Mr. LEON G. BILLINGS, STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution; MR. TOM JORLING, Minority Counsel, Senate Public Works, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MESSRS. BILLINGS AND JORLING: Attached are proposed amendments to the draft bill which we discussed on June 15. We are presently researching the issue of delegation to the states and will forward our conclusions by the 25th. We were most pleased to have an opportunity to discuss the bill with you and to comment. Sincerely, Enclosures. Amend Section 301 (b) to read: JEROME B. GILBERT, (b) Public participation and participation by the states in the development, revision, and enforcement of water quality standards and implementation plans at all levels of government shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted. Amend Section 303 (a) (2) (B) to read: (B) Indicate the manner in which the state will provide for effluent limitations, schedules, and timetables . NOTE: The proposed amendment would mean that individual waste discharge requirements would not become part of the plan of implementation and therefore states would not be required to seek federal approval when the requirements were changed. Delete existing Section 303(a) (2) (H) and substitute the following: (H) Insure that if the existing quality of water is better than the quality established in the standards as of the date on which such standards become effective, such existing high quality will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the state that any change will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the standards. NOTE: The above has been accepted by the Federal Government as the California nondegradation standard. Amend Section 303 (a) (2) (I) to read: (I) Include controls over the disposition of all waste generated in such state, particularly that generated by removal from effluents, that could affect water quality. Amend Section 310 (a) (1) as follows: (1) Whenever . . finding. If such violation extends beyond the 30th day after the Administrator's notification and the State has not commenced and is not diligently prosecuting an administrative or judicial enforcement action, the Administrator shall issue an order requiring such person to comply with the re quirements of such plan or he shall bring a civil action in accordance with subsection (b). Amend Section 510 to read: RETENTION OF STATE AUTHORITY SEC. 510. Nothing in this Act shall preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce (1) any standard or limitation respecting effluents of water pollutants or combinations of such pollutants, or (2) any requirement respecting control or abatement of water pollution; except that if an effluent standard, or limitation or prohibition, or standard of performance is in effect under an applicable implementation plan or under Section 306, Section 307, or Section 308 of this Act, such state or political subdivision may not adopt or enforce any effluent standard, or limitation or prohibition, or standard of performance under such plan or section and may adopt and enforce any effluent standards, or limitation or prohibition, or standard of performance which is more stringent. Amend Section 511 to read: SEC. 511. This Act shall not be construed as (1) ... (2) affecting or in pairing the authority of the Secretary of the Army (i) or (ii) under Seetion 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 provided, however, when any facă ity for the discharge of waste requires a permit from the Corps of Engineers under Section 10 the decision as to whether a permit may be issued cannot be based, either in whole or in part, upon the effects of the discharge from the completed facility. New Section [DELEGATION] Delete Sections 308 (d) (1) and (2); 309 (b) (1) and (2); 403 (d) (1) and (2) Add a section to read: SEC. (a) If the Administrator finds that there is a state procedure which will ae complish the purpose of Section 309 (a) he shall accept such state procedure in lieu of the federal procedure or if the state agrees, the Administrator may dele gate to such state all or part of the authority contained in Section 309(a). In the event the Administrator accepts the state procedure or delegates all or part of the federal procedure to the state, he will be precluded from enforcing the federal procedure in such state. (b) If the Administrator finds that there is an adequate state procedure for enforcement of any effluent standard established under Section 307 and/or Sec tion 308, he shall accept such state procedure in lieu of the federal procedure for enforcement or if the state agrees, the Administrator may delegate to such state all or part of the enforcement authority contained in Section 307 and er Section 308. In the event the Administrator accepts the state procedure for et forcement or delegates all or part of the federal enforcement authority, he wil be precluded from enforcing the standards in such state except under Section 310(a)(1). (c) Whenever, as part of an approved plan of implementation under Section 303 of this Act, a state, or, if appropriate, interstate agency, establishes a mandatory permit, or equivalent program, including a waste discharge require ment program, for all discharges of any pollutant into the interstate or intrastate waters of such state the Administrator shall accept such state program in lied of the federal permit program, or if the state agrees, the Administrator may delegate to such state all or part of the authority contained in Section 406. I: the event the Administrator accepts the state program or delegates all or part of the federal program to the state he will be precluded from enforcing the federa procedures in such state except under Section 310(a) (1). (d) In addition to the grants authorized in any other section of this Act, the Administrator shall make grants to state water pollution control agencies in an amount equal to 100 percent of the cost of any delegated function. STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMMENTS ON COMMITTEE PRINT OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL Identification Page 2 Section 104 (a) (3) Page 2-Section 104 (a) (5) Page 3-Section 104 (c) Page 3-Section 104 (m) (1) Page 5-Section 105 (c) Page 5-Section 105(d) Page 5-Section 105 (f) Page 6-Section 106 (4) Comment The administrator is given new power to investigate any problem, with or without State request or cooperation. We believe that cooperative surveiltained to minimize duplication of efforts. We believe that cooperative surveillance systems will be very helpful and encourage such moves. We agree wholeheartedly that additional research is needed in this area; however, there may be some conflict with National Institute of Health Programs and objectives. We suggest that research as it applies to health factors be conducted in cooperation with National Institute of Health. We support such a move. Waste oil recovery will be an asset to the nation and many local pollution problems caused by indiscriminate dumping of waste oil can be solved. We recommend that major oil companies be required to pick up waste oil from service stations for reuse. We concur with the concept of Federal support for research into pollution control methods. The new language proposed seems to support any type of industrial research as long as some benefit is derived for pollution control purposes. We suggest a review of this new concept so that basic industrial research burden is not passed on to the taxpayer through Federal support. We support research into methods of preventing and abating pollution from agricultural industry. A high priority should be assigned to this area of research. We support this restriction on Federal support for industrial research. We support this section. In fact, we would encourage additional Federal grants for this purpose. We suggest a detailed review of this paragraph. The following revisions are suggested: If a State has provided more State funds than the required amount for matching purposes, it should not be Page 9 Section 202 Page 13-Section 209 penalized. Proposed language will not encourage efficient management. Delaware has over matched Federal re quirements and, therefore, its share should not be reduced only because FY 1972 appropriations are less than FY 1971. Federal Program Grants should provide a bonus for over matching and efficient management of the entire water pollution control program. Program effectiveness should be the criteria and not the size of the budget or staff. We support the change in the Federal support formula and suggest the following: (1) Estimated should be defined. reasonable COSL (2) "Reasonable cost" should include collection systems where septic tanks are used. (3) "Reasonable costs" should also include costs for separating storm water and sanitary sewage. (4) States should be required to submit "Six Year Capital Expenditure Reports" so that allocation to the States are made on the basis of actual and projected needs instead of a National formula based on population ratios. (5) There should be a truly National commitment to construct needed facilities within the next six years. Federal funds should be made available on an assured basis (except in case of a National emergency) so that State and local governments can plan construction schedules. We suggest immediate and careful consideration be given to this section since it would alter the usual pattern of pollution control followed in this country. A sudden shift to regional waste treatment management may cause some severe short term problems although such schemes are desirable in the long term. Adequate State and local legislation will be needed to carry out the Federal mandate. State and local legislative bodies require adequate time to organize and effectuate management structures. In the meanwhile, pollution control efforts may be delayed. A shift to regional management scheme will also require a re-examination of the financial needs and it is quite possible that sums appropriated under Section 207 may prove to be inadequate. We recommend that one area or State be organized as a demonstration region before proceeding with National application. Delaware would be a suitable sized entity for such a demonstration project. Page 15-Section 301 Page 20-Section 303 (H) Page 21-Section 304 Further, Paragraph (e) sets up a conflict between the operating agency and the State water pollution control agency (if they are not one and the same) regarding certification. We believe that the State water pollution control agency should be designated for all State certification. A clarification is required regarding functions of the operating agency and the District Engi neer. The states have already established Water Quality Standards pursuant to PL 89-234. Constant and repeated changes in standards or criteria create confusion and result in delays in implementation. Hundreds of waste treatment schemes are already in the design or construction stage. We suggest that instead of changing standards or criteria at this stage, attention should be given to enforcement of existing construction schedules. Successful completion of a game depends on "unchanging" rules during the duration of the game. Standards should be revised after successful completion of the needed waste treatment facilities. Special standards for discharge of toxic materials into the environment can be imposed now without radically affecting construction schedules. This section needs an in-depth discussion with State agencies. We would be happy to appear and present our views to the Committee. This paragraph requires absolutely no degradation of present quality of any waters in the State. In a real world such absolute limits do not exist and it will be impossible to assure such nondegradation. Waste generation is proportional to population and development. As a result of natural increase in population, the gross output of waste material will increase with time. Consequently, the net waste discharged into the streams, in spite of the highest practicable degree of treatment, will increase and lead to degradation. We suggest a thorough review of this policy and that a reasonable approach be taken. The word "degradation" should be defined. Localized diminution of water quality after the highest practicable degree of treatment should be allowed as long as the water uses and water quality criteria are not violated. We believe that wastes from manure disposal practices, feed lots, stockyards and pens can be controlled using existing technology. The control or removal of waste material carried in the runoff |