CONTENTS Fri, Robert W., Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency-- Groves, Brig. Gen. Richard H., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.... Quarles, John R., Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD American Iron and Steel Institute, letter to Senator Randolph---- Paley Commission of 1952, reprint of chapter 10, volume I of its report__ Roche, John P., president, American Iron and Steel Institute, letter to 4291 Section 10 regulations prior to May 1970-. 4298 REFUSE ACT PERMIT PROGRAM TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1971 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room EF-100 the Capitol, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Randolph, Muskie, Tunney, Cooper, Boggs, Beall, and Buckley. Senator MUSKIE. I wonder if we might begin. I thought we might get started because we are likely to be running to the floor for votes. I would like to take maximum advantage of our witnesses. There will be a vote at 10:20 and another one at about 11:45. I would suggest that we vote quickly at the desk so that we can come back and get maximum use of the time between the two votes. I would also like to express my appreciation to you and your people for coming here this morning. This invitation resulted from Senator Randolph's concern about a letter which he had received from the steel industry on the implications of the guidelines issued by the department and agency with respect to the permit program. I will place a copy of that letter in the record. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, AMERICAN IRON & STEEL INSTITUTE, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is a memorandum recently submitted by the domestic steel industry to the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, commenting upon the deadline of July 1 for filing application forms for discharge permits under the 1899 Refuse Act. Our statement also contains information concerning the economic impact of such requirement on the steel industry. As this requirement pertains only to monitoring, rather than to capital expenditures for equipment to improve water quality control, we thought you would be interested in the attached statement. With best wishes, Sincerely, Enclosure. JOHN P. ROCHE, President. (4291) Lt. Gen. FREDERICK J. CLARKE, AMERICAN IRON & STEEL INSTITUTE, Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, DEAR GENERAL CLARKE: Reference is made to the proposed Corps of Engineers Application Form for Discharges which must be filed with the Corps by July 1, 1971. We are submitting the statement appeared hereto on behalf of the American Iron and Steel Institute, whose member companies last year accounted for more than 95% of the raw steel produced in the United States. Our statement provides commentary on the deadline for filing of July 1, 1971, and upon the cost impact of such filing to the steel industry. In view of the fact that extensive engineering time and manpower will be required to prepare the application forms, we earnestly request that the deadline for filing the subject application forms be extended until January 1, 1972. This will provide the necessary time for engineering work requisite for the preparation of the forms. Additionally, we wish to emphasize that the heavy cost burden described in the attached statement is associated only with monitoring outfalls, and not with future expenditures for water pollution control equipment which may be required to improve water quality itself. We urge that consideration be given to extension of the deadline for filing as requested. Sincerely, JOHN P. ROCHE, President. TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH PERMIT APPLICATION COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following comments of the steel industry with regard to the Corps of Engineers Application Form for Discharges are intended to point out the burdensomeness of the task and the extreme difficulty of completing the applications for every outfall by July 1, 1971. Deadline The deadline of July 1, 1971 appears unreasonable because most steel companies have only received, unofficially, copies of the final permit applications and instructions as late as June 1, 1971. Thus, 30 days before the deadline, we still did not have printed forms available for all outfalls. It is strongly recommended that industry be given a minimum of 90 days from receipt of the permit applications to submit the forms, assuming that the data is readily available. Completion of the forms requires that several maps and drawings plus other descriptive information be prepared for each outfall and that analysis of the water for numerous parameters be reported for each outfall and intake. To illustrate the magnitude of the job of assembling this information, a large steel company may have up to 300 outfalls and 100 intakes located in many plants throughout the country; while it is estimated that the steel industry has over 1500 outfalls and 500 intakes. Considerable engineering time and manpower will have to be expended for each outfall and intake to initially prepare the application. The analysis presents an even greater timing problem. Since steel companies do not have available analytical data on each discharge stream for all of the parameters required, new samples will have to be obtained for every outfall and intake. There is considerable question whether there are enough analytical facilities available, both inhouse and commercial, having all of the necessary equipment to analyze before July 1 just one sample from each steel industry outfall and intake for all of the parameters required. Since the application form requests data on average pounds per day and maximum pounds per day, a series of flow measurements and analyses would be required over period of time, which makes the July 1 deadline even more unattainable. In view of these facts, it is recommended that the requirements for permit application be reconsidered. Costs We also wish to point out the exorbitant costs involved in obtaining the required analyses. The instructions encompassing requirements not only for average flows and analysis but maximum weight discharges for individual components, in pounds per day would require continuous flow measurement and continuous analysis of all components in all outfalls and intakes. For many parameters this represents a physical impossibility. Even more importantly, it represents expenditures in untold millions of dollars for measuring and monitoring equipment, plus the acquisition of a tremendous mass of data, much of which is totally unnecessary. For example, a moderate program would involve installations of a measuring and proportional sampling device on each outfall and intake at an estimated cost of $50,000 each. Analysis of a daily sample for the 11 parameters specified in Part A of Eng Form 4345-1, May 71, would cost approximately $100 per day or $36,000 per year. Thus the total cost for the steel industry, with an estimated 1500 outfalls and 500 intakes, would be $100,000,000 for installation and $70,000,000 per year for daily analysis of just the 11 general parameters. To these costs would also be added the cost of analyzing the additional parameters for specific indusrties, which we understand will be required at a later date. These analyses for the steel industry could be double the cost of analyzing for the 11 general parameters, or $14.000.000 per year. There is no indication that these data would have any significant relation to water quality. While, in some few cases, it may be desirable to monitor some specific components in certain outfalls, a permit program should realistically be based on a finite program of representative composite, or grab, samples. As a logical program, we suggest that analysis of one 24-hour sample for each discharge obtained during a period of normal plant operation be sufficient for purposes of the application form and that reporting of maximum loads not be required. It should be noted that the costs of chemical analyses discussed above are in addition to the substantial engineering and clerical costs involved in preparing the drawings and filling out the application forms. Suggested meeting The present permit system, including the parameters to be analyzed and the frequency of analysis were determined by the EPA independent of consultation with the steel industry. We feel it is extremely important that there be a technical meeting between the industry and EPA to discuss and resolve these points cooperatively. Senator MUSKIE. The committee thought it would be useful if you would brief us on what has taken place, what your reaction is to the problems which have surfaced, and the status of the program at this point. It is difficult for us to move ahead with the water pollution legislation without an up-to-date understanding of where the permit program stands. We want to be informal and as complete as can be. The members, some of whom are not here yet, but who were at the session last week, I am sure, would have many questions they would like to ask. STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL TRAIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; ACCOMPANIED BY BRIG. GEN. RICHARD H. GROVES, U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS; AND THOMAS CARROLL, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mr. TRAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking for myself and for General Groves and Mr. Carroll of the EPA, I know we all appreciate the opportunity to be with you. this morning. |