Part 12

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?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. Sometimes it is thrown into the Lakes, but I do not claim to make any point on that, because it is not handled as well as it should be handled, but we do the best we can with the facilities we have. However, I want to emphasize one thing--that the orders are peremptory that in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers no garbage shall be thrown, and you know that I know whereof I speak. The man that is reported for doing that will get the short shrift. Of course it is clearly understood that we have careless employees the same as anybody else. Sometimes on a dark night, if the cook thinks it is too much trouble to put the garbage into a receptacle which we provide for it, he throws it over the rail. I presume that sometimes happens, but I am speaking of the general orders. If I have not filed the sanitary rules which we have published, I will be glad to file them. These rules are given to all the members of the crews.

Mr. SLOMAN. Have you ever ascertained the rules in Europe on the vessels? You have traveled on them?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I know nothing, except being a passenger on the ocean. I know the methods of taking care of the garbage for the cities generally.

Mr. SLOMAN. Would you think burning garbage by an incinerating plant on the vessel, and keeping the excreta from the closet in a sealed can and distributing on the land would cost more than the apparatus your engineers are figuring on?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I can not answer that question. I have to refer these matters to those men who are experts.

Mr. MIGNAULT. Would it be possible to incinerate the garbage?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. Oh, yes; I think it would. I am not prepared to say just how. You can do anything, but the question is as to how practical it will be. It may be so difficult to carry out as to make it impossible. There is nothing you can not do if you try.

Mr. POWELL. You can throw it into the furnace. That is incinerator enough.

Mr. MIGNAULT. That would hardly be a method.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE. I am not here to suggest a plan. I am here to tell you we will adopt any feasible plan you suggest. We simply say the experiments have not gone far enough.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. King, have you anything to offer as the representative of the Dominion Marine Association?

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANCIS KING, K. C., OF KINGSTON, REPRESENTING THE DOMINION MARINE ASSOCIATION.

Mr. KING. Just a word. I will ask the commission to pardon me if I should repeat a little of what the President of the Lake Carriers’ Association has said, as I was not able to catch all that he said--in fact I must confess that I failed to hear a great part of his remarks, owing to the noise outside. But I began to pay strict attention when this gentleman [Mr. Sloman] preferred that very vehement indictment against the vessels passing through the waters in question. I am not going to say very much on that point, but I ask the commission to weigh the accuracy of his statements in some measure by the accuracy of his knowledge of the position of the owners of these vessels. I do not think I have to repeat to the commission, but I will say it again for this gentleman’s benefit, and the commission will pardon me. What we said at the previous session of the commission at Detroit--and what I am sure Mr. Livingstone has already said, although I could not hear him--was that we were in an attitude of cheerful willingness to place ourselves in the hands of the commission, and I speak on behalf of all the tonnage on the Canadian side between Port Arthur, the head of the Lakes, and Montreal. We place ourselves in the hands of the commission, trusting the commission will only bring into force, or recommend that the respective Governments pass legislation that will be fair and reasonable. We want to do what is right. We are as much interested as anybody in preventing the pollution of the waters, and I urge--and I wish to emphasize it very strongly--that nothing should be done without the fullest and most complete test. I think the commission is at one with that suggestion and will act upon it.

With regard to what has been done by Prof. Phelps and Mr. Frank, I trust that nothing will be done until you have had the fullest and most complete test of the proposals. I submit the test should be had not only on one trip but throughout the season, that it should include all weather and should include all seasons, and it should deal with the question of interference by frost, that the test should be carried out not only on the large freighters but on passenger boats, on which the conditions may vary, and that it should be carried out on boats of different sizes and engaged in different trades. It would be a matter of multiplying the test by three or four or five in order to cover the various conditions; but I do ask that this delay should take place, not for the purpose of postponing unduly any action that ought to be taken by vessel owners, but because the conditions are so different from those in regard to municipalities. In a municipality a tremendous amount of money is going to be spent before one knows absolutely what the effect is to be, and you are practically committed to that scheme. In the case of a boat you have an opportunity to decide upon the best scheme, having regard to the practicability, the cost and effectiveness, and I trust the commission will be governed to some extent by the consideration of cost, if it is to be granted.

Mr. TAWNEY. Would you consider it a hardship if the steamboat companies were required to place an apparatus on one of their boats at their own expense, with the understanding that if satisfactory they should complete the equipment on all their vessels; otherwise it would go no further?

Mr. KING. I do not quite understand the suggestion.

Mr. TAWNEY. Would the companies consider it a hardship if they were required to install one of these machines at their own expense for experimental purposes, that they should pay for it at their own expense----

Mr. KING. And if it was bad not to install it on the others?

Mr. TAWNEY. Let the commissioners decide whether they should go on or not?

Mr. KING. The vessel owners are willing to do whatever is right, and possibly this machine may not be the best. We do not know what may be invested in the next year or two. In view of the infinitesimal proportion of the sewage which can be credited to the boats, immediate haste is not necessary, and if it is going to take 5 or 10 years to settle the question with regard to the municipalities, it would be better to spend the money for the purpose of testing rather than committing ourselves to one appliance which may not answer the purpose. I am not urging delay for the sake of delay.

Mr. TAWNEY. I gather from your statement that the steamboat companies would not be willing to install this apparatus on all of their boats simply upon the result of one test.

Mr. KING. No.