Section 301(a)-Purpose of water quality standards.

Section 302-Water Quality Standards.

Section 303 (a) (2) (F)—Effluent monitoring.

Section 303 (a) (2) (H)—Non-degradation of present Water quality.

Section 303 (a) (2) (I)—Waste residuals.

Section 304(a) (2) (E)—Disposal of materials on land, in wells, or in subsurface excavations.

Section 306-Performance for new

sources.

Section 306 (a) (1)—Control technol.

ogy.

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. Tox. icity 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 ex ample; Chromic oxide, Cr.O, 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 Effluent 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 limited 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.

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.

Section 502 (f)-Definition of "poltant".

Section 502 (q), (r), (s)-Nutrient llutants, Toxic pollutants, Essential trients.

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.