CONFERENCE OF STATE SANITARY ENGINEERS BY WESLEY E. GILBERTSON, Chairman-elect I am pleased to submit this statement on behalf of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, an organization of the chief environmental program officials of the fifty States. We, at the state level, share your concern about the effectiveness of present water pollution control efforts and the need for a more effective attack on the nation's pollution problems. We believe that every American is entitled to an adequate supply of good quality water for his daily use, whether it be residential, industrial or agricultural, and for recreation and general enjoyment. Effective water pollution control and water quality management are necessary to meet this goal. The comments are primarily concerned with Senate Bill 523 and five administration bills to implement the President's February 8, 1971 environmental message. Three of the five administration bills would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, one would create an Environmental Financing Authority and the other bill is the Marine Protection Act of 1971. Our comments on these bills are grouped under three major elements of an effective water quality management program-planning, financing and enforcement. PLANNING One of the ways in which man learns is by experience. State water pollution control agencies have utilized various approaches and techniques in programs to prevent and abate water pollution over the years. Some approaches and techniques have been found to be more effective than others. The effectiveness of many legislatively sound programs has been hampered by a lack of funds and people to fully implement the programs. Speaking from rather extensive Pennsylvania water pollution control experience, we have found that effective water pollution control cannot be achieved by tackling the sources solely on an individual case-by-case basis. What is needed now both at the state and federal level is an effective water quality management effort in which adequate and effective planning, as well as the implementation of planning is utilized. Along with these elements, a strong regulatory program supported by an adequate governmental financial commitment to meet the priorities and goals of the nation is needed. The lack of effective planning and positive pollution prevention has been one of the most serious weaknesses in pollution control efforts thus far. Steps have been taken to improve the planning aspects of the Federal program. Changes have been made in sewage treatment plant construction grant regulations to require regional, metropolitan and basin planning. A water quality standards program has been implemented for interstate waters. An anti-degradation concept has been initiated. There is an urgent need to do more in the planning area to prevent pollution. In the legislation that is being considered, there are provisions to allow the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the discharge of toxic materials. There are provisions to regulate and in some instances ban the dumping of wastes into the ocean environment. These regulatory provisions are undoubtedly needed but in themselves are not the total solution to the problem. We have found that regulations to ban a discharge without effective planning to provide an environmentally safe alternate means of disposal can create other environmental problems. Again using a Pennsylvania example-our state like many others has had relatively stringent pollution control laws for a number of years. Pennsylvania law, as written in 1937, banned the discharge of pollutional materials to the state's waters. Many industries had materials that, if discharged to state waters, would cause pollution and many of these materials were difficult to treat or to dispose of. To comply with State requirements some industries, instead of treating and directly discharging wastes, stored wastes, treated or 59-068 0-71-pt. 3- -6 untreated, in impoundments or "lagoons." These walls of these impoundments have failed in some instances causing serious pollution incidents. Some leach pollution to underground waters. The use of such impoundments was not forbidden because technically they did not discharge. Our most recent amendments to our legislation in Pennsylvania make it clear that potential pollution as well as activities that might cause pollution are to be regulated. This concept is important. It prevents situations in which the implementation of one phase of a pollution control program results in the creation of another pollution problem— namely waste impoundments. The proposed Marine Dumping Act of 1971 could create problems in many parts of the nation. Bans on discharging harmful substances will call for some other means of disposal of complex materials. Planning must be conducted to provide some sort of state operated waste acceptance service for difficult-to-treat wastes so that they can be disposed without creating environmental hazards. Such an acceptance and treatment service could provide the facilities and technology needed to do the job. Individual waste producers do not seem to be able to do this. Private efforts to solve this problem have largely failed. The legislation should be amended to provide grant funds for the development of regional or state waste acceptance agencies to accept and treat difficult-tohandle wastes so that dumping bans do not create another problem at another location. The costs of treating wastes at these installations should be borne by the waste producer. Further, we believe that the legislation should clearly delegate to the Administrator of EPA the responsibility for designating acceptable ocean dumping sites for noninjurious wastes. In addition to implementing a waste acceptance service which would be geared to handling existing problems, there should be a clearly defined policy to require evaluation of new waste products before commercial production begins. Using this approach, which is one kind of planning, some of the serious pollution and waste disposal problems that the nation faces today could be prevented. The Administration bill and Senate Bill 523 both include an anti-degradation provision to insure that high quality waters are protected. The anti-degradation concept is one which is noble in concept, but difficult in administration. We believe that the anti-degradation concept can be effectively implemented only if it is a part of the definitive plan for a region, state or the nation. The anti-degradation concept cannot be truly implemented in isolation from effective land use control. Unless carefully and thoughtfully administered, the anti-degradation principle will force population and industrial concentrations into urban areas where existing water quality levels are lower, thus compounding all environmental problems in these areas. ENFORCEMENT Water Quality standards incorporate both planning and enforcement elements because they represent an effective planning device and serve as the basis for enforcement of effluent control requirements. Both the Administration bill and Senate Bill 523 extend coverage of water quality standards beyond interstate waters. Because of the national concern with the environment, it seems to be a logical step to extend the federal standards for water quality to all waters of the nation. We believe that ground waters are a very significant resource and should be subject to effective water quality standards and favor the administration proposal to applying water quality standards to both surface and ground waters. We have found that in establishing effective water quality standards that it is relatively easy to propose water quality criteria or goals for surface water. The task of designing an effective and meaningful implementation plan, taking into account future growth and the specific waste discharges on a watershed and their effect on water quality, requires substantial staff time by state agencies. We can understand the urgency of setting specific time limits by which water quality standards ought to be established. However, we have found that waters are not effectively managed and pollution not abated in many instances when standards are established and some sort of minimum blanket treatment requirements are set as the implementation mechanism. This type of standard setting procedure is like attempting to paint a masterpiece with a wall brush. We tried this blanket requirement approach to managing water quality almost 25 years ago and found that we have very frequently underestimated the treatment needs. It is far better to use mathematical modeling and simulation techniques to predict the effects of waste discharges on receiving waters. Using this approach, we have found that many waters, especially the smaller intrastate waters, require a minimum of tertiary treatment to assure that water quality criteria are met. With the present staff that most state agencies have available, it would be impractical and almost impossible to establish effective and meaningful water quality standards in the time frames proposed in both bills. A consideration in scheduling the completion of the development of water quality standards is the relation of the standards to the planning regulations that are a part of the federal construction grant program. Without the information that is to be deevloped in the basin, metropolitan and regional plans, it is almost impossible to do an effective job of developing a meaningful implementation plan for water quality standards. The target date for completion of these plans is made 1973 and they must be taken into account in developing water quality standards. The time required for water quality standards development, varies with the nature of the state and its population. I believe a nine month or one year time limit for all states to adopt meaningful water quality standards is not practical and would not enhance the nation's water pollution control effort. I suggest that the water quality standards portion of the bill be amended to require that within 30 days of the passage of the act, states be required to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator a schedule for the establishment of water quality standards. Those areas that have the most serious water pollution problems should be given highest priority in establishing water quality standards. Both the Administration bill and Senate Bill 523 would direct the Administrator of EPA to establish minimum levels of treatment for various types of waste. It appears that minimum effluent requirements would be based on a determination of treatment methods that are deemed "practical". We are concerned that such a declaration, if not properly qualified could result in a license to pollute. We have found that not only availability of treatment methods and technology but also that the size and uses of a stream must be taken into consideration in determining minimum effluent requirements. The act should clearly state that a state water pollution control agency can require more stringent effluent requirements than those published by the Administrator. One concern that all state pollution control administrators share is the increasing tendency towards duplication of program effort. According to the policy declaration of the act, state water pollution control programs are to be utilized wherever possible to abate pollution. Yet, the thrust of the legislation as proposed, is to increase the potential of overlap and duplication, by failing to provide for specific mechanisms for Federal discretion to delegate and exempt where state programs meet required performance levels. There is need to avoid such major duplications as exist at the present time relating to the permitting procedures under the 1899 Refuse Act. We believe that federal activities relating to water pollution control should be centered in one agency, namely the Environmental Protection Agency. If a federal permit system is deemed necessary, it should be implemented under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency. Such a permit system, however, must not duplicate effective state permit systems. In such states, the procedures and systems should be audited periodically to insure meeting Federal legislative goals. A duplicate permit should not be required. We recommend strongly that the committee eliminate duplication of permit requirements also for the reasons that suspension and revocation actions in overlapping state-federal systems will cause administrative confusion and legal conflicts. We believe that the language in Senate Bill 523 which provides for delegation of plant inspections and surveillance should apply throughout the enforcement section of the act. In Pennsylvania we have found that economic sanctions against polluters are an effective pollution abatement and enforcement tool. We have removed firms causing pollution problems from Commonwealth bidding and purchasing lists and this has resulted in prompt pollution abatement. This concept is included in Subsection (1) of Section II of Senate Bill 523 and we endorse its implication at the National level. FINANCING Federal legislative policy provides for financial incentives to encourage state pollution control programs and to aid municipalities in constructing sewage treatment facilities. It has often been said that the action is where the money is. Under the present funding levels in the federal water pollution control effort, approximately 36 percent of the federal funds are directed to federal programs and research. About 62 percent of the funds go to municipalities for construction grants and about 2 percent of the funds go to state water pollution control agencies to aid in enforcing water pollution control laws. The pending proposals would not improve this situation significantly. This distribution of funds does not seem to match the policy declaration of the Federal Act which assigns the primary pollution control responsibilities to the States. I recognize that both the Administration bill and Senate Bill 523 would increase somewhat the authorizations for grants for state water pollution control programs, but I believe that it is timely to initiate more aid in the area of planning. Planning grants should be made available for basin planning, land use planning, metropolitan and regional planning, information systems, planning reviews and plan maintenance. As I mentioned previously, without effective planning, we are not going to have effective pollution control. Planning regulations for the construction grants program have been established but funds are not readily available to do the planning. The anti-degradation concept has been proposed but needs land use planning. New regulations have required the states to review environmental impact statements and permit applications but no funds have been provided for these tasks. There is a widening gap between the mandates of both State and Federal legislation and regulations and the funds to do the job. In order to make water pollution control and water quality management more effective in the nation, I propose the following programs grants to be authorized to state water pollution control agencies: Under the program grant regulations as proposed in the Administration bill. the concept of awarding grants for "improved programs" is included as an incentive to state programs. We agree with this proposal, however, it is not clear whether grants could be awarded to states that have initiated efforts in the elements that are defined as an "improved program". It should be made clear that states would not be excluded if they have begun some activities in these areas but need improvement and that these funds would be used to supplement and improve existing programs. There is an urgent need to make a significant commitment in the form of the funding of the water pollution control staff effort to carry out the mandates of the increasingly stringent legislation that is being enacted. Without the people to do the job, legislation means little. Both the Administration bill and Senate Bill 523 suggest that the construction grants program amounts be changed and that the authorization for grants be increased. The Administration bill includes the concept of a federal "pulling out" of the financial picture in the construction grants program. We believe that it is too early for the federal government to begin to cut back its commitment in pollution control grants. The pollution control effort is really beginning to move. The time for a cut back in effort is when the goals are met not when a program is beginning to move. We, therefore, urge that the "pull out" concepts in the Administration bill be removed including the provision which would require that the proportionate federal share of industrial contributions to a project be placed into a reserve for future expansion of treatment facilities. We believe this provision would have the effect of discouraging industrial participation in regional projects and would be contrary to desirable regionalization of waste collection and treatment. We believe that the law should only require that industry pay its fair share in a joint treatment program. With regard to the time constraints on construction grants while Senate Bill 523 reinstates the provision that funds must be obligated within six months after the end of the fiscal year in which funds were allotted, the Administration bill continues the present requirement that the funds be obligated by the end of the fiscal year. Since funds are not generally appropriated at the start of the fiscal year, we find the provision for obligation of funds in the Administration bill to be restricting and difficult to meet. The additional six months as originally provided allows adequate flexibility for obligation of funds to needed projects. In addition, Senate Bill 523 requires the obligation of reallotted funds by the end of the fiscal year following that in which the funds were originally appropriated. Because of the time lag in determining the amount of funds to be reallotted, and the additional time needed for the actual reallottment, there is little time left for obligation of these additional funds under this provision. We recommended that the time limit for obligation of reallotted funds be eliminated. Under Section 8 of the Senate Bill 523, grants can be made to a state for the construction of necessary treatment works to provide for the effective treatment of "sewage and other wastes of any kind or description". As you are probably aware, a number of other states have serious water pollution problems resulting from past mining of coal. The problem of abating mine drainage pollution from abandoned mining operations has fallen on the states and it would appear to us that construction grant funds under this legislation could be utilized to supplement state funds in the abatement of abandoned mine drain. age pollution. We urge that such language be included. It would appear that pollution control construction funding requirements will necessitate the $2 billion level included in Senate Bill 523. We believe that the Environmental Financing Authority suggested by the administration would be a beneficial factor in the financing of pollution control facilities. My comments have not covered all sections of the bills but I hope they have pointed out to you some of the state views resulting from administering water pollution control programs. We hope that this experience can be used in developing federal legislation. Together the states and the federal government can do the job protecting and enhancing water quality. This job can only be done if (1) competent staff and funds are provided to do the job, (2) the job isn't hindered by duplication and (3) that the program is designed to prevent pollution on a planned basis rather than on a "brush fire" basis. Sincerely yours, WESLEY E. GILBERTSON, |