STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Olympia, Wash., July 10, 1971. Re Water pollution control; Federal-State relations. Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Hon. JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATORS MUSKIE AND COOPER: The State of Washington has, over the past several years, been placing substantial emphasis on the development of an effective water pollution control program. Our efforts have met, we think, with substantial success. I am convinced, however, that if our nation's water pollution problems are to be fully solved, a concerted and cooperative effort by federal and state governments must be mounted. This approach, I am sorry to say, is not being achieved today. Due to a number of recent administrative actions and proposals for action at the federal level, by both the executive and the legislative branches, I am apprehensive that the possibilities for a combined federal-state effort, which is so necessary, are becoming smaller. This letter is prompted by the reports given to me by James P. Behlke, Executive Assistant Director of our State Department of Ecology and Charles B. Roe, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, as the result of a meeting they recently attended with members of your Senate Public Works Committee staff, Leon Billings and Thomas Jorling. This meeting, which was held in San Francisco, was called by your staff members to discuss proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Act developed by your committee. At the meeting, I am advised, our state's representatives, as well as representatives from two other states, were given an opportunity to review the draft proposals being considered by your committee and provide comments related thereto. Further, I am advised that the reception given by your staff to the views expressed by our state's representatives was one of open-mindedness. I wish to commend your committee and its staff for taking the approach of seeking seriously the advice of our state. I am in hopes that your committee will continue not only the practice of soliciting actively the views of our state but, most importantly, that after they are received they are considered fully. Our state administration is dedicated to working together with the federal government in developing the most effective water pollution control program possible. While we have serious concerns about thrusts of the two bills presently before your committee (S. 523 and S. 1012) as well as the draft presented to Messrs. Behlke and Roe by your staff in San Francisco, we are now more optimistic that a bill will be reported out by your committee which will allow for a much needed joint effort in the control of water pollution. To this end I have requested that John A. Biggs, Director of our Department of Ecology, and Slade Gorton, our State Attorney General, and their assistants develop amendments to your committee's draft proposal for your consideration. These proposals, including the basis for recommending them, will be forwarded to you within the next two weeks. Sincerely, DANIEL J. EVANS, Governor. INDIVIDUALS COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS DANIEL L. BABCOCK: Senator EDMUND MUSKIE, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, Rolla, Mo., August 5, 1971. Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate. DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: This summer I have been involved with some 22 associates, college professors of many disciplines across the country, in a systems study on water quality and pollution abatement. In the process several of us have been studying the existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act and proposed changes thereto. One specific document that I have been reviewing is the "working paper" or "draft for discussion" entitled "Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments" issued by your committee under the Government Printing Office, code number 60-223-71. I attach an analysis of this document, representing my personal observations and comments, in the hope it will prove useful to your committee. Sincerely, Enclosure. DANIEL L. BABCOCK, A88ociate Professor. COMMENTS ON DRAFT PRINT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AMENDMENTS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS BY DR. DANIEL L. BABCOCK I. Good features in Senate "Committee Print" The committee is certainly to be complimented on many fine features which contained in the "committee print," features which substantially strengthen the law compared with the version submitted by the administration. Some of the more important of these, which I hope will be retained in the final Senate bill. are: (1) Requiring that the Administrator of EPA "shall" take many of the actions left discretionary in the version recommended by the EPA Administrator. (2) Provision for certain reports and research (a) the annual report to Congress of Section 514 (a); (b) the waste oil study of 104 (m); and (c) the agricultural research and demonstration of 104 (o) and 105(d). (3) The provision in 204(b) that the federal share of treatment plant capital cost recovered from industry be returned to the U.S. Treasury is excellent; allowing it to remain with the municipal agency provides an undeserved bonus to municipalities having a large industrial base which could exceed the nonindustrial portion of plant operating costs, a condition that invites corruption. (4) Your provisions motivating citizen support of pollution effort are excellent. Specifically, I hope you retain the provisions in 309 (c) (1) (C) that persons providing information leading to a conviction shall be rewarded, in 505(d) that costs of litigation shall be awarded in successful citizen suits, and in 507 (a) that employees providing information shall not be discharged. II. Features requiring change Unfortunately, certain features of the Senate "committee print" appear inequitable, unfeasible, and/or unenforceable. I hope your committee will correct some of the following situations: (1) Section 402 makes it unlawful to discharge without a permit (under mandatory fine and possible jail term if convicted), forbids issuance of a permit if any implementation plan, effluent standard, etc., is violated or if secondary treatment is not in operation, and makes prosecution of all violation by the administrator of EPA mandatory. Every treatment plant is in violation of the absolute prohibition of 307, or some other of the stringent provisions of this draft, so every mayor, operating engineer, industrial plant manager, and corporation president is guilty under this section and subject to fines or jail. Obviously some provision for a temporary discharge permit incorporating a plan for timely compliance is necessary. (2) Section 307 (a) provides an absolute prohibition to discharge of 15 chemical elements (and 2 organics) "in a concentration greater than that present in intake or receiving waters." Clearly zero concentration of an element could not be measured, and the last atom could not be removed from water by any conceivable (much less affordable) technology. It would be much better (and more enforceable) to require EPA to establish very stringent concentration limits for these materials that are consistent with health requirements and with our best technology. (3) Section 301 (d) requires EPA within 90 days to publish "criteria of water quality" reflecting scientific knowledge associated with "all identifiable effect on health and welfare . . . from the presence of 'nutrient and related pollutants' ". But (section 502) "nutrient and related pollutants" include any combination of 18 "essential nutrients" such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc., which includes just about everything on earth. This is so broad it is incapable of accomplishment, and should be redrafted to make the original meaning clear. III. Other undesirable features Several additional features of the "committee print" are undesirable in my opinion, and I believe the ultimate bill would be improved by their modification: (1) The present law of some 27 sections is complex enough, but numerous people in government and elsewhere have become somewhat familiar with it. Redistribution of this material into sections 101 through 516 in the "committee draft" may be in some sense "neater," but it adds some days of effort to anyone trying to figure out what has been changed in the law. I hope instead you will retain the original skeleton. (2) The insistence in 209 (b) on waste treatment management regions with sweeping authority is a strong step, but may be desirable. However, requiring the Corps of Engineers to assume construction and operation of treatment plants in default places the Federal Government in the utility business in a crazyquilt pattern across the country; in all probability this intrusion would be permanent, since I cannot see how it would be effectively turned back to local government. I think few would view this as a proper function of the Federal Government. (3) Section 306(a)(1) requires a "standard of performance . . . which reflects the greatest degree of effluent reduction . . . achievable including, where practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants." This implies a value judgment that spending unlimited funds beyond that required to achieve all beneficial uses of fishing, swimming, drinking, etc., is more desirable than spending the excess resources on mass tranportation, urban problem or any other goal whatever. Surely we do not mean this, and surely it would be better to relate the effluent reduction we require to the beneficial uses we hope to achieve! (4) After requiring EPA to list categories of "stationary sources" section 306 (b)(1) (B) allows only 60 days to establish rigid "standards of performance" for 26 or more categories of manufacturing, subdivided into "classes, types, and sizes within categories." A year would be more realistic. (5) Section 504 (b) requires civil action whenever any pollution source(s), including moving sources, endangers shellfish. This implies that shellfish take priority over any other form of human endeavor. Would it not be better to require river basins having shellfish production to prepare their best plan to maximize not only shellfish, but other beneficial uses (such as Naval bases) as well? (6) Section 509 (b) permits petition for review of EPA promulgations of prohibitions and standards only in the District of Columbia circuit court, and only within 30 days after promulgation; such promulgations are not subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings thereafter. EPA promulgations are certainly not going to be perfect, yet this provides no defense to the dischargers who might face an unreasonable or impossible requirement. Thank you for your courtesy in considering my submission. ALFRED W. EIPPER: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: I have just finished reviewing the staff print of the proposed National Water Quality Standards Act of 1971 which was released by your Subcommittee two weeks ago, and wish to offer the following comments. First, let me congratulate you on the overall quality of this bill. It is remarkably complete and thoughtful, and I think has the potential for being the best piece of pollution control legislation ever presented to this country, providing a few deficiencies are corrected, as noted below. The first two deficiencies noted seem to me the major ones (though I believe easily corrected); my remaining suggestions for improvements concern points of lesser importance. 1. Throughout, I note the manifest intent to centralize administration of this Act in the hands of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I consider this a very dangerous weakness of the bill in that it makes success or failure of achieving the Act's objectives far too dependent on the abilities, attitudes, and interests of a single man. 2. The other major deficiency in the bill's present draft, it seems to me, is in subsection (c) (1) of Section 307 [page 26 of the Staff Print]. This subsection has the potential for emasculating virtually the entire Act. It says in effect that only those ". . . pollutants which are not susceptible to treatment by conventional secondary treatment methods . . ." are subject to federal regulation under the Act. I believe it is impossible to demonstrate that any pollutants (other than some 85 percent of settleable solids, and those bacteria which are killed by the chlorination employed) can be controlled by secondary sewage treatment, and of course the present wording of the subsection does not even say "controlled," but "susceptible to treatment." Thus it would appear that, in the present wording, any pollutants which can be put through a secondary treatment system unchanged-and this would include all heavy metals, nutrients, inorganic toxicants, radionuclides, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and so on-are not subject to federal regulation under the Act. Accordingly I would consider it essential to modify subsection (c) (1) of Section 307 by striking the words "which are not subject to treatment by conventional secondary sewage treatment methods and" in lines 29-31 of page 26 in the Staff Print. For the same reasons I would urge striking from Subsection 402 (a)(1) [page 38, lines 2-3] the words: "will have received a minimum of secondary treatment and". These are my two critical suggestions for the bill. Some possible minor changes for your consideration are listed below, with reference to page and line numbers in the Staff Print furnished me: p. 23, line 38 change "Subsection (b)" to "Subsection (a)". p. 24, lines 39-40; add a new item "Fixed live animal facilities" to the list. Intent here would be to include coverage of pollution from cattle feed lots, poultry houses, duck farms, etc. p. 35, line 44: 5 years appears excessive. I would think 2 years ample. p. 37, lines 41-42; substitute for "except as otherwise required by this Act" the wording: "except that no such improvement or construction activities shall violate other provisions of this Act". Thank you for the opportunity to review this bill, and my congratulations on this important progress toward improved pollution control legislation. DEAB SENATOR MUSKIE: I have been asked by your staff to comment on the proposed Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments. First let me congratulate you and your committee for putting together what are in my opinion some L very enlightened and far-reaching amendments to this important legislation. I do have some specific comments and suggestions on the proposed amendments and apprecitae this opportunity to make them available to you. My comments will pertain primarily to the biological aspects of these amendments. 1. Section 105 (p. 4) I would point out that we still badly need biological data on the trophic state of receiving waters in the U.S., and about the changes in trophic state caused by natural events. Also we desperately need research on the toxic effects of heavy metals so that proper effluent standards can be established. (p. 26) We know very little about the biological effects of toxic materials including ecological considerations such as cycling once they are introduced into receiving waters. 2. Section 302 (p. 19, 1. 4-8) I would question here such terminology as "indigenous" and "wildlife". These terms are very ambiguous to a biologist and would seem to provide a number of easy escapes from the intent of this legislation. For example "indigenous" refers to what stage? It would vary with trophic level; and it changes naturally as the system develops or evolves. First we must establish what we want in each water body, then the criteria will be pertinent to that situation-catfish or trout? (p. 19, 1. 34) What kind of data are being sought here? 3. Section 304 (p. 21, 1. 26–32) This is vitally needed but in my opinion needs to be clarified and expanded. (1. 38-42) I assume this means logging activities and should include a) erosion from road building in forests, including skid trails and b) nutrient loss from disruption of the basic ecosystem function, i.e., nutrient cycling. 4. Page 22 (1. 3–7) My major question here is how to do it. We can't "identify and classify according to trophic condition" when we don't know what the proper criteria are for doing this. Much more research is needed here. A eutrophic lake in New Hampshire is quite different from one in southern Wisconsin. Also rivers and estuaries must be included. I submit that we should develop “procedures, processes and methods. . . to control the sources of pollution", but that we can't set them forth at the present time. (1. 13-16) The very important problem associated with the use of salt on roads in the winter should be identified here as a serious problem. 5. Section 307 (p. 26) I see no need to prohibit all of the elements listed here. It is unrealistic to prohibit some such as cobalt, which naturally occur in some rivers in greater concentrations than in receiving bodies of water. Instead these need very strict effluent standards, which would include prohibition for some elements. It is a very difficult task to establish such standards in light of our present knowledge, but is of vital importance in my opinion. Also it seems to me that others should be added to such a list, e.g., fluoride, radioactive isotopes, persistent chlorinated hydrocarbons. (1. 27-32) I don't understand this. What is "conventional" secondary treatment? Why should it be the goal? Why not tertiary treatment? "List of pollutants which are not susceptible to treatment by conventional secondary treatment"-what does this mean? What happens to pollutants that are removed by secondary treatment? How are they disposed? 6. Section 308 (p. 27. 1. 19-21) Who will evaluate these data? There are currently many rooms filled with data collected by similar groups, but nobody has or is evaluating and interpreting these data. I submit that without this evaluation and interpretation these data do us little good. 7. Page 42 (1. 31-34) I submit that the definition for "biological monitoring" is so vague as to be useless. There is great variability among organisms within any food level. Where will the samples be collected in relation to the source of the effluents? Will this sampling be done experimentally or in nature? If you have questions about these comments please do not hesistate to contact me. Sincerely, GENE E. LIKENS, Associate Professor. |