Definitions of the terms "discharge" and "pollutant" (Section 502 (t) and (f)): The definition for discharge states that it shall mean any addition of any ollutant to interstate or intrastate waters, whether such matter enters such waters directly or from runoff or percolation. Going back to paragraph (f), bollutant is defined as any matter of any kind or description including, but ot limited to, dredged soil, solid wastes, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, Bewage sludge, munitions, chemical materials, biological materials, radioactive naterials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, solid dirt, and ndustrial wastes. The two definitions in combination provide for regulatory control burdens eyond reason and for entirely impossible enforcement. Under these two definitions, and the provisions of the discharge permit section, every house owner in irtually every town in the United States would technically be forced to apply for a discharge permit because there would be pollutants, of some nature, washed nto a drainage channel, of some kind, from his property. The definitions, likewise, would set up an impossible operating situation for farmers and create such voluminous enforcement work and problems as to make enforcement impossible. Virtually every farmer of every size and description would be forced to apply for a discharge permit because, whenever it rained or the snow melted, some type of pollutant (as defined) would be carried from his and. The words "runoff" and "percolation" should definitely be deleted from the definition of "discharge". In many cases the origin source of percolation would be impossible to determine. Rather than changing the definition of pollutants or making necessary amend. ments to other sections, such as the discharge permit section, we recommend that the definition of "discharge" be re-worded to read as follows: "The term 'discharge' means the addition of any pollutant or pollutants to interstate or intrastate waters in an amount or manner which violates the criteria promulgated pursuant to Section 301". We strenuously oppose the “Civil Suits" provisions as contained in Section 505. We firmly recommend the deletion of this entire section. At least, the language which allows civil suits to be brought against the United States and the Administrator should be stricken. The same position is taken with respect to the provision of awarding costs of litigation to citizens or citizens groups. This clearly sets the stage for intimidation and vicious pressures to be brought to bear against individual farmers, businessmen and the Administrator. The provision for the governor of a state to commence a civil action against the Administrator as contained in paragraph (g) also has grave implications. This would open the door for costly and nonproductive maneuvering from purely a political vantage point. Employee protection, as provided in Section 507, goes beyond that to which an employee is entitled. We advise a re-write of Section 507 in the interest of equity to the employer. Time tables contained in the proposal: The proposal throughout sets up unrealistic time tables of enforcement which make it impossible to develop sound effective and equitable control. Such time limitations will result in much chaos, "wheel spinning," and the leading of farmers and industry down dead-end trails. The setting up of a new administrative agency has brought enough of this down on the heads of agriculture and industry, without further aggravating the situation with the unrealistic time tables contained in the proposal. The time limitations set forth in the Act should be completely reviewed against the criterion of providing sufficient periods of time to develop constructive regulatory standards and procedures. We have spent a great deal of time in our analysis of this Committee Print. Our suggestions, recommendations and objections are submitted in the best interest of all concerned. We hope the Committee can give favorable consideration to them. Respectfully yours, DON F. MAGDANZ, Executive Secretary-Treasurer. RYCKMAN, EDGERLEY, TOMLINSON AND ASSOCIATES RYCKMAN, EDGERLY, TOMLINSON AND ASSOCIATES, July 23, 1971. Mr. ROBERT MAYNARD, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Thomas F. Eagleton, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MAYNARD: Thank you very much for the opportunity to review and comment on the staff draft of amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Since my telephone comments to you on Friday, July 16, I have had a chance to talk to Dr. H. D. Tomlinson and get his views. He commented on the same items that I discussed with you last Friday and his views were essentially those which I passed along to you. For the record, I would like to summarize our comments as follows: Section 204(b), (Page 11, lines 4 through 7). This provision could introduce a heavy accounting burden on communities and could so reduce the funds available for a utility depreciation fund as to render the cities perpetually dependent upon Federal money for remodeling, repair and replace ment. We recommend that the amount so identified be retained by the grant recipient but be restricted to a utility depreciation fund to be used for modernization and replacement. Section 302 (d) (2), (Page 19, lines 4 through 8). Although the promulgation of a "national minimum water quality standard" that provides "protection of any indigenous shellfish, fish and wildlife" seems to be practical and sufficiently flexible to permit application, we question the feasibility and desirability of the requirement that "recreational activities in and on the water" be applicable to all the waters of the United States. This would imply that all waters shall be of swimming quality. We question whether a majority of the American public either desires or is willing to pay for rendering all waters to this quality. Secondly, the criteria by which such quality is to be defined are far from clear, including such factors as coliform density, the relationship of coliform count to virus hazards and the turbidity level that constitutes safety for swimming. Section 304 (a)(2)(D)(i), (Page 22, line 3). As presently phrased, this would indicate that each state shall have completed the classification of all their publicly owned fresh water lakes within the time limit for submission of their implementation plans to the Administrator. We recommend that this provision be phrased in terms of "establish a procedure to identify and classify according to eutrophic condition all publicly owned fresh water lakes in such state." Section 306 (b)(1)(A) and (B), (Pages 24 and 25). We question the feasibility of EPA complying with these two requirements. As currently phrased, all those industries listed in the legislation must be included in the list of categories published within 90 days of enactment of the legislation and must, therefore, within an additional 60 days, be among those for whom standards of performance are promulgated by regulation. Each of these industries represents many variations in process. Although the Water Quality Office has been funding studies on many of these, we feel that they should have the option of selective publication within the listed industries. Perhaps a deadline of coverage of all listed in the Act, within a period of eighteen months, would be practicable. Regulations then could be more effectively based on careful study and determination of feasibility and economic needs. Section 307 (a), (Page 26, line 5). We suggest deletion of the reference to intake waters. The primary concern should be for the quality of the receiving waters. A reference to intake waters could place impossible restrictions on certain manufacturing processes. Other mechanisms should be utilized to preclude industry use of "dilution as a solution to pollution." Section 307 (c) (1), (Page 26, lines 27 through 32). The use of the term "not susceptible to treatment by conventional secondary treatment" may be unfortunate. It's use is questionable when referring to industrial wastes. Most industrial wastes are not susceptible to conventional treatment methods until the units have been acclimatized. Thus, it might be more advantageous for the Administrator to indicate required procedures including provisions for safeguarding, or retention and recirculation, during acclimatization periods for intermittent discharges of difficult materials. In both sections 306 and 307 we note no leeway for the Administrator to take into consideration the economics of various treatment processes as applied to specific industrial categories. We would like to see the terms so defined that the Administrator shall consider the economics of various processes on the basis of national norms for a particular industrial category. Section 312 (b) (2) (A), (Page 32, line 35). The use of the term "any quantity" seems to mean a 100 percent prohibition of a compound regardless of the amount that constitutes an imminent or substantial danger to public health. We would prefer to see it phrased somewhat as follows: “in such quantity into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or the waters of the contiguous zone as to present an iminent and substantial danger". Section 312(b)(2)(C), (Page 33, line 5). If the reference to per barrel rate of liquidated damages is to be retained, it should be made clear that it refers primarily to oil. It is not equally applicable to other hazardous substances, as for instance pesticides, radiological isotopes, etc. Many of these amendments have relatively short deadlines for action by the states or by the Administrator and their concurrent satisfaction could well be impossible in terms of the limited numbers of adequately trained and experienced personnel in the Federal, state and local agencies involved. We suggest that a PERT chart be developed with respect to all sections of the legislation so as to give visibility to the degree of concurrent reqiurements and the manpower load that these may entail. While recognizing the objectives of the several recent actions taken to provide placement for the displaced space and defense industry engineers and scientists, the time that may be required to adequately phase these individuals into the very specialized and technical areas of pollution control may call for the establishment of a priority list on the rate of implementation of the several sections of the amendment. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and hope that they have been helpful. We look forward to continuing cooperation with the staff of the Committee. Sincerely, FREDERICK K. ERICKSON, Director of Environmental Affairs. TEXACO, INC. TEXACO, INC., Beacon, N.Y., July 23, 1971. Mr. BARRY M. MEYER, Chief Counsel, Committee on Public Works, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MEYER: As suggested at your meeting on July 20 with Mr. Stephen H. Bard and me, I am forwarding for your consideration a proposed substitute definition of "Biological Monitoring." The definition referred to is that on Page 43, Lines 31-34, of the Committee Print, "Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments." The substitute definition is: "The term 'biological monitoring' shall mean the determination of the biological effects on aquatic life in receiving waters due to the introduction of the applicable effluent (1) by techniques or procedures, appropriate to the volume and the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the effluent, and (2) at appropriate frequencies and locations." You will recall our discussion to the effect that only a very large company could afford the research program and installation of equipment necessary to implement a biological monitoring program for even one discharge. The definition of the Committee Print, in requiring the observation of "(1) the accumulation of pollutants in living tissue," involves the application of extremely sophisticated, involved, and expensive techniques of analytical chemistry. Also the observation of "(2) the effects of pollutants on the health or organisms" would call for elaborate, large scale, statistically oriented bio-assay experiments. Again, may I express Mr. Bard's and my appreciation to you for the privilege of meeting with you the other evening. Please call on us if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Joe, W. J. COPPOC, Vice President, Environmental Protection. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS-FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AMENDMENTS The following comments are directed to the working paper prepared for the use of the Senate Committee on Public Works and made available on July 2. The comments are divided into two parts; the first discusses a number of the provisions in the Committee Print, while the second part, beginning on Page 10, suggests that new provisions be added to the bill. Title I PART I 1. Page 2, Lines 38-41. The Committee should recognize the importance of bridging the gap between the laboratory research and operational practice by making clear that the Administrator has a duty to make the results of research available, through seminars, training course and other means, to the designers, builders and operators of water treatment facilities. This could be accomplished by language in the report, or by inserting the words "including seminars and training courses" after the word "means" in Line 39. 2. Page 3, Line 9. Suggest striking the word "nonprofit." The public interest may, at times, be served by establishing research fellowship at institutions or organizations which are profit-making. 3. Page 7, Lines 1-7. Basing the state allotment solely on population appears to ignore the fact that, regardless of its population, each State has certain basic costs for its water pollution program. It would seem desirable to establish a minimum State allotment before the population formula takes effect. Title II 4. Page 11, Lines 2-4. Delete the words "and shall include charges which shall be adequate to encourage reduction in the quantity and character of such wastes." This language would require an industrial user of a water treatment facility to pay an unfair and unreasonably high share of the costs. The previous language properly makes it clear that the industrial user shall pay his full and equitable share. The language suggested for deletion can only be interpreted to require payment of an unfair, unwarranted charge. Payment of a fair and equitable charge based on the costs of treating industrial waste would, in fact, be adequate to encourage a reduction in discharges. 5. Page 13, Section 209. Regional Waste Treatment Management programs should have the authority to treat industrial wastes arising in the region. While this seems implicit in the language of the section, it may be desirable to clarify the intent, either in the bill or in the report. Title III 6. Page 19, Lines 4-8 and 25-27. The establishment of a national minimum water quality standard to be achieved by a specific date poses a number of serious problems. If the date is too far in the future it may, in fact, delay by months or years, the date by which the standard could otherwise be achieved in many bodies of the water, and if insufficient time is allowed, drastic economic and social consequences could follow for areas and industries unable to comply in time. The nation is too diverse for a single standard. There are probably some waters in the natural state (as in Yellowstone National Park) that would not comply. Other bodies of water have been devoted to commercial and industrial use for so long that compliance would take an extended period and for which compliance may be without any significant public benefit-the Kill Van Kull near Bayonne, New Jersey or the Rouge River in Dearborn, Michigan. 59-068 0-71-pt. 4 15 |