Chapter M: E. Brian, Windsor, Ontario, city engineer (3)

This is a proceeding by information in the nature of a
bill in equity filed in the name of the attorney general
upon the relation of the township of Wyoming, through its
township board, its board of health, and its supervisor,
and upon the relation of the village of Grandville in said
township and certain riparian owners upon Grand River in
said township against the city of Grand Rapids, its common
council, its board of public works, and board of health,
to declare and to abate and restrain the continuance of an
alleged public nuisance. The nuisance is claimed to result
from acts of the city of Grand Rapids in conveying through
artificial means its sewage into the Grand River, which
flows down the river and is cast upon the land below that
city, and particularly upon those lands which are adjacent
to and within the village of Grandville, and there created
a public nuisance. It is also claimed that the emptying
of sewage into the river so pollutes its waters as to
constitute a nuisance in the waters themselves by reason of
the odors therefrom and the contamination therefrom.

The city of Grand Rapids is located upon both sides of
Grand River: its population in April, 1909, when the bill
was filed, was upward of 110,000; its sewage is carried
into the Grand River through sewers, which aggregate
upward of 171 miles in length, without purification of any
character. In addition to this the night soil from the
outlying houses which have no sewer connection is collected
in barrels and dumped into the Present Street sewer, and
flows into the river. The township of Wyoming is located
south of the city of Grand Rapids; the river, after passing
through the city, flows southerly and westerly between the
townships of Wyoming and Walker. On the south bank of the
river, at a point where it turns abruptly to the west, and
about 7 miles below the city of Grand Rapids, is located
the village of Grandville, with about 750 inhabitants.
Considerable area in Grandville is low; there is a ridge
of high ground along the river bank, which is 5 or 6 feet
higher than the low ground behind it.

It appears that the river overflows its banks once or
twice a year; at these times of overflow a large area in
Grandville is flooded, and the river becomes very much
wider than it is ordinarily and the current increases
rapidly. As the river goes down and after the water ceases
to flow back into the river a pond of about 20 acres is
left in the edge of the village, the escape of the water
back into the river by flowage being prevented by the
higher ground next to the river. The water left in this
pond is from 4 to 6 feet deep, and gradually disappears
through evaporation and seepage into the soil.

It is the claim of the complainants that the emptying of
the large amount of sewage produced in Grand Rapids into
the river contaminates its waters and fills them with
impurities which are carried down the stream as it flows
to, and into, or through the village; that, as the water
goes down, the substances and impurities which are in it,
due to the sewage, whether visible or invisible, are left
upon the surface of the ground, and there decomposition
creates such odors as to constitute a public nuisance in
the village. The most of the houses in Grandville surround
the flooded area, and there are four houses and eight
privies within the area covered by water in ordinary flood.
There are many more houses and privies covered by the
highest water known in Grandville.

Now, you have identically the same situation here that they had. You have the towns below us here of Wyandotte, Trenton, and others that abut on the Detroit River. They occupy the same position with regard to the city of Detroit as did this town of Grandville with regard to the city of Grand Rapids, and, inasmuch as the city of Detroit sooner or later is going to be confronted with the question of whether or not they must take care of the sewage as between those towns and it, just so the question might as well be disposed of by Federal legislation.

Mr. POWELL. In the absence of any special statutes on the part of your State, your common laws are precisely the same as the Canadian common law of Ontario, and the principle is very clear. I do not think there is any necessity of citing any authority on it. Every lower party is entitled to have the water flow to him in its crystal purity.

Mr. SLOMAN. There is no denying that proposition. This case is only interesting, gentlemen, with reference to the fact that it involves the inquiry as to what could or might be done to overcome the difficulty. In that respect it applies here very strongly. That is why I read portions of this authority at this time:

The bill of complaint, among other things, states that
the system of sewers in the city of Grand Rapids does not
cover the entire city, there being about one-quarter of
the inhabitants of said city who do not discharge their
refuse, of the character ordinarily discharged into and
carried away by sewers, into the sewers of the city, but
who discharge and deposit their filthy and unhealthy
refuse into vaults and cesspools; that in the past such
refuse, night soil, and unhealthy substances have been,
and were at the time of filing the bill, collected by
scavengers for said city and carried into the country,
outside of said city, where the same was buried in deep
beds, without creating any nuisance and without injury to
the health of the surrounding neighbors; that there was,
at the time of the filing of the bill, under contemplation
by the said city of Grand Rapids, and its said authorities
had recommended and intended and threatened to put into
operation, a plan whereby the said refuse and night soil,
then collected by its scavengers, would be carried to and
emptied into the said Prescott Street sewer in said city;
that the authorities had voted and determined to dispose
this refuse and night soil, and they were about to commence
the emptying of said sewage and night soil into the said
sewer and were at the time taking steps, or about to take
steps, through the expenditure of public money, for the
emptying of said refuse and night soil into the said sewer.

The bill states that the night soil so collected amounted
at that time to from 150 to 180 barrels a day, and if
emptied into the said sewer would be carried into the
Grand River and would greatly add to the pollution and
contamination of its waters, and that the same would create
a public nuisance in the rendering of the waters of said
river injurious to users thereof; and by the overflows of
said river and through deposits along the banks thereof
of deleterious, unhealthful, and noxious substances and
through the creation of noisome and unhealthful odors
arising from the waters of said river so contaminated an
additional public nuisance would be created; that the
township board of health of the township of Wyoming had
taken action in the matter, in accordance with the statute,
and had published this action, in which it protested
against the emptying of sewage and night soil into said
sewer, as contemplated by the city, and had declared the
same to be a nuisance and a source of filth and cause of
sickness in said township, and injurious to the health of
the people thereof. * * *

The bill further claims that the use of the waters of said
Grand River by the said city in the manner which was then
contemplated would be improper, unwarranted, and unlawful,
and would constitute a daily menace to the lives, health,
and comfort of the persons residing along said river and in
the township of Wyoming and in the village of Grandville
and would fill the air with noisome and noxious odors and
pollute the air in the neighborhood and render it unfit to
breathe; and that the said city could satisfactorily and
economically dispose of its refuse matter, night soil, and
sewage in any other manner or through different methods
than were then contemplated, without injury to the health
or lives of persons and without creating a public nuisance.

The bill prays that a permanent injunction be granted
against the city of Grand Rapids and its said boards,
officers, and agencies, restraining and preventing it, or
them, from continuing to discharge the sewage which it then
discharged into Grand River and requiring it to abate the
nuisance which it then maintained in the pollution of the
waters of said river. It also prayed that an injunction
issue restraining said city and its said officers and
agencies from carrying into effect their threatened
and contemplated plan of emptying into said sewer the
refuse matter and night soil then being collected by the
scavengers of said city for the purpose of conveying the
same into the Grand River, and that they be restrained
and prohibited from taking any action or in any manner
ordering the performance of any act on the part of any of
its officers or boards having the tendency to carry into
effect the said threatened action, which would result in
said nuisance.

The court in this case enters very largely into a discussion of the expert testimony that was given with regard to the relative situation of the town, the amount of filth that was deposited in these waters, the extent of the pollution, the size of the city, and the means and ways whereby this pollution might be overcome. It gives the testimony of the experts, and one of them I have particularly in mind was a witness named George S. Pierson.

The witness, George S. Pierson, called by the complainant,
testified that he was a civil engineer and had made a
specialty of sanitary engineering for 25 or 30 years; that
his work in a large measure required the supervision of
plants for water purification and installation of septic
tanks; that he had supervised sewage purification plants at
Hermosa, Cal.; El Paso, Tex.; Marshalltown, Iowa; Fond du
Lac, Wis.; Jackson, Durand, Ithaca, Bay View, Charlevoix,
and Lake Cora, Mich., and quite a number of smaller
installations; that he had visited most of the plants in
operation in Massachusetts, including those in Worcester,
Amherst, Andover, Gardner, Framingham, Natick, Brockton,
Lawrence, and others; that those plants were in successful
operation when he visited them; that he had experience in
estimating the cost of erection and maintenance of such
plants. The witness described modern methods of sewage
disposal, including septic tanks, and that the septic tank
is almost universally used in this country in the first
and even in the final stage of the process; that this
accomplishes sufficient purification of the sewage so that
it can be emptied into a stream without damage or creating
a nuisance; that the septic-tank process is in successful
operation in cities the size of Grand Rapids; that the
recent tendency had been to relieve streams from pollution
by purifying the sewage; that a sewage purification plant
of a city the size of Grand Rapids is feasible; that the
cost of operation of a septic tank is nominal, only an
occasional cleaning, at periods varying from three months
to six years; that the water consumption of a city is an
indication of the amount of its sewage, because practically
the entire water consumption finds its way into the
sewers; this may be increased by rains carrying with them
the street washings; that in providing a septic tank to
ascertain its size we ascertain the daily total flow.

The witness further testified that he had made a general
estimate which would be sufficiently large to cover the
cost of a sewage-disposal plant for Grand Rapids, and
he could positively say the cost would not exceed his
estimate; the approximate cost would be $1 per capita; for
a city the size of Grand Rapids it would be about $100,000;
this is based upon separate septic tanks without the cost
of connecting the sewers; that the cost would not vary much
whether one or more tanks were used; that if a separate
tank were installed at each sewer outlet the cost would
be slightly more, probably not more than 25 or 50 per
cent; that there is a slight odor from a septic tank, not
materially different from the odor of any sewer discharge;
if the tank discharges below the water level the odor is
masked; the septic tank alone reduces the amount of organic
matter in the sewage and the number of disease germs and
brings it into such condition that upon discharge it is
rapidly purified; that the odor would not last long after
the discharge; it would be very much minimized from the
sewage being put into the water and the duration of the
odor would be less, and it would disappear within a very
few hours; that in his judgment the sewage of Grand Rapids
in Grand River would not purify itself before it reached
Grandville; that unless the stream has a very rapid flow
there is immediate sedimentation when sewage is discharged
into a watercourse; that it continues until a good part of
the solids are lodged on the bottom of the stream; that
if there is a considerable sedimentation between Grand
Rapids and Grandville the effect of high water would be
to dislodge it and carry it on; that the pollution of the
stream at that time would be much increased from what it
would be if the current did not take up this discharge;
that the increased pollution of the water caused by this
would be apt to leave deposits at Grandville that would
increase the smells.

On cross-examination the witness testified that his
statement as regards the sediment on the bottom of the
river was not based on actual tests in Grand Rapids; that
it depended to a considerable extent on the rapidity of the
flow; that material settling to the bottom of the stream
would not cease to be contaminating for quite a long time
and would never become pure with additional material from
day to day; that he was not familiar with the river between
Grand Rapids and Grandville; that sewage odor from a stream
within clearly defined banks would not be particularly
noticeable for a great distance, it might for 5 miles, but
would be reduced; that he had made no test between Grand
Rapids and Grandville to see what settled to the bottom
of the river; that his statement was general from what he
supposed, and that he did not know the velocity of the
stream between the two points; that while there is no great
amount of purification in a sluggish stream in a distance
of 6 or 7 miles, the faster a stream flows the farther the
impurities are carried in a given time; that it might be
said it was the general rule in Michigan for cities having
sewer systems to carry the sewage into streams; that Grand
River at Jackson is smaller than at Grand Rapids, and
that Jackson has the largest municipal sewage-reduction
plant that he knows of in this State; that the sewage
there is purified by filtration; that the largest plant
he ever established is at Auburn, N. Y. (50,000 to 75,000
inhabitants); that Worcester, Mass., with a population of
125,000 to 150,000, has such a tank; that the contaminating
influences of the sewage of the city the size of Grand
Rapids would not be as great if the sewage were not carried
out into the river by artificial means, as there would
be purification of the organic matter by the soil; and
if it were not for the sewers there would be very little
contaminating influence upon the waters of the river.

And they then proceed to discuss the judgment of other experts, who are referred to in the opinion. The opinion is somewhat at length, and I do not care to take up the time of the commission by reading it, but will be very glad to leave the book with you during your visit, or you can take it along with you and return it to me.

Mr. MIGNAULT. What was the order?

Mr. SLOMAN. Requiring them to proceed to establish a septic tank, and at a later time the court gave the city a year in which to do it. That same situation presents itself with regard to Detroit. Every one of these towns and cities abutting on the river are in identically the same position as the city was when it filed the bill.

Mr. POWELL. Why did the owners not file a bill before?

Mr. SLOMAN. I think they were guilty of doing the very same thing as the city of Detroit was. If you gentlemen had a large farm and a lake upon it, and anybody filled it with excreta, you would not drink the water, but we are drinking from a pond in which millions, I might say, deposit their filth and excreta. I took this matter up, when my daughter took ill, first with the city board of health. Mr. Keefer was the health officer, and he attributed the typhoid to the milk supply rather than the water, but was willing to cooperate in any measure that would bring about a change in the conditions that existed. I then took it up with the State board of health, and finally with Washington, and shortly afterwards it was found that there was an arrangement between Great Britain and the United States for the appointment of an International Joint Commission, and finally your body was appointed. I got in touch with Chairman Tawney, giving him some data in regard to this matter, and I had hoped to be present at the former meeting of the commission, but was unavoidably called from the city, which made it impossible for me to appear before you. Upon the land we take care of our sewage through cesspools, which consist of practically a large dry-goods box, made of 2-inch boards, rather than of the thin material of which dry-goods boxes are made, inverted, with the opening off, so that the opening is right under the soil and the sewer pipes are connected with it. The soil is of a sandy, gravelly character, which carries off the impurities.

Mr. TAWNEY. How deep are your cesspools?

Mr. SLOMAN. We can not go down below 4 feet before we strike the water, but there are proprietors above me who run their sewers into the river.

Mr. MIGNAULT. All these sewers are private sewers?

Mr. SLOMAN. Yes.

With a view of getting the latest thought on the subject, I got in communication with the health board at Lansing, and desire to submit Bulletin No. 2 of the public health board of this State, for the sewage disposal of single houses and small institutions, in which they deal with the question of disposing of the sewage of the schools where they have not sewer facilities. They also give a diagram of a septic tank, by which it is claimed the solid matters are taken up with the earth, while the water that comes out of the septic tank is pure water. If it were possible to build septic tanks for Detroit, whereby the excreta might be disposed of in the soil and the pure water brought to the river, the danger would be reduced to the minimum, but unless Detroit takes some active and effective measure along that line we will be confronted in a short time, especially with the tremendous increase in our population and with the great increase in the industries, with an increased death rate. It is merely a question of time when the death rate will be appalling. I say that with a due sense of the responsibility I am assuming and an appreciation of the facts. I have watched this thing very carefully and studiously. One moment more on the question of cost. The question of cost ought not to be taken into consideration at all. You can not measure the loss of lives by cost, and the city of Detroit can not afford to destroy the unique position it occupies among the States of the Union by being backward in the matter of taking care of its sewage and by losing such a water supply as it had years ago, when it was the proud boast of the city of Detroit, which to-day it is not. To-day it is a stench in the nostrils of every community where they take the water from the river passing by their doors. I sincerely hope the Federal Government will take the matter in hand in such a way that it will not be optional with the cities to determine whether or not they will spend the money, but that measures will be passed providing means for dealing with the waters on the Great Lakes, and that the engineers will deal with the question in the best light; but foremost of all, you must stop the boats from depositing excreta in the water, and if you do not, no matter what you do, you can not take care of this pollution. It is simply awful. Just think of the traffic running up and down the river, and all that foul stuff and oil and grease and dirty water deposited in front of your doors. We have the boats passing in front of our doors every day, and when you stop to think of it, it is an awful matter and Congress should not wait a moment to take action on it. If you do not the upshot will be you will kill every fish in the river; you can not help do it. If we have a continuation of what has occurred during the past two or three weeks, from my knowledge and experience as a fisherman who has been going up along the river for the last 30 years, you will kill every fish in the river, because the foulness gets to the bottom and permeates that entire body of water, and nature, struggling as hard as she will, can not possibly take care of it.

I just wish, as a lay citizen, only having the interests of my city at heart, and feeling that the matter of life and health is of greater concern than profit, to urge that you will in your report, as far as it lies in your power, bring to the attention of Congress the really awful condition that exists along our shores, and ask that some measures be taken to remedy something which, if it is not remedied soon, will result in a tremendous loss to the city, which you will be sorry for in later days.

I thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. TAWNEY. We will proceed now with the statements of those who are here to speak for the lake traffic associations, and before doing so we will hear Prof. Phelps on the subject of pollution by means of lake traffic.

Prof. PHELPS. The progress report of the commission has sufficiently placed on record the statement of the extent and distribution by shipping interests. It will not be necessary for me to make any further statement than to bring out two points of distinction between this peculiar type of pollution and that with which we have been dealing in the case of the cities. The first of these is due to the movable character of this sort of pollution, whereby it may and does pass within close proximity to the waterworks intake of the city. The second of these is due to the fact that the steamboat traffic is confined in lines, the result of which practice is the pollution of the steamboat’s own water supply by steamboats which have preceded it. The importance of this matter, which was emphasized in the progress report, led us in the United States Public Health Service to undertake a solution, a possible means of remedying the situation which would satisfactorily dispose of these things without undue expense or undue inconvenience to the city interests. These investigations have been proceeding now for nearly two years, and I am going to ask Mr. Leslie C. Frank, the sanitary engineer of the United States Public Health Service, to describe to you the character of the investigation and the type of apparatus which he has designed to meet the situation, together with some remarks upon the application of the apparatus at the present time.

Mr. TAWNEY. State what investigations the Government has made and the results.

STATEMENT OF LESLIE C. FRANK, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., SANITARY
ENGINEER, UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.

Mr. FRANK. As Prof. Phelps has told you, the Public Health Service, realizing the probable future necessity of treating the sewage from vessels in some way or another, has endeavored to find a practicable solution. So that for the past two years we have been studying various methods, and we have been experimenting with what seemed to be the best method.

The method of traffic-sewage control is to provide storage tanks for the sewage so equipped that the sewage is both automatically disinfected and automatically discharged by means of steam or other heating element when it has reached a certain predetermined level in the tank. This method has been described in Reprint No. 247 of the Public Health Service reports. Briefly, the device consists of a tank, as shown in the illustration, with a sewage influent pipe penetrating nearly to the bottom; a discharge pipe having its influent end near the bottom of the tank, and rising up through the tank to a point above it; a float and valve with a lost-motion connection; and a steam influent pipe. The operation of the tank is simple. When the sewage has reached a certain predetermined level the float automatically turns on the steam, which escapes into the sewage through a number of small holes. All of the heat of the steam, of course, is given up to the sewage, which rapidly approaches the boiling point. As soon as the boiling point is reached, but not before, pressure is developed in the tank and the sewage is forced up and out through the discharge pipe. When, owing to this discharge, the sewage level in the tank has dropped to a predetermined minimum the float, through its lost-motion connection, turns off the steam and the tank is ready for the next cycle of operation.

There are a number of distinct advantages of this method:

(_a_) It depends upon heat for its disinfection efficiency, and heat is generally acknowledged, as above noted, to be very thorough in its action.

(_b_) Its action is entirely automatic. This eliminates the uncertainties of manual operation by a large number of employees.

(_c_) If fresh sewage enters the device while it is being discharged, the discharge immediately ceases.

There is no danger, therefore, of fresh sewage being carried out untreated. This advantageous feature is due to the fact that as soon as any fresh sewage enters the device its contents are chilled to a temperature at which pressure is impossible. The new mixture must again be brought to the boiling point before further discharge will take place.

(_d_) It permits toilet doors to remain unlocked over drinking-water areas.

(_e_) It permits toilet doors to remain unlocked while waiting in stations. This latter has, of course, no public-health significance, but it does concern very nearly the comfort of the passengers. In lieu of locking the toilet doors while standing in stations, the porter has merely to turn off a steam valve penetrating the car floor external to the toilet. The tank can be designed with a sufficient reserve capacity to care for any reasonable period of waiting. The objection will be raised immediately, of course, that the porter may forget to turn on the valve when the train leaves the station. This is true, but forgetfulness of this sort will rapidly create its own remedy. For, at the station stop immediately subsequent to the complete filling of the tank and its consequent dribbling, the fact of the porter’s forgetfulness would be made painfully evident by toilet discharges upon the station platform. It should be remembered in this connection that the porter can not help himself in such an emergency by locking the toilet doors.

The above device is now being experimented with upon a stationary basis in order to secure the maximum simplification of details and to secure data upon steam consumption, and bacterial efficiency. As soon as these studies are completed experimental devices will be placed upon vessels and railway coaches and tested in actual service. It is believed that the cost of operation will be extremely low. Rough preliminary office estimates indicate that the cost of disinfection with the above device should not be over two-tenths of a cent per cubic foot of sewage disinfected. This preliminary estimate is based upon the assumption that 1 pound of coal in the average modern locomotive will evaporate 6 pounds of water, and that locomotive coal costs $1.50 per ton delivered into the locomotive. This certainly should be more than sufficient allowance for radiation.

Based on the above estimate, sewage disinfection for a railway coach which used 10 cubic feet per day for toilet flushing will cost about 2 cents per day. The cost for steamers will probably be somewhat higher owing to the greater amount of water used per toilet flush.

An estimate of 5 or 10 cents per closet per day would seem reasonable. The steamers could, of course, reduce this considerably by substituting railway toilets for their present equipment.

That is, briefly, a description of the manner in which the tank works.

Mr. POWELL. What temperature is the water?

Mr. FRANK. We have been experimenting with the tank since January, and in none of our tests has the temperature at which discharge began been lower than 190° F., and that has only been when I have put steam in at such a high rate that it rose through the water so rapidly to the surface as not to condense as in the usual adjustment. In practically all of the experiments where I have so adjusted the steam valve--mind you, this has an automatic adjustment, too--as to cause the time of heating to be about 15 or 20 minutes, the temperature has always been between 200 and 212, practically boiling, always above the killing temperature for pathogenic organisms. I should say it was, roughly, about----

Mr. POWELL. One hundred and seven?

Mr. FRANK. No; about 160° F., which is equivalent to 60° C. The device may be regulated so that the discharge is never under 200. I think that the effect of the temperature can be illustrated by the results of our tests. We have never in any case been able to recover B. coli from the effluent, except once, in a great many tests. I have forgotten how many there were. In this one case I put the steam at such a high pressure that the discharge took place in only two or three minutes. Now, it is possible, in the manner of installing the device upon a vessel, to make it absolutely impossible for that to take place. I say that because I have been operating with 100 pounds steam pressure in Washington and reducing it down to about 5; and it is always possible on some vessels to make the line carry anything you want by a proper reducing valve. And if this line can be brought to somewhere about 10 to 15 pounds per square inch it is physically impossible for the discharge to take place in anything less than 10 or 15 minutes.

As regards what has been done toward installing the device on vessels, this experiment has been almost entirely due to the courtesy of Col. William Livingstone, president of the Lake Carriers’ Association. As you will remember, some time ago he offered to provide for the commission one or more vessels for experimentation. He has now made good that promise, and last week I was in Cleveland, and initiated the installation of the apparatus with which I have been experimenting in Washington since January upon the _D. G. Kerr_, just recently off the ways, and now completed, I believe, from what I heard in Cleveland. The installation of the device will be completed about to-morrow, and the first trip of the vessel is scheduled to begin Wednesday morning. I expect to make that trip on her. In regard to the future experimental work with the device, I do not think it ought to be too quick. I think we ought to take a fair amount of time to satisfy ourselves as to the manner in which the device works. I do not think one or two trips are enough to tell whether it will work or not. We have been experimenting with the device upon a stationary basis at a pumping station. That means no motion of the device; and it is certainly desirable to determine how it will act on a rolling vessel, and that will be the object of the present experiments during the coming season.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Do you foresee that the rolling of the vessel will make any difference?

Mr. FRANK. At present I can not see any definite trouble that is likely to result. With the rolling of the vessel I foresee that when the tank is half full the surface of the water in the tank may be caused to sway at an angle depending upon the rolling of the vessel.

Mr. MIGNAULT. What is the size of the tank?

Mr. FRANK. This tank with which I have been experimenting, which is designed for a group of toilets, is 24 inches in diameter by 30 inches long, and I have instructed them to place it longitudinally with the ship, so that the least wave action will take place from rolling. The ship on which this has been placed, for example, is 500 or 600 feet long and does not receive much effect from pitching. It is too long for that on the Great Lakes, but it does experience rolling, so that I have exposed the short portion of the tank to the rolling. The only thing that I can see might happen is this, that before the tank fills to the point where, normally, the steam is turned on automatically, the wave action will turn on the steam so that steam will enter the device. Also, if the tank is in the act of discharging, and the vessel rolls, and, say, if it is half discharged, then if one side of the tank on which the float is situated should be temporarily depressed, it would shut off the steam before the sewage had quite discharged. But I can not see any harm in it. It simply, momentarily, during the storm, reduces the capacity of the tank and makes the steam turn on oftener and reduces the capacity of the tank. That is the only effect I can see. I am also anticipating a possible knocking of the float on the inside of the tank by the insertion of stoppage lugs fitted by buffer springs. If the rolling were serious the buffer might be knocked against the top of the tank and be water-logged, and I am endeavoring to stop that by the insertion of buffer lugs.

Mr. TAWNEY. What is the capacity of your tank in gallons?

Mr. FRANK. About 70 gallons.

Mr. TAWNEY. Would that suffice for a fairly large vessel?

Mr. FRANK. That would suffice only for about half a dozen toilets, and if a vessel had a group of half a dozen toilets in the rear and half a dozen forward they would require to have two tanks. It is not necessary to delimit the side of the tanks to say how large the tanks should be. I think it would be much wiser to let that problem be solved for each particular vessel. The older vessels have a great many toilets, and would require more tanks. The newer vessels, which have fewer toilets, would have correspondingly fewer tanks.

Mr. TAWNEY. What is the cost of the outfit?

Mr. FRANK. It is difficult to say, but I should say it would not be expensive. The experimental tank which we have built in Washington, which is designed for six toilets, cost $600, but remember that is experimental, and one of the engineers whom I had to help me put three-sixteenths steel. That is more like building a warship, and it does not require to be so heavy. In practice it would not come to that.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Could you install it in vessels already built?

Mr. FRANK. It depends on the character of the vessel. I think it is comparatively easy. The _D. G. Kerr_ has been built already and had the soil pipe already inserted. The master mechanic, with whom I was talking yesterday about the installation of the device, stated that he thought it would take, roughly, 24 hours to install that tank.

Mr. MIGNAULT. In what part of the vessel is it placed?

Mr. FRANK. This particular experimental tank is being placed aft. Of course the tanks in practice would be placed wherever the soil pipes happened to be built.

Mr. TAWNEY. Is this a freight vessel?

Mr. FRANK. Yes. The cost of the operation, I think, will be almost negligible. We had this experimental device installed in the sewage pumping station in Washington, where we had a steam pressure of about 100 pounds per square inch and boilers of about 100 horsepower. It was impossible at any time to observe any effect whatever on those boilers when this device was receiving steam at its maximum flow, and I simply mentioned that to indicate that there would be no observable, even temporary, effect upon the steam supply for the engines in the vessels. There is no such great consumption of steam. I can explain to you steamboat people when I say that a half or three-quarter inch pipe will carry all the steam you need.

As regards the cost of operation, I have not the figures with me just now, but I computed, theoretically allowing 100 per cent additional cost for radiation, and I got 13 per cent for everything, including the amount by which the steam had already condensed in the pipe lines. I think the cost of operation goes away down to point zero something. If you figure it out upon the theoretical heat units that are known absolutely to be in the steam, there is no other conclusion but that the cost of operation of the device is negligible, and that the only thing which really need concern you is the cost of installation of the device. However, as regards operation, I think it would be better to wait for confirmation after the device is tried.

Mr. TAWNEY. Is the only contamination of the water by steamboats that which is discharged from closets?

Mr. FRANK. I think it can safely be assumed that the only part of steamboat discharge which has a pathogenic significance is that coming from the closets and urinals. I do not think any other particular discharge need concern us.

Mr. TAWNEY. The meats, or anything of that kind, can not become affected, being thrown into the water? Would that not have some effect?

Mr. FRANK. I do not know, but I think that the frequency of occurrence of infected meats upon vessels would be so low that any infection of the waters due thereto would be negligible and would be dissipated quickly.

Mr. POWELL. You could take care of that as a separate problem; give it a dose of steam.

Mr. FRANK. I think some kitchen rules could be formulated that would take care of that.

Mr. POWELL. What temperature Fahrenheit would you say?

Mr. FRANK. You could so regulate the device that it would be physically impossible----

Mr. POWELL. But what degree of heat?

Mr. FRANK. Between 200 and 212. The device can be regulated so that it will never discharge under 200, and is practically always 210. At centigrade the pathogenic temperature is 60.

Mr. TAWNEY. Don’t you think the complete sanitary requirements should call for some sterilization of refuse matter of the kitchen? If you were prescribing sanitary rules to be observed by the lake carrying trade, would it not be wise to make some provision for sterilization of refuse matter from the kitchen in the form of infected meats, or anything of that kind?

Mr. FRANK. I do not think I would be prepared, without a good deal further thought, to say so. I have not given it any thought in the past.

Mr. TAWNEY. I was trying to get at whether your system would be complete in itself for the purpose of preventing contamination of these waters by reason of steamboat navigation.

Mr. FRANK. I believe it could be safely said that, inasmuch as probably away over 99 per cent of all infected pollution which is discharged from the vessel is discharged through the toilets and urinals, emphasis might reasonably be laid only on those for the present, until it is definitely shown that real infection can result from the meats or kitchen waste. As I say, I have not thought of the problem in connection with the kitchen, and I really do not know whether you could, by discharging this waste, produce much affection or any affection.

Mr. POWELL. It would not be a difficult matter to sterilize them with an iron tank with a cover to prevent the escape of steam and a cock to turn on the steam. It is easy enough.

Mr. FRANK. Yes. If the meat or any of the feed were in large pieces, all that would be necessary would be to chop it up into relatively fine pieces.

Mr. POWELL. It would not cost more than $25 or $30.

Mr. FRANK. I would not place it quite so cheap.

Prof. PHELPS. It could all be burned in the furnace.

Mr. POWELL. There is very little new under the sun. Very nearly this same appliance has been in use on the Muskoka Lakes in their steamboats.

Mr. FRANK. Then I will be interested to know how it works.

Mr. MIGNAULT. You are not in a position to estimate the cost.

Mr. FRANK. I would prefer to wait until these experiments furnish me with actual figures on board ship.

Mr. TAWNEY. It is comparatively small.

Mr. FRANK. I think it could be safely said to be negligible, as far as steam consumption is concerned.

Mr. SLOMAN. Have you made any inquiry as to whether or not the garbage could be disposed of by an incinerating plant?

Mr. FRANK. No; I have not.

Mr. SLOMAN. Or whether the cost of an incinerating plant would exceed the cost of the plant you have in mind?

Mr. FRANK. I think Prof. Phelps’s suggestion to simply throw the kitchen refuse which is thought to be infected into the furnace is the most simple and obvious that has been suggested.

Mr. SLOMAN. Your plant does not take care of anything but the excreta from the closets?

Mr. FRANK. It does not.

Mr. SLOMAN. So that the vegetable matter and all that would have to be dealt with. After you have sterilized it you would throw it into the water?

Mr. FRANK. Yes.

Mr. SLOMAN. After you have sterilized it and cast it into the water and it goes to the shore, would it not become a menace again by coming back into the water?

Mr. FRANK. No; because the pathogenic organisms can not grow.

Mr. SLOMAN. Is it not a fact that in erecting ordinary dwellings they have an incinerating plant, by which they take care of the garbage by burning it?

Mr. FRANK. It may be done in country homes, but it is not done on vessels.

Dr. MCCULLOUGH. I am much interested in the description of the device given by this gentleman, and I may say that on the Muskoka Lakes, where about 30,000 people go every year, we carry out in principle what he proposes. We have not the automatic device that he has, but what we have answers the purpose very well. The sewage all goes into a large tank, and live steam is turned into that for 20 minutes. The requirement is that the effluent shall not be poured into any of the harbors; it must be turned into the middle of the lake. All the steamboats are under one company, and they are very willing to carry out this device or arrangement because it is a good advertisement for them. They are catering entirely to passenger and freight and bringing people to this summer resort, so that our task in getting them to establish the arrangement is an easy one.

Now, we are beginning to establish similar arrangements on the boats plying around Georgian Bay. With regard to the garbage which is thrown from the boats, I do not think we have very much complaint about the Muskoka Lakes, because it is eaten up by the gulls and birds found in large numbers on the waters. I am very much interested in the description of this device, and will be glad to know it is a satisfactory one, because if it turns out to be so, it will probably be established on our boats when any new ones come in to be equipped.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Regarding the tank installed on the Muskoka Lakes, is the effluent rendered harmless?

Dr. MCCULLOUGH. I think undoubtedly, because the steam is turned on for 20 minutes, and I think that would settle everything.

Mr. POWELL. What is the cost of the plant?

Dr. MCCULLOUGH. It is comparatively small.

Mr. DALLYN. I think about $100 would be the cost.

Mr. TAWNEY. I have here a letter which the chairman asked me to present. It reads as follows:

SEWERAGE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE,
_June 20, 1916_.

Hon. O. GARDNER,
_Chairman, International Joint Commission,
Federal Building, Buffalo, N. Y._

MY DEAR SIR: Your letter of June the 19 addressed to Hon.
Daniel W. Hoan, mayor, city of Milwaukee, has been referred
to me for reply.

With the permission of the Sewerage Commission of the city
of Milwaukee I should be glad to attend your meeting, to
be held at Detroit on Tuesday, June 27, to assist you in
any way I can in the discussion for adoption of the most
feasible and efficient system for the disposal of sewage
pollution of the cities which affect the boundary waters.

I am sending this communication to your address at the
Federal Building, Buffalo, also the Federal Building at
Detroit, and Southern Building at Washington, D. C.

Upon my arrival at Detroit on Tuesday morning I will call
at the Federal Building about 10 o’clock.

Very truly, yours,
T. CHALKLEY HATTON, _Chief Engineer_.

P. S.--My engagements are such that I must leave Detroit
for Pittsburgh the night of June 27.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Livingstone, is it your desire to present to the commission anything on this matter of remedies for the pollution of these waters occasioned by steamboat traffic?

STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM LIVINGSTONE, OF DETROIT, MICH.,
PRESIDENT LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I do not think I have anything to present different from what I stated to the commission before. I stated that so far as our Lake Carriers’ Association was concerned we would gladly cooperate with you in carrying out the objects by every means in our power, and at that time, in the course of the long discussion that ensued, I stated that I would be glad to put a boat or two, or more boats, as the case might be, at your disposal, to test any plan which the health board wanted to try out. Mr. Frank went over the ground. It is useless for me to repeat that. He came to me and I arranged to put a boat at his disposal. He has the apparatus installed, and he can have the use of her for testing as long as he pleases. Our thought about the matter summed up is this: We are willing to cooperate with you in any way in our power, but we have this feeling about it decidedly, that, whatever apparatus is adopted we feel that it ought to be thoroughly tested and carried beyond the experimental stage, so to speak, and that the experts should be satisfied that the plants installed will accomplish the purpose for which they are installed, because otherwise, if we were to adopt a mechanical device to accomplish this purpose and to put it on board our boats costing a great many thousand dollars and then found after we had installed them that they would not work properly and had to tear them out, the result would be a loss of time and money, and no possible good would result. We have some 16 steamers, and naturally the cost would be great. We feel now that it is just in the experimental stage. We do not feel that the time has arrived at which the health bureau are prepared to say, “If you install this device it will be satisfactory and accomplish the result”; but as soon as they are prepared to say, “We have tested this out; we have given it a thorough test; and we are satisfied in our minds that it will accomplish the purpose set forth,” then we will say, “Go ahead.”

May I add one thing? I want it to be clearly understood that I am not asking that our boats be exempt from any part of their duty to be performed to the general public, but it seems to me the matter has been overstated, to some extent. I am not putting it in by way of defense or expiation. I may say that we have in our employ approximately 17,000 people. If you take all the men employed on all the boats on the Great Lakes--call it 25,000, if you please--we employ the majority of them, and it must be remembered that they are not depositing their sewage or excretion into the water at any one point, and the idea that they can pollute and contaminate the waters to the same extent that this great city of 700,000 inhabitants can, with the sewers flowing into the river, is simply impossible.

Mr. TAWNEY. It is not only the sewage deposited by the employees of the vessels you speak of, but the steamboat population of the Great Lakes in 1913 was 50,000,000 souls.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I know that; we carried nearly 14,000,000 out of Detroit. I am not making any defense. I am not asking that they be treated differently from any other citizens of the United States. We do not ask for one blessed thing in the way of exemption. We stand up and try to do our full share as citizens of the country. I have lived in Detroit all my life, nearly, and have a large family, and am just as much interested in Detroit as any man living here can possibly be, and just as anxious we should get pure water to drink as any man living. I am not putting it upon the ground of cost either. It is not a question of dollars and cents. I want that understood. The point we want to be satisfied on is that it will work efficiently.

I have been connected entirely with freight boats. The average crew is about 25. The passenger boats carry a larger complement. Unless I misunderstood him, Mr. Sloman said that the water board sent me a letter, I think, nearly, if not quite, two years ago and asked that on account of the intake pipe near Detroit, which is up at the head of Belle Isle on the American side, we should make some arrangement that for several miles above that we would have our closets closed until we had passed that intake pipe. We complied with it, and I am not sure whether all the passenger lines complied with it. I know I personally asked them all, and I am reasonably sure the request was complied with. Nothing was deposited anywhere near the intake pipe. I went into this matter fully and exhaustively at the last meeting of the commission, and we stand now just where we did then. Anything you gentlemen decide, after giving it careful and exhaustive study, we stand ready to abide by, but we think it has not yet been tested out sufficiently, and I think Prof. Phelps will agree with me that they have not yet got to the point where they will say it will do the work.

Mr. MAGRATH. Mr. Sloman made quite a point about the garbage from steamers as being an injury to property. There must be a tremendous amount of garbage where there is such a heavy passenger traffic each season.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. That is true. Where do you live, Mr. Sloman?

Mr. SLOMAN. Up at Sans Souci.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. On Harrisons Island?

Mr. SLOMAN. Yes.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I will say that the orders are peremptory that no garbage shall be thrown into the river, but, of course, it is impossible to control all our vessels.

Mr. SLOMAN. What is done with it?