proposed
3 to the Lake George Branch of the Indiana Harbor Canal and
4 thence to Lake Michigan.
5 Whiting has, for some 20 years, discharged its
6 sewage to Hammond for treatment, and we have proposed the
7 construction of a separate plant for Whiting for discharge
8 to the Lake George Branch. However, since they have had
9 problems in getting together on rates with Hammond, our
10 Board has approved the plans for a separate wastewater
11 treatment plant.
12 As mentioned earlier, the Environmental Protection
13 Agency filed a 180-day notice against Whiting relative to the
14 discharge, and EPA has not yet made a commitment as to
15 whether or not it would approve a sewage treatment plant
16 for Whiting with discharge of effluent to a tributary of
17 Lake Michigan.
18 The summation of grant funds — we have on file
19 now applications from 13 communities in the Lake Michigan
20 Tributary Basin requesting over $8 million in Federal and
21 I $4 million in State funds to help finance construction of
22 ! the projects, estimated to cost approximately $22 million.
23 Projects now under construction, or recently
I
24 completed, total about $26.9 million with about $13 million
25 Federal and about $6 million in State grant funds.
-------
109
1 0. Hert
2 On the basis of plans that have now been submitted
3 and those under way, it is indicated that, if adequate State
4 and Federal funds are available, practically all of the
5 Indiana municipalities in the Lake Michigan Tributary Basin
6 would have projects for phosphorus removal facilities either
7 completed or under construction by the middle of 1973* The
8 status of municipal wastewater treatment facilities is
9 shown in the attached table with a separate sheet showing
10 the status of the phosphate removal facilities for each
11 community.
12 Surveillance of wastewater treatment plant opera-
13 tions and the requirement for submission of monthly reports
14 has continued, and we believe this has improved the opera-
15 tion and maintenance of these facilities. However, the
16 control of pollution from combined sewer overflows and
17 storm sewer discharges is required to meet the water quality
1& standards during wet weather periods. Emphasis has been
19 continued on the requirement for semi-public installations
20 to connect to area-wide sewerage facilities where practi-
21 cable and for improved operation and maintenance of existing
22 plants.
in the industrial waste treatment and control,
Cities Service Oil Company, East Chicago, completed
2 5 biological treatment facilities during July 1971» and
-------
- 110
1 0. Hert
2 material improvements have been made in their effluents.
3 We had a recent announcement that the East Chicago refinery
4 would be closed permanently on January 1, 1973.
5 Mobil Oil Corporation, East Chicago, has reduced
6 its wastewater flow from approximately 2.5 mgd in 196S to
7 about 0.5 mgd this year; and as of September 5, 1972, they
8 are now discharging all of their wastewaters to the Chicago
9 Sanitary District for treatment, thus removing another
10 outfall source of the Indiana Harbor Canal.
11 Advanced waste treatment facilities have also been
12 completed by American Oil Company in Whiting; Atlantic
13 Richfield Company, East Chicago; and they are working ef-
14 fectively. Inplant controls are being intensified at
15 American Oil Company and Cities Service Oil Company to
16 eliminate peak loads that causes upsets. American Maize
17 Products Company, Hammond, has completed inplant equipment
13 changes that will bring its effluent within recommended
19 guidelines for discharge into Lake Michigan.
20 Evaluation of waste treatment facilities completed
21 during 1969 and 1970 at Inland Steel Company, loungstown
22 Sheet and Tube Company, and U.S. Steel Corporation, showed
^3 that additional pollution control measures were needed.
24 An enforcement hearing was scheduled with U.S.
2^ Steel Corporation and an order issued on December 1, 1970,
-------
111
1 0. Hert
2 outlining completion of additional treatment facilities by
3 December 31 of 1972, The corporation filed for judicial
4 review of our order in Lake Superior Court, and the Board's
5 order was set aside* The court decision has been appealed to
6 the Indiana Supreme Court and decision on that matter is still
7 pending*
& The U.S. Steel Corporation has completed oil and
9 solids separation facilities on the sheet and tin mill dis-
10 charge and added chemical treatment to the blast furnace flue
11 dust treatment facilities to improve that treatment; however,
12 additional treatment is needed. The State is presently working
13 with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice
14 Department to develop requirements for U.S. Steel Corporation,
15 Inland Steel Company has continued to make inplant
16 production modifications and treatment plant improvements,
17 It has eliminated the last discharge to Lake Michigan by
IB recycling. Additional reductions are needed in the effluent
19 from the terminal treatment plant, coke plants, and basic
20 oxygen process and several of the older rolling mills. The
21 Board is presently establishing time schedules for the addi-
22 tional treatment needed to meet the water quality standards
23 outlined by Regulation SPC 7R* Those dates were adopted
24 at our Board meeting yesterday. We will proceed with notice
25 to the industries to follow.
-------
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
112
0. Hert
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, East Chicago,
has upgraded facilities at the central water treatment plant
to prevent plant upset by slug discharges, completed addi-
tional flow controls to insure maximum recycle of blast
furnace gas washer water, and made internal changes in the
coke plant to insure that these wastes are discharged to
the East Chicago sewerage system* Additional pollution
control work is needed in the areas of pickle liquor disposal
the coke plant, and the rolling mill area. As I mentioned
earlier, we have established dates for completion -of these
additional facilities.
I show on Table 2, attached to the report, a com-
parison of effluent data that is available for industrial
discharges in the Indiana Harbor area, and also discharges
to Lake Michigan adjacent to the Indiana Harbor. All of the
values aren't available for 60 days so we didn't have com-
parable figures for all of the values.
However, on the basis of the data that was avail-
able, it is indicated that from 1968 through 1971, oil has
been reduced by 52 percent? phenols by 76 percent; BOD by
64 percent; and suspended solids by 31 percent, during this
period.
Mention was made earlier today of E. I. du Pont as
being one of the facilities that was not in compliance. It
-------
n — . 113
1 0. Hert
2 should be noted that during mid-1970, our Board advised
3 E. I* du Pont that additional waste treatment was needed to
4 reduce the levels of suspended solids, pickle liquor, zinc,
5 and sulfates in its effluents by December 31, 1972. We
6 were working with the staff of du Pont and they have submitted
7 a proposal to our Board in the fall of 1970 to proceed with
8 the necessary work. However, the Justice Department in
9 February 1971 filed a civil action under the 1#99 Refuse
10 Act, and progress towards installation of the needed iacili-
11 ties has been stymied to date.
12 Additional proposals have been submitted. However,
13 the problem has not been resolved because of not being able
14 until recently to specify what effluent limitations are
15 desired, and whether deep well disposal would be a satis-
16 factory solution for disposal of some of their effluents.
17 It remains to be determined what can be done to
13 reduce effluent characteristics to the desired level with
19 the treatment methods available to discharge to the Grand
20 Calumet River.
21 Investigations and results of samples show that
22 Simmons Company, Munster, requires additional wastewater
23 treatment for cyanide, oil, suspended solids, and chromium.
24 A time schedule has been established recommending final plans
by March 1, 1973, and completion of construction by June 1,
-------
0 114
1 0. Hert
2 1974. This company has had inadequate treatment in the
3 past, however some of their reduction change has caused
4 these additional problems,
5 Also our Board has had an enforcement hearing with
Maynard Metals Company of Schererville concerning discharge
to the tributary of the Calumet River which goes west into
Illinois. An order was issued on April 11, 1972, outlining
9 necessity for completing the facility by December 31» 1972.
10 The company has since eliminated those discharges,
11 Further, in the matter of compliance in the St.
12 Joe River Basin, which is tributary to Lake Michigan,
13 Middlebury Cooperative Creamery, Middlebury; American Motors
14 Corporation, South Bend; and the Pennsylvania-New York
15 Central Transportation Company at Elkhart, have completed
16 construction of wastewater treatment facilities and are
17 discharging effluent into the municipal sewerage systems.
Centner Packing Company of South Bend completed its
19 facilities in late 1971. The Weatherhead Corporation at
j
20 i Angola completed facilities in mid-1972 and has additional
I
21 II facilities under construction at its Syracuse plant which
|l
22 I should be finished prior to December 31, 1972.
23 A recent report on chloride discharges for indus-
24 tries discharging in excess of 10,000 pounds per day indicatejd
25 that four steel mills and two refineries were discharging
-------
: 115
1 0. Hert
2 a total of approximately 260,000 pounds of chlorides per
3 I da7-
4 Northern Indiana Public Service Company has a
5 cooling tower under construction to provide cooling of
6 condenser water from the existing steam electric generating
7 plant and an additional generating plant that is under con-
8 struction at Michigan City, It also plans to provide cooling
9 facilities for the existing steam electric and proposed
10 nuclear plant at Bailly, Other Indiana electric generating
11 plants are conducting studies to determine if thermal con-
12 trol requirements can be met by changes in intake and dis-
13 charge structures.
14 A list is appended to our report showing the status
15 of each individual industry.
16 Since the last convening of the Lake Michigan
17 Conference our Board has adopted revised regulations of
IS Lake Michigan and contiguous harbor areas for the Grand
19 Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Canal, and regulations
20 which control the discharge of pollutants in salmonid
21 migration areas and rearing and imprinting areas,
22 These regulations of the Board became effective
23 February 11, 1972, and have been submitted to EPA for con-
24 sideration of adoption as Federal-State standards but have
25 not been adopted to date.
-------
116
1 0. Hert
2 A review of the water quality data for Indiana
3 tributary streams indicates a significant improvement for
4 most parameters in the period of 1963 to 1971*
5 Indiana Harbor Canal showed very general improve-
6 ment on an annual basis of dissolved oxygen criteria, and
7 met criteria on 60 percent of the samples in 1971. Cyanide
8 shows a downward trend of meeting criteria on 70 percent of
9 the samples in 1971 as opposed to 44 percent in 1963,
10 Phenols on an annual average also shows a down-
11 ward trend. The criteria met on 55 percent of the samples
12 in 1971 as opposed to only 7 percent in 1963 and 1969.
13 Oil average values are generally steady except for
14 some high values in 1970, 74 percent of the samples meeting
15 the criteria in 1971.
16 Ammonia-nitrogen — no trend is apparent on the
17 mean values, but it appears to be a little higher in 1971.
13 Hardly any of the samples meet the criteria in the 4-year
19 period,
20 We have some analyses of samplings on heavy
21 metals which I won't go into in detail, but they are a
I
22 i part of our report,
I
23 Fecal coliform shows, with the exception of 1971
24 when we had a few high values, we are generally meeting the
ii
25 criteria on about half of the samples.
-------
1 0. Hert
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
117
Phosphorus shows an average concentration of more
than twice the 1969 concentration.
Similar data is available in the report for Burns
Ditch and Trail Greek, and I won't go into detail on that
at this time although it is included in the report, as is
the data on the Grand Calumet River, which discharges west
to Illinois.
The summary data of the samples collected weekly
from Lake Michigan beaches in Indiana also reflects improve
ment in water quality from the fecal coliform analysis. In
the past 2 years, 1971 and 1972, only the Whiting Beach has
consistently failed to meet the criteria. Approximately
one-third of the Hammond Beach samples have likewise failed
to meet the criteria.
The results of the pesticide monitoring from
stations in Indiana Harbor, Burns Ditch, Trail Greek and
the St. Joseph River showed very low values.
Analysis of samples of water supply intakes at
Hammond, Whiting, East Chicago, Gary, and Michigan City
generally show a positive improvement for most parameters
over the past 3 years. The averages for 1971 indicate
cyanide of less than 0.05 mg/1; phenols of 0.001 mg/1;
oils ranging from 3.5 to 5.0 mg/1; and ammonia-nitrogen,
0.1 mg/1; and mercury of 0.0003 to 0,0012 mg/1.
-------
1 I 0. Hert
2 The results of these Lake Michigan beach samples
3 are also appended as part of the data.
4 With respect to control of pollution from combined
5 sewer overflows, our Board at its meeting yesterday adopted
6 dates for compliance with this requirement, including interim
7 date for submission of reports, final plans, start of con-
8 struction and completion. For the smaller municipalities,
9 the completion date being listed as December 31, 1976; for
10 the communities of East Chicago, Elkhart, Hammond, Mishawaka,
11 and South Bend, the completion date is Decembe r 31» 1977;
12 for Gary, which is under order of our Board, final plans by
13 July 31, 1974, and completion by December 31, 1977; and for
14 Whiting, which is not in compliance with our Board orders,
15 as I mentioned earlier, we have referred that matter to the
16 Attorney General for enforcement.
17 I believe that summarizes the report from Indiana.
18 MR. MAYO: Are there any comments or questions,
19 gentlemen?
20 Mr. Bryson,
21 MR. BRYSON: If you turn to page 22, Mr. Hert,
22 I on the total combined sewer question, can you elaborate
23 somewhat on the types of methods the various communities
24 will be using? Are they talking separation? Are they
25 talking regulator devices? Or has the Board provided
-------
x— 119
1 0. Hert
2 direction to the communities on the matter?
3 MR. HERTz The Board has not provided direction as
4 to which way they should go. The case of Michigan City is
5 probably the furthest along of any of our cities and they
6 are going the separation route. They have the major trunk
7 line for stormwater separation installed through most of
8 the city and they will then proceed to install laterals to
9 provide a separate stormwater system. It has been indicated
10 by the studies to date that most of the other cities will
11 proceed with control of pollution from existing combined
12 sewer overflows rather than going for complete separation.
13 MR. BRYSON: When you were reading through your
14 statement, on page 2, you mentioned that the programs were
15 contingent upon the receipt of Federal funds. Was this
16 a Board action that entered that contingency, that you have
17 added to the orders, or is this what the communities have
IB transmitted to the Board?
19 MR« HERT: This is not a Board action. Our Board
20 i has taken the position on all of its orders that the
21 problem of financing is not a matter of issue relative to
22 whether or not there is pollution. But I think it is a
23 matter-of-fact problem of being able to get a community
24 to proceed even under court order, if some adjacent communi-
j
25 ties have received such grant funds and it appears that
-------
120
1 0. Hert
2 another community is going to be asked to proceed without
j those grant funds. So it is not a Board policy, but it is
4 just a matter of fact.
5 MR. BRISON: When you made your comment, though,
6 that progress on the schedule was contingent upon the receipt
7 of Federal money, what were you addressing — that this is
g the feeling the communities have transmitted to you that
9 led you to make that comment or — what I am trying to get
10 is the reason for the comment.
11 MR. HERT: It is the feeling that has been trans-
12 mitted to us by the communities, and it is such a tremen-
13 dous problem beyond the scope of their financing capability,
14 and we do have several sanitary districts in this area that
15 are limited on their bond issues by the assessed valuation*
16 So that when you go into a sizable project, such as the
17 reports indicate are needed to control the pollution from
18 combined sewer overflows, it is going to take some outside
19 help.
20 MR. MILLER: I might say it another way, Mr.
21 Bryson, that we find that projects going under construction
22 are only those projects for which there is Federal and
23 State funding. So that you are faced in reality with
24 looking at it from a practical point of view that this is
25 the way in which you are going to build. A few years back
-------
V,
121
1 0. Hert
2 we did have some projects that went under construction with
3 total load of financing. But this becomes less and less of
4 a factor* And there are not many being built at this point
5 in time that we can see that are not federally funded, except
6 for the interim phosphorus removal facilities that are being
7 put in,
g MR. McDONALD: I would like to follow up on that
9 question, Mr. Bryson, a little also.
10 The Board orders that you have issued don't call
11 for any contingencies in the form of State or Federal funds.
12 When it gets to a point where you have to do something because
13 the community hasn't gone forward with construction — in
14 other words, you are not going to press that case if it
15 doesn't have State or Federal funding.
16 MR. MILLER: That is not what we have said.
17 I think Mr. Hert did say that it was the policy
18 of the Board to proceed regardless of whether there were State
19 and Federal funds available, and we have so referred the
20 i cases to the Attorney General in court; some have been
21 resolved by agreed orders; and we have one that the court
I
22 ij is holding and requiring 60-day reports on financing. So
i
23 | that, as far as the intent of the Board and the staff in
24 Indiana, it would be to prosecute the matters with utmost
25 dispatch. But I think from a practical point of view, we
-------
24
25
___^ 122
0. Hert
find that plants are not built without Federal funding.
MR. McDONALD: Let me ask further, then, Mr. Miller:
Has there been any case in Indiana where you have gone into th
courts and the courts have said this community does not have
to go forward until it gets State or Federal financing?
MR. MILLER: I don't know that we have had any direc
decisions. The only one that comes close would be Gedarville,
which is being held on a — I might say — 60-day basis to
10 determine financing. But there has been no direct decision
11 yst* that would say that a city would not have to proceed
12 without Federal funding.
13 MR. McDONALD: But it hasn't really been tested as
far as a decision.
15 MR. MILLER: You can say it is in the process of
16 testing, but the final results of the testing are not known
17 at this time. There are cases there, and I think these cases
will test it, yes.
19 MR. McDONALD: Well, you know, I think this par-
jl
20 I ticular question of State and Federal funding and going
21 I forward is one that is a very, very difficult question for
22 all of the States and for the Federal Government. At the
23 II same time, in my discussions with the States, I have found
practically no decisions in the courts that have supported a
delay becaus-e of lack of State or Federal funding of any
-------
123
1 0. Hert
2 recent vintage certainly, and I get the feeling that this
3 really doesn't want to be pressed. Is that essentially the
4 attitude of Indiana?
5 MR. MILLER: No, I don't think this. I think we
6 are pressing, but I think that from my point of view and
7 from what I can visualize, until we do have some court
8 decisions, that this is pretty much the attitude of the muni-
9 cipalities not building until they do have the funds. And
10 it is going to take a lot of court actions, a lot of enforce-
11 ment, and we are certainly going to have to have the judges
12 agree that this is the way to go. And if we get one or two
13 that say they don't have to build until they have Federal
14 funds, why then I think you will really be tied up.
15 MR. McDONALD: But, at the same time, you have
16 indicated that no one has built anyway without Federal funds.
17 MR. MILLER: Well, I think this is generally true.
13 MR. McDONALD: Well, I think it is true. I think
19 it is generally true throughout the Mation, that there has
20 been practically no building in this country without Federal
21 funds.
22 MR. MILLER: Well, I think if you want to come to
this, that this is one of the things that you come to when
you have plant programs, and if a municipality builds a plant
2 5 with a 25-or a 20-cent dollar, why should it spend the full
-------
s 124
1 0. Hert
2 amount if they can get these kinds of funds.
3 MR. McDONALD: I understand the municipalities'
4 standpoint; there is no question on that. They are not going
5 to jump up and volunteer to go forward with 100 cents when
6 they could go for 20.
7 My summation on this would be, though, that there
8 isn't going to be vigorous enforcement without the State or
9 Federal funds that go with it, from what you have said.
10 MR. HERT: Would you restate that? I am not sure
11 I heard that.
12 MR. MILLER: There may be vigorous enforcement,
13 but I think, as a way of life, if you want to call it this,
14 that you are not really going to build them. So I think
15 I am agreeing with you, Jim, in using different words, and
16 that if we have grant programs that are in the magnitude
17 that they are now from 75 to #0 percent, -that we are just
1& not going to see them built unless we do have the State and
19 Federal funding.
20 MR. McDONALD: Well, that is exactly what I am
21 trying to get out here. I think that the question of lots
22 of slippage in this Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
23 Basin is not unique among enforcement conferences. That
2^ is, because the money has not been there, the communities
2 5 are not anxious to go forward. Yet I think the regulatory
-------
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0. Hert
agencies — and I think this includes the Federal regulatory
agency as well as the State regulatory agencies — have never
really pushed as much as they could to really try it out to
see if the communities would be ordered to go forward by
the courts. And I think maybe some of that action is indi-
cated on the State level, too.
MR. MILLER: Of course, I think there has been some
of that action on the State level and I think you now have
some of that action on the Federal level as well. Some of
your l#0-day notices have been pointed this way that you have
had in Indiana.
MR. McDONALDi Very much so, yes.
MR. MILLER: So that I think that the ones that
have been resolved have been tied to Federal financing pro-
grams to a certain degree, and the ones that have not been
resolved have not been resolved because they couldn't be tied
to the Federal funding. So that you and the State of Indiana
are both in the process of finding out whether the courts
are going to make a decision that says cities are going to
proceed without financing.
MR. McDONALD: I feel maybe we ought to do this at
both levels, and if that is the situation, then maybe we just
ought to take cognizance of what some of the slippage is
all about.
-------
. ___ 12_6
1 0. Hert
2 I don't think this is an issue that the conference
has really addressed itself to in the past, because the
slippage has not been that great. Now it is. And what do
you do?
MR. PURDI: Mr. Chairman, Mr. McDonald's remarks
seem to be addressed to the States as a whole and not in
particular to Indiana.
9 MR, McDONALD: They are, yes.
10 MR. PURDI: And, as Mr. Miller has pointed out,
11 they are in the process of testing this in the courts in
12 Indiana, and that the decisions are not fully in, at this
13 point in time.
14 On behalf of Michigan, I would like to point out
15 that they are also testing this in Michigan courts. I
16 think prior to this conference we have furnished some of
17 this information to Mr. McDonald. In some cases we do
have the decisions in, and the judge has ordered that the
19 final plans and specifications be prepared, and that the
20 community be on a ready-to-go basis at such time as financing
21 can be arranged. He keeps the case under his continuing
22 jurisdiction, and by so doing the financing arrangements
23 means when the State will come through with an offer of a
24 State and Federal grant.
2$ MR. McDONALD: I think that was in a local court
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
0. Hert
and stopped there,
MR. PURDI: Well, probably it was at the circuit
court level. It is an extremely frustrating experience from
the standpoint of a regulatory agency attempting to enforce
pollution control requirements that are not necessarily based
upon a grant being available. But yet, as Mr, Hert and Mr,
Miller pointed out, that back in the days of the 30 or the
33 percent grant, it was possible to get a community to go
forward without a construction grant. But in the days of
an 80 percent grant, and for a time increase pending discus-
sions of up to a 90 percent grant, it has been a very frus-
trating experience to attempt to get somebody to go ahead
with entirely local funds no matter how much they might
profess to being in support of a clean water program.
Furthermore, at the present time, with the uncer-
tainty of what a construction grant program might be, and the
fact the States have not been able to put their house in order
on a State financing program which might prefinanee the FederaJL
share, if Federal funds were available, because of the uncer-
tainties of future reimbursement, we all share, I think, a
common frustrating problem here until something is straighteneji
out in this construction grant program,
MR. McDONALD: les. And I agree completely as to
the complexity and the frustration of the problem. I am
-------
12ft
1 0, Hert
2 laying, really, this foundation for this reason. One of the
3 topics on the agenda — and one that Mr. Blaser has already
4 alluded to —• is that they are going to need money to solve
5 the combined sewer problem in Illinois. Mr. Hert has said
6 it is going to take money to solve the combined sewer prob-
7 lem in Indiana, I know it is in Michigan and Wisconsin
8 also. And 5 years from now the combined sewer problem, a
9 massive problem, as expensive as any problem we have in
10 pollution control, is scheduled for solution by way of having
11 control of combined sewers. If we are going to head down
12 that same path that we find ourselves on today without
13 recognizing whether these cleanup programs really are so
14 tied to funds that we are not going to move without the
15 funds, I think we are going to head down the same frustrating
16 path again.
17 MR, PURDY: While we are considering this, I think
18 we have to keep in mind the priorities, and what the magni-
19 tude of that problem might be, say, on an annual basis, or
20 J any other way that you want to look at it. But if this
21 represents, say, 5 or 10 percent of the total contribution
22 of a pollutant to Lake Michigan, as compared to dry weather
23 flows, and we are frustrated by a lack of construction grant
24 money, we had better put those dollars where we get the most
25 return in pollution control rather than looking, say, at a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
&
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
25
129
0. Hert
combined sewer overflow problem, if this is, in fact, only
5 or 10 percent of the total problem*
MR, BLASER: First of all, Illinois has done what
you indicate should be done. Illinois has made enforcement
cases where the central issue has been: Does lack of State
or Federal grants excuse a municipality from noncompliance?
Probably the most noteworthy case is the EPA case versus
the city of Mattoon, David Gurrie here wrote a perhaps
somewhat colorfully worded decision — I probably should
use the word "opinion" — in which he very clearly raised
the question and spoke to the fact that demands for law
and order apply to municipal officials as well as to the
public.
This case was so well worded, so clearly to this
point, that at the Municipal League Convention for the entire
State just about a year ago, I made that the central issue
of my speech to them — to the mayors and municipal offi-
cials.
What was the result? What was the result? Bas-
ically a rebellion, because municipal officials here in
Illinois feel very strongly that by their actions — actions
speak louder than words — that the lack of Federal or State
grants excuses them from construction.
Now what are we to do about this? I not only
-------
130
1 0. Hert
2 spoke to this, we made mailings of the Mattoon case, dis-
3 tributed them, and every time I talked to municipal offi-
4 cials there was a rebellion — those of you who live in
5 Illinois have followed some of it in the newspaper media —
6 a rebellion because municipal officials are not moving,
7 It sounds awfully easy to bring an enforcement
$ case against them and make them move. But in practice, with
9 over a thousand municipalities — we have applications right
10 now for 634 — we cannot bring an enforcement case against
11 each of them,
12 Further, the Municipal League has in front of it
13 right now a resolution in which they make the very point —
14 and they focus more on combined sewer overflows than any-
15 thing else, but the principle of raw sewage — that if the
16 funding is not coming from Federal or State sources, they
17 intend to go to the Illinois Legislature and ask to be re-
I& lieved of the responsibility of any such control until those
19 funds are forthcoming.
20 In the terms of the enforcement activity on the
21 part of our State, the Pollution Control Board has a back-
22 log; the Attorney General has a backlog; and our agency has
23 a backlog. Which cases do we give the highest priority to?
We give the higher priority to those municipalities that at
least have funds coming. But how much is coming depends on
-------
131
1 0. Hert
2 some Federal legislation which has been tied up in Congress
3 now for a year or more. This thing has dragged on and on
4 and on.
5 Everybody is getting hot about it. It may be
6 that the solution is — if the Federal Government feels so
7 strongly — that they should bring a series of these cases;
8 or it may be that this thing should be resolved as a policy
9 matter either at the congressional or at the State legisla-
10 tive level. But as it continues, you are right.
11 MR. McDONALD: My intention in bringing this up
12 was to get this in front of the conferees, because this is
13 a question that, as far as I am concerned, we don't usually
14 talk about.
15 MR. BLASER: But the point is: Is this conference
16 the proper forum? Do they have the power, the authority to
17 modify those policies? I think not.
18 MR, McDONALD: I am not suggesting that they
19 modify policies, but if we are headed, say, on the combined
20 sewer resolution, toward massive slippage because of inabilit
21 to provide State and Federal funding, this point ought to be
22 well identified now instead of waiting until we get to 1976
23 and 1977 and we haven't met the dates yet.
2/f MR. BLASER: Let me suggest that it is more than
2 5 just a question of what to do about the combined sewers and
-------
— : 132
1 0. Hert
2 overflows; let's also resolve it as far as sewage treatment.
3 MR. McDONALD: Sewage treatment, too, of course.
4 MR. MAIO: Any other comments, gentlemen?
5 MR. HERT: I would like to make one concluding
statement with regard to the supplement to the Status of
Compliance on phosphorus report. Of the 12 Indiana communi-
£ ties mentioned, I question why Whiting is 1 of the 12 because
9 our problem with Whiting is the combined sewer overflow prob-
10 lem only at this time with respect to what they are discharg-
11 ing.
12 Of the other 11, 6 of those communities have ad-
13 vised us, and we have every reason to believe that they will
14 meet the completion date of December 31» 1972, and 3 other
15 communities with respect to having projects under constructior
16 within the next few months, although they will not be com-
17 pleted by the 1972 deadline. That leaves only Hobart and
IS | Mishawaka without a definite commitment at this time.
j j
19 i MR. BRYSON: Oral, would you stand there for a moment?
20 I have a couple of questions on what you just raised.
21 If I looked at your table with your discussions
I
22 i of East Chicago, it shows alternate study and plans under
23 i| way.
24 I Do you have a projected final date on when the
25 plans will be in and when they will start construction
-------
133
1 0. Hert
2 and have interim phosphorus or final phosphorus outlined?
3 MR. HERT: We do have a letter from East Chicago
4 which spells out some dates which indicate that interim
5 facilities will be installed by December 31, 1972.
6 MR. BRYSONj Now, looking at another community;
7 South Bend, anticipating August 1973 completion, have you
# explored any possibility of accelerating that date?
9 MR. HERT: I have explored that. I went into
10 detail on that point last week myself, and they are provid-
11 ing phosphorus removal by upflow clarifiers following exist-
12 ing activated sludge plant. Their existing plant, which is
13 also being expanded, is much overloaded, and the practicality
14 of adding chemicals prior to the time that these overflow
15 clarifiers can be completed is questionable. And these
16 clarifiers — one of them the concrete work is up out of the
17 ground now, and the other one expects to pour the base within
18 the next few weeks. So we do look towards early 1973 or
19 summer of 1973 completion of these.
20 MR. BRISON: What sort of removals are they getting
21 now?
22 MR. HERT: In phosphorus removal?
23 MR. BRISON: les, sir.
24 MR. HERT: Their effluent is not running much more
25 than 3 as total phosphorus. They do have a relatively weak
-------
. 124
I 0. Hert
2 phosphorus loading.
3 MR. BRYSON: Three is the influent or effluent?
4 MR. HERT: Effluent.
5 MR. CURRIE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
6 make one clarifying statement as to the position that the
7 Illinois Pollution Control Board has taken with regard to the
8 issue raised by Mr. McDonald.
9 We have squarely held in a number of cases that it
10 is the obligation of every municipality to construct its
11 sewage treatment facilities and it is no defense that they
12 cannot get State or Federal money. We feel very strongly
13 about that, and that is a part of the law of Illinois today.
14 MR. MAYO: Any other comments from the conferees?
15 MR. McDONALD: I have a comment on page 9» Mr.
16 Hert, middle paragraph, in regard to chlorides.
17 Are there any plans for the reduction of
18 chlorides — of the 260,000 pounds per day?
19 MR. HERT: We have no plans from industry at this
20 time on this reduction, which is really dissolved solids
21 originating as a part of the plant processes. It involves
22 some of the same problems that our Board and U.S. EPA have
23 been involved in, in dissolved solids from du Font's wastes
24 — a question of how you can further reduce those with
25 present day practice treatment methods for discharge to
-------
135
1 0. Hert
2 surface water.
3 MR. McDONALD: Thank you,
4 MR. MAYO: Any other comments, gentlemen?
5 Does Indiana have any further presentation?
6 (Mr. Hert's report follows in its entirety.)
7 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I had a request from
Karen Griggs from Ashley, if she is here, to speak on the
9 compliance schedule. I understand she is not here.
10 (Ms. Griggs' written statement, submitted follow-
ing the conference, follows in its entirety.)
12
So this would conclude Indiana's presentation as
13
far as phosphorus schedules are concerned.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
PROGRESS REPORT
FOR
CONFERENCE
ON
POLLUTION OF LAKE MICHIGAN AND ITS TRIBUTARY BASIN
(ILLINOIS - INDIANA - MICHIGAN - WISCONSIN)
RECONVENED SEPTEMBER 19, 19?2
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
ON BEHALF OF
THE
INDIANA STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AND
THE STATE OF INDIANA
September, 1972
-------
Municipal Sewage Treatment
Elkhart, Kendallville, Ligonier and Portage have completed sewage
works projects and South Bend, Nappanee, Lagrange and Valparaiso have
projects under construction which include phosphorus removal facilities.
Angola, Gary and Goshen have projects approved which include phosphorus
removal; the projects also have been approved for 1971-72 construction
grant funds and it is anticipated that construction will be underway
within the next few months. Final plans and specifications for phosphorus
removal facilities have been approved foi Chesterton, East Chicago,
Michigan City and Mishawaka.
Stream Pollution Control Board orders were issued early this year
to a.11 municipalities not already under order or not making significant
progress towards installation of phosphorus removal facilities. The
Chesterton order was referred to the Attorney General for enforcement
in May and the East Chicago, Gary, Goshen, Hobart and Mishawaka orders
were referred to the Attorney General in August. Every effort is being made
to follow through on these projects. It should be noted that processing
of interim Water Quality Management Plans and construction grant applications
has materially slowed down municipal sewage works projects.
Is. addition to the projects which included phosphorus removal, the
City of East Gary has completed its connection to Gary; Middlebury,
Wakarusa and Wolcottville have completed sewage works projects; and
Hammond and Topeka have sewage works projects under construction.
-------
-2-
Michigan City has continued making substantial progress towards
separation of combined sewers in major areas of the City, and Mishawaka
and South Bend have provided combined sewer separation in some areas.
East Chicago has completed a demonstration project to provide control
of pollution from combined sewers serving approximately 1/3 of the City;
however, a study and evaluation of this project has not been completed.
East Chicago also completed construction of separate storm sewers for a
portion of its drainage area and the Gary Sanitary District has submitted
a master plan for sewer improvements. The supplement to Appendix I
contains a schedule which would establish dates for provision of facilities
to abate pollution from combined sewer overflows. It is anticipated that
a hearing on proposed dates will be scheduled for the near future.
An order issued to the City of Hammond provided for control of
combined sewer overflows and disinfection of storm water discharges to
Lake Michigan with the project to be completed by December 31j 1970.
The order also required completion of plant improvements by December 31>
1972. Construction is well underway on plant expansion and control of
combined sewer overflow to Lake Michigan in the Robertsdale Area of the
Hammond Sanitary District. The City of Whiting entered objections to
the Board's order which provided for completion of the Whiting project
by May 1, 1971. The City of Whiting has submitted final plans for a
new sewage treatment plant to treat a,11 flow from existing combined
sewers, including that now discharged to Hammond, with effluent discharge
to the Lake George Branch of Indiana Harbor Canal thence to Lake Michigan.
-------
-3-
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency filed 180-day notices against
Hammond and Whiting relative to discharges to Lake Michigan. It has not
yet made a commitment as to whether or not it would approve a sewage
treatment plant for Whiting with discharge of effluent to a
tributary of Lake Michigan.
Federal grant applications filed for 1972-73 construction grant
funds by thirteen municipalities in the Lake Michigan tributary Basin
request over $8 million in Federal and $U million in State grant funds
to help finance construction of projects estimated to cost approximately
$22 million.
Projects now under construction by Hammond, Valparaiso, Lagrange,
Nappanee, South Bend, and Topeka cost approximately $17.2 million
including $8.6 million in Federal and $3.9 million in State grant funds.
The eight other projects recently completed cost approximately $9.7
million including $U.8 million in Federal and $2.2 million in State
grant funds.
On the basis of plans that have been submitted and those now underway,
it is indicated that, if adequate State and Federal funds are available,
practically all of the Indiana municipalities in the Lake Michigan
tributary basin could have projects for phosphorus removal facilities
either completed or under construction by the middle of 1973. The status
of municipal wastewater treatment facilities is shown in Appendix I. A
separate sheet shows the status of phosphorus removal facilities. (Table l)
-------
SurveiHance of wastewater treatment plant operations and the
requirement for submission of meaningful monthly reports has continued.
In general, this activity, plus the requirement for certification of
operators in charge of wastewater treatment plants, has improved the
operation and maintenance of these facilities. However, the control
of pollution from combined sewer overflows and storm sewer discharges
is required to meet water quality standards during wet weather periods.
Emphasis has been continued on the requirement for semi-public
installations to connect to area-wide sewerage facilities where
practicable and for improved operation and maintenance of existing
plants.
-------
TABLE I
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL FACILITIES
LAKE MICHIGAN TRIBUTARIES
Basin
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SWKim/lsm
8/1V72
Municipality
Chesterton
Crown Point
East Chicago
Gary
Hobart
Michigan City
Portage
Valparaiso
Angola
Elkhart
Goshen
Kendallville
Lagrange
Ligonier
Mishawaka
Nappanee
South Bend
1970
Population
6,200
10,900
1*7,000
175,1*00
21, k 00
39,1*00
19,100
20,000
5,100
1*3,100
17,200
6,800
2,100
3,000
35,500
1*,200
125,600
Plans
Approved
8/15/72
No
5/18/71
. 5/16/72
No
8/15/72
5/19/70
2/16/71
1/18/72
14/21/70
2/15/72
10/20/70
5/16/72
8/18/70
l*/l8/72
l*/l8/72
1/19/71
Construction
Status
Completed May '72
Under Construction
.Completed July '72
Completed Jan. '72
Under construction
Completed Jan. '72
Not started
Under construction
Under construction
Operation
Status Remarks
Received construction bids
8/27
Plans uncertain, Mayor says
will have in by 12/31/72
Alternate study and plans
underway
Preliminary bond resolution
in progress
Engineer to advise the City of
plans for temp. P014 facilities
City expects to complete by
12/31/72
Yes
Anticipate completion by
12/31/72 ^
Anticipate construction by '
October, 1972
Yes
Waiting on 71-72 grant offer
Yes Operating reports indicate
88fa reduction
Will be completed by end of
1972
Yes Operating reports indicate
90$ reduction
Nothing definite on start
Anticipate completion by
12/31/72
Anticipate Aug. '73 completion
-------
-6-
INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT AMD CONTROL
Continued progress has been made on completion of waste treatment
facilities at Indiana industries with improved waste treatment operation
and reduction of waste loadings by inplant changes.
Cities Service Oil Company, East Chicago, completed biological
treatment facilities during July, 1971- Cities Service Oil Company
announced during the spring of 1972 that the East Chicago refinery would
be closed permanently on January 1, 1973- No information is available on
future use of the plant site.
Mobil Oil Corporation, East Chicago, is continuing inplant reuse of
treated wastewaters and is investigating connection to the East Chicago
Sanitary District sewerage system. Mobil Oil Corporation reduced its
wastewater flow from approximately 2.5-tngd in 1968 to 0.5-mgd in 1972.
It pumps about 1.8-tngd from the Indiana Harbor Canal; however, evaporation
losses reduce the discharge to about 1/3 of the intake. The treatment
provided frequently shows an improvement in the effluent over the intake
quality in terms of oil, suspended solids and BOD.
The advanced waste treatment systems completed by American Oil Company,
Whiting and Atlantic Richfield Company, East Chicago, are working effectively.
Inplant controls are being intensified at American Oil Company and Cities
Service Oil Company to eliminate peak loads that causes upsets. American
Maize Products Company, Hammond, has completed inplant equipment changes that
will bring its effluent within recommended guidelines for discharge into
the Lake Michigan.
Evaluation of waste treatment facilities completed during 1969 and 1970
at Inland Steel Company, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, and U. S. Steel
Corporation, showed that additional pollution control measures were needed.
-------
-7-
An enforcement hearing was scheduled with U. S. Steel Corporation and an
order issued on December 1, 1970, outlining completion of additional
treatment facilities by December 31, 1972. The Corporation filed for
judicial review in Lake Superior Court and the Board's order was set
aside. The court decision has been appealed by the Board and the matter
is pending in the Indiana Supreme Court. The U. S. Steel Corporation has
completed oil and solids separation facilities on the Sheet & Tin Mill
discharge and added chemical treatment to the Blast Furnace flue dust
treatment facilities to improve that treatment; however, additional
treatment is needed. The State presently is working with
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department to develop
requirements for U. S. Steel Corporation.
Inland Steel Company has continued to make inplant production modifications
and treatment plant improvements, including the elimination of its last
discharge to Lake Michigan by recycling. Additional reductions are needed
in the effluent from the terminal treatment plant, coke plants, and basic
oxygen process and several of the older rolling mills. The Board is presently
establishing time schedules for the additional treatment needed to meet the
Water Quality Standards outlined by Regulation SPC JR.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, East Chicago, has upgraded facilities
at the -central water treatment plant to prevent plant upset by slug discharges,
completed additional flow controls to insure maximum recycle of blast furnace
gas washer water, and made internal changes in the coke plant to insure that
these wastes are discharged to the East Chicago sewerage system. Additional
pollution control work is needed in the areas of pickle liquor disposal, the
coke plant and rolling mill area. The Board is establishing time schedules
for additional facilities needed to meet the Water Quality Standards outlined
in Regulation SPC 7R.
-------
-8-
Table 2 shows a comparison of effluent data for industry for 1968
and 1971- It is noted that oil has been reduced 52 percent, phenol has
been reduced 76 percent, BOD has been reduced 6h percent and suspended
solids have been reduced 31 percent during this period.
During mid 1970, the Board advised E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
that additional waste treatment was needed to reduce levels of suspended
solids, acidity, zinc and sulfates in its effluent by December 31> 1972.
During the period the staff was working with the Company to develop a
program, the Justice Department, in February, 1971, filed a civil action
under the 1899 Refuse Act. E* I. du Pont submitted proposals for waste
treatment and controls; however, the problem has not been resolved because
of not being able until recently to specify what effluent limitations are
desired and whether deep-well disposal would be a satisfactory solution to
the problem. It remains to be determined what can be done to reduce
effluent characteristics to desired levels with treatment methods available
for discharge to the Grand Calumet River, because the Environmental
Protection Agency has ruled that deep-well disposal is not a satisfactory
solution.
Investigations and results of samples show that Simmons Company, Munster,
requires additional wastewater treatment for cyanide, oil, suspended solids,
and chromium in order to meet the Water Quality Standards. A time schedule
has been recommended requiring final plans by March 1, 1973* and completion
of construction by June 1, 197^-
An enforcement hearing was held with Maynard Metals Company, Schererville,
concerning pollution of a tributary of Hart Ditch with ammonia and tin. An
order was issued on April 11, 1972, outlining completion of facilities by
December 31, 1972. The Company has eliminated the discharges.
-------
-9-
Since the March 23, 1971, report, Middlebury Cooperative Creamery,
Middlebury, American Motors Corporation, (General Products Division)
South Bend, and the Pennsylvania - New York Central Transportation
Company, Elkhart, have completed construction of wastewater treatment
facilities and are discharging effluents into municipal sewerage systems.
Gentner Packing Company, South Bend,completed an anaerobic-aerated lagoon
system durirglate 1971. The Weatherhead Corporation completed facilities
at its Angola plant in mid 1972 and has additional facilities under
construction at its Syracuse plant which should be finished before
December 31, 1972.
A recent report on chloride discharges for industries discharging in
excess of 10,000 pounds per day indicated that four steel mills and two
refineries were discharging a total of approximately 260,000 pounds of
chlorides per day.
Northern Indiana Public Service Company has a cooling tower under
construction to provide cooling of condenser water from the existing
steam electric generating plant and an additional generating plant that
is under construction at Michigan City. It also plans to provide cooling
facilities for the existing steam electric and proposed nuclear plant at
Bailly. Other Indiana electric generating plants are conducting studies
to determine if thermal control requirements can be met by changes in intake
and discharge structures.
A listing showing the status of industrial plants appears in Appendix II.
-------
TABLE 2
EFFLUENT MONITORING DATA
Oil
Phenol
BOD
Suspended Solids
COMPANY 1971 flow mgd
American Oil
Company
Process
Cooling
Atlantic
Richfield Co.
Cities Service
Oil Company
(6 months 1972)
Mobil Oil Corporation
American Maize Co.
Union Carbide Chemical
Corporation
Inland Steel Co.
Youngstown Sheet
5 Tube Company
U. S. Steel
Corporation
River
Lake
28.8
97.6
4.8
66
(59)
0.79
10.94
48.57
922
272
426
245
Totals
1968 Ibs./day
4,131
1,568
1,763
485
456
NA
630
24,210
3.400
48,821
13,280
98,734
1971 Ibs./day
864
917
215
1,080
f6851
25
HA
189
14,068
.5,772
16,835
7rS31
47,496
1968 Ibs./day
190.3
28.3
116
86
88.9
NA
NA
710 ..
1,3
268
1530
1971 Ibs./day
82
27
21
42
f5.6)
15.7
NA
NA
1^6 *
O'i) *
26 *
363
1968 Ibs./day
9,700
8,752
4.592
3,460
1,680
7.560
3,927
NA
HA
NA
39,671
1971 Ibs./day
4,233
1,234
582
2,800
f2.33S)
279
2.270
2,835
WA
NA
NA
14,233
1968 Ibs./day
NA
NA
1,278
1,230
1,211
32.100
682
40.808
92.600
229,000
8.490
407,399
1971 Ibs./day
2,842
1,136
3,200
i
(1,893) ?
164
1.271
882
31.424
76.104
137,852
30.175
282,208
% Reduction
NA - Not available
() Average 1st 6 months of 1972
53 76
*Inland Steel and Youngstown discharge coke plant waste to
64
East Chicago; U.S. Steel discharges to Gary.
31
-------
-11-
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
A review of water quality data for tributary streams discloses
a significant improvement for most parameters in the period from
1968 through 1971 as shown by the following:
1. Indiana Harbor Ship Canal
a. Dissolved Oxygen - General improvement on annual
average basis; met criteria on 60% of samples in
1971. (1971 average 3.6 mg/1)
b. Cyanide - Downward trend,criteria met on 70%
of samples in 1971 as opposed to 44% in 1968.
(1971 average 0.123 mg/1)
c. Phenols - Annual average shows downward trend
1969-1971. The criteria is met on more samples
in later years (55% of samples met criteria in
in 1971 as opposed to 7.7% in 1968, 1969. (1971
average 0.08 mg/1)
d. Oil - Average values general steady except for high
in 1970. 74% of samples met criteria of 5.0 mg/1
in 1971. (1971 average 4.6 mg/1)
e. Ammonia Nitrogen - No trend apparent on mean values,
but mean is highest in 1971. Hardly any samples
met the criteria in the four-year period. (1971
average 4.5 mg/1)
f. Copper - No trend apparent. Annual average values
range from 0.022 to 0.033 mg/1. (1971 average 0.025 mg/1)
g. Cadmium - Annual average values generally constant except
for high in 1969. Lowest annual average in 1971. (0.10 mg/1)
h. Nickel - General downward trend in annual average last
-------
-12-
three years, with 1971 average almost the same as
1968 of 0.024 mg/1.
i. Lead - Lowest annual average in 1971. (0.036 mg/1)
j. Zinc - Significant downward trend in 1970 and 1971,
annual average twice as low as in 1968 and 1969.
(1971 average 0.14 mg/1)
k. Fecal Coliform - Apparent degradation in 1971; only
9/21 samples met criteria in 1971 as opposed to
17/22 in 1970.
1. Phosphorus - 1971 and 1970 annual average concentrations
are more than twice the average concentration in 1969.
The criteria was met on only 1 sample in 1971. The
1971 annual average of 0.34 mg/1 was a little more
than three times higher than the criteria.
2. Burns Ditch
a. Dissolved Oxygen - General upward trend on annual
average basis. Except for 1970, minimums generally
meet criteria of 6.0 mg/1.
b. Cyanide - Erratic but higher in 1971 (average 0.069 mg/1)
c. Phenol - General downward trend on annual average
basis, lowest in 1971 (O.0034 mg/1)
d. Oil - Erratic, but 1970 and 1971 data is higher than
1968 and 1969 data. (1971 average 4.47 mg/1)
e. NHj - General downward trend on annual average basis,
lowest in 1971 (0.353 mg/1)
^' Phosphorus - No trend noted except for the rise in
1970 to 0.43 mg/1 versus 0.33 mg/1 in 1969 and 1971.
g. Fecal Coliform - Steady with samples meeting criteria
-------
-13-
95% of time in 1970 and 1971.
h. Cu, Cd, Nl, Pb, Zn - Only 6 months of data in 1971,
but all were low - averages from 0.010 mg/1 (Cd)
to 0.060 mg/1 (Zn)
3. Trail Creek
a. Dissolved Oxygen - Generally steady on the average,
but minimum rising (4.0 in 1969 to 4.6 in 1971).
However, does not meet criteria in SPC 12 at all
times.
b. Cyanide - Steady, average for all years 0.05 mg/1.
c. Phenol - No trend observed average of 0.0028 mg/1
in 1971.
d. Oil - Erratic, no definite trend; 1971 average 4.58
mg/1.
e. NH5 - No definite trend, 1971 average 1.77 mg/1.
f. Copper - No definite trend, low (0.035 mg/1 in 1971.
g. Cadmium - Distinct downward trend (0.010 mg/1
in 1971.
h. Nickel - Erratic, but low (0.026 mg/1 in 1971).
i. Lead - Erratic, but low. Average 0.028 mg/1 in
1971.
j. Zinc - Distinct downward trend. Average 0.135 mg/1
in 1971.
k. Phosphorus - Slight downward trend with average
of 0.9 mg/1 in 1971. This was probably due to
Michigan City's plant studies on phorphorus removal.
1. Fecal Coliform - Slight upward trend with 14 of 19 samples
meeting criteria in 1971 versus 16 of 18 samples in 1970.
-------
-Ik-
4. Grand Calumet River (Hohman Avenue, West to Illinois)
a. Dissolved Oxygen - General upward trend, from 3.9 mg/1
average in 1968 to 4.9 mg/1 in 1971.
b. Cyanide - General downward trend. Samples met
criteria 100% in 1971 with average of 0.05 mg/1.
c. Phenol - General downward trend. The percentage of
samples meeting criteria in 1971 was 96%, a significant
improvement over the three previous years: (1968-73%),
(1969-46%) and (1970-42%). (1971 average 0.0046 mg/1)
d. Oil - Significant improvement: 1971 average is a
third of that in 1968. Met criteria 48% of samples in
1971, with average of 5.28 mg/1.
e. NHs_ - A distinct downward trend in 1968, 1969, and
1970 with a sharp rise in 1971; however, criteria was
met only a few times in 4 years. (1971 average 9.414 mg/1)
f. *Copper - Average 0.03 mg/1 in 1971.
g. ''Cadmium - Average 0.01 mg/1 in 1971.
h. *Nickel - Average 0.027 mg/1 in 1970, 0,031 mg/1 in 1971.
i. *Lead - Average 0.069 mg/1 in 1971.
j. *Zinc - Mean 0.182 mg/1 in 1970, 0.100 mg/1 in 1971.
* Based on two years 1970-71.
k. Phosphorus - An upward trend but no data was collected in
1970.
1. Fecal Coliform - Definite downward trend over four years
(102,080 MPN/100 ml to 12,666 MPN/100 ml) on an annual
-------
-15-
average basis. Also, percentage of samples
meeting criteria increased from 23% and 15%
in 1968 and 1969 to 59% and 55% in 1970 and
1971, respectively.
The summary of data from samples collected weekly from
Lake Michigan beaches also reflects improvement in water quality
from a fecal coliform analysis. In the past two years only the
Whiting beach has consistently failed to meet criteria. Approximately
1/3 of the Hammond beach samples have failed to meet criteria. These
data are summarized on Table 3.
The results of pesticide monitoring from stations in Indiana
Harbor, Burns Ditch, Trail Creek and the St. Joseph River at South
Bend showed very low values. The water samples generally showed
less than 0.010 ug/1. (Only 6 of 424 analysis were above this value)
Only 40 of 160 analysis of sediment samples showed values above
0.010 ug/gram with only 17 of 176 analysis higher. Only 47 of 184
analysis of invertabrates showed concentrations above 0.010 ug/gram
with these values generally under 6.1 ug/gm. The zooplankton showed
the highest concentrations with 11 of 24 analysis over 0.010 ug/gram;
One sample showed 0.735 ug/gram of ODD, 0.35 ug/gram of DDE and 0.296 ug/gram
of DDT.
Analysis of samples from water supply intakes at Hammond, Whiting,
East Chicago, Gary, and Michigan City generally showed a slight improve-
ment for most parameters over the past three years. The averages for 1971
indicated the following: cyanide - 0.05; phenols - 0.001; oil - 3.5 to 5.0;
ammonia nitrogen - 0.1; copper - 0.02 to 0.06; cadmium - 0.01; nickel - 0.02;
lead - 0.02; zinc - 0.3 to 0.4; and mercury - 0.0008 to 0.0012 (all results
in mg/1).
-------
-16-
TABLE 3
Lake Michigan Beaches
Number of Months of Total Months Sampled
Meeting Criteria of SPG 4R *
Beach
Dunes State Park
Porter
Michigan City
Dunes Acres
Ogden Dunes-East
Ogden Dunes-West
Gary-Wells Street
Gary-Marquette Park
Gary-Lake Street
East Chicago
Whiting
Hammond
Wolf Lake-120th Street
Wolf Lake-State Line
* Whole-Body Contact: The fecal coliform content at all recognized beach
areas shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml as a monthly
geometric mean based on not less than five samples
per month; nor exceed 400 per 100 ml in more than
ten percent of all samples taken during a month.
1972
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
0/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
1971
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
0/5
4/4
4/4
4/4
1970
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
1969
4/5
5/5
5/5
4/5
3/5
3/5
4/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
2/5
4/5
5/5
5/5
1968
5/5
3/5
—
5/5
3/5
3/5
5/5
3/5
4/4
3/5
1/5
1/5
5/5
5/5
-------
APPEND!)
I
Municipal Waste Treatment
Lake Michigan Basin
Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties
Population
1?70 (or Type of
''rnlciDalitv UcterConsus) Treatment
Chestevton 0,177 Activated
s ludge ,
chlorinatiots
Crc'.-n Point JO, 951 Activated
s ludpe ..
chlerination
.7! as* Chicago -!6,:)g2 Activated
sludge,
chlorination
Hast Gar;' 9,853 Connected to
Gary 175,415 Activated
sludge,
chlorination
'Lsst raj or .rmpTnvcinent
O .>: '= percent nhosnhorur, reduction reou:
Design Present
Year Flow Flow
Conrolcted ir.pcl mgd
1063 1.50 1-02
1966* 1.80 1.05
1960* 20.00 14.00
Gary.
196S* 60.00 4r, so
+20.00
Additional
primary
capacity
r«fl af mup.irinnli fi PS hv 1<577
Improvements
Receiving Stream Required (1)
Little Calumet R., Phosphorus
Sums Ditch removal
Beaver Dara Ditch Phosphorus C2)
Deep River removal,
Burns Ditch Advanced waste
treatment
Grand Calumet R., Advanced waste
Indiana Harbor .treatment,
Phosphorus
reraoval
Storm water
disinfection and
control
Grand Calumet R., Advanced waste
Indiana Harbor treatment
Phosphorus (2)
removal
* Stow water
disinfection and
control
f*»Vf 1 »»*H n«7 MuirmriT.ri 'jrt*1 1y^^4•^•.«^
Time-
Tab le Remarks
1972 Final plans approved
8/15/72. SPCB order
referi'ed to Attorney
General .
1972 SPCB order issued.
1977
As soon as t-ina1 plans approved
practicable 12/21/71.
1972 SPCB order referred to ^
Attorney General . — J
As soon as Demonstration project
practicable under study.
As soon as
practicable
1972 Plans approved 5/11/72
SPCB order referred, to
As soon as Attorney General.
practicable
-------
APPENDIX I
Municipal Waste Treatment
Lake Michigan Basin
Lake, Porter, and LaPort.e Counties (continued)
Popxilation Design Present
1970 (or Type of Year Flow Flow Improvements Time-
Municipality Later Census) Treatment Completed n^d mgd Receiving Stream Required Q) Table
Remarks
Karncnc* 107,790 (Treatment required of stem and combined sewer overflows to Lake Disinfection and 1970
Michigan") control
'•>itinr, 7,247 (Treatment required of storm and combined sewer overflows to take Disinfection and 1970
Michigan) control
Hobart 21,453
Michigan City Si!,.1*"
PortP-s? 19,127
-c~-e.- 3, OSS
Vair.ar.-iso 20'0*c
Activated
sludge,
chlorinr.tion
Activated
sludge,
chlorination
1962^
1963'
Activated sludge
phosphorus removal,
chlorination
Connected to
Chesterton
Activated
sludge,
chlorination
-
1954
2-00 1.77 Deep River,
Burns Ditch
15.00 10.30 Trail Creek
2,5 - Burns Ditch
Calumst River
Bums Ditch
2.OC 2.46 Salt. Creek,
Little Calumet,
6.00 (UC) Burns Ditch
Phosphorus (2) 1972
removal
Advanced waste 1977
treatment
Advanced waste As soon as
treatment practicable
Phosphorus (2)
removal
1972
1970
Expansion,
Phosphorus
removal ,
Advanced waste
treatment
1972
1972
1977
Kobeitsdale project
under construction.
Final plans approved
2/15/72. SPCB order
referred to Attorney
General.
SPCB order referred to
Attorney General.
Under Study, engineer
cirp loved.
Under Study, engineer
i employed.
Final plans approved
8/15/72.
Completed.
Under construction
including phosphorus
removal.
rr.^SO ^rccntmphosphoruS reduction required of municipalities by 1972 (cxcludinjt Haraond and Whiting).
(71 Applications or. file for construction grants.
CD
I
-------
Population
APPENDIX I
Municipal Wastcwater Treatment
Lake Michigan Basin - St. Joseph River
Design Present
Municipality
Albion
Ar.sola
Ash ley
Cronvell
Elkhart
Fre~.cn t
U)"0 (or Type of Ysar
Later Census) Trcatrwnt foirpleted
i,1ES lagoon, 1958
Chlorination
5,11" Trickling 1963*
filter.
ch, lcrir."tion
721 Activated 1966
slucgC; 7-day
terminal
lagoon
•175 None
43,152 Primary, 1955
chlorination
Secondary, UC
phosphorus
removal
1,045 1958
filter,
chlorination
Flow Flow
ragd mgd
0.15 0.08
(est.)
0.85 0.80
0.08 0.05
-
12.0 12.0 to
15,00
20.0
0.15 0.12
Receiving Stream
Tributary to
Elkhart River
Pigeon Creek,
Pigeon River
Tributary to
Turkey Creek,
Pigeon River
Turkey Creek,
Elkhart River
St. Joseph R.
Tributary to
Crooked Creek,
Fawn 'aver
Improvements
Required
_
Phosphorus (2)
removal
Advanced waste
treatment
Chlorination
Time-
Tab le
_
As soon as
practicable
1977
1969
Secondary treat- 1972
went and chlorination (2)
1969
1972
Remarks
.
Final plans approved
1/1S/72, including
phosphorus removal .
Under Study
i
i
Prelininary report sub-
mitted. f2)
i'lidcr construction,
including phosphorus
removal .
* Last najcr irr'rove'r.ent
(2) Applications en file for construction grant:
-------
APPENDIX I
Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Lake Michigan Basin - St. Joseph River (continued)
Municipality
Goshen
Kendall vi lie
Lagrange
Ligonier
Mil ford
Junction
Mishawaka
Nappanee
Population Design
1970 (or Type of Year Flow
Later Census) Treatment Completed mgd
17,171 Activated 1963* 3.50
sludge,
limited
chlorination
6,383 Trickling 1972* 2.68
filter, chlorination
Phosphorus removal
2,053 Trickling 1958 0.38
filter, chlori-
nation
3,034 Trickling filter, 1972* 0.52
chlorination,
phosphorus removal
1,264 None
35,517 Activated 1952 8.30
sludge, 1966*
chlorination
4,159 Activated 1963 0.90
sludge,
chlorination
Present
Flow
mgd Receiving Stream
2.40 Elkhart River
1.84 Henderson Lake
North Branch
Elkhart River
0.19 Fly Creek
Pigeon River
0.35 Elkhart River
Turkey Creek,
Elkhart River
9.00(1) St. JosephR.
0.70 Tributary
Turkey Creek,
Elkhart River
Improvements Time-
Required Table
Chlorination and(2)
phosphorus removal 1972
As soon as
practicable
Phosphorus (2) I972
removal
1972
Secondary treat- (2) 1972
ment and chlor-
ination
Expansion and (2) 1972
phosphorus removal
Phosphorus removal 1972
(2)
Remarks
Plans approved. SPCB
order referred to
Attorney General .
Completed January,
1972.
Under construction.
8
Completed. (2)
Plans approved.
Plans approved. SPCB
order referred to
Attorney General .
Under construction.
* Last major improvement.
(2) Applications on file for construction grants.
-------
APPENDIX I
Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Lake Michigan Basin - St. Joseph River (continued)
Municipality
South Bend
Population
1970 (or
Later Census)
125,580
Type of Year
Treatment Completed
Activated
sludge expansion,
chlorination and
1955
phosphorus removal ^
Syracuse
Topeka
Wakarusa
1,546
677
1,160
Trickling
filer, chlori-
nation
Lagoon,
chlorination
Lagoon,
chlorination
1962
UC
1970
Design Present
Flow Flow
mgd mgd
24.0(Sec)32.00(3)
24.0(Prim)
48.0
0.25 0.20
0.58
-
Receiving Stream
St. Joseph River
furkey Creek,
Elkhart River
Little Elkhart R.
Baugo Creek
Elkhart River
Improvements Time-
Required Table Remarks
Chlorination As soon as Under construction.
practicable
1972
— - —
1972 Under construction.
.
Wolcottville 915 Trickling
filter, chlori-
nation
Middlebury 1,055 Trickling
filter, chlori-
nation
0.16
0.05
Little Elkhart R.
1973
0.2 0.08 Little Elkhart R.
Completed.
Completed.
* Last major improvement
(2) Applications on file for construction grants.
(3) All dry weather flow is receiving secondary treatment.
-------
-22-
ABATEMEMT OF POLLUTION FROM
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
Chesterton
East Gary
Goshen Report by June 30, 1973
Griffith Final plans by June 30, 197!*
Highland Construction by March 1, 1975
Hobart Completion by December 31, 1976
Michigan City
Valparaiso
East Chicago Report by September 30, 1973
Elkhart Final-plans by December 31,
Hammond Construction by September 30, 1975
Mishawaka Completion by December 31> 1977
South Bend'
Gary Report by July 31, 1972 (SPCB Order)
Final plans by July 31, 197*4
Construction by March 1, 1975
Whiting Now in violation of Order, proceed with
enforcement
September, 1972
-------
APPENDIX II
INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT CONTROL FACILITIES
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
Industry
Sewage Disposal
Industrial Waste
Facilities
Waste Receiving
Status Flow mgd Stream
St. -Joseph River
Angola Reduction Company
Angola
Weatherhead Company
Ani-ola
Elcona Foods, Inc.
Elkhart
Septic tank -
absorption system
Angola sewer
Septic tank -
absorption system
Anaerobic-aerobic lagoon
C-il separation,
cyanide destruction,
chromium reduction
end cyanide isolation
facilities
Grease separation,
blood collection
and soil absorption
pond
0.010 Soil Absorption
0.175 Tributary of
Crooked Lake
O.OiiO
ro
VjJ
None
Pennsylvania New York Central
Transportation Company
Elkhart
Elkhart sewer
Oil separation and
soil absorption ponds
0.050 Elkhart sewer
.John L. Whisler and Son, Inc.
Elkhart
Septic tank -
absorption system
Fine screens, blood
collection, grease
separation and soil
absorption ponds
0.150
None
-------
APP5IIDIX II (continuec .
Industry
Sewage Disposal
Industrial Waste
Facilities
Waste Receiving
Status Flow ragd Stream
Pcn.1 Electric Switch Company
Goshen
Pine Manor, Inc.
Goshen
Kendallville Fertilizer Company
Kendallville
Springer Corporation
Li'onier
Goshen sewer
Goshen sewer
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Middlcbury Co-operative Creamery, Inc. Septic tank - ab-
Middlebury . sorption system
Oil separator, cyanide A
isolation and settling tanks
Grease separation, A
blood collection and
soil absorption pond
Septic tanks and waste A
stabilization pond
Oil separation tank A
Connection to Middlebury
0.225 Goshen sewer
0.0*40 Hone
0.020 Henderson Creek
0.015 Elkhart River
0.025 Middlebury sewer
Maple Leaf Farm Processing Plant
ililford
Indiana-Michigan Electric Company
Tvin Branch Station
Mi'Shawaka
U. S. Rubber Company
Mishawaka
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Mishawaka sewer
Waste stabilization
pond
Ash settling ponds
In-plant control, primary
clarification, chemical
treatment, flocculation,
clarification and vacuum
filtration
A
0.080 Waubee Lake
814.0
St. Joseph
River
1.300 St. Joseph
River
Animal By-Products Corporation
New Carlisle
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Soil absorption pond
0.020 None
-------
APPaiDIX II (continued
I ndustry
Sewage Disposal
Industrial Waste
Facilities
Waste Receiving
Status Flow mgd Stream
Kew Paris Creamery Company
1,'ew Paris
Polo Produce, Inc.
New Paris
County Line Cheese Company
Shipshewana
General Products Division, AMC
(formerly Kaiser Jeep Corporation)
South Bend
Centner Packing Company
South Bend
Weatherhead Company
Syracuse
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Syracuse sewer
Aerated lagoon
Fine screens, blood
collection, grease
separation and soil
absorption pond
Ridge and Furrow
irrigation
None
Blood collection, grease /
separation and anaerobic-
aerobic waste stabilization
pond system
Cyanide destruction and 3
cyanide isolation
0.225 Turkey Creek
0.050 None
0.015 None
0.020 South Bend sewer
0.215 Autin Ditch
I
ro
0.225 Turkey Creek i
Grand Calumet River - Indiana Harbor Ship-Canal - Lake Michigan
northern Indiana Public Service Co.
Bailly Station
Baileytown
American Steel Foundries Company
East Chicago
Blaw Knox Company
East Chicago
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system -
no discharge
East Chicago
Sanitary District
East Chicago
Sanitary District
Ash disposal with soil
absorption of sluicing
water - no discharge
Settling basin
Settling tank and
filter
Lake Michigan
(cooling water)
0.500 Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal
0.1)25 Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal
-------
AFPSEDIX II (continuei.
Industry
Sewage Disposal
Industrial Waste
Facilities
Waste Receiving
Status Flow mgd Stream
Cities Service Oil Company
2ast Chicago
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
3ar/;, Chicago
Inland Steel Company
East Chicago
M & T Chemicals Company
East Chicago
Mobil Oil Company
East Chicago
East Chicago
Sanitary District
East Chicago
Sanitary District
Three trickling
filter plants with
effluent chlorination
East Chicago
Sanitary District
East Chicago
Sanitary District
Oil separation tanks, A
ammonia-sulfide strippers
and separate disposal of
waste caustic and acids
Acid neutralization I
facilities, settling basin
and controlled discharge
Coke plant cooling water A
recirculation, phenol
extraction, napthalene
recovery and discharge of
ammonia still wastes to
East Chicago Sanitary
District. Sewers, scale
pits, oil separator, flue
dust thickeners, chemical
clarification facilities
and deep well disposal
system for waste pickle
liquor
Spent caustic sold for A
recovery and settling
pond
Oil separators, ammonia A
sulfide stripper, in-
plant control, ballast
tank oil separator,
separate disposal of
waste caustics and
acids, air flotation and
water reuse
73.0 Grand Calumet
River
9.60 Grand Calumet
River
900.00 Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal and
Lake Michigan
OS
I
0.075 2ast Chicago
sower system
2.50 Indiana Harbor
Shin Canal
-------
APFSriDIX II (continue^/
Industry
Sewage Disposal
Industrial. Waste
Facilities Status
Waste Receiving
Flow mgd Stream
Atlantic-Richfield Company
(formerly Sinclair Refining Company)
East Chicago
East Chicago
Sanitary District
Oil separators, ammonia f
sulfide stripper, in-
plant control, ballast tank
oil separator and separate
disposal of waste caustics
and acids
5.50 Indiana Harbor
Canal
U. S. Gypsum Cerapany
Easb Chicago
Union Carbide Chemical Corporation
Linde Air Division
East Chicago
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Conipany
East Chicago
Vulcan Materials Company
Gary
American Maize-Products Company
H amend
Commonwealth Edison Co., Inc.
Hammond
East Chicago
Sanitary District
East Chicago
Sanitary District
East Chicago
Sanitary District
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Hammond Sanitary
District
Chicago Sanitary
District
Settling basin and save-
all clarifiers
Settling ponds and oil
separation
Scale pits, oil separators,I
settling basins, phenol
extraction, napthalene re-
covery, lime still waste to
East Chicago sewers, sand
filtration, chemical treat-
ment and waste pickle liquor
neutralization on hot slag
Spent caustic sold for A
recovery
In-plant control, anaero- I
bic lagoon, aerated lagoon,
starch filtrate clarifiers,
chlorination and some waste
discharged to Hammond sewers
Fly ash settling bins
and bottom ash settling
basins
A
50
0.250
250.00
1*4.00
1000.00
East Chicago
Sewer
Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal
Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal and
Lake Michigan
—J
I
Grand Calumet
River
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
-------
A?P3in)IX II (continue
Industry
American Oil Company
Industrial Waste ' Waste Receiving
Sewage Disposal Facilities Status Flow rngd Stream
Whiting sewers Oil separators and A 1^0.00 Lake Michigan
Whiting
Union Carbide Chemical Corporation
Chemicals Division
Whiting
Whiting sewers and
East Chicago
Sanitary District
aerated lagoon
Oil separators, settling
basins and in-plant
control
5*4.00 Lake Michigan
and Indiana
Harbor Ship
Canal
Union Tank Car Company
Whiting
American Bridge Division
U. S. Steel Corporation
Gary
Gary Works West (formerly
Gary Sheet and Tin Mill)
U. S. Steel Corporation
Gary
Gary Works East (formerly
Gary Steel Works)
U. 0. Steel Corporation
Gary
Gary Works JSast (formerly
National Tube Division)
U. S. Steel Corporation
Gary
Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
Mitchell Station
Gary
Hammond Sanitary
District
Gary Sanitary
District
Gary Sanitary
District
Gary Sanitary
District
Gary Sanitary
District
Septic tank - sub-
surface sand
Oil separation and
discharge to the
Hammond Sanitary District
None (cooling water
only)
Scale pits, oil separa-
tors, deep well, sand
filtration and chemical
treatment
Scale pits, flue dust
thickeners, settling
basins and discharge
of portion of coke
plant wastes to Gary
Sanitary District
Scale pits, oil sepa-
ration and acid
collection
Fly ash and bottom ash
settling ponds
0.030
A
63.00
370.00
Ul.O
Hammond
sewerage system
Grand Calumet
River
Grand Calumet
River - Lake
Michigan
Grand Calumet
River
00
Grand Calumet
River
^0.00 Lake Michigan
-------
APF3IIDIX II (continued?
Industry
Sewage Disposal
Industrial Waste
Facilities
Waste Receiving
Status Flow mgd Stream
Steiner Tissue Division
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Gary
Universal Atlas Cement Company
U. S. Steel Corporation
Gary
Gary Sanitary
District
Trickling filter
Little Calumet River - Burns Ditch - Lake Michigan
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Burns Harbor Plant
Chesterton
American Chemicals Company
Griffith
Great Lakes Dressing Plant
Michigan City
American Cyanamid Company
Michigan City
northern Indiana Public Service Co.
Michigan City
Phillips Drill Company
Michigan City
Roys.! Mstal Corporation
Michigan City
Activated sludge,
chlorination and
discharge to terminal
lagoon
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Activated sludge
Clarifiers
Oil separation
Scale pits, chemical A
floceulation-clarification
units, oil separators,
acid neutralization, deep
well disposal system,
cyanide isolation facilities,
water reuse and cyanide
treatment
Incineration and A
waste holding lagoon
Waste absorption pond A
Settling basins and deep A
well disposal system
Ash settling ponds A
Oil separator , and A
contract disposal
Ion exchange, settling A
tank and settling lagoon
1.00 Gary sewer
12.00
0.025
0.0*10
Lake Michigan
130.00 Little Calumet
River
Tributary ^
Turkey Creek '
Trail Creek
Trail Creek
Lake Michigan
Trail Creel: for
cooling water
Trail Creek
-------
A.PF£I.DIX II (continued)
Sewage Disposal
ndustrial Waste
Facilities
Waste iteceivinr;
Status Flow mgd Stream
Llidwsst Steel Division
national Steel Corporation
Portage
Vale City Packing Company
Valparaiso
Indiana General Corporation
Valparaiso
Little Calumet River (West)
Simons Company
Hunster
Maynard Metals Company
Sehc-rerville
Grand Calumet River (West)
Activated sludge
with chlorination.
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Hammond Sanitary
District
Septic tank - ab-
sorption system
Cyanide isolation
facilities, chemical
treatment with clarifi-
cation and deep well
disposal system
Septic tank and ab-
sorption system
Absorption pond and
deen we!3
Cyanide destruction and
chromium reduction
Settling ponds
A
A
»». 5
0.015
Burns Ditch
None
0.030 None
0.150 Little Calumet
River
0.020 Tributary
Hart Ditch .
LaSalle Steel Company
Hammond
Wolf Lake
Lever Brothers Company
Hammond Sanitary
District
Hammond Sanitary
District
Acid neutralization
and clarification and
contract disposal
In-plant control, air
flotation, effluent
chlorination and discharge
of some waste to Hammond
Sanitary District
0.050 Grand Calumet
River and
Harmond sewerage
system
9.7 Wolf Lake
A Adequate
I Inadequate
9/1/72
-------
STATEr
INDIANA
STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
INDIANAPOLIS 46206
1330 West Michigan Street
633-4420
September 28, 1972
Mr. Francis T. Mayo
Regional Administrator
Region V
Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Dear Mr. Mayo:
Re: Lake Michigan Conference Report
Enclosed is a written statement by Ms. Karen Griggs with reference
to the Town of Ashley. The record of the Conference will show that she
asked to make a statement but was not present when called on. Please
include this statement for the record.
Very truly yours,
, .
Perry E. Miller
Technical Secretary
OHHert/je
enclosure
-------
RECEIVED
Toi Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference, September 19, 1972
Perry Miller, Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
STATE ot wot AHA
My name is Karen Griggs. I live at R. R. 1# Ashley, Indiana. &REAM POtlUTION CONTROL
BOARD
have a deep conviction that Lake Michigan can only survive the heat and
waste in its future if the residents and governmental bodies of the
Great Lakes Basin view its web to the beauty of the Great Lakes as
worthy of preservation and make up lost time in efforts to cease
the degradation of its waters.
Ashley Indiana is a small community on the DeKalb-Stuben county
line in northeastern Indiana. Its population is approximately 800.
Ashley is worthy of notice as it is one of three Indiana communities
that have no disinfection in violation of the 1968 Conference. Continuous
disinfection for municipal effluent should have been in operation,
according to the 1968 reccomendations, by May of 1969.
I speak not to call the wrath of authority upon Ashley's people
but to speak to the problems and concerns since they demonstrate the failure
of the grant system, agency contacts? and legislative action•
In 1965 this community constructed a sewage collection system at a
cost of $300,000. Only 1/7 of this amount was through the grant program.
This debt will not be paid until the year 2002. The neighbering, smaller
town of Hudson, with 500 people, could join into the system but its residents
have chosen to continue with private wells and septic tanks. The Ashley
plant has a capacity of 3 times the present population.
Every day an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 gallons of effluent enter
the county ditch, thence flowing to the Pigeon River, through the Game
Refuge, some miles west. September 13 a serious thunderstorm caused
approximately 100,000 gallons to fill the system. There are no combination
storm and sanitary sewers, according to town officials.
-------
2
Statement of Karen Griggs to the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference, 1972
Presently, to compensate for shallow systems, a lift station is being
constructed to take care of new homes and industry on the west edge of
town. The collected sewage now goes to a grinding tank, an aeration
system, and then to a lagoon. About two weeks elapse during this aeration and
holding process. Testing is done twice a week for D.O. at the final pond
and results in summer 5-7 ppm«t winter 6-9 ppm. Tested five times a week
for B.O. D., the raw sewage at 200-300 ppm. is reduced to 20 in the summer
and five in the winter.
I believe that the state agency has not held hearings on this community
for two years, but Ashley's plans for chlorination and phosphate removal
might come tc fruition by 1975- Economics will primarily determine the
date of treatment for this community.
The expense of this is an estimated $50-60,000, or over $300 per family,
I believe that an awareness exists that construction delays increase costs.
Presently the sewage fees are based on water consumption. Water used in
any amount up to 3°°0 gallons costs $1.75 and sewage is $6,60. The resulting
base rate is $8.64, The 1936 water system needs funds for iron removal,
larger storage, an 8 inch main to 2 new industries and a savings account
for future needs. Ashley is petitioning for a rate increase to its water
charges.
Financing the needed sewage treatment is a serious problem for this
community as well as others in the county, although they are in the Erie
basin. As Hudson's wells and septic tanks serve its residents at their
private expense, Ashley faces slow or no grant assistance for its public
system, A bond issue would take nearly a year to be approved, but a lease-
purchase agreement, if a benefactor could be found, would include higher
interest expense*
-------
3
Statement of Karen Griggs to the lake Michigan Enforcement Conference, 1972.
Standards for treatment should be effluent standards, since a "percent
of removal" standard or an overall standard for a particular body of
water results in uneven quality and degradation of portions of the
water.
This community of Ashley Indiana with its good intentions and economic
bind needs attention, not because of vast pollution of South Bend size,
but because it needs to acquire funds for treatment and has not received
any significant amount in the past.
The legislature has neglected its responsibility to match federal funding
to Indiana's lo^s of $60 million, in my estimate. Should a community of
800 send its sewage to Pigeion River because of neglect at other levels in
the state structure?
Thank you.
^
-------
136
1 R. Purdy
2
3
4
5
6
7 MR. MAYO: Mr. Purdy, are you prepared ^o go ahead
with Michigan?
9 STATEMENT OF RALPH W. PURDY,
10
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
11
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION,
12
LANSING, MICHIGAN
13
MR. PURDY: Before starting on Michigan's report
14
with respect to compliance with enforcement conference
recommendations, I would like to preface my remarks —
16
since our report relates to the recommendations on phos—
d phorus, in particular as it evolved from the Second Session
18
of this conference on February 25, 1969 — with respect
to phosphate removal, by quoting from the summary:
"The conferees discussed modification of the recommendation
established by the First Session of the conference that
waste treatment be provided by all municipalities to achieve
at least 80 percent reduction of total phosphorus. A basin-
25
-------
. .—— 13Z
1 R. Purdy
2 I wide approach to phosphorus reduction was proposed whereby
I
3 the States would determine where phosphorus removal would be
4 required as long as an overall reduction of the &0 percent
5 from municipal and industrial sources is obtained within
6 the drainage basin of the respective States, To accomplish
7 this, the States would estimate or compute their phosphate
loadings and from this develop a program for a total phos-
9 phorus reduction of 30 percent. The States will report on
10 their phosphorus reduction programs at the conference
progress meetings to be called periodically."
12 Michigan did identify to this conference those
13 municipalities with interim time schedules that would be
14 required to remove phosphorus so as to meet the total basin
15 requirement of 80 percent phosphorus reduction from the
point sources.
17 The reports that have been given to this confer-
ence today, and the report of slippage relates to the program
that was identified at that time. The report that I am giv-
ing today will report on how we are proceeding to make that
BO percent reduction, how well we have progressed on it,
how much our slippage will be, and does not necessarily pin-
3 point those municipalities where we do have slippage.
We will continue in Michigan to control every
source of phosphorus that we can to the maximum extent
-------
138
1 R. Purdy
2 possible. A law that was passed to control the amount of
3 phosphorus content of detergents on a statewide basis, since
4 our last report to this conference, has aided our program in
5 reaching the $0 percent total phosphorus reduction from all
6 point sources.
7 The intent of my brief presentation is a report on
Michigan's programs with regard to the issues raised by Mr.
9 Mayo in a recent letter to me. These include the status of
10 compliance of the individual dischargers with the phosphorus
11 removal, combined sewers, disinfection and industrial waste
12 control requirements of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Con-
13 ference.
14 Also included — which we will discuss in greater
15 detail at a later point — as requested, is a comparison of
the conferees' March 25, 1971, recommendations regarding
thermal discharges, along with Michigan's implementation of
these recommendations and reasons for differences with certain
sections of the recommendations. (See pp. 13$a, 138b and 13&<
Michigan's programs with regard to the Technical
Committee reports and their recommendations will be reported
22 '
on at a later point in time.
Status of Compliance
ot,
In April 1972, the Michigan Water Resources Com-
25
mission adopted a statement of its enforcement policy
-------
13Sa
orranendations of the
tviiferees at the
Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference, March 25,1971
State of Michigan's Implementation
of Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference Recommendations
August, 1971
In order to protect Lake Michigan,
the following controls for waste heat
discharges are concurred in by the
conferees representing Indiana,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
Municipal waste and water treatment
plants, and vessels are exempted
from these recommendations.
I. Applicable to all waste heat
discharges except as noted above:
1, At any time, and at a
maximum distanceof 1,000 feet from
a fixedpointadjacentto the dis-
charge ^(agreed upon by the StaTe"
and Federal regulatory agencies~I7
the receiving water temperature
shall not be more than 3°F above
the existing natural temperature
nor shall the maximum temperature
exceed those listed below which-
ever is lower:
January
February
March
April
May
June
1-' II y
JUSt
September
October
November
December
Surface 3 feet
45°
45°
45°
55°
60°
70°
80°
80°
80°
65°
60°
50°
The Michigan conferee agreed by
Ms concurrence to present the re-
commendations to the Michigan Water
Resources Commission for their approval.
Mixing zones for thermal discharges
will be established on a case by case
basis and will be designed to minimize
effects on the aquatic biota in the re-
ceiving waters and to permit fish migra-
tion at all times. Configuration will
be based on the physical characteristics
of the receiving water body and the
biological importance of the area to be
protected, such as spawning areas?
migratory routes etc. within mixing
zones other standards than those
presented may be applicable but will not
Interfere with the designated water uses
for the area.
Lake Michigan shall not receive a
heat load which would warm the receiving
water:
a. More than 3°F above the exist-
ing natural temperature at the edge of
the mixing zone nor/
b. to temperatures higher than
those listed below at the edge of the
mixing zone.
1. Lake Michigan north of a line
running due west from Pentwaterr
January
February
March
40"
40°
40"
-------
138b
Water intakes shall be designed and
located to minimize entrainment and
damage to desirable aquatic organisms.
Requirements may vary depending upon
local situations but, in general, in-
takes are to have minimum water velocity,
shall not be influenced by warmer dis-
charge waters, and shall not be in
spawning or nursery areas of important
fishes. Water velocity at screens and
other exclusion devices shall also be
at a minimum.
Discharge shall be such that geo-
graphic areas affected by thermal plumes
do not overlap or intersect. Plumes shall
not affect fish spawning and nursery areas
nor touch the lake bottom.
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
50°
55°
70"
75°
75°
75°
65°
60"
45°
2. Lake Michigan south of a line
running due west from Pentwater;
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
45°
45"
45°
55°
60°
70°
80°
80°
80°
65°
60°
50°
Water intakes shall be designed
and located to minimize entrainment
and damage to desirable aquatic
organisms. Requirements may vary
depending upon local situations, but in
general intakes are to have minimum
water velocity and shall not be in
spawning or nursery areas of important
fishes. Water velocity at screens and
other exclusion devices shall also be
at a minimum.
Discharge shall be such that
geographic areas affected by thermal
plumes do not overlap or intersect.
-------
system construction schedule ap-
proved by the State regulatory
agency and EPA. In all cases,
construction of closed cycle systems
an associated intake and discharge
facilities shall be completed by
December 31, 1974, for facilities
utilizing natural draft towers and
December 31, 1973, for all other
types of closed cycle systems.
III. The States agree to file
with EPA within six months a plant
by plant program identifying corrective
actions for the modification of intake
facilities, including power plants,
municipal, and industrial users, to
minimize the entrainment and damage
to desirable aquatic organisms.
IV. The Conferees agree that there
should not be a proliferation of
new power plants on Lake Michigan
and that in addition to the above
controls, limitations should be placed
on large volume heated water discharges
by requiring closed cycle cooling
systems, using cooling towers or al-
ternative cooling systems on all new
power plants.
138c
The Michigan Water Resources
Commission has recently initiated a pro-
gram to determine the significance of
intake mortalities to fish and other
aquatic life. Present studies underway
at two existing facilities will also
give a better indication whether intake
structures are detrimental to aquatic
organisms which pass through them.
Agreed to by the Michigan water
Resources Commission as a moratorium
for a five year time period. Re-
evaluation will be undertaken prior to
end of five year period.
-------
: 139
1 R. Purdy
2 regarding communities required to follow corrective programs,
3 but not receiving financial grants. The statement, as amended
4 at the Commission's May 1972 meeting, reads as follows:
5 "Throughout the period of its operation, the Water
6 Resources Commission has held to the position that the
7 public's mandate, as set forth in State law calling for water
& pollution control, was not conditioned upon the availability
9 of Federal grants to provide financial assistance in con-
10 struction of the necessary projects.
11 "It is still the Commission's view that the
12 pollution control program is intended to be advanced with all
13 possible expedition.
14 "1. Since eligibility of a project for Federal
15 (and State) grants is conditioned upon the completion of
16 final plans, and since the cost of such plans is a relatively
1? small part of the total project cost, the Commission will
IB continue to pursue enforcement action through the plans-
19 completion stage.
20 "2. The Commission will pursue enforcement action
21 to attain timely conformance with phosphorus control require-
22 ments.
23 "3. Projects in which phosphorus control is pro-
24 ceeding timely, or in which the per capita cost of such
25 removal is exceptionally great, and for which final plans
-------
: 140
1 R. Purdy
2 are on file or proceeding timely, and for which Federal
3 grant application is on file will be individually reviewed
4 for further enforcement action,
5 "4. If there are situations in which the Envir-
6 onmental Protection Agency believes that it should proceed
7 with enforcement action to establish the future scheduling
B of municipal performance dates, the Commission requests that
9 it be made a party to those Federal proceedings so that it
10 may be in the proper position to participate in the develop-
11 ment of appropriate scheduling,"
12 The table entitled, "Status of Compliance with
13 Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference Requirements" contained
14 in the Environmental Protection Agency's "Report on the
15 Reconvening of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference,
16 September 19» 1972," is essentially correct for Michigan's
17 communities and industries as of August 3» 1972, Informa-
IB tion on certain of the communities should be updated, par-
19 ticularly to reflect recent action on providing interim
20 phosphorus removal facilities,
21 That action is appended to the State's report,
22 I ask it be made a part of the record, I will not read
23 it at the present time. (See pp. 141-143)
24 Disinfection
25 All Michigan communities are meeting the pro-
-------
141
UPDATED INFORMATION ON THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE OF COMMUNITIES
IN THE MICHIGAN PORTION OF THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
Albion - The City does not express a willingness to proceed with phosphorus
removal until it receives a Federal grant. Plans and specifications have been
received and approved.
Battle Creek - The Final Order for phosphorus removal was recinded at the August,
1972 Michigan Water Resources Commission meeting as the city is presently achieving
70 percent phosphorus removal. Phosphorus removal facilities will be required as
Federal funds become available.
Big Rapids - Plans for interim phosphorus removal have been submitted.
Bronson - The City has not yet submitted plans. The matter will be brought to the
Commissions' attention at the October, 1972 meeting.
Charlotte - Local financing is underway. The City has been requested to submit
plans and specifications to provide interim phosphorus removal by December, 1972.
Delhi Township (Ingham County) - Authorization of plans for secondary treatment
contingent upon the Commission not enforcing interim phosphorus removal facilities.
They are awaiting Federal funds. The Township will report to the Commission at its
September, 1972 meeting.
Dowagiac - A Show Cause Hearing has been scheduled for the September, 1972 Commission
meeting.
Grand Ledge - The Commission concurs with staff recommendations and are holding in
abeyance any statutory proceedings.
Grand Rapids - Phosphorus removal facilities are under construction.
Hartford - Purchases of equipment to provide interim phosphorus removal facilities
have been made.
Hillsdale - Phosphorus removal facilities have been incorporated in tertiary treat-
ment plant plans. The City is ready to begin construction, pending receipt of
Federal funds.
Ionia - The June, 1972 Show Cause Hearing was recessed. The City does not plan to
provide interim phosphorus removal facilities. The Commission is conferring with
staff.
Iron Mountain - Kingsford - At the August meeting, the Commission told the City to
study the feasibility of providing interim phosphorus removal facilities. The City
is to report back to the Commission at its October, 1972 meeting.
Iron River - A new Stipulation, including new dates, will be prepared for a joint
wastewater treatment facility.
Manistee - The City is to present a report on interim phosphorus removal to the
Commission in September, 1972.
Manistique - Interim phosphorus removal facilities are required by December, 1972.
Marshall - Interim phosphorus removal facilities are not required by Commission action,
-------
142
Updated Information on the Status of Compliance of Communities
In the Michigan Portion of the Lake Michigan Basin
PAGE 2
Mason - Authorization of plans for tertiary treatment are contingent upon the
Commission not enforcing interim phosphorus removal facilities. The City is
awaiting Federal funds. The Commission is conferring with staff. A Final Order
of Determination has not been entered.
Niles - The City has been directed to provide interim phosphorus removal facilities
by December, 1972.
Norway - The City has been requested to start interim phosphorus removal facilities
and to report to the Commission at its October, 1972 meeting.
Otsego - Phosphorus removal facilities are incorporated in improved treatment plans.
The City will start construction upon receipt of Federal funds.
Ovid - Plant completed in 1969.
Perrinton - A joint project with the Rainbow Lake Development Corporation and Fulton
Township is under construction.
St. Johns - The project is behind schedule but it is believed that the completion date
for phosphorus removal facilities specified in Final Order of Determination #1386 can
be met. Plans for these facilities have been submitted to the Michigan Department of
Public Health for thair approval.
Whitehall - The north portion of the Muskegon County system has been under construction
since May, 1971.. Completion of the spray irrigation system is expected by December, 1972.
Wyoming - Construction is underway. This includes interim phosphorus removal facilities.
September 15, 1972
-------
SCHEMATIC REPRE iTATION OF PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL PROGRAM IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
A. Phosphorus Loading of Sewered Communities
in the Lake Michigan Basin
EFFECT OF
EFFECT OF MUNICIPAL
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL FACILITIES
DETERGENT LAW PRESENT TREATMENT
13,600 Ib/da^
10% Removal 12300 Ib/day
(1300 Ib/day removed) ('
by 12/72
o"7
|S L -5
«™J
-------
n _ 144
1 R. Purdy
2 visions of continuous disinfection for municipal effluents.
3 Combined Sewers
4 Three Michigan communities are listed in Table 5
5 of the EPA report as having combined sewer problems subject
6 to the requirements of the Enforcement Conference. Addi-
7 tional problems are being identified and corrective action
3 taken.
9 There are a number of additional communities that
10 will have to be added to that list.
11 Summary of Grant Funding
12 Since 1963, a total of $113,459,449 in State and
13 Federal grant funds have been made available to communities
14 in the Michigan portion of the Lake Michigan Basin to pro-
15 vide wastewater treatment facilities and sewerage systems.
16 Of this total, $69,430,306 has been provided by the State
17 while $44,029,143 has been provided by the Federal Govern-
1$ ment.
19 This represents a total eligible project cost of
20 the construction program of $113,459,449.
21 Chloride Report
22 July 1972, chloride loads show a total of
23 2,400,000 pounds per day discharged by the six identified
24 point sources. This is a 42 percent reduction from the
25 4,100,000 pounds per day found in 196S. Completion of
-------
145
1 R. Purdy
2 facilities to reduce chloride loads are expected to reduce
3 the load to approximately 1,793»000 pounds per day by the
4 end of 1972 and to 305,050 pounds per day by the end of
5 1973. The final figure represents an #0 percent reduction
6 from the 196# loads.
7 Phosphorus Report
3 The Qiforcement Policy stated under Status of
9 Compliance holds true for the December 1, 1972, goal of SO
10 percent phosphorus removal in municipal wastewater treat-
11 ment plants. Despite the delays caused by inadequate
12 Federal funding, Michigan has made substantial progress in
13 reducing the phosphorus load to Lake Michigan, Of the
14 estimated 19,400 pounds per day phosphorus loading from
15 the Michigan portion of the Lake Michigan Basin, 14,100
16 pounds per day are from controllable sources. About 10
17 percent of this portion was reduced by the enactment of
13 Public Act 226 of 1971, which prohibits the sale of clean-
19 ing agents which contain phosphorus in any form in excess
20 of £.7 percent by weight expressed as elemental phosphorus
21 after July 1, 1972.
22 This reduces the controllable sources to 12,750
23 pounds per day. Present treatment facilities reduce phos-
24 phorus loads from sewered communities to tributaries of
25 Lake Michigan by 37 percent and the phosphorus loads of
-------
146
1 R. Purdy
2 direct discharges to Lake Michigan by IB percent leaving a
3 total of #,070 pounds per day. This represents a 43 percent
4 removal of the total controllable phosphorus loads. By
5 December 1972, treatment facilities will be removing an
6 additional 40 percent of the controllable phosphorus load to
7 tributaries and an additional 19 percent of the controllable
8 phosphorus load from direct discharges to Lake Michigan,
9 Thus, the total load from controllable sources will be 5,000
10 pounds per day, a 65 percent reduction. By June 1973» this
11 will be further reduced to 3»#50 pounds per day, a 73•2 per-
12 cent reduction, and by December 1973 it will be reduced to
13 3>240 pounds per day, a 77.1 percent reduction.
14 The remaining portion of this report deals with
15 the thermal issue and intake facilities related to that and,
16 therefore, I will report on that when this is scheduled on
17 the agenda.
IS MR. MAYO: Any questions or comments, gentlemen?
19 Well, I have one question, Mr. Purdy.
20 In the review of the phosphorus report, on page 4»
21 you indicated that by December 1973> your reduction will
22 be in the magnitude of 77 percent of the controllable phos-
23 phorus sources.
24 Is it ever going to get to be BO percent?
25 MR. PURDY: We only carried it out through 1973.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
R. Purdy
This indicates we are slightly over 1 year off in
meeting the conference goals. We intend to meet the confer-
ence goals. In fact, we believe it is necessary to go beyond
that.
MR. McDONALD: Mr. Purdy, you state on page 2, as
part of your Commission's policy that: "The Commission will
pursue enforcement action to attain timely conformance with
phosphorus control requirements."
How many municipalities will not be in compliance
at the end of this year? And what does your Commission plan
to do to pursue this policy?
MR. PURDY: Well, I can't give you the number.
There will be a number of communities though. We have
initiated "show cause" hearings where it is obvious, at this
point in time, that the community has not proceeded on a
schedule to meet the December 1972 date.
lour Agency has been asked to participate in those
"show cause" hearings, and you have participated in those.
Where it is possible to add interim phosphorus removal
facilities, our Commission has asked those communities to
proceed,
In a number of instances, those communities are
proceeding on an interim phosphorus removal program. Some
will meet the December 1972 date. However, if they have not
-------
n 143
I
1 R. Purdy
2 got something under way at this point in time they will not
3 meet the December 1972 date.
4 In a couple of instances, now, we have communities
5 that have stated that they do not intend to proceed on an
6 interim basis. This will be repotted to my Commission on
7 Thursday and Friday of this week. What the Commission's
g action will be I can't predict at this point in time,
9 I certainly hope that the Commission decides to
10 pursue this, as I think they will, as they have stated in
11 their policy statement, and that they will refer those in
12 the communities to the Attorney General for further enforce-
13 ment action in the State courts,
14 MR, McDONALD: Well, in passing this resolution,
15 was there staff discussion at that time when they came forth
16 with this policy?
17 MR. PURDY: Yes.
18 MR. McDONALD: Was the thrust of that that the
19 Commission would issue an order and refer the case to the
20 Attorney General?
21 MR, PURDY: Yes, where it was possible to do this,
22 In some instances, the present facilities are not capable
23 of handling the increased solids load that will be generated
24 from the chemical precipitation process even by, say,
25 sanitary landfill, of those suspended solids, or those solids
-------
; 149
1 R. Purdy
2 that are removed. And in those cases, the Commission is
3 reviewing that on an individual basis, and they may not refer
4 that one for a further enforcement action.
5 However, where it is determined by a preliminary
6 engineering study that the present facilities are capable,
7 with some slight modification, with the addition of chemicals,
g of removing a substantial portion of the phosphorus, it is
9 the Commission's policy, as I understand it, to pursue that
10 requirement vigorously.
11 MR. McDONALD: But where it is not technically
12 feasible to go ahead, there will be no staff recommendation
13 for an order, and that case would continue to get delinquent
14 until such time as Federal funds and State funds became
15 available?
16 MR. PURDY: If that community has final plans and
17 specifications on file, and approved, and'if that community
IB continues to file an application for a Federal grant, I would
19 then say that your statement is no doubt correct.
20 MR, McDONALD: So the solution of that particular
21 problem would be open-ended, then, until funds were avail-
22 able?
23 MR. PURDY: Yes-.
24 MR. McDONALD: Thank you.
25 Ma. MAYO: Any further comments or questions,
-------
150
1 R. Purdy
2 gentlemen?
3 Does Michigan have any other presentation?
4 MR. PURDY: I have requests from several that they
5 would like to make statements. However, I believe most
6 relates to the phosphorus question on an overall basis and
7 on the thermal issue, and if I am wrong, I wish that the
8 people that have notified me that they wanted to make state-
9 ments would stand up now so that I could call upon you.
10 If not, you will be called later, at the time that
11 this conference addresses the phosphorus technical report
12 and the thermal issue.
13 I think that concludes it, Mr. Mayo.
14 MR. MAYO: May we go on with the Wisconsin report?
15 MR. FRANGOS: Mr, Chairman, it is now about 3:30,
16 so what I would like to do, with your indulgence, is have
17 appearances from those who requested to make statements
1# relating to compliance status, at this point in time, and
19 we will follow up with our statement. We don't have very
20 many,
21 I do have a request from the city of Manitowoc to
22 make a statement to this conference. Are those folks still
23 here?
24
25
-------
151
1 J. Krey
2
3 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN KREY,
4 MAYOR, MANITOWOC, WISCONSIN
5
6 MR. KREY: Mr. Chairman, gentlemen. I do not have
7 a prepared statement, but I do wish to give a report. In
g fact, the reason I am here, I am asking the conference to
9 grant — pardon — Mayor John Krey from the city of Manitowoc.
10 MR, MAYO: Excuse me. Would you state your name
11 and position, for the record, please?
12 MR. KREY: Yes. Mayor John Krey, K-r-e-y. I have
13 been waiting so long to get up here that I forgot that.
14 (Laughter)
15 But — anyways I don't have a lot of facts and
16 figures to give you people here — but I do want to explain
17 the situation in the city of Manitowoc. We are under orders
IB from the Department of Natural Resources, as most of you
19 desire, to provide phosphorus removal by December 31» 1972.
20 Unfortunately we will not be able to meet this date for a
21 varied number of extenuating circumstances.
22 I heard the mention that money should be no object,
23 but unfortunately when you are in a smaller community and
24 you go before the people that elect you, the taxpayers, every
2$ 2 years, money is an object.
-------
: 152
1 J. Krey
2 The city of Manitowoc has progressed. We have been
3 a leader of the field in the sewage treatment field, In 1940
4 we had our first plant* We added secondary treatment in
5 1959« We have a very good record, we think, as far as putting
6 anything into Lake Michigan. We have been located there for
7 125 years, and we do feel that there are problems in Lake
8 Michigan.
9 At the present time, we have had plans completed
10 for the phosphorus removal equipment and trickling filter
11 improvements. The plans were approximately completed in
12 April of this year. We are in the present position of ad-
13 vertising for bids but, as you all know, this does take time
14 in municipal government. We anticipate starting the project
15 approximately November of this year. According to the speci-
16 fications that we do have, it takes approximately 4 months
17 to put in the phosphorus removal equipment. We do not plan,
1$ at the present time, to put in a temporary facility. This
19 would be a duplication of cost, and for the time period
20 involved, it would probably be within 30 days, if we did
21 go to a temporary system.
22 One of the main reasons, of course, we have had
23 plans for approximately a year* we have been working on it.
2^- The city back on April 6 did raise the money on a bond
25 issue to tax the taxpayers of our city for an addition to
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_ _ __ 153
J. Krey
our sewage treatment plant which, of course, would go along
with the phosphorus removal, and updating of our trickling
filter system.
We also planned on adding tertiary treatment. We
do not feel that the $5 percent that is recommended by the
State on removal of phosphorus will be standing for too long.
We would think that it would be upgraded, and we want to be
prepared for this. This is the reason why the tertiary
treatment plans will also be drawn up. And, as many communi-
ties are aware, I probably wouldn't be standing here today if
the funds were available for such project.
We seem to have the money people missing today.
We have various departments that issue orders; we have the
enforcement section that carries them out ; but the communi-
cation to the people that raise the funds for these par-
ticular projects seems to be somewhat lacking.
Just to go into a little bit more detail, we have
just signed up recently for an elimination of pure water
study from our sanitary sewers. We have never had combined
sewers so we do not have the problem that some communities
do have.
Here again we are waiting for Federal funding.
We are also under orders from DNR to provide sani-
tary sewer service to an area recently annexed to our city
-------
1 J. Krey
2 approximately 2 years ago. It took us only 3 years to obtain
3 a grant for this particular sewer project. We were just
4 about all ready to go on the thing and then all of a sudden
5 we got orders that until we update and complete our sewage
6 treatment plant, we could put the sewers in, but we can't
7 use them due to the fact that it would overtax the present
8 facilities we do have.
9 There is pollution occurring in this particular
10 area. One of the major contributors to it, at the present
11 time, is taking a tanker truck and dumping their waste
12 material into our sewage treatment plant at the present
13 time. This is costing them a great deal of money. So it
14 kind of makes you wonder if we are really interested in cur-
15 ing pollution or helping it somewhat. We do not feel, by
16 the addition of this sewer system, that it would tax our
17 plant any more than it is at the present time. It would be
1& taking care of a particular problem, and helping out one of
19 our local industries.
20 I guess maybe that is about all that I do have.
21 Like I say, we aren't asking for an extension of time. We
22 do have the plans; they have been approved. We are open
23 for bids on it at the present time. Like I say, it is going
24 to probably be about 3 months after the bids are awarded that
25 the phosphorus removal equipment would be ready to operate
-------
^____ 155
1 J. Krey
2 in the city of Manitowoc.
3 We have an anticipation date of October of 1974 for
4 the complete major improvements to our present sewage facili-
5 ties.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. MAYO: Any comments?
g Mr. Frangos.
9 MR. FRANGOS: No, I have no comments.
10 MR. McDONALD: Mayor, when is the phosphorus re-
11 moval going to take place?
12 MR. KREY: We should have bid opening on this by
13 October 31.
14 MR. McDONALD: And when would the phosphorus
15 removal actually be in operation?
16 MR. KREY: Actually, according to the schedule
17 we do have here — we put an addendum to our contract that
IS this would be of prime importance, and it would take
19 approximately — I would say right now it would be March.
20 MR. McDONALD: March.
21 MR. KREY: Right.
22 Thank you.
23 - MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman.
24 Mayor, on your combined sewer overflow problem,
25 I think you mentioned that this is contingent upon Federal
-------
w— 156
1 J. Krey
2 funding, I am sure that your residents support the general
3 concept of clean water in Lake Michigan. But do you feel
4 that you have the support of your residents to proceed on
5 this project in the absence of any grant funds?
6 MR. KREI: I would doubt it very seriously, due to
7 the fact that the amount involved is approximately $400,000.
g MR. McDONALD: Do you mean there is a chance?
9 MR0 KREI: Please?
10 MR. McDONALD: Do you mean there is a chance?
11 You left a sight of hope there which surprised me.
12 (Laughter)
13 MR. KREI: Well, I just like to tell it like it
14 is. When you are in public office — I am sure the gentle-
15 men and ladies in the audience — they know that when you
16 go to the voters every 2 years, that if the tax rate gets
17 too high unfortunately you won't be standing around here
18 another 2 years. The mind is willing but the pocketbook
19 isn't.
20 MR. McDONALD: If Mr. Purdy had told me in advance
21 he was going to ask that question, I would have liked to put
22 some money down on the answer.
23 MR. MAIO: Any other questions of the Mayor?
24 Thank you very much.
25 MR. KREI: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
-------
157
1 T. Frangos
2 MR. MAYO: Mr. Frangos.
3 MR. FRANGOS: Yes, I also have a request from an
4 official from the city of Racine. Do they wish to make a
5 statement at this time? Is there anyone here from Racine?
6 MR. HOGANSON: We didn't intend to make a statement
7 we would just like to have our written report in the record.
3 All we need is Federal money to finish our project.
9 (Laughter)
10 MR. McDONALD: All I would say about Racine, Tom,
11 is that Racine is tracking the EPA wherever we go in Wiscon-
12 sin. Now I see they have come down to Chicago. (Laughter)
13 We had a ISO-day hearing in Sheboygan and who was
14 there in force but Racine — (Laughter) — and now we are
15 down in Chicago and here is Racine again. So I think we
16 are getting together here although they still won't talk.
17 (Laughter)
13 MR. FRANGOS: Well, there may be some different
19 considerations that have stirred the interest of the city
20 of Racine.
21 I gather that they do want me to read their state-
22 j ment in the record and I will do that after I finish my
23 statement.
MR. MAYO: You can either read it, or if you would
like, we can have it introduced in the record as if read
-------
153
1 T. Frangos
2 with the concurrence of the conferees.
3 MR. McDONALD: I for one would like to hear what
4 they have to say.
5 MR. BRYSON: So that the record will not show a
6 voice from the audience, will you please identify yourself,
7 sir, for the record?
g MR. HOGANSON: I am Lester Hoganson, City Engineer,
9 city of Racine.
10 MR. BRYSON: Thank you.
11 MR. FRANGOS: Inasmuch as we have had a special
12 request, do you want to read it, or do you want me to read
13 it?
14 MR. HOGANSON: I would appreciate it if you read it
1$ MR. FRANGOS: All right.
16 Are there any other municipal officials or others
17 that want to speak to the issue of compliance?
IS
i
19 STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. FRANGOS,
20 ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
21 PROTECTION, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
22 RESOURCES, MADISON, WISCONSIN
23
24 MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Chairman, conferees, I am Thomas
25 Frangos, Administrator of the Division of Environmental
-------
—. 159_
T. Frangos
Protection of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
3 As the conferee from Wisconsin, I will be report-
4 ing on the actions taken in our State to protect the waters
of Lake Michigan, problems which may preclude full compliance
with deadlines established at the First Session of the con-
ference, and some of the new programs being implemented in
Wisconsin to enhance Lake Michigan and all of the other
waters under our jurisdiction.
10 As the Federal report indicates, there has been
11 slippage in some phases of the program outlined for the four
12 States at the First Session. It is important, however, that
13 these shortcomings be kept in perspective. Much has been
14 accomplished, and even more will be achieved within the
15 near future. The Wisconsin effort at improving water quality
16 throughout the Lake Michigan Basin (which encompasses roughly
17 the eastern one-third of the State) includes these positive
1° actions:
19 A) Of the 200 municipal waste treatment plants in
the Lake Michigan Basin, 186 provide secondary treatment or
are nearing completion of new secondary systems.
B) Since 1968 when the Enforcement Conference
sessions began, there have been 69 pollution abatement
projects completed in the basin at a cost of $60,804,
25 C) Currently, there are 36 projects under
-------
160
1 T. Frangos
2 construction in the basin at a bid cost of $149,271,750.
3 D) An additional 15 projects have been certified
4 for Federal grant-in-aid at an estimated cost of $42,Q&7,500.
5 E) Plans and specifications have been approved for
6 an additional 20 projects with an estimated cost of $25,440,SO|$
7 These will be certified to EPA for Federal grant-in-aid as
& soon as fiscal Tear 1973 funds are allocated to the State.
9 In summary, Wisconsin municipalities in the Lake
10 Michigan Drainage Basin have committed themselves to expen-
11 ditures of $277»604,326 in the past 4 years. Another nearly
•
12 $50 million worth of municipal pollution abatement construc-
13 tion is in the planning stage.
14 The 93 percent of municipal plants which provide
15 secondary treatment of domestic wastes serve, in terms of
16 population, approximately 97 percent of the residents of -fche
17 Wisconsin portion of the basin who live in sewered communi-
1# ties. It is our goal to bring to©th figures to 100 percent
19 by the middle of this decade — not only in the Lake Michigan
20 Basin, but statewide.
21 I cite these statistics to offset any misconcep-
22 tions which may prevail regarding the substantial progress
23 which has been achieved in control of water pollution. We
24 are, in almost all instances, well beyond the critical stage
25 of combatting gross pollution from uncontrolled discharges
-------
^__ ; 161
1 T. Frangos
2 of raw human or industrial waste. We are concerned with the
3 upgrading of systems which, through age or because of the
4 growth of the community they serve, are at or beyond the
5 level of optimum operating efficiency. As the topics on
6 the agenda for discussion at this session of the conference
7 clearly indicate, we are into the refined atmosphere of con-
8 trol of chemical pollutants ~ phosphorus, pesticides,
9 chlorides, and the rest. Without the base which has already
10 been built in Wisconsin and elsewhere, we could not today
11 afford the luxury of concentrating almost our full attention
*
12 on these more insidious threats to a quality aquatic envir-
13 onment.
14 In reviewing the official record for the conference
15 as compiled by EPA, I am also pleased to be able to make one
16 additional announcement. Table 4, dealing with disinfection
17 of municipal effluent, lists the city of Clintonville as one
1& of the delinquents. Disinfection facilities at Clintonville
19 were placed in operation on September £, bringing Wisconsin
20 municipalities in the basin into full compliance with this
21 requirement. The conference report indicates that 11 of the
22 33 industries located in the Wisconsin portion of the basin
are behind schedule in meeting ordered pollution abatement
requirements. Seventeen are in compliance, and 10 are on
^ schedule. This summary, while essentially accurate, does
-------
,.^ 162
1 T. Frangos
2 not reflect the more basic fact that almost all of those
3 listed as behind schedule are committed to and relying upon
4 the development of joint municipal-industrial treatment
5 systems to achieve compliance,
6 With one exception, the industries listed as behind
7 schedule are in the pulp and paper production field. It has
g been our experience that joint treatment is not only feasible
9 but, in fact, enhances the waste reduction process. Highly
10 carbonaceous pulping liquors, for example, are low in
11 nutrients. Treated separately, they require the addition of
12 phosphorus and nitrogen to support the biomass. Blended with
13 domestic wastes, they utilize the nutrients in the sewage.
14 The current operations of the Neenah-Menasha system — which
15 accepts a sizable volume of industrial effluents — reveals
16 that the uptake of phosphorus by the nutrient-starved
17 industrial waste is achieving approximately 70 percent
18 phosphorus reduction without the construction of special
19 phosphorus removal facilities.
20 I I offer this background material to support our
21 conviction that it is wise public policy to encourage joint
22 treatment facilities where practical and where the end
23 result of an improved aquatic environment is anticipated.
24 This does, however, complicate the enforcement effort which
25 the conferees — individually and jointly — are engaged in.
-------
163
1 T. Frangos
2 Many of the industries in the Fox River Valley are committed
3 to projects with their municipalities and will not be in full
4 compliance with Enforcement Conference requirements until
5 the municipal systems are adequate to serve their special
6 needs.
7 This leads us into the complexities of municipal
8 system construction which the conferees, I am certain, are
9 fully cognizant of but which may not be well understood by
10 our citizens. Grant funds for municipal waste treatment con-
11 struction are limited, at the Federal level, by congressional
12 appropriation. They are also hemmed in by administrative
13 regulations which, for example, require development of basin
14 or regional or metropolitan plans acceptable to EPA and HUD
15 and other Federal agencies. Treatment plant design parameter;
16 are likewise subject to scrutiny by EPA before grant money
17 is allocated.
IS While I have no quarrel with the motivation for
19 these several restrictions, they pose serious obstacles to
20 the achievement of hard and fast deadlines such as those
21 imposed by the conference. They strongly suggest the need
22 for some enforcement flexibility since there are, in many
23 instances, a myriad of regulatory detours which delay the
24 process of moving from recognition of a municipal deficiency
25 to its correction.
-------
: 164
1 T. Frangos
2 In Wisconsin, we have devoted extensive staff
3 effort to meeting the planning requirements of the grant
4 program. We have pressed existing regional planning agencies
5 into service and have, in some instances, insisted on the
6 retention of consultants where local capability was limited,
7 Despite this effort, there are several projects within the
g Lake Michigan Basin which cannot today qualify for Federal
9 funding even if such funds were available — and they are
10 notj
11 These comments are not made by way of complaint.
12 EPA officials are, I am confident, as anxious to cut the red
13 tape and get on with the task of building pollution abatement
14 facilities as State agencies are. But the fact remains that
15 we are all caught up in the web of competing goals and
16 objectives, and that immediate progress is thereby often
17 retarded.
18 Again, however, I want to emphasize that there
19 has been considerable progress and that many of the objective
20 of the conference are being realized. Control of phosphorus
21 discharges to the lake is one example.
22 The conference report indicates that 52 percent of
23 Wisconsin's sewered population is in compliance with the
24 phosphorus removal requirement. Since that report was
25 compiled, we have reevaluated both existing compliance and
-------
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
165
T. Frangos
what can be expected by the December 31» 1972, deadline. This
leads us to these conclusions:
A) A 56 percent reduction in phosphorus tributary
to municipal treatment plants in the Wisconsin portion of the
basin is being achieved today, and this figure does not
include the inherent (though admittedly small) removal
efficiencies in conventional treatment plants.
B) By December 31 of'this year, permanent phosphorus
removal facilities will be removing 69 percent of the total
phosphorus from municipal wastes — and this figures does not
include those communities which will be installing temporary
(interim) facilities.
C) Assuming an 80 percent removal efficiency for
those plants which will install interim facilities (85
percent is the ordered objective for permanent installations),
total phosphorus reductions as of December 31» 1972, will
amount to 81.2 percent for the basin as a whole, thus achiev-
ing the preliminary goal of the conference.
Of the 44 municipalities in Wisconsin ordered to
install phosphorus reduction facilities, 4 are at or near the
desired efficiency today. Statistically, 16 will have perma-
nent facilities in operation by December 31; 20 will have
temporary facilities on line; and 8 have not yet indicated
to our agency whether they will meet the deadline. The picture
-------
166
1 T. Frangos
2 with respect to phosphorus control is clearly much brighter
3 than many of us would have predicted only a few months ago.
4 Since disinfection has already been discussed, I
5 will close my comments with a brief statement regarding the
6 status of sewer separation in Wisconsin communities. With
7 the exception of Oshkosh and Oconto, municipalities in the
g upper portion of the basin should have no difficulty achiev-
9 ing sewer separation by the conference deadline of 1977«
10 Earlier timetables have been set under State order for some
11 communities, and within the next 1$ months we anticipate that
12 Green Bay, DePere, Kaukauna, Clintonville, Ripoa, Shawano
13 and Sheboygan will have their separation projects completed.
14 Appleton and Oconto Falls have already met this objective.
15 In the lower portion of the basin, Port Washing-
16 ton has essentially eliminated its combined sewers.
17 Milwaukee, Kenosha and Racine have demonstration projects
18 under way which may provide alternative solutions to the
19 problem which, in the older sections of these cities, is quit
20 severe and difficult to correct through reconstruction.
21 The plan developed by the Southeastern Wisconsin
22 Regional Planning Commission for the Milwaukee area
23 recommends the construction of deep-tunnel storage for
24 combined sewer overflows. During periods of wet weather
25 the excess would be stored in these tunnels and, as treatment
-------
16?
1 T. Frangos
2 plant capacity permitted following the storm, would be pumped
3 out for treatment. This is patterned after some of the pro-
4 posals for the Chicago area. The city of Milwaukee has
5 endorsed the plan and it is presently being reviewed by the
6 Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission,
7 Demonstration projects at Racine and Kenosha involve
g the concept of auxiliary treatment. In the Racine project,
9 screening and air flotation units will be located at the sewer
10 overflow outfalls. Additional activated sludge treatment
11 units are being provided at the treatment plant site in the
12 Kenosha project.
13 As the waste treatment plant improvement effort
14 progresses — and we believe adequate facilities can be
1$ provided in all instances by 1975 with the basin — there is
16 no doubt that greater emphasis can and must be placed on
17 overcoming deficiencies within collection systems. Clear
1# water intrusion remains a problem even where sewers have
19 been separated, and the elimination of bypasses is essential.
20 The search for new ways to control potential
21 pollution sources is continuing. Wisconsin, for example,
22 has:
23 A) Achieved 100 percent concurrence by county
24 units of government in the enactment of shoreland zoning
25 ordinances designed to give special protection to areas
-------
168
1 T. Frangos
2 within 300 feet of streams and 1,000 feet of lakes. Some
3 areas unsuited for development are placed in conservancy
4 zoning, and restrictions on construction are imposed else-
5 where.
6 B) Established a solid waste licensing program
7 which has resulted in closure of disposal sites where rubbish
B and garbage could be carried into surface waters, or where
9 runoff or leachate might contribute to pollution,
10 C) Developed, in cooperation with farmers, agri-
11 cultural specialists and other State and Federal agency
12 officials, proposed animal waste regulations which-would
13 assist the agricultural community in solving some of the
14 pollution problems associated with modern farming practices.
15 These rules will be reviewed by the legislature early in
16 the 1973 session.
17 D) Developed an industrial waste surveillance and
18 monitoring program aimed especially at the reporting of toxic
19 and hazardous materials.
20 E) Expanded the mercury surveillance program to
21 require "materials balance" reports from those who utilize
22 more than 50 pounds per year of metallic mercury or mercury
23 compounds.
24 This, then, represents an overview of the status
25 of Wisconsin's program for protection of the waters of Lake
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
&
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
169
T, Frangos
Michigan. Although there will not be full compliance with
the objectives of the conference by the stated deadlines,
there clearly is movement on all fronts. Municipalities and
industries have made tangible commitments to the extent that
what is now required is the time to construct remedial
facilities. The prognosis for filling the remaining gaps
is good.
Mr, Chairman, that completes the prepared state-
ment that we distributed to you.
I would like to read for your benefit — and I
apologize for not having copies, but I think this might be
useful, for purposes of discussion — and this is a policy
statement adopted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources in May of this year. And what I would like to read
for you is a document that was the recommendation to our
Board.
It is a motion with respect to pollution abatement
in the Lake Michigan Drainage Basin.
The status of compliance with water pollution
abatement orders issued to industries and municipalities in
the Lake Winnebago-Lower Fox River complex has been exten-
sively explored in recent weeks by the Department staff and
the Environmental Quality Committee — which is a committee
of our Board.
-------
1 T. Frangos
2 A public enforcement conference was conducted by
3 the Department at Appleton on February 7 and 8. There were
4 22 major order recipients invited to this conference. Some
5 of those who appeared indicated that they would be in com-
6 pliance with the order deadlines, others might miss the
7 completion dates by a few months, and still others were as
B much as 2 years off schedule.
9 It can be assumed that this area is representative
10 of the Lake Michigan Basin as a whole. All of the communi-
11 ties and industries within the basin are faced with approxi-
12 mately the same time schedules since the Lake Michigan
13 Enforcement Conference established December 31, 1972, as
14 the target date for provision of adequate waste treatment
15 for sources contributing to the pollution of Lake Michigan.
16 The Environmental Quality Committee has concluded "
17 that general policy direction should be provided to Secretary
IB Voigt and the Department with respect to these orders, and
19 that the recipients of the orders should be made aware at
20 an early date what that policy position will be.
21 In summary, it is our determination that: 1)
22 phosphorus removal can and must be provided by the ordered
23 deadline of December 31, 1972, through installation of
24 relatively inexpensive chemical feed equipment at existing
25 treatment plants; 2) that punitive action should not be
-------
171
1 T. Frangos
2 initiated against those entities who are proceeding in good
3 faith but may miss other completion deadlines by a few months;
4 and 3) that referrals to the Attorney General are appropriate
5 where the slippage in abatement schedules will push the com-
6 pliance date beyond July 1, 1973.
7 Therefore, the Environmental Quality Committee
recommends, and I move adoption of, the following policy
9 statement:
10 "It is the policy of the Natural Resources Board
11 with respect to municipalities and industries within the Lake
12 Michigan Drainage Basin that:
13 "!• Installation of phosphorus removal facilities
14 will be required by December 31» 1972;
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"2. That no more than a 6-month grace period be
considered by the Department for those entities which can
reasonably be expected to achieve compliance with other order
requirements between January 1 and July 1, 1973;
"3. That those entities which cannot reasonably
be expected to achieve compliance with the order requirements
by July 1, 1973> be referred to the Attorney General for
appropriate enforcement action,"
That completes the resolution of the Wisconsin
Natural Resources Board.
Mr. Chairman, I now have a statement by the city of
-------
172
1 T. Frangos
2 Racine. It is rather lengthy, I can either submit it for
3 the record, or I can read it, as the conferees desire,
4 MR. MAYO: We have got some difficult time prob-
5 lems --
6 MR. FRANGOS: Right.
7 MR. MAYO: — to address, Mr. Frangos. And with
the permission from the city of Racine, I think it might be
9 quite adequate to introduce the statement into the record as
10 if read, and you can provide copies for each of the con-
11 ferees.
12 MR. HOGANSON: That was our intention.
13 (The above-referred-to statement from the city of
14 Racine follows in its entirety.)
15 (A letter from the city of Kewaunee received
16 after the conference also follows.)
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
city of RACINE ...racine, wie
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Jack Harvey
consin
September 18, 1972
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
September 19, 20 and 21
Chicago, Illinois
Re: Racine's 1972 Status Report of its
Pollution Abatement Programs
Gentlemen:
For the purpose of keeping the Conference posted as to the status
of Racine's progress in its pollution abatement programs, there is
furnished herewith the following data:
1. Statement of Gary K. Coates, Engineer-Manager of
Racine's Water Pollution Control Division covering: a) the imple-
mentation of the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant which
will enable it to remove in excess of 90 percent of the suspended
solids and 5-day B.O.D., and 85 percent of the phosphorous present
in raw waste water; b) the implementation of the City's program
to handle Industrial Wastes; and c) the status of an ordinance
establishing a sewer service charge.
2. Statement of Lester 0. Hoganson, City Engineer
covering the sewer separation program, including a Federal and
State subsidized Environmental Protection Agency demonstration
program to determine the feasibility of serving the last 13 per-
cent of the City area without sewer separation by use of screening
and air flotation treatment of combined sewer overflows.
3. Statement of Dr. G. P. Ferrazzano, City Health Offi«
cer, setting forth the implementation of a more intensive and con-
tinuing program of inspection and correction of possible sources
of water pollution as they arise under the enforcement of our
recently updated Health and Sanitation Code.
Despite serious financial obstacles and legal action being brought
outside the administrative framework of this Conference, the City
730 Washington Avenue, 53403 City Hall 414-634-7111
-------
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference 9/18/72
of Racine is pursuing a course of pollution abatement that will
not only meet time deadlines ahead of schedule, but which anti-
cipates projected demands and will provide results that go beyond
the present minimum demands of the Department of Natural Resources
of Wisconsin.
It would seem to be an appropriate part of this report that the
Conference be made aware of the fact that the City of Racine,
along with several other cities in the southeastern Wisconsin
are party defendants in a lawsuit being brought by the State of
Illinois. The thrust of the litigation is to have a federal
district court establish federal common law water quality and/or
effluent standards for users of the waters of Lake Michigan. To
date every request by this City, seeking to have the State and
Federal Environmental Protection Agencies become involved in this
litigation, has gone unheeded. The demands of the State of
Illinois go well beyond anything that has been heretofore recom-
mended by way of standards through the Conference. However, in
the absence of participation by the State and Federal Agencies,
it is entirely conceivable that standards can and will be estab-
lished that supersede anything promulgated by the Conference
route .
Very truly yours,
Edward A. Krenzke
Deputy City Attorney
EAKrlj
cc: Mayor Kenneth L. Huck
Enclosures
-------
cifcy of Huwijyyis .. .racinei Wisconsin
v
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION Gory !(. Cocites, P.E., Engineer-Manager
September 18 1972
To: Jack Harvey
From: Gary K. Coates
Subject: Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference - Statement on Compliance
with Pollution Abatement Orders
I. Wastewater Treatment
A. Plant
As per the attached orders from the State of Wisconsin, Department
of Natural Resources, the City of Racine, Wisconsin is to place in
operation by December 31, 1972, facilities to adequately treat all
waters tributary to the sanitary sewer system. Such treatment shall
provide for a minimum of 85 per cent removal of the total phosphorus
tributary to the %*astewater treatment plant.
In complying with the above order, the City of Racine has taken
the following steps:
1. On March 16,1970, the City of Racine signed a contract with a
consulting engineering firm to prepare a report on the expan-
sion of the city's wastewater treatment plant.
2. On November 17, 1970, the Comon Council of the City of Racine
approved said report and directed the consulting engineers to
begin the preparation of the plans and specifications for the
expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. (See attached
Resolution)
3. On March 22, 1971, the City of Racine applied to the State of
Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources for both a Federal
Aid Grant and a State Aid Grant for the proposed expansion of
our wastewater treatment plant. (See attached applications)
U. The plans and specifications for the plant expansion program
were completed and sent to the State of Wisconsin, Department
of Natural Resources on January 17, 1972. The plans and
specifications were approved by the Department of Natural
Resources on February 28, 1972. (See attached approval letter)
2101 S. Main Street, 53403 414-f23~7/0v
-------
September 18,1972
Jack Harvey
5>. The proposed enlarged wastewater treatment plant for the
City of Racine is expected to remove in excess of 90 per
cent of the suspended solids and 5-day biochemical oxygen
demand and 85 per cent of the phosphorus present in the
raw wastewater. The estimated construction cost is
$8,000,000.00.
6. With the approval of the plans and specifications for the
expansion of our wastewater treatment plant, the City of
Racine is ready to immediately proceed with this project.
In checking the various requirements before the project
was advertised, the City was told that the Environmental
Protection Agency would not review our plans because the
Southeast Wisconsin Regional Plan Commission had not sub-
mitted a Drainage Basin Plan for our area. The City of
Racine was also told that at this time there are no Federal
monies available for the Grant-In-Aid Program. Therefore,
"until these above mentioned items are processed by the
various agencies, the City of Racine will not be able to
begin construction of the addition to our wastewater
treatment plant.
B. Industrial Waste
As per Federal regulations in regard to Industrial Waste, the
City of Racine has taken the following steps:
1. On May 6, 1969, the Common Council of the City of Racine
adopted a Wastewater Control Ordinance which establishes
what type of discharges can or cannot be directed to the
wastewater treatment plant. This ordinance was adopted
to prevent any detrimental waste from entering the plant
and thus assuring the proper and efficient operation of
the wastewater treatment plant. (See attached Ordinance)
2. The latest Federal Regulations also state that where industrial
wastes are to be treated by a proposed project, an equitable
system of cost recovery shall be in force.
3. On March 3> 1971? the City of Racine retained a consulting
engineering firm to prepare a report and establish an equit-
able system of cost recovery for the capital and operational
and maintenance costs for the collection and treatment of
industrial, commercial and domestic wastes contributed to
the City of Racine's wastewater treatment plant.
-------
September 18 1972
Jack Harvey
U. On September 13, 1971, the "Eagineering Report on Establish-
ment of User Charges for Wastewater Treatment" was completed
and transmitted to the City of Racine. From this report a
proposed ordinance was prepared for the establishment of a
Sewer Service Charge. (See attached copy of proposed ordinance)
J>. In February and March of 1972, Public Hearings were held
concerning the adoption of the Sewer Service Charge Ordinance.
It is anticipated that a Sewer Service Charge, which will
meet all Federal Guidelines, will be in effect no later than
December 31, 1972.
A ^- *•*
-------
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
MEMO
Date: September 18, 1972
TO: Jack Harvey
FROM: Lester 0. Hoganson, P.E.
Subject: Statement of City's
Status in Regard to
Sewer Separation
Prior to 1935 the City, like most other cities in Wisconsin, relied on a
combined sewer system to carry its sanitary sewage and storm water to
the Waste Water Treatment Plant or Lake.
As a result of a sewer separation construction program begun in 1935 and the-
recent completion of the 1969 H.U.D. Program involving the construction of 1.5
million dollars worth of sanitary and storm sewers, all but 13% of the area in
the City is now served by separate sewer systems.
At present a Federal and State subsidized EPA Demonstration Program is
underway. This 2.077 million dollar project will determine the feasibility
of serving the remaining 13% of the area by the use of screening and air
flotation treatment of combined sewer overflows. This year a $250,000 project
for separating a small portion of the business district will be completed.
During the time period when combined sewers were used in the City, it was
required that roof downspouts be connected to the sewer. As the combined
areas are separated, the individual property owners are required to dis^-
connect their downspouts and direct the water onto the surface and thus
into the storm sewer system.
The City of Racine will meet the requirements of the Department of Natural
Resources order dated April 17, 1970, requiring separation by July 19, 1977.
This will be accomplished by separation or by installation of combined over-
flow treatment units, provided that State and Federal Grants are continued
at the present level of funding.
-------
city of yiM^yyS .. .racSnej Wisconsin
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH G. P. Ferrozzemo, M.D.
September 18, 1972
CITY OF RACINE HEALTH DEPARTMENT STATEMENT TO THE
LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE, APRIL, 1972
MADISON, WISCONSIN
The Racine Health Department has continued to perform bacterio-
logical surveys of the Root River and the beaches along the Lake
Michigan shore.
During the past year special emphasis was placed on the evalu-
ation of several small outfalls which discharge into the Root River.
Several properties on one street along the river were found to
be discharging basement laundering and kitchen wastewater directly
into the river.
Orders were issued to each of the property owners to install
pumps and to discharge this wastewater into the sanitary sewer. All
of the offending properties in this area have completed their hook-
up to the sanitary sewer.
This program will be continued when the level of the river is
reduced so that these small outfalls may be visible. We shall
continue to work closely with the Waste Water Treatment Plant and
the Water Pollution Control Division by providing them with pro-
fessional laboratory support.
G. P. Ferrazzano, M. D.
Commissioner of Health
730 Washington Avenue, 53403 Cify Hal! 414-634-7111
-------
State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
L. P. Voigf
Secreforv
September 29, 1972
BOX 450
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701
IN REPLY REFER TO: 3270
Mr. Francis T. Mayo, Regional Admin.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
One North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Re: Phosphorus Removal at Kewaunee, Wisconsin
Dear Mr. Mayo:
Last week at the phosphorus portion of the Conference, mention
was made of the difficulties being experienced by a few of our
communities in meeting the phosphorus removal requirements even
with interim facilities by the December 31, 1972 compliance date.
An appearance was made by Mayor Krey of the City of Manitowoc indi-
cating that phosphorus facilities are expected to be in operation
there by March, 1973. Additionally, representatives of the City
of Kewaunee appeared before the Department's Environmental Committee
and Board on September 7, 1972 and specifically requested that we
bring their case to the attention of the conferees. I mentioned
this to you and indicated I would forward the correspondence on the
matter to you for inclusion in the hearing record. The material is
enclosed.
Very truly yours.
Division
-------
CITY OF
KEWAUNEE, WISCONSIN
LORNA M. RUBLE, CLERK-TREASURER
KEWAUNEE, WIS. 54216 — PHONE 388-2670
September 7, 1972
Mr. Thomas G. Frangos, Adm.
Wis. Deptt of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
Dear Mr. Frangos:
Thank you for your letter of August 25, 1972, granting our re-
quest to appear before the Natural Resources Board - Environmental
Quality Committee - on Sept. 7, 1972 at 9:00 A. M.
If I may, I would like to present the letter addressed to you
on July 20, 1972 and this letter and Clarification of Orders, as a.
part of oxir presentation to the committee.
At the outset, let me reiterate, the Mayor and Council are in
complete accord with the ultimate prograra of pollution control and
credit U. S. Senator Gaylord Nelson as a moving force in this pro-
gram. The City of Kewaunee has been able to proceed with all of
the orders from the D. N. R. with dispatch. In fact, we are informed
the City was among the first in the state to have complete separation
of sanitary and storm sewer along with the addition of a secondary
sewage plant in 1968.
The circumstances in our city today differ materially from 1968 •
the city is in financial difficulties. We are not seeking special
favors, but we are of the opinion that the enforcement of the law
and the entry of orders should be tempered by the circumstances of
the community involved. Further, an order based upon an actual
evaluation of the community's financial capability and other perti-
nent facts does not establish a precedent for "Carte blanc" waiver
of orders for other communities not similarly situated and therefore
a waiver of the order for installation of temporary phosphorus re-
moval facilities is proper under appropriate circumstances.
The $10,000.00, which is the engineer's estimate for temporary
facilities, may seem like a minimal amount but with our 1972 budget
and assessed valuation of $19,430,875.00 and $39.00 tax rate, this
would represent an increase of 52£ per M of assessed valuation or
approximately $3.50 per resident. The school budget for 1973 has
increased substantially and city's share has increased $43,907.00
representing another $2.25 per M tax rate increase which does not
include Vocational School and County taxes, and City and Sewage
Disposal operation costs. The 1972 assessed valuation of the city
-------
- 2 -
has increased $599,000.00, to $20,029,875.00 which is not very sub-
stantial and the $39.00 tax rate will certainly be increased. This
creates a hardship as we have approximately 25% retired and fixed
income people residing in the city.
The present status of city finances is as follows:
1. Equalized Valueof City - $23,397,800.00 - Borrowing Auth. - $1,169,890.00
2..Indebtedness:
Fire Station Gen. Obligation Bonds 8,000.00
Promissory Notes (Renewed in 1971 as
we were unable to pay) 35,000.00
Corp. Purpose Bonds of 1967 — 560,000.00
Total Indebtedness 603,000.00 603,000.00
3. Total Borrowing Capacity $ 566,890.00
4. Projects pending in 1972 and not, budgeted for;
Orders from D.N.R.to close present land fill
site by Oct. 1, 1972. (Probably be forced to
request extension of time) -35,000.00
Consulting Engineer's budget overdrawn
as of August, 1972 13,605.04
Contract - San. Sewer, Water Main & Storm
Sewer Project (Request from developers for
opening new addition for nursing hci.ie 53,537.30
Environmental Assessment Report - Approx. 3,500.00
Estimate by State for State Income Tax
@ $35.00 per capita in July - $85,036.00-
received $28.09 per capita or $68,482.17
Temporary borrowing before Dec. 1972 --- 20,000.00
5. Approx. total expenditures for
balance of 1972 - — 125,642.34 125.642.34
6. Present Borrowing Power $ 441,249.66
7. Monies have to be provided before any contracts
are signed.
8. Future costs as ordered by D.N.R.
cost of additions to Sewage Plant for
85% phosphorus removal 404,500.00
Clear Water Report - Relays & Repairs,
not including Engineering and Inspections
(Expended to date - $47,000.) Balance — 227,419.25
9. Total must expenditures 631,919.25 631.919.25
10. Over and above borrowing power $ 190,669.34
11. City should retain borrowing capacity in
case of emergency
12. Deficit in city operations in 197# in accordance with the
current audit report is $40,000.00.
-------
- 3 -
The sources of phosphorus in Kewaunee are primarily domestic
and retail business. The industrial wastes are principally non-
organic, since our industries are principally in steel and metal
fabrication. We have no canning, milk processing or like industries
which would use large quantities of detergents.
Our consulting engineers advise that the raw sewage concentration
during a ^8-hour sampling program in October of 1970 was 12.0 mg/1
for the first 24-hour period and 10.5 rag/1 for the second 24 hours.
They further advise us that a 12 mg/1 content is the norm for
domescic sewa. < . For the 24-hour period that the raw sewage con-
centration of phosphorus was 10.5 mg/1, the raw sewage concentration
would adjust to a population equivalent of slightly over 2500
people. Under the existing Law Kewaunee would be excluded if the
population :',/,'$> -.^
Lorna M. Rudie
City Clerk-Treasurer
P.S. During a telephone conversation with our engineers after this
letter was completed, we were advised that the $10,000.00 es-
timated cost of temporary facilities has increased to a minimum
cost of.$12.000.00, and this of course.increases the impact upon
our resi ents as explained in the ea lie paragraph.
-------
CITY OF
KEWAUNEE, WISCONSIN
LORN A M. KUDIE, CLERK-TREASURER
KEWAUNEE, WIS. 54216 ~ PHONE 388-2670
CLARIFICATION BY TOE CITY OF KEWAUNEE
Orders from D. N. R. dated Dec. 15, 1970
The City of Kewaunee was denied an extension of time by
letter from the D. N. R. on October 28, 1971 for the reason that
there was considerable slippage under item 2, 3, and 5 of the
D. N. R. order. To properly explain this, the various paragraphs
of the order and comments by the city follow:
Order: 1. That the City of Kewaunee place in operation by Dec. 31,
1972 facilities to adequately treat all wastes and waters tribu-
tary to the sanitary sewer system and inform this Department of
such action. Such treatment shall include provision for a mini-
mum of 85 percent annual average removal of the total phosphorus
tributary to the treatment plant.
Comment: See letters attached.
Order: 2. That the City of Kewaunee submit by March 31, 1971 a
preliminary engineering report for the required sewage treatment
facilities.
Comment: This report was mailed and received by Mr. Prangos1 office,
D. N. R. on March 30, 1971. The Engineers' report was not satis-
factory as per letter received from D.N.R. to Engineers dated
May 26, 1971, approximately 2 months later.
Order: 3. That the City of Kewaunee submit by August 31, 1971 plans
and specifications for the construction of the required sewage
treatment facilities.
Comment: The Consulting Engineers informed us that it was im-
possible to present plans and specifications for construction of
sewage treatment facilities until they received the results of the
clear water inspection report. We believe orders of the D.N.R.
should have been reversed.
Order: 4. That the City of Kewaunee by March 31, 1972 initiate
construction of the required sewage treatment facilities.
Order: 5. That the City of Kewaunee submit by June 1, 1971 an
-------
- 2 -
engineering report and time schedule for the elimination of
excess clear water from the sanitary sewer system. Such report
shall update the existing clear water exclusion program and
provide for the elimination of extreme clear water flows by
December 31, 1972.
Comment: This physical inspection was done with the help of
the city crew and under contract with the Engineers. Work on
this project commenced in February, 1971, and due to frost - many
springs in city and effects of melting snow - we encountered delays
but the physical investigation was completed in May, 1971 and
data resulting from the investigation was evaluated by the
Engineers and was mailed on November 15, 1971.
On Augus*- 20, 1971, Letter from Bruce Bondo, Acting Chief,
D. N.R., to the Consulting Engineers ?.c vising them to request
for extension of time.
Sept. 2, 1971 - Request for extension of time submitted by
the city.
Oct. 28, 1971 - Request denied by D.N.R. .stating there was
considerable slippage under items 2, 3, and 5 (Clarifications
as noted).
We realize that both the D.N.R. and our Consulting Engineers
have been very, very busy but we are completely dependent upon
our Consulting Engineers and were not concerned about costs of
additions for 85% phosphorus removal as we were informed that
costs would be minimal but cost of chemicals would greatly in-
crease. Our first cost estimate for construction was $2-38,000.00.
Upon completion of final plans and specifications as late as
June 26,. 1972, the costs increased to $404,500.00 plus $10,000.00
for temporary facilities, plus cost of environmental assessment
report approximately $3500.00. For the foregoing, and the reasons
stated in our other material submitted including the July 20
letter wherein the request was initially submitted, we request
waiver of the installation of the temporary facilities.
Lorna M. Rudie
City Clerk-Treasurer
City of Kewaunee
LMR:as
-------
CITY OF
!/ CJ \fil? ft i 4<$s, lf»e* VA/IOV- /*"\ k t P t k !
Ks wMureE E, WISCONSIN
'
K. BUDIE, CLEHS-TREABURER
3SSWA.CIEESL WIB. 64216 — PHONE 388-2870
July 20, 1972
Mr. Tfeow&a G. Fr sagos t Ad&a.
Wis. Dept. cf Kat«ral Resources
P. 0. Box 450
Mediseo, Wiscosifiin 53701
Re: WEJ5tevmt«r Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Pr&agoft: City of Kewaunec, Wi.
DHR Order No. 4B-70-9-1
This ia to cemfite our telephone discussion yesterday,
Jaly I9V 1972, a^d te> cosily with your request to submit is
*rritis» tUe facts wfcich I presented to you over the phone.
You also utated tbat if ceast ruction of the above referenced
project eeelu be ccsf»lete«S by October 1, 1973, and the city
requested for em e^GRsiea of tia«. it would not be Qecessery to
e«5(Btruct tessporary pfec?sp!ior
-------
Thowas G. Prangos Pag« 2 Jt*ly 20, 1972
the fact that there would be another meeting called for Region 5 -
Minnesota-Wisconsin District, and that it would be advantageous
if Kewaunee could be represented. He also suggested I . »ll you
and present the city's problem.
At the outsel , the city is in complete accord with pollutj >n
abatement and we have been diligent in complying with all :JNw
orders, including complete separation of sanitary and stori* sewers,
and a secondary waste treatment plant constructed in 1Q6P. At c r.i-
ing to the latest census figures - the population of the City of
Kewaunee is 2901, which is slightly over the 2500 population
equivalent which is the break point for phosphorus removal re-
quirements .
In review - the plans and specifications for the proposed
additions and alterations to the existing wastewater treatnenv
plant were mailed on June 27, 1^72 to the Dcpt. of Natural Resources
and arc waiting approval from the Dept. of Natural Resources an]
the Environmental Protection Agency. Application for grants have
been made and we have ordered the consulting engineers to complete
the necessary Environmental Assessment R-port which will be re-
quired before the DNR can process applications for wastewater
treatment facility grant-in-aid programs, which was an added
policy requirement recently issued. In discussing the completion
date of construction with the engineers, as suggested by you,
they advised us that if approval of plans and the processing of
federal funding for this project follow the normal tine schedules,
it would be possible to have the plant under construction and
completed by Qct_pJ3er__l^._197.1. They also stated that if the city
is unable to get a waiver for temporary phosphorus removal
facilities, we would be required to notify them before August 15,
1972 so that plans could be submitted to the DNR for approval.
Considering all of the farts, and since the per-manent phosphorus
removal facilities will be in operation in 1973, we respectfully
request that the requirement for the construction of temporary
phosphorus facilities by the City .-if Kewaunee by December, 1972 be
waived by the Department of Natural Resources.
Thank you sincerely for taking the time to listen to our
"dilemma" over the phone and early consideration of this request
will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours, 9
"~
l.orna M.- Rudie
LMR:*s City Clerk-Treasurer
Enc. - Copy letter from U.S. Sen. Nelson
C.C. to: - U. S. Senator Nelson
Mr. Louis J. Breimhurst, Director, E.P.A.
Donohue &Associates, Inc.
-------
. WIULIAMCi
i RwryMjpH, w. VA. JMMK» K. w.vrr*. M.T.
, *.j. wmt* «. r.'&M'?i
BDWAPKO «. K»0«O N9XJKON. Wlfl.
K'ALTOI I*. »AOHDAUE, »!*•«. MCWC*TT TW, jn., OCWO
.i'r MfMYT T «T,ir»XJHD. VT,
J&tenale
I *. *TrvtM*0»4 lil, t
•TCw*t»T I
NO*t.HT t.
COM MIT TIC OM
AMD PVISN-iC WKL^ARr.
N, D.C Z.OS10
June 30, 19V2
M«. Lorna Rudle
Ctty Cle^k
City of jcewsunee
Wisconsin
54216
Thte concerns your phone call regarding the appl:
„—. for a sewage treatment plant.
near
tion of
According to Mr. Robert Benson in the Municipal
Waste Treatment Office of the D^parttpent of Natural
Resources (6G8-266-0858) , the preliminary report subraittec
on January 6th was approved, presently, Mr. 3 e" son's office
is awaiting the plans and specifications for the plant
frora the engineers, Donahue and Associates. NO further
processing can be done until these ei e received.
There are no funds available at present because
Congress has not yet appropriated them for the Environmental
protection Agency. The Appropriations Subcommittee will
begin marking up the bill on July 19th.
The Department of Natural Resources has a!>out 6C. ot
applications awaiting funding. However, the plans and
spo
^4 C4 ~p+-4 t
-'ng should be oubmitted so that when funds become
available, the application ca
red for funding.
If this office can be of further^ help in any way,
please be sure to let us knov
yours,
ORD NELS
U.S. Senator
GN:jh
-------
U(H II .
rWMi. J.
r. MAWMJ*.
TOM VML, CMW COUN*CL
COMMIT TCC ON FINANCE
WADHIM»TO«4, D.C. 20310
August
197 'c
Mrs. Lorna M. Rudie
City Clerk-Treasurer
"ity of Kewaunee
Kevaunee, Wis
ThanK you for sendto Tie a copy of your letter
of July 20 to Mr. Frangoa a*ivl3i;ip 'hut the plans and specifications
for proposed additions and altrrv vans to the existing vastevater
treatment plan- were mailed or, . re 27 and request in£? that, the
requia-erert for construction o:' * es.iporary phosphorus fao:lities
by December 19.' ' be waived.
asked Mr. Frangos to send r.e a copj' of his response
to you. When it is received, ,' •will be writing you further.
It Is alvays a pleasur o be of norvice.
OK:jh
NELSOV
'.B. Senator
Dear Mr. Frangos,
Sorrv to keep "buqginq1' vet- l-nt time is of th* esrencp. " have n-'
hoard from your or'fic.r *^ to my r-;,.-- .->r whether /c -«.,jht meet. v.Hh --^u
or your Ca-mnittftc on .-eot. ;th. T'<> Fn^lnrers re':uest=H the CouncM f.
authorize them to .iulrr.it planr. -or L,-s:rorarv facilities and Oec., ] .-?' ,-.pad
line does not glw, ur. rr^uch time; arH certainly we can not :-,r:ord'a : '-v-.
I realize that you ar.- a v.-.-rv very busy nan, but coulri r.^**r " -\.
please consider our request.
.i!ncf;rely yours,
Lorna M. Rud'.e
CUy CJerk-T
-------
173
1 T. Frangos
2 MR. FRANGOS: That completes our statement.
3 MR. MAYO: Any comments or questions, gentlemen?
4 MR. McDONALD: Mr. Frangos, I would like to commend
you for a really clear, forthright statement. I think this
6 lays out the position of the State of Wisconsin, both from a
7 policy standpoint, and from an accomplishment standpoint,
with a minimum of words and a maximum of clarity; and it
9 certainly drives the point home of where you stand.
10 In particular, I think the policy of your Board,
11 with its forthright statement, and then the subsequent com-
12 munication to the municipalities involved, must have been
13 part of the reason why things started happening this summer-
14 time and early fall in Wisconsin on phosphorus removal.
15 Is that part of the reason, in your estimation,
16 why, since the issuance of the EPA status report, when we
17 showed some 32 communities behind schedule, that now you say
that at the end of December, all but £ will be providing
19 either interim or permanent phosphorus removal?
20 MR. FRANGOS: I think that is certainly part of
it. I think also the activities of your Agency, either
directly or indirectly, have also been helpful, in terms of
23 making the point that we are very serious about this.
24 Now, I would say that these are commitments that
25 have been made to us by these communities, and these
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
19
20
21
22
24
2 5
174
T. Frangos
commitments involve the ordering of equipment, and everybody
is going like hell — if you will pardon the expression —
so, once it is installed by December 31, 1972, we can't
speak with 100 percent certainty as to quality — but
what I am saying is that they have given us the commitment so
that there is movement, and they are proceeding on a crash
program to reach interim removals by that date.
MR, McDONALD: In regard to the & that have not
indicated to your agency whether they will meet the deadline,
are you waiting for responses from them, or what is the next
move in that situation?
MR. FRANGOS: Well, I think it will vary, depending
on the circumstance. I think we have got a situation similar
to those that Mr. Purdy discussed in Michigan. For example,
the city of Kewaunee has told us that they aren't very much
interested in moving forward with an interim program because
they have a full expansion program that would put them on
line in September of 1973. So we are negotiating this issue
right now. But I think it is one of these things we are
going to have to make an individual decision on.
MR. McDONALD: Well, on the & that you mentioned,
are there terminal dates for phosphorus removal on those &
or is this still open-ended?
MR. FRANGOS: They all have been issued the orders
-------
175
1 T. Frangos
2 by our agency. So they are under order to secure this. Now,
3 if they don't meet the deadline, then they are in technical
4 violation of the order. The next route would be referral to
5 the Attorney General's office.
6 Npw I believe that we may have some requests for
7 extension. We do have the authority to grant those exten-
& sions, if they are received in a timely fashion before the
9 deadline. That relates, I think, to the policy. Our policy
10 direction that we have got indicates that if there may be
11 as much as a 6-month delay, if indeed it looks like there is
12 going to be performance, then we do have that latitude to
13 extend without referral.
14 MR. McDONALD: For the record, do you have a list
15 of the names of all of the communities where the EPA report
16 ought to be changed?
17 MR. FRANGOS: Well, we have those, I think — a
1$ list of those that — we haven't heard from the $ — I think
19 that they could change their list.
20 MR. McDONALD: Can we have that —
21 MS. FRANGOS: It's my understanding it has been
22 given to your fellows as a followup to the discussion we
23 had this morning to update it.
24 MR. McDONALD: I have one other question in regard
25 the industrial side. lour statement indicated that all of
-------
176
1 T. Frangos
2 the industrial delinquencies are attributable to hooking in
3 or negotiating with municipal entities?
4 MR. FRANGOS: I think I said nearly all.
5 MR. McDONALD: Nearly all.
6 MR. FRANGOS: We do have that data available.
7 Do you want to know which one isn't; is that the
g question? I am sorry.
9 MR. McDONALD: No, I just wanted to clarify: Is
10 that right, that this is the bulk of them. They are all
11 negotiating with municipalities except for one.
12 MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Williams maybe can comment on
13 that.
14 MR. WILLIAMS: One is not quite accurate. One is
15 not pulp and paper industry. Anaconda American Brass Company
16 in Kenosha is not pulp and paper.
17 Two of the pulp and paper industries have indicated
13 that they will proceed on their own; one being Appleton Papers
19 at Combined Locks? the other, Scott Papers at Marinette.
20 The balance are expected to tie in, in some way
21 at least, with portions of their waste to municipal facili-
22 ties.
23 MR. McDONALD: Are there contracts with each of
24 those, Mr. Williams, between the paper mills and the rauni-
25 cipalities at the present time?
-------
177
1 T, Frangos
2 MR. WILLIAMS: I don't believe all of the contracts
3 have been signed. They are being negotiated at Neenah-
4 Menasha, at Appleton, and at Green Bay.
5 MR. McDONALD: Thank you.
6 MR. BRISON: Mr. Frangos, I have a question. On
7 page 6 of your statement, where you were talking about the
8 combined sewer problem in the city of Milwaukee, would you
9 clarify for the conferees who has responsibility for that
10 plan? Is it the city of Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Metro-
ll politan Sewerage Commission, or the Southeastern Wisconsin
12 Regional Planning Commission?
13 MR. FRANGOS: Well, that is a good question, Mr.
14 Bryson. It is a rather complicated structure in the
15 Milwaukee area. Actually the responsibility is shared
16 depending on what part of the system.
17 The Planning Commission, as part of its activi-
13 ties, has developed a water quality plan — a detailed one
19 — for the Milwaukee River watershed, which represents a majo
20 portion of the area that has the overflow problems. Actually
21 we have issued orders to the Commission, to the city, and als
22 to a number of outlying suburban communities that are served
23 by contract in that area, so it gets to be a little bit
24 tangled. In other words, a community, whose collection
25 system has either thermal problems or infiltration problems,
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
173
T. Frangos
or some other problems, has received an order even though,
at a given point, the system is picked up by the metropolitan
system
But we have not been completely satisfied with the
movement in that area, and we share the same concern that
Mr. McDonald expressed about this program. Quite candidly
we see that as the major problem, at this point, in the
Milwaukee area.
MR. BRYSOM: When we approach 1977, if nothing is
done in that area to control the problem, who do you point
the finger at for not having done what they should have done?
MR. FRANGOS: Well, I think it depends on what
hasn't been done. We would be pointing a number of fingers,
I think, at that point in time. But we are waiting to see
if anything positive comes out of this issue at this meet-
ing. If not, then, we are prepared to move into that area,
hold some public hearings, and become more specific on the
projects, such as I think your Agency has suggested at a
meeting of this conference.
We are concerned that we have just got an outside
date, even though our orders do require a plan, we have not
had a detailed plan come forward to our satisfaction. As
you know, once you have got a plan, you have still got to
follow through on it.
-------
179
1 T. Frangos
2 MR. MAYO: Are there any other comments, gentlemen'
3 There is one observation I would like to make, and
4 that is that water pollution control administrators on a
5 national basis have been faced with the challenging problem
6 of how to handle the combination of circumstances where
7 industries and municipalities are prospectively going
8 together in regional systems. I think there have probably
9 been hundreds and hundreds of examples across the country
10 where this has been used as a device to delay the decision-
11 making process. Certainly we ought to be at a point in time
12 where we just can't afford to tolerate that any longer. We
13 have just got to keep the heat on the industrial establish-
14 ments and the municipalities to press them into formal
15 agreements to do something: formal agreements for treatment,
16 for acceptance of wastes, for delivery of services. And
17 unless we continue to press, we are just going to let ourr-
1# selves continue to be deceived, and invite opportunities
19 for protracted discussion, and limited opportunities for
20 wastewater quality improvement.
21 I think some of the comments that we have gotten
22 here today point up the need to be determined in our efforts
23 to press for those agreements and press for solid dates for
24 moving ahead and getting the job done.
25 MR. FRANGOS: I am not sure I would agree entirely
-------
ISO
1 T. Frangos
2 with your premise, but I certainly agree with your conclu-
3 si on. (Laughter)
4 MR. MAYO: Are there any other comments?
5 Now there were indications that there was a desire
6 to make some public statements at the conclusion of the State
7 presentations on the status of compliance, at least by the
8 Businessmen for the Public Interest.
9 Are there any others in addition to BPI?
10 MR. BLASER: I have three more here in Illinois.
11 MR. MAYO: You do.
12 MR. BLASER: One is James Griffith, Committee on
13 Lake Michigan Pollution, 3 minutes; and Businessmen for the
14 Public Interest requested 5 minutes for its report; Paul
15 Oppenheiraer, Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference,
16 Chicago, Illinois, 3 minutes; and Eileen Johnston, 2 minutes.
17 MR. MAYO: Do you have a particular order in which
IS you wish to proceed?
19 MR. BLASERs David Dinsmore Comey is up front.
20 Mr. Comey is representing Businessmen for the Public Interest
21 He wants to make a statement on the status of compliance and
22 also on thermal pollution.
23 MR. MAYO: I think the thermal commentary may be
24 out of order, Mrc Blaser, and I would make that observation
25 to Mr. Comey.
-------
181
1 D. Comey
2 The way the Chair would like to proceed: I think
3 it would be appropriate to have whatever additional comments
4 need to be directed to the status-of^compliance portion of
5 the program concluded. Then we can take a brief recess,
6 during which I want to discuss with the conferees the extent
7 to which we might reasonably pursue the first day's agenda
this afternoon. I would like to get us through at least
9 Item 3 on the agenda today, dealing with the phosphorus
10 problems
11 Mr. Comey.
12
13 STATEMENT OF DAVID DINSMORE COMEY,
14 DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH,
15 BUSINESSMEN FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
16 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
17
MR. COMEY: My name is David Dinsmore Comey. I
am the Director of Environmental Research of Businessmen for
20 the Public Interest. I was not planning to make a statement
21 on thermal criteria today.
22 Briefly, I wanted to request that the conferees
incorporate into the record, as if read, a 14-page document
that I have put before the conferees, entitled, "Lake Michi-
2 ^ gan Major Industrial Polluter Inventory,
-------
1 D. Comey
2 Let me describe how the document was prepared.
3 For the last year, we have had an intensive review program
4 of the applications on file with the U.S. Army Corps of
5 Engineers for permits under the Refuse Act permit program.
6 These applications are the only industrywide source of
7 data on discharges, and we found it a rather useful exercise
& in order to get some idea of how much pollution was going
9 into Lake Michigan and its tributary waters to investigate
10 the 6?# dischargers who have applied for Refuse Act permits.
11 We have done immense amounts of calculations in
12 order to subtract intake concentrations from outfall concen-
13 trations, so as to arrive at the net figure that each
14 facility is adding to the waterway, and then to screen major
15 polluters out from minor polluters.
16 The result of this calculation and inventory is
17 this document in which 111 facilities are listed.
1° I have put a 1—page caveat at the beginning
19 indicating where I think one must exercise caution in using
20 the inventory. I would say that I do believe these 111
21 facilities are responsible for approximately 90 percent of
22 the pollution of Lake Michigan and its tributary basin.
23 And to the extent that abatement can be achieved on the
2k rather high levels among these polluters, I think the lake
25 will be in a much better position from an ecological point
-------
^___ 1*3-
1 D. Comey
2 of view.
3 We have not included some facilities which are
4 already going to a municipal treatment system, since the
5 applications were filed with the Refuse Act permit office.
6 We have included a few facilities which, by the end of this
7 year, are scheduled to be nondischargers. For example,
8 Cities Service Oil Refinery is going to be closed up. S.
9 T. Warren Paper Company, Division of Scott Paper, in the
10 Muskegon area, is going to tie in with the Muskegon County
11 Project. There are others.
12 In calculating this list of the "dirty 9 dozen"
13 we have compared it with the number cited in the Status
14 of Compliance list that was handed out by the Lake Michigan
15 Enforcement Conference, and have noted that there are some
16 43 of the dischargers on our list which are not part of
17 the Lake Michigan enforcement schedule of compliance.
lg I have typed up on a separate page this list. We
19 neglected to include Allied Chemical under the State of
20 Illinois.
21 At the end of this morning's session, there was
22 a brief colloquy with Mr. Blaser of the Illinois EPA. Let
23 me explain why we have included Republic Steel and Wisconsin
24 Steel and Allied Chemical.
25 For the past two summers, we have floated
-------
134
D. Comey
2 paper boats on the Calumet River above the O'Brien Locks,
3 and it is our feeling that it is not really true that the
4 Calumet River flows steadily southward away from the lake.
5 We think most of the time it doesn't flow at all, and when
6 you have a half an inch of rain or more, it can go north-
7 ward, and I have a lot of aerial photographs indicating pre-
cisely that. I realize this is a bone of contention that
9 has been going on since the 196? conference, but I think a
10 good case can be made that anything north of the O'Brien
11 Locks should be considered to be a part of the lake.
12 I suppose that there will be some questions asked
13 as to why many of these other facilities — particularly in
14 the State of Michigan — are not part of the Lake Michigan
15 Enforcement Conference list.
16 Thank you very much.
17 (Mr. Comey's report follows in its entirety.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
BUSINESSMEN FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST
DAVID D1NSHORE COMEY
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
1 November 1972
SUITE 1001
109 N. DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO, It 6O6O2
TELEPHONE 312-641-5S7O
Ms. Janet Mason
Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Dear Ms. Mason:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation of this afternoon,
I am enclosing a dozen copies of our report BPI-7292,
Lake Michigan Major Industrial Polluter Inventory, which is
the revised version of the inventory we submitted at the
Enforcement Conference on September 19, 1972.
Because this revised report contains clarifications and later
data, we would prefer that this version go into the printed
transcript of the proceedings instead of the version which we
gave out on September 19.
Sincerely yours,
DDC:kam
Enclosures
-------
109 N. Dearborn St.. Suite 1001, Chicago, Illinois 60602, (312) 641 -5570
BPI-7292
LAKE MICHIGAN MAJOR INDUSTRIAL POLLUTER INVENTORY
Prepared for
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
September 21 , 1972
-------
NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, VECEMBER-19,19U
Tht Nfw York Tlm«/S«ry S
Alexander Polikoff, right, Chicago lawyer
who serves as executive director for Busi-
nessmen for the Public Interest, going over
water pollution report with David Dins-
more Comey, environmental research direc-
tor for the organization, at unit's office.
Business and
Public Interest
By SETH S. KING
CHICAGO — Businessmen
contributing money to sup-
port a corps of reformers
who are taking after some
of Chicago's business and po-
litical giants?
Strange, but it's happening
here in what the participants
insist is an affirmation of a
new social consciousness in
the business community. Or
at least a demonstration of
what that social conscious-
ness ought to be.
Their instrument for do-
ing this is Businessmen for
the Public Interest, a non-
profit corporation that func-
tions through four young
lawyers, three research as-
sociates, and a board of di-
rectors from among the 40
Chicago business concerns
that help pay part of B.P.I.'s
$250,000 annual budget.
In its literature, B.P.I.
describes itself as a "combi-
nation of watchdog, research
center, law firm and ombuds-
man." Among its chartered
purposes it lists the objec-
tives of providing relief for
the poor and distressed, les-
sening neighborhood ten-
sions, eliminating prejudice
and discrimination, and im-
proving the rnvironmcnt.
B.P.I.'s tactics have been
simple: Send its lawyers into
court or before regulating
agencies to force compliance
with the law or win new le-
gal interpretations that will
force the corporation or the
government to act.
With their lances leveled
at anything from Com-
monwealth Edison to Mayor
Richard J. Daley's Chicago
Housing Authority, B.P.I.'s
directors say they have only
one criterion to guide them
on whom or what they at-
tack: It must be an action
that will have an impact on
the system and lead to sig-
nificant changes in it.
•
A major portion of B.P.I.'s
interest has been centered on
environmental improvement,
particularly in protecting
Lake Michigan from further
pollution. But this has not
diverted it from charging
into such varied matters as
repeal of the state's criminal
abortion laws, racial discrim-
ination in admitting students
to Chicago's largest commer-
cial high school, alleged fa-
voritism in tax assessments
on large Chicago banks, fee
splitting among Chicago at-
torneys, or secrecy among
Chicago aldermen in the own-
ership and financial backing
of cable TV franchises.
On the pollution front,
B.P.I, won Its most impres-
sive victory this spring. After
gaining the right to appear as
a citizens' group before an
Atomic Energy Commission
licensing board, B.P.I., act-
ing with the Sierra Club,
forced the Consumers Power
Company of Michigan to
agree to construct cooling
towers at its Palisades nu-
clear plant that will eliminate
the dumping of hot water
into Lake Michigan.
The agreement will add
several million dollars to the
Palisades installation costs.
But it broke the united re-
sistance of other lakeside
power companies against
anything except direct dis-
charges into the lake. The
Northern Indiana Public
Service Company has since
agreed to install a cooling
tower at a lakeside nuclear
plant in Indiana and the Fed-
eral Environmental Protec-
tion /.gency has ruled that
all lakeside nuclear plants
must have equivalent closed-
cycle cooling systems.
The B.P.I, has already'run
full tilt a Mayor Daley on
two matters. It has gone to
court to publicize its charge
that there was a blatant
conflict of interest in the
handling of a large urban
renewal project sponsored by
the Chicago Housing Au-
thority. And it is participat-
ing in a second court suit
backing its contention that
the Board of Education,
which owns the land on
which Midway Airport is
situated, is short - changing
Chicago's school children by
renting the airport to the
City's Department of Avia-
tion at a value rate below
the fair value.
This summer B.P.I, lost the
first round in a law
suit to force steel power,
and chemical companies to
purify the industrial wastes
they pump into Lake Michi-
gan near Chicago. But it is
continuing an appeal to a
higher court. Meanwhile, it
has a special corps of law,
medical, and engineering stu-
dents taking samples of Lake
Michigan water and prepar-
ing evidenpe for B.P;I. to
use in identifying ma-
jor sources of pollution
around this end of the lake.
Most of the supporters
of Businessmen for the Public
Interest are executives of
smaller companies, but they
represent a wide spectrum
of the business community.
Among them are investment
brokers, small manufactur-
ers, hotel executives, retail-
ers and bankers.
•
When asked why they
donate funds to an organi-
zation that has already em-
barrassed Commonwealth
Edison. United Slates Steel,
and the Cook County -As-
sessor, among others, most
say it's because they believe
the business community has
a civic obligation to make the
system work and B.P.I, is an
ideal mer-ns, for them, of
fulfilling that obligation.
"It's not without some
trepidation that I went in,"
Elliot Lehman, president of
Pel-Pro Inc., an automotive
supply company, said re-
cently. "The power com-
panies have often been our
customers, and I know what
the B.P.I, is trying to do in
pollution control could cost
them a lot of money. But
if we're motivated only by
fear, then we're missing what
this country really stands
for."
Increasingly tougher air
pollution controls, supported
vigorously by B.P.I., have
meant that Saxon Paint Su-
permarts, a hardward chain,
will have to scrap $100,000
worth of old incinerators
and pay a rubbish collector
to haul away trash.
"This is a painful move for
us," said Alan Saks, presi-
dent of Saxon and an en-
thusastic supporter of B.P.I.
"But in the long run, this
will benefit the whole com-
munity."
The organizing Impetus for
B.P.I, came two years ago
from Gordon Sherman, then
president of Midas-Interna-
tional, the muffler repair
chain, who has since been
pushed out of that company
in a proxy battle.
•
Mr. Sherman, who had a
reputation among Chicago's
nervous business establish-
ment for aggressive social
consciousness, provided most
of the funds in B.P.I.'s first
year. The Midas-Internation-
al Foundation still gives gen-
erously. Midas, and three
other foundations are in for
$170,000 in 1971. The re-
maining $80,000 comes from
the businessmen-contributors.
Looking to next year, the
B.P.I, directors have organ-
ized a 15-man group of busi-
nessmen to begin soliciting
more operating funds.
"We aren't looking for
laq;e contributions from any
of the businessmen we call
on," said Alexander Polikoff,
a prominent Chicago civil
rights lawyer who now
serves as B.P.I.'s executive
director. "We'd rather have
$1,000 from 200 involved
businessmen than $100,000
from two of them."
Mr. Polikoff admitted that
B.P.I, had not as yet sought
any funds from Common-
wealth Edison or United
States Steel.
"But who knows." he
asked, "maybe they'll de-
cide we're a good way to
demonstrate their social
consciousness? It would be
nice if they did."
-------
BPI-7292 Page 1
CAVEAT LECTOR
This Inventory should be approached with caution. The ZIP codes may be the only correct numbers in
it. It is based on the Refuse Act Permit Program [RAPP] applications filed by the polluters with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the late spring and summer of 1971. This means, first of all,
that the data on which the inventory is based are more than one year old. Secondly, it is based on data
submitted by the polluters themselves, not on data independently prepared from random unannounced
sampling. Although the Refuse Act Permit Program application form must be signed by the company's
highest official having knowledge of the contents of the discharge (very often the president), and the form
clearly states that any "false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry" on the application will be pun-
ished by imprisonment up to 5 years and/or a fine of $10,000 (18 U.S.C. 1001), the data still may not
be accurate. Many of the samples were one-time only average grab samples instead of composites that
were spread over a long time period, and often non-standard methods of analysis were used.
Furthermore, the rank ordering of these companies was done in accordance with parameters that are
widely used but not necessarily ones in which we have a great deal of confidence. For example, BOD^
is used almost universally, but we have grave doubts as to its reliability as an indicator of pollution,
especially for paper mill wastes, where a BOD,QQ would be more indicative of the actual loadings.
For those who wish to quarrel with the parameters that we have used in ranking these polluters, we can
only say that you are free to take the data in our tables and make your own rank orderings basec on
whatever parameter you think is most significant.
In one sense, the size of the discharge says little about the quality of the abatement technology that the
polluters may be using. A particular polluter may be achieving 90 percent removal on some parameter,
but because of the total volume of his waste streams, his remaining discharge is still a large one.
All of the figures in this inventory are net loadings rather than gross. Because we found a number of
situations where a polluter was situated on an already grossly polluted river, but added relatively little
pollution to the river, we chose not to use the gross average discharge figures set forth in the Refuse
Act Permit Program applications. Instead, we subtracted the intake water concentrations from the
outfall concentrations in order to arrive at the net concentration added by the polluter. We then calculated
the pounds per day loadings on this basis. In cases where a polluter added 10 milligrams per liter (mg/1)
of something to a stream already containing 50 mg/1 at his intake, we did not think it was fair to cal-
culate his pounds per day loadings on the basis of the 60 mg/1 figure submitted on the application; we
instead used the 10 mg/1 for which he was responsible.
Once the net loadings were calculated for each polluter, we screened them by means of the effluent crit-
eria set forth on page 2 of this inventory. Those effluent criteria, which we use internally at BPI in
order to evaluate discharges, plus some arbitrary cut-off points for given parameters (such as a BOD,-
cut-off of 100 pounds per day), gave us the basis for our list of 117 major polluters of Lake Michigan.
We were surprised that out of the 678 polluters in the Lake Michigan basin who have applied for RAPP
permits, so many would rank as major polluters. We were also surprised that 62 out of the 117 major
polluters were not on the Status of Compliance list of the Lake MichiganEnforcement Conference. We have
marked each of these 62 major polluters that are not on the list with an asterisk (*).
In order to assist citizen activists who may wish to examine the RAPP applications, we have provided
the application number for each polluter. The third digit in the application number indicates whether the
application is on file at the Detroit office or the Chicago office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .
If the third digit is a "1" (e.g. 2710456), then the application is at the Detroit office (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Detroit District Office, P.O. Box 1027, Detroit, MI 48231; telephone (313) 226-6813);
if the third digit is a "2" (e.g. 2720104), then the application is at the Chicago office (U.S. Army Corps
ofEngineers.ChicagoDistrictOffice, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60605; telephone (312) 353-6436).
I would like to thank Hal Bohner, Paul Duvall, Ernest Dunwoody, Beryn Roberts, Cary Malkin, Jim
Baxter, Paul Pritchard, TomKalinowski, TahirZia, DavidBrown, BillPentelovitch, DennisAdamczyk,
and Wallace Oliver of the BPI staff for their many weeks of labor in producing this inventory. I would
also like to thank Ms. Mary Ann Smith for volunteering to help with the final calculations.
DAVID DINSMORE COMEY
Director of Environmental Research
Chicago, Illinois
21 September 1972
-------
BPI-7292 Page 2
BP1 EFFLUENT CRITERIA
(in mg/1)
Mercury
Beryllium
Selenium
Thallium
Cadmium
Zinc
Cyanide
Titanium
Chlorinated hydrocarbons*
Pesticides
Chlorine residual §
Phenols
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Cobalt
Silver
0 . 0005 Molybdenum
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0,050
0.050
* Except pesticides
§ For continuous chlorination
BOD5
BTU
COD
N
P
TDS
TS
TSS
mg/1
Sulfide
Surfactants
Arsenic
Nickel
Antimony
Manganese
Ammonia (as N)
Total Phosphorus (as P)
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Iron
BOD5
COD
TSS
Chloride
Sulfate
ABBREVIATIONS
Five-day biochemical oxygen demand
British thermal unit
Chemical Oxygen demand
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Total solids
Total suspended solids
Milligrams per liter (equivalent to parts
0.100
0.200
0.200
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.500
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
10
20
125
500
per million)
-------
Name of Polluter
Location
RAPP No.
PETROCHEMICAL
Average Pounds Added Daily
cop BOD5 TS TDS _ TSS
?
B
ff jf
•
O O
American Oil Co.
Whiting, IN 46394
2720170
31,886 7,143
Cities Service Oil Co. 16,907 3,272 16,907
East Chicago, IN 46312
2720868
Atlantic Richfield Co. 4,161
East Chicago, IN 46312
2720045
Mobil Oil Corp.
East Chicago, IN 46312
2720106
807 272
1,946 1,589 68 10,803 22,895 1,307
5,999
1,031 8.2
27,345 26,948 396 158 2.6 11,413
4,462 4,454 8 2 18.4
415
357
1,358 15
125.0 38.2
1.98 0.48 0.24
0.39
6.7
TOTALS: 53,761 10,687 48,714 37,401 2,350 2,780 97.2 22,216 24,253 2,094 2.37 0.48 6.94 125.0 38.2
Footnote: 1. Scheduled to close permanently December 31, 1972.
B
-------
Industry: CHEMICAL
2
Name of Polluter Average Pounds Added Daily •? • c" I" * $ S'S'^o % §' **
Location .:?" -<* •? ^ £ 51 •? 5 •£ £ &
RAPP No. COD BOD5 TS TDS TSS (? fl, O t» T^ f, O' Q ^V O T
hfl
* Martin Marietta Chemicals23,420 1,041,700 1,041,130 43. 535,220 95° $
Refractories Division * *
Manistee, MI 49660 *'
2710595
Abbott Laboratories 6,003 2,401 36,685 36,018 1,334 560 414 80 52
North Chicago, IL 60064
2720236
* Dow Chemical Co. 5,951 101 2,901,091 2,888,873 14,253
Ludington, MI 49431
2710422
* Hooker Chemical Co. 1,001 651 288,105 286,854 225 154,373 18,140
Montague, MI 49437
2710375 «
* Chemetron Corp. 3,527 881 11,967 11,890 76 54 1.37 5,311 2,418 44 2 0.9 0.51 1.39
Holland, MI 49423
2710099
* Am way Corp. 2,721 1,028 1,781 1,641 140 273 12 6 38
Ada, MI 49301
2710169
* Ott Chemical Co. 1,901 544 15,995 15,272 729 7,058 4,085 1,144 42 0.39
Muskeg on, MI 49445
2710001
* Ansul Co. 1,206 451 6,260 6,172 96 335 4.73 651 7,600 17 0.22 2.41 3.78
Marinette, WI 54143
2720298
Lever Brothers Co. 1,203 558 215 43 120 1.33
Hammond, IN 46320
2720546
* Allied Chemical Corp. 1,165 150 9,698 9,259 438 1,261 6.8
Industrial Chemicals Div.
Chicago, IL 60633
2720589
* E.I. DuPontde Nemours 868 434 13,173 13,065 54 3,708 4,310 2.55
Montague, MI 49437
2710112
Union Carbide Corp., 573 1.691 397
Chemicals and Plastics Div.
Whiting, IN 46394
2720011
-------
a • *^ y
Industry: CHEMICAL (Continued) 3 •$ Jj f1
« * J* ^^,3> ^ o
Name of Polluter Average Pounds Added Daily <(? |" ^ ^ / * B '§ & §
Location •:? 41 -S ^ 8 $%'§.§&$
RAPP No. COD BOD5 TS TDS TSS 2 ^ ° 5 y ^ ° °
tc
w
a>
en
-------
Si < % ^ n
Industry: METAL REFINING <* « -c ^ "
i_ ^ & 3-5 s f
o • ^•S?g*?2''tii§«,S,wo
RAPPJ^, TS§L__JTS TDS ^ J? COD BOD5 J? ^ t J? & tj
-------
Industry: METAL REFINING (Continued)
Name of Polluter
Location
RAPP No.
Average
TSS
Pounds
TS
Added
TDS
Daily
O
•&
«?
.""»
I* /
^ COD BOD5 ^
^
/
/
"*" ^
^ O1
/ ,
c? tf
O O fc-v <£
* Neenah Foundary Co. 304 629 408 685 193 5
Neenah, WI 54956
2720427
Anaconda American 255 3,998 3,743 936 61 26 98
Brass Co.,
Kenosha Division
Kenosha, WI 53140
2720054
Fansteel, Inc., 174 1,378 568 789 22 139 56 7 0.10.1 1.6
Fansteel Electrometals Div.
North Chicago, IL 60064
2720467
National Steel Corp. 23 57,546 53,128 38 1,473 158 2,361
Midwest Steel Division
Portage, IN 46368
2720355
TOTALS: 277,3251,271,914 1,157,769 41,047 1,116 232,645 46,052 82,319 16,727 6,236 2,630 2,932 17.7 2,440 30 99.6 59 15.8
(D
^1
-------
Industr
METAL WORKING AND FABRICATING
s
f
Name of Polluter
Location
RAPP No.
Average Pounds Added Daily
COD
BOD
TDS
TSS
0
a
3
CO
to
to
•a
59
* Whirlpool Corp. , Plant 7 11,543 33 1,014 459 407 117 99
St. Joseph, MI 49085
2710436
* Whirlpool Corp. , Plants 1-6 ".,146 993 4,398 976 508
St. Joseph, MI 49085
2710562
* Teledyne Continental 2,862 587 6,752 5,835 917 642 3
Motors (Division of
Teledyne Industries, Inc.)
Muskegon, MI 49443
2710403
* Du-Wel Metal Products,Inc. 1,407 147 12,370 12,309 61
Bangor, MI 49013
2710015
* Kohler Co. 867 87 7,206 2,950 4,034
Kohler, WI 53044
2720431
* Tecumseh Products Co. 653 104 2,616 2,560 55 104
New Holstein, WI 53061
2720041
* General Motors Corp., 541 112
Diesel Equipment Division
Grand Rapids, MI 49501
2710164
* Falk Co. 212 99 1,837 2,133 344 48
Milwaukee, WI 53201
2720342
* Benton Harbor Malleable 171 777 718 188 53
Benton Harbor, MI 49022
2710812
* Home Plating Co. 167 54 1,170 1,124 44
Sturgis, MI 49091
2710566
* Clark Equipment 152 14 1,849 187 83
Buchanan, MI 49107
2710571
0.14
26
7.0
1.0
2.0
1,308
244
0.2 0.45
0.06 0.02
9.0 17.0 6.0
35.0
2.44 1.07
329
14.4
-------
Industry: METAL WORKING AND FABRICATING (Continued)
* Michigan Tube, Inc.
Eau Clair, MI 49111
2710612
* Henco Enterprises, Inc.
Niles, MI 49120
2710572
* Gibson Products
Greenville, MI 48838
2710320
J.I. Case Co.
Racine, WI 53403
2720058
70
125
2,000 1,900
975
9,440
356 1,444
949
14,384
1,999
37
26
79 73
TOTALS: 23,892 2,733 51,848 48,296 6,541 1,120 59.1
490
490
282 25
6,581
76 3 204
19 0.08 0.54
3.1 2.2 0.29
122.0
4.0
1.0
8,247 384 448 3.6 172.9 62.9 8.6
Industry:
METAL MINING
RAPP No. Name of Polluter
2720623 * Hanna Mining Co.
2720116 * Inland Steel Co., Sherwood Mine
2720451 * Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co..Empire Mine
2710108 * Inland Steel Co.
2720449 * Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co. , Republic Mine
Location
Iron Mountain, MI 48S
Iron River, MI 49935
Ishpeming, MI 49849
Gulliver, MI 49840
Ishpeming, MI 49849
TOTAL:
TS
TDS
Average Pounds Added Daily
Oil
and
TSS Grease
Zinc Sulfate Chromium Coppg
16,144 25,889 113
7,168 375
5,564 5,761 128
4,939 4,652
3,310 3,183 127 140
17,125 39,485 615 268
11 3,848
0.09 0.06
11 3,848 0.09 0.06
i
to
u>
CO
-------
State: MICHIGAN
Industry: PAPER1
RAPP No. Name of Polluter
2710158 Packaging Corporation of America
2710443 * Manistique Pulp and Paper Co.
2710162 * Scott Paper Co., S.D. Warren Co. Division
2710553 * Menasha Corp., Paperboard Division
2720095 * Mead Corp., Escanaba Paper Co. Division
2710104 * Hammermill Paper Co.2
2710433 * French Paper Co.
2710101 Mead Corp. , Paperboard Products Division
2720409 American Can Co.
2710007 * Brown Co. , Specialty Paper Division
2710549 * Plaimvell Paper Co. , Inc.
2710106 * Simplicity Pattern Co. , Inc.
2710100 * Allied Paper, Inc.4
Location
Filer City, MI 49634
Manistique, MI 49854
Muskegon, MI 49443
Otsego, MI 49078
Escanaba, MI 49829
Watervliet, MI 49098
Niles, MI 49120
Otsego, MI 49078
Menominee, MI 49858
Parchment, MI 49004
Plainwell , MI 49080
Niles, MI 49120
Kalamazoo, MI 49001
TOTAL:
Average
BOD5
56,301
10,325
6,720
5,180
4,112
3,471
1,861
1,220
1,215
1,201
808
806
783
94,003
Pounds Added
COD
180,189
6,401
57,093
53,540
7,590
7,180
3,655
2,241
2,732
2,837
1,489
2,024
3,052
330,023
Daily
TSS
8,931
60,952
9,877
3,070
4,854
3,560
709
447
542
974
323
1,323
447
96,005
Population Equivalent
of BOD5 Added
331,050
60,711
39,514
30,458
24,179
20,409
10,943
7,174
7,144
7,062
4,751
4,739
4,604
571,660
CO
a
CO
CO
to
T3
¥-
re
o
Footnotes: 1. Includes pulp, paper and allied products.
2. Formerly Watervliet Paper Co.
3. Division of Nicolet Paper Co.
4. Subsidiary of SCM Corp.
-------
State .
Industry:
WISCONSIN
PAPER1
Average Pounds Added Daily
RAPP No.
2720411
2720134
2720132
2720296
2720327
2720105
2720198 *
2720186
2720341
2720181
2720285
2720234
2720289
2720293
2720146
2720189
2720184
2720461
2720183
2720441
Footnotes:
Name of Polluter
American Can Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
2
Charmin Paper Products Co.
Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Fort Howard Paper Co.
Niagara of Wisconsin Paper Corp.
Kimberly-Clark Corp. ,
Kimberly Mill
Bergstrom Paper Co.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Green Bay Packaging, Inc.
Thilmany Pulp and Paper Co.
4
Appleton Papers , Inc .
John Strange Paper Co.
Riverside Paper Corp.
Kimberly-Clark Corp. ,
Neenah Paper Mill
Kimberly-Clark Corp. ,
Lakeview Division
Shawano Paper Mills, Inc.
Kimberly-Clark Corp. ,
Badger-Globe Division
George A. Whiting Paper Co.
1. Includes pulp, paper and allied
Location
Green Bay, WI 54305
Marinette, WI 54143
Oconto Falls, WI 34154
Green Bay, WI 54305
Appleton, WI 54911
Green Bay, WI 54305
Niagara, WI 54151
Kimberly, WI 54136
Neenah, WI 54956
Peshtigo, WI 54157
Green Bay, WI 54305
Kaukana, WI 54130
Combined Locks, WI 54113
Menasha, WI 54952
Appleton, WI 54911
Neenah, WI 54956
Neenah, WI 54956
Shawano, WI 54166
Neenah, WI 54956
Menasha, WI 54952
TOTAL:
products .
BOD 5
87,507
55,530
50,446
48,180
46,881
46,594
33,537
32,427
24,461
20,817
19,871
19,082
17,394
12,262
1,660
1,100
904
435
421
306
519,815
COD
286,354
156,19«
196,526
91,690
845,159
78,442
58,139
44,151
57,420
79,736
21,947
28,085
63,878
7,117
7,457
3,835
1,908
6,300
0
501
2,056,790
TSS
17,464
12,495
8,567
11,048
0
34,946
64,183
47,984
13,209
5,378
1,836
15,728
41,652
2,851
10,571
1,458
477
855
379
721
291 ,802
Population Equivalent
of BOD5 Added
514,541
326,516
296,622
283,298
275,660
273,973
197,198
190,671
143,830
122,404
116,841
112,202
102,277
72,100
9,761
6,468
5,316
2,558
2,475
1,799
3,056,510
o
3
to
to
CO
£
o
-"
2. Division of Procter and Gamble Co.
3. Division of Hammermill Paper Co.
4. Division of NCR.
-------
FOOD1
RAPP No. Name of Polluter
2710441 * Frigid Food Products, Inc.
2710091 * Eagle Ottawa Leather Co.
2720034 American Maize-Products Co.
2710190 * Heinz, USA
2710371 Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.
2720171 Branch Cheese Co.
2720399 Foremost Foods Co.
2720599 Cedar Valley Cheese Factory
2720061 Cold Springs Cheese Factory, Inc.
2710523 * Elberta Packing Co.
2720400 Foremost Foods Co.
2720698 Carney Milk Products Co.
Location
Buttons Bay, MI 49682
Grand Haven, MI 49417
Hammond, IN 46326
Holland, MI 49423
Scottsville, MI 49454
Branch, WI 54203<
Appleton, WI 54911
Belgium, WI 53004
Hilbert, WI 54129
Elberta, MI 49628
Adell, WI 53001
Carney, MI 49812
Average Pounds Added Daily
BOD5 COD TS
Population Equivalent
of BOD5 Added
TOTALS:
7
4
1
1
1
17
,201
,748
,634
,542
,101
412
398
384
168
152
114
105
,959
22,095
3,689
2,059
1,112
489
778
234
438
220
31,114
8,191
27,595
4,854
14,531
6,626
2,257
198
616
567
263
592
848
67,138
42,342
27,918
9,608
9,067
6,474
2,423
2,340
2,258
988
894
670
617
105,599
-g
to
to
to
•d
ft
to
Footnotes: 1. Includes Leather Processing and other BOD-intensive facilities.
-------
Industry:
ELECTRIC POWER
HAPP No. Name of Utility
2720683
2720233
2720276
2720272
2720352
2720443
2720652
2710186
2720202
2710197
2720201
2720659
2720273
2720278
2720271
2720274
2710187
NOTE:
* Commonwealth Edison Co.
* American Electric Pmver Corp.
* Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
* Commonwealth Edison Co.
Commonwealth Edison Co.
* Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
* Consumers Power Co.
Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
* Consumers Power Co.
Northern Indiana Public Service Co
Wisconsin Power and Light Co.
Wisconsin Electric Pmver Co.
* Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
* Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
* Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
* Consumers Power Co.
Heat Added Flow
(Billions of BTU's (Millions of gallons
Name of Facility
7,'\cm Station
Donald C. Cook Plant
Point Beach Plant
Oak Creek Plant
Waukegan Station
State Line Generating Station
Kewaunee Plant
J II Campbell Plant
Bailly Generating Station
B.C. Cobb Plant
. Mitchell Generating Station
Edgewater Generating Station
Port Washington Plant
Pulliam Plant
Lakeside Plant
Valley Plant
Location
Zion. IL 60099
Bridgman, MI 49106
Two Creeks, WI 54241
Oak Creek, WI 53154
Waukegan, IL 60085
Hammond, IN 46326
Kewaunee, WI 54216
West Olive, MI 49460
Chesterton, IN 46304
Muskegon, MI 49440
Gary, IN 46401
Sheboygan, WI 53081
Port Washington, WI 53074
Green Bay, WI 54305
Milwaukee , WI 53207
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Big Hock Point Plant Charlevoix, MI 49720
Consumers Power Company's Palisades Plant and Northern Indiana Public Service Company's
cooling lowers. Northern Indiana Public Service Company's Bailly Generating Station Nuclear
cooling tower.
** Required to construct clnwd-excle
enloivi'd.
cooling system if March 23. 1!
171 recommendation of Lake
Nuc leai-
Nuclear
Nuclear
Fossil
Fossil
Fossil
Nuclear
Fossil
Fossil
Fossil
Fossil
Fossil
Fossil
Fossil
Fossil
Fossil
per hour)
14.0**
14.0**
6.4**
6.2
4.1
3.5
3.4**
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
1 .5
1.2
1 .0
Nuclear 0.5
Michigan City Plant are both
1 , if built, is also scheduled
Michigan
per day)
2,203
2,368
1,008
1,596
861
857
593
327
456
450
413
186
631
320
301
111
73
constructing
to have a
Enforcement Conference is
a
3
i
~j
ts3
CO
to
•a
1
-------
BPI-7292 Page 14
LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN TOTALS*
Average Pounds Added Daily
BOD,
5
COD
TS
TDS
TSS
Chloride
Sulfate
Oil and Grease
Phenols
Cyanide
Ammonia (as N)
Total Phosphorus (as P)
Cadmium
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Arsenic
700,673
2,779,105
6,341,725
6,079,508
693,554
966,810
103,665
45,599
1,280
2,936
11,565
3,270
22
2,801
100
235
97
72
(Population Equivalent: 4,119,957)
•From the 117 major polluters (estimated to represent 90 percent of total industrial loadings)
-------
CHICAGO SUM-TIMES, Wrt., 5«pt. 20. 1972
Businessmen say
some polluters
of lake ignored
By Bruce Ingersoll
Businessmen for the Public
Interest Tuesday asked a con-
ference of anti-pollution offi-
cials why some corporations in
the Lake Michigan basin are
treated as water polluters and
others seemingly go scot-free.
The environmental group
also submitted to the Lake
Michigan Enforcement Confer-
ence its own inventory of In-
dustrial pollution in the lake
basin.
The fourth session of the
f o u r-state conference was
opened in the Sherman House
with a federal report on how
well industries and commu-
nities are complying with
clean-up requirements.
The businessmen's group's
environmental research direc-
tor, David D. Comey, asked
why the enforcement confer-
ence hasn't put 10 power
plants and 33 industries, in-
cluding what it described as
many major dischargers, on a
timetable for pollution abate-
ttient.
Edison plants 'overlooked'
Comey said the conferees
have overbooked Common-
wealth Edison's generating sta-
tions in Waukegan and Ham-
mond as well as the Republic
Steel Corp plant and Interna-
tional Harvester's Wisconsin
Steel Works on the South Side.
The two steel mills dis-
charge into the Calumet River,
which sometimes empties into
Lake Michigan.
He also pointed out that two
new steel mills at the Indiana
lake port of Burns Harbor —
Bethlehem Steel and Midwest
Steel — do not come under the
purview of the conference.
Comey expressed dismay
that 24 dischargers in the
state of Michigan are not re-
garded as threats to the lake
either.
In explanation, James 0.
McDonald, enforcement chief
for the Midwest Region of the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), said that when
the conference was first con-
vened in 1968, each state was
asked to identify the industrial
discharges that affect the lake.
Michigan listed just five in-
dustries, compared with 38 in
Wisconsin.
Only five called harmful
Ralph Purdy, executive sec-
retary of the Michigan Water
Resources Commission, con-
tended, "Only those five dis-
charged a waste that harms
water quality so as to affect
the health arid welfare of citi-
zens in other states."
The conference's original in-
tent, he argued, was to deal
with inter-srale pollution, not
discharges lino 'ribmaries of
the !ake.
EPA officials said there is a
timetable for power companies
10 meet thermal (heat) pollu-
tion regulations, but the feder-
al policy of closed-cycle cool-
ing at new nuclear plants has
not won the support of all four
of the states bordering the
lake.
The EPA reported Tuesday
that 21 per cent of the 76 in-
dustries on clean-up schedules
are behind schedule, and that
44 per cent of the 146 munici-
palities are behind in eliminat-
ing phosphorus from their
sewage effluent.
Many of the industries
ranked by the businessmen's
group as voluminous polluters
were listed by federal officials
as being on schedule or in full
compliance. These included
the American Oil Co. plant at
Whiting, rated by the group
as the No. 1 polluter among
the petrochemical firms, and
Inland Steel at East Chicago,
described as the top-ranking
polluter among the metal re-
finers.
BPI based its inventory on
data the companies supplied
to EPA more than a year ago,
when they applied for waste
discharge permits under the
Refuse Act of 1899.
-------
CHICAGO DAILY NEWS
kCWCMO
MARSHALL HtlO, fMnk,,
JOHN G TREZEVANt
tuacut'Vt ftc» prelidtrtf
I AMES r. HOGE JR., editor
• ? OTWELL, managing tdilor
- KENNEDY, associ»l« ecfi'or
OEDMON
ntfliftr
IEO * NEWCOMU, >»n pr.
GA»f JOSEPH, rin prtl.,
ALBERT E VON ENTRESS, -It. pnl., cfftirli':.n
WALTER C tlSHOP, vie. pr.l,, An
VIBGIt ' SCHROEDER vie* prw.,
Editorial Page
Thurs., April 20, 1972
Businessmen for the Public Interest
Friday the organization formed
three years ago called Businessmen
for the Public Interest will celebrate
an anniversary luncheon at the La
Salle Hotel. A third anniversary is
usually no great occasion but the BPI
has accomplished so much in so short
a time that its luncheon rates more
than passing interest.
The BPI has served as a public
watchdog, research center, law firm
and ombudsman. It has cut a course
different from other civic watchdog
organizations — it has pursued its ob
jectives with court suits, advertising
and by furnishing legal counsel and
research to other like-minded organi-
zations such as the American Civil
Liberties Union
BPI has great interest in environ-
mental pollution bul its activities
range from attempting to change the
abortion Imvs to t;i\ reform.
from opposition to a lake airport to
police reform.
It is willing to tackle the so-called
establishment and the businessmen
who support it consider themselves as
honestablishment.
We have also been on the receiv-
ing end of BPI's criticism; it filed a
friend-of-the-court brief in support of
an appeal against the four major Chi-
cago newspapers for refusing an ad-
vertisement considered by the papers
unfair. BPI lost that case in the Su-
preme Court, but the incident increas-
es rather than decreases our respect
for the BPI, which in general has a
viewpoint like ours.
So we salute the organization, and
its two mainsprings. Alexander Poli-
koff and Marshall Patner. and wish it
a successful fund-raising lunch and
many more years ofprodcliixg the pow-
ers thai he
10
Thursday, April 20, 1972
Birthday for a gadfly
Its detractors would probably call
the Businessmen for the Public Inter-
est (BPI) the nosiest organization in
Chicago, and we. think its leaders
would accept that as a compliment.
For BPI in its short life has poked
its nose boldly and usefully into most
of the relevant and controversial is-
sues of the past three years. You
name it — lake pollution, housing dis-
crimination, human rights, the Black
Panther case, scandal in the asses-
sor's office — and BPI has been in
there swinging. It is a small organiza-
tion working on a small ($250,000 a
year) budget. Its directors are mostly
small businessmen with a keen sense
of civic right and wrong. Its spark-
plugs are lawyers who share that
sense. Its method is to add its re-
sources and ingenuity to those of other
organizations working for the same
ends. Its resources include excellent
legal research facilities, legal talent,
and a lot of enthusiasm. It has no de-
lusions of grandeur, unless Jack the
Giant Killer can be said to have had
them. It doesn't plan to grow; it just
plans to keep doing what it's doing at
its own pace.
We have not always agreed with the
BPI position. Indeed, it regards the
metropolitan press as part of the "Es-
tablishment" and went to court against
the newspapers on an issue involving
our right to accept or reject advertis-
ing (the courts upheld us).
But we are bound to respect a group
of Chicagoans who will stand up and
say, "We care enough about all these
complex human problems to do some-
thing about them."
The third anniversary will be cele-
brated with a luncheon at the LaSalle
Hotel at noon on Friday with Sen.
Charles H. Percy as speaker.
We wish Executive Director Alexan-
der Polikoff and General Counsel Mar-
shall Patner and their colleagues a
happy anniversary and a successful
future. The Establishment may not be
the unmitigated scoundrel they make
it out to be, but it sometimes gets a
mite careless in wielding its weight
and can benefit from a constructive
jab in the ribs.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
25
ids
D. Comey
MR. MAYO: Any questions, gentlemen?
MR. McDONALD: Mr. Comey, this list of Lake Michigar
major industrial dischargers contains 111?
MR. COMEY: That is correct.
MR. McDONALD: How does this list correlate with
the list of major dischargers that EPA has prepared in co-
operation with the State agencies, covering the Lake Michigan
Basin, for the record?
MR. COMEY: Well, we have looked at the EPA list,
and have weeded out a number of facilities that are on that
list, for the simple reason that they do not cover the same
ballpark as the ones we have listed here.
For example, the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad
has a facility at Green Bay that both the State of Wisconsin
and the EPA continue to list as a bad polluter. We have
looked at their Refuse Act permit application, and the only
thing that we could find of significance that they are adding
to Green Bay is 11 pounds of oil and grease a day. Now
that is probably 11 pounds too many, but it doesn't rank with
the thousands of pounds of oil and grease that come out of
the facilities, so we have not listed them. That is just
an example. There are many others.
MR. McDONALD: Are the criteria that you used in
selecting this list contained in this booklet?
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
D. Comey
MR. COMEY: No. Actually no criteria were really
necessary. When we sat down and made these calculations,
between the 111 that you have here and the rest of the close
to 700, there was almost a quantum gap there, and I would say
that if we had a cutoff point of something like BOD from food
processors, it was at 100 pounds per day, and on some of the
others — on thermal, we did not take note of anything under
half a million — or, I am sorry, 500 million B.t.u.fs per
hour. But those are the only two arbitrary points that I
can think of. The rest of them are far enough down below
these 111 that they are essentially a different category
altogether.
MR. McDONALD: Well, I can tell you that for the EP
our Refuse Act Permit Program will review this list. The
list of major dischargers that we developed in cooperation
with the States was based on our best experience and best
joint expertise, and if there are dischargers that ought to
be included that aren't included, we will assess this list
accordingly, and so notify the State agencies that are
involved in this.
Mr. Manzardo, the head of our program, is here
today, and will take the responsibility for doing whatever
should be done on this. Because that list that we did
develop in cooperation with the State agencies about a year
-------
D. Comey
ago — and, incidentally, the list has been revised several
times since then — was done as a simple matter of priority
to weed down to those more important cases out of the thousandjs
of applications we have. So we have got to handle them and
move forward. If these cases should be added to or displace
some of the cases we are working on, we will look at this
8 list accordingly.
9 MR. COMEY: Well, I would be very happy, in the
10 case of some of the dischargers that are in our list that are
11 not on yours — I would be very happy to give those to Mr.
12 Manzardo. It is about six in number.
13 MR. McDONALD: Very good.
14 Is that what it narrows down to approximately —
15 about a half a dozen?
16 MR. COMEY: That was what I counted at 3:00 o'clock
17 this morning, but I will not guarantee —
18 MR. BLASER: Mr. Comey, a minor point, but I notice
19 the captions on the pages in your major listing shift back
20 and forth and I was wondering if it was typographical error
21 or intentional. You notice the page that ends up with
22 Standard Lime, you start out with COD, BOD, and so on. The
23 next page you start out with TSS, TS, TDS, and so on, and
24 then you put plants. Is that typo or intentional?
25 MR. COMEY: No, that is intentional.
-------
138
1 D. Comey
2 For example, we rank-ordered metal mining in terms
3 of total solids; we rank-ordered paper companies in terms of
4 BOD; we rank-ordered oil refineries, first, in terms of oil
5 and grease, but then because COD gave the same rank order we
6 decided to use GOD throughout.
7 I might add that anyone who has a favorite
8 parameter that he thinks is more applicable than COD or BOD
9 is welcome to rank-order the companies using the data that
10 are set forth in our document.
11 MR. FRANCOS: Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit
12 confused on lists.
13 Mr. McDonald, you were talking about a difference
14 of 6? Which lists are we comparing?
15 MR. COMEY: No, what I am saying is that our list
16 of 111 contains roughly a half dozen dischargers which are
17 not on the EPA list that Mr. McDonald was talking about.
18 I4R. FRANGOS: Which is the RAPP* list?
19 MR. COMEY: Which is the RAPP list — right — of
20- major dischargers; not the conference list.
21 MR. McDONALD: If that doesn't thoroughly confuse
22 everybody in the audience, I don't know what will.
23 MR. FRANCOS: Well, let me, if I might, comment,
24 Mr. Comey. I commend you on the effort of your staff. It
25 is indeed a public service that you have done here in making
* Refuse Act Permit Program
-------
189
1 D. Comey
2 the kind of analyses that you have done. Certainly we don't
3 think we are perfect in the State agency, and I think you
4 are also aware of some of the limitations that we have in
5 our staffing situation.
6 I am just curious — would you, by any chance, be
7 able to come up with an estimate of how many manhours it
8 has taken you to undertake this report?
9 MR. GOMEI: Well, I am not very good at doing
10 figures in my head.
11 MR. FRANCOS: Why don't you give me something
12 tomorrow on it? I am just trying to —
13 MR. COMEY: Well, I think it took approximately
14 20 days times 14 people times 10 hours. So that would be
15 140 times 20 — that would be about 2,800 manhours.
16 MR. FRANCOS: I guess the point I am trying to
17 make: whoever does this kind of investigation, it does take
IS a lot of research; it does require time and analytical
19 capability. And I might add that I think that we have also
20 been impressed by the individual reports that you have been
21 preparing. We find them most helpful in our Department.
22 MR. COMEI: Thank you. That is what they are
23 designed for.
24 MR. MAYO: Mr. Comey, attached to your report on
25 the "Major Industrial Polluter Inventory," you have the
-------
. 190
D. Comey
additional sheet which is in the form of a recommendation to
the conferees for the inclusion of an additional number of
dischargers in the implementation schedule for the Lake
Michigan Enforcement Conference. I am interested in knowing
the extent to which the list is developed on the basis of
some judgment on a demonstrated impact on waters of Lake
8 Michigan, or was it developed on some other basis?
MR. GOMEI: Well, it includes those dischargers
10 that are in the basin. I think when you examine each of
11 these, you will find that they either go directly into the
12 lake or go into a major tributary. And I don't think any of
13 us know enough about the interrelationship between the
14 tributary rivers of Lake Michigan and the ecosystem of the
15 lake as a whole to state that a discharge well up the Grand
16 River in Michigan is going to have a negligible or infini-
17 tesimally small effect on the biota of Lake Michigan.
I think that, as we learn more about the signs of
19 ecology, the more we learn that a lot more things are connecte
20 than we ever thought, and consequently I refuse to make any
21 such distinction, and I think that anyone who does make such
22 a distinction has the burden of proof of showing that there
23 is no such effect.
24 MR. PURDY: Mr. Mayo, I would like to comment on
25 I that. I think that the fine line of distinction that you
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
23
24
191
D. Comey
proposed in your question goes somewhat beyond what you
stated, and that is that, in addition to that: How does it
relate to the injuries that were identified in Lake Michigan
in the early conference proceedings? And that if any of
these industries that are listed here in Michigan do relate
to those injuries that were identified in Lake Michign as
affecting the health and welfare of persons in a State
other than in which the discharge occurred, I agree with Mr.
Comey that they should be under the purview of this confer-
ence from the standpoint of their performance in meeting
remedial deadlines.
If they do not fall within that criteria, then I
do not feel that they belong under the purview of this con-
ference from the standpoint of meeting remedial deadlines,
but wo have made it a policy in Michigan to present this full
information to tne conferees so that they know what is going
on. From the standpoint of anything being discharged into
a tributary as having an effect upon the Lake Michigan
quality or the biota of Lake Michigan, this is true if it is
a conservative substance. If it is an oxygen-consuming sub-
stance that is satisfied within the tributary, the impact is
on the tributary and not Lake Michigan, and I think that is
a distinction that we must recognize here.
From the standpoint of the requirements now of the
-------
192
jL D. Comey
2 industries that have filed applications in the Refuse Act
3 program, we in Michigan are looking forward to identifying
4 those requirements, in accordance with the recent formal
5 agreement that we signed a week ago last Monday, in which
6 we have established a joint procedure between the State of
7 Michigan and Region ? of EPA to review the requirements that
g we have set in Michigan on industrial waste discharges, see
9 how those fit in with the requirements of the Corps permit
10 program, if a permit could be issued, and establish those
11 requirements under Michigan statutes. I think that the pro-
12 cedures that we have established will allow us to move
13 forward rapidly in this area.
14 That is all.
15 MR. MAYO: Well, to comment on at least one aspect
16 of your remarks, Mr. Purdy, you seem to feel that if, in fact,
17 we do have in this list offered by BPI dischargers whose
18 waste would, in fact, relate to water quality in Lake Michi-
19 gan, at least in keeping with the issues that have been
20 raised at other sessions of this conference —
21 MR. PURDY: Correct.
22 MR. MAYO: — that they should be added to the
23 implementation schedule.
24 MR. PURDY: No question about it.
25 MR. MAYO: All right. Now how do the other
-------
1
2
3
5
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
20
22
23
2/.
25
193
D. Comey
conferees feel about the dischargers that are identified for
the other States?
If there is general agreement on that point, then
perhaps what we are faced with is a matter of mechanics of
examining the list of dischargers and coming to some con-
elusion about their relationship to conference requirements
and the reasonableness of having those dischargers added to
the compliance schedule.
MR. McDONALD i Recognizing at the same time, if
they are not part of the conference schedule, they are
covered with what probably will be identical requirements
under the Refuse Act Permit Program or any program that re-
places it.
I think Mr. Comey probably has some reservations
about — the Refuse Act Permit Program right now is in a
difficult state, and he sees the conference as the vehicle
for doing what has to be done.
MR. MA 10: Rather than pursue that in any further
detail at this point, I would like to suggest that between
now and the executive session dealing with this portion of
the agenda, there be some discussion of the mechanics that
we might collectively agree upon between the conferees for
reviewing this list of dischargers and where appropriate
have them added to the list of the compliance schedules, and
-------
D, Comey
then address that point when we get into the executive
3 session.
4 I Is that generally agreeable?
I
5 MR. FRANCOS: I would like to ask Mr. Comey a
6 question: What were the criteria for listing at least 3
7 utilities in Wisconsin? Were we talking about thermal con-
B siderations, or were we talking about other criteria included
9 in their discharge — solids, for example, in blowdown?
10 MR. COMEY: In most of these cases, it was based
11 on the combination of chemical effluents, many of which are
12 actually added by the facility; many of them chlorinate their
13 condensers in order to keep algal growth down.
14 In some cases, you have boiler blowdown, and in some
15 cases you have a phenomenon that I suppose is a very difficult
16 one to deal with. And that is that sometimes a condenser will
17 actually, in the cooling water, add COD as a result of the
1& passage of fairly polluted water through the condenser and
19 back out.
20 In other words, if you measure the intake concent ra-;
21 tion and the outfall concentration, it will show a much higher
22 outfall concentration.
23 Now the reason I say that is difficult is: The
24 State of Illinois has been penalizing city filtration plants
25 for the backwash on their filters, and I think that the
-------
195
, D. Comey
2 corresponding situation with the powerplant is analagous
o enough that some decision is going to have to be reached on
this.
But, in the case of these plants, it was mainly
the chemical effluents which are added, plus the additional
fact that the surface water pumps and the condenser pumps
tend to kill zooplankton with quite a bit of efficiency.
a
10
11
12
15
16
17
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
They kill about 30 percent of the zooplankton in the condensei,
and the surface water pumps do 100 percent job.
Now in the case of the Pulliam plant, I am not
aware of any zooplankton there.
MR. FRANGOS: Well, okay, it was other than just
the thermal question.
MR. COMEY: Yes.
MR. MAYO: Mr. Fetterolf.
MR. FETTSROLF: Mr. Comey, I am always interested
in criteria, and you have some effluent criteria listed on
page 2.
MR. COMEY: That is correct.
MR. FETTEROLF: These didn't have anything to do
with what followed.
MR. COMEY: Only in that we did not bother to
compute any parameter on the RAPP application to give the
net concentration added by that plant, did not exceed the
-------
196
1 D. Comey
2 values that we have set forth in our internal outline.
3 MR. FETTEROLF: Well, I am just very curious about
4 one item: berylium at 1 microgram per liter, and I wondered
5 what use of water you were protecting with that limitation?
6 MR. COMEY: Berylium in water normally will never
7 get higher than that concentration. In other words, all of
8 the compounds of berylium will be below that. Berylium is
9 toxic, and consequently we pegged it at that low because if
10 berylium was showing up in the discharge then it would obviousjly
11 not be in a stable compounded form and we wanted to be alerted
12 to that.
13 This is not to say that a berylium discharge higher
14 than that might not after examination show no significant
15 damage, but we use these internal guidelines to trigger an
16 investigation to why it is above that level*
17 MR. FETTEROLF: Thank you.
IB MR. MAYO: Any other comments, gentlemen, with
19 respect to the remarks by Mr. Comey?
20 MR. McDONALD: Yes, I would like to indicate that
21 the reports that Mr. Comey's group has prepared have been used
22 by our Refuse Act Permit program. They present an unusual
23 ingredient for a regulatory agency, in that we have never
24 seen anything like this before and I doubt if there is any-
25 thing like this any other place in the country, according to
-------
197
J. Griffith
2 our other regional offices. So the reports that you do pre-
3 sent — I notice Mr. Frangos says he looks at them and he
4 considers them in his review processes and we also con-
5 sider these — are highly unusual reports and provide a
6 completely different insight, both in narrative, and some-
7 times in conclusions, and sometimes in factual situations
pertaining to a particular EAPP applicant.
9 MR. MAYO: Thank you, Mr. Comey.
10 MR. COMEY: Thank you. (Applause)
11 MR. MAYO: If Mrs.**Hall can endure it for another
12 & to 10 minutes, Illinois has two brief statements by people
13 who are here to make them personally.
14 Mr. Blaser.
15 MR. BLASER: Eileen Johnston is going to hold off
16 until tomorrow.
17 James D. Griffith, the Committee on Lake Michigan
Pollution — is he still here?
19 MR0 GRIFFITH: Still here.
20
21 STATEMENT OF JAMES D. GRIFFITH,
22 COMMITTEE ON LAKE MICHIGAN POLLUTION,
23 GLENVIEW, ILLINOIS
24
25 MR. GRIFFITH: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
-------
— 198
J. Griffith
gentlemen. Dave Comey's presentation — like many of you,
3 I am sure — leaves me with a good bit of awe — the work
|
4 and the comprehensiveness.
5 The Committee on Lake Michigan Pollution is a not-
6 for-profit corporation based in Wilmette, Illinois, and with
7 membership primarily in Chicago and 15 north and northwestern
3 suburbs. It was organized 5 years ago in response to many
9 persons' rising alarm over the deterioration of water quality
10 in Lake Michigan.
11 The first step toward your and our mutual goal of
12 saving Lake Michigan was achieved 3 years ago when public
13 awareness of the problem matured through intensive publicity.
14 The second objective, that of obtaining adequate lavjrs,
15 has also been largely achieved.
16 The attainment of the first two objectives has
17 lulled many people into complacency presuming that the third
1# objective, that of halting the degradation of Lake Michigan
19 waters, will now be achieved. The persons who benefit from
20 use of Lake Michigan and its tributaries as an open sewer,
21 having substantially lost the informational and legislative
22 battles, are now operating on a more insidious level. They
23 are making their influence felt through the White House,
24 particularly upon the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
25 It was in December of 1970 that the Nation's 1
-------
199
1 J. Griffith
2 million pleasure boats which are equipped with toilets were
3 given an additional 5 years to come into full compliance on
4 sewage standards. This step was described — before it becam
5 an actuality — by William Turney of the Michigan Water Re-
6 sources Commission as "the biggest step backward that the
7 Federal Government has ever considered taking."
In February of 1969, the Calumet Area Enforcement
9 Conference cited U.S. Steel and Republic Steel to the Depart-
10 ment of Interior for their flagrant noncompliance with the
11 December 196£ deadline set some 39 months earlier. No
12 action was taken.
13 More recently, our President, in what might be
14 termed the understatement of the year, has told a group of
15 big business leaders that the Environmental Protection Agency
was not going to put them out of business.
17 Continuing on its course, in January of this year,
the White House, through the Office of Management and Budget,
19 succeeded in denying the Environmental Protection Agency
20 $141 million to clean up the Great Lakes. To gloss over
21 this donial, the EPA request for funds was suppressed.
Our committee has a basic faith in the personnel
of the EPA, but believes that the under-the-table pressure
on this Agency and on other Federal agencies must be stopped
if the quality of water in Lake Michigan is to be improved.
-------
200
J. Griffith
We say to the White House: "Hands off!"
This conference has before it the six recommenda-
tions of the Lake Michigan Pesticides Committee. We urge
5 their adoption and, particularly, that less toxic substances
6 be substituted for methoxychlor in the treatment of Dutch
7 Elm disease.
8 For months the States have awaited Federal research
9 on the effect of thermal pollution. For months the Federal
10 Government has sat on its hands. All due haste must now be
11 used to provide the States with the tools which must be in
12 their hands to effectively regulate thermal pollution,
13 In conclusion, we urge this conference to see to
14 the rigid enforcement of strict water quality standards. We
15 urge this conference to put the burden of compliance upon
16 the polluter and not upon the public. (Applause)
17 MR. MAYO: Any comments, gentlemen?
18 Certainly I feel obliged, Mr. Griffith, to respond
19 on at least three points. With respect to the industrial
20 waste regulations that were recently adopted by EPA and pub-
21 lished in the Federal Register, it was the announced purpose
22 of those regulations to accomplish a no-discharge require-
23 ment.
24 The regulations do provide for consideration for
25 a limited number of vessels that might be able to enjoy the
-------
201
1 J. Griffith
2 longer-range use of treatment facilities in an overboard dis-
3 charge if those facilities were installed either before the
4 Coast Guard adopted their regulations or within a stated
5 period of time afterwards.
6 But it is abundantly clear that the purpose of
7 those regulations is to achieve in the long run no discharge.
8 It is also abundantly clear in those regulations that the Statles
9 in the Great Lakes Basin can, if they so desire, make applica-
10 tion to the Administrator for the application of a no-dis-
11 charge requirement for the appropriate Lake Michigan waters
12 of those States.
13 Now, although the regulation is a relatively new
14 one, to my knowledge none of the Lake Michigan States, or nono
15 of the Great Lakes States has, since the publishing of the
16 regulations, made such an application, and I am confident
17 that Administrator Ruckelshaus would seriously entertain such
IS a request if it were indeed filed. But I think that as far
19 as EPA is concerned, as far as the. Federal Government is
20 concerned, the goal is no waste discharge from vessels, and
21 that the mechanism is available for the Lake Michigan States
22 or the Great Lakes Basin States to initiate a process for
23 determining whether or not total holding tank requirement
24 is justified under the water quality standards and if it is
25 justified, the Administrator would be obliged under the
-------
202
J. Griffith
regulations to administer such requirements and amend the
3 regulations accordingly.
4 So I don't think we are faced here with any demon-
5 stration on the part of the Federal Government that it is
abandoning the "no discharge" concept for waste discharges as
7 far as the Great Lakes are concerned.
B To infer that this administration is in cahoots wit:
9 industry, to subvert meeting established water quality stan-
10 dards, I think is not justified. You need only look at the
11 list of major corporate dischargers that are the subject
12 matter of active and I think rather aggressive enforcement
13 actions on the part of EPA and the Department of Justice to
14 understand that we are not turning our backs on the tough
15 guys. In fact, the tough guys are at the top of the list,
16 and you need only make a cursory examination of that list to
17 understand how intense and, I think, how dedicated the effort
IS is.
19 So far as the comments on the administration
20 denying EPA the $141 million requested for the Great Lakes
21 program, and hushing it up — there is nothing to hush up,
22 and I am prepared to talk very frankly about it.
23 A proposal was made for a Great Lakes initiative.
24 I think a substantial amount of that information is public
25 knowledge already. Included in there was the recommendation
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
15
17
1°
20
21
203
J. Griffith
that approximately $100 million be made available for some
initial projects to control storm and combined sewer discharges
The response that we got to the recommendation was
that this is something that is a matter of current pending
legislation, and that it would be inappropriate for the
administration to attempt to make available funds for storm
and combined sewer activities when the authorization for doing
that is not included under the present Federal legislation}
and that there was pending legislation authorizing it; and
that if it was authorized, the Congress would then be making
funds available under the regular appropriation process.
So there has not been a denial of the recommenda-
tion to move in that direction. There was a rationale that
was offered ~ that I am confident was reasonable — and
that is that the issue was before the Congress, and Congress
was dealing with the matter of authorization for the expen-
diture of Federal funds for handling storm and combined sewer
problems.
I think we may be faced with part of that continu-
ing difficulty that we experience, and that is that the public
is impatient — but no more impatient, I don't think, than
we are, because we bear the responsibility for demonstrating
results. And I think we are all faced with the sense of per-
* spective that is reasonable in terms of the facts of the
-------
n 204
1 J. Griffith
2 situation that we are faced with.
3 Any comments?
4 MR. McDONALD: I would like to make a comment from
5 the enforcement side of this picture also. Where you say,
6 Mr. Griffith, on the top of page 2, that: "Our committee
7 has a basic faith in the personnel of the EPA but believes
8 that the under-the-table pressure on this Agency and on other
9 Federal agencies must be stopped if the quality of water in
10 Lake Michigan is to be improved. We say to the White House:
11 'Hands off:1"
12 I know of absolutely no pressure to do less. The
13 only pressure I get is to do more, as the chief enforcement
14 officer here in this Region; and I hear that all of the
15 while. My marching orders are to enforce, and to enforce
16 to the hilt. As far as White House pressure, congressional
17 pressure from any Washington bureaucrats are concerned, the
18 only pressure I have had is to do more. And I think this is
19 a common pressure that has been exerted throughout the Agency
20 since the Environmental Protection Agency was created in
21 December of 1970.
22 So I would like to clear that up in terms of
23 Lake Michigan, that if there is a hands-off policy, it
24 certainly has never come to my attention as Director
25 of the Enforcement Program here in Region V.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
lg
20
22
23
24
25
205
J, Griffith
MR. GRIFFITH: There have been other instances
of this do-as-little-as-possible policy coming from the
White House, such as the proposal that only $200 million
be expended for funds for local sewer projects. The thing
finally went through Congress for $800 million — which
was a couple of years ago.
In the boat discharge arena, of course the local
governments can still have something short of the 5-year
date for compliance, but the EPA and the Federal Government
should be leading the way on this, and not setting the
longest date for compliance possible.
A professor at Northwestern stated a year ago last
summer that there were only 10, possibly 15, years left —
no, he said only 10 — for Lake Michigan to survive. And
by this 5-year extension, we are cutting that possibility
right in half.
MR. MAYO: Are there any other comments, gentlemen?
MR. PURDY: I have a question of the Chairman.
At the time that the initial boat regulations —
the proposed regulations were published in the Federal
Register, Governor Millikin made his comments to the Admin-
istrator on those proposed regulations and, at the same
time, he requested that all of Michigan waters be placed
in the Mno discharge" category.
-------
206
1 J. Griffith
2 Must the Governor now readdress a letter to the
3 Administrator requesting this same consideration?
4 MR. MAYO: I think that would be appropropriate in
5 terms of the regulations as they have been promulgated rather
6 than as they were proposed.
7 MR. PURDY: I will so inform him and I am confident
8 that he will.
9 MR. MILLER: I would like to say that we are in the
10 same position, that Indiana's Governor did so indicate in
11 commenting upon the regulations, and I will so inform the
12 Governor when I return to Indianapolis.
13 MR. MAYO: Any other comments, gentlemen?
14 Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith.
1$ Mr. Blaser.
16 MR. BLASER: The last speaker we have from Illinois
17 is Mr. Paul Oppenheimer, Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Confer-
13 ence.
19 He will speak on the status of compliance for
20 approximately 3 minutes.
21 Apparently he has left.
22 That completes the Illinois public members who
23 wanted to testify this afternoon.
24 MR. FRANGOS: Mr. Mayo.
25 MR. MAYO: Mr. Frangos.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
1$
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
207
M. Dahl
MR. FRANGOS: I have a short letter that I would
like to read into the record, if I might, at this point in
time.
MR. MAYO: All right.
MR, FRANCOS: This is a letter dated September 19»
1972, to Mr. Thomas Frangos.
"At the State Division Meeting of the Izaak Walton
League, which met Saturday, September 17, 1972, Mr. Walter
Koepke of Manitowoc asked that a plea be made to the EPA to
facilitate allotment of funds for building the projected
sewerage treatment facilities in Manitowoc. We urge the EPA
to do all it can to help supply the funds for the above
project."
Signed Miriam G. Dahl, Chairman, Clean Water
Committee, Izaak Walton League of America, Wisconsin
Division.
MR. MAYOs Any comments, gentlemen?
Let's take a recess until 5:15» During that period
i would like to talk to the conferees about the amount of
time we want to spend on the remainder of today's agenda so
we can get a determination on when to lock up tonight.
(Short recess.)
MR. MAYO: Ladies and gentlemen, in the interest
of time, I would like to outline how the conferees have
-------
1 F. Mayo
2 proposed to proceed.
3 We will have the Phosphorus Technical Committee
4 report introduced with about a 5-niinute summary, and then we
5 will defer questions by the conferees with respect to the
6 Technical Committee report and move right into the statements
7 that are desired to be made by Dr. Stoermer, by Dr. G. Fred
$ Lee, and perhaps one or two other statements, and provide the
9 conferees an opportunity to have whatever dialogue is appro-
10 priate with these people this evening, and then make judgment
11 on the time, on whether or not we will try to finish up with
12 the item 3» the phosphorus issue, this evening. If it isn't
13 going to be practical to do that, we will recess probably
14 sometime around 6:30, and carry that subject over until the
15 morning, and we will propose to reopen the conference session
16 at 9s00 o'clock tomorrow morning.
17 So with that as our basic arrangement for this
1° evening, we will proceed with the introduction of the
19 Technical Committee report.
20 Mr. Bryson.
21 MR. BRYSON: The Technical Committee report will
22 be presented by Mr. Howard Zar, who is the Chairman of the
23 Phosphorus Technical Committee.
24
25
-------
209
H. Zar
2
3 STATEMENT OF HOWARD ZAR,
4 PHYSICAL SCIENTIST, ENFORCEMENT DIVISION,
5 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
6 REGION V, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
7
MR. ZAR: I am Howard Zar with the Environmental
9 Protection Agency, Region V,
10 I will read some portions of the report of the
11 Phosphorus Committee,
12 it is requested that the entire report be placed
13 in the conference record as if read in its entirety.
14 (The report referred to above follows in its
15 entirety.)
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
REPORT OF
THE PHOSPHORUS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
TO
THE LAKE MICHIGAN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
AUGUST 10, 1972
-------
INTRODUCTION
In the January, February, and March 1968 meetings of the four-state
enforcement conference on pollution of Lake Michigan, testimony and discussion
was presented in regard to the conditions of eutrophication in Lake Michigan
and the need for control of Phosphorus discharges to the lake and its trib-
utaries. These discussions resulted in a recommendation for Phosphorus
control by the conference as reflected in the Summary of Conference (First
Session) issued by the U. S. Department of the Interior on April 12, 1968.
The pertinent recommendation reads as follows:
"Waste treatment is tc be provided by all municipalities to
achieve at least 80% reduction of total Phosphorus and to
produce an effluent that will not result in degradation of
Lake Michigan's water quality. Such treatment will provide
compliance with the water quality standards for Lake Michigan
as approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the appro-
priate State water pollution control agency of Illinois3
Indiana^ Michigan or Wisconsin. This section is to be substan-
tially accomplished by December 1972. "
The conference discussed the matter of Phosphorus control again in the
February 25, 1969 session. These discussions resulted in a modification of
the 80% removal requirement. The Summary of Conference (Second Session),
issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior on July 15, 1969, reads as
follows:
"The conferees discussed modification of the recommendation
established by the first session of the conference that waste
-------
- 2 -
treatment be provided by all municipalities to achieve at
least 80% reduction of total Phosphorus. A basin-wide approach
to Phosphorus reduction was proposed, whereby the States would
determine where Phosphorus removal would be required as long
as an overall reduction of 80% from municipal and industrial
sources is obtained within the drainage basins of the respec-
tive States. To accomplish this, the States would estimate
or compute their phosphate loadings and from this develop
a program for a total Phosphorus reduction of 80%. The States
will report on their Phosphorus reduction programs at the con-
ference progress meetings to be called periodically."
The foregoing Phosphorus requirement is the one now in force, December
1972 being the date when facilities are to be on line. The status of com-
pliance report at this conference will discuss this matter in detail.
In the most recent session of this conference, questions were raised
by the conferees as to the possible need for more stringent requirements
than 80% removal. These discussions lead to the establishment of this
committee at the session of this conference on March 25, 1971, and the
following recommendation in the Summary of Conference issued by the
Administrator of EPA on May 14, 1971.
"A conmittee will be established by the Federal and State
conferees to make a determination on whether the existing
phosphate control program is effective or whether it will
need to be revised. Should revisions be determined necessary,
the committee will consider whether the existing information
-------
- 3 -
is sufficient to recommend an improved program. The recom-
mendations of the committee will be provided to the conferees
prior to the next conference session. The assembly of necessary
existing data and information on State programs for phosphate
control will be coordinated through the federal Conferee prior
to the establishment of the committee. "
The report provided for in the foregoing summary was furnished to
the States on July 14, 1971. The committee was then established and
held meetings on July 28, 1971, September 2, 1971, May 23, 1972 and
July 27, 1972. The members of the committee were:
Howard Zar
Dale S. Bryson
Carl T. Blomgren
Jacob D. Dumelle
Oral H. Hert
Francis B. Frost
John G. Robinson
Dr. John G.Konrad
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
Indiana State Board
of Health
Michigan Water Resources
Commission
Michigan Water Resources
Commission
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Chairman Beginning May 23, 1972
Chairman Until
May 23, 1972
-------
- 4 -
Other parties participating in these meetings included Will LaVeille,
Dr. Charles Powers, William Miller, Laurence Rohter and Daniel Crevensten
all of U.S. EPA, and John Carr of USBSF&W. Phillip Reed of the City of
Chicago furnished data from the Chicago South Water Plant intake.
The committee viewed its role as one of determining the level of
Phosphorus loading that should be strived for on the lake and whether the
80% removal requirement is sufficient. The committee evaluated numerous
scientific studies, testimony before public bodies, and calculations per-
formed by committee members and regulatory agency staff. Specific dis-
cussion in regard to the relationship between eutrophication levels and
Phosphorus loadings were presented to the committee by staff of the EPA
National Eutrophication Research Program in Corvallis.
-------
- 5 -
BACKGROUND
A great deal of evidence has accumulated showing that the inshore water
and the Southern Basin of Lake Michigan are presently exhibiting many recog-
nizable symptoms of eutrophication. Beeton (1965, 1969) has presented histor-
ical data showing singificant increases in total dissolved solids, chloride,
and sulfate. Organic nitrogen also increased while nitrate decreased. Silica,
a diatom nutrient, has likewise decreased, particularly in the southern part
of the lake (Powers and Ayers, 1967; Schelske and Stoermer, 1971). The
decreases in inorganic nitrogen and silica appear to be linked to increased
biological production. Robertson and Powers (1967) in comparative studies
of the Great Lakes, showed that with respect to increasing dissolved solids
content the lakes could be ranked in the order Superior, Huron, Michigan,
Erie, Ontario, and that the same order of ranking held with respect to con-
centrations of particulate and dissolved organic matter. This suggests
strongly that the increase in dissolved solids noted by Beeton is associated
with increased nutrient levels and consequent increased biological production.
Schelske and Callender (1970) compared rates of primary productivity in Lake
Superior and Michigan, and showed the average rate in Lake Michigan to be an
order of magnitude above that in Lake Superior (3.19 vs. 0.39 mgC/m3/hr).
Studies by Robertson and Alley (1966) and Alley and Powers (1970) have shown
significantly increased benthic production and have related this to acceler-
ated eutrophication, Stoermer and Yang (1970) have demonstrated changes in
diatom flora, particularly in the near-shore waters toward forms favoring
eutrophic conditions. Copeland and Ayers (1972) found high concentrations
of green and blue-green algae in the southern basin which also appear to
indicate a trend to eutrophic forms.
-------
- 6 -
Increased biological production in a lake is usually directly related
to an increase in the supply of available nutrients. Particularly, an
increase in the supply of the limiting nutrient (or nutrients) is of special
importance in stimulating productivity.
The evidence at hand indicates that Phosphorus is the nutrient most
critical in the regulation of biological production in Lake Michigan. Recent
work by Schelske and Stoermer (1971), in which Lake Michigan water was
enriched with various combinations of phosphorus, nitrogen, and silica, has
shown that, when sufficient silica is present, diatom growth is stimulated
by addition of Phosphorus. Sufficient nitrogen is naturally present so
that it generally does not become critical. Miller (1972) in a preliminary
review of Algal Assay Studies done by EPA during 1971 and 1972 at the
request of this committee confirms the fact that Phosphorus is limiting in
the lake.
The committee evaluated open lake Phosphorus data for Lake Michigan
from a wide variety of sources for the period 1962-1970. Regrettably
natural variability and inherent experimental error obscure trends in
concentration to such an extent that we are unable to say from direct
measurement whether any change in open lake Phosphorus actually has occurred.
Beeton and Edmonson (1972) confirm that "Increases in the major nutrients,
nitrogen and phosphorus are not well documented. . .because of the lack of
sufficient data for earlier years. . .". An exception is data obtained by
the City of Chicago, Department of Water at the South Water Filtration Plant
during the period 1956-1971 (see Figure I). The source of the water is pri-
marily from an intake 2 miles off-shore and at 35 foot depth but includes
some water from a shore intake, 1/3 miles off-shore and at 25 foot depth.
This data clearly shov.'s a substantial increase in Phosphorus concentration
during the period.
-------
Tributary monitoring data for Phosphorus in Lake Michigan tributaries
were used to estimate the total tributary Phosphorus loading to the lake
for water year 1969. The results are given in detail in TABLE I. During
water year 1969, 13.2 million pounds of total Phosphorus are estimated to
have entered the lake via tributaries. Water year 1969 was chosen because
of good data availability. It was a year of relatively high tributary
outflow and higher loading rates than are apparent for water year 1970, a
year of average flow. For example, the calculated value for Michigan
tributaries in 1970 water year is some 30% less than for 1969, so 10 million
pounds of Phosphorus could be a more representative figure.
It is noted that monthly water samples used to make tributary loading
estimates may not reflect sudden pulses of Phosphorus discharge due to heavy
rains or Phosphorus entering the lake on sediment moving along the bottom.
There 1s the possibility, therefore, that even the wet water year of 1969
may yield a significant underestimate. Considering possible sources of
Phosphorus 1n the basin, however, the committee considers the 13.2 million
figure to be within two to three million pounds of the probable maximum.
Using the common assumption of 10 mg/1 influent, 3.65 lbs/P/capita/
year and 120 gallons/capita/day, or actual effluent data where available,
point source discharges of Phosphorus were also estimated. These are tabu-
lated 1n TABLE II. A total of 3.9 million pounds of total Phosphorus are
estimated to be discharged directly to the lake via point sources and
a total of 9.3 million pounds via monitored tributaries.
-------
Estimates were also made of the amounts of Phosphorus entering the
lake through soil erosion using methods developed by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service and information assembled in the Great Lakes Basin
Framework Study (1972). The usual assumption of one pound of Phosphorus
per ton of sediment yields a loading of 2 million pounds per year of P
reaching Lake Michigan (45 #/square mile). There are, of course, other
non-point sources of P besides erosion. Among these are nutrient con-
tributions from decaying leaves and crop residues, and dissolved nutrients
contained in run-off water and leachate. Estimates for the total non-
point source contribution run from the 25 pounds per square mile per year
figure to some 160 pounds per square mile (7 million pounds per year,
bas1n-w1de). See the summary by Keup (1968).
A tabulation of the above loading information gives:
Direct Point Sources 3.9 million #/year
Indirect Point Sources 9.3 million #/year
Erosion and other non-
point sources 1-7 million f/year
*6eneral1zed Total to
Lake 14-20 million #/year (17.1 for 1969 water year)
*In Interpreting these values 1t should be noted that not all Phosphorus
reaching tributaries may be reaching the lake and not all the Phosphorus
reaching the lake may be useful as nutrients. The conservative assumption,
used 1n the above tabulation and this report is that any and all Phosphorus
reaching the tributaries is considered available. It should also be kept in
nrind that sewage treatment plant phosphorus can be 80% to perhaps 95% controll-
able, non-point source discharge is perhaps 50% controllable. Approximately 5%
of the total Phosphorus from municipal sources (before treatment)is discharged
through combined sewer overflow.
-------
-9-
In consideration of these estimates of Phosphorus loading, the
.committee attempted to see whether existing literature provided a sound
technical basis for determining a "safe" loading level. One possible
method, used in the Canadian-United States discussions on Lakes Erie
and Ontario, was developed by Vollenweider (1968) in a study of European
and North American lakes. Vollenweider was able to empirically relate
loading rates and ambient lake concentrations of Phosphorus to degree
of eutrophication. Since Vollenweider's work is based on empirical rather
than theoretical relationships, it provides a basis for comparison which
1s free from assumptions.
One of Vollenweider's criteria is the classification of lakes as to
their trophic state on the basis of their average depth and the average
phosphorus loading rate to them on a weight/unit surface area basis. Using
the calculated loading rates for Lake Michigan, Vollenweider's method
yields the conclusion that Lake Michigan is oligotrophic, that is, in
general good health, a conclusion which is correct for the open waters of
the lake, but certainly not representative of the in-shore waters.
(see Figure II)
The committee agreed that the Vollenweider method might more properly
represent the shore zone if a hypothetical lake having the average depth
and surface area of the 10 kilometer wide coastal strip were used. A
calculation done on this basis indicates eutrophic conditions at 1969
loadings 1n the coastal strip and mesotrophic conditions at 1910 levels. This
-------
-10-
technique may be subject to some question, however, when applied to the
coastal waters of Lake Michigan.
The Vollenweider (1968) report also discusses a critical concentration
of .01 dissolved Phosphorus above which nuisance bloom conditions are likely
to appear. The committee reviewed Phosphorus data from a variety of sources
and decided that the equivalent critical concentration in terms of total
Phosphorus would be in the range of .02-.03 mg/1. The committee attempted
several simple lake-wide Phosphorus concentration models in order to evaluate
the .02 value but the models were not considered adequate for the purpose.
The committee is aware that areas near sewage plant and tributary discharges
exceed the .02 value and that Phosphorus reduction programs are in one sense
aimed at reducing the size of these areas. To provide an example, data
for thermal plume behavior, Asbury and Frigo (1971), were used to provide
a rough estimate of the size of these zones. Considering tributary input
alone, the size of the area above «02 mg/1 total Phosphorus around tributary
mouths 1s calculated to be on the order of 45 square miles for water year
1969. If one reduces the tributary input by two-thirds, the area above .02 mg/1
1s calculated to be only about 15 square miles, a significant reduction.
It should be pointed out that these calculated areas are rough indicators,
the model being expected to underestimate Phosphorus plume sizes. 1962-1963
data from the U.S. Department of the Interior (1968) indicates that soluble
Phosphorus concentrations exceeded .01 mg/1 in a substantial portion of the
Inshore area. In Green Bay, recent data by Sager (1972) indicates the entire
head of the bay as now being above the .02 total Phosphorus level. In the
Southern end of Lake Michigan, data already cited from the Chicago water intake
and available from the sampling programs of various regulatory agencies indicates
that much of the shore zone now exceeds the .02 level.
-------
-11-
Pj scuss1on and Conclus i ons
The committee in its review of information regarding the eutrophication
of Lake Michigan has concluded that Phosphorus is a serious pollutant in the
lake and is the major limiting nutrient as far as eutrophication is concerned.
As the committee has been unable to establish any Phosphorus loading level
which it can be sure is safe, it has concluded that the appropriate course
to take on Lake Michigan is to reduce Phosphorus loading to the lowest
practical level.
MunicijgaJ and Industrial Treatment
In consideration of the fact that a sewage treatment plant Phosphorus
control program is moving forward, the most appropriate course seems to be to
push the particular technology now in use in the basin to its practical limit.
The committee recommends a maximum concentration limit for municipal and indus-
trial effluents of 1.0 mg/1 total P (for 24-hour composite samples). This is
the same recommendation agreed to by the United States and Canada in the recent
Great Lakes Agreement for Lakes Erie and Ontario. The proposed 1 mg/1 limit is
more restrictive than the present 80% basin-wide requirement and achieves the
reduction to 1910 levels and 2/3 reduction in tributary loadings used in the
foregoing calculations.
A properly designed treatment facility can normally achieve the 1 mg/1
total Phosphorus effluent standard. In the case of the facility already
achieving better than 80% removal, the additional costs will depend on the
particulars of plant design but can mainly be attributed to higher chemical
and sludge disposal costs. In general, the additional cost is expected to
be small compared to the cost of Phosphorus treatment requirement by the
present regulation and represents an increase of less than $10/million gallons.
(10/thousand gallons)
-------
-12-
The committee's proposal for a 1 mg/1 total Phosphorus effluent standard
on both municipal and industrial treatment plants should be implemented to
supplement the 80% basin-wide restriction adapted by the Conference in 1969
and should be effective in December 1972. It is recognized that small
municipal facilities will have special difficulty with this regulation. It
is therefore recommended that facilities of less than 2000-2500 PE be exempt
from the requirement. Communities below 10,000 PE and without analytical
equipment for total Phosphorus analysis would be permitted to apply a 1.0 mg/1
dissolved inorganic P requirement,(providing that suspended solids are less
than 25 mg/1) until such time as the equipment is available. It is also
recognized that some plants, such as Milwaukee, will be able to do better
than the 1 mg/1 limit. These plants should be required to operate at the
lowest practicable level. All the above requirements should be applied on
the basis of a 24-hour composite sample. Each plant should be required to
perform Phosphorus analysis on 24-hour composite samples at least twice
monthly.
Green Bay
Degraded water quality conditions in Green Bay are quite evident and
deserve special comment. These conditions are due to a combination of
Industrial and municipal wastes along with a relatively high degree of
natural productivity. The committee believes that the 1 mg/1 effluent
standard applied to municipalities and industries within the Green Bay
drainage basin should be sufficient to decrease the rate of degradation due
to these nutrient inputs. The program should be coupled with adequate
municipal and industrial waste treatment and non-point source controls to
promote improved water quality in Green Bay. The above recommendations
apply until more is known about the cause of the taste and odor problems now
associated with Green Bay, at which point additional corrective measures may
be warranted.
-------
- 13 -
Southern Shore
As previously noted, degraded water quality conditions also exist in the
Southern end of Lake Michigan. The committee believes that the 1 mg/1
effluent standard coupled with cotnolete removal from the basin of Illinois North
Shore discharges in 1974 should be sufficient to decrease the rate of degradation
due to point source nutrient inputs. The success of this program depends
very strongly on broad scale improvement in this area of municipal and
industrial treatment including combined sewer overflow controls. In
view of the proximity of the Southern shore to population centers and
the high level of use for water supply and recreation, it is essential
that the progress of the above programs and water quality be closely
monitored in order to determine whether additional corrective measures
are necessary.
Non-Point Sources
The committee considers sediment to be a serious pollutant. Millions
of dollars per year are spent dredging harbors to maintain navigability.
When the effects of adsorbed phosphorus and pesticides are considered,
the value of reducing erosion and sedimentation becomes more apparent.
In keeping with recognized good land use and farming practices
based on soil and water conservation, the committee believes that erosion
should be prevented at the source. Techniques are widely known for
minimizing erosion and should be implemented with greatly increased
emphasis. This will require the combined efforts of a variety of com-
ponent agencies of the Department of Agriculture as well as Federal,
State, and County highway commissions, and by restrictions from local
authorities on the activities of land developers.
-------
-14-
Present erosion rates in the Basin are estimated at 75 to 80% of
those that would exist if there were no conservation erosion control
measures installed. A complete program, using conventional cotations
and supporting practices would further reduce erosion rates a factor of
two to three. The annual cost to install and maintain a conservation
erosion control program to maintain long-time sustained productivity
is nearly 10 million dollars. A massive program to cover crops would cost
considerably more. The above estimates are from LaVeille (1972).
Part of the problem with the limited success of agricultural programs
in the past is due to the strictly voluntary nature of the farmer's
involvement in conservation practices. There is a great need to blend
voluntary programs with regulatory actions. An example of this can be
found in Public Law 566, "Small Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act of 1954" by which the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was authorized
to promote much needed upstream watershed conservation measures. Sub-
sequent amendments have broadened the original intent of the law to the
point where emphasis is on dams, drainage, and channelization rather than
on upstream soil conservation practices.
Although there is a legal requirement in P.L. 566 that upland water-
shed conservation measures must be applied on 75% of the watershed, these
only need to be planned (not installed)before the Federal funds are
allocated. The Federal Government does not use leverage which is inherently
present under the lav; to require full watershed conservation treatment on
-------
-15-
private land. Partly as a result, upland watershed soil conservation
measures are usually far from complete by the time the construction has
begun; there is little apparent follow-up and no monitoring system for
requiring full application and continued maintenance of such measures.
It is the committee's opinion that in addition to working out
agreements between Federal and State agencies, there is a need for Federal
and State action to change the emphasis of programs such as P.L. 566, Soil
Bank, Crop Subsidies, etc. to require compulsory implementation of
conservation measures by landowners.
Combined Sewer Overflow
No specific estimate of the Phosphorus loading from Combined Sewer
Overflows to the basin has been made by the committee. A rule of thumb
would place Phosphorus contained in overflows at 5% of that actually
reaching the sewage treatment plant. On this basis overflows would
contribute about half of sewage treatment plant Phosphorus output
following treatment to the 1 mg/1 level. If this estimate 1s at all
reasonable, combined sewer overflow control is extremely Important to
the Phosphorus Issue and needs greater attention than it has received
to date. The committee recommends that a combined sewer overflow program
be Implemented at the earliest possible date.
-------
- 16 -
Research
The committee considers the immediate research needs concerning
nutrients in the drainage basin to be: (1) Refine the relationship
between land use and nutrient loading. (2) Document baseline levels
and nutrient content with special emphasis in the South Shore and Green
Bay areas. (3) Prepare a model to evaluate and predict the effect(s)
of point and non-point nutrient inflow upon biomass production and
nutrient distribution in Lake Michigan. (4) Continue laboratory and field
bioassay studies to identify other limiting nutrients and to determine the
availability of nutrients contained in tributary inflow for support of
algal growth in Lake Michigan waters.
-------
-17-
SUMHARY
In summary, the committee has concluded that:
1. The discharge of Phosphorus at present levels has an adverse
effect. Loadings of Phosphorus to the lake should be decreased
to the lowest level consistent with engineering feasibility and
economic reasonableness.
2. A maximum concentration limit for municipal and industrial
effluents of 1 mg/1 total P (for 24-hour composite samples) for
facilities loaded to more than 2000-2500 PE would be a
technically feasible and economically reasonable requirement.
3. The control program for combined sewer overflow should be
accelerated.
4. Effective soil conservation techniques should be utilized in
order to reduce the amounts of Phosphorus reaching the lake from
non-point sources.
5. EPA should remove barriers which impede Federal funding for
projects such as those referred to in items 2,3 and 4 above.
6. Additional research into the basic relationship between
nutrient inputs and eutrophication in Lake Michigan should be
conducted 1n order to provide a basis for controls beyond those
Indicated above.
7. Monitoring on an increased scale should be performed for those
factors which measure the trophic status of Lake Michigan.
-------
TABLE I
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING TO LAKE MICHIGAN
Tributary Contribution
Tributary
Root
Mi Iwaukee
Sheboygan
Manitowoc
West Twin
East Twin
Kewaunee
Fox
Pensaukee
Oconto
.Peshtigo
Menomi nee
Big Cedar
Ford
Escanaba
Whitefish
Mam's tique
Boardman
Pine (Charlevoix)
Man is tee
Pere Marquette
Pentwater
White
Muskegon
Grand
Black (Holland)
Ka lama zoo
Black (S. Haven)
St. Joseph
Burns Ditch
Ind. Harbor
Total
Drainage
Area
sq. mi.
196
845
440
442
166
140
146
6,443
160
933
1,155
4,150
387
468
920
315
1,450
347
370
2,010
772
172
480
2,780
5,534
176
2,069
83
4,311
330
Average
Discharge
cfs
184
470
232
195
85
71
80
6,130
144
825
1,010
3,427
309
435
1,104
386
2,327
331
396
2,418
846
182
496
2,990
4,431
133
2,535
359
5,635
327
2,700
Tributary
Phosphorus
Discharge
To Lake
1000#/yr.
191
379
168
142
36
30
40
2,654
25
162
99
809
30
25
108
30
274
123
31
238
166
21
48
529
2,180
44
648
84
2,107
199
850*
38,190
41,193
12,470
Untnonitored tributary non-point source contribution is taken to be 725,000
pounds per year (100 pounds of Phosphorus per square mile).
Total contribution from tributaries is thus estimated at 13.2 million pounds
*Indiana Harbor figure may include Phosphorus originally taken from lake by
industrial cooling water use.
-------
TABLE II
State
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD TO LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN FROM POINT SOURCES*
(1969 Water Year)
Direct
Point Source
(103 Ibs/year)
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
Total
1,032
— _-
285
2,545
3,862
Via
Monitored Tributaries
(103 Ibs/year.)
Via
Unmonitored Tributaries
(103 Ibs/year)
1,655
6,063
1,600
9,313
62
0
23
85
Total
(103 Ibs/year)
1,032
1,717
6,348
4,168
13,265
*Municipal and industrial discharges only
-------
0.05
0.04
=* 0.03
0.02
0.01
Total Phosphorus Concentration
Chicago South Water Filtration Plant
1956 -1171
Least squares line
Dote: Prior to 1966, data points
represent single samples
analyzed once every 3 to
4 months. After 1966, the
points are quarterly av-
erages of daily samples.
I
1
I
1
0
3-18-56
1000
12-13-58
2000
9-8-61
3000
6-4-64
4000
3-1-67
5000
11-25-69
6000
9-1-71
Day
Figure I
-------
CM
10.0
5.0
M - lake Michigan (entire lake] ( (without phospi,orus Controls]
Me - Lake Michigan (10 - Km coastal zone] )
E - Lake Erie
Ont - Lake Ontario
1.0
tan
••5 0.5
CO
0.1
Mc20DD
Mc1980
Mc1969
M2D2B
M2DOD
M1980
M1969
5 10 50 100
Mean Depth [M]
State of Eutrophication for Three Great Lakes
(after Yollenweider]
Fig. II
Eutrophic
Mesotrophic
Oligotrophic
t
500
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Alley, W. P., and C. F. Powers. 1970. Dry weight of the macrobenthos as
an indicator of eutrophication of the Great Lakes. Proc. 13th Conf.
on Great Lakes Res., Part II.
Asbury, J. G., and Frigo, A. A. 1971. A phenomenological relationship
for predicting the surface areas of thermal plumes in lakes. Argonne
National Laboratory. ANL/ES-5.
Beeton, A. M. 1965. Eutrophication of the St. Lawrence Great Lakes.
Limnology and Oceanography, 10:240-254.
Beeton, A. M. 1969. Changes in the environment and biota of the Great
Lakes. In Eutrophication: causes, consequences, corrections.
NationalTcademy of Sciences, Washington, D. C.
Beeton, A. M., and Edmonson. 1972. The Eutrophication Problem. Journal
of the Fisheries Research Bd. of Canada. June 1972.
Copeland, R. A., and Ayers, J. C. 1972. Trace Element Distributions in
Water, Sediment, Phytoplankton and Benthos of Lake Michigan. E. R. G.
Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Great Lakes Basin Framework Study. 1971. Appendix 18, Erosion and
Sedimentation. Great Lakes Basin Commission.
Keup, L. A. 1968. Phosphorus in Flowing Waters. Water Research II: 373-386.
La Vellle, W. C. 1972. Discussion before Phosphorus Committee, July 27, 1972.
Powers, C. F., and J. C. Ayers. 1967. Water quality and eutrophication
trends 1n southern Lake Michigan. In: Studies on the environment and
eutrophication of Lake Michigan. U. of Mich. Great Lakes Res. Div.
Spec. Rpt No. 30.
Robertson, A. R., and W. P. Alley. 1966. A comparative study of Lake
Michigan macrobenthos. Limnology and Oceanography, 11:576-583.
Robertson, A. R., and C. F. Powers. 1967. Comparison of the distribution
of organic matter in the five Great Lakes. Ini Studies on the
environment and eutrophication of Lake Michigan. U. of Mich. Great
Lakes Res. Div. Spec. Rpt No. 30.
Sager, P. E., and Wiersma, J. H. 1972. Nutrient Discharges to Green
Bay, Lake Michigan from the Lower Fox River. Proc. 15th Conf. on
Great Lakes Research.
-------
Schelske, C. L., and E. Callender. 1970. Survey of Phytoplankton pro-
ductivity and nutrients in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. Proc.
13th Conf. on Great Lakes Res., Part I.
Schelske, C. L., and E. F. Stoermer. 1971. Eutrophication, silica
depletion, and predicted changes in algal quality on Lake.Michigan
Science 173:423-424, July 30, 1971.
Stoermer, E. F., and J. J. Yang. 1970. Distribution and relative abun-
dance of dominant plankton diatoms in Lake Michigan. U. of Mich.
Great Lakes Res. Div. Pub No. 16.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1968. Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication
of lakes -and flowing waters, with particular reference to nitrogen
and phosphorus as factors in eutrophication. Report to the Organi-
zation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for
Scientific Affairs.
U. S. Dept. of the Interior. 1968. Physical and Chemical Quality
Conditions - Lake Michigan Basin.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
210
H. Zar
In the most recent session of this conference,
questions were raised by the conferees as to the possible
need for more stringent requirements than the present 30
percent removal requirement. These discussions led to the
establishment of this committee.
The members of the committee were myself; Dale
Bryson of EPA; Carl Blomgren, and Jake Dumelle of Illinois;
Oral Hert of Indiana; John Robinson from Michigan; Francis
Frost from Michigan; and John Konrad from Wisconsin.
The committee viewed its role as one of determining
the level of phosphorus loading that should be strived for
on the lake and whether the $0 percent removal requirement
is sufficient. The committee evaluated numerous scientific
studies, testimony before public bodies, and calculations
performed by committee members and regulatory agency staff.
Specific discussion in regard to the relationship between
eutrophication levels and phosphorus loadings were presented
to the committee by staff of the EPA National Eutrophication
Research Program in Corvallis.
Now, in view of the time, I will skip the back-
ground discussion in my oral remarks.
The committee in its review of information regard-
ing the eutrophication of Lake Michigan has concluded that
phosphorus is a serious pollutant in the lake and is the
-------
211
1 H. Zar
2 major limiting nutrient as far as eutrophication is con-
3 cerned. As the committee has been unable to establish any
4 phosphorus loading level which it can be sure is safe, it
5 has concluded that the appropriate course to take on Lake
6 Michigan is to reduce phosphorus loading to the lowest prac-
7 tical level.
8 In consideration of the fact that a sewage treat-
9 ment plant phosphorus control program is moving forward,
10 the most appropriate course seems to be to push the par-
11 ticular technology now in use in the basin to its practical
12 limit. The committee recommends a maximum concentration
13 limit for municipal and industrial effluents of 1.0 mg/1
14 total phosphorus (for 24-hour composite samples). This is
15 the same recommendation agreed to by the United States and
16 Canada in the recent Great Lakes Agreement for Lakes Erie
17 and Ontario. The proposed 1 mg/1 limit is more restrictive
13 than the present &0 percent ^basin-wide requirement.
19 A properly designed treatment facility can
20 normally achieve the 1 mg/1 total phosphorus effluent
21 standard. In the case of the facility already achieving
22 better than #0 percent removal, the additional costs will
23 depend on the particulars of plant design but can mainly
24 be attributed to higher chemical and sludge disposal costs.
25 in general, the additional cost is expected to be small
-------
212
1 H. Zar
2 compared to the cost of phosphorus treatment requirement
3 by the present regulation and represents an increase of
4 less than $10/million gallons.
5 The committee's proposal for a 1 mg/1 total phos-
6 phorus effluent standard on both municipal and industrial
7 treatment plants should be implemented to supplement the $0
g percent basinwide restriction adopted by the conference in
9 1969 and should be effective in December 1972. It is recog-
10 nized that small municipal facilities will have special
11 difficulty with this regulation. It is therefore recommended
12 that facilities of Isss than 2,000-2,500 PE be exempt from
13 the requirement. Communities below 10,000 PE and without
14 analytical equipment for total phosphorus analysis would be
15 permitted to apply a 1.0 mg/1 dissolved inorganic phosphorus
16 requirement until such time as the equipment is available.
17 It is also recognized that some plants, such as Milwaukee,
13 will be able to do better than the 1 mg/1 limit. These
19 plants should be required to operate at the lowest practi-
20 l cable level. All the above requirements should be applied
21 on the basis of a 24-hour composite sample. Each plant
i
22 should be required to perform phosphorus analysis on
23 24-hour composite samples at least twice monthly.
24 With respect to Green Bay, degraded water quality
25 conditions in Green Bay are quite evident and deserve
-------
213
1 H. Zar
2 special comment. These conditions are due to a combination
3 of industrial and municipal wastes along with a relatively
4 high degree of natural productivity. The committee believes
5 that the 1 mg/1 effluent standard applied to municipalities
6 and industries within the Green Bay drainage basin should
7 be sufficient to decrease the rate of degradation due to
$ these nutrient inputs. The program should be coupled with
9 adequate municipal and industrial waste treatment and non-
10 point source controls to promote improved water quality in
11 Green Bay. The above recommendations apply until more is
12 known about the cause of the taste and odor problems now
13 associated with Green Bay, at which point additional eor-
14 rective measures may be warranted.
15 As noted in the body of the report, degraded water
16 quality conditions also exist in the southern end of Lake
17 Michigan. The committee believes that the 1 mg/1 effluent
IB standard coupled with complete removal from the basin of
19 Illinois North Shore discharges in 1974 should be sufficient
20 to decrease the rate of degradation due to point source
21 nutrient inputs. The success of this program depends very
22 strongly on broad-scale improvement in this area of munici-
23 pal and industrial treatment, including combined sewer
24 overflow controls. In view of the proximity of the southern
25 shore to population centers and the high level of use for
-------
; 214
1 H. Zar
2 water supply and recreation, it is essential that the
o progress of the above programs and water quality be closely
L monitored in order to determine whether additional corrective
measures are necessary.
With respect to non-point sources, the committee
considers sediment to be a serious pollutant. Millions of
dollars per year are spent dredging harbors to maintain
navigability. When the effects of adsorbed phosphorus and
pesticides are considered, the value of reducing erosion and
11 sedimentation becomes more apparent.
*n keeping with recognized good land use and
13 farming practices based on soil and water conservation,
the committee believes that erosion should be prevented at
15 the source. Techniques are widely known for minimizing
l£ erosion and should be implemented with greatly increased
17 emphasis* This will require the combined efforts of a
variety of component agencies of the Department of Agricul-
19 ture as well as Federal, State, and county highway commis-
20 sions, and by restrictions from local authorities on the
2i activities of land developers.
22 It is the committee's opinion that in addition
23 to working out agreements between Federal and State agen-
24 cies, there is a need for Federal and State action to change
25 the emphasis of programs such as Public Law 566, Soil
-------
215
1 H. Zar
2 Bank, crop subsidies, etc., to require compulsory implemen-
3 tation of conservation measures by landowners.
4 With respect to combined sewer overflow, no
5 specific estimate of phosphorus loading from combined sewer
6 overflows to the basin has been made by the committee. A
7 rule of thumb would place phosphorus contained in overflows
g at 5 percent of that actually reaching the sewage treatment
9 plant. On this basis, overflows would contribute about half
10 of sewage treatment plant phosphorus output following
11 treatment to the 1 mg/1 level. If this estimate is at all
12 reasonable, combined sewer overflow control is extremely
13 important to the phosphorus issue and needs greater atten-
14 tion than it has received to date. The committee recommends
15 that a combined sewer overflow program be implemented at
16 the earliest possible date.
17 In summary, the committee has concluded that:
18 1. The discharge of phosphorus to the lake should
19 be decreased to the lowest level consistent with engineering
20 feasibility and economic reasonableness.
21 2. A maximum concentration limit for municipal
22, and industrial effluents of 1 mg/1 total P (for 24-hour
23 composite samples) for facilities loaded to more than
24 2,000-2,500 PE would be a technically feasible and econom-
25 ically reasonable requirement.
-------
• • 216
1 H. Zar
2 3. The control program for combined sewer over-
3 flow should be accelerated.
4 4. Effective soil conservation techniques should
5 be utilized in order to reduce the amounts of phosphorus
6 reaching the lake from non-point sources.
7 5. EPA should remove barriers which impede Federal
g funding for projects such as those referred to in items 2,
9 3 and 4 above.
10 6. Additional research into the basic relation-
11 ship between nutrient inputs and eutrophication in Lake
12 Michigan should be conducted in order to provide a basis
13 for controls beyond those indicated above.
14 7. Monitoring on an increased scale should be
15 performed for those factors which measure the trophic status
16 of Lake Michigan.
17 MR. MAYO: Thank you.
l£ Mr. Zar will be available either later this even-
19 ing or tomorrow morning to respond to questions dealing with
20 the Technical Committee report, and there are other committee
21 members here as well who can participate in that response.
22 In order to move on with presentations by those
23 private parties who have some substantive comments on the
24 phosphorus issue, we would like to start with the comments
25 by Dr. E. F. Stoermer of the Great Lakes Research Division,
-------
217
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 University of Michigan.
3 Dr. Stoermer.
4
5 STATEMENT OF DR. E. F. STOERMER,
6 GREAT LAKES RESEARCH DIVISION,
7 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN,
a ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
9
10 DR. STOERMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
11 try to be as brief as possible.
12 MR. MAYO: Would you speak directly into the
13 microphone, Dr. Stoermer? There may be some difficulty
14 hearing in the back of the room.
15 DR. STOERMER: Can you pick me up now? Can you
16 hear that in the back of the room?
17 ... Cries of "No." ...
IB DR. STOERMER! Let me hold the mike. Is that
19 better?
20 ... Cries of "Yes." ...
21 DR. STOERMER: Okay. Thank you.
22 I have been asked by numerous parties to present
23 some of the information we have on the Southern Basin of
24 Lake Michigan over the past couple of years.
25 Recognizing the fact that very many factors
-------
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 impinge on this ecosystem, certainly, beyond any question,
3 one of the most important of these is phosphorus. If we
4 may go t.o the first slide, please, may we turn off the
5 lights?
6 I regret to say that I don't have a prepared
7 statement; however, we will try to operate under the assump-
8 tion that a few pictures are worth a few thousand words,
9 In order to present —
10 MR. MAIO: Excuse me, Dr. Stoermer.
11 Will copies of these slides be available for
12 introduction into the record?
13 DR. STOERMER: This particular part of this state-
14 ment is public record now. Some of the material I will show
15 later on is only now in preliminary form and it has not been
16 published.
17 We would probably make this available if we can
IS find funds.
19 MR. MAIO: You can make it available if what?
20 DR. STOERMER: If we can find funds to do it.
21 MR. MAYO: As far as reproduction is concerned?
22 DR. STOERMER: Right.
23 MR. MAIO: We will help you take care of that.
24 DR. STOERMER: Okay.
25 In order to place this in perspective, this is
-------
219
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 data from 10 years ago, 1962, at four stations off Chicago
3 which I will locate for you with a little more precision
4 later.
5 ... Slide Mo. 1 •••
6 The thing I want to point out here: These letters
7 refer to some of the major dominant groups of algae found in
8 Lake Michigan. "D" refers to diatoms and "B" refers to blue-
9 green algae. We will be talking about this a little bit
10 later. This is a picture we got in 1962; all stations, all
11 depths, dominance of diatoms, and a relatively low abundance
12 of blue-green algae.
13 May we go on to the next one, please?
14 ... Slide No. 2 ...
15 And this is just the same sort of data from later
16 on in the fall.
17 May I have the next one, please?
18 ... Slide NQ. 3 ...
19 Subsequent to the time this data was developed,
20 Charlie Powers and John Ayers inspected some of the available
21 records from municipal intakes around the southern basin of
22 the lake. Particularly at Chicago, there is a fairly inter-
23 esting trend in the diminution of silica. If this trend line
24 is extended, this goes to zero sometime in the 1970's. This
25 is obvious nonsense because a large portion of the silica
-------
220
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 is below the thermocline and not accessible to algal growth,
3 if this is productivity-related as we believe it is. So
obviously this would level at some time*
The real question iss Since the dominant group
that was present in 1962, and as far as we know has always
7 been present, has an absolute requirement for silica, and
3 since none of the other groups do, there would be a major
changeover in the algal flora of Lake Michigan.
10 ••• Slide No. 4 •••
11 In another project approximately the same time,
12 w® assessed the species composition of diatoms around Lake
Michigan. One of the things we found out is a number of
the species which had been introduced into the lower Great
15 Lakes — particularly Lake Erie and Lake Ontario — have,
within the past 30 years, been introduced into Lake Michigan,
At the present time their distribution is largely restricted
to nearshore areas, particularly those in the vicinity of
polluted harbors.
20 If you can read the figures, you can see that some
of these started as early as 193#, and more recent arrivals
22 have come around 1964. Probably the end member of this
sequence, as far as Lake Erie is concerned, arrived sometime
around 1967. So we are quite interested in this particular
phenomenon.
-------
221
1 E. F, Stoermer
2 ... Slide No. 5 •••
3 Pursuing the silica question, a group of us at
4 Michigan — particularly Dr. Claire Schelske and myself —
5 performed a number of experiments in the lake using large
6 enclosures. Plotted here on the log scale is abundance of
7 algal cells, following various treatments as given: control;
8 treatment with silica; treatment with nitrogen and phosphorus
9 and treatment with nitrogen, phosphorus and silica.
10 As you can see, nitrogen and phosphorus produced
11 a fairly small effect without the addition of silica.
12 The conclusion from this briefly stated —
13 ... Slide N«. 6 •••
14 — is that phosphorus is the controlling element
1$ so far as productivity is concerned in Lake Michigan, and
16 that an abundance of phosphorus can cause silica depletion
17 to the point that it is limiting to the growth of the tra-
1# ditionally dominant element of the flora diatoms.
19 This shows that by addition of enough phosphorus
20 We can drive silica to the levels in the lake water at that
21 time to about one-tenth of a part per million, which is
22 apparently limiting to the growth of diatoms.
23 ... Slide N®. 7 ...
24 But this is a plot of data from 1971. We set out
25 a series of stations — 41 — in the southern basin on Lake
-------
222
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 Michigan, and these are arranged in geometric progression of
3 distances from shore on three lines: one from just south of
4 South Haven, Michigan to Waukegan, Illinois; one from just
5 slightly south of Benton Harbor to the vicinity of Montrose
6 Harbor; and one from the vicinity of Burns Ditch up in the
7 axis of the lake* We are particularly interested in the near-
shore phenomenon and for this reason we intensified this
9 study nearshore*
10 The parameters plotted in this particular presenta-
11 tion are chlorophyll in the surface layers, which is an esti-
12 mate of gross algal standing crop, and the concentration of
13 silica in the water. This is in early April 1971. You can
see that by far the highest standing crop is in the nearshore
15 areas, particularly in the southeastern quadrant, and in the
16 area where there is high productivity, silica is definitely
depleted*
••• Slide No. d ...
In May this trend continues. Bloom phenomena
20 moves up the lake. The silica begins to be knocked down
substantially, particularly on the Michigan shore.
»
22 I don't know how clear the absolute concentration
23 is on this but you can see indicated 15 mg. of chlorophyll
24 per cubic meter and 2 ppm of silica.
... Slide No. 9 ...
-------
223
1
2
3
4
5
7
g
9
10
11
12
14
20
22
24
25
E. F, Stoermer
June, the initiation of stratification — you can
see by this time that the silica levels are reduced in the
southern part of the lake, particularly in the nearshore
waters. However, at this time, the chlorophyll concentra-
tions, indicating the algal standing crop, are also substan-
tially reduced.
... Slide No. 10 ...
The same trend, with the exception of certain of
the nearshore stations, which are subject to shore loads,
particularly in the area of Benton Harbor and the area of
Waukegan, standing crops remain relatively low. There is
a continuing diminution of silica.
... Slide No. 11 ...
In August, with the exception of one questionable
station on the right ~ this is probably due to an upwelling
— you can see by late August that the silica levels are
driven down to the order of less than 0.2 ppm and standing
crop chlorophylls remain quite low.
... Slide No. 12 ...
Into September, there is some slight increase in
standing crop; silica level was again quite low except in the
waters immediately adjacent to shore where shoreline input
or probably, to a certain extent, direct dissolution of
silica from the sandy shores continuesto replenish the supply.
-------
^^_____ 224
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 ... Slide No. 13 •••
3 Early October, the beginning of the downward mixing
4 of the thermocline, you can see it further increased the
5 standing crop, and the beginning of some recovery in the
6 silica levels again particularly in the area near shore,
7 ... Slide No. 14 ...
8 And the same trend continues into late October.
9 ... Slide No. 15 ...
10 The interesting part of this to us is the following!
11 This is the same type of data shown in a slightly different
12 way. The parameters plotted here are cell counts of phyto-
13 plankton algae, and the red line is the percentage of those
14 counts which are blue-green algae.
15 So early in the spring again we have high levels
16 of standing crop and essentially no blue-green algae.
17 ... Slide No. l6 ...
13 One of the things we are investigating is the dis-
19 tribution and the occurrence of these particular diatom
20 species that have been introduced to the lake. This is
21 stephanodiscus tenuis, one of the species which has become
22 dominant in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. You notice that it
23 accounts for practically 50 percent of the total population
2/f of the area of Benton Harbor. Out into the lake it is not
25 abundant enough to be easily picked up in our population
-------
225
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 estimates.
3 ... Slide No. 17 ...
4 Okay. On into May, again, high standing crops in
5 the nearshore waters, with this exception of the southeastern
6 quadrant where we had the high standing crops in April and,
7 again, practically no blue-greens.
8 ... Slide No. IS ...
9 Into June, standing crops tend to level off. I
10 will point out that particular point at Burns Harbor. At
11 this time, the plume out of Burns Ditch intersected our
12 station, and at this particular station we have got a stand-
13 ing crop of something in the order of 30,000 cells /ml,
14 which is, as you know, about the highest reported fpr Lake
15 Michigan to this time.
16 With the initiation of stratification and, plausibl^,
17 the cutoff of supply of silica from the bottom waters, it is
18 at this stage that we first begin to pick up some blue-green
19 algae.
20 You will notice that these do not occur primarily
21 at the stations along the beaches, as you might expect, but
22 at stations that are removed some 2 to 4 miles from shore.
23 ... Slide No. 19 ...
24 Into July, standing crops are significantly
25 reduced. Blue-green algae begin to be a factor, with the
-------
226
1 E, F. Stoermer
2 populations as high as in the order of 10 percent of the
3 total; again, most abundant at stations 2 to 4 miles from
4 shore,
5 ... Slide No. 20 ...
6 By August of 1971» the blue-green algae have be-
7 come quite abundant in the surface waters over the majority
8 of the lake. Again, you will note that the stations closest
9 to shore, where the silica supplies are plausibly the highest
10 and, indeed, demonstrably the highest, have the lowest con-
11 centrations of blue-greens.
12 ... Slide No. 21 ...
13 This trend continues on into September; beginning
14 in the extreme southern stations, a slight increase in stand-
15 ing crop, and the continued dominance of blue-green algae at
16 surface stations now up to the order of BO percent of the
17 total population.
IS ... Slide No. 22 ...
19 Unlike smaller lakes that have less thermal
20 inertia, these blue-green algal populations in Lake Michigan
21 hang on well into the fall. You can see that the standing
22 crop — with the downward mixing of thermocline and resupply
23 of nutrients to the epilimnion — levels increase, but at
this time the blue-green algae still remain abundant and
25 are dominant in the southern basin of Lake Michigan.
-------
227
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 ... Slide Mo. 23 ...
3 And this situation maintains itself until the end
4 of our sampling period for this particular year.
5 With our operation, we were limited to reaching
6 the really critical circulation period due to the fact we
7 can't operate our ships for those purposes on the open
g waters of the lake during the winter-time*
9 ... Slide No. 24 ...
10 In summary} then, this is data on silica plotted
11 versus temperature and depth for late August 1971, and this
12 shows almost classical textbook type depletion curves for
13 silica in the upper lake waters of Lake Michigan at this
14 time.
15 This leads to a rather unique situation in our
16 experience with lakes.
17 These five bottles are five 1-minute surface
lg plankton net tows.
19 Station 201 is in approximately 3 meters of
20 water — on that top line of stations we call it South
2i Haven-Waukegan — and then a quarter mile off, a half
22 mile off, and 2 miles.
23 So in terms of water quality, as a layman on the
24 beach sees it, we are now getting apparently better water
25
-------
223
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 quality near shore due to the fact that the inshore waters
3 remain highest in diatoms. We are getting better apparent
water quality in terms of turbidity and algal growths on the
waters immediately adjacent to shore than we are in the
waters 2 to 4 miles offshore.
That concludes my remarks. We have more data that
could be shown on the absolute levels of total phosphorus,
o, but these are the main points I wish to bring out,
10 Thank you,
11 MR. MAYO: Are there any comments from the con-
12 ferees? None on Dr, Stoermer*s presentation?
MR, FETTEROLF: Gene, in the pie diagrams that
you showed us originally from 1962, you had approximately
15 90 to 95 percent diatoms in your algal flora,
16 DR. STOERMER: That is correct,
17 MR. FETTEROLF: Now, you did not show us compar-
able slides from the 1972 information, but if you had —
and I believe your initial ones were on cell counts —
20 DR. STOERMER: That is correct,
21 MR. FETTEROLF: — the 1962 slides were on cell
22 counts — well, if we had cell counts in 1972, what percent
23 would we have blue-greens, in comparable time periods to
the initial slides?
DR. STOERMER: Okay. That data, Carlos, is from
-------
,,—_. . 229
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 1971.
3 MR. FETTEROLF: Okay.
4 DR. STOERMER: They are both on cell counts. They
5 were comparable for August and September — well, let's say
6 September — okay? — for the stations we investigated in
7 September of 1962 — the numbers would range between 3 per-
cent blue-green algae and approximately 20 percent blue-green
9 algae. For 1972, they would range between approximately 20
10 percent blue-green algae and approximately $0 percent blue-
11 green algae.
12 Now, at this point, I should stipulate something
13 about blue-green algae — the word "blue-green" algae seems
14 to throw people into fits. I would say the majority of the
15 species that we find in southern Lake Michigan, at the
16 present time, are not those which are generally associated
17 with obnoxious blooms. This is not true at all stations.
13 We have plotted a fairly broad parameter: total
19 blue-green algae. There are several species involved. On
20 a number of the stations we find only those forms of blue-
21 greens which are generally associated with the waters of
22 fairly high quality. We have at several stations found the
23 dominance of Anabaena flos aquae, which is a bloom form,
24- where we have also found a dominance of An a cyst is cyanae
25 — or whatever you want to call it — which also forms
-------
23_0
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 an obnoxious bloom.
3 We have not as yet noticed in the waters of Lake
4 Michigan offshore the other species which is often present
5 in problem blue-green blooms. This is A phan i z omen on flos
6 aquae. We have not found it in the offshore waters but it
7 is abundant in Muskegon Lake and Lake Macatawa, and areas
B like this.
9 MR. FETTEROLF: Would your data be more graphic
10 if you presented it on a biomass comparison rather than
11 cell count, considering the diminutive size — the
12 generally smaller size of the diatoms compared to the blue-
13 green cells?
14 DR. STOERMER: Well, Carlos, as you are very well
15 aware, the comparison between diatoms and blue-green algae
16 is very much worse than a comparison between apples and
17 oranges. We can do arithmetic on cell volumes on this.
13 I am not too certain how productive this will be. We will
19 eventually do it.
20 I would say, in general, that most of the species
21 we are dealing with here in the blue-greens are quite small,
22 so that calculating this on a cell volume basis would
23 probably tend to decrease the percentage somewhat. I would
24 say we have not done this, but we will eventually.
25 MR. FETTEROLF: I was wondering if your data
-------
231
1 E. F» Stoermer
2 could be even more impressive to conferees if it was done
3 the other way. But the cell count, you feel, is definitive
4 enough.
5 DR. STOERMER: My impression, at the present time,
6 is this would probably tend to decrease the apparent abun-
7 dance of blue-greens in some respect.
8 However, again, it is apparent from these data
9 that during the summertime, the central part of Lake Michigan
10 now, the diatoms are probably not growing, probably not
11 dividing. The ones that are picking up are the ones that
12 are just maintaining their existence.
13 It has been shown quite conclusively, in laboratory
14 experiments, that by limiting the silica available, the
15 cells are prevented from dividing. They will, however,
16 live for a considerable period of time. They will remain
17 viable for periods of at least 90 days without division.
IS Apparently, in our estimation, this is what has happened.
19 We don't have any direct evidence of this, however.
20 MR. FETTEROLF: Would you care to make a pre-
21 diction of what possible interferences with beneficial uses
22 of Lake Michigan might take place if this trend was allowed
23 to continue?
22«- DR. STOERMER: Well, there are several "ifs" in
25 that question.
-------
232
1 E. F. Stoenner
2 If silica remains depleted and if they keep adding
3 phosphorus to the lake, you will eventually arrive at a
1+ situation, of course, where we would have obnoxious blooms.
5 Apparently the condition is such now that they would grow
6 quite nicely. The lacking ingredient apparently is simply
7 enough nutrients to maintain very high populations.
g MR. BRISON: May I go beyond that and ask you a
9 couple of other questions?
10 On your one chart, you projected the silica could
11 possibly be depleted by 1976, and you did throw in the caveat
12 that that might not occur.
13 Can I extrapolate from that comment that phosphorus
14 control program: a) needs to be expanded; b) needs to be
15 accelerated, and then c), d), e), and f) as you would care
16 to add past that?
17 DR. STOERMER: I am afraid there has been a slight
13 misunderstanding. You must remember that these earlier data
19 from Chicago are a yearly average. The location of their
20 intakes are both variable with time and, of course, over a
21 yearly average when you mix the water, you bring it up to a
22 certain level. So this extrapolation is in no way precise. I|t
23 says it might happen. What our data says now, in matter of
24 fact, it has happened. It happened sometime between 1962
25 and 1971. It has happened.
-------
233
1 £. F. Stoermer
2 MR. BRYSON: Elaborate on that. I am not too sure
3 I follow you. Are you saying they were past a certain point —
4 DR. STOERMER: Yes.
5 MR. BRYSON: — is it irreversible, in your opinion?
6 Don't leave me hanging there.
7 DR. STOERMER: Let's say it is a major geochemical
& boundary that has been passed.
9 With all of these things, in a complex ecosystem
10 such as Lake Michigan, you can probably go back — particu-
11 larly in this case — I would say you can go back, so far as
12 concentrations of silica are concerned. It may take quite
13 awhile.
14 However, when you cross these boundaries, you also
15 perturb the rest of the biota. There are obviously -- all of
16 the evolution that has gone on in Lake Michigan has been
17 toward organisms at higher trophic levels which consume
IS diatoms. Now, all of a sudden there aren't many diatoms
19 left. Now what the total effects of this will be in the
20 future, we are in no position to really say.
21 Obviously, if you could shut off, say, all of the
22 phosphorus — absolutely all of the phosphorus — just seal
23 off the lake with no more phosphorus, it would recover with
24 no productivity and you would stabilize at something around
25 a part per million — plus or minus two — something like
-------
^___ 234
]_ E» F. Stoermer
2 this — with no productivity in the surface water.
3 You see from these diagrams, there is still a lot
4 of silica in the bottom waters; there is just uptake in the
5 surface waters which aren't mixed and where the plants can
6 grow.
7 MR, MATOs Dr. Stoermer, the conferees are
8 wrestling with the question of whether or not the levels
9 of phosphorus control that have been earlier adopted by the
10 conference need to be significantly revised and made more
11 restrictive.
12 The Technical Committee has reached a conclusion
13 that 1 ppm - 1 mg/1 — of total phosphorus in the effluents
14 of the waste treatment plants is a technically practical and
15 economically practical limit to impose in an effort to
16 obtain further constraints on the introduction of phospohrus
17 into Lake Michigan.
18 Now, do you have any opinion as to how sufficient
19 that limitation might be for the purpose of preventing
20 further degradation of Lake Michigan as a consequence of
21 phosphorus being available as a nutrient?
22 DR. STOERMER: I will take your term "opinion"
23 advisedly,
24 I have real reservations as to whether — in the
25 present state of the art — the question you have asked
-------
235
E. F. Stoermer
could be computed with any great degree of accuracy.
My opinion is that you will be hard put to find
sufficient mechanisms to reduce phosphorus to acceptable
levels.
I think this is another one of these questions
that is going to have to probably be answered: the best
available technology would probably not be too good.
MR. MAYO: In your work, have you reached any con-
10 elusions as to what might be an acceptable level of intro-
11 duction of phosphorus into Lake Michigan, say in terras of
12 tons per year?
13 DR. STOERMER: No.
14 MR. MAYO: Do you think there is sufficient data
15 presently available that might make for a determination or
16 a good estimate of that figure?
17 DR. STOERMER: No.
MR. BRYSON: Well,* elaborate, rather than just
19 "No." You mean because you can't calculate it, or because
20 we are past that point; it doesn't make any difference? We
21 will get as much as we can out now?
22 DR. STOERMER: My "No" was to the ability to
23 calculate it.
So far as I know, we have no very precise esti-
mates of atmospheric inputs — and I was reminded of this —
-------
236
1 E. F, Stoermer
2 since orbiting over O'Hare Field over an hour and a half this
3 morning.
4 If you take this from a logical standpoint — in
5 many cases of this type we have to start with the first
6 principles — obviously the present inputs to Lake Michigan
7 are much greater than they were when Lake Michigan was at
8 its maximum desirable quality. We can cut back towards that
9 original condition to a sizable extent.
10 It is almost inconceivable that we could ever get
11 back to the inputs to Lake Michigan of the 1#30's and the
12 1#40's when we had water that you could drink just like
13 this (indicating).
14 We would be able to drive it back a certain dis-
15 tance. How far we will be able to drive it back? I don't
16 think it is in my power to really project this at this time.
17 We don't have good estimates of the residence time of these
1& nonconservative substances in large lakes such as Lake
19 Michigan.
20 Part of the basin, we know, is depositional; part
21 of the basin is erosional. There is obviously a certain
22 input from nutrients from the original parent material.
23 This is generally not a problem at all in small lakes.
24 When you get into these larger lakes, like the Great Lakes,
25 many of these numbers are just not available.
-------
237
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 MR, MAYO: If the conference were to result in
3 an actual control level — 1 mg/1 — on the dischargers
4 for municipal and industrial wastes — phosphorus content of
5 that concentration — say by the end of 1973» do you think
6 the conferees need to be concerned at that point about there
7 being a sufficient phosphorus load to constitute a dire hazard
8 that something dramatic is going to happen in Lake Michigan
9 in the way of algal growth in the next 5 or 10 years?
10 DR. STOERMER: Well, this depends largely on your
11 conception of "dramatic."
12 Thirty thousand cells per milliliter is pretty
13 dramatic. An increase of — well, you have also long-term
14 records from Chicago in terms of standing crop. This to me
15 is a very dramatic increase.
16 The problem we deal with or we face is the lack of
17 long-term systematic records from offshore stations.
18 The first pollution conference in 1&72 generated
19 a few of these. Every one since has generated a few more.
20 But we don't have really a good idea of what goes on in the
21 lake more than a mile offshore.
22 Now, it is perfectly conceivable — and this has
23 been brought up time and time again today — that 1971 was
2k just a bad year. We know 1967 was a bad year. Conceivably
25 we may get a different result this summer. We are out there,
-------
233
1 E. F. Stoeraer
2 and we will find out. How many years we will be able to carry
3 this beyond this year, we don't know at the present time.
4 So I put down the caveat that any 1-year's data,
5 no matter how many points are involved, in a large complex
6 system like Lake Michigan, should be treated'with due respect.
7 The Chicago record has quite obviously never been constant.
8 In fact there were changes as great as a factor of 2 between
9 successive years without any really apparently definable
10 cause. Obviously there is a cause of some type that is not
11 contained in the record.
12 MR. McDONALD: Dr. Stoermer, what is your control
13 plan for the lake?
*
14 DR. STOERMER: What is my control plan for the
15 lake?
16 MR. McDONALD: Yes, sir.
17 DR. STOERMER: That is not my game.
IS MR. McDONALD: Well, that is the game we are in
19 here, and I think that the testimony you have given is highly
20 interesting testimony* But I think as we try to come to grips
21 with what the control program ought to be here, anything you
22 could do by way of saying these recommendations that have
23 been made are either good, bad, or indifferent, or how they
2^ ought to be changed, will be a major contribution to any
25 decision to be made here. If you can do that, I think you
-------
239
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 ought to do it, if you have given any thought to this at all.
3 DR. STOERMER: Well, I suffer in this context from
4 not being an expert in engineering feasibility and things of
5 that type.
6 I would find it almost inconceivable that you could
7 go too far with the limitation of phosphorus. In terms of
8 gross biomass, this is beyond, in my estimation, any reason-
9 able doubt, a controlling factor, in terms of the numbers of
10 gross biomass of algae there.
11 However, there are a number of things that can be
12 also disturbing. You always say two things when you are
13 worried about algae. You worry how many, and you worry
«
14 what kind. And so far as the evidence from Lake Michigan
1$ suggests that "how many" is very, very largely controlled
16 and almost entirely controlled by phosphorus. The "what
17 kind" is quite a different question, and a question that
1# has received relatively little research interest in the
19 United States. There is some in Europe.
20 It appears, in my estimation, that the question
21 of "what kind," particularly things like Gladophora and
22 these diatom species that we were looking at, you read over
23 and over and over and over in the literature that these
24 particular species take a hold in the areas that are con-
25 taminated with total dissolved solids, particularly
-------
___ 240
1 E. F« Stoermer
2 chlorides.
3 We know that sometime between 1&96 and 196$ that
4 the "original algal flora that grew around the lake, on the
5 rocks on the shore of Lake Michigan, largely disappeared.
6 We know that many of the ultra-oligotrophic diatom species
7 which once were in Lake Michigan and still occur in Lake
8 Superior, for instance — all of these species have a very,
9 very low tolerance to chloride.
10 It has also been shown that blue-greens — partic-
11 ularly in the bloom-forming varieties — have an apparent
12 requirement for sodium, and I think we, in general in the
13 past, have tended to concentrate perhaps — I won't say too
14 much — but too exclusively on the nutrient elements, and
15 have let some of these conservative element problems get out
16 of hand.
17 If you look at the trends in any of these con-
lS servative elements, Lake Michigan presents, from the
19 biologist's standpoint, a really frightening picture.
20 You can see what goes on in these systems, such as
21 Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, where apparently their essential
22 ecosystems are running substantially out of control, where
23 virtually none of the original bioraass, in terms of species,
24 exist. It has been almost entirely replaced by things which
25 were not previously there — at least were not previously
-------
241
1 E. F» Stoerraer
2 there in any abundance.
3 MR. McDONALD: Let me ask you another question.
4 In terms of the dire consequences that you predict for the
5 lake — and if I understand you correctly, this control
6 program that has been proposed is not tight enough, since
7 you want maximum possible — what would you see Lake Michi-
8 gan undergoing in terms of water use, say, by the year 2000
9 in terms of interferences in water supply, swimming, aquatic
10 life, types of fish, general esthetics of the lake? In
11 other words, translating this into actual lake impairment
12 for the many uses it has, if the type of program that you
13 think ought to be adopted — this maximum control program —
14 is not adoptable?
15 DR. STOERMERs As I say, that is an extremely
16 difficult question to project on this sort of a quantitative
17 basis.
13 MR. McDONALD: Well, I think this is really what
19 we are trying to come to grips with here.
20 DR. STOERMER: By the year 2000? My projection
21 would be that you would have a lake largely dominated by
22 green and blue-green algae. We would probably arrive at a
23 situation similar to that that exists in a few lakes in the
24 world — temperate lakes — where you have a dominance of
25 greens and blue-greens year-round. You would have
-------
242
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 undoubtedly a certain decrease in transparency. You would
3 have at least localized and perhaps generalized occurrences
^ over areas of at least several kilometers — square kilometers
5 of extent — of blue-greens of the type which form gas vaeuoles
6 and float on the surface and are picked up by onshore winds
7 which bring them onshore and cause problems.
$ Whether Lake Michigan would be unacceptable?
9 Probably not. This has been the history from the year 1.
10 Each generation has learned to accept what the last genera-
11 tion left them. We have now reached the point where this
12 acceptance — passive acceptance — which we have not even
13 thought of as acceptance — is beginning to break down.
14 I am not a sociologist; I am not a psychologist; and I can't
15 predict what this means in terms of the public political
16 process.
17 MR. FETTEROLFs Gene, now that you have painted
18 that dire picture, let's talk about the possibilities of
19 some other mechanism to maintain the existing flora of Lake
20 Michigan.
21 Now, I am far from an algae expert, but I have
22 read that for years the English reservoirs, which are used
23 for water supplies, are dosed with silica to promote diatom
24 growth and hold down the blue-green algae growth.
25 You stated there is plenty of silica in Lake
-------
243
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 Michigan, but during — now, I am interpreting — but during
3 the summer, when the blue-greens get to jump and deplete the
4 silica so that the diatoms can't use them, the silica which
5 remains in the thermocline and the hypolimnion is not avail-
6 able. But you did say there was plenty of silica —
7 DR. STOERMER: Yes.
& MR. FETTEROLF: — but it is unavailable.
9 Is there a possibility of bringing the silica up
10 to the hypolimnion into the epilimnion and making it avail-
11 able to the diatoms? Is there really some possibility of
12 some artificial loading of Lake Michigan with silica? And
13 what are the silica sources besides shore erosion and river
14 inflow?
1$ DR. STOERMER: There is undoubtedly some — with
16 the present pH and temperature conditions, there is undoubt-
17 edly a certain input directly from dissolution of the sand
1& on the bottom and onshore. We have no measurements of this.
19 The possibilities of artificial circulation or
20 adding silica — some of my colleagues have made some cal-
21 culations on these things and they turn out just to be
22 ridiculously expensive.
23 MR. FETTEROLF: As expensive as phosphorus
24 removal? That is pretty ridiculously expensive.
25 DR. STOERMER: Probably to replace the silica
-------
: 244
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 would be at least an order of magnitude greater. This would
3 be my off-the-cuff estimate. It would be terrifically
4 expensive.
5 The other problem about this, Carlos, is in doing
6 this you really haven't solved your problem because you can
7 talk to a filtration plant operator sometime about a really
good stinky diatom bloom, and he would rather have blue-green
9 algae, and I am sure there are people in the room who would
10 verify this as far as filtration plants. They would rather
11 have blue-greens, I'd say, in most instances.
12 MR. MAYO: Dr. Stoermer, if I were to try to sum
13 up your commentary, it would be that you see urgent concern
14 for the issue of phosphorus availability as a nutrient in
15 Lake Michigan; that it is incumbent upon the conferees to
16 develop a control program that maximizes the reduction of
17 phosphorus inputs, whether it is from wastewater treatment
plants, industrial sources, or ultimately from land runoff;
19 and that there also be a deliberate and very serious effort
20 on the part of the conferees to support sufficient research
21 in the nutrient-algal relationships in Lake Michigan to
better understand what we might be able to effect in the way
23 of control mechanisms and what we may be able to project in
the way of Lake Michigan water quality. Is that pretty
reasonable?
-------
245
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 DR. STOERMER: That is, I am certain, a fair
3 summary.
4 MR. BRISON: Mr. Mayo, there are a couple of addi-
5 tional questions that I think need asking.
6 We have, on my immediate left, Dr. Charles Powers,
7 from EPA's National Eutrophication Research Program at
8 Gorvallis. I think he may be able to give some additional
9 questions to clarify the matter.
10 DR. POWERS: Thank you, Mr. Bryson.
11 I would like to point out that Gene Stoermer is my
12 old-time friend and colleague, and I am not here to give him
13 a hard time, but I would like a little clarification, Gene,
14 since I do work for EPA.
15 And one of them — to go back — you mentioned the
1° summer of 1971. You pointed out that in the summer, starting
17 in July and carrying over into October, the percentage of
1° blue-green algae was much higher than you had ever seen
19 before. And I believe it got to be better than 50 percent,
*® is that correct?
21 DR. STOERMER: In some cases better than BO per-
22
cent.
2"*
J DR. POWERS: Okay. But I wondered, with respect
2L.
to total biomass of the plankton, in terms of milligrams
25
dry weight probably, rather than in terms of cell counts —
-------
246
1 E, F. Stoermer
2 I wondered whether there was a difference between 1971 and
3 previous years. That is to say, did we get an increase in
4 standing crop of algae along with the different species
5 that occurred?
6 DR* STOERMER: Well, I can give you a real killer
7 answer on this, if I wanted to. Our highest population in
$ 1962 was on the order of 2,400 cells/ml directly off Chicago.
9 Our highest cells/ml in 1971 were 30,000. However I won't
10 give you that answer because obviously, you know that the
11 stations are not completely comparable, and the 1971 figure
12 is an unusual occurrence.
13 DR. POWERS: Could you give me something a little
14 more representative than that?
15 DR. STOERMER: Okay. A general average for April,
16 around the lake, at the stations close to shore, was on the
17 order of £,000/ml in 1971.
1^ DR. POWERS: Are we talking about diatoms and
19 blue-green algae?
20 DR. STOERMER: We are talking about primarily
21 diatoms. In 1962, it was on the order of 2,500 or 2,800 —
22 something like that.
23 DR. POWERS: So you measured in terms of cell count
2Z|" and you don't have any weight.
2* DR. STOERMER: Well, we have chlorophyll
-------
247
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 determination.
3 DR. POWERS, Of course, we wouldn't have weights
4 back in 1962, only cell counts, oxygen, and pH, as I
5 remember it, I said "we" because I was Gene's colleague at
6 that time. We were sort of conversing back and forth here
7 on this.
8 Okay. At any rate, as far as you are concerned,
9 then, there was an increase in biomass from 1962 to 1971*
10 DR. STOERMER: Yes.
11 DR. POWERS: The whole summer?
12 DR. STOERMER: The most impressive increase —
13 and, again, I will say, these are 2 years taken without the
14 history in between — but the most impressive thing to me
15 was the substantial increase in October.
16 Remember, in 1962, on these slides we showed, on
17 the stations offshore there was practically none — you know,
18 100 or 200 cells/ml on offshore stations.
1° Now, in 1971, our values were considerably higher
20 in October.
21 DR. POWERS: Okay.
22 DR. STOERMER: Mostly blue-greens in this case.
-* DR. POWERS: Okay, now, you probably attribute this,
2^ then, to the nutrient enrichment in the lake during that
25
period of time. I think you mentioned a while ago that
-------
243
1 E« F. Stoermer
2 increased phosphorus would result in increased biomass. I
3 believe you said something like that, at any rate,
4 The point that I really want to get at here, Gene,
5 is: Are you saying — you also said that silica in 1971
6 was very low — so is your point, then, that if we had a
7 sufficient enrichment of the lake, possibly by phosphorus
or whatever, to build the algal biomass up to a point where
9 the diatoms, which were the original native population, had
10 utilized the silica, there would still be enough phosphorus
11 to continue to support the growth of algae. However, since
12 silica had limited the growth of diatoms, the algal growth
13 would then be expressed as blue-greens.
14 Is this your point? You didn't really say this,
15 but I felt that this is what you meant to say.
DR. STOEBMER: This is the most plausible
assumption.
DR. POWERS: Okay. So the blue-greens really
appeared, then, because of lack of silica?
Okay, then, to go to another thing, or rather to
continue this a little bit: I also understand,,from what
you have said, then, that we have built up the phosphorus
^ concentration in the lake to where silica has become
^ limiting. This means that our total standing crop of algae
25
has also increased, and you implied to me that this phosphorus
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
249
E. F. Stoermer
is in the lake and is going to stay there, and that our pro-
posed phosphorus control program will not bring down these
levels again, because the phosphorus should behave in a con-
servative manner and the phosphorus content of the waters,
having gotten high, will remain high. And will you tell me
whether this is what you meant?
DR. STOERMER: I don't think you ever heard me say
that phosphorus behaves in a conservative manner.
DR. POWERS: No, you didn't, but you gave the
implication. You said that total phosphorus was high, and
that no better phosphorus control would bring it back down
again. And this is the point I really want to argue with
you about, I think.
DR. STOERMER: No, I don't think you heard me say
that really.
DR. POWERS: This is the way it came across, and
this is the main reason 1 wanted to come up here and talk
to you because I thought we had a point here that was pretty
important and that we had better make sure it was clarified.
DR. STOERMER: Yes, the behavior of the phosphorus
is, in fact, a good question. How conservatively will it
behave? We know in small lakes — stratified lakes without
a lot of thermal inertia, that phosphorus goes fairly rapidly
to the sediments particularly when it is overabundant.
-------
250
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 How it will behave in the offshore low productivity
waters of Lake Michigan? I remember very well sitting in
4 the lab one day and arguing with you about what the currents
5 were on the bottom of Lake Michigan and the particle size
6 which could be moved by currents of this velocity, and we
7 found out that there was current of sufficient velocity to
move sand in the bottom of Lake Michigan, assuming that the
9 data is correct.
10 So how rapidly and how, with variable sedimentation
11 rates, the mean circulation velocity is comparable to smaller
12 lakes, just how much or how rapid this flux of sediment is
13 going to be is a very real question and one I don't think
14 has been answered*
15 We know that during certain periods of the year,
16 with isolated measurements, you can show a period of rapid
17 flux, even on sandy bottoms. We also know that it moves
with circulation, and what the mean residence time of an
19 individual molecule out there in that lake is, I wouldn't
20 care to conjecture right now. I seriously doubt whether
21 anyone, without more extensive and precise data than is
22 available now, can calculate it with any acceptable degree
of precision.
For this reason, I would say the conservative
approach is probably the right approach.
-------
251
£. F. Stoermer
DR. POWERS: Our experience from other lakes just
o doesn't bear this out. Lake Washington is a classic example,
• where the phosphorus level was quite high and nutrient control
c was initiated. They stopped putting phosphorus in and phos-
phorus levels came down, and Lake Washington is large —-
although not as large as Lake Michigan.
The other thing is where people — well, for
instance, Megard's work in Lake Minnetonka, which is a
10 shallow lake, to be sure, and they are not comparable — but
we have found that the residence time of phosphorus in the
12 lake is generally much shorter than the hydraulic residence
13 time. Once again, phosphorus does not behave in a conserva-
14 tive manner. The point I am trying to make here is that
15 probably when one decreases phosphorus loadings, the phos-
16 phorus concentration in that lake water is going to go down.
17 Now, in Lake Michigan, the evidence is that phos-
phorus is the limiting nutrient. In the open lake waters,
19 the average concentration seems to be somewhere around
20 0.00? mg/1 — that is the number I have seen — certainly
21 it is not more than 0,01 mg/1. Nitrogen concentrations
22 are much greater than this, and there seems to be no question
23 that phosphorus is the primary limiting nutrient.
if it is limiting, this would mean that if we can
25 decrease the amount of phosphorus in the lake water, we will
-------
252
1 £. F. Stoermer
2 decrease the amount of algal production in the water as long
3 as phosphorus remains limiting. Since phosphorus tends to
4 disappear from the water of a lake because of biological
5 uptake and sedimentation, we would say that the amount of
6 phosphorus in the lake water would decrease as loading is
7 decreased.
DR. STOERMER: Obviously if you cut down the
9 incoming flux, it is a good thing to do; there is no doubt
10 about it. The real question is: We have been living for 100
11 years now with an always upward-increasing trend. Almost by
12 accident, you know, we have gone past a point now which
13 proves that it is possible to very drastically alter the
14 system
15 How many lakes do you find around the world where
16 you find levels of silica in surface waters on the order of
17 a tenth of a part per million, two-tenths of a part per
million?
So we have shoved this system a heck of a long
ways — really a long ways ~ to the point where it is a
rarity on the face of the earth.
Now, again, undoubtedly we can begin to recover.
^ Now, again, I lack the engineering expertise to really pro-
ject how rapidly we are going to recover with phosphorus
25
removal at whatever rate; and I seriously question that
-------
253
1 E. F. Stoermer
2 anybody else can really make a better than first order
3 calculation. There are just too many pieces of the puzzle
4 that are assumed — you know, things that are directly and
5 rather easily measurable. You know, the state of the art
6 now, we have to make an assumption, and granted some of these
7 assumptions can be off a factor of 2, factor of 3f factor of
10 sometimes.
9 MR. FETTEROLF: Dr. Stoermer, you, in your discus-
10 sion, flagged chlorides as a substance which accompanied
11 development of blue-green algal growths.
12 These conferees have a chloride control program
13 under way. But wouldn't you say that in the literature,
14 when chlorides are flagged as something which accompanies
15 development of blue-green algal growths, that total dissolved
solids is equally important?
17 DR. STOERMER: Probably so. I speak to this, you
know, from an algalogist bias. The European authors, in
particular, construct occurrence schemes for the various
algal groups — you know, so-called halobian system, pri-
marily on chlorides. Now, undoubtedly other things are
2?
* important, and this is an area that has really received
2*5
J almost ridiculously little research yet.
* MR. FETTEROLF: Well, my point in bringing this up
25
was so that the conferees'1 attention was not diverted from
-------
254
X £. F. Stoermer
2 the concept of total dissolved solids as a nutrient source,
3 and so they just concentrated on phosphorus. There are
other things that must be considered.
5 DR. STOERMERs Certainly,
6 MR. MAYO: If there are no other questions, Dr.
7 Stoermer, thank you very much,
8 (Reproductions of Dr. Stoermer's slides follow
9 in their entirety.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
7 AUGUST 1962
22 AUGUST 1962
SLIDE #1
STA.I
STA.t
STA.4
STA.I
STA.C
STA.9
300'
Slide 1. Vertical distribution and gross composition of total phytoplankton
populations at stations 1, 2, 3, and 4 on 7 August 1962 and stations 1, 2, and
3 on 22 August 1962. Area of circles is proportional to total cell counts at
depths sampled. Area of segments is proportional to contribution of major
algal divisions. D - Bacillariophyta; G - Chlorophyta; CH - Chrysophyta;
B - Cyanophyto; P - Pyrrophyta; CR - Euglenophyta, Cryptophyceae and un-
identified flagellates. Number at lower right of circles gives depth from
e|irface in feet.
-------
SLIDE #2
26 SEPTEMBER 1962
24 OCTOBER 1962
STA.I STJL2 STA 3 STA 4
STA.I
STA.2 STA .3 STA 4
8'
IDS;
CH
III* 166'
B-0 G-0 CH-0
P.O CR-0
147'
154'
toRlo.
163'
308'
CH-0 B'O CH-0 B-0
P-0 P.O
OC_f
o V
304' 380
Slide 2. Vertical distribution and gross composition of total phytoplankton
populations at stations 1, 2, 3, and 4 on 26 September 1962 and 24 October 1962.
Labeling as in Slide 1.
-------
SLIDE #3
14 H
10
6-
• 10-
6
in
2-\
8-
4-
0
GRAND RAPIDS
MILWAUKEE
CHICAGO
26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 66 70 7476
YEARS
Slide 3. Concentrations of SiOe (ppm) in water samples collected at municipal
water intakes, Chicago (from Powers and Ayers 1967).
-------
SLIDE 14
Oshkosh
1930's
0 1940's
0 1964
Haven CD 196?
Slide 4. Abundant occurrences of Melosira granulata in plankton samples from
Lake Michigan,"
-------
SLIDE # 5
x Lake Water
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Slide 5. Results of nutrient enrichment experiments at offshore station,
July 1969. Experiment started July 17. Above, soluble Si02 in ppm.
-------
SLIDE #6
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
July Offshore
Slide 6. Results of nutrient enrichment experiments at offshore station,
July 1969. Experiment started July 17. Above, total cell counts in cells
per ml.
-------
2.0-
PPM SILICfl
BENTON HflfiBOfl
SURFflCE CHLOROPHYLL
IN MG/M1! )
RND SOLUBLE SILICfl
IN PPM(-—•)
RRLY RPRIL, 197
BURNS HER
SLIDE #7
-------
2.0-
PPM SILICfl
BENTON HfWBOR
SURFflCE CHLOROPHYLL
IN MG/MS( )
ND SOLUBLE SILICfl
IN PPM(-—•)
MID MflY, 1971
BURNS HER
SLIDE #8
-------
2.0-
PPM SILICfl
HflVEN
BENTON HARBOR
SURFflCE CHLOROPHYLL
IN MG/M4( )
ND SOLUBLE SILICfl
IN PPM(- )
LflTE JUNE, 197
BURNS HER
SLIDE #9
-------
2.0-
PPM SILICfl
BEMTON MflfiSOR
SURFRCE CHLOROPHYLL
IN MG/lr( )
ND SOLUBLE SILICfl
IN PPMC- )
MID JULY, 197
BURNS HER
SLIDE #10
-------
2.0-
PPM SILICfl
HRVEN
BENTON MflRBOR
SURFflCE CHLOROPHYLL
IN MG/MM )
ND SOLUBLE SILICfl
IN PPM(-—-)
LflTE RUG, 197
BUM nan
SLIDE #11
-------
2.0-
PPM SILICfl
BENtON MRftflOfl
SURFflCE CHLOROPHYLL
IN MG/M*( )
ND SOLUBLE SILICR
IN PPMt •)
MID SEPT, 197
BURNS HER
SLIDE #12
-------
2.0-
PPH SILICfl
HRVEN
BENTON HARBOR
SURFflCE CHLOROPHTLL
IN MG/MM )
ND SOLUBLE SILICR
IN PPMC- )
EflRLY OCT. 197
SLIDE #13
BURNS HER
-------
2.0-
PPM SILICfl
BENTON HflRBOR
SURFflCE CHLOROPHYLL
IN MG/M*( )
ND SOLUBLE SILICfl
IN PPM( )
LflTE OCT, 197
BURNS HBR
SLIDE #14
-------
80 -
PERCENT
BENTON HARBOR
8000
CELLS/M
SURFflCE flLGRL CELLS
PER ML. ( )
RND PERCENT
BLUE-GREENS (-—•)
flRLY flPRIL, 197
SLIDE #15
-------
SLIDE 116
-------
80 -
PERCENT
BENTON HflRBOR
SURFflCE flLGflL CELLS
PER ML. ( )
flND PERCENT
BLUE-GREENS (•—•)
MID MflY, 1971
SLIDE #17
-------
80 -
PERCENT
BENTON HARBOR
8000
CELLS/M
SURFflCE flLGflL CELLS
PER ML. ( )
RND PERCENT
BLUE-GREENS (-—•)
LflTE JUNE, 197
SLIDE #18
MM MM
-------
80 -
PERCENT
BENTON HflRBOfl
8000
CELLS/M
SURFflCE flLGflL CELLS
PER ML. ( )
flND PERCENT
BLUE-GREENS («—•)
MID JULY, 197
SLIDE #19
-------
80 -
PERCENT
-8000
CELLS/MIL
BENTON MfifiSOR
SURFRCE RLGflL CELLS
PER ML. ( )
RND PERCENT
BLUE-GREENS (•—•)
LRTE RUG. 197
SLIDE #20
-------
80 -
PERCENT
BENTON HARBOR
8000
CELLS/M
SURFflCE flLGflL CELLS
PER ML. ( )
HMD PERCENT
BLUE-GREENS (•—•)
MID SEPT, 197
SLIDE #21
-------
80 -
PERCENT
BENTON HRR80R
8000
LLS/M
SURFflCE flLGRL CELLS
PER ML. ( )
flND PERCENT
BLUE-GREENS( )
EflRLY OCT, 197
SLIDE #22
-------
80 -
PERCENT
HRVEN
8000
CELLS/
SURFflCE flLGPL CELLS
PER ML. ( )
flND PERCENT
BLUE-GREENS (•—•)
LflTE OCT. 197
SLIDE #23
M*a ran
-------
CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
!•' - . - | | ii i { ,, i i I „• '—*- •—"—*- '—'—*- '—*~~*" 111' i i i*
"^ppr
CONC CONC CONC
CONC s CONC
' TEMP" TW" TE«P" TEMP" TEMP" TEMP* TEMP* TEMP" TEMP" TEMP*
SOLUBLE SILICfl
IN PPM ( )
RND TEMPERflTURE
IN °C (- )
VS. DEPTH
SOUTH LRKE MICHIGAN
LflTE RUG, 1971
SLIDE #24
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
255
G. Lee
MR. MAYO: I understand there are three additional
parties available to speak to the phosphorus issue. Each of
the three will be leaving this evening and won't be available
tomorrows Dr. G. Fred Lee from the University of Wisconsin,
Dr. E. P. Earth, EPA Research Center, Corvallis; and Mr.
Dan Galloway from Dow Chemical Company.
MR. MILLER: And Mr. Thomas Dustin.
MR. MAYO: And Mr. Thomas Dustin from the Indiana
Izaak Walton League.
Dr. Lee, how much time —
DR. LEE: About 15 minutes.
MR. MAYO: Will you introduce yourself, please,
Dr. Lee?
STATEMENT OF DR. G. FRED LEE,
PROFESSOR OF WATER CHEMISTRY,
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN,
MADISON, WISCONSIN
DR. LEE: My name is Fred Lee, Professor at the
University of Wisconsin at Madison.
What I wanted to do today is to discuss with you
some of the recent work that we have been doing on modeling
the behavior of phosphorus in lakes, particularly to apply
-------
256
1 G. Lee
2 some of the models we have developed in some other lakes to
3 the Lake Michigan situation.
4 Let's go to the first slide, please.
5 ... Slide ..
6 I will not be reading; I will assume that this will
7 go directly into the record as it stands. Don't try to read
along.
9 MR. MAYO: We will introduce the statement as if
10 read.
11 DR. LEE: I will only be hitting highlights from
12 the statement.
13 (The document referred to above follows in its
14 entirety, and reproductions of the slides used were unavail-
15 able for publication.)
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
The University of Wisconsin
WATER CHEMISTRY LABORATORY
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53706
262-2470
AREA CODE 608
September 25, 1972
Francis Mayo
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
1 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Dear Mr. Mayo:
At the recent Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference, I
presented a paper entitled, "Phosphorus, Water Quality and
Eutrophication of Lake Michigan." During my presentation,
I asked that a copy of the paper be entered into the record.
Subsequent to that presentation, I have received several
additional comments on the paper from Tom Maloney, EPA
Corvallis, and others who have suggested minor changes in
the paper which would help clarify various statements in
the paper. I have made these changes and have enclosed
a corrected version of this paper. None of the changes have
any effect on the overall conclusions presented at the
conference.
I, therefore, request that in order to provide the
best possible presentation in the Conference Proceedings,
the enclosed paper be substituted for the original paper that
was submitted on Tuesday, September 19, as part of my pre-
sentation.
Please call me to answer any questions about this request.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely
'
Professor of Water Chemistry
GFL/lm
-------
Phosphorus, Water Quality and Eutrophication of Lake Michigan*
by
G. Fred Lee
Professor of Water Chemistry
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Introduction
Considerable attention has been recently focused on the eutrophica-
tion of Lake Michigan. The experiences of excessive fertilization of
Lake Erie and other parts of the Great Lakes, such as Lake Michigan's
Green Bay, have prompted water pollution control officials at the federal
and state levels to take steps to try to control excessive fertilization
of Lake Michigan. The states bordering on Lake Michigan and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration (now the Environmental Protection
Agency) adopted regulations in 1968 that required that at least an 80%
reduction of the total phosphorus entering a waste water treatment plant
that discharges to Lake Michigan or one of its tributaries shall be ac-
complished by December, 1972. A recent check with the water pollution
control officials in the various states bordering on Lake Michigan shows
that many of their municipal waste water treatment plants are already
achieving phosphorus reduction of at least this amount and the rest of
them are expected to achieve this type of reduction during 1972 or shortly
thereafter.
More recently, the U.S. and Canada have agreed to a 1.0 mg/1 total
phosphorus effluent:.standard as part of the Great Lakes Water Quality
*Presented at Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference, September 1972.
-------
—2—
Agreement, April 1972, which applies to Lakes Erie and Ontario. The con-
ferees at the Septenber 19-21 Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference may
adopt a policy of a 1.0 mg/1 P effluent standard for all waste water dis-
charges to Lake Michigan or one of its tributaries.
It is reasonable to ask what -One effect might be of the 80% removal
of phosphorus from point sources on water quality in Lake Michigan. This
paper considers the question and proposes a model for the expected effect
of the immediately pending phosphorus input reduction and further urbaniza-
tion of the Lake Michigan watershed on water quality in the lake.
Current Water Quality in Lake Michigan
The current water quality in lake Michigan can best be described in
terms of three broad areas of the lake. These are the specific areas
with localized degradation, nearshore waters, and the open waters of the
lake. Lake Michigan has several areas of highly localized, significantly
degraded water quality. These areas are generally harbors or other areas
of the lake where there is restricted circulation with open waters of the
lake. In almost every case, the degradation is the result of discharge
of large volumes of partially treated waste waters into a relatively small
volume which has restricted circulation with the lake. One of the most
notable examples of this type of situation is in southern Green Bay.
Sridharan and Lee (1972) and Sridharan (1972) have recently completed a
study of the effects of the 80% removal of phosphorus from the waste
waters entering southern Green Bay on water quality in the bay. A review
of the findings of this study will be presented in a subsequent section of
this paper.
The second area of the lake which should be considered in any review
-------
-3-
of water quality is the nearshore zone. The nearshore zone varies in width
from nonexistent to several miles. Hie physical characteristics of the
nearshore zone waters likely depend on the morphology of the shore area,
the position in the lake, the season, the wind direction and intensity and
other factors. The characteristics of the nearshore .zone will likely
change from day to day, depending on climatic conditions at any one loca-
tion. The justification for separating the lake into a nearshore zone as
separate from the open waters is that a large lake such as Lake Michigan
has strong longshore currents which tend to slow down the rate at which a
pollutant introduced near the shore is mixed into the open offshore waters.
It is extremely important to point out that the nearshore zone is not an
isolated body of water from the open waters of the lake. There is signifi-
cant interchange of waters between the nearshore and open waters. Simple
consideration of the volume of tributary waters to the lake shows that there
is a minimum of transport from the nearshore to the open waters at least
equal to the river inputs. For some parts of the nearshore area, especially
along the western shore, the upwelling that occurs in the nearshore zone
must be added to the net transport of waters from the zone to the open
waters of the lake. The exchange of water between nearshore and open
waters is further enhanced by wind-induced mixing, especially during storms.
One of the frequently cited physical phenomena that is alleged to
inhibit mixing of nearshore waters and open waters of the lake is the
thermal bar. There are numerous statements in the literature (Department
of the Interior, 1970) that the thermal bar inhibits mixing of nearshore
and open waters. Generally, these statements are based on a lack of
mixing across the thermal bar as evidenced by changes in the concentrations
of suspended solids, planlctcaiic organisms and certain chemicals at the
-------
surface. However, the nature of the thermal bar is such that it is a zone
of intense mixing between the open water and nearshore waters. The thermal
bar exists because of mixing of waters with a temperature below H°C from
the open water with waters of a temperature above «+°C from the nearshore
waters to form the denser U°C which sinks at the "bar." This mixing of
open waters at the "bar!l with the nearshore waters results in a net trans-
port of chemicals and heat from the nearshore to the open waters of the
lake at the bottom of the "bar."
The third area of the lake which should be considered in any dis-
cussion of water quality is the the open water. This area may be further
subdivided into the north and south basins and the epilimnion and hypo-
limnion during the warm months of the year. Water quality in the open
waters generally shows some evidence for accelerated eutrophication,
especially in the southern basin.
Stoerner and Yang (1969) (1970) reported that the open waters of
Lake Michigan are showing increasing abundance of diatoms which are gener-
ally considered to be associated with enriched waters. Further, there
appears to be an increase in the appearance of green and blue-green algae
in the lake. Schelske and Stoermsr (1972) and Schelske, et al. (1971)
have reported that the growth of algae and specifically diatoms is generally
limited in the open waters and at least in some parts of the nearshore
waters by the available phosphorus content. Powers and Ayers (1967)
have noted that the silica content of the Chicago Water Works intake has
decreased over the past 36 years, 1926-1962. They extrapolated this data
to a zero silica content in 1976 during periods of intense diatom blooms.
This decrease in silica has been reported by Schelske and Stoermer (1972)
to be due to increasing phosphorus input which stimulates diatom growth,
-------
-5-
thereby reducing the silica content of the waters because of the formation
of the silicious shells.
Unpublished data made available to the author by the City of Chicago,
Department of Water and Sewers has shown that the silica content of the
raw water used by the city of Chicagp has not continued to decrease in the
period 1962-1970. In fact. Hie silica has leveled off at a concentration
of about 1.0 mg/1 during this period of time. Examination of the data
from 1926-1970 shows that the leveling off of the silica in the water sup-
ply intake began about 1950. Since that time silica levels have remained
essentially constant. This leveling off would be expected, based on the
aqueous environmental chemistry of silica, where the rates of weathering
of various silicate minerals are often dependent on the silica concentra-
tions of the water. Therefore, while on an average, the silica content of
the waters would not be expected to reach "zero" by 1976, i.e. - the
extrapolated value based on the previously noted trends - it should be
emphasized that during periods of algal blooms the silica content of the
water could become sufficiently low to limit diatom growth. Various con-
servation activist groups (BPI, 1972) have predicted that Lake Michigan
is on the edge of a major change due to the fact that when the silica de-
creases to the point that it is insufficient to support additional diatom
growth, there should be a rapid change in the dominant type of algae, with
a switch from diatoms to greens and blue-greens. It is this type of shift
in algal dominance that is of concern due to the fact that generally,
green and Wue-green algae cause a greater water quality deterioration per
unit concentration than do diatoms. It should be noted, however, that
diatoms do cause serious water quality problems for water plant opera-
tors, greatly increasing the cost of treatment by reduced filter runs and
-------
-6-
by causing taste and odors in the drinking water (see Palmer, 1959).
The nearshore waters of Lake Michigan are also experiencing exces-
sive planktonic algal growth (Stoermer, etal., 1971); however, the shift
from diatoms to greens and blue-greens appears to be less than in the
open waters, according to Copeland and Ayers (1972). It appears that the
nearshore waters tend to maintain the silica concentrations at a higher
level and therefore still support the dominance of diatoms. These higher
silica concentrations are related to increased rates of silica generation,
upwelling of deeper waters, input from rivers and municipal and indus-
trial wastes and weathering processes.
The nearshore zone has problems of growth of attached algae, particu-
larly Cladophora. Increased growths of these attached algae are occurring
in those regions where there is a suitable substrate. During strong
storms, the Cladophora tend to be broken off from their holdfast and ac-
cumulate along tiie shore in thick mats. These mats can become serious
problems for water supply intakes due to clogging of the intakes, requiring
fairly frequent cleaning.
The water quality problems of the highly localized degraded areas,
such as Green Bay, are the result of large waste inputs into parts of the
lake with restricted circulation. The problems in these areas include
excessive oxygen demand due to the discharge of partially treated municipal
and industrial wastes, high suspended solids due to wind-induced mixing
of sediments and discharges from waste water sources, as well as the
transport of erosional material from the land to the lake. Some harbors
show significant concentrations of oil and other chemicals which cause
serious degradation of water quality from an aesthetic, recreational and
aquatic life point of view.
-------
-7-
Risley (1968) has discussed many of the water quality problems of
Lake Michigan. This discussion should be consulted for further details of
these problems.
Erom the above discussion, it is readily apparent that there already
exists significant water quality deterioration in the nearshore zones
of Lake Michigan due to excessive nutrient input. Further, the data
available show disturbing trends in the numbers and types of algae present
in the open waters of the lake, which ultimately could lead to a signifi-
cant deterioration of water quality in Lake Michigan as a whole. However,
as noted earlier, the water pollution control agencies of the states bor-
dering on Lake Michigan and the federal government (EPA) have established
an 80% phosphorus removal from waste water inputs which shall be essen-
tially complete as of December, 1972. The important questions to be asked
about this situation are:
1. Will the: steps taken in 1968 bring about a significant reduc-
tion in phosphorus input to the lake and thereby result in a measurable
increase in water quality?
2. What will be the rate of recovery of Lake Michigan as a result
of the December, 1972 limitation of phosphorus input?
3. What will be the expected increases in phosphorus load to this
lake due to further urbanization of the lake's watershed?
The following sections of this paper consider each of these questions.
Magnitude of Phosphorus Input Reduction
In August, 1972 the Phosphorus Technical Committee of the Lake Michigan
Enforcement Conference (Zar, 1972) presented a report summarizing the cur-
rent information on phosphorus inputs to Lake Michigan. Data from their
-------
-8-
report are presented in Table 1. Examination of Table 1 shows that this
committee estimated that the direct point waste water sources contribute
3.9 million pounds per year of phosphorus to Lake Michigan, while the in-
direct point waste water sources contribute 9.3 million pounds of phos-
phorus per year to this lake. This gives a total for waste water contri-
butions to Lake Michigan of 13.2 millions pounds per year. The direct
point sources include the cities that discharge their waste water directly
to the lake, while the indirect point sources include those municipalities
that discharge their waste waters to a tributary of the lake. The Phos-
phorus Technical Committee estimated the phosphorus input from waste
water sources assuming that 10 mg/1 is the typical phosphorus concentra-
tion in the influent of sewage treatment plants and that 3.65 pounds of
phosphorus per person per year is the typical loading for domestic waste
waters and that each person used 120 gallons per day. In some instances
they had actual effluent data on the phosphorus discharged to the lake from
waste water sources. A combination of these two approaches was used to
estimate the values listed in Table 1. The Phosphorus Committee reported
that the erosion and other diffuse sources generally range from 1-7 mil-
lion pounds per year for a generalized total load to Lake fiELchigan of
W-20 million pounds per year. However, actual data were available for
the phosphorus load from the various tributaries in 1969. Using this data,
a total load of 17.1 million pounds per year was found.
This Committee also estimated the combined sewer overflow phosphorus
load to Lake Michigan as being about 5% of the total untreated waste
waters. This figure results in an estimate of 0.8 million pounds per
year of phosphorus is contributed to Lake Michigan due to combined
flow.
-------
Table 1
Estimated Phosphorus Sources for Lake Michigan*
Source Load (million Ibs/yr)
Direct waste water sources 3.9
Indirect waste water sources 9.3
Total waste water sources 13.2
Erosion and other diffuse sources 1 to 7
Generalized total load excluding
precipitation and dust fall I1* to 20
1969 total load (estimated 6 measured)
excluding precipitation and dustfall 17.1
Combined sewer overflow 0.8
Precipitation and dustfall on surface
of Lake Michigan** 1.1
*after report of Phosphorus Technical Committee to the Lake
Michigan Conference (Zar, 1972).
**estimated by the author based on data of Kluesener (1972) and
Thompson (1972).
-------
-9-
One factor not mentioned in the Phosphorus Committee report is the
phosphorus input from precipitation directly on the lake's surface. While
very little data are available on this topic, studies by the Canada Centre
for Inland Waters (Thompson, 1972) have found that across Canada an
average concentration of total phosphorus in precipitation is 97 ug/1 P.
The CCIW studies show Uiat about 60 ug/1 P is in the soluble ortho-
phosphate form which would be assumed to be available for algal growth.
KLuesener (1972) and KLuesener and Lee (1972), in a study of the
phosphorus content of precipitation and dustfall in Madison, Wisconsin,
found that about 110 pounds of phosphorus was derived from atmospheric
sources per square mile per year. They also found that there were about 13
Ibs/yr/sq mi of total phosphorus present in precipitation in the city
of Madison. It is felt that these values are high compared to what is
likely found for Lake Michigan and it has been assumed that a value of
50 pounds per square mile per year of phosphorus would be contributed
to the lake from dustfall and precipitation, with most of this in a form
that is not readily available for algal growth. The area of Lake Michigan
is 22,WQ square miles (Hutchinson, 1957), giving a total estimated phos-
phorus input from precipitation and dustfall on the lake's, surface of
1.1 million pounds per year.
Table 2 presents a summary of the phosphorus loading to Lake Michigan
using the 1971 data .assuming no waste water phosphorus removal other than
that normally achieved, the 1973 loading assuming that 80% of the waste
water phosphorus is removed in accord with the recommendations of the 1968
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference, and the 1973 loading assuming the
1.0 rag/1 P effluent standard^diich may be adopted by the conferees at the
Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference in September, 1972. The 1.0 mg/1 P
-------
Table 2
Estimated Phosphorus Loading of Lake Michigan
Source
Waste waters
Diffuse sources
Combined sewer overflow
Precipitation and
dustfall
Total
Percent reduction from
1971 values
1971
13.2
3.0
0.8
1.1
18.1
—
Load (million Ibs/yr)
1973
80% removal 90%
2.6
3.0
0.8
1.1
7.5
58
1973
removal*
1.3
3.0
0.8
1.1
6.2
66
*equivalent to 1 mg/1 in effluent
-------
-10-
effluent standard is taken to be equivalent to a 90% removal of phosphorus
from the waste waters, since it is generally found and assumed for these cal-
culations that typical domestic waste waters contain 10 mg/1 of phosphorus.
1971 was chosen as the year for comparison rather than 1972 since many of
the waste water treatment plants located on Lake Michigan or its tributaries
had initiated phosphorus removal during that year. Fetterolf (1972) stated
that the projections of the Michigan Water Resources Commission are that, by
December, 1972, Michigan waste water treatment plants in the Lake Michigan
basin will remove 65% of the phosphorus load to Lake Michigan attributable to
municipal and industrial sources. By December, 1973, this figure will increase
to 77.1%. Schraufnagel (1972) has stated that, as of December, 1972, the
State of Wisconsin will be accomplishing an overall 80% removal of phos-
phorus from waste water point sources.
Therg seems to be some controversy on whether conventional domestic waste
water treatment plants can readily achieve a 90% removal of phosphorus. For
some of the very large plants located on Lake Michigan it appears to be pos-
sible at a relatively small increase in cost. However, for some of the more
moderate or smaller size plants, the experience thus far indicates that they
may have some difficulty achieving 85% phosphorus removal. In order to achieve
90% removal it may be necessary to greatly increase the cost normally asso-
ciated with phosphorus removal at waste water treatment plants.
The 1971 data use a total of 18 million pounds per year as the current
loading, which is the same as the 1969 actually measured values minus
the atmospheric input. The diffuse source estimate is based on the
1969 data and is assumed to be constant at 3 million pounds per year for
each of the conditions considered in Table 2. Studies currently underway
at the University of Wisconsin Water Chemistry Program and at other
institutions are designed to estimate the amounts of phosphorus
-------
-11-
derived from diffuse sources that way actually become available in a
lake. Preliminary results show that a few percent of the phosphorus
from diffuse sources such as rural and urban runoff can become available
in lake systems. It should be further noted that in general the phos-
phorus present in domestic waste water effluents is available for algal
growth at the point of discharge.
One of the factors that is not properly reflected in the Phosphorus
Technical Committee Report is that phosphorus arising from waste water
discharges to the head waters of a tributary to Lake Michigan is counted
equally with phosphorus directly discharged to the lake. This is an
extremely conservative approach since there can be little doubt that the
phosphorus discharged directly to the lake from waste water sources is
essentially all available for algal growth, while the phosphorus dis-
charged to tributaries of the lake, especially near the head waters such
as the Upper Fox River, would, by the time it reaches Lake Michigan, be
largely in a form that is not available for algal growth. In the passage
down the Fox River through Lake Winnebago, -ffollswed by a series of im-
poundments in the Lower Fox River and Green Bay, much of this phosphorus
has passed through one or more aquatic plant systems, such as algae and
macrophytes. Each passage through an aquatic plant system results in a
certain part of the phosphorus becoming refractory, i.e., unavailable for
algal growth. While the actual amount of refractory phosphorus formed in
any tributary would be very difficult tc determine, it is certain that in
a situation such as the Fox River in Wisconsin, a waste water discharge
near the head waters may have very little effect on water quality in Lake
Michigan as compared to a waste water discharge of a similar magnitude
directly to the lake.
-------
-12-
Exandnation of Table 2 shews that there will be a reduction in the
total phosphorus load to Lake Michigan from 18.1 to 7.5 million pounds
per year when the 80% removal from waste water sources goes into effect in
December, 1972. Using the 90% removal criteria (1.0 mg/1 P in the ef-
fluent) , the expected loading in 1973 would be 6.2 million pounds per
year. This means that comparing the 1971 values to the 1973 values, there
would be a 58% overall reduction in phosphorus input for the 80% removal
criteria, while 66% overall reduction would occur with the 1.0 mg/1 P
effluent standard. Changing from 80% removal from waste waters to 90%
removal results in almost a million pounds per year decrease in the phos-
phorus input to the lake and an additional 10% reduction in the total
phosphorus load compared to the 1971 data.
It is of interest to compare these results to the effects of the re-
moval of phosphorus from detergents. The only way that phosphorus in
detergents will have a significant effect on the phosphorus loading to
Lake Michigan is through affecting the amounts of phosphorus in combined
sewer overflows. Assuming that 50% of the phosphorus present in domestic
sewage effluent is derived from detergents, the loading for the combined
sewer overflow will decrease from 0.8 to 0.4 million pounds per year as
the total phosphorus load for the lake. From an overall point of view,
assuming that the phosphorus loading to Lake Michigan will decrease to
about 6 million pounds per year, and comparing the 1971 data to the 1973
1.0 mg/1 P effluent standard, it is found that the net overall reduction
will be 66%. Based on these calculations approximately two additional
percent of phosphorus entering the lake could be removed by conversion of
phosphate-builder detergents to phosphate-free detergents.
An additional benefit that will be derived from the conversion of
-------
-13-
detergents from phosphate-builders to nonphosphate-builders is a reduction
in the post of phosphate removal by municipal treatment works. Some of
the treatment methods used for phosphate removal show a chemical dosage
necessary to achieve a certain degree of removal dependent on the initial
concentration of phosphorus in the waste waters. Reducing the phosphorus
in the waste waters from 10 to 5 mg/1 would result in a reduction in the
chemical costs for phosphate removal. Because of the lack of information
on the relationship between the reduction in treatment chemical dosages as
a function of initial concentration, it is not possible to estimate the
actual magnitude of the savings that would be derived from the switch
from phosphate to nonphosphate detergents. It should be further noted,
however, that the amount that might be saved by the public in terms of
reduced quantities of treatment chemicals made possible by the switch
would in part be offset by increased ocsts of manufacturing processes and
types of chemicals used in the detergent products which were necessitated
by the switch.
Within a few years there will be the virtually complete elimination
of the conbined sewer overflows. When this occurs, the overall percent
reduction in phosphorus input for the 1973 90% removal criteria will in-
crease from 66 to 70, compared to the 1971 estimated phosphorus loadings.
Expected Rate of Recovery of Lake Michigan Upon Phosphate Reduction
Sonzogni and Lee (1972) have recently presented results which show
that it is unreasonable to expect that the rate of recovery Of-a lake upon the
input reduction of a nonconservative element would follow the hydraulic
residence time model often used. Instead, it is felt that it is much more
appropriate to use a residence time model based on the chemical reactivity of
-------
the element under consideration. For phosphorus, a residence time can be
computed based on Hie average total content of phosphorus in the lake and
the average rate of phosphorus input. This residence time takes into
account all of the various chemical reactions that occur in the lake which
tend to transport phosphorus t» and from the sediments. It is important
to note that numerous studies have shown (see Sonzogni and Lee, 1972, and
Lee, 1972) that the sediments of lakes tend to act as important sinks
for phosphorus, in which very little of the phosphorus which is transported
to them is recycled to the overlying waters. This would be especially
true in a lake such as Lake Michigan. The studies currently underway by
the author show that the primary source of the phosphorus that is recycled
from the sediments is the mineralization of the algae. It appears that
very little of the phosphorus present in inorganic iron and aluminum com-
pounds is recycled in most natural water systems.
Using the concept of the phosphorus residence time and the data from
the Phosphorus Committee (Zar, 1972), including the estimated input from
precipitation and dustfall, a total input at this time of 18.1 million
pounds per year of phosphorus and a total volume of Lake Michigan of ap-
proximately 5 x 10^ liters (Hutchinson, 1957) and, further, assuming an
average phosphorus concentration in Lake Michigan of 0.01 mg/1 P
(Schelske, 1972), it is computed that the phosphorus residence time in
Lake Michigan is in the order of six years. This is markedly different
from the 30-year residence time for water molecules in the lake. Based
on the model utilized by Sonzogni and Lee (1972) for the recovery of a lake
after phosphorus input reduction, it would be expected that about three
residence times would be needed to accomplish a 95% recovery of the lake
to the new steady state phosphorus value. This means that in fifteen to
-------
-15-
twenty years from December, 1972, the lake should be at a new steady state
phosphorus value. It should be further noted that this rate of recovery
assumes that Lake Michigan is, at the present time, at a steady state phos-
phorus value. If this is not the case, then a slightly longer time of re-
covery would be needed to achieve a new steady state phosphorus after
the December, 1972, phosphorus input reduction. The Hiosphorus Technical
Committee Report (Zar, 1972) presents data which shew that, on the average,
the total phosphorus concentration in the water supply intake of the
Chicago Water Filtration Plant has been increasing at a significant rate
during the past 15 years. This means that even if the phosphorus load were
to be maintained constant at the 1971 values, it would likely take several
years to achieve a new steady state phosphorus concentration. However,
since this model utilizes an exponential recovery with the greatest rate
of decrease during the period immediately following the input reduction,
the fact that the phosphorus concentrations in the lake would be tending
to increase due to the input of the past few years would likely be com-
pletely overshadowed by the dramatic drop in the total phosphorus input
during 1972. This means that instead of having to wait 100 years for the
lake to assume a new steady state concentration of phosphorus based on
the hydraulic residence time model of Rainey (1967), which assumes a
completely conservative behavior of the chemical, based on the more
appropriate model the lake would asaume a new steady state value within
about 15-20 years from December, 1972.
It is further noted that the estimates by Baumgartner, as cited by
Risley (1968), where "after careful evaluation of all data, he
(Baumgartner) estimated that if no additional pollutants were permitted to
enter Lake Michigan, it would take 1,000 years to reduce the pollutional
-------
-16-
concentra.tion in the lake by 90%" are in significant error and completely
neglect the consideration of the aqueous environmental chemistry of phos-
phorus in the Lake Michigan system.
This estimate of phosphorus residence time may be high for Lake
Michigan as a whole, because some of the data on the total phosphorus
present in the open waters of the lake show a total phosphorus content
of less than 0.01 mg/1 P. If a lower value of the total phosphorus
content of the lake were used, it would reduce the phosphorus residence
time to less than the six-year value computed on the basis of the
0.01 mg/1 P average content of the lake.
Expected Effect on Water Quality in Lake Michigan
Since phosphorus is the key element limiting planktonic and attached
algal growth in all parts of Lake Michigan (Zar, 1972) (Lee, 1972), with
the exception of the southernmost part of Green Bay and possibly other
locations near high phosphorus inputs (Sridharan and Lee, 1972), it is
reasonable to expect that reducing the phosphorus input to this lake within
the next year by 60-70% by advanced waste treatment methods should have
a significant effect on water quality in Lake Michigan. This effect would
be manifested to tiie greatest extent in the nearshore waters because
phosphorus levels of these waters tend to be somewhat higher than the open
waters of the lake. It is reasonable to expect that witiiin a few years
there will be an improvement in water quality in the open waters and
actually a reversal of Uie trends noted by Schelske and Stoermer (1971)
(1972), of a change in the dominant algal types from diatoms to green and
blue-green algae. On the average, it would be expected that within a few
years in the open waters there should be a reduction in the phosphorus
-------
-17-
content of these waters. This reduction may be difficult to see because
of the small levels of phosphorus normally present in these waters.
However, such a decrease in the overall phosphorus loading should actually
reduce algal biomass in the open waters of the lake to some extent.
Another factor which will tend to reverse the trends noted by
Stoermer and Yang (1969) (1970), of the change from diatoms to green and
blue-green algae associated with increasing phosphorus input and con-
comitant silica utilization by the diatoms, is the fact that many of the
detergent companies are switching from phosphate-base detergents to sili-
cate-base detergents. If a complete switch occurs within the next several
years, it is expected that the average waste water effluent will increase
in silica content by about 3-5 mg/1. While data on the silica content of
waste waters in general are rather sparse, from the data available it is
possible that this represents an increase of 1.5 times the average silica
content of domestic waste waters. While little or no reliable data exist
on the total silica budget for Lake Michigan, it can be expected that the
additional input of silica should tend to further reverse the trends noted
by Stoermer and Yang (1969) (1970), of changing from diatoms to green and
blue-green algae.
From an overall point of view, it is abundantly clear that the steps
taken in the 1968 Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference by the fWQA and the
states bordering on this lake to reduce the phosphorus input by 80% from
waste water sources will, when they come to fruition in December, 1972,
result in a significant improvement in water quality in Lake Michigan. The
total biomass of algae in the nearshore and to some extent in the open
waters of the lake should be decreased within a few years due to this
phosphorus input reduction. Further, there should be a change in the types
-------
-18-
of algae present in the lake from those which are normally indicative of
hi^ier fertility to the diatoms indicative of oligotrophic waters.
The discharge of waste heat from steam electric generating stations
located on Lake Michigan is sometimes alleged to accelerate the eutrophica-
tion of the leke (Department of Interior, 1970). Conservation activist
groups such as BPI (1972) claim that a cataclysmic change in water quality-
eutrophication in Lake Michigan will occur in the lake unless steps are
taken to eliminate waste heat input to the lake. According to BPI
(1972) the current delicate balance of Lake Michigan will be tripped in
favor of a rapid acceleration in the degree of eutrophication of the lake
by "the addition of heat from steam electric generating stations that are
scheduled to begin operation within the next few years. BPI has inter-
vened in the AEC licensing hearings for each of the nuclear steam electric
generating stations that are scheduled to begin operation in the near
future on Lake Michigan. BPI has filed almost identical statements of
contention opposing the operation of these plants with once=rthrough
cooling as a means of waste heat disposal. However, careful examination
of the situation shows that the BPI contentions for intervention on the
basis of accelerated eutrophication are not technically correct from at
least two points of view. First, Lee and Veith (1971) have reviewed the
relationship between waste heat input to lakes of the Lake Michigan type
and have shown that the currently planned waste heat input to Lake Michigan
is small compared to the heat assimilatory capacity of the lake, resulting
in a very localized heating of the water in the area immediately adjacent
to the points of discharge. Further, as discussed by Lee and Veith (1971),
the time-temperature relationship in the heat discharge plume will be suf-
ficiently small so that no significant increase in planktonic algal growth
-------
-19-
will occur. Nor will there be a change in the type of planktonic algae.
The second reason why the basic premise that the BPI contention
that the addition of waste heat from existing or soon-to-operate steam
electric power plants is incorrect has been described in this paper. BPI
uses as a basis for the delicate balance of the eutrophication of Lake
Michigan the results of Stoermer and Yang (1969) (1970) and Schelske and
Stoermer (1972). However, fortunately steps were taken over four years ago
to reverse the trend of decreasing silica in Lake Michigan by greatly
limiting the phosphorus input to the lake by December, 1972. The cata-
clysmic changes in water quality to Lake Michigan predicted by BPI
(1972) did not properly reflect the steps that had already been taken by
the water pollution control regulatory agencies to minimize phosphorus
input to Lake Michigan. These cataclysmic changes in water quality in
Lake Michigan will not take place. Instead, there should be a noticeable
improvement in water quality over the next few years.
It is of interest to speculate about the potential benefits which
may be derived as a result of reducing the phosphorus input to Green Bay
from waste water sources on water quality in the Bay. There are several
wrter quality problems in southern Green Bay. One of the most significant
problems is the low dissolved oxygen concentrations that occur in the
southernmost part of the Bay. These problems arise primarily from dis-
charge of untreated or partially treated wastes emptied into the Fox
River having a high BOD content. While the discharge of phosphate into
southern Green Bay does tend to increase the oxygen demand of sediments due
to the death and decay of algae and other aquatic plants, it is generally
felt that the BOD added to the waters from algal decay is small compared
to the BOD input to southern Green Bay from waste water sources. Therefore,
-------
-20-
reduction of the phosphate input to southern Green Bay will have little
or no effect on the BOD problems of the southern Bay. What is needed to
solve the oxygen demand problem from southern Green Bay is BOD removal
from waste water sources. It should be noted, however, that one of the
benefits of some phosphate removal processes from waste waters is a con-^
comitant increased removal of BOD from the effluent. Therefore, while
phosphate removal will not directly affect the oxygen demand protlem,
indirectly, it will help to minimize this problem in southern Green Bay.
The other important water quality problem in Green Bay is the exces-
sive growth of planktonic and attached algae and in certain locations
macrophytes or water weeds. The high phosphorus concentrations in Green
Bay are directly contributing to the excessive amounts of aquatic plants
in the Bay. Based on the estimates of phosphorus sources by Sridharan
(1972), Sridharan and Lee (1972) and Jayne and Lee (1972) for Green Bay,
there should be approximately a 50% reduction in the phosphorus content
in southern Green Bay water and a 40% reduction in the phosphorus content
of the Bay as a whole. These numbers neglect the contribution of phos-
phorus from the sediments and assume that the phosphorus flux to the sedi-
ments will continue to be approximately what it is today and that the
other sources of phosphorus for the Bay will remain unchanged.
Currently the average concentrations of orthophosphate in southern
Green Bay are approximately 0.05 mg/1 P. Based on the above assumptions
the average concentrations of the Bay should drop to 0.02-0.03 mg/1 P.
These concentrations are those which would be present after the algae and
other phosphorus sinks have taken up what they need or can absorb. It is
clear that since these concentrations are two to three times above the
critical concentrations commonly found for the excessive growth of algae,
-------
-21-
the algae in general are not phosphorus limited and will not likely become
so, as a result of reducing phosphorus input by 80% from waste water
sources. Therefore, little improvement will be expected in water quality
in the southernmost part of Green Bay as a result of reducing the phos-
phorus input into the Bay from waste water sources. In order to control
excessive growth of algae in this part of Green Bay, it will be necessary
to control phosphorus input from some of the mope diffuse sources such
as urban and agricultural runoff.
Another important water quality problem of southern Green Bay is the
high turbidity present in the water. This high turbidity affects the
aesthetic quality of the water and may play an important role in in-
fluencing algal growth. It is reasonable to propose, based on the ob-
servations made by Sridharan (1972) and Jayne and Lee (1972), that algal
growth in the southernmost part of the Bay may be, at times, light limited.
Therefore, even more profuse algal growth might be encountered if the tur-
bidity of the Bay is reduced. This turbidity arises primarily from the
suspended solids derived from municipal and industrial wastes, clastic
materials derived from the drainage basin, sediments stirred up by wind,
wave and organism action, detrital remains of aquatic and terrestrial plants
and animals and algae.
Since it is likely that the algal contribution to suspended solids
in southern Green Bay is small as compared to other sources, and since the
expected reduction in algal number will likely be small as a result of
removal of phosphorus from waste waters, it is reasonable to propose that
the high turbidity problem of southern Green Bay will not be influenced
to any significant effect by phosphorus removal from waste water sources.
While 80% removal of phosphorus from waste water discharged into
-------
-22-
tributaries of southernmost Green Bay may result in little improvement of
water quality in that part of the Bay, the removals are justified based on
the protection of mid and upper Green Bay as well as Lake Michigan from
further water quality deterioration. Ihe growth of algae present in the
open waters of mid and upper bay and of Lake Michigan is often limited
by the phosphorus content of the water. Since the Fox River and Green
Bay represent one of the more significant sources of water and phosphorus
for Lake Michigan, phosphorus removal from waste water sources is justi-
fied.
Future Water Quality in Lake Michigan
It is of interest to attempt to predict what the future water quality
in Lake Michigan will be as a result of further urbanization of the lake's
watershed. In making a calculation of this type, assumptions must be
made about the rate of population growth in the Lake Michigan watershed
which will contribute domestic waste waters and urban drainage to the
lake.
Accurate population projections are extremely difficult to obtain.
However, after contacting a variety of sources it was decided that
Table 3 presents the best current estimate of the projected population
in the Lake Michigan basin between now and the year 2020 (Schraufnagel,
1972; Fetterolf, 1972; and Zar, 1972). Examination of this table shows
that the total population, excluding Illinois, is expected to increase by
almost 6 million persons in the next 50 years. Further, the sewered popu-
lation in the Lake Michigan basin, excluding Illinois, is expected to in-
crease 6.5 million in 50 years. Illinois is excluded from these population
estimates since the waste waters and most of the storm water from Chicago
-------
Table 3
Estimated Population in Lake Michigan Watershed
Excluding Illinois
Year Population (millions)
1970 7.16
1980 7.66
2000 10.02
2020 13.05
Estimated Population in Lake Michigan Watershed
Served by Waste Water Treatment Plants
Excluding Illinois
Year Population (millions)
1970 3.93
1980 4.94
2000 7.38
2020 10.44
-------
-23-
are diverted from the Lake Michigan basin. The North Shore Sanitary District
currently discharges about 30 MGD of treated waste water effluent to
Lake Michigan. According to Blomgren (1972), the majority of the effluent
is meeting the current Illinois 1 mg/1 P effluent standard. Further,
Blomgren (1972) expects I3iat complete diversion of I3ie Nortf) Shore Sani-
tary District waste waters to the Des Plaines River will occur in 1974.
This diversion will remove an additional 0.1 million pounds per year of
phosphorus from the Lake Michigan basin.
Table 4 summarizes the expected changes in the phosphorus loading
of Lake Michigan during the next 50 years.
It would be expected that without any phosphorus removal from domestic
waste waters or a change from phosphate to nonphosphate-type detergents,
approximately 30 million pounds of phosphorus per year would be entering
the lake by the year 2020 over what is expected to enter the lake in
1973. However, since this waste water will be treated for at least 80-90%
phosphorus removal, possibly attaining a 1.0 mg/1 P effluent, only 2.4 mil-
lion pounds per year increase (assuming 90% removal) in the phosphorus is
expected by the year 2020. Considering that the 0.8 million pounds of
phosphorus in combined sewer overflow and the North Shore Sanitary District
waste waters will have been eliminated from Lake Michigan by that time,
the total waste water phosphorus load by the year 2020 should be in the
order of 3.7 million pounds per year, or approximately 2.4 million pounds
above the expected load for 1973 if all municipal waste water dischargers
to Lake Michigan or its tributaries achieve the 1.0 mg/1 P effluent.
One of the effects of the population increase in the Lake Michigan
basin, which includes not only the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Indiana, but also to a very limited extent, the state of Illinois, is the
-------
Table 4
Expected Changes in Phosphorus Loading
of Lake Michigan - 1973 - 2020
Change in Load
million Ibs/yr
Diversion of North Shore Sanitary
District -0.1
Eliminate Combined Sewer Overflow -0.8
Increase in Sewered Population (90%
Phosphorus Removal by Year 2020) +2.4
Increased Urban Area (Conversion
of Rural to Urban Land) +0.6
Rural Runoff Input Reduction - magnitude
unknown
Urban Runoff Input Reduction - magnitude
unknown
Improvement in Advanced Waste Treatment - magnitude
unknown
Net Change in Phosphorus
Load to Lake Michigan
1973-2020 +2.1
-------
-24-
further urbanization of the land within the drainage basin. Studies by
KLuesener (1972), KLuesener and Lee (1972), and Weibel (1969) have shown
that the conversion of rural land into typical urban area results in a
significant increase in the phosphorus transported from the area. While
the magnitude of the increase is dependent on the original land use,
values ranging from 1 to 100 are typically encountered from the conver-
sion of forest or farm lands into urban U.S.A. The urban sprawl that has
dominated the population increase during the last 20 years will probably
not continue to the same extent in the future with the result that, per
unit increase in population, less land will probably be converted from
rural to urban activity than for a similar population increase in the
past.
Table 5 presents the best available estimate of the amount of land
in the Lake Michigan drainage basin that will be converted from rural to
urban activities in the next 50 years. Approximately 1.1 million acres
of farm and forest will be converted into suburbia in this period of
time. If it is assumed that the conversion fron rural lands in the Lake
Michigan basin to urban areas results in an 0.6 pound per acre per year
increase in the phosphorus transported from an acre of land, it is com-
puted that the urbanization of the Lake Michigan watershed during the
next 50 years would increase the total phosphorus load to the lake by
0.6 million pounds of phosphorus per year in urban storm water drainage.
Studies currently underway in the University of Wisconsin Water Chemistry
Program are showing that a substantial part of the urban storm water
drainage phosphorus is not readily available for algal growth.
From the data summarized in Table 4 it is seen that the net change
in phosphorus load to Lake Michigan during the next 50 years should be in
-------
Table 5
Estimated Areas of Increased Urban
Development in the Lake Michigan Watershed
Period Area (acres)
1970-1980 278,800
1980-2000 438,200
2000-2020 428,200
TOTAL 1,W5,200
-------
-25-
the order of an additional 2.1 million pounds per year of phosphorus.
Therefore, it is expected that without any changes in the current technology
for the control of phosphorus that the total phosphorus load in the year
2020 will be approximately one half of the 1971 phosphorus load. To
compensate for this increase it is likely that the technology available
for the control of phosphorus will be improved significantly in this
period. For example, studies by KLuesener (1972) and Cowen and Lee (1972)
have shown that one of the major sources of phosphorus in urban storm
water drainage is the leaching of this compound from tree leaves in the
fall of the year and tree seeds and flowers in the spring of the year.
These studies have shown that a much more effective street cleaning by
vacuuming techniques and leaf and debris pickup than is normally achieved
in most municipalities would likely reduce the amounts of phosphate de-
rived from urban areas by a significant extent.
The amounts of phosphorus derived from rural runoff should also be
reduced in the next 50 years as a result of efforts designed to minimize
the loss of fertilizers from the land. Especially noteworthy in this
area are the current efforts designed to greatly reduce the amounts of
phosphorus derived from animal manures spread on frozen soil. Further
advances in the technology of phosphorus removal at domestic and indus-
trial waste water treatment plants should within the foreseeable future
enable many treatment plants to achieve greater removal of phosphorus
with a relatively modest increase in treatment cost. Therefore, it is
reasonable to conclude that the total phosphorus load to Lake Michigan
will not increase more than 1-2 million pounds per year during the next
50 year period.
-------
-26-
Sunmary and Conclusions
The current phosphorus loading to Lake Michigan is in the order of
18 million pounds per year. If the states bordering on Lake Michigan adopt
a 1.0 mg/1 P effluent standard for waste waters discharged to this lake
or its tributaries, there should be a 66% reduction in the phosphorus
load to this lake within the next year when the new treatment practice is
put into effect, with a residual phosphorus loading in the order of 6.2
million pounds per year. This reduced phosphorus loading should result
in a significant improvement in water quality in the nearshore waters and
to some extent in the open waters of the lake, resulting in decreased
growth of plariktonic and attached algae. The drastic changes that have
been predicted for water quality in Lake Michigan will not take place
due to the foresight of the water pollution control agencies, which at
the 1968 Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference adopted the regulations
which will be substantially in effect in December, 1972, requiring 80%
removal of phosphorus from all waste waters entering Lake Michigan or its
tributaries. The current trend in the change from diatoms to green and
blue-green algae noted in the open waters of the lake should be reversed
due to the reduced phosphorus input and to some extent due to an expected
increase in the silica input to the lake.
Using a rate of recovery model for Lake Michigan based on the phos-*
phorus residence time rather than the hydraulic residence time, it is
found that the phosphorus residence time is in the order of six years and
that the recovery of the lake to a new steady state phosphorus level after
the reduction in phosphorus input that takes place within the next year
will take approximately three phosphorus residence times.
Some of the numbers which serve as the basis for the calculations
-------
-27-
presented in this paper are very poorly known, such as the amount of
phosphorus contributed to Lake Michigan by precipitation and dustfall as
well as the amount of phosphorus derived from urban and rural sources. It
is possible that further studies might show that the values selected by
•the author, v*iich are largely those values developed by the Phosphorus
Technical Committee of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference, are in
substantial error. However, errors will not change tiie overall conclu-
sions of this paper, namely that it is reasonable to expect that due to
the steps taken over four years ago by the Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference to limit the phosphorus inptrt to Lake Michigan that there
will be an improvement to water quality in the lake and that in the
foreseeable future, i.e., the next 30-40 years, there should be no further
significant deterioration in water quality in the lake.
The expected population growth in the Lake Michigan basin that will
be contributing waste waters to the lake is approximately 6.5 million
persons by the year 2020. This increase in population, coupled with the
continued maintenance of 80-90% phosphorus removal from waste water
sources and the virtually complete elimination of combined sewer overflow
and control of phosphorus from urban and rural runoff, should result in a
water quality in Lake Michigan remaining essentially constant for the
next 30-40 years once the lake has achieved a new steady state phosphorus
concentration as a result of the December, 1972, reduction of phosphorus
input from waste water sources.
Acknowledgement
I wish to acknowledge the assistance of Howard Zar of the EPA,
Chicago, Carlos Fetterolf of the Water Resources Commission of the State
-------
-28-
of Michigan, Jacob Dumelle and Carl Blomgren of the State of Illinois
pollution control agencies, John Kbnrad and Pat Schraufnagel of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Tom Maloney of the EPA
Corvallis, and Claire Schelske of the University of Michigan fro- pro-
viding me with much of the data used in this paper and for their
assistance in reviewing it.
This investigation was supported by -flie EPA Training Grant No.
5P2-WP-184-OH. Support was also given this paper by the University of
Wisconsin Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
-------
iXHEMIUEE CITED
Blongren, C.I. Illinois Ehvirxximental ftdtection Agency, Personal
oonnunication (1972).
Businessmen for Public Interest. Statement of Contentions before
AEC Operating licensing Hearings for the Point Beach and Kewau-
nee, Wis., and Zion, 111., Nuclear Electric Generating'ttations
(Spring and Summer, 1972).
Copelandj R.A., and Ayers, J.C. Trace Element EAstiabutions in
Water ^Sediment,Ph^oglanlcton,. Jlocglankton and Benthos of
Lice MichiganYA feeS^^Stuxiy with C^gjlations of .Con-
cejrtra.ta.an Factors'and Buildupofgadj-oisotopes in the Food
We|>.Spec. Rep. No. 1, Eraaronmeiitil 'Research Group, Inc.
271 pp. (1972).
Cowen, W., and Lee, G.F. "leaves as a Source of Phosphorus"
Water Chemistry Program, University of Wisconsin, Submitted
for publication (1972)..
Department of the Interior, "Physical and Ecological Effects of
Waste Heat on Lake Michigan" Fish and Wildlife Service.
101 pp. (Sept., 1970).
Fetterolf, C. Water Resources Commission, State of Michigan,
Personal coranunicatioh (1972).
Hutchinson, G.E. A Treatise of Limnology, !_» 1015 pp. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (19157).
Jayne, J., and Lee, G.F. "Phosphate Transfer Through Lower Green
Bay - Exchange Between Water and Sediments11 Water Chemistry
Program, University of Wisconsin, Presented to Great Lakes
Res. Conf., Madison, Wisconsin (April, 1972) (In Press).
KLuesener, J.W. "Nutrient Transport and Transformations in Lake
Wingra, Wisconsin" Ph.D. Thesis, Water Chemistry,""University
of Wisconsin , 242 pp. (1972).
KLuesener, J.W., and Lee, G.F. "Seasonal Changes in the Nitrogen
and Phosphorus Loading from Urban Runoff" Water Chemistry
Program, University of Wisconsin. To be presented at Water
Pollution Control Annual Meeting, Atlanta (October, 1972).
Lee, G.F. "Role of Phosphorus in Eutrophication and Diffuse
Source Control" Presented at the Conference on Phosphorus
in Fresh Water and Marine Environment. London. (April, 1972)
(In Press).
Lee, G.F., and Veith, G.D. "Effects of Thermal Discharges on the
Chemical Parameters of Water Quality and Eutrophication11
Proc. of Int. Sym. for Isolation and Identification of Pol-
lutants in the Environment, Ottawa, Canada, National Research
Council of Canada, pp. 287-294 (1971).
-------
Palmer, C.M. Algae in Water Supplies Public Health Service Pub.
No. 651, 88 pp. (1959).
Powers, C.F. , and Ayers, J.C. "Water Quality and Eutrophication
Trends in Southern Lake Michigan" in Studies on the Environ
ment and Eutrophication of Lake Michigan, University of
Michigan, Great Lakes Res. Div. Spec. Rep. No. 30,
142-178 (1967) .
Rainey, R.H. "Natural Displacement of Pollution from the Great
Science. 155: 1242-1243 (1967).
Risley, Jr. , C. "The Control of Nutrients Contributing to
Eutrophication of Lake Michigan' ] Presented at the Eleventh
Conference on Great Lakes Research, Milwaukee (1968) mimeo.
Schelske, C. University of Michigan, Personal conraunication
(1972).
Schelske, C.L., and Stoermer, E.F. "Eutrophication, Silica
Depletion, and Predicted Changes in Algal Quality in Lake
Michigan" Science 173: 423-424 (1971).
Schelske, C.L., and Stoermer, E.F. "Phosphorus, Silica, and
Eutrophication of Lake Michigan" Nutrients and Eutrophica-
tion Special Symposia, 1^. Amer. Soc. Limn, and Ocean.
157-171 (1972).
Schelske, C.L. , Stoermer, E.F., and Feldt, L.E. "Nutrients,
Phytoplankton, Productivity and Species Composition as
Influenced by Upwelling in Lake Michigan" Proc. 14th Conf .
Great Lakes Res. 102-113 (1971).
Schraufnagel, F. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Personal comrrajnication (1972).
Sonzogni, W. , and Lee, G.F. "Recovery of the Madison Lakes after
Nutrient Diversion" Presented at A.I.C.H.E. Meeting,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 1972 (In Press).
Sridharan, N. "Phosphorus Chemistry in Lower Green Bay, Wis."
Ph.D. Thesis, Water Chemistry, University of Wisconsin,
312 pp. (1972).
Sridharan, N., and Lee, G.F. "Studies on Phosphorus in Lower
Green Bay, Lake Michigan" Presented at the Great Lakes
Research Conference, Madison, Wisconsin (April, 1972)
(In Press).
Stoermer, E.F. , Schelske, C.L. , and Feldt, L.E. "Phytoplankton
Assemblage Differences at Inshore versus Offshore Stations
in Lake Michigan and Their Effects on Nutrient Enrichment
Experiments". Proc. 14th" Great Lakes Res..C6nf; 114-118 (1971)
-------
Stoermer, E.F., and Yang, J.J. "Plankton Diatom Assemblages in
Lake Michigan" University of Michigan Great Lakes Res. Div.
Spec. Rep. No. 47 268 pp. (1969).
Stoermer, E.F., and Yang, J.J. "Distribution and Relative
Abundance of Dominant Plankton Diatoms in Lake Michigan15
University of Michigan, Great Lakes Res. Div. Publ. No. 16
64 pp. (1970).
Ihompson, M. Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Qnt.
Personal communication (1972).
Weibel, S.R. "Urban Drainage as a Factor in Eutrophication'1
Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, Correctives National
Academy of Science, 383-402 (1969).
Zar, H. (Chairman). Report of the Phosphorus Technical Committee
to the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference (1972).
-------
2J>7_
1 G. Lee
2 DR. LEEi All right. What I want to do now is to
3 look specifically at this decision that was made back in
4 196# with respect to limiting the phosphorus input to Lake
5 Michigan. You recall you heard previously today that back
6 in 196#, the States bordering on Lake Michigan and the then
7 FWQA decided that they would require an $0 percent removal
8 of phosphorus from wastewater sources by December 1972.
9 Now, three questions come from that decision:
10 1. Will the steps taken back in 1968 bring about
11 a significant reduction in phosphorus input and therefore
12 result in a measurable increase in water quality?
13 2. What will be the rate of recovery of Lake Michi-
14 gan as a result of the December 1972 limitation of phosphorus
15 input?
16 3. What will be the expected increase in the phos-
17 phorus load to Lake Michigan due to further urbanization of
IS the lake's watershed?
19 And it is these three questions with which I wish
20 to address myself this evening.
21 Let's go to the next slide.
22 ... Slide ...
23 Now, on this slide I have presented what I called
24- the 1971 load datae This is the data derived by the Phos-
25 phorus Committee which shows that the wastewaters are
-------
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2$8
G. Lee
contributing something in the order of 13 million pounds per
year of phosphorus to the lake — this is as of last year —
before any significant phosphorus input took place.
I have assumed a diffuse source. This is from
urban runoff and from agricultural lands of about 3 million
pounds per year. This is in accord with the 1969 data used
by the Phosphorus Committee.
I have also used the Phosphorus Committee combined
sewer overflow data giving a 0.& million pounds per year load
of phosphorus arising because of the problems of combined
sewer overflow.
Finally, I have added in a figure of my own which
gives something in the order of 1 million pounds per year of
phosphorus going into Lake Michigan from atmospheric precipi-
tation and dustfall. This gives a total load, at this time,
of something in the order of 13 million pounds per year.
Now if we look at what the phosphorus load will be
in 1973 » assuming that we achieve the BO percent removal of
phosphorus from wastewater sources, we see that we reduce the
phosphorus load from l£ million pounds down to about 7.5
million pounds, or a 5$ percent overall reduction.
If we adopt the 1 mg/1 effluent standard — which
I am assuming here is equivalent to 90 percent removal —
we will reduce the total phosphorus load to Lake Michigan
-------
259
1 G. Lee
2 in 1973 — if that is when the removal takes place — to
3 6.2 million pounds or 66 percent reduction.
4 Let's look at the next slide, please.
5 ... Slide ...
6 There are several factors to consider when you are
7 talking about phosphorus loads, and I want to spend just a
$ minute on this because I think it is important to put these
9 various types of loads in their proper perspective: perspec-
10 tive of availability.
11 There is little doubt that the phosphorus that
12 comes into Lake Michigan from direct wastewater inputs is
13 largely available for algal growth. Algae can grow on this
14 phosphorus with little or no difficulty. However, a large
15 part of the phosphorus coming in from stormwater drainage —
16 that is, coming in from off the streets — or from rural
17 runoff, or from atmospheric sources, is not available for
1° algal growth. So it is not fair and proper to write phos-
19 phorus coming off of farmland as being equivalent to phos-
20 phorus coming from the streets or from wastewater sources.
21 Each of these are different with respect to their effects
22 on algal growth.
23 Where I had about 1 million pounds of phosphorus
2^- coming from the atmosphere, our own studies showed that
25 most of this phosphorus is not available for algal growth
-------
260
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
12
13
15
17
19
20
21
22
^
G, Lee
and therefore it does not really contribute to further growth
of algae in the lake.
Another point to make, I think, is with respect to
wastewater discharges to streams which eventually get into
the lake, where I am convinced that a large part of the phos-
phorus discharged to a stream — say, like the Upper Fox River
in Wisconsin — would not be available for algal growth in
»
Lake Michigan. By the time this phosphorus gets down to Green
Bay and out into the lake, a large part of it would be con-
verted to refractory or unavailable compounds, and this has to
be considered, too.
So the most important source is the direct input
to the lake from wastewater sources, and these others con-
tribute in yet an undefined way that is certainly of lesser
significance than the direct input.
Next slide.
... Slide ...
Now we are going to see a very dramatic decrease
from the phosphorus loads. The first question that comes
from this is the question of how fast will the lake recover?
Well, the hydraulic residence time for Lake Michigan is in
the order of 100 years. That is the filling time of the
lake. For conservative chemicals like chloride or sodium,
it will take several hundred years for the lake to reach a
-------
261
1 G. Lee
2 new steady state, or constant concentration, as the result
3 of some input reduction. However, for nonconservative chem-
4 icals — and phosphorus is highly nonconservative — it is
5 incorrect to use the hydraulic residence time in describing
6 the behavior of this chemical in the lake. What should be
7 used is the phosphorus residence time, and I have defined
B this very simply as the total amount in the lake divided by
9 the input. From a figure like this, you can get an indica-
10 tion of how long a phosphorus molecule will reside in the
11 lake. And it turns out that Lake Michigan, using the data
12 available from the Phosphorus Committee, we have the phos-
13 phorus residence time in the order of 6 years — not hundreds
14 or years, but 6 years,
15 All right. We have been doing some work on model-
16 ing of behavior of phosphorus as the result of reducing the
17 phosphorus input. And it was mentioned earlier, the work
IS of Megard, who has done similar work for some of the other
19 lakes in various parts of the country, and we can show that
20 in general we talk about a 3 residence times — 3 times the
21 residence times — being required for 95 percent recovery.
22 What this means for Lake Michigan, then, is that
23 the lake should recover at a rate such that by about 1#
24 years it would be at a new phosphorus level as the result
25 of the SO or 90 percent phosphorus reduction which will take
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
25
262
G. Lee
place within the next year or so.
An important point with respect to this model is
that we are talking about exponential rates recovery where
greatest drop occurs in the first few years after the input
reduction.
And so immediately after reduction of phosphorus
input, we should be beginning to see a dramatic decrease in
the overall phosphorus.
Next slide.
...
Slide ...
The next point I want to take up is the question
of what happens in the future, and I want to look at the
expected population and their phosphorus for Lake Michigan
up to the period 2020. In other words, the next 50 years.
I have been able to collect from various sources
the expected population in the Lake Michigan Basin for this
period, 1970 to the year 2020. We expect to have, excluding
Illinois, about 13 million people in the basin at that time.
About 10.4 million people will be served by a domestic sewage
system and therefore would be contributing wastewaters to
the lake in the year 2020.
Next slide, please.
... Slide ...
in addition to phosphorus from domestic wastewaters,
-------
263
1 G. Lee
2 we also have to consider the fact that we are going to urban-
3 ize a lot of rural land with this increased population, and
4 the estimates available to me show that we will convert about
5 1.1 million acres of farmland and trees and other rural areas
6 into urban areas in the next 50 years,
7 Next slide, please.
8 ... Slide ...
9 All right. Using these numbers, we can estimate
10 what will be the phosphorus load to Lake Michigan in the next
11 50 years. What will be the change? Well, first, we have
12 several things that are going to happen in the next few years
13 which will decrease phosphorus inputs, in addition to the
14 phosphorus removal that we have talked about here today.
15 One of these is that within 2 years we will divert
16 the North Shore Sanitary District to the Des Plaines River,
17 and my estimate of this is that this will take out about
1& 0.1 of a million pounds a year of phosphorus from the lake.
19 We will also sometime in the next 50 years —
20 possibly within the next 10 — eliminate the combined sewer
21 overflow problem, and this will certainly reduce the phos-
22 phorus load by something in the order of 0.8 of a million
23 pounds per year.
2^ Now, in opposition to this, we are going to increas
2 5 the population in the basin, and if we assume that we are
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
20
21
22
*
264
G. Lee
going to achieve 90 percent phosphorus removal on their waste
waters — which certainly we can do for a large part of this
time — this will increase the phosphorus load — and unfor-
tunately there is an error on the slide; it should be 2.4
million pounds. These have been corrected in the text which
you have received. So it is increased to 2.4 — not 3»& —
million pounds, in the next 50 years.
All right. The conversion of rural land to urban
areas will increase the phosphorus load — this is really a
guess — but there will be a small increase of something in
the order of 0.6 of a million pounds.
To counteract this, I think that in the next 50
years, we are going to learn more about how to control
phosphorus from rural runoff; we are going to learn how to
control phosphorus from urban areas; and we are going to
even make significant improvements in advanced waste treat-
ment .
Well, if we take the net change in the phosphorus
load between 1973 and — that should be — 2020, we come up
with an overall net change in 50 years of 2.1 million pounds
— 2.1 in 50 years.
All right. We have, in 1973, an estimated load,
after we achieve the 90 percent reduction, of about 6 million
pounds. So we are going to add, in the next 50 years, a
-------
_____ 265
1 G. Lee
2 maximum of 2 more million pounds, to give us a total of &
3 million pounds going into the lake by the 'year 2020, and
4 there is no way that I could see that this could be increased
5 above that. No one would be allowed to do things in the
6 basin which would increase the phosphorus flux such that it
7 would be significantly higher than that, and I am quite sure
& that there are many things that will lead to a reduction in
9 the overall increase.
10 This means that by the year 2020, assuming that
11 population projections are reasonably correct, we would have
12 a phosphorus load to Lake Michigan which is less than half
13 of the current load — less than half of the current load to
14 the lake.
15 Let's go to the last slide.
16 ... Slide ...
17 Conclusions
13 1. It is my conclusion that the steps taken in
19 1968 to limit the phosphorus input to Lake Michigan will
20 result in a significant improvement in water quality in many
21 parts of Lake Michigan — especially the nearshore zone —
22 but also to some extent in the open waters.
23 2. The trend to replace diatoms with green and
2^ blue-green algae should be reversed as the result of the
2^ December 1972 phosphorus limitation. This is the trend that
-------
266
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
22
23
25
G. Lee
Drc Stoermer just spoke of.
3. The residence time of phosphorus in the order
of 6 years, and after about 3 phosphorus residence times we
should be achieving a new steady state phospohorus concen-
tration in the lake.
4. Future population trends in the Lake Michigan
Basin show that the expected phosphorus load in the year
2020 will be less than half of the 1971 load.
5. Lake Michigan water quality with respect to
its eutrophication will show an immediate improvement in the
next 5 to 10 years, and then essentially no change for 20 to
30 years, and then with the further urbanization we should
see some gradual change toward more eutrophic conditions by
the year 2020.
Thank you.
MRe MAYO: Any questions, gentlemen?
MR. BRTSON: I have a couple of questions.
Earlier in your presentation, you said that runoff
from farmland — phosphorus is not available in that level
— two questions.
it is —
DR. LEE: No, I didn't say it was not available,
MR. BRYSON: Reduced —
DR. LEE: — reduced availability. Yes, you are
-------
26?
1 G. Lee
2 quite correct.
3 MR. BRYSON: Two questions then: l) What is the
4 source of the phosphorus in there; is it fertilizer and
5 animal wastes; and 2) is its unavailability due to the
6 fact that it is bound up in the soil and that —
7 DR. LEE: les.
8 MR. BRYSON: I'll just stop there.
9 DR. LEE: With respect to rural runoff you have
10 to clearly state whether you are dealing with animal wastes
11 or from fertilizers on the soil. The animal waste situation
12 is such that in general it is much more available.
13 For example, dairy manure, and so forth, is much
14 more available than the phosphorus applied in the corn-
15 fields. And the primary reason for the cornfield phosphorus
16 not being available is that it is tied up in the measurements
17 of the solid materials. Phosphorus is primarily transported
IS in solids and it is tied up there. It is simply not avail-
19 able for algal growth.
20 MR. BRYSON: Do you have a feel for the availa-
21 bility in your estimation?
22 DR. LEE: No, we are working on that very much at
23 this time.
24 MR. BRYSON: What are you talking? 10 percent,
25 20 percent, 80 percent?
-------
268
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G. Lee
DR. LEE: Well, I tried to get that figure. I have
a student whose Ph.D. .degree thesis is devoted just to this,
and we are doing, on behalf of EPA a lot of work on Lake
Ontario, devoted just to this topic. At this time we really
can't give a number. The Agriculture people use a number
of 10 percent. If you go back and try to understand the
origin of that number, you find there is not much basis
for it. But I can't really give you a number. Next year
at this time I think we will have a pretty fair handle on
the Lake Ontario Basin.
MR. MAYO: Any other questions, gentlemen?
MR. CURRIE: Yes.
Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAYO: Mr. Currie.
MR. CURRIE: First of all, Dr. Lee, where did you
get the figure of 6 years residence time for phosphorus?
DR. LEE: This is based strictly on determining
the total amount in the lake and the rate of input. You
simply divide the two numbers.
The hydraulic residence time, you look at the
volume and the flow in.
MR. CURRIE: Now you say that in something like
25 years there will be a new equilibrium concentration reache
At what level?
-------
269
1 G. Lee
2 DR. LEEs Well, this is very difficult to be pre-
3 cise about because we do have minor shifts in the exchange
4 with the sediments as a function of load.
5 I think that you can — as a first approximation
5 predict we are going to reduce the phosphorus input by
7 50 to 60 percent; we would certainly reduce the algal growth
& by — I will give you 25 percent.
9 In other words, take that — some of it to account
10 for possible recycling of the sediments which will change
11 as a function of load.
12 But overall, certainly the maximum difference you
13 could get is 5# percent on the BO percent removal, assuming
14 which indicates that phosphorus is limiting — that all
15 of the phosphorus that went in was available, and so forth.
16 MR. CURRIE: Would you expect a linear relation-
17 ship between reduction in input and reduction in concentra-
13 tion in the lake itself?
19 DR. LEE: No. It is more complicated than that.
20 There are a lot of other reactions proceeding but, as I
21 say, I am giving in between the 50 to 70 percent overall,
22 giving, say, 25 percent reduction as a first guess.
23 MR. CURRIE: Twenty-five percent reduction today
24 in the algal —
25 DR. LEE: In the algal growth, right.
-------
270
1 G. Lee
2 MR. CURRIE: And what percentage of a reduction in
3 the concentration in the open waters of the lake?
4 DR. LEE: Oh, I am using the same figure. I am
5 assuming the algae is — according to Schelske's work and
6 Stoermer's work — directly dependent upon phosphorus and
7 that we can use as a first approximation a stoichiometry
8 of algae where you can predict fairly precisely what growth
9 will occur under these conditions.
10 MR. CURRIE: Thank you.
11 MR. MAYO: Any other questions, gentlemen?
12 MR. McDONALD: Yes.
13 I would like to know, Dr. Lee, if you and Dr.
14 Stoermer talk to each other because the divergency between
15 your two statements when you are talking about the same body
16 of water is really striking.
17 DR. LEE: Well, I am not sure that — I mean I
13 fully accepted and strongly supported his observations of
19 the changes that have occurred. The question comes in in
20 terms of trying to interpret what is going to occur in the
21 future and — well, this is my game. I am concerned with
22 trying to control water quality and trying to predict what
23 is happening. We are doing a lot of work now in this area
24 Of predicting, and I think we have gained sufficient
25 experience, based on Lake Washington and based on the Lower
-------
271
1 G. Lee
2 Madison Lakes, so that we begin to get some confidence in
3 our ability to predict what will happen when we reduce
4 nutrient inputs into lakes.
5 MR. McDONALD: Well, if this is your game, then
6 you feel confident that the committee's report is going to
7 protect the lake in terms of phosphorus.
& DR. LEE: Yes, I do. I think the steps in 1963
9 were the correct steps.
10 MR. McDONALD: Well, I would say you are at marked
11 divergence with Dr. Stoermer on that.
12 Why do you think this is?
13 DR. LEE: I can't give you the reasons for Dr.
14 Stoermer's basis. I have given you my basis for this.
15 You look at the numbers. They are laying out
16 there for you to review.
17 MR. McDONALD: Well, I know. I just wondered
18 whether you two had had any discussions yourselves in trying
19 to reconcile some of these differences.
20 DR. LEE: No, we have not discussed this paper
21 by me, which was written last week as a result of receiving
22 the committee report. As soon as I received the report, I
23 said I would use these numbers in the Lake Michigan Basin
2^ because we are doing the same kinds of things on other
2 5 lakes.
-------
2
3
/,.
5
6
7
3
17
20
22
25
272
G. Lee
MR. MAYO: Mr. Frangos.
MR. FRANGOS: Yes, Professor Lee, you talk about
the 1963 recommendations. At least in your translation of
the committee report, we have gone from 80 percent to 90
percent reduction — if that is how 1 mg/1 is translated.
Would you care to comment on what that incremental reduction
in algal growth might be as compared with the ultimate 25
percent algal reduction as a result of the $0 percent phos-
phorus removal? I am trying to get a handle on what the
benefit-cost relationship is.
DR. LEE: Yes. My own experience on looking at
algal growth in phosphorus— limited lakes is that you can use
a very simple stoichiometric model where you can predict
algal growth based on the amounts of phosphorus available.
So if you can change — as a first approximation, in a system
like this — the phosphorus from 5# percent reduction up to
66 percent, then, as a first approximation, I would say that
that is the maximum extent of the change in the algal popu—
lation that you would get because of that incremental change.
It certainly will be less than that. How much
less, no one can say. There is something in between.
23 Now there is some benefit to be derived from
taking 90 percent out, and it has got to be in the order
of a few additional percent reduction in algal growth,
-------
____ 273
1 G. Lee
2 Now that is open water figures. And when you come
3 to near shore — particularly when you have got point sources
4 like wastewater sources — you will have situations where
5 taking additional phosphorus out would reduce the area where
6 you might have an obnoxious Cladophora growth. But that is
7 a different system. That is very difficult to predict.
8 MR. MAYO:.., Any other questions, gentlemen?
9 MR. FETTEROLF: Well, I guess I would have to ask
10 one. I would like to eat, too, but my curiosity has got the
11 better of me.
12 You didn't cite any of Edmondson's work on Lake
13 Washington, but I know you are familiar with it. You cited
14 Charlie Powers.
15 What was the reduction in phosphorus load to Lake
16 Washington which took place? Didn't they divert the sewage
17 completely out of that lake?
IS DR. LEE: Yes, they did.
19 MR. FETTEROLF: And that happened what — 7 years
20 ago?
21 DR. LEE: Well, it happened in a series of steps
22 during the sixties.
23 MR. FETTEROLF: Fred, you are predicting a quite
2^ spectacular recovery in a short term of 25 percent reduction
' in phosphorus and a concomitant silica increase.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
&
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
23
2/«-
25
274
G. Lee
Have they got that in Lake Washington yet?
DR. LEE: Oh, yes. Lake Washington recovered in
just a couple of years. Charlie commented on that.
The Lake Washington case is our best evidence
where you really reduced the phosphorus level significantly
and they got a very significant reduction in algal growth
which is tied to the current phosphorus levels.
MR. FETTEROLF: Fine.
MR. MAYO: Any other questions?
Thank you very much, Dr. Lee.
Dr. E. F. Earth.
MR. BRISON: While Dr. Barth is coming up, let
me provide a few peremptory remarks.
The Technical Committee is recommending that the
maximum concentration limit for municipal and industrial
effluents be 1 mg/1. This naturally will raise questions
as to: Can you achieve those levels readily in a treatment
process
Dr. Barth is in our Advanced Waste Treatment
Program in Cincinnati — EPA's Advanced Waste Treatment
Program — and he is here to address that specific ques-
tion.
Dr. Barth.
-------
275
1 E. Earth
2
3 STATEMENT OF DR. E. F. EARTH,
4 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER,
5 ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT LABORATORY,
6 CINCINNATI, OHIO
7
g DR. EARTH: Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies and
9 gentlemen.
10 My name is Ed Earth. I am with the National
11 Environmental Research Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, and I am
12 with the Advanced Waste Treatment Laboratory.
13 The Region has asked me to make this presentation
14 short and simple and I think I can meet those two require-
15 ments.
16 The title of this short recitation is "Design
17 Considerations for Phosphorus Control."
18 As we know, lime, iron or aluminum compounds can
19 be employed for phosphorus removal from wastewater.
20 Lime can be used either preceding or after a
21 biological process. A 1 mgd facility at Contra Costa,
22 California, employs lime to pH 11 for phosphorus control
23 prior to a biological nitrification process. The 7.5 mgd
24 South Lake Tahoe plant employs lime as a tertiary process,
25 after the biological system. Both plants produce an
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2?6
E, Barth
effluent with 1 mg/1 or less of phosphorus.
Iron or aluminum compounds can be used in primary
treatment, in conjunction with polymer, to reduce the
phosphorus content of the effluent. However, about 2 mg/1
is the lowest residual that can be obtained by this method
on a sustained basis.
The most efficient utilization of these metal
salts is in combination with the biological solids of an
activated sludge process or as a terminal coagulant imme-
diately before the final settler of a trickling filter
system
To obtain a 1 mg/1 residual phosphorus in the
effluent, an activated sludge facility should provide for
the following: injecting a 1.5 to 1.7 mole ratio of metal
ion to phosphorus; maintain volatile suspended aeration
solids in the range of 1,500 to 3,000 mg/1; and have
adequate final settler capacity to maintain a weir overflow
Q
rate not to exceed #00 gpd/ft . These parameters have
been extracted from the successful demonstrations of the
1 mg/1 residual phosphorus level at Texas City, Texas
(Imgd); College Station, Pennsylvania (2 mgd) ; Milwaukee,
Wisconsin (115 mgd); Manassas, Virginia (0.2 mgd); and three
plants in Switzerland treating flows of 0.5 to 2 mgd .
An effluent phosphorus residual of 1 mg/1 can
-------
U 277
1 E. Barth
2 be obtained at low-rate trickling filter plants, as currentl
3 being operated at Richardson, Texas, at a scale of 3 mgd.
4 The important design features here are dosing the filter
5 underdrain with a 2:1 mole ratio of metal to phosphorus,
6 in a rapid-mix chamber, before the flow enters the final
7 clarifier. The successful operation is due in great measure
p
8 to the low overflow rate of 400 gpd/ft at the final
9 clarifier. Enhanced removals of suspended solids and
10 are plus features of this operation,
11 Similar work at a high-rate filter (1.5 mgd) at
12 Chapel Hill, North Carolina, have also shown enhanced
13 phosphorus, solids, and BODc removals. However, because
2
14 of the high peak weir overflow rates of 1,400 gpd/ft ,
15 total phosphorus residuals average 2 mg/1.
16 This is a key consideration for phosphorus con-
17 trol. To obtain 1 mg/1 residual total phosphorus there
18 must be good effluent solids control. The 1 mg/1 level
19 is about the best that can be expected with conventional,
20 adequately designed facilities. If a standard would require
21 less than 1 mg/1, we would have to institute positive
22 solids control by filtration; and in some cases pH control
23 for minimum solubility of metal phosphates.
24 MR. MAYO: Any questions, gentlemen?
25 MR. BRYSON: I have one question for a matter of
-------
273
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
E. Barth
clarification, Dr. Barth.
DR. BARTH: Yes, sir.
MR. BRISON: When you were reading the overflow
rates you were saying "gallons per minute per square foot."
The document I have has "gallons per day."
DR. BARTH: Gallons per day is correct.
MR. BRYSON: Thank you.
MR. MAYO: Mr. Purdy.
MR. PURDY: Dr. Barth, in, say, our evaluation of
whether a plant is well operated, you have to arrive at
some sort of a triggering mechanism as a yardstick of meas-
urement.
The committee report recommended 1 mg/1 on a 24-hou
composite, and I am assuming that they are saying that this
is day-in-and-day-out , that you can accomplish this, in a
wastewater treatment plant.
Does your experience indicate this or is the 1 mg/1
really scratching pretty much at the edge of our technology,
and when we get into a real life operating situation, will
we have days that are over that?
DR. BARTH: You are ready for the answer?
MR. PURDY: Yes.
DR. BARTH: Okay. I tried to key this whole thing
to 1 mg/1. If you notice, at the end, I say 1 mg/1 is about
-------
279
1 E. Earth
2 the best we could expect. That Is based on the fact that some
3 plants — like Milwaukee — can get a half a mg/1 routinely.
4 Richardson, Texas, the trickling filter plant low rate is
5 a half mg/1 routinely. Other plants it is 1,0 rag, 1,1, 1,2,
6 1,3.
7 So when we are talking about 1 mg/1, I am general-
B izing here the entire experience we have,
9 MR, PURDY: But, say, if we were to adopt a
10 requirement of 1 mg/1 as a daily average, and that it should
11 not exceed that at any time, we, then, would be setting an
12 objective that — as I understand your answer to me — would
13 not be obtained,
14 DR, BARTH: Now my remarks are based on experience
15 from plants that are operating now. You will notice in the
16 text it said "adequately designed plants," This means if
17 you want 1 mg/1, for instance, in an activated sludge
18 facility, you will have to ensure that they do not have an
19 overflow rate that exceeds 800 gallons per day per square
20 foot; they do dose with a 1,7 mole ratio of metal to
21 phosphorus 24 hours a day,
22 MR, PURDY: One additional question: To move from
23 the BO percent to the 90 percent removal will require,
2^ say, a significant increase in the quantity of chemicals
25 used or merely more positive control of the suspended
-------
280
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
25
E. Earth
solids?
DR. BARTH: In order to go from the 80 to 90 per-
cent — essentially we are discussing averages here today —
with a 10 mg/1 input, it is the difference between a 2 mg/1
residual and a 1 mg/1 residual.
If we have the adequate designed facilities, this
simply means a small increase in the chemical dosage if our
p
final settler has a capacity of #00 gpd/ft .
In order to achieve 80 percent removal, we routinely
dose at about a 1.2 mole ratio of metal to phosphorus. If we
want to boost that up to 90 percent and obtain a 1 mg/1
residual, we will have to boost the chemical dose up to
near 1.7 moles of metal to phosphorus.
MR. PURDY: So really from the standpoint of cost,
we are speaking largely operating cost and not additional
investment in capital.
DR. BARTH: That is correct, sir; yes, sir.
MR. PURDY: Thank you.
DR. BARTH: Thank you, sir.
MR. MAYO: Any other questions, gentlemen?
MR. FRANGOS: Yes.
We are talking about a 50 percent increase in
chemicals?
DR. BARTH: No, sir. We are going from a 1.2 mole
-------
261
1 T. Dustin
2 ratio up to a 1.7 — that is a half out of roughly — 20
3 percent increase roughly — from a 1.2 mole ratio to 1.7.
4 MR. FRANGOS: Five-tenths.
5 MR. MILLER: It is .5 out of 1.2.
6 MR. PURDY: It is a 40 percent increase.
7 DR. EARTH: It is about 40 percent.
B MR. MAIO: Any other questions, gentlemen?
9 MR. BRYSON: I am confused. Did we leave it at
10 about 40 percent increase in chemical addition?
11 DR. BARTH: I thought I made that choice.
12 MR. BRYSON: Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. MAYO: Any other questions, gentlemen?
14 Thank you, Dr. Barth.
15 We have one final statement. Mr. Thomas Dustin,
16 Indiana Izaak Walton League.
17
lg STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. DUSTIN,
19 INDIANA DIVISION, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA,
20 HUNTERTOWN, INDIANA
21
22 MR. DUSTIN: Mr. Mayo and Perry Miller, I do want
23 to thank you for your courtesy in letting me appear today
24 since I wouldn't be able to come later in the week. And
25 because the hour is late, I know everyone wants to get home,
-------
282
1 T. Bustin
2 I will skip over the boilerplate other than to announce on
3 the record that I am Tom Dustin. I am Executive Secretary
4 of the Izaak Walton League,
5 My testimony is mainly based on the apparently for-
6 gotten remedy here today dealing with the statutory control
7 of phosphorus, and page 2 of the statement which I have
8 already turned in includes a copy of House Enrolled Act
9 No. 1108. Essentially this is in force now and it reduced
10 the amount of allowable phosphorus applications to 8.7 per-
il cent of phosphorus this year, and zero phosphorus by January
12 first of this year, except for certain specialized applica-
13 tions which would go out on April 30 of next year.
14 The city of Chicago has zero phosphorus ordinance
15 now in effect, and it is our position that all of the Lake
16 Michigan States should enact that law as the most effective
17 immediate means to reduce phosphorus entering the lake.
18 The Environmental Protection Agency would, of course, also
19 be well aware of the Izaak Walton League's full support
20 of funding for tertiary and advanced treatment to further
21 reduce phosphorus, but it is our position that the most
22 effective priority is to reduce it before it becomes a
23 treatment problem.
24 Much has been said today about the effects of phos
25 phorus on water quality, but few conclusions are stated as
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2S3
T. Dustin
directly and clearly as those in the April 14, 1970, report
of the U.S. House Committee on Government Operations. And
I include that summary and recommendations in the report at
this point in my statement.
I will read only one item from the conclusions.
The recommendations of that report, item 1: "The manufacture
and importation of detergents containing phosphorus in any
quantity should end by 1972, subject to possible extension
if the industry, after good faith efforts to eliminate phos-
phate from detergents, demonstrates to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration (now renamed to Federal
Water Quality Administration) that additional time is needed.
"This date, 1972, recommended to the International
Joint Commission by the Lake Erie and Lake Ontario water
pollution boards, allows the industry more than 2 years for
adjustment. Even after manufacture and importation of phos-
phate-containing products cease, it allows the industry a
reasonable period to clear its inventory. From the stand-
point of environmental preservation, the ban on phosphate
ought to go into effect at once. Postponement is admissible
only to avoid a shortage of washing products in the market
which might come about through a more accelerated deadline."
Now, with the foregoing, that I have not bothered
to present orally, I have gone into some lengths on the
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
13
16
20
21
22
^
T. Dust in
matter of phosphates in detergents because of the extra-
ordinary silence on this matter in the report of the Phos-
phorus Technical Committee to the Lake Michigan Enforcement
Conference, dated August 10, 1972.
I believe this is a highly relevant matter to this
hearing because you are now discussing whether or not SO
percent removal of phosphorus will effectuate substantive
remedies in Lake Michigan.
i would like to — and, of course, we are talking
about BO percent of what? Our contention, again, is that
detergents should be removed before they create the problem
so far as this is workable.
. I would like to quote one or two portions of the
report — the Technical Committee's report — as follows:
"... the inshore water and the Southern Basin of
Lake Michigan are presently exhibiting many recognizable
symptoms of eutrophication. ... phosphorus is the nutrient
most critical in the regulation of biological production in
Lake Michigan. ... phosphorus is limiting in the lake. ...
(Cited) data clearly shows a substantial increase in phos-
phorus concentration during the (1956-71) period. ...
phosphorus is a serious pollutant in the lake. ... the
appropriate course to take on Lake Michigan is to reduce
phosphorus to the lowest practical level."
-------
28$
1 T. Bustin
2 This does seem rather consistent with Dr.
3 Stoermer's work done actually in the laboratory of Lake
4 Michigan itself and not by science fiction.
5 The report notes the serious problem of phosphorus
6 attached to soil particles, and correctly criticizes the
7 almost total ineffectiveness of the Soil Conservation Ser-
8 vice's P.L. 566 Small Watershed program in abating this
9 source, and in stressing the SGS reliance on "dams, drainage,
10 and channelization rather than on upstream soil conserva-
11 tion practices." The committee is to be commended for its
12 recognition of the sham of these pork barrel projects, and
13 in recommending that the Federal Government use the "leverage
14 which is inherently present under the law to require full
15 watershed conservation treatment on private land." The
16 report also points out the total lack of monitoring of
17 phosphorus from sedimentation sources.
IB The report cites the U.S.-Canada discussions, and
19 the Lake Erie and Lake Ontario studies, but pointedly fails
20 to say anything about the present Canadian restrictions on
21 detergent phosphates, nor about the conclusion that detergent
22 phosphates are "the most amenable to control" — meaning
23 elimination at the source. There is no reference to either
2Z»- the Chicago ordinance or the Indiana statute. These are
25 startling omissions for the so-called "Phosphorus Technical
-------
286
1 T. Dustin
2 Committee." And I have attached a letter of September 15»
3 1972, to the Minister of the Environment in Canada supporting
4 the efforts to achieve this legislation.
5 In placing 100 percent of its recommendations on
6 treatment, including its commendably strong stand on soil
7 treatment, the committee's report has the effect of relegat-
& ing the many detergent phosphate laws to the wastebasket of
9 remedial steps, and in avoiding anything but the most super-
10 ficial speculation on the costs and effects of phosphorus
11 waste disposal after treatment at point sources.
12 Next in my statement is a list of 3 States and 50
13 counties and municipalities that have enacted various forms
14 of phosphate legislation.
15 No single step will produce so measurable a
16 result than enactment by all the Great Lakes States of
17 Indiana Public Law 174 as amended by House Enrolled Act Ho.
IB 1108 earlier this year. Nothing can be done as quickly,
19 and certainly not in the blue sky speculation that we will
20 get a specific length of time to achieve 80 percent removal
21 by treatment, or the equally unsupported speculation that 90
22 percent or more will be removable in a specified length of
23 time on a scale that will be required.
24 Thank you.
25 (Mr. Dustin's complete statement follows in its
-------
1 T. Bustin
2 entirety.)
3 MR. MAIO: Thank you, Mr. Dustin.
4 Do the conferees have any comments or questions?
5 Gentlemen, I would suggest we recess until 9:00
6 o'clock tomorrow morning.
7 (Whereupon, the conference adjourned at 7:25 p.m.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
>• ...••* DM!:.Jl!'$ OF SO ' . V o., ;, WAUXS A>:j WUDlift
September 19, 1972
To: Environmental Protection Agency
Reconvened Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
Statement of: Indiana Division, Izaak Walton League of America
Thomas E. Dustin, Executive Secretary
1802 Chapman Road
Huntertown, Indiana 46748
Gentlemen:
We appreciate the Lime a],located for presenter lor, of the Izaak Walton
League ?s recent,•.^irJc.tions for pollution abatement in Lake Michigan. My
name is Thomas E. Dustin, and I offer this testimony on behalf cf the
Indiana state organization of the League. For background, ehe Indiana
Izaak Uo.lton League includes nearly 6,000 members in 52 chapters; Located
in the state from the Ohio River to Lake Michigan; about 30 percent of
that membership is located in the state's three Lake Michigan counties.
For the record, we fully support the Lake Michigan Federation's rec-.onintcnJ;1.~
tions on therms.! pollution, and 1 will not burden trie record with detaj.j.Ovi
testimony on that question, other than to note as follows: The Indiana
Izaak Walton League has called for a moratorium on all further construc-
tion on the Lake Michigan shore, until a complete evaluation study of
the overall importance of this resource lias been made; we have called
for special appropriations for pollution abatement and sewage treatment
in this basin; and have stated that use of all "hard" pesticides in its
drainage basin should be prohibited. It is our view that while any one
source of thermal pollution may not destroy the lake's biological community.
the proliferation of present and planned future sources collectively will,
because much or most of the biologically critical shallow water ;j;ones
will be adversely affected. It is also Our position that the pre-emption
of shore line 7-eal estate by such installations as power plants and other
industrial structures is no longer acceptable—with or without pre-cooling--
ecause of esthetic and social impact, aud because of the adverse hydro-
logic effect and influence on erosion patterns. We "are perfectly aware that
our views imply a considerable economic impact and re-allocation of financial
resources; but we contend that: much of the economic impact will be favorable
and that lack of action on our proposals will in the longer run cost f.*u
more, arid Lliat If will IK- the pub I if taxpayer who pf«-Us up Hio bill.
I will concentrate much of my testimony on the question of phosphorous cont.n
and the succeedj^g^ag^c^^ force.
-------
Page Z.
HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1108
AN ACT to amend 1C 107], 13-1 coru'crnin.i: prohibitions on the u:ilc :;rd
use of certain de
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of tie Stole of
Indiana:
SECTION 1. 1C 1971, 13-1-5.5-2. as added by Acts 1971,
P.L. 374, SECTION 1, is amended to road as follows: Sec.
2. On 0!- after January 1, 1972, it ;-.halI he unlawful to use,
sell or otherwise dispose of any detergent containing more
than eight and seven tenths pe.rc.cn! (8.7/4) of phosphorus
by weight, expressed as elemental phosphorus, in any man-
ner or in any location in this state or into the boundary
waters of this state from a source within the state. The con-
centration'of phosphorus by weight expressed as elemental
phosphorus in any detergent shall bo determined by the
current applicable method prescribed by the American
Society for Testing and Materials (A.S.T.M.).
SECTION 2. 1C 3971, 13-l-n.5-.Vtis :^ded by Acts 1971,
P.L. 17J. SECTION J, is amended to read as follows: S«v.
3, On or after January J, 1973, it shall be unlawful to use,
sell or otherwise dispose of any detergent containing more
than zero percent, (O^o) phosphorus by weight in any -man-
ner or in any location in this state or into (he boundary
waters of this state from a source within the state. The
concentration of phosphorus shall be determined as
provided in Sec. 2. It is further provided that this chapter
shall not apply until after April 30, 1973, to detergents
manufactured for use in machine dishwashers, dairy equip-
ment, beverage equipment, food processing equipment, hos-
pital and health care facilities or any use in which the
phosphorus or phosphates are not permitted to enter any
public or private sewer or be disposed of in the natural
environment.
SECTION 3. Whereas an emergency exists for the more
immediate taking effect of this act the same shall be in full
force and effect from and after its passage.
-------
No. 469
2d Session
918T CONOHZSR ) HOUSE OF KEPBESENTATIVES f 1
j t No. 91-1004
PHOSPHATES IN DETERGENTS AND THE EUTROPHICA-
TION OF AMERICA'S WATERS
APRIL 14. 1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole Emia? on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DAWSON, from the Committee on Government Operations,
submitted the following
TWENTY-THIRD REPORT
BASED ON A STUDY BY THE CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RE-
SOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE
On April 9, 1970, the Committee on Government Operations
approved and adopted a report entitled "Phosphates in Detergents
and the Eutrophication of "America's Waters.'' The chairman" was
directed to transmit a copy to the Speaker of the House.
SUMMARY
America's lakes and streams are being polluted bv phosphorus.
Detergents containing phosphorus contribute the lar?e;t share
coming from any manmade source. Eliminating phosphate from
detergents would bring about a substantial decrease in the rate of
phosphorus pollution of lakes >>.ncl streams-—one thet ro'iid not
feaMPty be obtained in any other way. At the same tinv. efi'u'ts
should bo accelerated in finding feasible ways 'o remove nutrients
from sewage and other wastes.
The detergent industry contends that big)' phosphate content, in
detergents is essential for the American standard of dermlines-,— that
there is no suitable substitute for phosphate in d 'terxtn!>—thrt our
lakes and streams ere so deteriorated thev ran'', be "heljiM i;v!! bv
ehmitiiittin; a!! jihosphate fr'.'iYi 'he se'.vp.gc f-ntr-ring ih"m-— :-'"l f';at
the only hope L> in constructing udviim.vd wast^-water lie^.tnient
plants to remove all nutrients from sewage.
'(I)
ci-
rr
H-
cn
T3
O
3
rt
H-
3
J|
cn
rt
PJ
rt
fD
3
fD
3
rt
•
a
rt
o
5
05
3
P^
M
5
i~ »
c
a.
o
rt
nr
fD
cn
C
3
1
hj
*<;
f,3
3
CL
5&
fD
O
O
^5
Hi
f?>
3
cu
£13
rt
H-
O
^j
co
0
Hi
rt
3"
Co
rt
?s
fD
13
O
K^
rt
d*
rt
&
ft)
H-
H1
I—1
O
fD
T3
0
t~l
rt
O
Hi
rt
%
G
•
CO
•
^"^
o
c
CO
(D
O
O
s
H-
rt
rt
fTl
CO
O
3
C"1
O
cn
and advanced treatment
rt
o
H-,
C
!•<[
rt
3^
fD
H
H
fD
CL
C
o
fD
TJ
J*T'
C!
ro
T_J
^
b
• i
o
cn
•j
,.,j
d
rt
l-i.
rt
H-
cn
O
d
'"i
g
P3
H
fD
O
rt
fD
M
N
OJ
M
rt
O
3
1— J
L
O
Oi
03
£
fD
—
cn
Hi
C
i — ».
i_i
cn
c^
^o
^
o
hj
rt
O
^--f-j
c
3
DJ
^.
3
uQ
Hi
O
K
rt
O
I-J,
n-
}^*
P3
H
"^
rt
fD
x-
O
3"
fD
W
3
i-i
O
3
3
3
rt
C;
t-a
*X!
w
O
rr
ro
O
rt
H-
O
3
f->
OQ
ft)
4.-J
o
V,
<*
o
c
(_1
C^-i
0
Hi,
r\
o
H
rn
fO
cr
fr>
^
TJ
i_j
1— i
M
3
CL
M.
PJ
3
OJ
i1
cn
rt
Q
6
7)
rt
f
fD
.Hi
n '
rt
H-
fD
3
D
t>
^
00
rt
O
w
ft)
o.
c
o
o
TJ
,-...
,9
~w
TT
C
H
O
c
cn
o
*3
r"
'"",'
;~;
•..j.
3
\>5
H-
rt
H-
cn
O
Cl
H
0
CO
H-
rt
H-
O
rt
rr
o
rt
pj
h- '
H- '
'O
Hi
rt
3"
:•)
I— -J
C^; '
P^T^
re
jjl»,
H-
Q
-T-
P.
OQ
T--
•"*.
C"
rt
pj
rt
G
CT)
V)
"-^
O
(_i
CL
CD
2
05
o
r:
rt
^j-
O
H *!!
3^ PS
fD W
fD
O
H- W
rt •
O
HI
O
H-
O
fr
"o
nr
PJ
cn
y>
o
3*
o
10
"0
zr
Q
[-{
O
Ci
01
o
)-{
CL
H-
3
SJ
3
o
D
•-^
q
H-
3
o
HI
Hi
o'
o
rt
pj
3
-------
The detergent makers, through the Joint Industry-Government
Task Force on Eutrophication, have effectively delayed remedial
action by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration con-
rning the continuing phosphorus pollution of America's waters.*
The committee concludes that the continuing phosphate, damage to
•ir lakes and streams requires immediate reduction, and early elimi-
nation, of phosphates from detergents, even if such action results
in slightly le" elective and more expensive washing products. Phos-
phorus-free determents are within the capability of present-day
technology, and replacements for the polyphosphate builder in deter-
gents soon will be widely available.
Phosphorus fertilizes the excessive growth of algae and other aguattc
we°ds "\s the-c c'ants die and decay they use up the oxygen in the
water' cause r~ = ~ '•-• suffocate, and much of their phosphorus content is
redissolved to fertilize yet another cycle of excessive plant, growth.
Finally, the accumulated masses of decayed vegetation fill the lake
and turn it into a noisome bog. .
Since the introduction of phosphate-built synthetic detergents
in the 1940'" 1'kes all over the world that had remained clear and
nure since" the --treat of the glaciers have filled with slime and scum
of algae Manv =raall lakes are already ruined; and now even such a
huge bodv of vawr a? Lake. Erie is on the brink of destruction.
The conventi'.nol \vastewater treatment plant removes very little
phosphate from sewage. The cost nationwide of the advanced treat-
ment plants necessary for near-complete phosphate removal will
fos very l&rzc
About 60 percent of the phosphate in municipal sewage comes
m detergents. A;.J in some bodies of water, Lake Erie for example,
is detergent phcsphate content of sewage represents half or more of
the total phosphate input 'from all sources, natural and manmade.
It is constantly increasing. .
Eliminating ''"•• phosphate from detergents would bring about an
immediate snd -.rerr.endous reduction in the phosphorus pollution
_ _ __ , 1 ____ 1 „___— n t 4-V*««v> »ri1 I 1»"\TM V* ff
function i« t, = •->.»" water.et te etergen nus
the same pror-.rv.cn or phosphate in products sold in soft water areas
as in tho^c EOKJ ir. herd water areas. .
At the unr>" rt 'he Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion a Joint !-*-try-Government Task Force was set up "to make
recommendations or. "a cooperative program to research the problem
SfSStrelling eutrophication (overfertil&ation) of lakes including the
role of phosthaus and any possible replacements." At the tas*
force's org^av.oa noting on July 31, 1067, the then Secretary 01
the Interior, Sl-rr.art L. Udall, stated:
We 6f k t> at the aoe.p and detergent industry do just that-
work with us ?/> research and develop substitutes for phos-
phates in devsrgents.
from
this
The Joint Industry-Government Task Force has held some 13 meet-
ings. It has sponsored development of a test to determine the abii !v
of particular substances to stimulate algal growth in water (the
"PAA? tost"). It sent a delegation to Europe to study eutrophicatiun
on that continent. But it ha'1, done nothing to encourage the detergent
makers to get the phosphorus out of their products. Indeed, the te k
force has expressly redefined its own objectives to eliminate all
mention of either determents or phosphates. Its moat recent project
is a proposed movie—designed, according to the task force's minute',
"to show that there are no quick or easy solutions to eutrophicaticri;
al.so to indicato that, while serious, it is not a crisis problem except in
a few ureas * * * to prepare the interested public for tho Ion --
rnngo aspects of proposed solutions * * *.'"
Although the Joint, Industry-Government Task Force was lat r
enlarged to include representatives from Government r.gencies otl:er
than the FWPCA and from industries other than the deterge:;!
manufacturers, the latter have dominated the organization to i
ever-inoreesing extent. On August 4, 1959, FWPCA CoirunL«.sionf.r
David D. Doniinick Issued a "guidance memorandum" to ugency
officials stating:
The reduction or elimination of phosphorus from deter-
gfw.s is dasirable in concept but undesirable for implemen-
tation at ihif. HTM [emphasis in original).
The Commissioner stated that reducing the phosphate contc::^
"would undoubtedly" cause its replacement "with some substitu '
material [which] could rnnee other, ever. :r^.-e severe, pollution: ,
effects in receiving waters." In eiTect, the contention was that r.
known pollutant should not be banned because it "could" be replace^
by something fror?e.
Tha ro:n?;iil!ee he! I intensive ber.rings on December 15 and 1 ,
1909, and has intensively si udicd the scieiitific and technical lit^ratur"
conccrnirig eutrophication, phosphates, and detergents. The con.-
tnittee concludes that getting the phosphorus out of detergents wouU,
surely retard the eutrophication of our la-kcs.
The committee recommends that the phosphate content of c reJucfnl in phases, starting irnrn'x'iaic.y, and thft all pho*;-
phoms be ('limirsated from detergents within 2 y*?.?.rs. In the meantime
the cnnunittce suppcsts tliat if consumers in soft-water area* are
informed which brands of detergents contain phollution can
be achieved immediately, without sacrifice of cleanliness.
finntrol
Act Cf 1B70
-------
65
require affirmatively that the relevant information be
presented on the package in a coherent and meaningful form
and with reasonable uniformity.
*******
Out of nil these heanngs there has emerged a pattern of
marketing pructice-s which the committee believes ha\'e sub-
stantially impaired the fnir and efficient functioning of
consumer commodity marketing. In particular, the hearings
id'entified certain undesirable conditions and practices to
which this legislation is principally directed. They include — •
* »«**»»
(c) Insufncior.t or nonexistent ingredient information, such
as the failure to disclose the percentages of costly and in-
expensive ingredients or at five and inert ingredients. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Section 10 of *h° Act (15 USC 1459) defines "consumer commodity"
; :r.-?an ''anv food, drug, device, or cosmetic (as those terms e.re
?:ined by tlio Federal Food, Drug, and Costmctic Act), and any
\fr article, product, or commodity of any kind or cio.s» which is cus-
:™'vrily proauced or distributed for sale through retail sales agencies
• ir.strurnentalities forconsn;>'pfiun by individuals, ur n.?f by individuals
" z'JLrpotff cf i/f r??nfil cure <",*• in ifif performance of sen'tcds ordinarily
~..!. pr^d^ct from the standnoint of price, but
rod'ytS expected performance and quality. If a con-
in a soft v.-.ater area is informed about the ingredient^
e ablf to .!e".-rrnine \\hich product wiil ]>erform
eds and her desires t<> preserve the
nee
i v-ror-rr: t:". t in her aroa.
VII. PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The conimittefl rr-iommends tliat :
-, :vie:;'er,',H, 'k-non^trates So the Federal Water
Centre! AtVanrurati'ir, (now r?nsmed to Fedtrd Water
that additional time is needed.
66
This date, 1972, recommended to the International Joint Commission
by the Lake Erie and Lake Ontario water pollution boards, si'lovrs the
industry more than 2 years for adjustment. Even aft-er manufacture
and importation of phosphate-containing products cease, it. sllo'>va the
industry a reasonable period to dear its inventory. From the stand-
point of environments! preservation, the ban on phosphate ougbt to go
into ciiect at once. Postponement is admissible only to avoid f, shortage
of washing pioducts in the market which might cotne about through a
more accelerated deadline.
2. Tfce mr-nufsrlnrfru of detergents shou!d promptly !-:;gin sub-
s(ani5.:l reductions of .!:-.- p'sorr-hate context in ll'eir jvouLCts, re-
p«?,;'i".r; J:i:?.'.7-j,iop^:i2te-coutent detergents, ?s present rtcciis are
e\L"''.'-;t'cL Vfj;b new r?;»i!ccd-f?l:.cf'.;batc tfetcrgest';.
3. Phosphate (enzyme) pre-soaks should be removed frcm the
market.
The enzyme presonks are misnamed. They Contain two-third*'
or more pho--pb;!te. In reality, they are phsophnte pro-soaks. De->rnc<5
to V f'.iHow>--d i'V Another wash with a hif;h-phnani>hcd from the mitrket. They were marketed only within the
psu-:t 2 or ;$ years and therefore cannot be said to be "essential" 'for
rmiintaining the American s-tnndrrd of sanitation. The cost in dc-
str.u-iion "f America's hikes and waters, that these pr/.-iucts do fi.r
exceeds their trivia! contribution to the advancement o." clesnlmess.
-L fending complete elimination of the phoj-phate builder, d">
(cr:'-?Fits :;uould i'e forniuhitod for soft or ftard water snd mr:-
Ucr.d In t!v.' rei-peci-'ve soft or hard water regiorjs Mih piop,.-
and fnfon.nK.tlvc jristructfons.
r.*J r/r.ter (lualjty Ad!rirr:-'rn*?cn
a;,'ou cajnpj;.'n lo infortn ; •••-• •!•*.• ":.:''J w.'.st-
p-.;*la'Jo»iai eSTects of pLosf-'iriJca und oiL^r
fj'.ucniH r..id to help (bcm choose v^f.-^lng prodack'i
:in;:n'.'.ri3 amounts of potcntieily po!!uiicg uigredierita
t I'-.tir v,rr:'i ^c-na.
tiii cc-iut:»t
P'tcc
L;.:t>
of t\
i-r;. ••!
"h«» Fcti;-ral Trude Coramisiiion shot:!d, in
s? c<''mp.':.ri5cnp. hy the American consn~ir, procu'-tij' prow;.
rcgiiialicns under sectiori 5(c) of the F.nir Ppdwisrir^ 2;
f!nn Atl requiring manufacturers of detergents ••'•.lith toil.''
vo or rnore sn^rcdieFits to list on tLcir ; acknge lr.;>t!s e?.
.';] i'.'.-nt co.".t"i?nc;3 i~i thy packages, in orc'-':i "f f]'.xr:?,si~;t F.
roduct JK con!r??1e*y frc.-: of p!;rr-; hoi
'i. She label f;?-cul^ p!.'Jr.!y rr-te w;.etc
!j^nre. Un !?«••>.
oth.-r v,-a!er pc
.1 c,',-"\f'." ir.chi'V* t'oth ?;j',ip uri'l rtct'-rpi-nL* A'v'.'.-*" "s-'^r*" ''
!•:••: F •-!,"l.Vif. ttipl ("f••tii'-llr A'! (V ^li» :•"•< *'. ?'S'* ?'Jl,
for ;::•".? in hr,ri.l w;';';fr or i^cft wal?r, ar.cJ if it 13 for esc
ivat;:r, Uie la^?! s'untid contain a w;Ln;.ing a^.iJnbt ii.-/j
OQ
-------
Page o.
l^
(O
2
•
sk Foi
oadly
lish t[
orous-*
ent co
sentati
nt and
a
r
p
e
e
e
ne
cc
o
de
a
a
o p
in
nd
e d
t.
a
h
n
r
d
s,
t
e
Industry-Govern
ed. In its place,
uJd be set up to
he dmnge-ove
? should inclu
uality experts
sentatives of
eral Governm
»-» .0 a'-P **-,»-
rt = C .2
o..
•o
"3.;
)M
0 a 2
> — o
r-^o
^•°Ea£g,^ «
~ 'f S S & §• * i
O OrC^
JS >-. Ci,
«! Q. «3
C CJ3 CX— 0
55ai£-»»-
225||g±|
ll^Ill"3-^
-5 g 2.S > t! o
E P 2 £<=
ver
t
ya
e
h
d
i
o
n
o
y Ad
ale
ho
s
d
sp
tu
y
G
io
r
or
lit
sca
p
ly
se an
id of
inat
ty
a
v/
us
u
a
i
4) *H CS Ci
Q
rg
lo
eo
to
h
c
y
>-'
«',
v
t
:e
t
s
h t
dis
ro
g
- '
a o." <3^
o to-3 ta
•^ 4* =-
:LENBOns.
gs
W X
52
£s
14
S*
'DLER, N>»
»«
s
X
o
•-»
s
«; IM
O i
X*
if H
O O
« <
n •->
• 0!
"• u
CLARENCE
OUY VAND:
i
?
c U:
'ERS. Ir.dlta
COWQER,
JOHN T. KY
WILLIAM O.
T*
C
,4
W
Q
D
GILBERT O
rj
o
ft
''LOSKEV. .
LEY, niir.cis
*J ^\
': x
x C
-j j
^ ij
< <
2- !!*
r
3
Xi
=
M
CJIANAN, J
U
a
C
X
o
>,
«•
a
g
O
ui
iVEICKER. J
:P., Arkcis
LOWELL P. '
.^AM ,STEIO£
3 »
^ c
K J
H
lie
'
11,
," f- W U!
5
a
o
u
R
. REsocncEs So
<
K
t>
<
'S,
"
(-"
o
*V iatOiL»,i., CV.6./,»Ui4
OUY VANDER JA
^
-•
S
I
GILBERT OUDE,
,JJ
>
M
brf
PAUL N. MCCLO31
1
.5
C
tf
M
a
*
/l»iJd.'anf Coun«r<
S
X
S
RK, />'(?c/ A»rlatant
, Aitittont Cxiiutt
C -f.
"% <
"• O
*- fc.'
" K
i;
*: "
T*XTKE, .C?!"*
w
£c
i
B
"S
•5
RVATION
U
"eias
K3, Washingt
CtHIomla
w
n ;
M i
Now I have gone to some lengths on the matter of phosphorous in detergents
because of the extraordinary silence on this matter in the Report of The
Phosphorous Technical Committee to the Lake Michigan Enforcement Confer-
ence, of August 10, 1972. There is much to commend this Report, but also
much to criticize; and I would like to quote some portions of it with com-
ment:
"...The inshore water and the Southern Basin of Lake Michigan are presently
exhibiting many recognizable symptoms of eutrophication...Phosphorous is
the nutrient most critical in the regulation of biological production in
Lake Michigan...Phosphorous is limiting in the Lake...(Cited) data clearly
shows a substantial increase in Phosphorous concentration during the
(1956-71) period...Phosphorous is a serious pollutant in the Lake...(the)
appropriate course to take on Lake Michigan is to reduce Phosphorous to
the lowest practical level."
The Report notes the serious problem of phosphorous attached to soil parti-
cals, and correctly criticizes the almost total ineffectiveness of the
Soil Conservation Service's PL566 Small Watershed program in abating this
source, and in stressing the SCS reliance on "dams, drainage, and channel-
ization rather than on upstream soil conservation practices." The Committee
is to be commended for its recognition of the sham of these pork barrel
projects, and in recommending that the Federal Government use the "leverage
-------
Page 7.
which is inherently present under the law to require full watershed con-
servation treatment on private land." The report, also points out the
total lack of monitoring of phosphorous from sedimentation sources. These
are contentions x^hich we have also been making for years. Frankly, we
feel the lack of zeal in the PL566 projects, and in Corps of Engineers
projects as well, is out of a deathly fear that they will lose some of
their pork barrel constituency if their projects have to be accompanied
by requirements for environmental responsibility.
However, the total silence in this report submitted to you on detergent
phosphates is unforgiveable, and striae is of possible economic and political
pressure from che detergent industry, such as seemed evident a year ago
in the U. S. Surgeon General's famed pronouncements.
The Report cites the U. S.-Canada discussions, and the Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario studies, bxit pointedly fails to say anything about: the
present Canadian restrictions on detergent phosphates, nor about the
conclusion that detergent phosphates are "the most amenable to control1'.
There is no reference to either the Chicago ordinance or the Indiana
statute. These are startling omissions for the so-called "Phosphorous
Technical Committee". (See Canadian Minister of Environment letter of
September 15, 1971, attached)
In placing 1007* of its recommendations on treatment, including its
comraendably strong stand on soil treatment, the Committee's report has
the effect of relegating the many detergent phosphate laws to the waste-
basket of remedial steps, and in avoiding anything but. the most superficial
speculation on the costs and effects of phosphorous waste disposal after
treatment at point sources.
To underscore the imponance placed on removing phosphorous before it be-
comes part of the huge, cost of treatment, and in addition to the nation
of Canada, the state of Indiana, and the city of Chicago, the following
are cited: Connecticut, Florida (enabling), Maine, Minnesota (enabling),
New York, and Oregon; and also in Florida: .Lake County, Bade County includi
Miami, Orange County, Pinellas County, Pembroke Pines; and in Illinois:
Aurora, Chicago Heights, Elgin, Elmwood Park, Franklin Park, Harwood
Heights, Hillside, Joliet, Kankakee, Lake County, Lombard, Nil.es, Park
Forest and Skokie; and in Maine: Bridgton, Kcnncbunkporl:, Naples; in
Michigan: Detroit, Flint, Grosse Point, Grand Rapids, Ypsilanti, and
Kalarnazoo; Prince Georges County in Maryland; Erie County, New York, in-
cluding Buffalo; also in New York: Suffolk County, Bayville and Syracuse;
nine cities in Belknap and Carroll counries of New Hampshire; in Ohio:
Akron, Berea, Brook Park, Euclid, Independence, Pninesville; Block Island
in Rhode Island; and Midi son, Wisconsin. And all that was as of August 2,
1971; In all probability, more areas have since been added.
Yet the Technical Committee, consisting of water pollution control officia
of the Lake Michigan states saw fit not. even to numi.ion limit in;*, del n y.cnt
pho.sphntcH auion;-, tlu- noco.s.sary :;lrp:; to nxltici- ( lu> ;u-ku<>\.' 1 fdj-.r*.! I nr iv.-tsi'
in phosphate loading of Lake Michigan am! (lie othor Urea I L.ikot;.
-------
Page 8.
We hope the Environmental Protection Agency will suffer no such lapse
in its reasoning } or in recognizing, the great need to reduce phosphorous
entering Lake Michigan by restricting it at the grocery shelf in the
warehouses of industrial and institutional suppliers.
No single step will produce so measurable a result than enactment by all
the Great Lakes states of Indiana Public Law 174 as amended by HEA 1108
earlier this year. Nothing can be done as quickly. Every other needed
step is uncertain as to time of implementation and efficacy, though all
steps should be taken on the very best schedule without the loopholes
and escape clauses proposed by the Technical Committee, such as the test
of "economic reasonableness", whatever that is.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear and testify.
Thomas E. Dustin, Executive Secretary
Indiana Division, Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.
-------
Miriuior f.lirii'itiu
Environment Canada LrivironrujrTient Cdiuvja
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A Oil3
AIR MAIL
Mr. Thomas E. Dust in,
Executive Secretary, Indiana Division,
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.,
1802 Chapman Road,
Huntertown, Indiana. 46748
U.S.A. s(., ., ,5?,
Dear Mr. Dust in:
I am pleased to reply to your letter dated .August
25, 1971, addressed to the Prime Ilinist.er, with respect to
the control of phosphorus concentration in cleaning agents.
The legislation you refer to is known as the Phos-
phorus Concentration Co'ntrol Regulations made by the Governor
in Council pursuant to Section 19 of the Canada Water Act.
One copy each of the Regulations and of the Act is enclosed
for your reference.
These regulations became oCI'ectivc August 1, 1970,
and limi t phosphorus pcntoxide contc'nt in laundry ciet.crgoivts
to a maximum "~pJfJTu~^eTce n t~ by weTglv^r"~"F\rft'ire'r' 'Fed ucFion of
the ph o s ph ate leveT Tn~ d e"t e r g e ri t s~ i"s" "re g u I reel " for"" adequate
ion of ~tfie~^rnTToiiiTiGl:Tt"'~aTrd''T~haT "t o
^
Government iat~2IT'"rc reciuced to a
__
percent maxfmuin e_ff^TTve^'e^e"mbef~"3]L,_ 19_72_ (copy of news
release arihouncTng tETs~recomraenda tibn is enclosed) .
Sunnjnary background material on this subject is
contained in the enclosed copies of the paper entitled
"Development of Nutrient Control Policies in Canada", and
of Technical Bulletin No. 48, which now is being printed in
finished form. Both of these documents were prepared under
the direction of Dr. A.T. Prince, Director of the Inland
Waters Branch of my Department.
-------
In response- to your request for a copy of the legis--
lativo background or hearing rc-cnid, 1 am hav.'nu, forwarded to
you by surface mail, a set of the Mi miles o£ Proceedings and
Evidence of the Standing Committee on National Kecources and
Public Works, which considered and reviewed the Canada Water
Act in detail at numerous meetings fro;r. December 12, 1969, to
May 7, 1970. In our Parliamentary system, legislation is
referred to the appropriate Standing Committee for detailed
consideration and report back to the House of Common s for
adoption , together with any amendments considered necessary
by the Committee.
-._. 5£Pr££^at-e_y9li£ League's interest in_/_, and
jacjtive support of, the^ phospliate 1 i rHTtT : \q "~Ta v7~ passTid" fo'v~^o"ur~
State_ Legislature_.___ -lY_^P££S_cia ti_on__pf vour League Vs _concern
is enhanced by the fact that your State is jone of _ those
Hpra.3~f ing" on " the Greajc Lakes, ..-;]ii_ch as you knoT.-7_are the__focus
of attention by Federal and £\;ate authoritiejs in );ot]i cur
countries, 3n_view__or t_]je mcir>s;i v^- po.L'.;'t.i on r.>-ob J r- • -; affeciiinc
these lakes .
During your examination of the onclor-uren , you wj 11
note references to the Department of Energy, Mir.cs and
Resources and to the Department of ' Fisheries and Forestry.
Our Government's serious concern in regard to environnental
pollution led to its establishment, in June 1971, of the
Department of the Environment, composed of my former
Department of Fisheries and Forestry together with the Water
Sector from the Department of Energy, Hi lies and Resources and
a number of agencies and groups from other Departments, to
consolidate our action in dealing with environmental pollution,
The bill to establish the Canada V\'ater Act was introduced in
our House of Commons by my colleague, the Honourable J.J.
Greene, in view of his responsibility for water matters at
that time. Mr. Greene also recommended the enactment of the
Phosphorus Concentration Control Regulations for the same
reason.
-------
I wish your League everv success in its efforts to
_
s
,. - -. __. __ . _. .
State. Efforts to preserve and enhance our environment will
be~ successful only with the active support of the public, both.
directly and through the example of worthy organisations such
as your League.
Yours sincerely,
Jack Davis.
Enclosures
AU.S.Government Printing Office: 1974 - 751-197
------- |