MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, on Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We have studied the Staff Print of proposed Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments which was released on July 2. We are in general agreement with the announced purpose, but believe they would benefit by substantial modifications, and wish to offer recommendations for consideration. In testimony before the Subcommittee, we recommended extension of the concept of river basin (watershed) management under balanced Federal-State partnership covering all parts of the country. We continue to believe this concept offers the best approach for strengthened water resources management, includ ing water quality control. Other principles which we commend are as follows: Extension of Federal authority in such manner as not to diminish the primary responsibility of State and Interstate agencies. Federal development of effluent criteria for State and Interstate agency guidance, for integration into effluent limitations related specifically to water quality in reference to water use. Derivation of effluent limitations with specificity to the waters in which the discharges occur, with enforcement consistently in accord with implementation plans appropriate to achieve and maintain water quality standards. Delegation of administrative responsibility for discharge permits to State (and Interstate) agencies, with Federal back-up authority. Enclosed are detailed recommendations concerning the Staff Print which we hope will be useful in your further consideration of this legislation. Sincerely, Enclosures. GEORGE E. BEST, COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIA TION REGARDING THE SENATE STAFF PRINT OF PROPOSED FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS RELEASED JULY 2, 1971. TITLE I Section 102-Extension of authority to include intrastate waters and ground waters. Section 102 (Planning grants) Section 104(a) (3) & (5)-Surveys and monitoring of water quality. Approve. Question striking Section 3(c) of the Act since the proposed Section 106 does not appear to provide as adequately for river basin planning, which should be at the heart of water resources manage ment. Endorse, Determination of water quality requirements through survell lance and monitoring is consistent with sound water resources management. TITLE II Section 204 (b)-User charges for industrial wastes in (public) treatment works. Section 209-Regional Waste Treatment Management. TITLE Insert "and value" after "quality" in line 38. According to the Act's policy declaration, it purposes "to enhance the quality and value of our water resources." Quality considerations should not be irrespective of value. Approve concept of minimum water quality standards so long as not construed to apply uniformly nation-wide, but be specifically determined and applied as the bill provides. (1) Insert "reasonable" immediately after "(i)" and "(ii)" as a precaution against unnecessarily burdensome stipulations. (2) Delete "including biological monitoring" since in many instances routine biological monitoring may be superfluous. Monitoring in each case should be designed according to need. Insert "and value" after quality, and add "below approved water quality standards" immediately after "State." Otherwise, the requirement is unrealistic, particularly if quality is held (improperly) to be synonymous with composition by chemical and/or physical analysis. Consistency with stautory objectives would be improved by transferring "that could affect water quality" to follow immediately after "State". Punctuate so as to make it manifestly clear that "to protect ground and surface water quality" applies to all three, not just the last. Endorse affording unlimited options as to means of achieving necessary ef fluent limitations. Recommend changing title and concept to "Guidelines for Performance of New Sources," and modifying text throughout so as to fit the Effluent Limitations proposal attached hereto. Insert "proven and practically applic able" between "latest" and "available." Fundamentally, applicable water qual ity standards should govern. (1) Strongly recommend deletion in entirety using Effluent Limitations mechanism (appended) instead. Toxicity being a relative, not an absolute term; in the vast majority of its manifestations it is related to particular combinations of elements rather than the elements considered separately. For example; Chromic oxide, Cr.Os, is extremely insoluble and inert; barium sul. fate as an insoluble white powder is used in taking x-rays of the intestinal tract. Thus it would be scientifically unsound and unwise to declare by statute that discharge of certain elements is prohibited. (2) Prohibition of discharge, if le gally construable as "zero discharge", is an appealing ideal, but is not actually achievable. If a substance in on the premises at all, it is impossible to be certain that absolutely none will escape in the effluent. Although analytical techniques may be highly sophisticated. each has a detection limit. Better to prescribe an effluent limitation, as low as deemed justified to minimize the discharge, than to have a statutory requirement which on its face is impossible of practical attainment. (3) "Secondary treatment" is sanitary engineering vernacular for treatment by biological oxidation. Its lack of effectiveness for waste treatment signifies only that this particular method of treatment is not applicable and tells nothing about treatability by other means. It has no use at all in treating inorganic wastes for example. Convert to be consistent with Efluent Limitations proposal. Right of entry should be qualified within the constitutional framework. Except where the owner gives consent, or imminent danger to public health and safety is alleged, no administrative inspection should be allowed without a suitable warrant issued by a court. Desirable to provide more specifically that provisions regarding records, reports, monitoring, entry, etc. are strictly lim ited to information about effluents having a bearing on water quality. Replace "as the Administrator shall prescribe" with satisfactory to the Administrator" to provide more appropriately for latitude, yet at the same time serving the Administrator's needs. Replace "upon a showing . . . if made public," with "which the owner or operator declares". While, in most instances, effluent composition may not be sensitive information, particularly to those not skilled in the art, in some cases its revelation would impart significant knowledge to a competitor, in which event it should be subject to protection. Section 309-Federal Enforcement. Section 311(b) (2) (A)—(312 in Staff Print) Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution. Section 311 (b) (2) (C)—Liability. Section 402-Discharge Permits. Section 402 (a) (1)—Stipulations. Approve procedural streamlining. Delete "elements and" in line 34, Same reasoning as advanced in referring to Section 307. Delete (ii) which would extend liability beyond "all loss or damage"; may unreasonably hinder insurability and defenses to liability. "Barrel" as a unit is not generally applicable to materials other than oil. TITLE IV Endorse delegation of authority to State (or Interstate) agencies in respect to granting of discharge permits; prefer such authority be vested directly with those agencies with Federal assistance, guidance, and back-up authority, thus maximizing use of existing administrative arrangements and minimizing duplication of structure and program. (1) Replace "may be degraded" with "standards will be violated". Same reasoning as for Section 303 (a) (2) (H). (2) Delete "will have received a minimum of secondary treatment and". Same reasoning as for Section 307. TITLE V Section 502 (f)-Definition of "pollutant". Section 502 (q), (r), (s)-Nutrient pollutants, Toxic pollutants, Essential nutrients. Insert "in such amount as to adversely affect water quality and value," between "description" and "including" in line 10. "Pollution" truly is a condition of adverse affect, not merely the presence of one or more substances. According to the proposed definition, pure water itself would be a pollutant. Strongly recommend deletion. Such distinctions unnecessary under Effluent Limitations proposal. The proposed categorizations are fallacious. All elements are found in nature, with no basis for supposition that any were totally foreign to the aquatic environment before being further introduced by activities of man. Many compounds composed solely of "essential nutrients" may be highly objectionable, even at relatively low concentrations, e.g., carbon and nitrogen combined as cyanide; sodium and sulfur as sodium sulfide; carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine as chlorinated hydrocarbons, etc. Likewise, the source, as in "nutrient and related pollutants" is of no direct consequence; rather it is the chemical or physical combination that must be considered in relation to effect potential. As to "toxic pollutants", such prescription based on adverse effect in "any tissue" of "any organism" would not only present an impossibly broad evaluation range, but if pursued deeply enough, would almost surely include most known substances. Section 507 (a)-Employee protection. Protection should not be afforded to employees who have some degree of personal responsibility for the violation or who might act willfully against their employer's interest with a view to personal gain from reporting the violation. ATTACHMENT RECOMMENDATION OF MCA REGARDING EFFLUENT CONTROLS Effluent limitations Giving full consideration to potential effects on the receiving water, State (or Interstate) agency to establish in its implementation plan allowable discharge effluent limitations which assure maintenance of established water quality standards according to parameters generally applicable. Such effluent limitations to include but not be limited to biochemical oxygen demand; pH: chloride, coliform bacteria; alkalinity or acidity; settleable solids; suspended solids; dissolved solids, total volatile solids, and acute toxicity. For effluent parameters not included in water quality standards, establish supplementary effluent limitations founded on EPA guidelines. EPA to provide guidelines by industry categories with recommended supplementary effluent limitations for each parameter, as appropriately applicable to the industry in question. Guidelines and recommended supplementary effluent limitations to be based on studies in each industry category supported by a professional report and recommendations, published in the FEDERAL REGISTER as proposed rule making for comment by parties, with provision for public hearings, and for reference to an independent panel of scientifically qualified experts upon a substantial showing that the recommendations are of questionable validity. In studies and guidelines, distinction to be made between effluent components having a short residence time (local effect) in water, for which acute toxicity data suffices, and those having long residence time with potential for accumulation in the aquatic food chain. Recommended effluent limitations to take into account technology available for restriction of discharge as well as consequences to and through the aquatic environment. EPA to periodically review all guidelines for purpose of determining whether revisions are warranted by advances in state of the art through process of other scientific improvements. Effluent limitations to be the basis for granting and conditioning discharge permits. Established effluent limitations subject to periodic review, and change if justified by survey of receiving water quality and effluents from each point discharge. |