should sit down with the agencies involved here and sort these problems out.

I think that is the normal approach. There are problems here and uncertainties, but I think they can be resolved, probably fairly speedily, by discussion. I certainly can't imagine that the steel industry should go off and spend $100 million on new monitoring devices without even sitting down with EPA and discussing it with them. Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask EPA a few questions.

Hasn't the industry asked you for advice on the points that they raise in this memo?

Mr. CARROLL. Not to my knowledge.

Senator MUSKIE. If they were to ask you

Mr. CARROLL. They asked in this letter.

Senator MUSKIE. If they asked you, would you give them essentially the answers that you have given us here this morning?

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; we would welcome that opportunity. Senator MUSKIE. Three, how many permit applications are there likely to be?

Mr. CARROLL. From this industry?

Senator MUSKIE. Overall, if we want to give them the kind of counseling Mr. Russell is talking about. I would like to get some idea of how extensive a project this would be, and whether you have the manpower to provide it.

Mr. CARROLL. I think the main problem is with these roughly 40 critical industrial groups, we have met with a number of those. We have not met specifically with the iron and steel institute. A one time meeting with those various categories in a trade association would not be an insurmountable problem.

Senator MUSKIE. I yield to my colleagues.

Senator RANDOLPH. Perhaps I am in error but it seems to me that testimony before the subcommittee or in conference, maybe at the staff level, indicated that there had been one conference that lasted almost a day, am I in error on that?

Mr. CARROLL. With the iron and steel institute?

Senator RANDOLPH. No, with steel companies. I just want to clarify that.

Mr. CARROLL. I have some indications that they have had technical representatives at two of our conferences. I don't think they have had any meetings specifically with them on a policy basis. I could check that out specifically if you would like.

Senator RANDOLPH. I won't pursue that at the moment. I think it is going more deeply into the situation than you indicate, Mr. Chairman. But I would want to be certain of my position on that matter. Mr. Carroll, I don't want the chairman to be unduly alarmed because I am speaking for no one except myself at this time, as a member of this committee, but I think it is very important to realize that there is written in a penalty here, a penalty of up to $10,000 as a fine or 5 years in jail; is that correct?

Mr. CARROLL. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. Is that a matter for the EPA or the Corps of Engineers or the Environmental Council or is that a matter for the Justice Department?

Mr. CARROLL. The actual enforcement of that would be a matter for the Justice Department.

Senator RANDOLPH. How is this arrived at?

General GROVES. Sir, that is a part of the law, this goes back to 1899. Senator RANDOLPH. You mean 1899?

General GROVES. Yes, sir.

Mr. TRAIN. AS I understand the penalty for false statements comes in with respect to knowing misrepresentation and false statements and I think this probably is the section that covers any misrepresentation in an official form of this sort.

It is set forth here on the permit application itself. It refers to 18 U.S.C., section 1001 and it states: "Whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and wilfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme or device, a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both," certainly that does not cover a good faith statement.

Senator MUSKIE. Would the Senator yield?

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. If an applicant were to say in his permit application that he cannot supply part of this information because he does not have monitoring or sampling devices in all of his outfalls, what would be the response of the agency?

General GROVES. I am sure that we would have to be the first ones to face up to that question, sir, because we would receive the form. As we read the form he could provide this information as required in part A merely by catch samples, for instance, he does not need the monitoring devices.

Senator MUSKIE. The guidelines do not say that.

General GROVES. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. That catch samples are sufficient?

General GROVES. If they are the best he has got and that is what he is doing, yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Where does it say that?

General GROVES. I go back, sir, to the provision here in our instructions for part A and the first sentence, the information required in part A is to be based on sampling which you believe will result in representative values of the contents of your activity's discharge. Now referring to page 4 of this form, which is the part that I think is troubling you, instructions spell out what these different columns are for.

In columns 8, 9, 10 and 11 sample type, frequency of analysis and continuous monitoring are to be used to describe the sample methods and the frequencies with which they are taken, and under that a catch sample would certainly be applicable as long as the applicant spelled out what he did.

In column 8 of instructions provides, in fact, for an average grab sample and a composite sample, as long as he says what he did and he did it we have a basis on which to proceed.

68-282 0-71-pt. 9-4

Senator MUSKIE. Does it require a continuing sample? In referring to the language, is it in this?

General GROVES. I am referring to page 20 of the instructions, yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Is this it?

General GROVES. Yes, the one you have in your hand, sir, page 20. If you look up here toward the top of the page it says column 8, enter sample type, enter one of the following and then it lists three types.

Senator MUSKIE. I see. So in part A, column 8, of the sample type on this form, it says enter one of the following: AVER for average grab sample, COMP for composite, and CONT for continued sample. That seems to say whatever the form of sample is providing, if it is accurately described you would accept it for the purpose of the application?

General GROVES. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. And then with respect to column 11, where the subject is continuous monitoring: REC if the parameter is continuously monitored but its value is recorded, MON if the parameter is continuously monitored but its value is not recorded, and ABS if the parameter is not continuously monitored?

General GROVES. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. I yield to my colleagues.

Senator BEALL. Is there a possibility that in each of the first seven items the word "per day" or "daily average" is used in each of those, do they relate to the last two and there may be some confusion between section 8, 9, 10, and 11 resulting from the words "per day" or "daily" being used in the first seven items?

General GROVES. No, sir, the instructions on page 19 relate to columns 1, 2, 3, and 4, and we are talking about volumes and in the description of the sample we are talking about methods.

Senator BEALL. You are talking about concentration in six.

General GROVES. Enter the average daily discharge value in millions of gallons.

Senator BEALL. And the industries in question have this, they monitor this as the normal course of events, do they?

General GROVES. Many of them do, sir, and where this information is not readily available to them, our district engineers have instructions, and they know that they have instructions, to help them fill out these forms.

Senator TUNNEY. I just have a question on your answer to the Senator's question, you said that the first six columns relate to volume and the last five, the first seven relate to volume and the last four relate to, did you say methods?

General GROVES. I may have misled you; one through seven relate to calculated volumes and weights and content of the effluent. The last four columns relate to the type of analysis performed, the method. Senator BEALL. Is what the people are talking about on page 3, is this equipment connected with the measurement of anything required in one through seven, or is it all related to eight through 11 where they talk about spending $100 million for installation?

Mr. CARROLL. Senator, I think they are talking about two different things. In page 3, they are talking about a monitor that may be re

quired after the basic data is submitted. In this form, we are looking at these 11 parameters and is simply for basic data submitted to us initially so we can make an estimate with them as to the sort of monitoring later on required.

Senator TUNNEY. If you only take a catch sample, how can you fill out column 7, average tonnage per day?

Senator MUSKIE. You would have to have at least two to have an average.

Mr. CARROLL. There may be some of these cases which in their processing, as I indicated earlier, they will just check off that they have none whatsoever.

There may be some that they can measure this simply by the amount of raw material they purchase less what go into their product, and the rest of it is discharged as effluent.

Senator TUNNEY. So under those circumstances you would not need a sample?

Mr. CARROLL. Not a complex sample, no.

Senator TUNNEY. The industry doesn't know that.

Mr. CARROLL. I think we are getting that message.

Senator TUNNEY. I have a question that Senator Bayh's legislative assistant handed me and asked me to ask, if I could.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes, of course.

Senator TUNNEY. Presently, permits may be issued for the discharge of waste in navigable waters under the Refuse Act of 1899, United States Code 407. However, 33 United State Code 421, the law of 1910, permits all discharge into Lake Michigan off of Cook County, Ill., and Lake County, Ind. There is no provision for the issuance of permits under this section.

EPA, the Corps of Engineers have announced that pursuant to this law no permits can or will be issued to industries fronting on Lake Michigan in Cook or Lake Counties.

Industries thus situated are faced with a serious dilemma, either to reroute their effluent discharge at great cost into tributaries of Lake Michigan not subject to section 421, a discharge of which permits may be obtained, or to shut down their plants.

Eight major plants are affected, involving thousands of jobs in an area already depressed by hard unemployment.

In light of this and in light of the fact that the effluent presently being discharged into Lake Michigan is presently meeting applicable water quality standards, there are three questions.

One, is there any continued justification for this treatment of Cook County, Lake County?

Two, do you have any objection to, A, conforming section 221 to section 407 by including permits authorized under section 421 or, B, repeal of section 421?

Going back to question one, is there any continued justification for discriminatory treatment of Cook County, Lake County?

General GROVES. Well, sir, I can only reflect what the Corps of Engineers is doing. The release to which you refer, we are not truly a party to. Our instructions to our district engineers are to receive and to the limit of their ability process applications in those two counties, under section 13.

This whole matter is presently in the courts, and we look forward to a conventional resolution of it, but in the meantime we will process as best we can.

Senator TUNNEY. Does this mean that after July that those plants will have to close down if they can't get permits?

General GROVES. Sir, the one thing that may not be clear, anybody that is in violation of the 1899 act is in violation of it now, and July has no real bearing on the situation except that is the point at which we would require them to file an application to enter the program.

Senator TUNNEY. Apparently he is talking about the law of 1910 which prohibits all discharge even to Lake Michigan. Is there any objection to conforming section 421, which is the law of 1910, to section 407 by including permit authority under section 421, or repeal of section 421?

General GROVES. We don't see any objection to it; it certainly would resolve a very difficult problem.

Senator TUNNEY. To repeal section 421?

General GROVES. Of the 1910 law?

Senator TUNNEY. Yes, repeal of that section, or by having, I guess, language added to the section to amend it to conform to section 421 with section 407.

Mr. TRAIN. This is a highly complex question.

Senator TUNNEY. It was just handed to me. Can we submit this question, Mr. Chairman, to the witnesses?

Mr. TRAIN. I was going to suggest that maybe something in writing might be useful from your standpoint as well as from ours.

When I first heard of this 1910 statute some weeks back, there was considerable interest on the part of Great Lakes Senators in insisting on immediate enforcement of this old statute which in some ways surfaced in the courts.

Now, I don't know that we should hasten to say let's get rid of it. I think we ought to take a good look at this and submit a written answer. Senator TUNNEY. Is Senator Bayh's assistant here? Could you type this up and make it available to the witnesses.

Senator MUSKIE. It is a perfectly appropriate question, and we ought to get an answer to it.

I would think that the agency would like to give it a little more consideration.

Senator MUSKIE. You have said this several times, General. It is true that the 1899 law has been on the books for a long time and that its requirements, whether explicit or implicit, therefore, have been part of the law but may not have been a visible part of the law for all of this time.

It is only recently that the 1899 law has been thought of as a way of controlling pollution. And even though that might have been its valid interpretation in 1899, I wish that it had been so interpreted and so clearly in 1899. We might have avoided a lot of these problems. The fact is that it wasn't so interpreted. It isn't entirely valid, is it, to suggest the industries now be required to meet such standards with respect to pollution, that industries should have been expecting to meet such standards ever since the 1899 law was enacted?