Stenographic transcripts of congressional hearings on the Clean Water Act of 1972

2014·12.1 MB·English

by  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works, author

Pes
aes tla s cee

MBARINGS

Refore The
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

hie 306 ae
hse B07 —agid utatanee,

pt 30
EXECUTIVE SESBION

Washington, D.C.

Septezber 20, 1971

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.
Official Reporters
800 Sevent St, 8. W. Washington. D. c.

NA 82945

{ si
‘i EXECURIVE SESSION

eitte

7 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

Fi ice

5 MONDAY, SSPYEMSER.20, 1972

: ate

: united States Senate,

. Committee on Public Works,

. Washington, D. Ce

f tthe Connittes met, et 3430 p.my, pursuant to recess, in
11 }Pom 4220, Hew Senate C#Eioe Building, Hon, Jennings, Randolph,
2 eeetding.

. Presentt . Senators Randolph, Zagleton, Tunney, Cooper,
pape snd Jordan,

8 “en

{i

u Senator Randolph. Gentlemen, we will proces’.

~ Tan sure one or tuo of the other members will ba

191 here.

a I believe you have bean talking with some of our state,
21 | especially eon, about how ve will continue, Senator Fagleton.
ie Tt seems hest we just go on as we have, and work

23°} eontative agreements, ani where va do not. work solia agreo-
74 ments, we will come hack.

25
om &

18

19

4

Senator Bogus. Mz. Chairman, if we will follow that,

\

I agree that ie a good policy, and I have a point on the

number one {ten on the agenda that T vould Like to bring up

at this tine having to do with veport lanquage, 1f I may.
Senator Randolph. Yes, indeed, go right ahead.
Senator Boggs. Here is a copy.

Senator Randolph. What do you do now?

Senator Boggs. On Section 306, nev sources, this section
requires that the Administrator set a new source standazd for
each industry, based on, and T quote:

First, this is right from the lanquagé from the

proposal.

“me latest avaliable control technology processes
operating wathods or other alternatives.".

fone people feel and have a concern that that would
pin every industry down, and you might say to the cane exact
type of process, and it ought to be nade clear that is not the |
intention. |

this section doas not mean that the standard should
specifically require the utilization of any single process or #
raw material.

Rather it means that the Administrator shall determine
hat level of effinont shall be achfeved by the use of tha 1at-|
est available technology processes and operating methods and |

thor set the standard at that effluent Level.
let me read this proposed report, language.

Section 306 —~ New Sources, This section requires
that the Administrator set a new-source standard for each
Andustry, based on “the Latest available control technolocy,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives.”

This section does not mean that the standard should
specifically require the utilization of any single process
or rav material. Rather, it means that the Administrator shall}
determine vhat level of effluent can he achieved by the use
ofthe latest available technology, processes, ani operating
methods, then set the standard at that effluent level. The
operator of any proposed new plant will then have full freedom
to tailor his operation, his processes, an his raw materials
to achieve that effluent level.

The Comittee can see no useful purpose in any effort by
the Administrator to determine what processes or materiais

industry. should use, Rather, the Administrator should be

interested only in the level of effluent, permitting each
new plant to use ite own engineering ingenuity to achieve that
tow effluent level. £

Souetring to-that effect.

Senator Randolph. I see the thrust of what you are
going.

Senator Boggs. And it hae heen brought to our atten-

‘tion
‘10

oy

°

25

4

Senator Randolph. Are there menhors now who would
Like to discuss this?

1 think I gce some places where wo may be out to have
soma changa of words.

Senator Ragleton, Let ms add mine to your comment.

Senator Fentsen. T completely concur with your
comments.

I get concerned with the word about the latest. rt
requires some definition.

Senator Randolph, T do not like the word latest,
hecause some things can be bad 4f they are the latest, of
‘they can be good.

Senator Baker. About a Fifty-fifty chance.

Senator Randolph. T would think 4f we vould want to
use the word best, it may be better.

Sonator Bogus. TI would think best would be better.

Senator Bentsen. mr. Chairman, if that is what you
thougnt of, X am for it.

Senator Randolph. Well, I just believe that ve would
better serve our purpose if we changed that.

Do you heve eny comment?

Senator Eagleton. Not on the changa of the word best.

Senator Randolph. Is there objection to using the
word hest instend dZ-the latest?

Senator Boggs. T agree.
saw

Senator Randolph. Without any voting, let's accept
that.

2 think that 1s sound.

Senator Fagleton. Can T comment on this, are we
really talking about the level of effluent, or are ve talking
about effluent xeduction?

Senator Boggs. About the freedom to zeach any process
they want to reach the effluent standard.

We do not tell thon they have to use a certain
process.

‘hey use their own engineering.

Senatoz Fagleton. It should he the Administrator
who should decide whatever the Limitations or reductions
are.

Senator Boggs. Yes, I think you aze right.

Senator agieton. And down here with levels, use
reduation again, to achieve effluant reduction, and then it
could conform the rest of the way through.

Senator Boggs. Very good.

Senator Randolph. Even though it takes a minute, T
would like to have it rea@ as we apparéntiy agree, for there
might even be a reason in @ second reading that something
would cone to your mind.

Leon could read it. All right. Senator Fagleton.

Senator Eagleton. section 306 ~~ Now Sources. This
6 {
section requires that the Mminfstentor set a new-source stend-|
ard for each industry, based on “the best available control |
techatony, prossses, aerating methane, or other atserma~ |
tives." H
ile eaapten coed aoe Soaa/ tradi eas letakaestenmacl |
specifically require the utilization of any single process
fas ie uatzesen!” vaeAnE (Se wheal uiplera(sabicinestor ene
Rae es a a ye an |
fue or tas tateue evelibois somacioig’ “peowmtsen) (ue
Poe elig tationdy ties ote (coe sractza velciae erniaiae

level. ‘The operator of any proposed new plant will thon heve

fll freedom to tailor his operation, his processes, and his
raw materials to achieve that effluent reduction.

‘the Committee can see no useful purpose in any effort
hy the Administrator to determine what procesces or mterials |
industry should use. Rather, the Aduinistrator should be
interested only to the extent to which effluent is limited or
reduced, peraltting each new plant to use its own enginecring
ingensity to achieve that effluent reduction.

Senator Randolph. I think generally that 4s fine.

All right, gentlemen. Shank you very much, Senator |
Boggs, for bringing that to our attention.

Seaator Buckley. Mr. Chairman, are ve discussing this

narally?

Senator Randolph, We ware moving along as we had, one
by one, ard T think that anything you would desire to bring

to our attention, fine.

Senator Buckley. I have one concern about the use of |

the word modification, in paracraph three, section 2, the

torm nev source means anysource, and then later on, the

word modification is defined as any physical change.

Wow, the effect, as I understand it of

this section is to reguire any facility which is a new source,
to immediately comply with thie highest standara we have

Just Ciscussed.

2 can see a situation where you would have an existing

plant ané facility, vhecein the wodification that will result
in en improvement over the pre-existing situation, as far
as eavizonvental Impact is concerne’, yet fall well short of
the ideal, and I think we eught to make sure that we would
not impede this kind of improvenant to the operation of this
Janquage, end also make sure everytine you change a screw or
a bolt, it does not become somehow a modification.

Senator Baker. How vould you vord that change?

Senator Buckley. T am not sure.

Senator Baker. hat is a problem that has confronted

vs from almost the beginning.

Senator Buckley, T would have to talk about a major
modification, or something of that sort, or could it be

referred to the authority granting the permit, in the case
*

8
of a modification having this effect, that it he worked out

within the scope of = permit.

Senator Bakes. We have to be very careful to avoid
a pitfall in such as the airoratt field.

Jt may be necessary in the aircraft industry, but 1
do not think it is necessary in the environmantal field, that

is to mal

‘the modifications so severe you are inundated in

a sea of paper work.
I think the language that ve have here lends itself
to that interpretation.
3 feenkly shaze Senator Buckley's concern in this

respect, and I quickly Gonfess I do not have a suggestion

also.

Wr. Billings, Mr. Chairman, the staf? again toiled
with this, and you recall in the aix bill, we went through a
similar attempt to define modification, and the statutory
Isnauage is as follows:

“Term modification means any physical change in or change
in the method of operation vf.a stationary source which increas
6 the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source,

or which results in the emission of any afr pollutant not

previously emitted
‘The staff included dn this language aé an additional
caveat, which fe the relationship of. that increase to the

effluent limitation imposed on the plant, because of a prac-