The questions submitted to Administrator Ruckelshaus by Senator Boggs and subsequent responses by the Agency follow:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON S. 523

Question 1. Section 8(e)(2), on lines 23 and 24 of page 13, requires that any river basin plan shall include a requirement that adequate reserves be set aside to offset the cost of future treatment facilities constructed in that basin. This would appear to be quite similar to the provisions in the administration proposal requiring future selfsufficiency in meeting water treatment needs. Would you agree that this language requires this local self-sufficiency in the future? Is a 60 percent grant a sufficient inducement to an area to sever itself from the opportunity to continue to qualify for construction grants in the future?

Answer. The language in section 8(e) appears to indicate that after fiscal year 1976, funding of waste facility construction is expected to be a non-Federal responsibility. Assuming this, the 60 percent grant is being made to assure that plans for reaching this self-sufficiency are completed. We would agree that local self-sufficiency in the future is required by the language in the bill. If Federal financing for waste facilities were continued after fiscal year 1976, it is unlikely that the 60 percent grant would be sufficient inducement to forego the opportunity for additional Federal assistance in the future.

Question 2. How would you analyze the effect on the Federal water pollution control program of the differing definitions of "standards," "criteria," etc., in this bill compared with the administration's bill?

Answer. In present law, water quality standards consist of water quality criteria and a plan for their implementation and enforcement. S. 1014 defines "water quality standards" so as to include water use designations and effluent limitations, as well as the criteria and the plan. Each of the four elements of the standards is then defined. S. 523, in proposed section 10(a)(1), refers to "water quality standards, including a plan, including compliance schedules and effluent requirements. . ." Water quality criteria are to be issued to the States for the purpose of standards adoption or revision but would not seem to be an element of the standards themselves. Thereafter, in proposed sections 10 and 11, the plan is treated in different places as an element of the standards and as separate from but related to the standards. Proposed section 11(a) refers to "water quality standards, including plans, schedules, or timetables for compliance." We believe that the definitions and use of terms in S. 1014, the administration bill, are clearer and more precise than those in S. 523, and we recommend their inclusion in the legisiation as reported. We believe that the intent is the same in both bills-that Water quality standards are enforceable per se, and that a violation of an effluent limitation or a compliance timetable is a violation of the standards.

Question 3. Section 10(b)(3) requires, on page 24, line 10, that a Governor hold public hearings and review water quality standards at least once every five years. Is this a helpful provision? Is it needed?

Answer. It is essential that water quality standards be revised from time to time if we are to enhance water quality and the quality of the environment. S. 523 approaches that need by requiring that a State review its water quality standards from time to time, at least once every five years, and, as appropriate, revise and adopt improved standards, with the Administrator to act, if the State fails to do *9, and by directing the Administrator to issue water quality criteria and information on recommended pollution control techniques from time to time. The Administration bill, S. 1014, approaches that need by directing the Administrator to issue regulations governing water use designations, water quality criteria, and uent limitations, and to develop and publish recommended pollution control *chniques from time to time after their initial issuance as advice to the States in the revision of their water quality standards. The bill directs the Administrator to act at any time on revised standards submitted by a State if he finds them conistent with regulations and requirements. We want to provide effective Federal

leadership but give the States the maximum opportunity to act to strengthen their water quality standards.

Question 4. Would you coompare the ocean dumping provision in this bill, Section 10(d) (2), with the provision of the Marine Protection Act of 1971?

Answer. Section 10(d) (2) provides that no matter may be discharged into the territorial sea or waters of the contiguous zone, or transported from any U.S. port for discharge into the ocean, unless the Administrator has issued a permit for such discharge. The Administrator would be required to establish a system of permits, and would not be permitted to grant any permit without reasonable assurance that the discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. (However, the Muskie bill, unlike the Administration bill, would not provide for the establishment of water quality standards for waters beyond the contiguous zone.) There are no provisions for enforcement or penalties. The basic provisions of the Administration's proposal are the same as those contained in S. 523, i.e., no dumping or transportation of material for dumping without a permit issued by the Administrator. The coverage is broader-it would apply to the Great Lakes, and also to gulfs and bays and other coastal waters affected by the tides whether or not part of the territorial sea. The bill would supercede the Refuse Act within its area of applicability. The bill provides for civil and criminal penalties of up to $50,000 for each viloation of a permit or of the Act or regulations issued thereunder. In addition, civil actions for appropriate injunctive relief would be authorized.

Question 5. Under the provisions of this bill affecting construction of new facilities, Section 10(e)(1), no construction of a facility may begin without certification that the facility will comply with water pollution regulations. Is such a certification procedure necessary? If so, why would it be helpful? If not, why not? How large a staff would be required to administer such a certification procedure?

Answer. Section 10(e)(1)—It is questionable that this requirement is necessary because now under the 1899 Refuse Act a permit is required before discharge of any material to navigable waters or their tributaries. The implementation of such legislation would require more personnel. The number could be substantial if EPA carried out the certification processes, or could be minimal if EPA worked through the appropriate State agencies. In the latter case, Federal financial assistance to the States might be required.

Question 6. Section 10(e)(2), encourages the Administrator to work toward the development of closed-cycle water-use systems. Such systems while they may be "available," may not be economically practical. Would this section be strengthened if the Administrator were required to make a cost-benefit assessment of such systems when he publishes any findings to closed-cycle systems? Would you please suggest appropriate language?

Answer. We understand the words "available or can be made available" as they appear in section 10(e) (2) to mean "reasonably available." Accordingly, any finding by the Administrator would necessarily be based on a comprehensive assessment, including the technical and economic aspects.

Question 7. Under this bill, the Administrator would appoint attorneys to represent EPA in court. Under the Administration's bill, the attorneys would be appointed by the Justice Department. As a former Assistant Attorney General, would you give us your view on which is the better procedure?

Answer. As Assistant Attorney General I held the position that the Attorney General, the principal law officer of the United States Government, should represent the United States in matters before the courts, and that laws enacted hereafter should not vest in other Federal officers the authority to bring court actions on behalf of the United States. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (Public Law 91–604), as the committee is aware, vests in the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency authority to represent the United States in court to enforce provisions of the Clean Air Act. New section 305 of the Act directs the Administrator to request the Attorney General to appear and represent him in civil actions. If the Attorney General does not respond affirmatively within a reasonable time, attorneys appointed by the Administrator shall appear and represent him. I have every expectation that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice will respond promptly and vigorously to requests for court action under the amended Clean Air Act, as they have responded to my requests for actions under the Refuse Act of 1899, a statute which I do not administer. My responsibilities differ from those I had in my former office, and I speak in my present capacity when I say that I am confident that the Attorney

General and the Department of Justice would respond promptly and vigorously to my requests for court action to enforce strengthened provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Question 8. On page 46, lines 17 and 18, a new Section (m) is added to Section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This new subsection requires the Administrator to conduct a study and investigation of the effect on water quality from “uncontrolled" runoff from agricultural lands and roads other than sediment." Would such a study be useful?

Answer. Waste from agricultural activities including crop land and rural areas already poses the major pollution problem in many areas of the country and will become relatively more important with the reduction of pollutant discharges from point sources. A great deal of work has been accomplished regarding sediment and runoff control. Information on the fate and effect of the soil and water is embodied in numerous references. However, regarding the fate and effect of adsorbed (on soil) chemicals and the chemicals (nutrients and pesticides) carried in solution in runoff from non-point sources.

Particular problems have been encountered because this lack of data has all but halted many prevention and control efforts where (1) the relative effect of rural runoff pollution versus that from other sources is not known, and (2) definition of the existance and magnitude of problems due to runoff are nearly nonexistent. Unfortunately, this circumstance exists on all but a very few, highly instrumented, research watersheds, or "virgin" parks or forests. Consequently, control programs (such as those of the USDA) have been based almost wholly on the concept of "conserving a natural resource."

The need for "effects" studies is highlighted in the Report to the President, "Control of Agriculture-Related Pollution", Office of Science and Technology, 1969, and more recently in an unpublished report to the Working Group on Pollution in the Great Lakes Basin regarding agricultural, forestry, and conservation sources. In both cases, recommendations for programs to control runoff pollution were based upon subjective analysis and were subservient to recommendations for research monitoring, behavior, fate and effect studies of pollutants from rural runoff.

Only after such studies are completed will it be possible to fully and effectively prescribe water quality criteria, the need for and type of control measures, and ¡mproved land and water management concepts.

Question 9. On page 47, a new Subsection (g) is added to Section 23 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requiring a biannual report to Congress on "measures taken toward implementing the purpose and intent of this act." Would the statutory requirement that such a report be issued prove useful to you and the public? Answer. Yes. A biannual report of this nature could serve a beneficial purpose.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON S. 1012

Question 1. On page 2, line 19, reference is made to allotments based on the "extent of water pollution." What criteria would be used to judge the extent of water pollution? In the same line of the bill, reference is made to financial need. What criteria would be used to judge a State's financial need?

Answer. The criteria used to judge a State's "financial need" are expected to remain unchanged from those described in the regulations relating to the allotments of funds to the States and interstate agencies (Subpart A-Grants for Water Pollution Control Programs 18 CFR 601). These regulations use population density and the number of wet industries as the basis for determining the "extent of pollution" and the reciprocal of each State's average per capita income to reflect "financial need".

EPA has formed a joint Federal-State group to review the regulations relating to "extent of pollution" with a view toward recommending modifications of this aspect of the allotment formula. Examples of criteria which might be used, based pon preliminary discussions, include: urbanization, reported municipal and itdustrial water use, and age of existing sewers and water pollution control systems.

Question 2. Also on page 2, line 21, the payment to the States appears to be a permissive one, as the word "may" is used. Why is this permissive, rather than mandatory?

Answer. The word "may" places the burden properly upon the States to come forward with an acceptable State program plan.

Question 3. In Subsection (g)(1)(a) appearing on page 6, a maximum Federal share is set, but there is no minimum Federal share. Would you object to a minimum of 40 percent, for example? What approximate ranges in the percentage of the Federal share are likely to occur in this rather complicated formula? Could you tell us, for example, how the State of Delaware would rate?

Answer. Setting a minimum "Federal share" of 40 percent would affect only three States (Connecticut 38.08%; Delaware 39.98%; and the District of Columbia 33.34%) on the basis of the FY 1971 computations of allotments and shares. The "Federal share" is a percentage which is used to determine the required "State share" or matching funds. The "Federal share" affects the Federal grant allotment only when a State or interstate agency's budget provides less than the required Štate matching funds, which are in turn set by the Federal share formula. Setting a minimum "Federal share" would not increase the funds allotted to the States and interstate agencies under the formula, but would permit reductions in the State budgets for water quality management for the above States as shown in the following tabulation based on FY 1971 allotments:

At the present, the range of the "Federal share" is from 33.34% to 66.67%.

Question 4. Throughout this bill, as well as several other bills before the Subcommittee, several references are made to population figures based on "the latest figures furnished by the Department of Commerce." Does this mean only decennial Census figures, or would this include interim annual estimates of State's population? Answer. The annual estimates of a State's population would be used.

Question 5. Under Subsection (g) (5), an interstate agency would be eligible to receive planning funds for water pollution control. Such an agency, I assume, would be the Delaware River Basin Commission. Could you tell us if any planning funds that would go to the Delaware River Basin Commission would be subtracted from the funds paid to the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey? Or would payments to DRBC be over and above the States' allowance?

Answer. The allotments for States are not reduced by the amounts granted to interstate agencies of which States are members.

The Delaware River Basin under currently applicable regulations was allotted $133,500 for FY 1971 which is matched by State funds as follows:

In a similar manner under the regulations the DRBC States were allotted for

1

Question 6. Subsections (h) and (j) are somewhat confusing. Would you explain in greater detail how these bonus offers would work? Would bonus funds granted to one State be subtracted from the overall funds available for allotment to other States?

Answer. The basic grants allotment of not less than $10 million would be apportioned to the States and interstate agencies under regulations developed with their advice. Bonus grants could be made from remaining funds. In accordance with regulations governing the administration of the "bonus" funds, States meeting one or more of the various requirements for program element improvement in Section (i) would receive additional funds (not requiring a formula match) ranging from 40 percent to 250 percent of their basic allocations. The regulations would describe procedures for bonus allocation when eligibility for bonus funds by the States having improved programs exceeds appropriations. However, States having qualified may not have their bonuses reduced unless appropriations are reduced or the State's formula allotment for its basic grant is reduced by changes in population, financial need, or extent of pollution (or they no longer are carrying out program elements which meet the eligibility require ments for the bonus). For example, if funds appropriated permit a State or intertate agency to receive a basic grant of $100,000 under the formula then the State or interstate agency could receive a bonus of up to $250,000 by meeting the requirements of all five of Section 7(i)'s elements. Having met these requirements, each year from available "bonus funds" (i.e., total appropriations minus basic 1 grants) this State or interstate agency would continue to receive this amount by continuing to have an improved program as described in the regulations. In later years, should other States develop improved programs meeting the requirements described in the regulations, they would receive bonuses from the funds available after basic grants and previously qualified bonus amounts had been allotted. That is, these States' allotments are unaffected by their contributions to interstate agencies; e.g., Pennsylvania contributes to three of the five interstate agencies receiving program grants under Section 7 of the Act, as amended: Delaware River Basin Commission, Interstate Commission on Potomac River Basin, and Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.

Question 7. Subsection 7(k), on page 9, permits use of up to 10 percent of the grants annually for support of water pollution control projects that are exceptional in nature and scope. Would you describe in more detail what is intended and what types of programs would be assisted by this language?

Answer. This section provides for the Administrator's discretionary use of expended funds, but in no case in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations in any one year.

Exceptional projects would be those which the Administrator considers to be required to support those States or interstate agencies having significant water pollution problems requiring additional financial support to solve the problems Lore rapidly than would occur under existing circumstances. These could be Plated to affected watersheds or basins, particular industries or groups of intetries, State or groups of States. Exceptional projects, in general, would be termined by the circumstances surrounding the problems, the ability of the State or interstate agencies involved to respond, and the availability of funds.

Question 8. Section 6(b), on page 11, permits research and development grants to rate agencies, institutions, and individuals. Does this include private, profit-making rporations? If so, what requirements would there be for public access to patent "ghtst

Answer. Yes, money can go to private, profit-making corporations. To receive eh grants, they must agree to the basic government patent clause which provides at the title to any patentable inventions, formulas, etc. developed under the Trant goes to the public.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON S. 1013

Question 1. Section 8(a)(1) contains references, repeated periodically throughout bill, to "inadequately treated sewage." Does this mean less than secondary treatment? Is this sufficient phrase, as it does not appear to be referenced to water quality andards or some other specific measurement?

Answer. "Inadequately treated sewage" is affluent that results in a violation f water quality standards or degradation of high water quality. This phrase does 20t necessarily mean "less than secondary treatment," because better treatment an this is required in some cases.

59-068 0-71—pt. 1- -6