are subject to and should be invoked only in accordance with the requirements of Section 558 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act regarding written notice and opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance. It is sug gested that Sections (o) (1) (iii) and (0) (1) (iv) of the Proposed Regulations be amended to make specific reference to the Federal Administrative Procedure Act in this regard. Respectfully submitted, EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE попиваться By President February 11, 1971 STATEMENT OF P. H. GLATFELTER CO. P. H. GLATFELTER CO., Spring Grove, Pa., March 10, 1971. Hon. EDMUND A. MUSKIE, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Sir: As a representative of a progressive company that is well known for its accomplishments in environmental improvement, I'm quite interested in S 523 and recommend the following minor, but important changes in the bill. I. Concerning obligation of grant funds allotted to States within six months or else forfeiture, page 15, line 13-14 should read nine (9) (or more desirably twelve (12) months) instead of six (6) as now written. Reason. You are quite familiar with legislative implementation case histories, and must surely realize that a six month deadline to obligate large sums wisely and effectively will logically be, in most cases, insufficient. You also must realize that the application of this paragraph will usually involve (to be frank) overadministered, bureaucratically dominated, politically encumbered efforts at Local, State, and Federal levels. A six month limit for fund obligation will, in many cases, result in quick decision rush type headlong spending by State Governments, simply to avoid forfeiture of their assigned quotas. You are certainly aware of scarcity of funds. Therefore, let's not weaken proposals (otherwise sound) with a built in threatening deadline before which huge amounts must be committed, when perhaps 3-6 months longer should logically result in more sound spending. II. Exactly the same reasoning as above should apply to page 16, line 4, which should read nine (9) (or more desirably twelve (12) months). III. In regard to achievement of Water Quality Standards, page 22, line 15 should read "5 years"-not three (3). Reason. If we mandate progress too rapidly, unwise use of tax payers' money will result. You surely know, only too well, how dismal has been the real value obtained for the monies already spent. I speak from the grass roots level where legislation must be finally translated into grass roots action. I have worked on projects and grants with overadministrated consultants, politicians, bureaucrats, governmental levels, suppliers of hardware, and engineers, and realize how long these matters usually take. Delivery alone on major paper mill items for environmental improvement is 2-3 years, let alone process selection and design, engineering plans, bids, construction, completion and testing. Simply to beat a three (3) year deadline and to gain necessary lead time for completion by management will not allow rushing headlong through unsound planning and engineering phases to place an order. We must get the most out of our funds-whether industry or tax payer generated. IV On page 24, line 22, an addition should be made as follows: "unless it can be shown that water quality standards of the degree of stringency already in effect are not actually needed to insure such present or future uses as the waters, tributaries, or portion of tributaries would serve, or that down stream quality will not be adversely affected for present or contemplated future uses". Reason. Higher than required quality attainment is a waste of industry and tax payer's hard earned funds. Each reach of each river or creek must be judged on its merits. This is not to say that we belong to the "Dirty as possible" crowd, because our company does advocate secondary treatment in practically every instance-not just simply primary clarification. V On page 28 after line 6, there should be added: "or except as economic consideration would preclude such closed cycle production". Reason.-Closed cycles would be theoretically and technically possible in many industrial processes, but in most of these, absolutely economically forbidding, with present technology. We appreciate this opportunity to express our views. Like you, we are sincerely and constructively interested in progress. Progress will not result simply because we have passed another bill. The law, if too restrictive or inequitable, will simply cause confusion, and retard progress as is evident today in many areas. Economics and value analysis will continue to be the common denominator for action. I would like to hear from you or the Committee concerning these requests. Sincerely yours, P. H. GLATFELTER CO. PHILIP H. HERSHEY, Manager, Environmental Control. 59-068 0-71-pt. 3-18 GRAIN PROCESSING CORPORATION GRAIN PROCESSING CORPORATION, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public DEAR CHAIRMAN MUSKIE: The purpose of this letter is to register the opposition of Grain Processing Corporation to proposed new Subsection 8(a)(2) (1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as contained in S. 1013 being considered by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. This subsection provides as follows: "(I) No grant shall be made for any project which will treat industrial wastes of a liquid nature unless the grantee makes provisions satisfactory to the Administrator, in accordance with regulations promulgated by him, for the full recovery by the grantee, from the industrial users of the project, of that portion of the estimated reasonable cost of construction of such project (as determined by the Administrator) which is allocable to the treatment of such industrial wastes. The amount of estimated reasonable project costs recovered from each industrial user shall be equitably based on the proportion which the volume and strength of such user's wastes treated by the project bears to the volume and strength of all wastes treated by the project. Revenues derived from such cost recovery, to the extent apportionable to the Federal share of eligible project costs allocable to the treatment of industrial wastes, shall revert to the Treasury of the United States, unless the grantee has, or, in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Administrator, makes satisfactory provision for developing, a user charge system and other legal, institutional, managerial and financial capability to assure adequate operation, maintenance, expansion and replacement of treatment works throughout the grantee's jurisdiction, in which case such revenues may be retained by the grantee to assist in providing the financial capability referred to in this subparagraph." Grain Processing Corporation feels this new subsection is unwise for the following reasons: 1. It would tend to encourage industry to consider more seriously their own individual plants rather than joining with a municipality in a joint plant. To the extent that joint plants are not constructed the economies of size which would result from joint plants will be unavailable both to the industry and to the municipality. 2. Somewhat related to 1. is the fact that the federal government seems to be trying to encourage plants to be as large as possible. It is easier to supervise one large plant than it is several smaller ones. It minimizes the problem of finding trained operating personnel. 3. Industry pays a very large federal tax bill and should not be denied the opportunity to benefit from grants which their taxes in part make possible. 4. Industry located within a municipality or close enough that it could participate in a joint plant, pays state and municipal taxes which help finance the municipal treatment facility. Such industry should not be denied the opportunity to participate in a joint plant by eliminating a major portion of the financial advantage from doing so. 5. This provision will increase the cost to industry of water pollution control compliance by about four times. This assumes, of course, maximum state participation. This increased cost may very well make the difference between some industry being able to bear the burden or not. 6. Some industry has already participated in federal grants for joint facilities and would thus have a competitive advantage over industry which has not participated heretofore. 7. Industry which does not have the opportunity to partcipate in a municipal plant because of its location usually has tax advantages due to being located outside an urban area. 8. We have always contemplated paying a user charge to cover operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of our share of the facility. By requiring industry also to pay the federal grant portion of the original construction cost you are at least doubling the treatment costs which must be paid during the period of amortization of the original construction cost. We recognize the need for uniformity from state to state in the treatment of the portion of pollution control costs which industry must bear. We believe this could well be achieved through the regulations existing at the present time, which in effect require user charges to recover the industry's share of the applicant's (city's) cost of the treatment facility. For the reasons mentioned above, we strongly urge that this subsection be deleted from any legislation recommended by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. We would appreciate having this comment included in the hearing record. ELMER E. BLOOM, Vice-President. |