Chapter C: J. Sheriff, member of the council of Brockville, Ontario (2)

As to the raw material, the process to which I will refer deals with the raw sewage which has been precipitated or agglomerated by means of lime, “ferro-alumina,” or other agent, and rendered solid either by filter pressing or “lagooning” at the sewage-disposal works. This solid material contains on an average 50 to 55 per cent moisture and must, owing to its nature, be quickly disposed of, because for about six months in the year it becomes extremely offensive, and they have in England a very small area in which to dispose of it. It has to be taken away by railway trains and in boats and such like conveyances. In Great Britain the amount of solid material--containing 50 per cent moisture--produced by each 1,000 inhabitants is approximately 100 tons per annum, and, for the purposes of this report, those towns in the United Kingdom having a population of over 100,000 people produce annually 1,800,000 tons.

In disposing of it we look upon it from the commercial point of view, and, therefore, the composition of the sewage is very important.

The composition of raw sewage, of course, must vary very considerably, depending on the time of year and the district which it is derived from--trades waste, and so forth, e. g., paper factories, iron works, dye works, render it very complex, and an ever-varying mixture, but the following analysis will give a very general idea of its character and composition in Great Britain:

_Analysis of raw sewage per 100,000 parts as solids._

In solution, 125.4 }
In suspension, 62.9 } 188.3
Chlorine 8.9
Free ammonia 2.1
Organic (albuminoid). Ammonia 76

I have a sample here of the material that is generally produced at the sewage works.

(Sample produced and shown to the commissioners.)

That sample contains from 55 to 60 per cent of water and is as it comes from the filter press, and it is called filter-press cake.

Mr. GARDNER. That is not in commercial form?

Mr. PATERSON. No; that is in the form, as it comes from the sewage works, and it is material that gives us much trouble to dispose of. The analysis of that material, not air dried, is approximately--by “approximately” I mean the general analysis of that class of material over the United Kingdom--as follows:

_Analysis of press cake (not air dried)._

--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------
| London. | Leeds. | Wimbledon.
--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------
|_Per cent._|_Per cent._|_Per cent._
Water | 50.00 | 58.05 | 56.15
Organic matter | 15.40 | 16.69 | 11.36
Silica | 6.40 | 8.08 | 7.10
Carbonate of lime | 10.30 | 7.94 | 11.14
Nitrogen in sewage sludge (dry) | 1.63 | ... | ...
To ammonia | 1.95 | ... | ...
To ammonia sulphate | [2]7.67 | ... | ...
--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------

[2] Or per ton sludge, 171.8 pounds.

The ordinary air-dried sewage--we do not have very much of it in England--mostly comes from the small towns, in which the sludge is pumped up into lagoons and allowed to dry there, and the composition of that material is, generally speaking, as follows:

----------------------------+-----------+-----------
Air dry. | London. | Leeds.
----------------------------+-----------+-----------
|_Per cent._|_Per cent._
Water | 11.86 | 16.40
Organic matter | 24.61 | 27.92
Phosphoric acid (P₂O₅) | 1.04 | .75
Sulphuric acid | 1.12 | 1.02
Carbonic acid | 10.98 | 13.11
Lime | 14.33 | 17.51
Magnesia | 2.34 | 7.67
Oxide of iron | 3.02 | 2.32
Alumina | 4.13 | 6.33
Nitrogen | .86 | .70
----------------------------+-----------+-----------

These analyses will give a general idea of the composition of filter-pressed sewage cake, which we treat in Great Britain, and of which we have 1,800,000 tons per annum.

The object of the process under consideration is to dry the solids so that they may be available either for a fertilizer or, secondly, to be in a condition that by-products of commercial value can be recovered. The greatest difficulty with which we have had to contend was to provide a way of liberating the moisture, of which the pressed cake contained from 55 to 60 per cent, without volatilizing valuable material, and at the same time achieve the object in a short space of time and at low cost. One of the difficulties that has caused a great deal of time and trouble to solve is how to get rid of that moisture and dry the material at a moderate cost without losing any of the valuable constituents, because the valuable products are volatilized at a very low temperature. A very large amount of money and time has been spent in Great Britain in trying to dry sewage pressed cake, or sewage sludge, economically, and many ingenious mechanical appliances have been invented to try and solve the difficulty, but they have not been a success, as they have been costly to operate and required high temperature, with consequent loss of some of the valuable constituents of the sewage. This is due to the water in the sewage being in so many different forms, namely, hydroscopic water, water of combination, and water of crystallization; the first being easy to drive off and the two latter extremely difficult. So it is recognized now that the problem is one of chemistry and mechanics applied, and I can safely say that there is now a satisfactory solution of these difficulties on a practical scale.

Further on in this report I will give you some figures as to the cost of plant and cost per ton of drying pressed cake.

Having dried the material, it is in a condition to be treated by destructive distillation, whereby ammonia, oil, gas, fat, phenols, and other materials suitable for drugs and dye making may be extracted.

I show you a sample of the material as dried. It appears in that form [specimen exhibited], and it contains 50 to 55 and 60 per cent of water. After it is dried it becomes absolutely, as you see it there. That specimen is practically free from water; it contains only about 2 per cent of water. That material is valuable as a fertilizer, and it is sold in the form of a butter. [Butter specimen exhibited.]

The value of the material, as any chemist knows, is in its fertilizing contents for particular purposes. For certain purposes, the merchants who deal in the product add the necessary quantities of phosphoric acid that the material is deficient in, to bring it up to Government standard. That material is worth to-day on the English markets from $12 to $15 a ton.

Mr. GARDNER. What is the relative proportion of potash to phosphoric acid in that sample?

Mr. PATERSON. It varies very much, indeed. In small towns where it does not pay to extract--where there is not sufficient tonnage to pay for extracting the oil and the fat from these other products--they are either put into this form, or, if the towns are sufficiently near a large center, it is shipped on the railway to central works where it is treated for these products. But in isolated cases they simply dry the material by a special process, and they have local sale for it, and it is cheap to operate, so that where a man is usually employed in these plants the man can do the whole thing, and you can practically make a small number of people the limit of cost. Taking about 1,000 as being about the limit, or 500 persons, they can put it into this form and use it for manure purposes.

Oils are interesting to the British people, because we have no oil in England outside of the oils which are obtained in very small quantities from the Scottish shale deposits, so that when you are dealing with several million tons of material which will produce a very large quantity of oil per ton it becomes a matter of extreme interest to the Admiralty.

Sir Boverton Redwood, Bart., D. Sc., F. I. C., and Alfred Gordon Salamon, A. R. S. M., F. I. C., the former of whom is one of the consulting chemists of the British Government, state in a report on this process, made two years ago:

1. That the process is capable of furnishing valuable
commercial products for which there is a practically
unlimited market. In this connection, we may state that
the sample of crude oil distillate which was subjected
to test remained fluid until cooled to 20° F., had a
specific gravity of 0.971 at 60° F., and a flash point of
256° F. A sample of the redistilled oil previously tested
by us contained only 0.24 per cent of sulphur, and had a
calorific value of 10,230 calories per gram, or 18,415
British thermal units. It is evident that a product similar
to the crude oil examined would be a fuel oil complying
with the contract requirements of the Admiralty.

2. That very large supplies of the raw material, viz,
sewage-sludge press cake, would be available in this
country as soon as it became recognized that such press
cake could be disposed of.

3. That it may be reasonably anticipated that a substantial
profit would result from the general application of the
process.

The yields of valuable products, of course, vary within very wide limits, depending upon the composition of the sewage, but, speaking broadly, the amount of ammonia as sulphate ranges between 60 and 130 pounds per ton of sewage containing 5 to 10 per cent of moisture. Oil, from 18 to 40 gallons per ton; fat, from 5 to 10 per ton; gas, from 14,000 to 17,000 cubic feet per ton. The rare products, it is difficult to give any reasonable figures. Then, after these products have been extracted, there is a residue which has a commercial value as a fertilizer base, as it contains products valuable for agricultural purposes. It is an inodorous grayish-black friable substance having the following general composition.

Siliceous matter 66.30
Iron oxide and alumina 7.30
Calcium carbonate 3.44
Carbon 20.40
Magnesia .07
Phosphoric acid 1.14
Moisture
Sulphur 1.09
-----
99.74

The commercial value of sulphate of ammonia may be usually taken at 2 cents a pound, in Great Britain. It is difficult to say what the commercial value of these products is to-day, in war time. We obtain from 5 to 10 per cent of fat, and under special conditions, such as they have at Bradford, which is a wool-washing place, the amount of fat runs up to 20 per cent. It is difficult to give any definite figures as to the value of other products, because they vary in different localities, but there is a fair amount of substances which are used in drug making.

That butter, or residue, after these other products are taken out, is absolutely innocuous, and quite a deodorizer because of the amount of carbon it contains.

That material is used by the fertilizing companies and they add to it the requisite amount of ammonia or phosphoric acid, or potash, or what is required for particular kinds of agriculture.

One of the chief products is oil, and the analysis of the crude oil obtained from the process is as follows:

By volume. Specific gravity at 15° C per cent 9.931 Light oil boiling under 170° C do 5.0 Light oil boiling between 170-230° do 19.6 Light oil boiling between 230-270° do 18.7 Light oil boiling between 270-350° do 29.9 Residue, a soft pitchy substance, do 26.8 valuable for many purposes ----- 100.0

The crude oil is a very dark thick-looking substance, very much like what you would see lubricating any bearing of engines, and very much like the crude oil that is obtained from the oil wells of this country. It can be split up and fractionated into different parts. It has not a very pleasant smell or a very unpleasant smell; it is quite different from the ordinary crude oil you get from the earth, but several different spirits can be obtained, which are useful for driving motor cars, internal combustion engines, and so on.

After that black crude oil has been split up into these various grades, and various other compounds taken out, there remains in the still a pitch which is practically animal pitch, and which is useful for all kinds of things for which bone pitch is used. [Sample produced.]

The extraordinary thing is to think that that comes through a human being, but it does.

I have no sulphate of ammonia with me; it is such a common thing, you will see it in any drug store, it is used in most households, and it is known to everybody. The mean calorific value of the gases after the extraction of all condensible oils in the process was found to be 130 British thermal units. It will be noted that all the products mentioned in this analysis are easily salable, and always in demand.

These products are extracted in this way: The chief process is drying material, which has been one of the greatest difficulties in solving the sewage problem.

Mr. TAWNEY. What is the device used?

Mr. PATERSON. They have revolving cylinders, they have chambers, they have glass houses, they have towers that it is worked down through; all these sorts of things. In this process they take the gases which are coming from the garbage plant, and pass them through a brick chamber in which there is an endless belt made of wire-woven mesh. That travels a distance of about 120 feet in 20 minutes, and the carbonic-acid gas from the furnace, in conjunction with certain other material, creates a chemical reaction which breaks up these various forms of water, and in 20 minutes the material is dry, and in that condition in which you now see it. Having obtained it in that condition, if it is not used for fertilizing, it is put into a gas plant, which consists of retorts, in which the coal is thrown, the door closed, and heat applied. The volatile matter, gas and tar and so on, goes over in the condensers and the gas passes on and leaves behind it a tar and ammonia and liquor, etc. This process is very similar to the ordinary gas process, with this exception, that the ordinary gas retorts are not suitable, owing to the extremely low heat-conducting properties of dry sewage. So, special retorts have had to be constructed, and they are mostly vertical and in benches of 4 or 8 or 12 or 16. The material is taken along an automatic feed and pumped into these retorts and the top closed, and then the oil goes through a condenser and is thrown down in that form in which you see it. Steam is introduced and the ammonia runs over, the steam is condensed, and the ammonia is in that ammoniacal liquid. The ammonia is extracted from that liquid and the oil floats on the top and flows into these fractionating stills. Then the gas which passes on, 14,000 to 17,000 cubic feet, comes around again and is used for doing the distillation, so that practically the amount of gas in the sewage will complete the operation. In other words, it costs practically nothing for heat for doing the distillation.

The cost of one of these plants will depend on several factors, the chief of which is the population of the place. To deal with a small tonnage costs more per ton than to deal with a very large one, the overhead charges have to be taken into account, so that one is limited to a certain population for extracting the by-products.

As to whether a drying plant is installed alone or in conjunction with a distillation plant, this of course could only be decided by the careful examination of local conditions. Broadly speaking, a drying plant to treat 30 tons of sewage, containing 55 to 60 per cent of water, would cost approximately for the machinery $2,500.

Mr. MCGRATH. For what population?

Mr. PATERSON. For 1,000 people making 100 tons a year. Usually, around a municipality, they have buildings and garbage plants and structures of different kinds, so that practically in most of the towns I have visited in England that is about the total expense for machinery, after putting the material into the condition you see it, without practically any extra labor. The cost of drying in England, for the plant at Wimbledon is $1.50 per ton. A larger plant would cost relatively less, as certain mechanical parts that would be necessary for a small plant would serve a much larger one. In London, as I have said, it is costing us for drying per ton of sewage about $1.50, and the value of the product as a fertilizer, which naturally depends on its chemical composition, is from $12 to $15 per ton, and as a matter of fact on its chemical contents it is worth more than that. That is a very conservative figure to put upon it, because the fertilizer people want profits.

The cost of the distillation plant will, of course, vary in different towns and different localities. It is extremely difficult to give estimates on the cost of a distillation plant on this continent as the conditions vary to a large extent, but to generalize, a plant is not expensive and we consider in England a unit for treating, say, 40 tons a day of dried sewage would be in the neighborhood of $40,000, most of which plant would be suitable for treating 100 tons per day with only the addition of retorts, which is the least expensive part of the plant.

I have gone into the subject in this report in a quite general and untechnical way, and I shall be pleased to answer any further questions which you wish to ask me.

Mr. TAWNEY. Where are the plants, which you speak of, situated?

Mr. PATERSON. At Wimbledon, which is part of London.

Mr. TAWNEY. Are they operated by the municipality or by private interests?

Mr. PATERSON. They are operated by private interests.

Mr. TAWNEY. Do these private interests buy the sewage?

Mr. PATERSON. The sewage is delivered to the works free of charge. Speaking from memory, the cost at Wimbledon is about 75 cents a ton. They are getting rid of it for nothing, and, in addition to that, they give the land necessary for the treatment.

Mr. TAWNEY. How long has that plant been in operation?

Mr. PATERSON. About a year. On account of the war it has been shut down two or three times by the Government taking the men away; but now it is practically under Government control, for it comes under the Munitions Department. It is now looked upon by the Government as a necessary national project, and comes under the munitions department.

Mr. POWELL. Because of the gasoline they get?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes.

Mr. TAWNEY. From your knowledge, what do you estimate the cost of a plant would be for a city of, say, from 50,000 to 100,000 people?

Mr. PATERSON. I should say from about $40,000 to $50,000.

Mr. TAWNEY. That would be about $1 per capita.

Mr. PATERSON. About that; but less per capita for a population of over 50,000.

Prof. PHELPS. What is the cost of operation?

Mr. PATERSON. From 35 cents to 50 cents a ton; that, of course, depends on circumstances and conditions.

Mr. TAWNEY. What are the elements of cost?

Mr. PATERSON. The elements of cost, after the material is dried, are simply the cost of distillation, which is the principal cost, and there is also the cost of the maintenance of the plant.

Mr. TAWNEY. What labor cost is involved?

Mr. PATERSON. The labor cost is about 2 shillings per ton.

Mr. DALLYN. Does the fertilizer possess a solid residue devoid of organic life; do the seeds germinate at all?

Mr. PATERSON. That is not our experience; of course, there is bound to be organic life.

Mr. DALLYN. I mean, as you deliver it from your plant?

Mr. PATERSON. Not so far as we have found.

Mr. DALLYN. I speak of disease germs.

Mr. PATERSON. We have not found it so. That dry piece of sewage which you see there has been in my bag for five months.

Mr. MAGRATH. This process deals entirely with the solids?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes; it deals entirely with the solids.

Mr. MAGRATH. And it does not include any treatment of the liquid sewage.

Mr. PATERSON. No.

Mr. MAGRATH. What would be the minimum population that you consider it would be feasible to erect a system for?

Mr. PATERSON. Do you mean commercially?

Mr. MAGRATH. Yes.

Mr. PATERSON. Well, on the dry process, I should think down to 1,000 people, or probably 500 people. In England, the War Office, at two of their camps, have put in small plants for about 1,000 men. They call them field destructors, and they get sufficient oil to run the machines, but they do not save the products.

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. What process of sedimentation do you use?

Mr. PATERSON. They have a series of sedimentation tanks, and they use both lime and alumina to precipitate.

Mr. TAWNEY. Are the costs of the precipitants included in the cost you have mentioned?

Mr. PATERSON. No; this is purely for the treatment of the solids.

Mr. POWELL. It includes the drying?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes.

Mr. DALLYN. The use of chemicals for precipitating in your sedimentation tanks would make it cost more.

Mr. PATERSON. In certain cases they do not use a precipitant at all, but in other places they do. In places they use lime and alumina, and that is expensive: It does not affect the process at all if lime or any other agglomerant is not used, you still have the solids left. They are rather getting away from lime precipitation on account of its cost, but, on the other hand, where they have it for a fertilizer they are getting the value back that they paid for their lime to a very large degree, and possibly they are making a profit out of it. There is no doubt that lime does give more rapid precipitation, and it has its advantages, but it does not affect the solids for treatment or the by-products that you get from the solids.

Mr. MAGRATH. Do I understand that none of the important centers have yet taken this matter up?

Mr. PATERSON. They have signified their intention to take it up. Glasgow and Sheffield are contemplating putting in a plant, and Derby and Leeds. The plants would have been built this year, but the condition in England now is that no municipality can lend money without the sanction of the treasury. The plans are drawn for Glasgow, Leeds, and Sheffield.

Mr. TAWNEY. Is this a patented process?

Mr. PATERSON. In part; the distillation part is not patented.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Did you tell us what profit is realized out of the disposal of the sludge?

Mr. PATERSON. That could only be given in a general way, depending on the quantity which is treated. In London, which has 100,000 tons a year, you would naturally make a very large profit there in comparison to a city of 3,000 or 4,000 or 20,000 people.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Take a city of 100,000 people.

Mr. PATERSON. It leaves a fair margin of profit.

Mr. MIGNAULT. What do you mean by a fair margin of profit?

Mr. PATERSON. A fair margin of profit, and to pay for the depreciation of the plant, the redemption of the plant, the money that is necessary to keep it up, the cost that the city has gone to, and leave interest on the money plus decrease of capital, plus profit, I should think $1 a ton profit on 100,000 people, after paying all this, would be quite a good thing.

Mr. MAGRATH. I suppose, as a matter of fact, this process is in the experimental stage, or do you consider it is now sufficiently established?

Mr. PATERSON. It is sufficiently established, because the plant is paying. It went from the laboratory to a small plant at the rate of a ton a day, and now it has gone to a bigger one and a bigger one. We practically hope, and we are pretty sure, that we are going to take over the London sewage, which would be a very large plant.

Mr. MIGNAULT. How much money has been invested in these plants?

Mr. PATERSON. The one at Wimbledon is not a fair criterion, because it has been in operation for a long time, and it has gone through all the initial stages of a new process. Now, of course, it is in perfect order, and running smoothly, and giving good results, but it has come up from a smaller plant to a large degree, and there were lots of difficulties encountered which have been surmounted. I suppose it might be said to cost $300,000 now.

Mr. GARDNER. And, in the light of your experience, what do you estimate you could duplicate that plant for?

Mr. PATERSON. The same plant could be put in to-day easily for $40,000 or $50,000. Of course, in a new process we are continually putting in different things and trying different things, and also extracting things which we never dreamed of were in the material.

Mr. DALLYN. Is it not a fact that when the pressed sludge was first offered to the agricultural interests in England it was taken up and they paid a certain amount for it?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes.

Mr. DALLYN. And, after the system was generally adopted, is it not so that they could find no demand for it? Do you not think that if this process were generally adopted the value of the by-products would decrease on account of the large volume offering?

Mr. PATERSON. I do not think so, because of the nature of the by-products. Take this continent, and you import an enormous amount of sulphate of ammonia. The recovery of nitrogen is one of the problems which the United States Government has taken up within the last year. We have to have nitrogen, and you can not get it much cheaper than you can out of sewage, because you have to get rid of the sewage anyway. I do not think that nitrogen will ever depreciate in value. They are trying to take it from the air to-day, and have been fairly successful. Oil will always be valuable, gas will always be valuable, potash, phosphorus are all absolutely essential for the human race, and everybody is straining his brains and experimenting genius in trying to discover methods of getting oil and nitrogen. It seems to me to have been wicked that the English-speaking races should have been throwing this material away for so many years and looking upon it as a curse instead of a blessing. We can imitate the Germans in a great many respects, and that is one of them--to keep what is valuable instead of throwing it away.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Did you read the testimony of Mr. Hatton given before the commission?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Comparing your process to the one he spoke of, what would you say?

Mr. PATERSON. I came to the conclusion, in reading Mr. Hatton’s report, that he had the same difficulty which we had in Great Britain--that is, as to treating sewage. He complained that there was not sufficient sun. He said that after he had dried it that it was worth $20 a ton--I think he placed the minimum at $15 a ton. But his difficulty seemed to be with the process of drying and the difficulty of drying. In some of the plants I visited--in the plant at Baltimore--they have a drying plant there, and, perhaps I should not say it, but they have not got any further than we did four years ago. They had not discovered yet how to get over the difficulty in drying this material. If you have to wait in the summer time for the material to air dry, then you have the difficulty of bad smells, putrescent material lying about, and complaints. The material should be treated as soon as it is recovered.

Mr. MIGNAULT. According to your system, do you get rid of these difficulties?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes; we get over the difficulties. Formerly it used to take us two months to dry it, and if we tried to force the drying by most of the machines that have been invented we would lose most of the valuable constituents. Glasgow spent £6,000 on a drying machine, and then it had difficulty, and they were still in that difficulty five months ago. The difficulty about drying the material is that you must not drive off the valuable constituents, because if you do you lose money--you lose the volatile oils, you lose several things of value--and after it gets dry to a certain extent it becomes extremely inflammable. This material here that I have shown you could be used quite suitably as a fuel. It burns beautifully. That brick there, if you put a match to it, will burn quite easily and make an excellent fuel. If you want to augment the heating qualities of it, you can add coal or slack or anything like that to it, because it is a very excellent fuel.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Has this system any distinctive name?

Mr. PATERSON. I do not think it has. We have a company in England, we call it the S. O. S.; not the call for help--it is quite accidentally called that--but it means Sewage Oil Syndicate.

Mr. POWELL. I suppose the difficulty in drying is that if you use heat to expedite the drying you are apt to drive out the volatile constituents?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes.

Mr. POWELL. You must dry at a reduced heat?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes; it dries at a very low temperature. Another difficulty with the drying is that this sewage cake is so extremely nonconductive. You could heat it up to a temperature in the retort of 2,000 F., a piece the size of your fist, and the center will come out exactly as you put it in the retort. It will retain the moisture still, almost in the same condition as it went in, after receiving that high temperature for six hours.

Mr. TAWNEY. Has the development of this system proceeded beyond the experimental stage, or has it yet reached the commercial stage?

Mr. PATERSON. Yes, sir; it has reached the commercial stage. You have to take into consideration that the conditions in Canada and in the United States are considerably different from what they are in Great Britain. Great Britain is a smaller country, thickly populated, and I would want to point out that isolated towns would not have the same facility of working that we have here. Take a town like Rochester, and Buffalo, the next town, is 70 or 80 miles away. A town like Indianapolis, with a population of 300,000, has around it many towns of 20,000 or 25,000 people which radiate out from that center, and it would mean an absolutely sure profitable proposition. In other towns, like in Ontario, where they are isolated, you could not expect to make as large profits as in these well-situated towns.

Mr. POWELL. What is the highest percentage of net profit on capital expenditure? Maybe you do not wish to disclose that.

Mr. PATERSON. I do not think that would be wise at the present stage. Before answering that, I would like to know the conditions in this country better. One might make a statement as to that and then fall down lamentably on it after he understood the conditions.

Mr. TAWNEY. Do you think that a city of 25,000 inhabitants could install a plant of this kind for the disposal of sewage at a profit, or without a loss?

Mr. PATERSON. And using the by-product as a fertilizer?

Mr. TAWNEY. Yes.

Mr. PATERSON. If a town is situated like Hamilton, in Ontario, with respect to a large city like Toronto, yes. But not to put up a by-product plant for itself. It certainly could make a profit. I think Mr. Hatton bears me out in that, that there is almost an unlimited demand for this material at about $15 or $20 a ton in America.

Mr. MIGNAULT. I think Mr. Hatton stated that there was a very small percentage of fat in the sewage of Milwaukee. I would like to know whether this system can be applied anywhere, or does it depend on the nature of the sewage?

Mr. PATERSON. In England we take out the fats first in any case, but where it is used for fertilizing alone, Mr. Hatton is quite correct in what he says. In England, where we are dealing with large tonnages and taking out the other by-products, yes, it pays. Generally speaking, small towns of 25,000 people, unless they are well situated with relation to larger towns, the only way they can make a profit, so far as I know, is by drying the product and selling it as fertilizer, and that they can do at a very moderate cost. A drying plant will not cost more than $2,500, and the operating expenses are practically all done with the staff they have; that is, for a small city.

Mr. GARDNER. I wish, Mr. Paterson, on behalf of the commission, to express to you their thanks, and to say how much we appreciate that you have come before us from Indianapolis on our invitation and given us the valuable information which you have.

Mr. PATERSON. We professional chemists look upon it that we should render your commission the most useful information which we have in our possession, and I am sure we are all glad to do so. If I can be of any further assistance to the commission, I shall be glad.

Mr. GARDNER. We appreciate that.

Mr. PATERSON. If I can give you further information, I shall be only too pleased to do so.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Paterson stated at the beginning of his statement that he had a full report on this matter on its way from England, or that he expected one before long. I would suggest that when he receives that report he should forward it to the commission, with any additional data that he wishes to submit to us. I am sure we would appreciate it.

Mr. PATERSON. I shall be very pleased to do so.

STATEMENT OF DR. A. W. GOODALE, OF THOUSAND ISLAND PARK.

Mr. GARDNER. What is your position at Thousand Island Park, Dr. Goodale?

Dr. GOODALE. I am the secretary of the association and health officer. I have held those positions for several years. We received a notice from this commission from Washington to appear here. However, we have nothing to ask of you.

Mr. GARDNER. What are your particular duties as health officer?

Dr. GOODALE. I have had charge of putting down all the sewers, looking after our water, getting rid of our closets, and running them by water instead of having outdoor closets.

Mr. GARDNER. Have you a system of sewage disposal there?

Dr. GOODALE. We have.

Mr. GARDNER. What is your outlet?

Dr. GOODALE. Our outlet is the St. Lawrence River. We have a sewer that runs through the center of the park to the river. Then each street has a sewer that runs into the main sewer, and through that into the river below where we take our water.

Mr. GARDNER. What is your permanent population?

Dr. GOODALE. We haven’t any. I suppose there are a dozen families living there; not over that.

Mr. GARDNER. What is the population during the vacation season?

Dr. GOODALE. We have a transient population there of about 10,000 tourists. They are there from the 1st of July until about the middle of September.

Mr. GARDNER. That would include those arriving and departing day by day?

Dr. GOODALE. Yes, sir; but we have about 500 cottages. About 105 cottages and our principal hotel and stores were burned about two years ago. They were owned by the association.

Mr. GARDNER. How near the boundary line is Thousand Island Park?

Dr. GOODALE. It is about 6 miles across, and we are about in the center.

Mr. GARDNER. About how far is the border of the island from what you might term the ship canal--the channel where the navigation goes up and down the river?

Dr. GOODALE. About half a mile. The main channel, I think, is on the American side.

Mr. GARDNER. Where is the outlet of your sewers with respect to that ship channel?

Dr. GOODALE. It goes out pretty near the channel.

Mr. GARDNER. You do not treat your sewage at all, do you?

Dr. GOODALE. No, sir. If I may be allowed to say it without being asked, I would state that we have the healthiest people that I know of anywhere around. We have no typhoid fever; we have no diphtheria, scarlet fever, or any of the contagious diseases. We are now suffering under the misfortune of having to quarantine people in order to keep out infantile paralysis from New York and other places south of us.

Mr. GARDNER. Do you think you contribute anything to the good health of those farther down the river?

Dr. GOODALE. No, sir; I do not think we do; that is, nothing except in the way of pure water.

Mr. GARDNER. You think you have the advantage of them in obtaining pure water.

Dr. GOODALE. Well, we have the same advantage that Detroit and Niagara Falls and those places above us have of us. We take their pollution, if there is any.

Mr. GARDNER. The two cases are hardly parallel. You are right at the mouth of a big lake.

Dr. GOODALE. Well, virtually we are. I think where the big lakes empty in is up about Cape Vincent and Kingston.

Mr. GARDNER. As a matter of fact, before getting up into the lake the only town above you of any considerable size that sends sewage down to you is Clayton, is it not?

Dr. GOODALE. Clayton and Cape Vincent.

Mr. GARDNER. Have you ever considered any plans or schemes for purification of sewage?

Dr. GOODALE. We have had schemes suggested to us with which I am not familiar that we have considered not to be feasible, on account of our being situated in such a way that the water goes in both directions at Thousand Island Park. Part of it goes into the Canadian channel and part into the American channel. We have considered schemes of treating the sewage there, and it has always been so expensive that we could not afford to do it if it had been desirable.

Mr. GARDNER. That, then, has been the only reason why you have not formulated plans for the purification of sewage, the matter of expense?

Dr. GOODALE. The matter of expense and the fact that we have not considered that it was necessary so far as we are concerned.

Mr. GARDNER. But you have recognized it as a pending evil?

Dr. GOODALE. Yes, sir; we have not dodged that. It is an evil that has got to be done away with. However, we have not suffered with it at all. We have about 15 or 20 very good wells from which we obtain drinking water.

Mr. GARDNER. Are they artesian wells?

Dr. GOODALE. No, sir; we pump the water, and sometimes a hundred families get water from one well.

Mr. GARDNER. You do that, I suppose, because you think you get better water from your wells than you do from the river?

Dr. GOODALE. Well, many have had typhoid fever in Clayton and many of the residents there have felt afraid to use the St. Lawrence River water. But I do not think it is very bad. I talked with some boatmen coming down on the _Island Belle_. They have been running the _Island Belle_ for 20 years. They say they do not want any better water. I asked them where they got their water, whether they got it at Clayton or Thousand Island Park, and they said no; that they got it out in the center of the stream.

Mr. GARDNER. You have quite a good deal of navigation going to and from the island?

Dr. GOODALE. Yes, sir; there are a great many boats landing there every day.

Mr. POWELL. Have you any idea of how much of a floating population there is in the whole region, the mainland and the islands?

Dr. GOODALE. Well, it would be a guess. Do you mean during the summer while the tourists are there?

Mr. POWELL. Yes.

Dr. GOODALE. I should think 50,000.

Mr. POWELL. I was there before the big hotel was burned and on that one island alone for a week or so they had a population of over 10,000.

Dr. GOODALE. At Thousand Island Park we have a population of nearly 10,000 at this minute.

Mr. POWELL. You think a fair estimate of the total population would be 50,000?

Dr. GOODALE. Yes, sir. Of course, it is all guesswork. I have no means of knowing.

Mr. POWELL. You never took a poll or made a census?

Dr. GOODALE. No; I have been looking after sewers and sick people.

Mr. POWELL. What do you do with the excreta or raw sewage?

Dr. GOODALE. Do you mean our garbage?

Mr. POWELL. No; the excreta from the inhabitants.

Dr. GOODALE. From the water-closets or toilets?

Mr. POWELL. Yes.

Dr. GOODALE. We dump it into the river. It goes down through the main sewer.

Mr. POWELL. Do you burn your garbage?

Dr. GOODALE. Yes, sir.

Mr. POWELL. You burn the least nocuous?

Dr. GOODALE. Well, we could not very well burn the sewage. We burn the garbage; that is, it is emptied every day. We have a man remove it every day. It is taken away and each cottage pays a certain amount for its removal. We have nothing at Thousand Island Park to breed disease but what we dispose of.

I have no apology to make for anything that we do that injures our neighbors, because we really have not been looking out for that. We would be very glad to if we were able. The last fire we had damaged us about $250,000 to $300,000, so you will realize that we have not much money to spare. We have the healthiest place that I know of anywhere in the United States or Canada. Thousand Island Park is really an international park. We have a tabernacle in which we can seat about 3,000 people. We would be very glad to cooperate with this commission, or with anybody else, for the benefit of the St. Lawrence River, but we are too poor to do it just now. I did not come here to ask for anything, but to simply state to you that we are doing everything we can for the protection of the health of the people who visit us and of the people who go up and down the river. I would like to ask whether or not this commission is appointed from Washington?

Mr. GARDNER. It is appointed by both Governments. The commission was brought into existence by treaty between Great Britain and the United States, and, among other things, they agreed in that treaty that they would not permit the pollution of the boundary waters to the injury of property or health on either side. Now, the two Governments referred the question to this commission to ascertain whether or not the terms of the treaty were being violated, and if the waters were being polluted in contravention of the treaty. The commission put bacteriologists at work, and they have demonstrated beyond any question that the waters are being grossly polluted in places in violation of the treaty. The Governments then asked this commission to determine the remedy. That is what the commission is at work upon at the present time, to devise a remedy for this wholesale pollution that has been going on indiscriminately all up and down the boundary waters. The fact that any one community has been able to get pure water and avoid sickness does not change the matter at all; if they are dumping their sewage into the boundary water it is the duty of this commission to ascertain the facts and report them to the Governments. If the Governments accept the remedies that the commission finally submits to them for adoption there will not, I apprehend, be any discrimination between communities; they will all be treated alike.

Dr. GOODALE. As I understand it this commission has nothing to consider in regard to the purity or impurity of the St. Lawrence River.

Mr. GARDNER. Yes; the commission have to determine whether or not the waters are being polluted in contravention of the treaty; and, if so, what is the remedy. But the two countries have agreed that the waters shall not be polluted to the injury of health or property on the other side.

Dr. GOODALE. Well, what are they going to do if it is?

Mr. GARDNER. Well, we are ascertaining the facts now. We are trying to get at the actual conditions, and when we submit our report to the Governments it is for them to devise the administrative part of it. These two great Governments have joined in this movement, and I do not think there is any question but that they will be able to put a stop to what they regard as an unwarranted abuse.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I came here on instructions from the Dominion Marine Association and with no intention of saying anything unless called upon. I have an opportunity of going home on the 4 o’clock boat, which I would take if I had any assurance that the question of the steamers is not coming any more definitely before the commission than it has to-day.

Mr. GARDNER. The commission held a hearing in Detroit for the special purpose of hearing the navigation interests, and they appeared there. If you have anything to say we shall be glad to hear it.

Mr. KING. I am not pressing for the opportunity, but I wish to furnish the commission any information that they wish to obtain with regard to the boats, and I did not like to leave without asking the commission if they desired to ask any questions.

Mr. GARDNER. So far as my recollection goes the representatives of the navigation interests were very ready at the Detroit meeting to adopt any methods or remedies that proved to be reliable and safe. So far as that feature of it is concerned we have regarded the matter as closed. We are in perfect accord with them and they with us.

Mr. KING. I understood from Prof. Phelps that the test is now being made on the Lakes.

Mr. GARDNER. It is, and in case there is any weakness I apprehend it will be remedied.

Mr. KING. I hope you will call upon us at any time you need information or assistance.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Irving, the commission is now ready to hear the representatives of the city of Ogdensburg.

STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW IRVING, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
OF PUBLIC WORKS OF OGDENSBURG, N. Y.

Mr. IRVING. Mr. Chairman, the mayor of Ogdensburg was called away, and will not be back again until after the first of the month. The board of public works is represented, as is also the board of water commissioners. I am president of the board of public works and Mr. Darrow is president of the board of water commissioners. We are prepared to give you any information that you may desire with regard to the sewerage and water here. The city engineer is also present, as well as the superintendent of the waterworks.

Mr. GARDNER. Are you prepared to go on now?

Mr. IRVING. Yes; I would be glad to do so.

Mr. GARDNER. As president of the board of public works all the public utilities come under your supervision, do they?

Mr. IRVING. We have nothing to do with the water board. That is a separate and distinct commission. Mr. Darrow represents that commission. We have charge of the sewers, the building of the sewers, and the building of the streets and public works.

Mr. MAGRATH. What is the population of Ogdensburg?

Mr. IRVING. About 18,000; that is, including the inmates of the State hospitals.

Mr. POWELL. You simply do the work of constructing the sewers and the manner and time of such construction is determined by the State authorities?

Mr. IRVING. Yes, sir. I might more fully answer your question by explaining our sewerage system. In 1872 Col. George E. Waring, jr., was employed by the city of Ogdensburg to make a report upon a system of sewers, which he did. He also presented plans and gave a report as to the best method of sewering the city. Practically all sewers that have been built since that time have been built on what is called the Waring plan. The law provides that a sewer can not be built unless plans are submitted to the two State commissions, the State board of health and the State conservation commission. They have to approve the plans before the sewers are built. After those plans are adopted and approved by the two different commissions, then our board constructs the sewers. That, of course, is obligatory on the part of the city corporation.

Mr. GARDNER. That same condition applies all over the State?

Mr. IRVING. I believe it does. It certainly does so far as we are concerned. It applies to all cities of our class, at any rate. We are a city of the third class.

Mr. GARDNER. You discharge your raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River?

Mr. IRVING. It all gets in there ultimately.

Mr. GARDNER. Have you ever considered any plans for its purification and sterilization?

Mr. IRVING. Practically we have not; no, sir. We have in a sort of a desultory way spoken about it, because we can appreciate what a necessary thing it would be, but we have never seriously considered any plan.

Mr. POWELL. Have the State authorities ever urged any plan upon you?

Mr. IRVING. No. Of course there is a general proposition always floating about by the State authorities that the best way would be a sewage-disposal plant of some kind, but it has never been brought absolutely before us in concrete form. There has never been any mandate issued that we should do that. As a matter of fact, within the last year consent has been given to us to still empty the large sewer into what is practically the St. Lawrence River.

Mr. GARDNER. What is the assessed valuation of the city?

Mr. IRVING. I think it is about $6,000,000.

Mr. POWELL. What is the population?

Mr. IRVING. We consider it to be 18,000 people. That includes the State institution down here.

Mr. MAGRATH. Have you any complaint to make against the Canadian municipalities in the matter of pollution?

Mr. IRVING. No; we are all in the same boat.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Have you actually made any studies with regard to a sewage purification plant?

Mr. IRVING. We never have. It has never been contemplated. It is one of those questions that I presume we felt was a bridge that would have to be crossed some time.

Mr. MAGRATH. How is your sewerage system situated with regard to a purification plant? Have you one outlet or several?

Mr. IRVING. We have about 15 outlets altogether.

Mr. MIGNAULT. It would be necessary to have an interceptor?

Mr. IRVING. I may say that while Col. Waring suggested that at some time some different system of disposal would be necessary, he did not provide in the plan for any connection. You see we are lying right along the front of the St. Lawrence, and our outlets reach from up at one end of the city down to the other.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Where is your waterworks intake?

Mr. IRVING. The intake is well up above any local sewage. The water commissioners will explain all that to you and give you some valuable information regarding the contamination that they discovered when they put in the intake.

Mr. MIGNAULT. You have no idea, have you, as to what it would cost to install a purification plant?

Mr. IRVING. I have not the slightest idea. While Mr. Paterson was telling you what could be done I was interested in reading a few remarks that were made by Col. Waring in 1872, when he suggested our sewerage system. He said:

Many of the objections that hold against the system of
water sewerage in most towns are inoperative in Ogdensburg.
Not only can the whole city (except a small district near
the river) be completely drained by natural fall, but the
foul drainage will flow directly into a river that will
carry it at once away--a river so large that there is no
danger of action ever being taken by cities farther down
the stream to prevent the contamination of the water.
Indeed the only considerable objection that I can think
of against carrying out a properly executed system of
sewerage in Ogdensburg is the one item of its wastefulness.
Properly deodorized and applied to good agricultural land,
the night soil of a town of 10,000 inhabitants would be
worth at least $50,000 annually. This shows that the item
of wastefulness is worthy of the consideration of all
thoughtful persons, and there is no doubt that at some not
very distant day its force will be realized and the wasting
of sewage will be stopped.

Mr. MIGNAULT. What is the name of this local river that enters here?

Mr. IRVING. The Oswegatchie.