permit will expire on April 2, 1973 unless

appropriate certification is submitted prior
to such date."

Institute respectfully suggests, in the alternative, that

Section (i)(3) should be amended so as to incorporate

a complete cross-reference to Sections (h) (1) and (h)(3) as follows:

"(i) (3) When all of the required informa-
tion has been provided and (i) the appli-
cant has also provided, as appropriate,
the required certification or letter
discussed in paragraph (h) of this sec-
tion, together with assurances that the
character of the discharge or deposit
was fully described to the State agency
prior to the issuance of the certifica-
tion or letter, or (ii) the requirement
for a certification or letter has been
waived as provided in paragraph (h) (1)
or paragraph (h) (3) of this section, the
applicant shall be advised that his ap-
plication is in order and that it will
be processed as expeditiously as possible."

Section (i) (4) of the Proposed Regulations affords the Regional Representative of EPA an unlimited time period within which to provide his comments to the District Engineer. The possibility of extended delays in permit processing due to inaction by, or heavy work load on, Regional Representatives presents a frightening prospect to the electric public utility industry, where delays in construction and operation of generating plans can involve staggering

sums of money and cause or aggravate power shortages. Institute respectfully suggests that Section (i) (4) be amended to provide a fixed period of time within which the Regional Representative of EPA must comment or be deemed to have concurred in the advice of the State or other certifying authority.

The

Section (d) (5) of the Proposed Regulations provides that, in the absence of any objection by the Regional Representative of EPA, a District Engineer may deny a permit only if anchorage or navigation will be impaired or consultations required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act reveal that the proposed discharge or deposit will have a significant adverse impact on fish or wildlife resources. The Institute respectfully suggests that the wording of Section (i) (7) of the Proposed Regulations should be amended so as to be consistent with Section (d) (5), by substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may" in the first sentence of Section (i) (7).

The Institute respectfully suggests that Constitutional due process requires that an applicant be afforded a full and complete hearing, with a transcript and record, in conformity with Sections 556, 557 and 558 of the Federal

Administrative Procedure Act, before the District Engineer

may deny a permit or issue a permit with conditions unacceptable to the applicant.

It is suggested that Section

(k) of the Proposed Regulations be amended to include appropriate provision for such a hearing.

Section (n) (1) of the Proposed Regulations provides that "no permit may be issued which authorizes a discharge or deposit for more than 5 years without providing for revalidation of such permit". The details of the "revalidation" procedure are not set forth. However, the Institute respectfully suggests that both the five-year limitation and the provision for revalidation should be deleted from the Proposed Regulations on the grounds that they are unduly burdensome and unnecessary. Section (0) (1)

of the Proposed Regulations accomplishes all that can possibly be required in these respects, by providing that the continuing validity of each permit is dependent upon compliance with existing and future water quality standards and conformity with future discoveries relative to health and safety.

The Institute respectfully suggests that the provisions for suspension or revocation of a permit in Sections (0) (1) (iii) and (0) (1) (iv) of the Proposed Regulations

are subject to and should be invoked only in accordance with the requirements of Section 558 of the Federal Adminis

trative Procedure Act regarding written notice and opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance. It is sug

gested that Sections (0) (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,

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,
Washington, D.C.

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".