27 29 30 28 necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on treatment works for which grants are made under this Act or by other contractors or grantees under this 31 Act shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for the 32 same type of work on construction in the immediate locality, as 33 determined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Act 34 of March 3, 1931, as amended, known as the Davis-Bacon Act (46 35 Stat 1494; 40 U.S.C., sec. 276s through 276a-5), and the Secretary 36 of Labor shall establish effective safety standards for the protection 37 of such laborers and mechanies. The Secretary of Labor shall have, 38 with respect to the labor standards specified in this subsection, the 39 authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 FR. 3176) and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C. 276c)," 40 41 COMMENTS "Sec. 511. Consistent with the Declaration of Policy as contained in Section 101 hereof, this Act shall not be construed as (1) affecting and impairing the provisions of any treaty of the United States, or (2) limiting the authority or functions of any officer or agency of the United States under any other law or regulation not inconsistent with this Act, but (3) shall be construed to limit the functions of any such officer or agency, including the Secretary of the Army, to the protection of anchorage and navigation, as distinguished from the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution, in navigable waters of the United States. 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 STAFF PRINT a report in addition to any other report required by this Act, on measures taken toward implementing the purpose and intent of this 3 Act, including, but not limited to, (1) the progress and problems associated with developing comprehensive plans, including river basin 5 plans under section 305; (2) a summary of actions taken and results 6 achieved in the field of water pollution control research, experiments, 7 studies, and related matters by the Administrator and other Federal agencies and by other persons and agencies under Federal grants or contracts; (3) the progress and problems associated with the development of water quality standards and effluent requirements and recommended control techniques; (4) the status of State water quality 12 standards, including a detailed summary of the progress obtained as 13 compared to that planned under State plans for implementation, 14 maintenance, and enforcement of water quality standards; (5) the 15 identification and status of enforcement actions pending or completed 16 under such Act during the preceding year; (6) the status of State, 17 interstate, and local pollution control programs established pursuant 18 to, and assisted by, this Act; (7) a summary of the results of a survey 19 to be taken by the Administrator annually to determine the efficiency of the operation and maintenance of treatment works constructed with 21 grants under this Act, as compared to the efficiency planned when such grant was made; and (8) all reports and recommendations made by the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board." 20 22 23 24 27 2 (b) The Administrator, in cooperation with State water pollution 25 control agencies and other water pollution control planning agencies, 25 shall make (1) a detailed estimate of the cost of carrying out the provision of this Act; (2) a comprehensive study of the economic impact on affected units of government of the cost of installation of treatment 29 facilities; and (3) a comprehensive analysis of the national requirements for and the cost of treating municipal, industrial, and other e' uent to attain such water quality standards as established pursuant 32 to this Act or applicable State law. The Administrator shall submit 33 such detailed estimate and such comprehensive study of such cost to the Congress no later than January 10, 1968, such study to be up35 dated each year thereafter." 30 31 34 COMMENTS 43 June 30, 1973, $ 44 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975." MEMBERS, AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE, Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee, Senate Public Works Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Attached are the American Paper Institute's recommended alterations to the draft water pollution legislation currently under your consideration. We appreciate the opportunity afforded us to make these comments and if we can be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, THOMAS P. HOLLEY, Director of Government Relations. AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AMENDMENTS Section 204 (5) (b)—Limitations and Conditions: P. 10:42-Strike [and replacement costs of such works]; determination of depreciation is possible but replacement costs are not. P. 11:2-Strike all after project: it is redundant and punitive. Cost recovery anticipates changing the system from grants to loans. Section 209-Regional Waste Treatment Management: Endorse the concept however seriously question the complete take-over of all privately operated facilities. Section 301-Water Quality Information: P. 16:8-Strike [All] and insert line 9; which may [reasonably] be expected. Section 302 (d) (2)—Water Quality Standards: Object to national minimum water quality standard for the following reasons: (1) It would abolish the concept of stream classification and in effect require that all waters be suitable for all prospective water uses. (2) The Administrator already has the power through existing legislation to designate the appropriate use for given streams. The Federal government and the States have recognized that in some cases, streams cannot be made suitable for fish and wildlife and recreational uses due to environmental and economic factors. Environmental factors include impoundments, surface runoff and natural eutrophication. (3) Establishment of such a high minimum standard would be extremely hard to justify economically in a number of areas, particularly in areas of heavy industry and population concentrations. Section 306 (a)—National Uniform Standards of Performance: P. 24:12-Application of adequately demonstrated control technology; recommend deletion of [latest available] insert [adequately demonstrated control technology]. Section 307 Toxic and Pretreatment Effluent Standards: Recommend deletion. Absolute prohibition of discharge is unachievable, especially in locations recycling waste paper. The concept that substances are poisonous or deleterious without regard to an amount is scientifically inaccurate. For example, any chemical derived from the earth or the sea, such as salts of sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium contains trace amounts of the heavy metals: arsenic antimony, bismuth and lead. In these trace amounts the heavy metals are harmless; in significantly larger amounts, they may be poisonous or deleterious. Recommend an effluent limitation set at a realistic level. Section 308 (a) (2) Inspections Monitoring and Entry: P. 27:30-Strike paragraph (a); insert (B) [shall have right of entry] at reasonable times. Redundant. Section 309 (a)(1) Federal Enforcement: If such violation extends beyond the 30th day after the Administrator's notification and the State has not commenced, or is not [proceeding with] appropriate enforcement under an approved implementation plan, the Administrator [may] issue an order [within 30 days] requiring such person to comply with the requirements of such plan. [If such order is not issued within specified time] the Administrator [may] bring a civil action [within 15 days] in accordance with subsection (b). Equity dictates Administrator be required to act within a reasonable time. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate. Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, MEMBERS, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, GENTLEMEN: It was very kind of the Committee on Public Works to make available to the American Petroleum Institute and other industries and associations the Committee Print of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments. I wish to take this opportunity to commend the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution for the thoroughness of its deliberations concerning this matter. There are a few alterations, we feel, which would improve the measure without weakening any of its beneficial effects. These alterations would help industry as a whole to cope with the problems confronting it in the water pollution field. Enclosed for your perusal are two exhibits. Exhibit I is a listing of the provisions in the Amendments with which we are concerned. It sets out in informal language the reasons that the individual provisions should be altered. Exhibit II is a collection of suggested changes in statutory language which, we feel, would make the legislation more workable, along with explanations of the changes. We feel that industry and government are partners working together for the common purpose of doing away with pollution. The distribution of the Committee Print for industry comments certainly is a step in the fulfillment of this partnership. It is a privilege and a pleasure for our industry to provide for the Committee our enclosed comments. In behalf of the American Petroleum Institute and its members, I wish to express my appreciation to the Committee for whatever consideration you may be able to give to the points raised by our enclosures. Sincerely yours, P. N. GAMMELGARD, Senior Vice President, Public and Environmental Affairs. Enclosures. EXHIBIT I GENERAL COMMENTS ON FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AMENDMENTS (COMMITTEE PRINT) 1. The inclusion of “ground waters" in the Amendments is undesirable. There is little basis for federal jurisdiction over ground waters (subsurface waters), since they are not navigable waters. Moreover, the attempt to assert federal jurisdiction would encroach on a complex body of state and common laws and could precipitate a massive amount of litigation. If a given state should prove unable to control the quality and use of ground waters, it might then be argued that federal control was needed. Even so, such control would be better vested in the U.S. Geological Survey, whose long experience and expertise relating to ground water quality and hydrogeology are already well established. (p. 1, line 32; p. 16, line 11; p. 19, lines 34–35) 2. References to "disposal of materials in wells" would grant the Environmental Protection Agency authority over matters having nothing to do with navigable waters. As presently drafted, the language would vest ultimate authority over deep well disposal of any "materials" in the Environmental Protection Agency. Such a jurisdictional grant has no place in the federal water pollution control act, |