UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENNESSEE ......No. 17-6155 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE...

No. 17-6155

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

TENNESSEE CLEAN WATER NETWORK; TENNESSEE SCENIC RIVERS ASSOCIATION

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

Defendant-Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division

BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

David D. Ayliffe Associate General Counsel James S. Chase F. Regina Koho Lane E. McCarty Office of the General Counsel 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1401 Telephone 865.632.8964 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Tennessee Valley Authority

Case: 17-6155 Document: 31 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page: 1

i

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) is an executive branch corporate

agency and instrumentality of the United States created by and existing pursuant to

the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, 16 U.S.C. §§ 831–831ee. TVA is

wholly owned by the United States as evidenced by the TVA Act; TVA has no

parent corporation and has no stock certificates.


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ........................................... xiii

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............................. 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 3

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 5

A. Gallatin Operations and Environmental Regulation Before 2012 ............................................................................................. 5

B. TDEC’s Knowledge and Contemplation of Seepage ................. 9

C. TDEC’s Knowledge and Contemplation of the Potential for Karst-Related Leakage from the Ash Pond Complex ......... 11

D. TDEC’s 2012 Reissuance of the Gallatin NPDES Permit and Plaintiff TCWN’s Abandoned Permit Appeal ................... 13

III. THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS .................................................... 15

SCOPE OF REVIEW............................................................................................... 19

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 20


iii

ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 24

I. THE DISTRICT COURT’S LIABILITY HOLDING SHOULD BE

REVERSED BECAUSE THE HYDROLOGIC CONNECTION THEORY IS

CONTRARY TO THE TEXT, STRUCTURE, AND HISTORY OF THE

CWA, CONFLICTS WITH REGULATION OF COAL ASH UNDER

RCRA, AND IS UNWORKABLE. ............................................................. 24

A. The Migration of Pollutants Through Groundwater Is Not An Unlawful “Discharge of Pollutants” Under the CWA. ....... 24

1. The text and structure of the CWA demonstrate that the phrase “discharge of pollutants” excludes the migration of pollutants through groundwater. ................ 24

2. Legislative history confirms that the phrase “discharge of pollutants” excludes the migration of pollutants through groundwater. ..................................... 29

B. The District Court’s Rewriting of the CWA Directly Conflicts With RCRA and the CCR Rule. ................................ 32

C. The District Court’s Atextual Expansion of CWA Liability is Unworkable. .......................................................................... 35

II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S LIABILITY HOLDING ALSO SHOULD BE

REVERSED BECAUSE IT IGNORED UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE

THAT TDEC KNOWINGLY CHOSE NOT TO ESTABLISH NPDES

CONDITIONS FOR SEEPS AND LEAKS TO GROUNDWATER IN THE

GALLATIN PERMIT. ............................................................................... 38

A. TDEC’s Decision that the Non-Registered Site Should Be Regulated as Solid Waste, Not as a CWA Point Source, Cannot Be Collaterally Attacked in a Citizen Suit. .................. 40

B. Because TDEC Reasonably Contemplated Karst-Related Leakage From the Ash Pond Complex Yet Chose Not to Establish NPDES Permit Conditions, the CWA’s Permit Shield Applies. .......................................................................... 43


iv

C. TVA Complied with the Permit’s Removed Substances and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Provisions. ................................ 49

III. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING

COMPLETE EXCAVATION OF THE ASH POND COMPLEX AND THE

NON-REGISTERED SITE. ....................................................................... 51

A. The District Court’s Presumption of Irreparable Injury Constituted a Per Se Abuse of Discretion. ................................ 51

B. The District Court Abused Its Discretion in Failing to Balance the Hardships and to Weigh the Multifaceted Public Interests at Stake. ........................................................... 56

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 62

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 64

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 65

ADDENDUM .......................................................................................................... 66

APPELLANT’S DESIGNATION OF RELEVANT DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENTS ................................................................................ 66

FRAP 28(f) ADDENDUM DOCUMENTS .................................................. 69


v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page 26 Crown Assocs., LLC v. Greater New Haven Reg’l Water Control Auth.,

No. 3:15-cv-1439 (JAM), 2017 WL 2960506 (D. Conn. July 11, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-2426 (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017) ................................................. xii

Amigos Bravos v. Molycorp, Inc., No. CIV 95-1497 JP/DJS, Mem. Op. & Order (D.N.M. Sep. 11, 1997) ............................................................................................... 29

Amigos Bravos v. Molycorp, Inc., No. 97-2327, 1998 WL 792159 (10th Cir. Nov. 13, 1998) ................................... 29, 41

Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987) ...................................................................................................... 52

Bowling Green v. Martin Land Dev. Co., 561 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................ 19

Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102 (1980) ...................................................................................................... 24

Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 (2007) ...................................................................................................... 35

Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913 (2015) .................................................................................................... 26

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977) ...................................................................................................... 39

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) ................................................................................................ 52, 53

Elgharib v. Napolitano, 600 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................. 27, 35

Ellis v. Gallatin Steel Co., 390 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................ 62


vi

EPA v. Cal. ex rel. State Water Res. Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200 (1976) ...................................................................................................... 27

Exxon Corp. v. Train, 554 F.2d 1310 (5th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................ 25, 31

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) ...................................................................................................... 32

FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) ...................................................................................................... 19

Fed. Maritime Bd. v. Isbrandtsen Co., 356 U.S. 481 (1958) ...................................................................................................... 29

First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................... 53

Froebel v. Meyer, 217 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................ 26

Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................. 38-39

Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 168 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................... 40

Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................... 43

Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cnty. of Maui, No. 15-17447 (9th Cir. argued Oct. 12, 2017) ....................................................... xii, 29

Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 55

Inland Steel Co. v. EPA, 901 F.2d 1419 (7th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................... 34

Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987) ...................................................................................................... 27


vii

Kelley ex rel. Mich. v. United States, 618 F. Supp. 1103 (W.D. Mich. 1985) .................................................................. passim

Kentuckians for Commonwealth v. Rivenburgh, 317 F.3d 425 (4th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 56

Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) ................................................................................................. 20, 53

Ky. Waterways Alliance v. Ky. Utils. Co., No. 5:17-292-DCR, 2017 WL 6628917 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 28, 2017) ...................................................................................... passim

Little Hocking Water Ass’n, Inc. v. E.I. du Pont Nemours & Co., 91 F. Supp. 3d 940 (S.D. Ohio 2015) ........................................................................... 34

Long v. Insight Commc’ns of Cent. Ohio, LLC, 804 F.3d 791 (6th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................... 30

Matthews v. Town of Greeneville, 932 F.2d 968, 1991 WL 71414 (6th Cir. 1991) ............................................................ 57

Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (1996) ...................................................................................................... 32

Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense, 583 U.S.__, 2018 WL 491526 (Jan. 22, 2018) ............................................................. 27

Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 580 (6th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................. 25, 28

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Texaco Refining & Mktg., Inc., 906 F.2d 934 (3d Cir. 1990) ......................................................................................... 52

Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. City of Portland, 56 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................... 49

Or. Natural Res. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 834 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1987) ........................................................................................ 28

Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. Cnty. Comm’rs of Carroll Cnty., 268 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................ 48


viii

Potter v. ASARCO Inc., No. 8:96CV555, 1999 WL 33537055 (D. Neb. Apr. 23, 1999) ................................... 41

S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95 (2004) .................................................................................................. 25, 42

Schroyer v. Frankel, 197 F.3d 1170 (6th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................... 19

Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 56

Sierra Club v. El Paso Gold Mines, Inc., 421 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 26

Sierra Club v. ICG Hazard, LLC, No. 6:11-cv-00148-GFVT-HAI, 2012 WL 4601012 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2012) .............................................................. 44

Sierra Club v. ICG Hazard, LLC, 781 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. passim

Sierra Club v. Va. Elec. Power Co., No. 17-1952 (4th Cir. oral argument calendared Mar. 20-22, 2018) ........................... xii

Simsbury-Avon Preservation Club v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc., 575 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................ 43

Tenn. Clean Water Network v. TVA, No. 3:15-cv-424, __F. Supp. 3d__, 2017 WL 3476069, at *42-44 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 4, 2017) .......................................................................... xii

Tenn. Envtl. Council v. TVA, 32 F. Supp. 3d 876 (E.D. Tenn. 2014) ....................................................................... 5, 6

Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 648 (2d Cir. 1989) ......................................................................................... 52

Tri-Realty Co. v. Ursinus Coll., No. 11-5885, 2013 WL 6164092 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2013) ......................................... 42

U.S. Dep’t of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607 (1992) ...................................................................................................... 19


ix

U.S. Postal Serv. v. Flamingo Indus. (USA) Ltd., 540 U.S. 736 (2004) ...................................................................................................... 19

United States v. City of Detroit, 329 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 20

United States v. Dean, 969 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................ 34

United States v. Plaza Health Labs., Inc., 3 F.3d 643 (2d Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................. 25

United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985) ...................................................................................................... 27

Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., No. 17-1640 (4th Cir. argued Dec. 7, 2017) ................................................................. xii

Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) .................................................................................................. 37

Vill. of Oconomowoc Lake v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 24 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 28, 33

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) ................................................................................................ 52, 55

Williams Pipe Line Co. v. Bayer Corp., 964 F. Supp. 1300 (S.D. Iowa 1997) ............................................................................ 48

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008) ........................................................................................ 56, 58, 60

Wis. Res. Prot. Council v. Flambeau Mining Co., 727 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................. 19, 38

Statutes

Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 16 U.S.C. §§ 831 et seq. .................................................................................................. i

16 U.S.C. § 831j ................................................................................................................ 57


x

28 U.S.C. § 1291 .................................................................................................................. 1

28 U.S.C. § 1292 .................................................................................................................. 1

28 U.S.C. § 1331 .................................................................................................................. 1

33 U.S.C. § 1252(a) ........................................................................................................... 26

33 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(5) ....................................................................................................... 26

33 U.S.C. § 1256(e)(1) ....................................................................................................... 26

33 U.S.C. § 1282(b)(2)....................................................................................................... 26

33 U.S.C. § 1314(a)(1)-(2) ................................................................................................. 26

33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) ........................................................................................................... 24

33 U.S.C. § 1314(f) ...................................................................................................... 26, 28

33 U.S.C. § 1329(b)(2)(A) ................................................................................................. 26

33 U.S.C. § 1329(h)(5)(D) ................................................................................................. 26

33 U.S.C. § 1329(i)(1) ....................................................................................................... 26

33 U.S.C. § 1342 .................................................................................................... 24, 38, 43

33 U.S.C. § 1362 ......................................................................................................... passim

33 U.S.C. § 1365 ............................................................................................................ 1, 15

42 U.S.C. § 6903(27) ............................................................................................. 21, 32, 34

42 U.S.C. § 6945(d) ........................................................................................................... 33

42 U.S.C. § 6949a(a) .......................................................................................................... 32

42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-92k ...................................................................................................... 20

42 U.S.C. §§ 6941–49a ...................................................................................................... 32


xi

Rules and Regulations

45 Fed. Reg. 33,084 (May 19, 1980) ................................................................................. 34

45 Fed. Reg. 33,290 (May 19, 1980) ................................................................................. 39

80 Fed. Reg. 21,302 (Apr. 17, 2015) .......................................................................... passim

40 C.F.R § 122.5 ................................................................................................................ 39

40 C.F.R § 124.17(a)(2) ..................................................................................................... 10

40 C.F.R. § 124.8(a) ..................................................................................................... 10, 48

40 C.F.R. § 257.102 .................................................................................................... passim

40 C.F.R. § 257.3-.4 ........................................................................................................... 32

40 C.F.R. § 423.11(r) ........................................................................................................... 3

40 C.F.R. §§ 257.90-257.95 ............................................................................................... 33

40 C.F.R. §§ 257.96-257.98 ............................................................................................... 33

Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0400-40-05-.02(72) ............................................................ 10, 48

Other Authorities

S. Rep. No. 92-414

1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3668 .................................................................................. 30, 36, 37 118 Congressional Record 10,666, 10,669 (March 28, 1972) ................................... 31, 101 Water Pollution Control Legislation – 1971 (Proposed Amendments to Existing

Legislation): Hearings before H. Comm. on Pub. Works, 92nd Cong. 230 (July 20, 1971) (statement of Hon. William Ruckelshaus, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency) ........................................................................ 30, 70


xii

Hayman, James W., Regulating Point-Source Discharges to Groundwater Hydrologically Connected to Navigable Waters: An Unresolved Question of Environmental Protection Agency Authority Under the Clean Water Act, 5 Barry L. Rev. 95, 126 (2005) ................................................................................ 35-36


xiii

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

TVA respectfully requests oral argument. The decision below holds that

Clean Water Act (“CWA”) liability can be imposed based upon the migration of

pollutants through groundwater that is hydrologically connected to navigable

waters. The validity of this “hydrologic connection” theory is a question of first

impression here, has divided federal courts nationwide (including district courts

within this Circuit),1 and is being litigated in four other cases pending before the

Circuit Courts of Appeals.2 Further, because this case involves a CWA-permitted

facility, it presents significant questions about the applicability of the collateral

attack and permit shield doctrines, which provide independent grounds for

reversal. Finally, this case raises serious issues about the appropriate scope of

injunctive relief under the CWA. Full exploration of these issues through oral

argument should aid the Court in its decisional process.

1 Compare Ky. Waterways Alliance v. Ky. Utils. Co., No. 5:17-292-DCR, 2017 WL 6628917, at *11-12 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 28, 2017) (rejecting the hydrologic connection theory and collecting cases), with Tenn. Clean Water Network v. TVA, No. 3:15-cv-424, __F. Supp. 3d__, 2017 WL 3476069, at *42-44 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 4, 2017) (accepting the hydrologic connection theory and collecting cases). 2 Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cnty. of Maui, No. 15-17447 (9th Cir. argued Oct. 12, 2017); Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., No. 17-1640 (4th Cir. argued Dec. 7, 2017); Sierra Club v. Va. Elec. Power Co., No. 17-1952 (4th Cir. oral argument calendared Mar. 20-22, 2018); 26 Crown Assocs., LLC v. Greater New Haven Reg’l Water Control Auth., No. 3:15-cv-1439 (JAM), 2017 WL 2960506 (D. Conn. July 11, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-2426 (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017).


1

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), and entered final judgment on August 4, 2017. TVA timely

noticed its appeal on October 2, 2017. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1291-92.


2

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Whether the district court erred in holding that the CWA’s prohibition

of unpermitted point source discharges extends to the migration of pollutants

through hydrologically connected groundwater to navigable waters.

2. Whether the district court erred by overriding TDEC’s express

regulatory decisions not to impose National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (“NPDES”) permit conditions for seepage and leakage of coal ash leachate

through groundwater at TVA’s Gallatin Fossil Plant (“Gallatin”).

3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering complete

excavation and relocation of the 13.8 million cubic yards of coal ash stored at

Gallatin.


3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a CWA citizen suit involving coal combustion residuals (CCRs,

commonly known as coal ash) located in two sites at Gallatin: unlined active

treatment ponds (the Ash Pond Complex, or Complex), and a long-closed storage

area (the Non-Registered Site, or NRS). Because it found that an indeterminate but

small amount of CCR leachate3 from these sites probably seeps or leaks to

groundwater that eventually migrates to the Cumberland River, the district court

imposed CWA liability.4

The district court reasoned that the migration of pollutants through

groundwater that is hydrologically connected to navigable waters (which all

groundwater is) constituted an unpermitted discharge under the CWA, albeit

unobservable and without discernible effect on the Cumberland River. The district

court reached this conclusion even though the key statutory provision does not

3 The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) defines combustion residual leachate as “leachate from landfills or surface impoundments containing combustion residuals [like coal ash]” and “composed of liquid . . . that has percolated through waste or other materials emplaced in a landfill, or that passes through the surface impoundment’s containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms),” including “seepage and/or leakage from a combustion residual landfill or impoundment unit.” 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(r). 4 The record is not consistent regarding usage of the terms “seep” and “leak.” (Compare Mem. Op., RE139, PageID#5332 n.2, with FF&CL, RE258, PageID#10519; see also infra p.16.)


4

mention groundwater at all and despite Congress’s express refusal to regulate the

migration of pollutants through groundwater under the CWA’s point source

discharge program.

The district court also second-guessed the informed decisions made by the

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”) in 2012 to

reissue the Gallatin NPDES permit (over the protest of environmental groups

including one of the Plaintiffs here); to continue regulating the NRS under its solid

waste program (rather than its NPDES authority); not to impose NPDES permit

conditions for groundwater migration of coal ash leachate; and to rely upon the

Permit’s biological monitoring requirements to address any potential effects from

groundwater flow to the Cumberland River.

Erroneously reasoning that the CWA so required, the district court imposed

a draconian remedy—the excavation and relocation of 13.8 million cubic yards of

coal ash—even while acknowledging the absence of proof of harm to the

Cumberland River. This costly remedy is not required by the CWA, is inconsistent

with EPA’s comprehensive regulatory approach for the operation and closure of

coal ash sites, and increases the risk of harm to the environment and to the public.


5

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Gallatin Operations and Environmental Regulation Before 2012

Gallatin is a coal-fired electric power plant located in Sumner County,

Tennessee, on Odom’s Bend Peninsula adjacent to the Cumberland River (Old

Hickory Lake), a navigable water of the United States. (FF&CL, RE258,

PageID#10426.)

(JX217 (App.1).)5

Gallatin “serves as a base load on TVA’s power generation system and

generates electricity for the greater Nashville area.” Tenn. Envtl. Council v. TVA,

5 Trial exhibits (including joint exhibits (JX) and Defendant’s exhibits (DX) are in the appendix sent to the Court on disc and are cited by the exhibit number listed on the Exhibit and Witness List (RE238) with a parallel citation in parentheses to the exhibit copy contained in the appendix.


6

32 F. Supp. 3d 876, 880 (E.D. Tenn. 2014). “In a typical year, Gallatin generates

enough electricity to supply about 565,000 homes.”6

A byproduct of burning coal for electricity generation is coal ash or CCRs.

From 1956 to 1970, Gallatin sluiced CCRs to the NRS, an unlined 65-acre site on

the western edge of the peninsula.7 (RE258, PageID#10427.) By 1973, TVA had

dewatered the NRS, and TVA has not sluiced plant wastewater to the NRS for over

40 years. (Trial Tr.(Vol. 3), RE 236, PageID#9274.) Approximately 2.3 million

cubic yards of coal ash are stored at the NRS.

Since 1970, Gallatin has sluiced CCRs to the Ash Pond Complex, a 476-acre

surface impoundment containing a series of unlined settling and stilling ponds

located north of the NRS along the Cumberland River. (RE258, PageID#10427.)

The ponds treat sluiced wastewater by allowing the CCRs to settle before releasing

wastewater through an NPDES-permitted outfall, Outfall 001, to the Cumberland

River. (Trial Tr.(Vol. 1), RE234, PageID##8959-60.) The Complex is situated in

6 Gallatin Fossil Plant, https://lakeinfo.tva.gov/web/sites/gallatin.htm (last visited Jan. 30, 2018). 7 “Sluicing” means to flush or mix with water to facilitate movement. Final Rule, Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities, 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302, 21,357 (Apr. 17, 2015) (“CCR Rule”).


7

karst terrain.8 (RE258, PageID##10426-27.) Approximately 11.5 million cubic

yards of coal ash are stored at the Complex.

The location of the NRS and the Complex is depicted below:

(JX231 (App.2).)

In 1976, EPA issued the first NPDES permit for Gallatin (“the Permit”)

authorizing wastewater discharges from the Complex to the Cumberland River.

(RE258, PageID#10428; 1976 Permit, RE58-15, PageID##1857-58.) In 1986,

EPA delegated to TDEC the authority “to issue and oversee permits for federal

facilities such as the Gallatin Plant.” (Mem. Op., RE139, PageID#5331.)

8 The CCR Rule defines “Karst terrain” as “an area where karst topography, with its characteristic erosional surface and subterranean features, is developed as the result of dissolution of limestone, dolomite, or other soluble rock.” 40 C.F.R. § 257.53.


8

In the mid-1990s, TDEC asked TVA to develop a closure plan for the NRS

pursuant to TDEC’s solid waste program (RE258, PageID#10427), and in 1997,

TDEC approved TVA’s closure plan (TDEC Letter, JX182 (App.3) at 1). TVA

completed closure in 1998. (RE258, PageID#10427). Today, TDEC regulates this

“closed dry ash disposal area” commensurate with its solid waste landfill

standards, including ongoing groundwater monitoring.9 (Permit, RE1-2,

PageID#106.) This “heavily vegetated” site (JX182 (App.3) at 1) is situated atop

alluvium (not karst), and groundwater migration beneath the NRS is diffuse and

slow (RE258, PageID#10494). The NRS is shown below:

(Unmanned Aerial System Video, DX61 (App.4), 00:35).

9 Emphasis added here and throughout this brief unless otherwise noted.


9

B. TDEC’s Knowledge and Contemplation of Seepage

In May 2009, TVA submitted its NPDES permit renewal application.

(JX135 (App.5) at 32-33.) In September 2010, while the application was pending,

TDEC received an inquiry about “TVA Gallatin NPDES & closed ash landfill,”

resulting in an email exchange between Robert Alexander (a TDEC permit writer

and the senior reviewer for the Gallatin Permit) and Vojin Janjic (TDEC’s manager

of water-based systems). (JX137 (App.6).) Mr. Alexander’s email cited a 2009

report by a TVA contractor, Stantec, documenting seeps at the NRS, “which the

public/env groups may want us to address in future permits.” (Id.) As for seeps

from the Complex, Mr. Alexander stated that TDEC’s permitting “approach is not

to include them on the Permit . . . unless the seeps are confined in a pipe as a point-

source discharge,” “because the flow is so small it can’t be measured,” and because

the water quality “effects of the low-volume seeps are considered de minimus [sic]

since most ash ponds are on large bodies of water.” (Id.)

In June 2011, the Environmental Integrity Project (“EIP”)—together with

Plaintiff Tennessee Clean Water Network (“TCWN”) and Plaintiffs’ counsel, the

Southern Environmental Law Center—sent TDEC a letter asserting that the draft

permit “fail[ed] to address discharges through seeps and groundwater migration.”

(JX150 (App.7) at 1, 15-16.)


10

In accordance with EPA regulations, TDEC responded to the EIP comments

in the Permit’s Addendum to Rationale (RE258, PageID#10453), and published

the Addendum to Rationale as part of the final permit document (Permit, RE1-2,

PageID##61, 92-110). The environmental groups complained that the draft permit

failed to address seeps, including “seeps from the closed ash disposal area.” (Id.

PageID#105.) In EIP Comment 12, TDEC explained its decision not to impose

additional NPDES conditions because “TDEC experience with these seeps is that

additional pollutant loading [to the Cumberland River], if possible, would be de

minimus [sic].”10 (Id.)

Plaintiff TCWN and the other environmental groups also asserted “that high

concentrations of metals in groundwater are migrating to the Cumberland River

and should be addressed in the NPDES permit.” (Id.) In EIP Comment 13, TDEC

responded that its Division of Solid Waste Management regulates the NRS under

TDEC’s solid waste program, including related groundwater conditions, and

further explained its permitting approach that “no NPDES conditions are

10 For every draft NPDES permit, a “fact sheet,” or rationale, must be published “set[ting] forth the principal facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological and policy questions considered in preparing the draft permit.” 40 C.F.R. § 124.8(a); see also Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0400-40-05-.02(72) (same). And, “when a final permit is issued,” the permitting authority must prepare a response addressing “all significant comments on the draft permit . . . raised during the public comment period.” 40 C.F.R § 124.17(a)(2).


11

established” for “groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the ash pond.” (Id.

PageID#106.) Instead, TDEC chose to assess and monitor the potential effects of

any groundwater loadings on the Cumberland River through a biannual Reservoir

Fish Assemblage Index. (Id.)

At trial, Mr. Janjic confirmed that, although TDEC’s permitting approach is

that seepage is not explicitly “authorized or identified in an NPDES permit,”

TDEC knew that “[e]very impoundment that is not [a] lined impoundment is going

to have a certain amount of seepage.”11 (Trial Tr.(Vol. 2), RE235, PageID#9020.)

C. TDEC’s Knowledge and Contemplation of the Potential for Karst-Related Leakage from the Ash Pond Complex

During the draft permit’s public comment period, TDEC also had knowledge

of the karst geology under the Complex and the potential for karst-related leakage.

TDEC’s September 2010 email (JX137 (App.6)) references a 2009 Stantec report

documenting leakage from the Complex through karst features in the 1970s,

(Stantec Report, RE164-17, PageID##6704, 6707, 6710, 6714, 6720).

And in their June 2011 letter (JX150 (App.7) at 15 n.62), the environmental

groups (including Plaintiff TCWN) pointed TDEC to Stantec’s 2010 Report

11 EPA and the States have long known that storage of liquid waste in unlined surface impoundments can result in surface water impacts through groundwater seepage. EPA, Surface Impoundment Assessment National Report, at 1-9, 80-88 (Dec. 1983), https://nepis.epa.gov


https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/10003FMU.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1981+Thru+1985&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C81thru85%5CTxt%5C00000001%5C10003FMU.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL

12

which—under the heading “Karst Activity”—documented a history of karst-related

leaks from the Complex and associated repairs (JX67 (App.8) at 8). Stantec’s

report explained that the Complex is underlain by limestone which is susceptible to

the development of karst features such as sinkholes and solution channels and that

it is impossible to “design a facility to eliminate karst-related problems.”

(Id. at 29.)

Also, in 2014, TDEC issued a solid waste permit for a new CCR landfill at

Gallatin. (Trial Tr.(Vol. 2), RE235, PageID##9037-39; Trial Tr.(Vol. 4), RE237,

PageID##9513-14.) In its public comments on the draft landfill permit, TDEC

explicitly confirmed its knowledge and contemplation of the potential for karst

leaks from the Complex, yet approved a permit that relies on the Complex’s

continued operation. Specifically, the new landfill is designed so that CCR

leachate from the landfill is collected and pumped to Pond A of the Complex.

(Trial Tr.(Vol. 2), RE235, PageID#9038; Trial Tr.(Vol. 4), RE237, PageID#9514.)

After the release of the draft landfill permit for public comment, Plaintiffs’

retained witness, Mark Quarles, submitted comments to TDEC questioning why

TDEC would consider allowing additional CCR leachate to be deposited in the ash

ponds given their history of sinkholes and the lack of any assurance that TVA’s

plugging of the sinkholes had prevented leakage. (Trial Tr.(Vol. 1), RE234,

PageID#8960.) In direct response to this inquiry, TDEC stated that “the reason


13

for plugging any of the sinkholes was to slow down the discharge rate of treated

water to surface and subsurface water, not to stop the intended slow discharge.”

(Id.)12

D. TDEC’s 2012 Reissuance of the Gallatin NPDES Permit and Plaintiff TCWN’s Abandoned Permit Appeal

With full knowledge and contemplation of seepage and leakage, TDEC

reissued the Permit for a five-year term through May 31, 2017.13 (RE258,

PageID#10428.) The Permit expressly authorizes the discharge of coal ash

wastewater from the Complex to the Cumberland River through Outfall 001.

(Permit, RE1-2, PageID##58, 92.) The permit’s authorized discharge volume

through Outfall 001 is 27 million gallons of wastewater per day. (Id. passim.) The

location of Outfall 001 is shown below:

12 Response to Public Comments Summary, TVA Gallatin Fossil Plant Class II Landfill (IDL830000219) (June 30, 2014), at 18 cmt. 63, http://environment-online.tn.gov:8080/pls/enf_reports/f?p=19035:34051:0::NO::P34051_PERMIT_ID:2361. 13 The Permit remains in effect under an administrative continuance. (RE258 at PageID#10428.)


14

(Unmanned Aerial System Video, DX61 (App.4), 03:23.)

Plaintiff TCWN appealed TDEC’s reissuance of the Permit to the Tennessee

Water Quality Control Board, alleging CWA violations because the Permit did

“not address the discharge of pollutants from the ash pond via seeps abutting the

river and via seeps flowing into groundwater that is hydrologically connected to

the river.” (Appeal Pet., RE13-1, PageID##302, 304.) These claims covered both

the NRS and the Complex. (Compare id. PageID#296, with EIP Letter, JX150

(App.7) at 15-16.) In 2013, TCWN voluntarily dismissed its seepage and

groundwater claims from the permit appeal proceeding. (Dismissal, RE52-1,

PageID##1633-34.)

In 2014, TDEC conducted an NPDES Compliance Evaluation Inspection of

the Gallatin facility and found TVA “In Compliance.” (NPDES Inspection

Record, JX248 (App.9).)

In 2015, in response to Plaintiffs’ 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue under the

CWA, the State of Tennessee filed an enforcement action against TVA. (Mem.


15

Op., RE139, PageID#5334.) In the State action, “TVA is in the process of

completing and executing an Environmental Investigation Plan . . . that is intended

to better investigate and understand the environmental features of the Gallatin

Plant site” (RE258, PageID#10430), and which is estimated to cost TVA

$28 million (Trial Tr.(Vol.4), RE237, PageID##9517-21).

In 2016, during the pendency of both this and the state enforcement action,

TDEC conducted another NPDES compliance inspection at Gallatin (NPDES

Inspection Report, JX249 (App.10)), and TDEC again determined that “[n]o permit

violations were observed, and as such there are at this time no corrective actions

that need to be taken” (Compliance Evaluation Inspection Letter, JX250 (App.11)

at 3).

III. THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS In 2015, Plaintiffs filed a citizen suit under 33 U.S.C. § 1365. (RE258,

PageID#10429.) Plaintiffs alleged violations of the CWA and the Permit based on

flows (seeps or leaks) of coal ash leachate from the Complex and the NRS through

hydrologically connected groundwater to the Cumberland River. (Mem. Op.,

RE139, PageID#5332 & n.2.)

Because the State of Tennessee was (and is) pursuing a similar case against

TVA under state law, the district court applied the CWA’s diligent prosecution bar


16

(id. PageID##5338-46), and limited the trial’s scope to the allegations it deemed

non-overlapping:

(1) “discharges from the Non-Registered Site into the Cumberland River;” and (2) “discharges from the Ash Pond Complex via hydrologic flows that are not seeps alone, with ‘seeps alone’ being defined as ‘leaks consisting solely of slow pore-space seepage of contaminants.’”

(RE258, PageID#10519).14

Later, the district court reasoned that, if a leak from the Complex went

through a rock fissure (i.e., a karst feature) during any portion (no matter how

miniscule) of its subsurface path to the Cumberland River, it was not a “seep

alone” because some part of its path involved non-seepage flow. (Id.

PageID#10523.)

Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment against TVA,

holding that the CWA applies to discharges of pollutants through hydrologically

connected groundwater to navigable waters where the connection is “direct,

immediate, and can generally be traced.” (Id. PageID#10505.) The court found

that such a hydrological connection existed for (1) seeps from the NRS “through

14 The district court determined that, as to the NRS, “the State Enforcement Action is targeted at groundwater contamination” (Mem. Op., RE139, PageID##5341-42), and that, as to the Complex, “the State’s complaint can plausibly be read to refer to both groundwater and surface water contamination” (id. PageID#5342).


17

rainwater vertically penetrating the Site, groundwater laterally penetrating the Site,

or both” (id. PageID##10520-21); and (2) leaks from the Complex involving karst

features (id. PageID#10531).15

The district court held that the NRS is a point source (id. PageID#10511),

and that the Permit does not authorize discharges from the NRS (id.

PageID#10520). The court found karst-related leaks from the Complex (i.e., seeps

of coal ash leachate from the Complex involving flow through a karst feature

somewhere along the path to the River) to be actionable based on its finding that

such flows were not within TDEC’s reasonable contemplation. (Id.

PageID#10532.)

The district court found TVA in full compliance with the Permit’s Operation

and Maintenance and Notice provisions (id. PageID##10533-34), but concluded

that karst-related leakage from the Complex violated the Permit’s Removed

Substances provision (Part I.A.(c)) and Sanitary Sewer Overflow provision

(Part II.C.(3.b)) (id. PageID##10532-34).

In making these findings, the district court did not address (1) the legal

effect of TDEC’s explicit decision to continue regulating the NRS under its solid

waste program instead of its NPDES authority; or (2) the record evidence

15 All findings of karst-related leakage are limited to the Complex. The NRS “is not even located in karst terrain.” (RE258, PageID#10539.)


18

demonstrating TDEC’s knowledge and contemplation of the likelihood of ongoing

karst-related leakage of CCR leachate from the Complex through groundwater to

the Cumberland River.

The district court did recognize that any actionable seeps or leaks are limited

in size and rate of outflow (id. PageID##10486, 10528), and that the record is

“largely bereft of evidence that would lead the Court to conclude that TVA’s

violations are particularly severe, in terms of the harm done or the amount of

pollutants released” (id. PageID#10535).

TVA presented evidence showing that closure-in-place at the Complex (i.e.,

dewatering and installing a geosynthetic cap in accordance with the CCR Rule)

and installing a geosynthetic cap on the long-ago-dewatered NRS would address

the groundwater flows at issue here. (Lang Direct Test., RE229-1, PageID##8565-

79, 8581-84.) TVA also presented unrebutted evidence showing that the

excavation and offsite removal requested by Plaintiffs (Compl., RE1, PageID#53)

poses substantial environmental and safety risks, is inconsistent with TVA’s

obligations under the CCR Rule, and could cost TVA’s ratepayers as much as $2

billion (Lang Direct Test., RE229-1, PageID##8579-80; Trial Tr.(Vol. 4), RE237,

PageID#9521).

Despite finding “scant” evidence of harm (RE258, PageID#10535) and that

“contamination from the Gallatin Plant has, at least in recent years, apparently


19

been mild” (id. PageID#10538), the district court imposed an extreme remedy—

enjoining TVA to excavate and remove the 13.8 million cubic yards of coal ash

stored at the NRS and the Complex (id. PageID#10542; Order, RE259).16

SCOPE OF REVIEW

This Court reviews a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its

legal conclusions de novo. Schroyer v. Frankel, 197 F.3d 1170, 1173 (6th

Cir. 1999). Review of statutory construction is de novo. Bowling Green v. Martin

Land Dev. Co., 561 F.3d 556, 558 (6th Cir. 2009).

Whether the CWA’s permit shield applies is a question of law, Wis. Res.

Prot. Council v. Flambeau Mining Co., 727 F.3d 700, 707 (7th Cir. 2013), as is the

related question of whether a CWA citizen suit is an impermissible collateral

attack on the NPDES permit. See id. at 707-11.

While this Court reviews a district court’s grant of an injunction for abuse of

discretion, it reviews underlying factual findings for clear error and underlying

16 Because the district court declined to impose civil penalties requested by Plaintiffs (RE258, PageID##10420-21), TVA has no basis now to appeal the court’s earlier, erroneous ruling denying TVA’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for civil penalties (RE139, PageID##5348-53). Under U.S. Dep’t of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607 (1992), civil penalties for past CWA violations are not available against the Government, including TVA. See U.S. Postal Serv. v. Flamingo Indus. (USA) Ltd., 540 U.S. 736, 743 (2004); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). TVA reserves the right to appeal this legal error if it resurfaces later in the case.


20

legal conclusions de novo. United States v. City of Detroit, 329 F.3d 515, 520

(6th Cir. 2003). A district court “by definition” abuses its discretion where it

makes an error of law. Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

I. This case concerns how pollution from coal ash disposal and storage

sites is regulated—not whether it is regulated. Congress chose not to regulate the

migration of pollutants through groundwater as point source discharges under the

CWA and did so with knowledge that such pollutants eventually may enter

navigable waters. Instead, when it enacted the CWA, Congress chose to leave

groundwater regulation to the states under the CWA’s nonpoint source program.

Every tool of statutory construction forecloses the district court’s hydrologic

connection liability holding. For this reason alone, the district court’s liability

holding should be reversed.

But there is more. The district court’s hydrologic connection holding

directly conflicts with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”)17

and the CCR Rule. The CCR Rule provides a comprehensive regulatory approach

to address the operation and closure of coal ash disposal sites, including any

17 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-92k.


21

associated groundwater impacts from the treatment, storage, and disposal of coal

ash.

The district court’s unprincipled expansion of CWA liability should not

displace Congress’s enactment of RCRA, a later-in-time statutory regime that is

specifically tailored to address groundwater pollution resulting from the storage

and disposal of solid waste. If the district court were correct that the migration of

coal ash leachate through groundwater is illegal unless permitted under the CWA,

the perverse result would be to thwart implementation of the CCR Rule’s more

precisely tailored regime, given RCRA’s industrial point source discharge

exclusion.18

Finally, because the district court’s invention of a “direct” connection test is

atextual and unworkable (and not even satisfied in this case), the district court’s

liability holding cannot stand.

II. Even apart from its erroneous rewriting of the CWA, the interrelated

doctrines of collateral attack, permit shield, and fair notice supply independent

grounds for reversal: the district court impermissibly second-guessed TDEC’s

informed decision to regulate the NRS under its solid waste program (not as a

CWA point source) as well as TDEC’s affirmative regulatory decision not to

18 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27).


22

impose NPDES conditions on the potential for karst-related leaks from the

Complex.

First, the district court erred in allowing a citizen suit to be used as a

collateral attack on TDEC’s affirmative decision to regulate the NRS under its

solid waste program and in concluding that the heavily vegetated NRS is a point

source.

Second, the district court erred in rejecting the permit shield defense for the

Complex, given TDEC’s informed regulatory decision not to prohibit or otherwise

limit karst-related leaks from that site. The district court reasoned that the absence

of explicit permitting authorization for karst-related leakage required a liability

finding. But such reasoning upends the permit shield doctrine. The lack of

explicit permitting conditions only begins the inquiry, which asks whether the

regulator reasonably contemplated the discharge at issue notwithstanding the

absence of explicit permit conditions.

Here, the uncontroverted evidence from the administrative record and from

TDEC’s public statements shows that, during and after the permitting process,

TDEC knew of historical karst leakage issues at the Complex; affirmatively

contemplated “intended slow discharges” from beneath the Complex through karst

features, including sinkholes; and declined to impose NPDES permit conditions

(despite the request of environmental groups to do so). Instead, TDEC chose to


23

address the potential effects of seeps and leaks to groundwater through biological

monitoring of the Cumberland River.

Under the finality and fair notice principles inherent in the permit shield

doctrine, TDEC’s informed choices to regulate in a manner different from what the

environmental groups requested cannot be challenged in a citizen suit during the

permit term. In allowing otherwise, the district court wrongly usurped TDEC’s

permitting decisions.

III. The district court compounded the error of its faulty liability decision

and per se abused its discretion by imposing injunctive relief with no showing of

irreparable harm. It further abused its discretion by improperly balancing the

equities, ordering TVA to excavate 13.8 million cubic yards of coal ash at a

potential cost to TVA’s ratepayers of $2 billion based only on “scant” evidence of

harm and despite proof that, as compared to closure-in-place, excavation and

removal will increase the risk of harm to the environment and the public. At a

minimum, the injunction must be vacated and the case remanded for the district

court to balance the equities properly, including consideration of the regulatory

framework established under the CCR Rule.


24

ARGUMENT

I. THE DISTRICT COURT’S LIABILITY HOLDING SHOULD BE REVERSED

BECAUSE THE HYDROLOGIC CONNECTION THEORY IS CONTRARY TO THE

TEXT, STRUCTURE, AND HISTORY OF THE CWA, CONFLICTS WITH

REGULATION OF COAL ASH UNDER RCRA, AND IS UNWORKABLE. The district court held “that a cause of action based on an unauthorized point

source discharge may be brought under the CWA based on discharges through

groundwater, if the hydrologic connection . . . is direct, immediate, and can

generally be traced.” (RE258 at PageID#10505.) In so holding, the district court

impermissibly rewrote the statute, expanding CWA liability beyond Congress’s

authorization, and created an unnecessary conflict with regulation of coal ash

under RCRA and the CCR Rule.

A. The Migration of Pollutants Through Groundwater Is Not An Unlawful “Discharge of Pollutants” Under the CWA. 1. The text and structure of the CWA demonstrate that the

phrase “discharge of pollutants” excludes the migration of pollutants through groundwater.

“[T]he starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute

itself.” Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108

(1980). Here, the relevant provision is Section 301(a) of the CWA, which provides

that the “discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful” except when

in compliance with, inter alia, an NPDES permit under 33 U.S.C. § 1342.

33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). The “key portion of the statute” is the phrase “discharge of


25

pollutants.” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 580, 583

(6th Cir. 1988). It is the act made unlawful by Section 301(a) unless authorized by

an NPDES permit. Exxon Corp. v. Train, 554 F.2d 1310, 1318 (5th Cir. 1977).

Starting with the text, Congress defined “discharge of pollutants” as “any

addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” 33 U.S.C.

§ 1362(12). A “point source” is “any discernable, confined and discrete

conveyance . . . from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” Id. § 1362(14).

The point source must “convey the pollutant to ‘navigable waters.’” S. Fla. Water

Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 105 (2004).

“Conveyance” is the definition’s operative term, id., and it “evoke[s] images of

physical structures and instrumentalities that systematically act as a means of

conveying pollutants from an industrial source to navigable waterways,”

United States v. Plaza Health Labs., Inc., 3 F.3d 643, 646 (2d Cir. 1993).

Significantly, Congress did not reference groundwater in any of these

definitions and excluded the term groundwater from “most of the regulatory

provisions of Title III of the CWA, including section 301(a),” Kelley ex rel. Mich.

v. United States, 618 F. Supp. 1103, 1105 (W.D. Mich. 1985), manifesting

Congress’s intent not to regulate groundwater migration as a point source

discharge. And no reasonable reading of either “point source” or “navigable

waters” encompasses groundwater.


26

Groundwater is not a “point source.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). By its nature,

groundwater is “a diffuse medium and not the kind of discernible, confined, and

discrete conveyance contemplated by the CWA’s definition of ‘point source.’” Ky.

Waterways Alliance v. Ky. Utils. Co., No. 5:17-292-DCR, 2017 WL 6628917, at

*10 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 28, 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Froebel

v. Meyer, 217 F.3d 928, 937 (7th Cir. 2000) (“The structure of the CWA’s

definition of ‘point source’ . . . connotes the terminal end of an artificial system for

moving water, waste, and other materials.”). As the Tenth Circuit has recognized,

“[g]roundwater seepage that travels through fractured rock would be nonpoint

source pollution, which is not subject to NPDES permitting.” Sierra Club v. El

Paso Gold Mines, Inc., 421 F.3d 1133, 1140 n.4 (10th Cir. 2005).

Also, throughout the CWA, Congress carefully distinguished between

navigable waters and ground waters,19 and “Congress generally acts intentionally

when it uses particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another.”

Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913, 919 (2015). There is no

textual basis for interpreting “navigable waters” to cover groundwater.20

19 See, e.g., 33 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a); 1254(a)(5); 1256(e)(1); 1282(b)(2); 1314(a)(1)-(2); 1314(f); 1329(b)(2)(A); 1329(h)(5)(D); 1329(i)(1). 20 The term “navigable waters” is defined as “the waters of the United States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). It “delineates the geographic reach of many of the Act’s substantive provisions, including the” NPDES permitting program, Nat’l Ass’n of


27

Beyond the plain meaning of the specific text at issue, the “design of the

statute as a whole,” Elgharib v. Napolitano, 600 F.3d 597, 601 (6th Cir. 2010)

(internal quotation marks omitted), confirms that the statute cannot naturally be

read to encompass migration of pollutants through groundwater.

The CWA “prohibits the discharge of any effluent into a navigable body of

water,” Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 489 (1987), and effluent

limitations on the “quantities, rates, and concentrations” of pollutants discharged

“from point sources into navigable waters,” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11), are the linchpin

of the NPDES permitting program. “Such direct restrictions” facilitate

enforcement. EPA v. Cal. ex rel. State Water Res. Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 204

(1976); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs., 583 U.S.__, 2018 WL 491526, at *9-10. But

limits on the “quantities, rates, and concentrations” for observable and measurable

flows through conveyances are ill-suited to address groundwater migration, which

is largely immeasurable and unobservable (as the evidence in this case well-

demonstrates)—yet more proof that Congress never intended groundwater flows to

be covered by Section 301(a).

(. . . continued) Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense, 583 U.S.__, 2018 WL 491526, at *5 (Jan. 22, 2018), and the term refers to surface waters—“rivers, streams, and other hydrographic features more conventionally identifiable as ‘waters.’” United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 131 & n.8 (1985).


28

Consideration of the broader statutory structure also shows that Congress

intended to regulate the migration of pollutants through groundwater as nonpoint

source pollution. Congress “drew a distinct line” between point source and

nonpoint source pollution. Or. Natural Res. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 834 F.2d

842, 849 (9th Cir. 1987). “Point sources are subject to direct federal regulation and

enforcement under” the NPDES program. Id. Nonpoint sources, in contrast, are

subject to “state and local pollution control programs” and not regulated under

NPDES. Consumers Power, 862 F.2d at 588. Directly pertinent here, pollution

“resulting from . . . the disposal of pollutants [into] subsurface excavations” is

nonpoint source pollution. See 33 U.S.C. § 1314(f). And EPA has long-

recognized that landfills, lagoons, basins, and pits (such as the NRS and the

Complex) are “subsurface excavations.”21

Ultimately, adopting the theory that “the discharge of a pollutant . . . through

the hydrologically connected groundwater to a navigable water could constitute the

addition of a pollutant to a navigable water from a point source, even though the

groundwater itself is neither a point source nor a navigable water. . . . would be

inconsistent with the text and structure of the CWA.” Ky. Waterways, 2017 WL

6628917, at *11 (emphases in original); see also Vill. of Oconomowoc Lake v.

21 EPA, Ground Water Pollution From Subsurface Excavations, at 1, 123-35, 151-77 (1973), https://nepis.epa.gov


https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000Z6YZ.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=Prior+to+1976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C70thru75%5CTxt%5C00000004%5C2000Z6YZ.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL

29

Dayton Hudson Corp., 24 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 1994) (rejecting hydrologic

connection theory); Kelley, 618 F. Supp. at 1106 (granting the United States’

motion to dismiss CWA citizen suit based on pollution from a Government facility

through groundwater because the CWA does not apply to the migration of

pollutants through groundwater that is hydrologically connected to a navigable

surface water).22

2. Legislative history confirms that the phrase “discharge of pollutants” excludes the migration of pollutants through groundwater.

If Congress had intended for the migration of pollutants through

groundwater to be unlawful under Section 301(a), a simple solution lay close at

hand: include the word “groundwater” in the definition of “discharge of

22 Recently, the United States has taken a different position. See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees, Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cnty. of Maui, No. 15-17447 (9th Cir. May 31, 2016). The district court did not purport to defer to any Government position on this issue, and in all events, this “sometimes expressed” view was never promulgated as a formal rule and is not entitled to deference. Ky. Waterways, 2017 WL 6628917, at *11 & n.2. It also conflicts with the position taken in Kelley and in Amigos Bravos v. Molycorp, Inc., No. CIV 95-1497 JP/DJS, Mem. Op. & Order (D.N.M. Sep. 11, 1997) (RE52-2, PageID##1638-40), aff’d, No. 97-2327, 1998 WL 792159 (10th Cir. Nov. 13, 1998). No deference is due to the Government’s inconsistent positions. See Fed. Maritime Bd. v. Isbrandtsen Co., 356 U.S. 481, 499-500 (1958).


30

pollutants” at 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12). But Congress considered and rejected this

very proposal.23

Despite “recogniz[ing] the essential link between ground and surface

waters and the artificial nature of any distinction” and acknowledging “that

rivers, streams and lakes themselves are largely supplied with water from the

ground,” the Senate committee rejected “[s]everal bills” that would have extended

CWA regulation over groundwater because “the jurisdiction regarding

groundwaters is so complex and varied from State to State.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, at

73 (1971), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3668, 3739.

The House committee likewise chose not to regulate the migration of

pollutants through groundwater as point source discharges under the CWA. In

testimony before that committee, EPA sought authority over discharges to

hydrologically connected groundwater to ensure that EPA “authority over

interstate and navigable streams cannot be circumvented” and to “maintain[] a

control over all the sources of pollution, be they discharged directly into any

stream or through the ground water table.” Water Pollution Control Legislation –

23 Given the CWA’s unambiguous text and structure, there is no need to resort to legislative history. Examination of such history only underscores Congress’s clear intent to exclude groundwater migration from “discharge of pollutants.” See Long v. Insight Commc’ns of Cent. Ohio, LLC, 804 F.3d 791, 797 (6th Cir. 2015) (examining legislative history to confirm textual analysis of statutory terms).


31

1971 (Proposed Amendments to Existing Legislation): Hearings before H. Comm.

on Pub. Works, 92nd Cong. 230 (1971) (statement of Hon. William Ruckelshaus,

Administrator, EPA), Addendum at 97.

Representative Aspin even proposed an amendment to the House bill

because he thought it a “glaring inconsistency” that groundwater appeared

elsewhere in the bill, “[b]ut when it comes to enforcement . . . the section on

permits and licenses, then ground water is suddenly missing.” 118 Cong. Rec.

10,666 (1972), Addendum at 102. In words echoing the district court’s reasoning

below, he stated that, “[i]f we do not stop pollution of ground waters through

seepage and other means, ground water gets into navigable waters, and to control

only the navigable water and not the ground water makes no sense at all.” Id.

The proposed amendment would have inserted the term “ground waters”

after “navigable waters” in Section 502(12), the key statutory definition for

“discharge of pollutants.” Id. But the House rejected the amendment by a vote of

86 to 34. Id. at 10,669, Addendum at 105; see also Exxon, 554 F.2d at 1328-29 &

n.31 (detailing the House floor debate).

This “unmistakably clear legislative history . . . demonstrate[s] that Congress

did not intend the Clean Water Act to extend federal regulatory and enforcement

authority over groundwater contamination,” even if it eventually migrates to

navigable waters. Kelley, 618 F. Supp. at 1107.


32

B. The District Court’s Rewriting of the CWA Directly Conflicts With RCRA and the CCR Rule.

The “meaning of one statute may be affected by other Acts, particularly

where Congress has spoken subsequently and more specifically to the topic at

hand.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000).

Here, although Congress eschewed regulation of groundwater migration as a

point source discharge under the CWA, it later addressed groundwater pollution in

other statutes. Specifically, in 1976, Congress passed RCRA as “a comprehensive

environmental statute that governs the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid . . .

waste,” Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 483 (1996), and directed EPA to

develop criteria specially tailored to address groundwater contamination from solid

waste disposal facilities, including landfills and surface impoundments.24

42 U.S.C. § 6949a(a); 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-.4.

Unlike the CWA, RCRA regulates groundwater contamination from CCR

disposal and storage sites. In 2015, acting under its RCRA Subtitle D authority,25

EPA promulgated the CCR Rule regulating CCR disposal as nonhazardous solid

waste. 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302. In doing so, EPA recognized that “approximately

24 Solid waste includes liquid material resulting from industrial operations. 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27). 25 42 U.S.C. §§ 6941–49a.


33

63 percent of currently operating surface impoundments and landfills are unlined,

and thus more prone to leach contaminants into groundwater.” Id. at 21,326.

The CCR Rule addresses, inter alia, “groundwater contamination from the

improper management of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments.” Id.

at 21,303. And it “reflect[s] Congressional intent that protection of groundwater

be a prime objective of any new solid waste regulations.” Id. at 21,396. The CCR

Rule provides specifically for groundwater monitoring (which the CWA does not),

40 C.F.R. §§ 257.90-257.95, and groundwater remediation (which the CWA does

not), 40 C.F.R. §§ 257.96-257.98.

The CCR Rule, of course, is a final agency rule. In contrast, the district

court found support for its hydrologic connection holding in a hodgepodge of

nonbinding EPA statements (RE258, PageID#10503-05), none of which were the

result of notice and comment rulemaking. EPA’s “[c]ollateral reference[s] to” the

hydrologic connection issue are “not a satisfactory substitute for focused attention

in rule-making or adjudication.” Oconomowoc Lake, 24 F.3d at 966.

Congress endorsed the CCR Rule regulatory regime in 2016, with passage of

the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, amending RCRA to

authorize states to submit for EPA approval a state permit program for regulating

CCR units that is “at least as protective as” the CCR Rule. 42 U.S.C. § 6945(d).


34

Importantly, RCRA excludes from the term “solid waste” any “industrial

discharges which are point sources subject to” NPDES permitting. 42 U.S.C.

§ 6903(27); United States v. Dean, 969 F.2d 187, 194 (6th Cir. 1992) (analyzing

the exclusion). Thus, RCRA does not apply if a discharge is “required by the

Clean Water Act to have a permit,” Inland Steel Co. v. EPA, 901 F.2d 1419, 1422

(7th Cir. 1990) (italics in original), “regardless of whether there is a permit in

place.” Little Hocking Water Ass’n, Inc. v. E.I. du Pont Nemours & Co., 91 F.

Supp. 3d 940, 959-60 & n.5 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “The purpose of th[is] exemption .

. . is to avoid duplicative regulation . . . .” Inland Steel, 901 F.2d at 1423; see also

45 Fed. Reg. 33,084, 33,098 (May 19, 1980) (“The obvious purpose of the

industrial point source discharge exclusion in Section 1004(27) was to avoid

duplicative regulation of point source discharges under RCRA and the Clean Water

Act.”).

Because regulation under RCRA and NPDES is mutually exclusive, the

consequence of upholding the decision below would be that neither the Complex

nor the NRS is subject to RCRA regulation. The district court’s shoehorning of

groundwater pollution into the NPDES permitting program is reversible error

because it would thwart implementation of the more specific and later-in-time

regime that Congress enacted and that EPA is enforcing to address the precise

problem at issue here: groundwater pollution from the storage and disposal of


35

solid waste. See Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264, 285

(2007) (holding that securities laws implicitly preclude application of antitrust laws

where statutes are “clearly incompatible” and the securities statutes more precisely

address the conduct at issue and are being actively enforced by regulators).

C. The District Court’s Atextual Expansion of CWA Liability is Unworkable.

Disregarding the “three-step legislative-interpretation framework,” Elgharib,

600 F.3d at 601, and without considering the impairment of other regulatory

regimes, the district court held that the CWA supports a cause of action “based on

discharges through groundwater, if the hydrologic connection between the [point]

source is . . . direct, immediate, and can generally be traced.” (RE258,

PageID#10505.) Although conceding that “[p]erfect traceability is ultimately a

technological and epistemological issue, not a legal one,” the district court then

announced an unworkable legal standard: “[a]s long as a connection is shown to be

real, direct, and immediate, there is no statutory, constitutional, or policy reason to

require that every twist and turn of its path be precisely traced.” (Id.

PageID##10504-05.)

The term “direct hydrologic connection” appears nowhere in the text of the

CWA. And the district court did not attempt to define it, perhaps because

“defining the term ‘direct’ is fraught with technical peril.” James W. Hayman,

Regulating Point-Source Discharges to Groundwater Hydrologically Connected to


36

Navigable Waters: An Unresolved Question of Environmental Protection Agency

Authority Under the Clean Water Act, 5 Barry L. Rev. 95, 126 (2005).

Adding modifiers that a hydrologic connection “be real, direct, and

immediate” does not help. It is a “basic principle” that “groundwater generally

flows through the earth toward surface waters that ultimately connect to the sea.”

(RE258, PageID#10426.) All groundwater connections are, thus, “real.” And the

district court made no attempt to limit or otherwise define the modifiers “direct” or

“immediate,” terms which provide no added clarity. It also searched in vain for

actual, current evidence showing that its standard had been satisfied.26

The unworkability of the district court’s hydrologic connection test is

exacerbated in the citizen-suit context, particularly one which attacks a regulatory

decision not to impose NPDES permit conditions. See infra Part II. Congress

recognized that “an objective evidentiary standard will have to be met by any

citizen who brings an action under this section.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, at 79 (1971),

reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3668, 3745. In the absence of measurable effluent

26 The district court acknowledged Plaintiffs’ inability “to identify specific sinkholes or other leaking karst features in the Ash Pond Complex in the present day.” (RE258, PageID#10526.) It also recognized the impossibility of determining how much, if any, of the sporadic groundwater contamination that was observed was the result of ongoing seeps or leaks, given the undisputed record of past (and repaired) leakage. The court ultimately concluded, however, that “[g]iven the inconclusive nature of the sampling, the evidence of the pond’s leak-prone construction and history carries the day.” (Id. PageID#10530.)


37

limitations for groundwater migration, however, the district court crafted its own

subjective standard, which it then deemed satisfied by epistemological inferences

drawn from hydrogeology principles rather than proof of the “quantit[y], rate[],

and concentration[]” of pollutants discharged. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11).

Ultimately, there is no hint that Congress intended, sub silentio, to regulate

the migration of pollutants through groundwater as a point source discharge, no

matter how direct and traceable the hydrologic connection to navigable waters

might be, and there is certainly no clear statement manifesting such intent. Cf.

Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2444 (2014) (rejecting EPA

Clean Air Act interpretation as unreasonable because Congress is expected “to

speak clearly” before courts will read into statutory text regulatory authority “of

vast ‘economic and political significance’” (quoting Brown & Williamson, 529

U.S. at 160)).

In sum, the district court erred by rewriting the statute to expand CWA point

source liability to encompass seepage and leakage through groundwater to

navigable waters when Congress, faced with “the essential link between ground

and surface waters,” S. Rep. No. 92-414, at 73 (1971), expressly declined to do so.


38

II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S LIABILITY HOLDING ALSO SHOULD BE REVERSED

BECAUSE IT IGNORED UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE THAT TDEC

KNOWINGLY CHOSE NOT TO ESTABLISH NPDES CONDITIONS FOR SEEPS

AND LEAKS TO GROUNDWATER IN THE GALLATIN PERMIT. “The main exception” to the CWA’s strict liability regime for point source

discharges to navigable waters is the NPDES permit program under 33 U.S.C.

§ 1342. Sierra Club v. ICG Hazard, LLC, 781 F.3d 281, 284 (6th Cir. 2015).

Here, the administrative record developed by TDEC when it reissued the Gallatin

Permit documents TDEC’s affirmative choice not to establish NPDES permit

conditions on the NRS or on leaks from the Complex to groundwater via karst

features. (Permit, RE1-2, PageID##105-06.) Under these circumstances, the

district court’s liability decision is precluded by the CWA’s permit shield and the

related collateral attack doctrine. No matter how this Court resolves the statutory

construction question, the informed regulatory decisions made by TDEC to address

groundwater migration through means other than NPDES permit conditions supply

independent grounds for reversal.

The district court’s flawed application of the collateral attack and permit

shield doctrines undercuts the due process and fair notice objectives these doctrines

serve. “[A] regulated party must be given ‘fair warning’ of what conduct is

prohibited or required of it.” Flambeau Mining Co., 727 F.3d at 707. It is “basic

hornbook” law that parties subject to administrative penalties must be provided


39

with “fair notice” by the regulator. Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1328‐29

(D.C. Cir. 1995).

The district court failed to give binding effect to TDEC’s regulatory

decisions documented in “the Gallatin Plant’s NPDES permit and accompanying

materials.” (RE258, PageID#10539.) The court faulted the Permit for not

including a more “stringent, unambiguous, and comprehensive framework for

addressing those seeps or any other leaks” and then unilaterally imposed an ultra

vires fix to the problem it had manufactured. (Id.) But under the interrelated

collateral attack and permit shield doctrines, it is precisely TDEC’s informed and

documented decision not to impose explicit conditions for groundwater flows,

despite its awareness of their likelihood, that relieves TVA of “having to litigate in

an enforcement action the question whether [its] permit[] [is] sufficiently strict.”

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 138 n.28 (1977); see also

45 Fed. Reg. 33,290, 33,312 (codified at 40 C.F.R § 122.5) (“If a plaintiff in such a

[citizen] suit argued that regulatory requirements outside the conditions of the

permit should be applied and enforced, that would probably amount to an improper

collateral attack on the conditions of the permit.”).


40

A. TDEC’s Decision that the Non-Registered Site Should Be Regulated as Solid Waste, Not as a CWA Point Source, Cannot Be Collaterally Attacked in a Citizen Suit.

Since the mid-1990s, TDEC’s Division of Solid Waste Management has

regulated the NRS commensurate with TDEC’s standards for Class II Industrial

Landfills, including groundwater monitoring. (Permit, RE1-2, PageID#106.) The

permit record further shows that TDEC knew that the NRS “likely has some

seeps.” (TDEC Email, JX137 (App.6).) During the public comment period,

environmental groups asserted that the Permit should address seeps and

groundwater migration at the NRS. (EIP Letter, JX150 (App.7) at 15-16); Trial

Tr.(Vol. 2), RE235, PageID##9031-32.) But, as documented in the Addendum to

Rationale, TDEC elected to continue regulating groundwater conditions at the NRS

under its RCRA solid waste program instead of establishing NPDES permit

conditions. (Permit, RE1-2, PageID##105-06.)

During the permit term, TDEC’s express decision to regulate the NRS as

solid waste is not subject to collateral attack through a CWA citizen suit. Gen.

Motors Corp. v. EPA, 168 F.3d 1377, 1382–83 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (the CWA

precludes a collateral attack on a state-issued NPDES permit in a federal

enforcement proceeding). The district court legally erred by holding otherwise,

stating that the Permit did not authorize discharges from the NRS and proceeding

no further. (RE258, PageID#10520.)


41

The district court had no authority to override TDEC’s informed decision

not to regulate the NRS through Gallatin’s Permit, especially where, as here,

Plaintiffs voluntarily abandoned their permit appeal on this issue. See supra p.14.

A citizen-suit cannot be used to re-litigate this issue.

The decision in Amigos Bravos v. Molycorp, Inc., No. 97-2327, 1998 WL

792159, at *4 (10th Cir. Nov. 13, 1998), is on point. There, the court held that “the

CWA’s citizen suit provisions” could not be used to challenge the “discharge of

pollutants from [permittee’s] rock waste piles without an NPDES waste permit”

where EPA determined that seeps from the waste piles to hydrologically connected

groundwater were not point sources under the NPDES program and the plaintiffs

failed to appeal EPA’s permitting decision. See also Potter v. ASARCO Inc.,

No. 8:96CV555, 1999 WL 33537055, at *5 (D. Neb. Apr. 23, 1999) (failure to

appeal the permit issuance “divests this court of jurisdiction to collaterally review

the director’s NPDES permit decision”).

The district court’s erroneous conclusion that the NRS is a point source only

confused matters more. Viewing the NRS as “discernable, discrete, and confined”

(RE258, PageID#10510), the district court wrongly concluded that the NRS meets

“the definition of ‘point source’ because TVA has channeled the flow of pollutants

themselves . . . by forming a discrete, unlined concentration of coal ash” (id.

PageID#10509).


42

The district court’s analysis is backwards; it is the conveyance—not the

source of the pollutants—which must be discernable, discrete, and confined to

qualify as a point source. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14); S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 541

U.S. at 105; see also supra p.25 (discussing definition of point source).

Similarly flawed is the reasoning that the NRS is a conveyance because it is

“unlined and leaking pollutants” (RE258, PageID#10511), where the only

identified transport mechanism for pollutants is “infiltration by outside water” (id.

PageID#10509). Plaintiffs’ witness conceded that, by 1973, the NRS “had been

drained of liquids” (Trial Tr.(Vol. 1), RE234, PageID#8932), and that following

closure in 1998, the NRS “is no longer designed to hold an accumulation of liquid”

(id. PageID#8933). Simply put, there is no contained or impounded water to leak;

only acres of tree-covered ground above stored solid waste.27

The district court found that “rainwater vertically penetrating the Site, [and]

groundwater laterally penetrating the Site” caused the “leakage.” (RE258,

PageID#10521). But rainwater and groundwater cannot “fairly be described as a

‘discernible, confined and discrete conveyance.’” Tri-Realty Co. v. Ursinus Coll.,

No. 11-5885, 2013 WL 6164092, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2013). Instead,

rainwater and groundwater migration constitute nonpoint source pollution.

27 See supra p.8 (NRS image).


43

Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2010);

Simsbury-Avon Pres. Soc’y, LLC v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc., 575 F.3d 199, 220-21

(2d Cir. 2009) (discussing “EPA’s guidance on nonpoint source pollution”); Ky.

Waterways, 2017 WL 6628917, at *10-11.28

B. Because TDEC Reasonably Contemplated Karst-Related Leakage From the Ash Pond Complex Yet Chose Not to Establish NPDES Permit Conditions, the CWA’s Permit Shield Applies.

As for the Complex, liability is precluded by operation of the CWA’s permit

shield, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k). This Court has held that the permit shield “insulates

permit holders from liability for certain discharges of pollutants that the permit

does not explicitly mention.” ICG Hazard, 781 F.3d at 285. The permit shield

applies if (1) the discharge at issue is disclosed to the permitting authority during

the permitting process, and (2) was within the permitting authority’s reasonable

contemplation at the time the permit was issued. Id. at 290.

Moreover, the permit shield applies to discharges of pollutants which the

“‘administrative record explicitly identif[ies] as controlled through indicator

parameters’” and to discharges for which no specific limits or conditions are

established but are documented “‘in the administrative record which is available to

28 See also EPA, What is Nonpoint Source? (explaining that nonpoint source pollution includes “seepage . . . caused by rainfall . . . moving over or through the ground”), https://www.epa.gov/nps/what-nonpoint-source (last visited Jan. 30, 2018).


44

the public.’” Sierra Club v. ICG Hazard, LLC, No. 6:11-cv-00148-GFVT-HAI,

2012 WL 4601012, at *6 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2012) (quoting EPA’s Revised Policy

Statement on Scope of Discharge Authorization and Shield Associated with

NPDES Permits, at 2-3 (1995)), aff’d, 781 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2015). And this

Court has ruled that “post-issuance evidence,” too, can demonstrate that the alleged

unlawful discharges were within the regulator’s reasonable contemplation during

NPDES permitting. ICG Hazard, 781 F.3d at 290.

The district court failed to undertake this analysis. In a mere three

sentences, the district court found the permit shield inapplicable to karst-related

leaks (defined post-trial as seeps of coal ash leachate from the Complex involving

flow through a karst feature anywhere along the path to the River).29 The district

court reasoned that TDEC contemplated only “minor” dike seepage which already

had been dismissed as non-actionable pursuant to the diligent prosecution bar,

effectively conflating its earlier diligent prosecution ruling with its post-trial permit

shield ruling. (RE258, PageID#10532.)

This finding was clear error. The district court ignored the undisputed

evidence showing that, during the Permit reissuance process, TDEC affirmatively

29 It bears repeating that the factual predicate for the district court’s rejection of the permit shield has no evidentiary basis because, as the district court found, Plaintiffs were “unable to identify specific sinkholes or other leaking karst features in the Ash Pond Complex in the present day.” (RE258, PageID#10526.)


45

considered the possibility of leaks through karst features from the Complex to

groundwater hydrologically connected to the Cumberland River but chose not to

prohibit such “intended” discharges or to impose NPDES permit conditions. Such

evidence includes:

TDEC’s internal email from September 2010 (JX137 (App.6))

referencing the 2009 Stantec report documenting leakage from the

Complex through karst features in the 1970s (Stantec Report, RE164-17,

PageID##6704, 6707, 6710, 6714, 6720);

The June 2011 letter from Plaintiff TCWN and other environmental

groups to TDEC commenting on the draft NPDES permit and pointing

TDEC to a 2010 Stantec report. (JX150 (App.7) at 15 & n.62.) That

report again documented a history of karst-related leaks from the

Complex and attempted repairs thereto (Stantec Report, JX67 (App.8) at

8)), and acknowledged that it is not possible to design a facility to

eliminate karst-related problems (id. at 29);

The Permit’s Addendum to Rationale containing TDEC’s documented

response to the environmental groups’ comments about pollutant

migration through groundwater and its decision that “no NPDES permit

conditions are established” (Permit, RE1-2, PageID##105-06);


46

Mr. Janjic’s testimony that the Addendum to Rationale “is a part of

[TDEC’s] overall understanding and knowledge of what is happening at

the facility” (Trial Tr.(Vol. 2), RE235, PageID#9027), and his agreement

that it documented TDEC’s decision not to impose NPDES permit

conditions for groundwater migration at the Complex (id.

PageID##9031-32);

Mr. Janjic’s confirmation of TDEC’s permitting approach that known

and contemplated seepage is not explicitly “authorized or identified in an

NPDES permit” (id. PageID#9020); and

The 2014 public record comments from Mr. Quarles objecting to

TDEC’s decision to issue a solid waste permit authorizing coal ash

leachate from a new CCR landfill to be routed to the Complex given the

history of leakage through karst features and the uncertainty as to

whether sinkhole leakage had been completely eliminated. TDEC

responded that “the reason for plugging any of the sinkholes was to

slow down the discharge rate of treated water to surface and

subsurface water, not to stop the intended slow discharge.” (Trial

Tr.(Vol. 1), RE234, PageID8960).30

30 See supra pp.12-13 and note 12.


47

All of this evidence, discounted by the district court, confirms that TDEC

affirmatively contemplated groundwater flows from the Complex, including karst-

related leaks. Rather than limiting or prohibiting these “intended slow discharges”

through the establishment of NPDES permit conditions, the Addendum to

Rationale documents TDEC’s decision to assess and monitor the potential effects

of any groundwater loadings on the Cumberland River through a biannual

Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index. (Permit, RE1-2, PageID#106.)

The district court’s analysis paid little heed to the permit record, wrongly

focused on the lack of explicit Permit authorization, and in apparent reliance on the

testimony of TDEC’s Mr. Janjic and Plaintiffs’ witness, Mr. Sulkin, disregarded

the legal effect of the Addendum to Rationale. It is precisely the “explanation of

the reasoning and process behind” (RE258, PageID#10453) TDEC’s regulatory

choices that reveals TDEC’s permitting approach, what discharges TDEC

reasonably contemplated, and thus, the scope of the permit shield.31 See ICG

Hazard, 781 F.3d at 285.

31 (See RE258, PageID#10453 (“Janjic repeatedly stressed that the addendum to rationale was distinct from the permit and was not itself an ‘enforceable’ legal document, but rather merely an explanation of the reasoning and process behind the actually enforceable terms of the permit.”); id. PageID#10458 (“Sulkin’s characterization of the relationship between an NPDES permit and its rationale mirrored Janjic’s . . . .”).) The district court erred in relying on these statements because they are inconsistent with the legal purpose of the Addendum to Rationale, see 40 C.F.R. § 124.8(a); Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0400-40-05-.02(72), and they


48

Accordingly, the permit shield applies because TDEC “was aware of the

potential for [the contested] discharges,” id. at 283, the “permit included a

provision recognizing that possibility,” id., and TDEC “declined to otherwise

impose additional” permit limits or conditions, id. at 290. In ICG Hazard, the

regulator relied on a one-time monitoring provision “to determine whether

selenium levels in surrounding bodies of water were within acceptable levels.” Id.

at 283. In the Gallatin Permit, TDEC relied on an analogous monitoring

requirement: the biannual Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index.

In sum, TDEC’s permitting approach for the Complex—not explicitly

authorizing the potential for known and reasonably contemplated karst-related

leakage—is precisely the situation governed by the permit shield. See ICG

Hazard, 781 F.3d at 285; accord Williams Pipe Line Co. v. Bayer Corp., 964 F.

Supp. 1300, 1326 (S.D. Iowa 1997) (applying the CWA’s permit shield because,

“[u]nder the facts of this case, where Williams already has a permit covering

discharges from the swamp, the Court holds Congress did not intend for seepages

from the swamp to require a separate permit”).

(. . . continued) simply miss the mark: “compliance is a broader concept than merely obeying the express restrictions set forth on the face of the NPDES permit.” Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. Cnty. Comm’rs of Carroll Cnty., 268 F.3d 255, 269 (4th Cir. 2001).


49

C. TVA Complied with the Permit’s Removed Substances and Sanitary Sewer Overflow Provisions.

For three reasons, the district court erred in holding that TVA violated the

Permit’s Removed Substances provision (Part 1.A.(c)) and its Sanitary Sewer

Overflow provision (Part II.C.(3.b). (RE258, PageID##10532-34.)

First, these holdings necessarily turn on the district court’s erroneous

conclusion that TDEC did not reasonably contemplate leaks through karst features.

(Id.) But that conclusion, as demonstrated above, cannot stand. And the Permit’s

administrative record proves as much. Logically, if TDEC had interpreted specific

Permit provisions to prohibit migration of pollutants through groundwater, there

would have been no need for TDEC to explain publicly in the Addendum to

Rationale why no permit conditions were established. (Permit, RE1-2,

PageID##105-06.) Instead, TDEC could have stated that all leaks or discharges to

groundwater would be prohibited by Permit provisions Part I.A(c) or Part II.C(3.b)

or both.

Second, TDEC has conducted two NPDES Compliance Evaluation

Inspections during the permit term and has found TVA in compliance each time.

(NPDES Inspection Record (2014), JX 248 (App.9); NPDES Inspection Report,

JX249 (App.10); Compliance Evaluation Inspection Letter, JX250 (App.11) at 3.)

Third, permits are interpreted like contracts. Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. City of

Portland, 56 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1995). And the plain language of these two


50

provisions shows that they do not apply to karst-related leaks from the Complex.

By its terms, Part I.A(c) is an “[a]dditional monitoring requirement[] and

condition[] applicable to Outfalls 001, 002 and 004.” (Permit, RE1-2, PageID#68.)

By definition, karst-related leaks are not discharges from “Outfalls 001, 002, and

004.” Therefore, this provision is inapplicable on its face. Also, Permit Part I.A(c)

provides that “[s]ludge or any other material removed by any treatment works must

be disposed of in a manner, which prevents its entrance into or pollution of any

surface or subsurface waters.” (Id.) But liquid discharges that pass through karst-

related leaks are not “material removed by any treatment works.” (Id.)

Permit Part II.C(3.b), which prohibits Sanitary Sewer Overflows, also cannot

be reasonably read to cover karst-related leaks. This provision prohibits “the

discharge to land or water of wastes from any portion of the collection,

transmission, or treatment system other than through permitted outfalls.” (Permit,

RE1-2, PageID#79.) A Sanitary Sewer Overflow normally is interpreted as

involving “[a]n untreated or partially treated sewage release from a sanitary sewer

system.” (EPA Report, JX 252 (App.12) at GL-4, ES-2, 1-2 to 1-3).) And the

EPA Permit Writer’s Manual states that “occasional, unintentional spills of raw

sewage from municipal sanitary sewers occur in almost every system. Such types

of releases are called sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)).” (NPDES Permit Writer’s

Manual, JX 251 (App.13) at 2-8).)


51

TDEC’s Mr. Janjic testified that the Permit’s definition of Sanitary Sewer

Overflow is intended to mirror the language in the EPA Permit Writer’s Manual.

(Trial Tr.(Vol. 2), RE235, PageID##9035-37.) The district court ignored both the

plain meaning of sewage and this testimony, erroneously interpreting this sewage

overflow provision to bar the contemplated karst-related leaks from the Complex.

(RE258, PageID#10534.)

III. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING COMPLETE

EXCAVATION OF THE ASH POND COMPLEX AND THE NON-REGISTERED

SITE. The district court’s injunction ordering complete excavation and removal of

13.8 million cubic yards of coal ash from Gallatin cannot stand. Plaintiffs proved

no harm to the Cumberland River; therefore, the district court presumed

irreparable injury based on its finding of a bare statutory violation. This is a per se

abuse of discretion. Further, the district court failed to properly balance the

equities: given the costs involved and the likelihood that excavation and removal

will pose greater risk of harm to the environment and to the public than closure in

place, the extreme remedy ordered by the district court should be vacated.

A. The District Court’s Presumption of Irreparable Injury Constituted a Per Se Abuse of Discretion.

To justify injunctive relief, a district court must find: (1) an irreparable

injury; (2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that

injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and


52

defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would

not be disserved by an injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388,

391 (2006). These traditional equitable standards apply with equal force in a CWA

citizen suit. See Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 320 (1982); Amoco

Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987); Natural Res. Def. Council,

Inc., v. Texaco Refining & Mktg., Inc., 906 F.2d 934, 939 (3d Cir. 1990) (noting

that “Romero-Barcelo and Amoco [have been interpreted] to require a district court

to apply the traditional equitable standard before granting an injunction in [CWA]

cases”) (italics in original).

The Supreme Court has clarified that the “irreparable injury” factor is not

satisfied by “the bare fact of a statutory violation” in a CWA case. Romero-

Barcelo, 456 U.S. at 314; accord Texaco, 906 F.2d at 941 (district court appeared

to “erroneously presume[] irreparable harm from the mere fact of statutory

violation”); Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 648, 653 (2d Cir. 1989)

(“[I]rreparable injury must be proved, not assumed, and may not be postulated eo

ipso on the basis of procedural violations of NEPA.”).

The district court’s irreparable harm finding conflicts directly with the

Court’s admonition. The district court presumed irreparable harm even though

Plaintiffs failed to show any harm to the Cumberland River. (See RE258,

PageID#10537 (“The strict liability regime adopted by Congress makes clear that


53

unauthorized contamination itself is a harm warranting remediation.”).)

Because it applied the wrong legal standard at the crucial first step in the analysis,

the injunction must be vacated because the district court “by definition” abused its

discretion. Koon, 518 U.S. at 100; see also eBay Inc., 547 U.S. at 394 (finding that

misapplication of the traditional analytical framework constituted an abuse of

discretion); First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641, 647 (6th Cir.

1993) (same).

Moreover, no trial evidence established an irreparable injury to the

Cumberland River or to Plaintiffs. The State of Tennessee’s 303(d) lists for 2014

and 2016 do not list the Cumberland River as impaired, meaning that it meets all

applicable state water quality standards. (JX260 (App.14) at 1-3, 22-24; JX261

(App.15) at 1-3, 25-27.) This is corroborated by water quality information

compiled by the Corps of Engineers (JX 262 (App.16), 19-24; JX 263 (App.17),

6-10), and a wealth of data published by local utilities regarding drinking water

sourced from the Cumberland River/Old Hickory Lake downstream from Gallatin

(Municipal Water Quality Reports, JX 255-59 (Apps.18-22)).

The district court itself acknowledged that “the evidence is scant of concrete

harm beyond mere risk and the presence of pollutants in and of itself” (RE258,

PageID#10535); that “[t]he record is . . . largely bereft of evidence that would lead

the Court to conclude that TVA’s violations are particularly severe, in terms of the


54

harm done or the amount of pollutants released” (id.); and that “[t]he

contamination from the Gallatin Plant has, at least in recent years, apparently been

mild” (id. PageID#10538).

Recognizing “the inconclusive nature of the sampling” evidence proffered at

trial, the district court resuscitated Plaintiffs’ case with its own suppositions,

concluding that even though Plaintiffs demonstrated no actual harm to the

Cumberland River, “the evidence of the pond’s leak-prone construction and history

carries the day.” (Id. PageID#10530.) And the district court imposed an

injunction based on this speculative evidence, even though TDEC possessed the

same evidence when it reissued the Permit over the protest of Plaintiff TCWN and

other environmental groups, see supra Part II; and even though—for the small

amounts of contamination that were observed in the “inconclusive” sampling—it

proved impossible to disentangle the effects of known past leaks (that had already

been repaired) from any present leakage (see RE258, PageID#10529-30).

In short, the record below contains no evidence of current harm sufficient to

warrant complete excavation of the Complex/NRS; instead, the district court

imposed this remedy based on hydrogeological generalities and hypothetical

musings about what problems might arise in the future (but have never been

demonstrated despite 60 years of continuous operation).


55

Equity requires quantifiable evidence of irreparable harm to the Cumberland

River—the navigable water supplying CWA jurisdiction here—before ordering

such a harsh and costly remedy. And there is no record evidence suggesting that

the seepage or leakage of coal ash leachate comes anywhere close to the expressly-

permitted 27 million gallons of treated wastewater discharges from Outfall 001,

which TDEC has already determined would not cause environmental harm or pose

a risk to human health or safety.32 (RE1-2, PageID#106.)

An injunction should not be imposed “to restrain an act the injurious

consequences of which are merely trifling.” Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. at 311

(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d

1523, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996) (declining to abate unpermitted discharges when

discharges “were minimal and posed no risk to human health”). Because Plaintiffs

failed to prove the required irreparable harm component, the district court abused

its discretion in ordering injunctive relief, an error all the more egregious given the

court’s extreme “excavate and relocate” remedy.

32 The district court disregarded TDEC’s determination that the permitted effluent discharges from the ash pond “do not cause or contribute to aquatic toxicity” (Permit, RE1-2, PageID#102), and that “actual effluent concentrations are substantially lower than the projected concentration which would cause aquatic toxicity.” (Id.) (underlining in original)).


56

B. The District Court Abused Its Discretion in Failing to Balance the Hardships and to Weigh the Multifaceted Public Interests at Stake.

“An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion; it does not follow from

success on the merits as a matter of course.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008). Beyond assuming irreparable injury, the district court

likewise abused its discretion by ordering complete excavation to remedy

unquantified seepage of CCR leachate without balancing the public’s interest in

reasonable electricity rates; the likelihood of environmental harm from the

excavation itself; or how excavation will interfere with TVA’s independent legal

obligations under the CCR Rule.

Injunctive relief “should be no more burdensome to the defendant than

necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d

259, 273 (6th Cir. 2003); accord Kentuckians for Commonwealth v. Rivenburgh,

317 F.3d 425, 436 (4th Cir. 2003) (vacating injunction because it was “broader in

scope than that necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiff” and did “not

carefully address only the circumstances of the case”) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Here, as demonstrated by the evidence at trial, the burden imposed by

the district court’s harsh remedy far outweighs any benefit and is not narrowly

tailored to the circumstances of this case.


57

“The congressional policy regarding the sale of electricity by the TVA . . . is

to ‘permit domestic and rural use at the lowest possible rates.’” Matthews v. Town

of Greeneville, 932 F.2d 968, 1991 WL 71414, at *1 (6th Cir. 1991) (alteration

omitted) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 831j). Tennessee Valley residents who purchase the

electricity generated by TVA at facilities such as Gallatin thus have a statutorily-

protected interest in reasonable electricity rates.

The district court abused its discretion by engaging in no balancing

whatsoever between this competing interest and the public’s interest in remedying

unspecified and unproven amounts of pollution in the Cumberland River. The

district court’s “balancing” consists of a single sentence proclaiming that the

remedy of complete excavation “would . . . plainly be in the public interest, and it

is only appropriate that TVA . . . shoulder the cost.” (RE258, PageID#10537.)

Yet the evidence at trial established that excavation and removal offsite

could cost as much as $2 billion and that the full cost would be borne by TVA’s

ratepayers.33 (Trial Tr.(Vol. 4), RE237, PageID#9521.) The district court’s

omission of the ratepayers’ burden shows that it failed to “give serious

33 In contrast, closure-in-place at Gallatin is estimated to cost approximately $200 million. (Trial Tr.(Vol. 4), RE237, PageID##9520-21.) Another alternative not discussed at trial (and that would have to be approved, permitted, and constructed) is removal and relocation to a new onsite landfill, which TVA estimates would still cost three times as much as closure-in-place. (Proposed Compliance Timetable, RE268, PageID#10883.)


58

consideration to the public interest factor.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 26-27 (internal

quotation marks omitted) (finding that the district court abused its discretion by

addressing competing interests in one sentence and “in only a cursory fashion”).

Another glaring deficiency in the district court’s analysis was its failure to

consider, or even mention, the CCR Rule, which establishes “nationally applicable

minimum criteria for the safe disposal of [CCR] in landfills and surface

impoundments,” 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302, 21,303. The CCR Rule provides two

alternative closure methods—closure-by-removal or closure-in-place,34 see 40

C.F.R. § 257.102—and “the final rule allows the owner or operator to determine

. . . [which closure method] is appropriate for their particular unit.” 80 Fed. Reg.

21,302, 21,412. EPA has acknowledged that “most facilities will likely not [close

by removal] given the expense and difficulty” and that both methods “can be

equally protective, provided they are conducted properly.” Id.

As required by law,35 a qualified professional engineer has certified that

TVA’s published plan to perform closure-in-place at Gallatin meets the

requirements of the CCR Rule. (Closure Plan, JX190 (App.25) at 2.) This same

34 Closure-in-place involves dewatering an impoundment and capping it with a geosynthetic liner, borrow material, soil, and vegetation to prevent water from flowing into and through it. (See, e.g., Trial Tr.(Vol. 4), RE237, PageID#9515.) 35 See 40 C.F.R. § 257.102(b)(4), (d)(3)(iii).


59

professional engineer, Gabe Lang, offered unrebutted testimony that closure-in-

place will meet the CCR Rule’s closure performance standards, 40 C.F.R. §

257.102(d), and is sufficient to address the groundwater flows at issue here.

(RE229-1, PageID#8565-79.) See also 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302, 21,342 (“Dewatered

CCR surface impoundments will no longer be subjected to hydraulic head so the

risk of releases, including the risk that the unit will leach into the groundwater,

would be no greater than those from CCR landfills.”).

Mr. Lang also concluded that closure-by-removal is not feasible because,

due to the sheer size of the Complex, closure-by removal would present significant

environmental and engineering challenges and would preclude completion of

closure within the timeframe allowed by the CCR Rule.36 (Lang Direct Test.,

RE229-1, PageID##8579-80.) Mr. Lang testified that he was “unaware of any

completed ash relocation projects of this magnitude.” (Id.) Mr. Lang also testified

that excavation would greatly increase the risk of sinkhole formation and the

possibility that more CCR leachate could reach groundwater. (RE258,

PageID##10480-83.) Plaintiffs failed to rebut Mr. Lang’s testimony. In fact,

Plaintiffs offered no affirmative evidence showing that closure-in-place would not

36 For CCR surface impoundments over 40 acres (such as the Complex), closure must be completed within 15 years of commencing closure activities (an initial five-year period with the possibility for a maximum of five two-year extensions). 40 C.F.R. § 257.102(f)(1)(ii), (2)(i)-(ii).


60

meet the requirements of CCR Rule or, conversely, that closure-by-removal would

meet the requirements of the CCR Rule “consistent with recognized and generally

accepted good engineering practices.” 40 C.F.R. § 257.102(b)(1).37

The district court’s failure to properly credit TVA’s expert testimony and

related evidence, which was based upon knowledge acquired through years of

experience at the Gallatin site, constituted an abuse of discretion. Cf. Winter, 555

U.S. at 28 (concluding that the lower courts did not give sufficient weight to

governmental officials’ testimony regarding the effect of preliminary injunction on

naval training).

The district court similarly erred because it failed to weigh the competing

environmental and safety concerns that inevitably accompany a project of this

magnitude.38 TVA’s Environmental Impact Statement studying CCR Rule closure

alternatives for its ash ponds determined that, as compared to closure-by-removal,

closure-in-place “would have fewer overall adverse environmental impacts.”

(Record of Decision, JX268 (App.23) at 8.) The reasons supporting this

determination included the extraordinary volume of truck activity that would be

required to effectuate closure-by-removal to an offsite landfill (see TVA EIS, 37 Nor were Plaintiffs’ trial witnesses qualified to present this type of testimony. (See Trial Tr.(Vol.1), RE234, PageID##8827-29, 8949-50.) 38 The project area for excavation and removal is massive (approximately 541 acres). (See generally Unmanned Aerial System Video, DX61 (App.3).)


61

JX266 (App.24) at 46; Trial Tr.(Vol. 3), RE236, PageID#9330), deleterious

impacts on the environment (see TVA EIS, JX266 (App.24) at 46, 107-08, 110-16,

119, 128-29, 133-36), and adverse impacts on worker-related and transportation-

related health and safety (see id. at 113-16, 135). The decision below weighed

none of these considerations.

The district court’s order of closure-by-removal through an injunction

imposed under the CWA countermands EPA’s regulatory conclusion that closure-

in-place is an acceptable option. The injunction also sets in motion a decades-long

process fraught with engineering and environmental challenges that will cause

TVA to run afoul of EPA’s mandate that closure be completed “consistent with

recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices,” 40 C.F.R.

§ 257.102(b)(1), and within the maximum allowable timeframe (i.e., 15 years

including extensions), id. § 257.102(f)(1)(ii), (2)(i)-(ii). As TVA informed the

district court in its Proposed Timetable for Compliance with the injunction, it is

estimated to take “24 years for completion of excavation and disposal [which] does

not achieve closure within the timeframe required” by the CCR Rule. (RE268,

PageID#10883.)

In a related misstep, although recognizing that “TVA appears to have been at

least working towards resolving some or all of its ash pond problems, often with

direct involvement of TDEC itself” (RE258, PageID#10536), the district court did


62

not consider how its injunction might interfere with the ongoing remediation

process in the parallel state enforcement action. Cf. Ellis v. Gallatin Steel Co., 390

F.3d 461, 476-77 (6th Cir. 2004) (reversing award of injunctive relief in a Clean

Air Act citizen suit when ongoing activities under an EPA consent decree

addressed same harm and plaintiffs sought to obtain relief “on more stringent

terms” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

In sum, the district court’s cursory analysis is wholly insufficient to support

the draconian injunction ordered. If this Court declines to reverse on the merits, at

a minimum, it should vacate the injunction and remand to the district court with

instructions to fashion a remedy tailored to the facts and circumstances of this case,

including TVA’s obligations under the CCR Rule and the ongoing state

enforcement action.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court should be

reversed, and judgment should be entered in favor of TVA. Alternatively, the

district court’s injunction should be vacated and the case remanded for the district

court to reconsider whether an injunction should issue.


63

Respectfully submitted, s/David D. Ayliffe David D. Ayliffe Associate General Counsel James S. Chase, Senior Attorney F. Regina Koho, Attorney Lane E. McCarty, Attorney Office of the General Counsel 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1401 Telephone 865.632.8964 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Tennessee Valley Authority


64

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the foregoing brief complies with the type-volume limitation of

Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because it contains 12,876 words excluding the parts

of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), and complies with the typeface

requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R.

App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared using Word 2010 in Times New

Roman (14 point) proportional type.

s/David D. Ayliffe David D. Ayliffe Attorney for Defendant-Appellant Tennessee Valley Authority


65

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 30, 2018, the foregoing document was electronically

filed and served by operation of the Court’s CM/ECF system on the following

attorneys of record for Plaintiffs-Appellees in this matter:

Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq. Anne E. Passino, Esq. Southern Environmental Law Center 2 Victory Avenue, Suite 500 Nashville, Tennessee 37213 Telephone 615.921.9470 [email protected] Frank S. Holleman III, Esq. Southern Environmental Law Center 601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Telephone 919.967.1450 [email protected] Jonathan Gendzier, Esq. Southern Environmental Law Center 103 East Water Street, Suite 201 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434.977.4090 [email protected]

Shelby Renee Burks Ward, Esq. Tennessee Clean Water Network 625 Market Street, 8th Floor Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Telephone 865.522.7007 [email protected] Michael S. Kelley, Esq. Kennerly Montgomery Finely, P.C. 550 Main Street, 4th Floor Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Telephone 865.546.7311 [email protected]

59132176

s/David D. Ayliffe Attorney for Defendant-Appellant Tennessee Valley Authority


66

ADDENDUM

APPELLANT’S DESIGNATION OF RELEVANT

DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENTS

Record Entry

Date Document Description Page ID #

Range

RE1 Apr. 14,

2015 Complaint 1-54

RE1-2 Jun. 26,

2012 NPDES Permit No. TN0005428 57-157

RE12 Jun. 15,

2015 TVA’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

252-253

RE13 Jun. 15,

2015 TVA’s Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

254-278

RE13-1 Aug. 3, 2012

Amended Petition for Statutory Appeal (Tenn. Bd. of Water Quality)

279-306

RE24 Jul. 28, 2015

Reply to Response to Motion re: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Tennessee Valley Authority

749-767

RE51 Mar. 3, 2016

TVA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to All Plaintiffs’ Claims Regarding Seeps

1607-1609

RE52 Mar. 3, 2016

Memorandum in Support of TVA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to All Plaintiffs’ Claims Regarding Seeps

1610-1631

RE52-1 Dec. 19,

2013

Petitioners’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Certain Claims (Tenn. Bd. of Water Quality)

1632-1635

RE52-2 Sep. 11,

1997

Amigos Bravos v. Molycorp, Inc., No. CIV 95-1497 JP/DJS, Mem. Op. & Order (D.N.M. Sep. 11, 1997)

1636-1641

RE58-15 Apr. 30,

1976

EPA-issued NPDES permit for TVA Gallatin Fossil Plant (Permit No. TN0005428)

1855-1882


67

Record Entry


Range

RE65 Apr. 5, 2016

Reply to Response to TVA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to All Plaintiffs’ Claims Regarding Seeps

2110-2120

RE102 Jun. 24,

2016 TVA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Claim E

3736-3738

RE103 Jun. 24,

2016

Memorandum in Support of TVA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Claim E

3739-3791

RE127 Aug. 4, 2016

Reply to Response to TVA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Claim E

4872-4897

RE139 Sep. 9, 2016

Memorandum Opinion, Tenn. Clean Water Network v. TVA, 206 F. Supp. 3d 1280 (M.D. Tenn. 2016).

5327-5368

RE140 Sep. 9, 2016

Order re: Sept. 9, 2016 Memorandum Opinion

5369-5370

RE148 Nov. 18,

2016

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Pretrial) by Tennessee Valley Authority

5391-5478

RE164-17 June 2009 Stantec, TVA Disposal Facility Assessment, Phase 1 Plant Summary, Gallatin Fossil Plant

6699-6752

RE215 Jan. 23,

2017 Pretrial Order 8047-8060

RE226 Jan. 27,

2017 Joint Stipulation of Facts 8324-8329

RE229-1 Jan. 31,

2017 Direct Testimony Statement of Gabriel Lang

8554-8584

RE229-2 Jan. 31,

2017 Direct Testimony Statement of Walter Kutschke

8585-8600

RE230-1 Feb. 1, 2017

Direct Testimony Statement of Elizabeth Perry

8677-8698

RE230-2 Feb. 1, 2017

Direct Testimony Statement of John Kammeyer

8699-8714

RE234 Jan. 30,

2017 Trial Transcript, Vol. 1 8742-8972


68

Record Entry


Range

RE235 Jan. 31,

2017 Trial Transcript, Vol. 2 8973-9196

RE236 Feb. 1, 2017

Trial Transcript, Vol. 3 9197-9407

RE237 Feb. 2, 2017

Trial Transcript, Vol. 4 9408-9576

RE238 Feb. 27,

2017 Revised Exhibit and Witness List 9577-9591

RE242 Apr. 14,

2017

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Post-Trial) by Tennessee Valley Authority

9627-9772

RE243 Apr. 14,

2017 Trial Brief (Post-Trial) by Tennessee Valley Authority

9861-9888

RE258 Aug. 4, 2017

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Tenn. Clean Water Network v. TVA, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2017 WL 3476069 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 4, 2017).

10420-10542

RE259 Aug. 4, 2017

Order re: District Court’s Aug. 4, 2017 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

10543-10544

RE260 Aug. 4, 2017

Entry of Judgment 10545

RE268 Sep. 5, 2017

Notice of Filing of Proposed Timetable for Compliance with the Court’s August 4, 2017 Order

10876-10885

RE281 Oct. 2, 2017

Notice of Appeal by Tennessee Valley Authority

11016-11019

RE238 Trial Exhibits

Documents listed on the Appendix

have been submitted to the Court on disc.39

39 See supra p.5 note 5.


69

FRAP 28(f) ADDENDUM DOCUMENTS

No. Document Description 1. Water Pollution Control Legislation – 1971 (Proposed Amendments to

Existing Legislation): Hearings before H. Comm. on Pub. Works, 92nd Cong. 230 (July 20, 1971) (statement of Hon. William Ruckelshaus, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency)

2. 118 Congressional Record 10,666, 10669 (March 28, 1972)


WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION—1971 (Proposed Amendments to Existing Legislation)

(92-16)

HEARINGS • . - B E F O R E T H E ' , " ' ,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES N I N E T Y - S E C O N D C O N G R E S S , • •

F I R S T S E S S I O N • ' .' : •'•

J U L Y 13, 14, 15, 20, 22 , 27, 28, 2 9 ; A U G U S T 2, 3, 4, 5 ; S E P T E M B E R 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 , 21, 22*, 23,'24'; A N D N O V E M B E R 9, 1971

P r i n t e d for t h e u s e of t h e C o m m i t t e e o n P u b l i c W o r k s

06-SH

U . S . G O V E R N M E N T P R I N T I N G O F F I C E

W A S H I N G T O N : 1 9 7 1

70


C O M M I T T E E O N P U B L I C W O R K S

JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota, Chairman

KOBERT E. JONES, Alabama WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Illinois) JAMES R. GROVER, JR. , New York JIM WRIGHT, Texas JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois DON H. CLAUSEN, California PRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania FRED M. SCHWENGEL, Iowa ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California BOGER H. ZION, Indiana W. J. BRYAN DORN, South Carolina JACK H. MCDONALD, Michigan DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Arkansas RAY ROBERTS, Texas CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio JAMES KEE, West Virginia WILMER D. MIZELL, North Carolina JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey JOHN H. TERRY, New York GLENN M. ANDERSON, California CHARLES THONE, Nebraska PATRICK T. CAFFBRY, Louisiana L A M A R BAKER, Tennessee ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey GEORGE W. COLLINS, Illinois TENO RONCALIO, Wyoming NICK BEGICH, Alaska MIKE McCORMACK, Washington . CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York JAMES V. STANTON, Ohio BELLA ABZUG, New York

PROFESSIONAL STAFF RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Chief Counsel

LLOYD A. RIVARD, Engineer-Consultant LESTER EDELMAN, Counsel

CARL H. SCHWARTZ, Jr., Consultant—Projects and Programs JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Administrator

CLIFTON W. ENFIELD, Minority Counsel RICHARD C. PEET, Assistant Minority Counsel

GORDON E. WOOD, Minority Professional Staff Assistant JOSEPH R. BRENNAN, Consultant SHELDON S. GILBERT, Consultant

PETER R. JUTRO, Consultant,

STAFF ASSISTANTS DOROTHY A. BEAM, Executive Staff Assistant

KKLA S. YOUMANS, Minority Executive Staff Assistant

MERIAM R. BUCKLEY PEGGY MCCARTHY STERLYN B . CARROLL TOBY J. STEIN WILLIAM M. CORCORAN CYNTHIA J . VAN SANT R U T H S . COSTELLO

ROSEMAIII E . GAUGHAN RICHARD C. BARNETT ELIZABETH H. KILEY BRENDA G. JONES MACHELB MILLER LINDA L. WILLIAMS

JOSEPH A. ITALIANO, Editorial Assistant ROBERT F. LOFTUS, Technical Staff Assistant

(II)

71


C O N T E N T S

TESTIMONY

Adams, Edmund I., Sparta, N.C., representing Alleghany and Ashe PaR« Countries, N.C 1698

Ahlstrom, Tony and Joel, Trinity College students, Deerfield, 111. -accompanied by Roger Williams, assistant to the president, Trinity College.. 1813

Andrews, Dr. John F., director, environmental systems, engineering department, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C : — '. 1454

Askoff, l ion. Sydney, Chairman, Sewer Committee, Suffolk County Legislature, Long Island, N.Y. ; accompanied by Hon. John M. Plynn, commissioner, Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control, Long Island, N . Y . . . 1 . . . 1 234

Asmuth, James, president, Wisconsin Tissue Mills, Menasha, Wis.; accompanied by David Martin, manager, State and community relations, Kimberly* Clark Corp 1 - 2280

Barton, Weldon,' assistant director of Legislative Services, National Farmers Union '. ' 698

Barry, Francis J., president, Circle Line-Sightseeing Yachts, Inc., and Hudson River Day Line, Inc 366

Batchelor, Thomas M., Jr., county executive, Albermarle County, Va., on behalf of the National Association of Counties; accompanied by Margaret Seeley, legislative representative, National Association of Counties 1145

Benkert, Capt. William M.; acting chief of the Office of Marine Environment and Systems, U:S. Coast Guard; accompanied by Comdr. Daniel Carter, Chief, Environmental Coordination Branch, U.S. Coast Guard.. 1396

Bennett, Hon. Charles E.,' a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 2202

B6rgland, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota - - 972

Bergland, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota; accompanied by Winston C. Larson,, professional engineer, senior partner, Winston C. Larson & Associates, consulting engineers, Detroit Lakes, Minn., and James Ludwig, professor, Bemidji State College, Bemidji, Minn ; 14.3S

Bilandic, Michael, Alderman, Chicago, 111., City Council; accompanied by Walter Poston, commissioner for environmental control; and John Morris, deputy commissioner, Chicago Department of Environmental Control.- 756

Billings, Norman, chairman, Interstate Conference on Water Problems and Assistant Executive Secretary, Michigan State Resources Commission, on behalf of the Interstate Conference on Water Problems; accompanied by Ralph W. Purdy, executive secretary of the Michigan State Water Resources Commission 1361

Black, Charles A., president, American Water Works Association; accompanied by Eric F. Johnson, executive director, and Henry J. Graeser, director, Dallas, Texas Water and Sower Department 386

Boggs, Thomas Hale, Jr., counsel, Boating Industry Association, Washington, D.C.; accompanied by Gordon Arbuckle, counsel, National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers 819

Boo, Hon. Ben, mayor, Duluth, Minn.; accompanied by Hon. Demetrius Jelatis, mayor, Red Wing, Minn., representing the League of Minnesota Municipalities, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors 1408

Bosley, Dr. Patrick G. H. J., country health officer, committee member, Minnesota State Medical Association, Committee on Public Health, member at large, Minnesota Respiratory Association, Balaton, M i n n . . . 2112

Brown, Hon. Clarence J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio 851

(in)

72


IV

B y r d , F l o y d , c h a i r m a n , Water R e s o u r c e s C o m m i t t e e , M a n u f a c t u r i n g C h e m i s t s A s s o c i a t i o n , a c c o m p a n i e d b y G e o r g e P . C h e n e y , Jr. , m e m b e r , M C A W a t e r R e s o u r c e s C o m m i t t e e . - "

B y r d , R i c h a r d C , genera l counsel , I n t e r s t a t e Oil C o m p a c t C o m m i s s i o n C a m p b e l l , Lorne R . , a t t o r n e y a t law, I n d e p e n d e n c e , Va. , counse l for

G r a y s o n C o u n t y S c h o o l B o a r d a n d G r a y s o n Count3 r , V a C a n h a m , R o b e r t A. , e x e c u t i v e secretary , Water P o l l u t i o n Contro l F e d e r a

t ion , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C _ C a r n e y , H o n . Char le s J . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress f rom the S t a t e of

Ohio _ C h a p m a n , Gale , v ice pres ident , U p p e r Miss i s s ippi T o w i n g Corp. , M i n n e a p -

. ol is , M i n n _ _ 1 C l a n c v , H o n . D o n a l d D . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e of

Ohio_ J 1 • C l a p p e r , Loui s S., c o n s e r v a t i o n director , N a t i o n a l Wildlife F e d e r a t i o n ,

W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . . ' ___' C l u s e n , M r s . D o n a l d , cha irman, e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o g r a m a n d projects ,

L e a g u e of W o m e n Voters of the U n i t e d States!_ Cof fey , J o h n J., sen ior as soc ia te for n a t u r a l resources a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l

q u a l i t y , C h a m b e r of C o m m e r c e of t h e U n i t e d , S t a t e s - . ' C o y , L. B e n n e t t , genera l m a n a g e r of t h e M i a m i C o n s e r v a n c y D i s t r i c t ;

a c c o m p a n i e d b y J a m e s F. Clarke , secretary', M i a m i V a l l e y Water Q u a l i t y C o m m i t t e e - _ __. 1 . _ 1

Crawford , W . D o n h a m , pres ident , E d i s o n .Elec tr ic I n s t i t u t e , N e w York , N . Y . ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y Loren J e n s e n , d irector , b io log ica l s t u d i e s , d e p a r t m e n t of g e o g r a p h y a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l eng ineer ing , J o h n s H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y , B a l t i m o r e , M d . ; J o h n A d a m s , m a r i n e b io log i s t , d e p a r t m e n t of p l a n n i n g ' a n d research, Pacif ic . G a s &. E lec tr i c , E m e r y v i l l e , Calif.';

• • H o w a r d D r e w , ' d i r e c t o r of research , T e x a s E l e c t r i c S e r v i c e C o . , F o r t W o r t h , T e x . ; A r t h u r V. D i e n h a r t , v i c e pres ident , eng ineer ing , N o r t h e r n S t a t e s P o w e r C o . , M i n n e a p o l i s , M i n n . ; W i l l i a m S-. Lee, senior v i ce , president", e n g i n e e r i n g and construct ion , , D u k e . P o w e r . C o . , } Charlotte, N . C . ; a n d J o h n A . T i l l inghas t , e x e c u t i v e v i c e pres ident , eng ineer ing a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n , A m e r i c a n E l e c t r i c P o w e r S e r v i c e . C o r p . , N e w York ,

, N.Y ____'____._•_-_;__._-;_--- ......_._'_'___;____ ____. C u n n i n g h a m , C. P . , .general m a n a g e r , I n o r g a n i c C h e m i c a l s D i v i s i o n ,

M o n s a n t o C o . , S t . Louis , M o . ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y Ira D . Hi l l , m a n a g e r , o f research , "and W. R . Corey .

D e v l i n , Gera ld F . , na t iona l r e l a t i o n s officer, S t a t e of M a r y l a n d ; a c c o m -p a n i e d b y M i s s Gai l M o r a n , a s s i s t a n t n a t i o n a l re la t ions officer, S ta te ' of M a r y l a n d , , a n d P a u l W. M c K e e , d irector , D e p a r t m e n t of W a t e r R e s o u r c e s , S t a t e of M a r y l a n d , '__._,_-_ •_. __•

D inge l l , H o n . J o h n D . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e .in Congress from the S t a t e of M i c h i g a n ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y Grant S iver t s , l eg i s la t ive ass i s tant , and Rick

• F e n t b n . . . . . . . . . . . - — D r i n a n , H o n . R o b e r t F . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n Congress from the S t a t e of

M a s s a c h u s e t t s - 1 . — . - . . . . -D u n l a p , M i s s L o u i s e C , leg is lat ive represen ta t ive , Fr iends of the E a r t h . J E c k h a r d t , H o n . B o b , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e of T e x a s . Fogarty- , J o h n , v i ce president , S t e e n B r o t h e r s & Co. , K a n s a s Cit3 r , and

c h a i r m a n , I n v e s t m e n t B a n k e r s Assoc ia t ion of Amer ica , M u n i c i p a l Secur i t i e s Commit tee ' ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y T h o m a s M a s t e r s o n , U n d e r w o o d -'Newha-us and Co. , H o u s t o n , T e x . , and c h a i r m a n I B A M u n i c i p a l Federa l L e g i s l a t i o n C o m m i t t e e , and Dr . J o h n P e t e r s o n , I B A director of M u n i c ipal Serv ice — . . . . — ,;-1

Fraser , H o n . D o n a l d M. , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n Congress from the S t a t e of M i n n e s o t a . . _ _ . i l _

G a m m e l g a r d , P . N . , senior vice pres ident , publ i c and e n v i r o n m e n t a l affairs, A m e r i c a n P e t r o l e u m I n s t i t u t e ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y C l y d e H a m p t o n , chairman A P I A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e of E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w ; and Dr. W i l s c n Laird, Direc tor , A P I C o m m i t t e e on E x p l o r a t i o n '__

G i b b s , Char les V. , pres ident and director , A s s o c i a t i o n of M e t r o p o l i t a n S e w e r a g e Agenc i e s and e x e c u t i v e director, M u n i c i p a l i t y of M e t r o p o l i t a n S e a t t l e ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y B e n S o s e w i t z , director, Assoc ia t ion of M e t r o p o l i t a n S e w e r a g e Agenc ies and Genera l Supt . j M e t r o p o l i t a n S a n i t a r y D i s t r i c t of G r e a t e r Chicago , and Lee C. W h i t e , counse l .

73


http://__.il

V

Gi lbertson, W e s l e y E . , d e p u t y secretary for e n v i r o n m e n t a l pro tec t ion a n d regula t ion , D e p a r t m e n t of E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s o u r c e s , C o m m o n w e a l t h of P e n n s y l v a n i a , on behalf of H o n . M i l t o n S h a p p , Governor , C o m m o n - p w w e a l t h of P e n n s y l v a n i a - 9 9 3

G o t t s t e i n , L e l a n d E . , pres ident , Amer ican P ipe Services , Inc . , M i n n e a p o l i s , M i n n . ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y R o b e r t Pfefferle, director of eng ineer ing ; a n d George B . M c M e n n a m i n , v ice pres ident a n d general m a n a g e r 2 0 5 9

Gude , H o n . Gilbert , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from t h e S t a t e of M a r y land 1 , 6 5 4

Hall , R i c h a r d M. , N a t u r a l Resources D e f e n s e Counci l 1 7 4 5 Ha lpern , H o n . S e y m o u r , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from t h e S t a t e of

N e w York 6 0 9 H a n s o n , J o s e p h P . , A s s i s t a n t D e p u t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r of C o m m u n i t y Pro

grams , F a r m e r s H o m e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C 2 1 0 4 H a r r i n g t o n , H o n . M i c h a e l J., a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e

of M a s s a c h u s e t t s : 7 0 1 Maun, D r . J . Wi l l i am, v ice pres ident a n d director of eng ineer ing , General

Mil l s , Inc . , M i n n e a p o l i s , M i n n . ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y D o n a l d R . T a l b o t t , director of e n v i r o n m e n t a l programs , M a r t i n M a r i e t t a Corp. , B a l t i m o r e , M d . ; a n d D a n i e l W. C a n n o n , director of e n v i r o n m e n t affairs, N a t i o n a l Assoc ia t ion of M a n u f a c t u r e r s , N e w York , N . Y 1 0 8 9

H e n n i g a n , J o h n J., Jr. , pres ident , N e w Y o r k W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l ' Assoc ia t ion a n d d e p u t y c o m m i s s i o n e r of P u b l i c W o r k s for O n o n d a g a C o u n t y , N . Y 3 7 6

H e y e r d a h l , Dr . T h o r ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y D r . Leon W. Weinberger a n d George B o o k b i n d e r 2 2 9 2

Hil l is , Jul ia , a t t o r n e y , Sierra Club , San Franc i sco , Calif 2 2 5 6 H o r t o n , H o n . F r a n k , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress f rom t h e S t a t e of N e w

York 6 1 3 H o u g h t o n , Alfred J. , P u b l i s h i n g director , Water & W a s t e s E n g i n e e r i n g

M a g a z i n e ' 8 8 2 J a c k s o n , H o n . S a m u e l C , A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y for C o m m u n i t y P l a n n i n g

a n d M a n a g e m e n t , D e p a r t m e n t of H o u s i n g a n d U r b a n D e v e l o p m e n t , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C 1943

Janicki , V a l e n t i n e , T r u s t e e M e t r o p o l i t a n S a n i t a r y D i s t r i c t of Greater C h i c a g o ; a c c o m p a n i e d by B e n S o s e w i t z , genera l S u p e r i n t e n d e n t M e t r o po l i tan S a n i t a r y D i s t r i c t of Greater C h i c a g o _ 7 9 1

J o n e s , S. Leary , d irector , D i v i s i o n of W a t e r Q u a l i t y Contro l , T e n n e s s e e D e p a r t m e n t of P u b l i c H e a l t h ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y H o n . R o y Albr ight , S t a t e s ena tor , C h a t t a n o o g a , T e n n 1882

K e m p , H o n . Jack , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congres s from the S t a t e of N e w York 2 2 0 4

K i n n e y , J o h n , s a n i t a r y e n g i n e e r i n g c o n s u l t a n t , Ann Arbor, M i c h 1915 Klaf ter , D r . R i c h a r d D . , a s s o c i a t e projec t d irector , a s s i s t a n t professor of

e lec tr ica l eng ineer ing , D r e x e l U n i v e r s i t y , P h i l a d e l p h i a , P a . ; A c c o m p a n i e d b y D r . H a r o l d C o n e s , a s s i s t a n t professor of mar ine sc i ences , Chr i s t o p h e r N e w p o r t Co l l ege o f the Col lege of Wi l l i am a n d M a r y , Wi l l i amsburg , Va. , J e s s C r a n b l e y , l aw s t u d e n t , W a s h i n g t o n Lee U n i v e r s i t y , L e x i n g t o n , Va . , D r . K a r l B . Schne l l e , professor of e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d air resource eng ineer ing , V a n d e r b i l t U n i v e r s i t y , N a s h v i l l e , T e n n . , a n d D r . R i c h a r d S w o p , a s s i s t a n t professor of m e c h a n i c a l eng ineer ing , P M C Col l eges , Ches ter , P a 1491

Kle in , H o n . J o h n V. N.J c h a i r m a n , Suffolk C o u n t y Leg i s la ture , L o n g I s l a n d , N . Y r . ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y J o h n M . F l y n n , c o m m i s s i o n e r , Suffolk C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t , of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Contro l 2 2 4 9

K o c h , H o n . E d w a r d I.', a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congres s f rom t h e S t a t e of N e w York _ ___, 957

Lang , M a r t i n , c o m m i s s i o n e r , D e p a r t m e n t of W a t e r R e s o u r c e s , N e w York, N . Y . - _ 2037

Larsen , J o h n S., d irector , e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t y , W e v e r h a e u s e r C o . . Centra l ia , W a s h _ _" 1796

Lee, Wil l iam S., senior v ice pres ident , eng ineer ing a n d cons truc t ion , D u k e P o w e r Co . , Char lo t te , N . C i 1273

Lent , H o n . N o r m a n F . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congres s f rom t h e S t a t e of N e w Y o r k : 6 0 0

Long , H o n . Clarence D . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from t h e S t a t e of M a r y l a n d ! - - !_______- •_'__ ;j _• 1081

74


VI

M a c D o n a l d , R e y n o l d C , c h a i r m a n of . the. A m e r i c a n Iron a n d S t e e l Faee I n s t i t u t e . . . - , . . . . . . . . . . . 1725

M c C l o r y , Hon. - R o b e r t , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congres s f rom the S t a t e of . I l l inois . '_ 1 _'_ 1812

M c M a h o n , T h o m a s , director, D i v i s o n of Water P o l l u t i o n Contro l , C o m m o n w e a l t h , of M a s s a c h u s e t t s ( speak ing for Governor S a r g e n t ) . ! . . '. 351

M o l l o h a n , H o n . R o b e r t H . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congres s from the S t a t e of W e s t Virginia , s t a t e m e n t . . . ' ! - - 608

M o n t a g u e , K e n n e t h E . , pres ident , T e x a s M i d - C o n t i n e n t Oil a n d G a s ' - . A s s o c i a t i o n , H o u s t o n , T e x . _ . . . : 1709

M u l l i g a n , K e r r y , c h a i r m a n , W a t e r . R e s o u r c e s C o n t r o l Board; S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a - _ !' . ' . . 1 . 1 1 ! ! . . . 2 6 6

M y e r s , . H o n . J o h n , a . R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congres s f r o m t h e S t a t e of . , I n d i a n a . 1 . 6 0 4

N i x o n , D a v i d , in s t ruc tor , d e p a r t m e n t of po l i t i ca l s c i ence , P e n n s y l v a n i a ' • . S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , M c K e e s p o r t , P a ' . . _ ! . ! . 7 2 3

O b e y , H o n . D a v i d R. , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e of Wiscons in .' 2 2 1 8

Ogi lv ie , H o n . R i c h a r d B . , G o v e r n o r of t h e ' S t a t e of I l l inois , a c c o m p a n i e d 1

b y W i l l i a m L. B laser , D irec tor o f^Environmenta l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y , S t a t e of I l l ino i s 1 '. 9 4 4

O s w a l d , D r . W i l l i a m J., professor of p u b l i c h e a l t h and s a n i t a r y engineer , j

U n i v e r s i t y of Cal i fornia , Berkeley:, Calif ' 1 8 6 3 P a n k o w s k i , T e d , d irector , e n v i r o n m e n t a l affairs, I zaak W a l t o n L e a g u e of

Amer ica , Inc . , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . . . • ,; 1 5 3 4 P o p e , Carl, W a s h i n g t o n representa t ive , Zero P o p u l a t i o n G r o w t h 8 6 5 P o w e l l , H o n . W a l t e r E . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e of

O h i o . . - ! ! , 8 5 3 R e i d , H o n . Ogden R. , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congres s from the S t a t e of

N e w Y o r k I . " 8 0 8 R e i d , M i s s B a r b a r a J., l eg is lat ive director , E n v i r o n m e n t a l A c t i o n , Inc . , .

W a s h i n g t o n , D . C • . . . . 8 5 4 R u e s s , H o n . H e n r y S., a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress f rom the S t a t e of

W i s c o n s i n 2 2 3 5 R e y n o l d s , J a m e s J. , pres ident , A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f M e r c h a n t S h i p p i n g . 1853 Rocke fe l l er , H o n . N e l s o n A.,: g o v e r n o r , S t a t e of N e w Y o r k ; a c c o m p a n i e d

b y H e n r y D i a m o n d , commiss ioner , d e p a r t m e n t of e n v i r o n m e n t , a n d D w i g h t F . Metz l er , d e p u t y commiss ioner , S t a t e of N e w Y o r k 6 6 2

R o s t e n k o w s k i , H o n . D a n , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e of I l l inois 1 6 0 3

R u c k e l s h a u s , H o n . Wi l l i am D . , Admin i s t ra tor , E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n . ,. A g e n c y ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y E u g e n e Jensen , D e p u t y A s s i s t a n t A d m i n -- i s trator for W a t e r Programs 3 , 8 8 , 1 6 . 9 , 2 2 4 S h u m w a y , . F . R i t t e r , cha irman, board of directors , S y b r o n Corp . , R o c h

ester , N . Y . ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y D o n a l d J. D a n i l e k , a t t o r n e y , P o r t W a s h i n g t o n , ^ . Y . . . r _ - - - . . . 1 1825

S m a l l y , D o n a l d J., c h a i r m a n , W a t e r R e s o u r c e s C o m m i t t e e of .the' C o n s u l t - • ing E n g i n e e r s Counc i l , Sarasota , F l a . ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y Larry Spil ler, A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r , Water R e s o u r c e s C o m m i t t e e of the C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s Counc i l , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C - 1045

S m i t h , D r . Spencer M . , Jr., s ecre tary , C i t i zens C o m m i t t e e o n N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C 1536

S m i t h , H o n . D o n S., Arkansas P u b l i c Serv ice commiss ioner , L i t t l e R o c k , Ark., r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e N a t i o n a l Assoc ia t ion of R e g u l a t o r y U t i l i t y C o m - ' mi s s ioners ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y P a u l R'odgers, chief counse l , N a t i o n a l Asso- . c ia t ion of R e g u l a t o r y U t i l i t y - C o m m i s s i o n e r s ; a n d Prof. E u g e n e F .

- M o o n e y , chief counse l , S o u t h e r n R e g i o n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s e r v a t i o n . 1 9 9 0 S t a s t n y , J o h n A., pres ident , N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of H o m e Bu i lders ;

a c c o m p a n i e d b y Car l A. S. C o a n , Jr. , d e p u t y leg i s la t ive counse l , a n d B r y a n R. , L a n d e r g a n , director , C o m m u n i t y I m p r o v e m e n t , N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of H o m e Bui lders - - - 1 0 3 2

Ste infe ld , D r . Jes se L. , D e p u t y A s s i s t a n t Secre tary for H e a l t h a n d Scientif ic Affairs, Surgeon General , D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n a n d Welfare , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . 1 5 8 4

S t e p h a n , A d m . E d w a r d C , U S N ( R e t . ) , c h a i r m a n , Mar ine R e s o u r c e s C o u n c i l . 2 0 5 2

T a n n e r , D r . H o w a r d A., director, n a t u r a l re sources , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t L a n s i n g , M i c h 2 0 2 6

75


VII

Th ie lke , J o h n T. , v i ce pres ident , corporate a n d pub l i c affairs, E c o n o m i c s L a b o r a t o r y , I n c . ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y T h o m a s E . Brune l l e , .manager, Corpora te R e s e a r c h , R e s e a r c h a n d D e v e l o p m e n t , E c o n o m i c s L a b o r a t o r y , , F a s e I n c . - — 1 3 6 8

T i l l inghas t , J o h n A. , e x e c u t i v e v i ce pres ident , eng ineer ing a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n , . A m e r i c a n E l e c t r i c P o w e r S e r v i c e Corp. , N e w York , N . Y . ; a c c o m -

. p a n i e d b y A. J o s e p h D o w d , A s s i s t a n t Genera l Counse l 1313 Towe l l , Wi l l iam E . , e x e c u t i v e vice pres ident , Amer ican F o r e s t r y Assoc ia

t ion , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C - - - - - - - •-- 1 5 3 3 Tra in , H o n . R u s s e l l E . , C h a i r m a n , Counc i l of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y ;

a c c o m p a n i e d b y T i m o t h y A t k e s o n , . Genera l Counse l , a n d Alv in A i m , staff d irector , P r o g r a m D e v e l o p m e n t , C o u n c i l on E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y - - . • 1558

Tr imble , Vice A d m . P a u l E . , pres ident , Lake Carriers' Assoc ia t ion , C l e v e land, Ohio 1387

T u p l i n g , W. L l o y d , W a s h i n g t o n representa t ive , Sierra C l u b _ _ . 8 6 0 Vander. J a g t , H o n . G u y , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from t h e S t a t e of . M i c h i g a n ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y Dr . J o h n R. Sheaffer, U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o . 437

Vanik , H o n . Char les A. , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress f rom t h e S t a t e of Ohio . . - 8 1 2

Volcker, H o n . P a u l A. , U n d e r Secre tary of t h e . T r e a s u r y for M o n e t a r y Affairs; a c c o m p a n i e d b y F r a n k C a v a n a u g h , A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r of t h e Office of D e b t A n a l y s i s 51

Wei tze l , Wi l l i am H . , v i ce pres ident a n d general m a n a g e r , W a t e r M a n a g e m e n t D i v i s i o n , C a l g o n Corp . , P i t t s b u r g h , P a . ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y B a s e l Welder , m a r k e t i n g director, Water M a n a g e m e n t D i v i s i o n , and R o n LaSasso , produc t m a n a g e r , Water M a n a g e m e n t D i v i s i o n , Ca lgon C o r p . 1 4 6 5

Whalen , H o n . Char les W. Sr., a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e of Ohio • 837

Wi l l iams , H . G., pres ident , Gulf A t l a n t i c T o w i n g Corp. , Jacksonv i l l e , F l a 1 7 5 9

Winn , H o n . Larry , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from t h e S t a t e of K a n s a s . 1716 Wise, H a r o l d F . , M e m b e r , L e g i s l a t i v e C o m m i t t e e , Amer ican I n s t i t u t e of

P l a n n e r s , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C 2 2 8 3 Wolff, H o n . Les ter , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from t h e S t a t e of N e w

York 1679 Wright , J a m e s F . , e x e c u t i v e director of the D e l a w a r e R i v e r B a s i n C o m

miss ion : 2 2 2 3 Wrist , Pe ter E . , Vice Pres ident , T h e M e a d C o r p o r a t i o n ; a c c o m p a n i e d b y

Frank C. S e v e r a n c e , D u n n i n g t o n , B a r t h o l o w & Mul l i s • 1017 Y o u n g , Arnold L., a t t o r n e y a t law, Sparta , N . C . , counse l for A l l e g h a n y

F a r m B u r e a u a n d N o r t h Caro l ina F a r m B u r e a u 1696 Zwick, D a v i d , pro jec t director , T h e N a d e r W a t e r P o l l u t i o n Projec t ,

W a s h i n g t o n , D . C 1148

M A T E R I A L R E C E I V E D F O R T H E R E C O R D

A d a m s , E d m u n d I. , Spar ta , N . C . , s t a t e m e n t 1 6 9 9 A d a m s , J. A. , M a r i n e B io log i s t , D e p a r t m e n t of R e s e a r c h a n d P l a n n i n g ,

Pacif ic G a s & Elec tr i c Co . , s t a t e m e n t on T h e r m a l P o w e r P l a n t S i te S t u d i e s in Cal i fornia S t a t e of the A r t — 1 9 7 1 . 1 1 8 5

A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of P o r t A u t h o r i t i e s , s t a t e m e n t 2 3 9 4 Amer ican C o n c r e t e P i p e A s s o c i a t i o n , R i c h a r d E . B a r n e s , m a n a g i n g D i r e c

tor, s t a t e m e n t ' 2 3 8 2 A n d r e w s , J o h n F . , professor a n d d e p a r t m e n t h e a d , d e p a r t m e n t of E n v i r o n

m e n t a l s y s t e m s eng ineer ing , C l e m s o n U n i v e r s i t y , C l e m s o n , S .C . , s t a t e m e n t 1 4 5 6

B a r t o n , W e l d o n V. , a s s i s t a n t d irec tor of l e g i s l a t i v e s erv ices , N a t i o n a l Farmers U n i o n , s t a t e m e n t 6 9 5

B e n k e r t , C a p t . Wi l l i am M . , U . S . C o a s t Guard , A c t i n g Chief of t h e Office of M a r i n e E n v i r o n m e n t a n d S y s t e m s , s t a t e m e n t ' 1396

Berg land , H o n . B o b , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress f rom the S t a t e of M i n n e s o t a :

Le t t er a n d a t t a c h m e n t s from H o n . W e n d e l l R . A n d e r s o n , G o v e r n o r of t h e S t a t e of M i n n e s o t a , re C lean L a k e s Leg i s la t ion 2 3 1 7

- S t a t e m e n t 9 6 3 Progress repor t s o n s t u d y of L a k e Sal l ie , M i n n ____ 9 8 0

76


V I I I

B l a c k , C h a r l e s A . , o n behal f of t h e A m e r i c a n W a t e r W o r k s A s s o c i a t i o n : P a g e L e t t e r _• __' 4 1 4 S t a t e m e n t -_ 3 8 6

B o a t i n g I n d u s t r y A s s o c i a t i o n a n d N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of E n g i n e a n d B o a t M a n u f a c t u r e r s , s t a t e m e n t on mar ine s a n i t a t i o n d e v i c e per forma n c e s t a n d a r d s . . : ' 821

B o g g s , H o n . H a l e M . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress f rom t h e S t a t e of Loui s iana , l e t t er w i t h a t t a c h m e n t s : 1. A report prepared b y L o u i s i a n a S t a t e g e o l o g i s t o n u n d e r g r o u n d indus tr ia l w a s t e d i s p o s a l s y s t e m in L o u i s i a n a ; 2. A l e t t er f rom C o m m i s s i o n e r J. M . M e n e f e e of t h e Lou i s iana D e p a r t m e n t of C o n s e r v a t i o n re H . R . 8 5 3 2 . ' 2 3 5 5

Boi l ing , H o n . R i c h a r d , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e of Missour i , l e t t er t o C h a i r m a n B l a t n i k w i t h e n c l o s e d proposa l of t h e Conference of S t a t e S a n i t a r y E n g i n e e r s • 2 3 7 1

B o o , H o n . B e n , M a y o r of D u l u t h , M i n n . , s t a t e m e n t 1408 B o s l e y , D r . P a t r i c k G. H . J. , h e a l t h officer, L y o n C o u n t y , B a l a t o n , M i n n :

S t a t e m e n t . 2 1 1 2 M i n n e s o t a S t a t e R e g u l a t i o n s — M i n n e s o t a P o l l u t i o n Congro l A g e n c y

D i v i s i o n of So l id W a s t e — R e g u l a t i o n s for the Contro l of W a s t e s from l i v e s t o c k feed lo t s , p o u l t r y l o t s a n d o t h e r a n i m a l lo t s , April 1971 - 2 1 9 6

C o n s i d e r a t i o n s aris ing f rom t h e c o n t a m i n a t i o n of rural water ( lakes , r ivers , c o u n t y d i t c h e s , a n d t h e w a t e r table) from u n t r e a t e d h u m a n a n d a n i m a l e x c r e m e n t : w i t h s o m e o b s e r v a t i o n s o n w a y s to i m p r o v e this w a t e r q u a l i t y b y spec ia l e m p h a s i s on f eed lo t run-off control p r o g r a m s _ 2 2 0 1

M i n n e s o t a r e g u l a t i o n s r e l a t i n g to h e a l t h (1960 edi t ion) _ * L a w s r e l a t i n g t o the M i n n e s o t a P o l l u t i o n Contro l A g e n c y (chapters

115 a n d 116, s t a t u t e s 1969) * Y o u r M i n n e s o t a P o l l u t i o n Contro l A g e n c y , J u l y 1971 - * C o m p r e h e n s i v e s e w e r - w a t e r s t u d y — L y o n C o u n t y , M i n n *

B r e h m , S t u a r t H . , Jr. , s e c r e t a r y - e x e c u t i v e d irector , S e w e r a g e a n d Water B o a r d of N e w Orleans , s t a t e m e n t - - 1543

B u g g i e , Freder ick D . , m a r k e t i n g m a n a g e r , T e c h n i c o n Indus t r ia l S y s t e m s , l e t t er 2407

B y r d , J. F l o y d , s t a t e m e n t o n beha l f of M a n u f a c t u r i n g C h e m i s t s Assoc ia t i o n 1134

B y r d , R i c h a r d C , general counse l , I n t e r s t a t e Oil C o m p a c t C o m m i s s i o n , s t a t e m e n t a n d e x h i b i t s - - . 1717

C a m p b e l l , L o m e R. , a t t o r n e y a t l aw , I n d e p e n d e n c e , V a . ; counse l for G r a y s o n C o u n t y B o a r d of Superv i sor , G r a y s o n C o u n t y S c h o o l B o a r d , G r a y s o n C o u n t y , Va . , s t a t e m e n t 1703

C a n h a m , R o b e r t A. , e x e c u t i v e secre tary , W a t e r P o l l u t i o n Contro l F e d e r a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C , s t a t e m e n t 4 2 8

Cappare l l i , R a l p h C , S t a t e R e p r e s e n t a t i v e , 16 th D i s t r i c t , S t a t e of I l l i no i s , s t a t e m e n t . ' 2367

C h a p m a n , Gale , v i c e - p r e s i d e n t , U p p e r Miss i s s ippi T o w i n g Corp. , M i n n e apol i s , M i n n : . -

Cert i f icate of ana ly s i s—ef f luent w a t e r for W i l s o n s e w a g e un i t of b o a t s a n i t a t i o n sy'stem a t N a t i o n a l M a r i n e Serv ice , H a r t f o r d , 111 1778

D r a f t a m e n d m e n t 1785 S u p p l e m e n t a l s t a t e m e n t — s e w a g e d i sposa l—river ' t o w b o a t s in inter

s t a t e c o m m e r c e - - . - 1794 C h e m i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g , A u g u s t 23 , 1 9 7 1 , art ic le " T h e C P I ' s C o s t of M e e t -. ing E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t a n d a r d s " 1130

C h i p p e w a N a t i o n a l F o r e s t , s t a t e m e n t 1451 Clapper , L e w i s S., d irector of conserva t ion for the N a t i o n a l Wildl i fe F e d e r a

t i o n , s t a t e m e n t , a n d resolut ions . . . • 1514 Clarke , J a m e s F . , secretary , M i a m i V a l l e y W a t e r Qua l i ty C o m m i t t e e ,

D a y t o n , Ohio , s t a t e m e n t _ 8 4 8 Clausen , H o n . D o n H . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from t h e S t a t e of

Cal i fornia: L e t t e r t o A t t o r n e y General J o h n Mi tche l l re t e s t i m o n y of Amer ican

W a t e r w a y s Operators ' _-_ 1171 R e p l y f r o m D e p a r t m e n t , o f Jus t i ce - 1171

* Retained in committee file.

77


rx

C l a y t o n , H o n . Bil l , m e m b e r of the T e x a s Leg i s la ture a n d cha irman of t h e T a s k Force on N a t i o n a l R e s o u r c e s of the I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l R e l a t i o n s eaee ' C o m m i t t e e of the N a t i o n a l L e g i s l a t i v e Conference , l e t t e r . - . . 2 3 6 5

Clusen , M r s . D o n a l d E . , c h a i r m a n , C o m m i t t e e ' on E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o g r a m a n d Projec t s , L e a g u e of W o m e n Voters of the U n i t e d S t a t e s , s t a t e m e n t . '_._•- ' . .•: ' 1683

Coffey, John J., Senior A s s o c i a t e for N a t i o n a l R e s o u r c e s a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l Qual i ty , C h a m b e r of C o m m e r c e of the U n i t e d S t a t e s , s t a t e -

' m e n t . . . 1381 Collier, S h a n n o n , Ri l l a n d E d w a r d s , m e m o r a n d u m of law r e s u m m a r y a n -

a lvs i s of c i t izen su i t prov i s ions of N a t i o n a l Water Q u a l i t y S t a n d a r d s A c t of 1971 1737

C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s Counc i l : S u p p l e m e n t a l s t a t e m e n t re " B o n d m a r k e t var i ed for publ ic w o r k s

pro jec t s" : 1076 C o m m e n t s on proposed Water P o l l u t i o n Contro l Leg i s la t ion as it

re la tes t o c h a n g e s t o indus try 1079 C 6 r d o v a , H o n . Jorge L. , R e s i d e n t C o m m i s s i o n e r from P u e r t o R i c o , l e t ter

presen t ing s t a t e m e n t b y Mr. Cruz A. M a t o s , e x e c u t i v e d irector of t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y B o a r d of P u e r t o R i c o 2 3 7 5

Coul ter , J a m e s B . , d e p u t y secre tary of t h e M a r y l a n d S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , s t a t e m e n t presented J u n e 15, 1971 , a t H o u s e P u b l i c W o r k s C o m m i t t e e hear ing on " O v e r s i g h t of the W a t e r Po l lu t ion Contro l P r o g r a m " _• 9 0 4

C o y , L. B e n n e t t , general m a n a g e r a n d secre tary , the M i a m i C o n s e r v a n c y D i s t r i c t , D a y t o n , Ohio: re sponse to q u e s t i o n s p o s e d b y R e p . F r e d S c h w e n g e l 8 4 6

Crawford, W. D o n h a m , pres ident , E d i s o n E lec tr i c I n s t i t u t e : S u p p l e m e n t a l s t a t e m e n t 1357 E x p e c t e d s u m m e r 1971 p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r ibut ion of c a p a b i l i t y sources by

t y p e of pr ime m o v e r for t h e 8 F P C reg ions a n d t o t a l c o n t i g u o u s U n i t e d S t a t e s , forecast b y t h e E E I E lec tr i c P o w e r S u r v e y C o m m i t t e e as of April 1, 1971 1183

Curran, H o n . F r a n k , m a y o r of t h e c i ty of San D i e g o , Calif., l e t ter 2 3 6 6 D a l e v , H o n . R i c h a r d J., m a y o r of the c i t y of Chicago , 111.:

Let ter 7 8 7 S t a t e m e n t . . . 757

D a n i l e k , D o n a l d J., a t t o r n e v - a t - l a w , P o r t W a s h i n g t o n , N . Y . , s t a t e m e n t a n d e x h i b i t s . - . I 1842

D a r t m o u t h Col lege , the T h a y e r Schoo l of E n g i n e e r i n g , H a n o v e r , N . H . , A. O. Converse , professor of eng ineer ing , l e t ter w i t h enc losure 2335

D e p a r t m e n t of H o u s i n g a n d U r b a n D e v e l o p m e n t . ( H . U . D . ) : G r a n t s for bas ic water a n d s ewer fac i l i t ies ; ana ly s i s of sewer projec t s :

P r o g r a m a c t i v i t y b y fiscal y e a r 1962 C u m u l a t i v e d i s tr ibut ion of a p p r o v a l s b v S t a t e s , as of J u n e 30,

1971 .' 1962 P u b l i c fac i l i ty loans p r o g r a m ; ana ly s i s of sewer projec t s :

P r o g r a m a c t i v i t y b y fiscal year 1963 C u m u l a t i v e d i s t r ibut ion of a p p r o v a l s b v S t a t e s , as of J u n e 30,

1971 . 1964 P u b l i c Works p l a n n i n g a d v a n c e s program . . . . 1964 T r a n s m i t t a l no t i ce C D 6 2 2 0 . 2 A : Procedures b y w h i c h pre l iminary

app l i ca t ions for g r a n t a s s i s tance under t h e water a n d sewer g r a n t program are t o be e v a l u a t e d 1956

Publ i c W o r k s P l a n n i n g A d v a n c e s , s t a t e m e n t 1973 R e s e a r c h a n d d e m o n s t r a t i o n projec t s re la t ing t o ut i l i t ies c o n s t r u c t i o n . 1981 T r a n s m i t t a l no t i ce J u n e 30, 1971 , i s su ing procedures b y w h i c h pre l im

inary app l i ca t ions for g r a n t a s s i s t a n c e under t h e W a t e r a n d S e w e r Fac i l i t i e s G r a n t P r o g r a m are t o be e v a l u a t e d . _ - 192

Water a n d sewer p r o j e c t s — D i s t r i b u t i o n of g r a n t a p p r o v a l s b v t v p e fac i l i ty , as of J u n e 30, 1971 I 189

D i e n h a r t , Arthur , v i ce pres ident of E n g i n e e r i n g for N o r t h e r n S t a t e s P o w e r Co . , M i n n e a p o l i s , M i n n . , s t a t e m e n t 1216

D inge l l , H o n . J o h n D . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from t h e S t a t e of M i c h i g a n :

J a n u a r y 20 , 1971 le t ter t o G o v e r n o r s of var ious S t a t e s r e q u e s t i n g their" c o m m e n t s o n t h e Clean W a t e r R e s t o r a t i o n A c t of 1966 a n d the Federa l p r o g r a m of a s s i s t a n c e a u t h o r i z e d thereunder 507

78


X '

D i n g e l l , H o n . J o h n D . — C o n t i n u e d R e p l i e s from S t a t e s : p » e e

A l a s k a — W i l l i a m E. E g a n , G o v e r n o r 5 0 9 A r i z o n a — J a c k Wil l iams, G o v e r n o r . 5 1 1 A r k a n s a s — S . Ladd D a v i e s , director, A r k a n s a s W a t e r P o l l u t i o n

C o n t r o l C o m m i s s i o n 5 1 1 Cal i fornia;—Ronald R e a g a n , G o v e r n o r . . . 5 1 2 C o l o r a d o — J o h n A. L o v e , G o v e r n o r 513 D e l a w a r e — A u s t i n N . Hel ler , secre tary , S t a t e of D e l a w a r e D e

p a r t m e n t of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n t r o l . . 513 G e o r g i a — J i m m y Carter , G o v e r n o r 5 1 6 H a w a i i — J o h n A. B u r n s , G o v e r n o r • 516 I d a h o — C e c i l D . Audrus , G o v e r n o r . 517 I n d i a n a — E d g a r D . W h i t c o m b , G o v e r n o r ... 517

, K e n t u c k y — L o u i e B . N u n n , G o v e r n o r . 5 1 8 ' M a i n e — K e n n e t h M . Curt is , G o v e r n o r . 5 1 8

M a r y l a n d — M a r v i n M a n d e l , Governor 5 2 0 M a s s a c h u s e t t s — F r a n c i s M . Sargent , G o v e r n o r 5 2 0 M i c h i g a n — W i l l i a m G. Mi l l iken , Governor . . . 5 0 8

• M i n n e s o t a — J o h n P . B a d a l i c h , P . E . , E x e c u t i v e Direc tor , S t a t e ,of M i n n e s o t a P o l l u t i o n Contro l A g e n c y 5 2 2

M i s s i s s i p p i — J o h n Bel l Wi l l i ams , G o v e r n o r ' 5 2 2 M i s s o u r i — W a r r e n E . H e a r n e s , G o v e r n o r 522 M o n t a n a — F o r e s t H . Anderson , G o v e r n o r . •- . 523 N e b r a s k a — J . J a m e s E x o n , Governor i 5 2 3 N e w H a m p s h i r e — W a l t e r Pe terson , G o v e r n o r 5 2 4 N e w J e r s e y — W i l l i a m T . Cahil l , G o v e r n o r . 5 2 4 N e w M e x i c o — B r u c e K i n g , Governor .. 525 N e v a d a — M i k e O'Cal laghan , G o v e r n o r . . . 5 2 6 N o r t h D a k o t a — W i l l i a m L. G u y , G o v e r n o r . . . 527 P e n n s y l v a n i a — M i l t o n J. S h a p p , G o v e r n o r . 527 T e n n e s s e e — W i n f i e l d D u n n , G o v e r n o r 1 528 T e x a s — P r e s t o n S m i t h , G o v e r n o r 5 2 9 V e r m o n t — D e a n e C. D a v i s , G o v e r n o r 529 V i r g i n i a — L y n w o o d H o l t o n , Governor •_ 531 W a s h i n g t o n — D a n i e l J. E v a n s , G o v e r n o r 532 W e s t V i r g i n i a — A r c h A. M o o r e , Jr., G o v e r n o r 533 Virg in I s l a n d s — M e l v i n H . E v a n s , G o v e r n o r 5 3 4 Di s tr i c t of Co lumbia—Walter E . W a s h i n g t o n , M a y o r - C o m m i s s i o n e r . 535

H . R . '6722, a bill t o a m e n d t h e Federa l W a t e r P o l l u t i o n Contro l A c t . . 5 3 6 Press S t a t e m e n t , M a r c h 24, 1 9 7 1 : "S25 Bi l l ion Clean W a t e r P r o g r a m

is p r o p o s e d i n leg is lat ion b v C o n g r e s s m a n D i n g e l l " '583 Congres s iona l R e c o r d remarks , M a r c h 24, 1 9 7 1 : "Federa l W a t e r

P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t " . . . ' ' . . . . 584 J o i n t s t a t e m e n t b y M i c h i g a n S t a t e R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s T h o m a s J.

A n d e r s o n a n d Warren N . G o e m a e r e , co -cha irmen , M i c h i g a n H o u s e C o m m i t t e e o n C o n s e r v a t i o n a n d R e c r e a t i o n 5 0 0

D o w C h e m i c a l Co. , s t a t e m e n t . . . . . . . — . . — 2 3 5 2 D r e w , H . R . d irec tor of research, T e x a s Electr ic Serv ice Co. , For t W o r t h ,

T e x . , s t a t e m e n t '. • . : , 1 2 4 1 D r i n a n , H o n . R o b e r t F. , a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e of

M a s s a c h u s e t t s , s t a t e m e n t ' . . 1691 E g a n , J o h n E . , pres ident , board of t rus tees , M e t r o p o l i t a n S a n i t a r y D i s t r i c t

-of Greater C h i c a g o , s t a t e m e n t . . ., 792 E d i s o n E lec tr i c I n s t i t u t e : P r o j e c t e d gross m a r g i n s — S u m m e r 1971 1183 E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n , Agency , ( E P A ) : .'

C o n s t r u c t i o n f u n d s for m u n i c i p a l w a s t e t r e a t m e n t faci l i t ies 2 0 5 - F r o z e n f u h d s , c o m m e n t s ; o n . 186

G r a n t funds" n e e d e d for a p p l i c a t i o n s in E P A regional Office v s . S t a t e a p p l i c a t i o n s F Y 1972 ( t h r o u g h 9/30/71) ' under c o n t i n u i n g r e s o l u t i o n . 9

79


X I '

E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y ( E P A ) — C o n t i n u e d J o i n t A g r e e m e n t for i n t e r - a g e n c y c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e D e p a r t

m e n t of H o u s i n g a n d U r b a n . D e v e l o p m e n t a n d t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P a e e 1 P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y . . . . - '__ _ 4 2 M a j o r project n e e d s as of D e c e m b e r - 3 1 , 1970—fiscal vears 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 4

(111., N . Y , , N . J . ) _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :__ 10S M u n i c i p a l w a s t e t r e a t m e n t needs , J u l y 1970 , 8 8 N e e d for co l lec tor (col lect ing) s ewers i ' . • 115 N e w York S t a t e • a l l o c a t i o n s s ince r e i m b u r s e m e n t s p r o j e c t s , were

p e r m i t t e d under S e c t i o n 8 of Federa l Water, P o l l u t i o n Contro l A c t . 2 0 3 R e p l i e s to C o m m i t t e e q u e s t i o n s o n O c e a n D u m p i n g 2 2 0 R e p l i e s t o C o m m i t t e e q u e s t i o n s on c o n s t r u c t i o n , credi t , a n d f inanc ing . , 128 R e s e a r c h programs , l i s t of projec t s _ 2 2 3 R e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n s p o s e d b y C o n g r e s s w o m a n A b z u g . 2 1 2 S t a t e w a t e r po l lu t ion control program p e r c e n t a g e of Federa l g i a n t s .

for S t a t e p r o g r a m s as c o m p a r e d w i t h faci l i t ies c o n s t r u c t i o n g r a n t s . 2 0 5 S u m m a r y of A l t e r n a t i v e F i n a n c i n g S t u d y 38 T o t a l a n d Federa l share of cons truc t ion cos t s 5-vear period, fiscal

y e a r s 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 7 1 _ _ . : 2 0 5 W a t e r resources p l a n n i n g funds use .. 2 0 9

F l y n n , H o n . J o h n M . , Commiss ioner* C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Contro l , L o n g I s land , N . Y . :

P r o j e c t e d effect o n res idence a n d c o m m e r c i a l t a x r a t e s — S o u t h w e s t S e w e r D i s t r i c t , Suffolk Count} ' , N . Y • 2 4 2

E s t i m a t e d projec t c o s t w i t h Federa l a n d S t a t e a id d isposal f a c i l i t i e s . - 2 4 3 G a m m e l g a r d , P. N . , senior vice pres ident , P u b l i c a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l

Affairs, Amer ican P e t r o l e u m I n s t i t u t e , s t a t e m e n t 7 3 9 Genera l a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n the D e p a r t m e n t of Agricul ture a n d t h e '

D e p a r t m e n t of H o u s i n g a n d Urban D e v e l o p m e n t 2 1 0 S Genera l T e c h n i c a l Serv ices , Inc . , U p p e r D a r b y , P a . , S. Z. C a r d o n ,

A. Iheral l , s t a t e m e n t - - - 2 4 1 3 Georg ia C h a m b e r of C o m m e r c e , A t l a n t a , Ga. , J o h n Er ickson , c h a i r m a n ,

l e t ter t o R e p . R o b e r t G. S t e p h e n s , Jr , 2 3 7 3 G i b b s , Char les V. , pre s ident and director, A s s o c i a t i o n of M e t r o p o l i t a n

S e w e r a g e Agenc ies , a n d e x e c u t i v e director, m u n i c i p a l i t y of greater S e a t t l e . 9 1 3 Gi lber t son , W e s l e y E . , d e p u t y secretary for E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n a n d

R e g u l a t i o n , C o m m o n w e a l t h of P e n n s y l v a n i a , draft l a n g u a g e p e r t a i n i n g t o S e c t i o n 403 , Federa l E n f o r c e m e n t ; S e c t i o n 4 0 4 , I n t e r s t a t e P o l l u t i o n ; a n d S e c t i o n 405 , R e m e d i e s Preserved 1007

Gi l l i land , J a m e s G., d irector of e n v i r o n m e n t a l contro l , C l i m a x M o l y b d e - • n u m C o . , s t a t e m e n t o n behal f of Amer ican M i n i n g Congress 2 3 9 8

Gosse l in , R o b e r t E . , M . D . , P h . D . , Irene H e i n z G i v e n Professor of P h a r m a c o l o g y , D e p a r t m e n t of P h a r m a c o l o g y a n d T o x i c o l o g y , D a r t m o u t h M e d i c a l Schoo l , H a n o v e r , N . H . , s t a t e m e n t 1 2 4 0 0

G o t t s t e i n , L e l a n d E . , P . E . , pres ident of A m e r i c a n P i p e Serv ices , Inc . , a c o n s u l t i n g eng ineer ing firm of M i n n e a p o l i s , M i n n . , s t a t e m e n t 2 0 6 0

Graeser, H e n r y J. , d irector of the D a l l a s W a t e r U t i l i t i e s D e p a r t m e n t of t h e C i t y of D a l l a s , T e x . , s t a t e m e n t . 4 1 7

H a l l , R i c h a r d M. , staff a t t o r n e y , N a t i o n a l R e s o u r c e s D e f e n s e Counc i l , s t a t e m e n t 1746

H a m m e r s c h m i d t , H o n . J o h n P a u l , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e of A r k a n s a s :

Le t t er from Carl E . Wright , c h a i r m a n , Arkansas D e p a r t m e n t of P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l a n d Ecology_• , . 7 3 3

Le t t er from S. L a d d D a v i s , D i r e c t o r of A r k a n s a s D e p a r t m e n t of P o l l u t i o n a n d E c o l o g y , to G o v . D a l e B u m p e r s 7 3 4

H a r r i n g t o n , H o n . M i c h a e l J., a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congres s f r o m t h e S t a t e of M a s s a c h u s e t t s :

S t a t e m e n t 7 0 4 L e t t e r to Lt . G e n . F . J. Clarke, Chief of E n g i n e e r s , U . S . A r m y Corps

of Eng ineers , J u l y 9, 1971 1 712 W a s h i n g t o n S tar ar t i c l e of J u l y 9, 1971 , "Secre t S t a m p for P o l l u -

• , t i o n " . _ _ _ - _ _ _ . 713 Harr i s , W a y n e M. , c h a i r m a n , Air a n d W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o m m i t t e e , M o n r o e

County- C o n s e r v a t i o n Counci l , s t a t e m e n t 6 1 5

80


X I I

Harsha, Hon. William H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio:

Letters to and letters from Council on Environmental Quality; Dept. of H.E.W., P. H. Service Food and Drug Admin, responding Page to question relative to phosphates and detergents 781

Haun, J. W., vice president and director of engineering, General Mills, Inc.:

Statement on behalf of National Association of Manufacturers 1089 EPA memorandum to all acting regional administrators. Subject:

Permit program—Effluent control 1101 Memorandum of opinion, U.S. Court for Western District of

Pennsylvania United States vs. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corporation 1116

Hillis, Julia, Sierra Club, San Francisco, Cal.: An article entitled "An Environmentalist Views the Energy Crisis"—

An Address to the American Nuclear Society, by Michael Mc-Closkey, Executive Director of the Sierra Club 2261

Testimony of Michael McCloskoy for the Sierra Club, before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, May 27, 1971 2208

Memorandum on Required Tanker Traffic to Exploit Alaskan North Slope Oil 2273

Letter from Gordon Robinson to Congressman McCormack October 7, 1971 2275

Testimony of Dr. Eugene V. Coan for the Sierra Club, before the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere 2277

Statement 2257 Houghton, A. J., president, Water and Waste water Equipment Manu

facturers Association, Inc., letter supplementing testimony 894 H.R. 5970- To establish an environmental financing authority to assist in

the financing of waste treatment facilities, and for other purposes 58 Secretary of the Treasury, report on 57

Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, vs. William D. Ruckelshaus, Supplemental complaint for Injunctive and Declaration relief 133:5

International Committee of Passenger Lines, Vincent A Demo, chairman, New York Committee, letter 2369

Investment Bankers Association of America: Tables of Bond Sales: By use of proceeds, region, grade, and type of

unit 644 Remarks by Murray Weidenbaum, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

before the Municipal Finance Forum of Washington on Federal Credit Programs 64.S

Selected Remarks by Henry Wallich at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Monetary Conference, June 14-16, 1970, on Federal Credit Programs 651

Remarks by Former Secretary of the Treasury David Kennedy at the Joint Economic Committee Hearings, Midyear, 1970, on the State of the Economy 652

Selected Remarks by Paul Volcker, Under Secretary of Treasury for Monetary Affairs, before Municipal Bond Womens Club of New York, June 10, 1971 653

Statement 628 ITT Rayonier Inc., statement 2329 Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, August 1971, article

entitled "Chicago Industrial Waste Surcharge Ordinance" 1120 Jelatis, Hon. Demetrius G., mayor of Red Wing, Minn., statement 1414 Jensen, Coren D., associate professor on environmental biology, The Johns

Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., statement 1251 Kadane, J. E., Dallas, Tex., letter 2349 Kemp, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

York, statement 2204 Kinney, John E., sanitary engineering consultant, Ann Arbor, Mich.,

addendum to statement, newspaper articles, statements 1916, 1929

81


x i n

K o c h , H o n . E d w a r d I . , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congress from the S t a t e of N e w P a s e York, s t a t e m e n t 957

Krieger , J a m e s H . , c h a i r m a n , W a t e r a n d P o w e r C o m m i t t e e ; L o s A n g e l e s ; C h a m b e r of C o m m e r c e :

O p i n i o n : H o n . S t a n l e y A. Weigel , j u d g e , u p h o l d i n g the r ight of the S t a t e W a t e r R e s o u r c e s Contro l B o a r d to ins i s t o n c o m p l i a n c e b y F e d e r a l mi l i tarv in s ta l l a t i ons of Cal i fornia's W a t e r Q u a l i t y S t a n d - . ards 1 282

R e v i s e d s t a t e m e n t • — 2 9 3 L a k e T a h o e Area Counci l , Lois E . Wi l l iams , e x e c u t i v e s ecre tary , l e t t er 2 3 6 5 L a n g , M a r t i n , c o m m i s s i o n e r , D e p a r t m e n t of Water R e s o u r c e s , N e w Y o r k

C i t y Env ' i ronmenta l P r o t e c t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , s t a t e m e n t __ 2 0 3 7 Larsen , J o h n S., a s s i s t a n t d irector of e n v i r o n m e n t a l resources for.-

W e y e r h a u s e r C o m p a n y : ., S t a t e m e n t - - - •.. . 1797

L e t t e r s u p p l e m e n t i n g t e s t i m o n y - _ 1809 Larsen , W i n s t o n C , profess ional eng ineer , D e t r o i t L a k e s , M i n n . , s t a t e

m e n t ^ , 1439 Lee , W i l l i a m S., sen ior v i c e pres ident , E d i s o n E l e c t r i c I n s t i t u t e , s t a t e m e n t - . 1307 Loder , E d w i n R. , v i c e pres ident , R e s e a r c h , D u B o i s C h e m i c a l D i v i s i o n ,

C H E M E D Corp . , C inc innat i , Ohio , s t a t e m e n t . 2.395 M a c D o n a l d , R e y n o l d C , c h a i r m a n of t h e A m e r i c a n Iron a n d S t e e l I n s t i

t u t e Spec ia l C o m m i t t e e o n the E n v i r o n m e n t : . , S t a t e m e n t - - 1 7 2 5 • P r o p o s a l fbr.a W a t e r Qua l i ty a n d Eff luent S t a n d a r d s R e v i e w B o a r d . 1 7 3 1

W a s t e W a t e r D i s c h a r g e M o n i t o r i n g , s t a t e m e n t 1733 Melcher , H o n . J o h n , a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e in Congres s f rom t h e S t a t e of M o n

t a n a , l e t t e r p r e s e n t i n g s t a t e m e n t of D r . J o h n S. A n d e r s o n , M o n t a n a , H e a l t h D e p a r t m e n t E x e c u t i v e Officer . 2 3 7 3

M b o n e y , E u g e n e F . , chief counse l , S o u t h e r n R e g i o n a l E n v i r o n m e n t C o n s e r v a t i o n Counci l , s t a t e m e n t 2 0 0 2

M u l l i g a n , K e r r y , C h a i r m a n , W a t e r R e s o u r c e s C o n t r o l B o a r d , S t a t e of Cal i forn ia : . , .

R e s p o n s e s to q u e s t i o n s offered b y C o m m i t t e e 2 8 8 P o r t e r C o l o g n e W a t e r Qua l i ty Contro l A c t ( N o v . 1970) 297

N a t i o n a l L e a g u e of Ci t i e s a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Conference of M a y o r s , . b a c k g r o u n d paper : Proposa l s for I m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e Federa l W a t e r P o l l u t i o n Contro l A c t - 1421

N a t i o n a l M i l k P r o d u c e r s F e d e r a t i o n , s t a t e m e n t - 2 3 2 6 N a t i o n a l L e a g u e of Ci t i e s , U n i t e d S t a t e s Conference of M a y o r s , R i c h a r d

E . T h o m p s o n , l eg i s la t ive counse l , l e t t e r re E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i n a n c i n g A u t h o r i t y . . 1 4 3 2

N e w Y o r k S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s e r v a t i o n : . E s t i m a t e d N e e d s for C o n s t r u c t i o n of M u n i c i p a l S e w a g e T r e a t m e n t

W o r k s 6 8 9 U s e of S y s t e m s Ana lys i s a n d E l e c t r o n i c D a t a P r o c e s s i n g T e c h n i q u e s . 6 9 3

N e w York T i m e s : Art ic le of J u n e 30 , 1 9 7 1 — S p o r t s of t h e T i m e s — T h e Spec t er of a n

Eff luent S o c i e t y 3 6 9 J u l y 16, 1 9 7 1 — S t a n s Urges Contro l in P o l l u t i o n F i g h t 3 7 0

Nico la i , P a u l Pe ter , C h a i r m a n , C o m m i t t e e to C o m b a t P o l l u t i o n , T r e n t o n , N . J . , s t a t e m e n t 2 4 0 6

N o r t h e r n Virg in ia C o n s e r v a t i o n Counc i l , M a r i a n K . A g n e w , pres ident , s t a t e m e n t a n d a t t a c h m e n t s 2 4 1 5

O s w a l d , D r . Wi l l iam J. , professor of publ i c h e a l t h a n d s a n i t a r y eng ineer , U n i v e r s i t y of Cal i fornia , B e r k e l e y , Calif.: S t a t e m e n t s u p p l e m e n t i n g t e s t i m o n y 1881

O w e n , M . Fred , v i c e pres ident , D u v a l C o r p o r a t i o n , H o u s t o n , T e x . , s t a t e m e n t 2367

P a n k o w s k i , T e d , director , e n v i r o n m e n t a l affairs, T h e I s a a c W a l t o n L e a g u e of Amer ica , s t a t e m e n t . 1527

P o s t o n , H . W a l t e r , C o m m i s s i o n e r for E n v i r o n m e n t a l Contro l , C i t y of C h i c a g o , 111.:

S t a t e m e n t s u p p l e m e n t a l t o t e s t i m o n y 7 8 8 " S a f e t y of P h o s p h a t e a n d N o n - p h o s p h a t e - b a s e d H e a v y D u t y D e t e r

g e n t s " a p a p e r p r e s e n t e d t o t h e A m e r i c a n Oil C h e m i s t s S o c i e t y , J u n e 16, 1971 , b y J a m e s B . W i l l i a m s a n d D a v i d T a b e r , Ch icago , 111 . 7 6 3

/ 82


X I V

Purcell, Hon. Graham, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas:

Letter presenting statement of Hon. Bill Clayton, a member of the Page Texas State Legislature 2348

Letter from J. E. Kadane 2349 Reid, Miss Barbara J., legislative director, Environmental Action, Inc.,

Washington, D.C., Plan for Clean Water 858 Reuss, Hon. Henry S., a Representative in Congress from the State of

• Wisconsin, statement 2236 Reynolds, James J., president, American Institute of Merchant Shipping,

statement 1857 Rockefeller, Hon. Nelson, Governor of the State of New York, statement. 663 Roncalio, Hon. Teno, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Wyoming, letter from Daniel N. Miller, Jr., State Geologist, State of Wyoming, re Liquid Waste Subsurface Disposal Control Act 990

Rill, James F., partner in the law firm of Collier, Shannon, Rill and Edwards, Washington, D.C., statement on citizens suit provisions of bills amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 2409

S. 907—A Bill to Consent to the Interstate Environment Compact 2012 Shumway, F. Ritter, Chairman, Board of Directors, Sybron Corporation,

Rochester, N.Y.: The New York Towbont & Harbor Carriers Association, William E.

Cleary, president, letter 1825 Statement—The Case Against Holding Tanks 1831 Statement—The Case for Stating the Standard for the Effluent from

a massive toilet in terms of % reduction of suspended solids (ss) , and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)__. l 1833

Smally Donald J., chairman, Water Resources Committee of the Consulting Engineers Council, statement . 1046

Smith, Don S., commissioner, Arkansas Public Service Commission, and member National Associate of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, statement 1- 1991

Smith, Dr. Spencer M., Jr., secretary, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, statement i 1520

Sosewitz, Ben, Superintendent, Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 111.: 1 "

Statement 932 Presentation before Illinois State Senate Agriculture and Conservation

Committee, April 20,1971—"Phosphates and Phosphate Removal". ' 793 Memorandum: Phosphorous Levels in Metropolitan Sanitary District

Plant Effluents and Waterways; costs for phosphorous removal 795 Letter to Alderman Michael Bilandic on general review of phosphates

and phosphate removal problems 798 Southern California Edison Co., statement 2315 Stastny, John A., president, National Association of Home Builders; reports

on sewer construction moratorium 1036 Steinfeld, Dr. Jesse L., Surgeon General, United States Public Health Serv

ice, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs: Press release, June 28, 1971: "improvement by number of manufac

turers of labeling on household laundry and dishwashing detergents" : 1676

Letter to Hon. Miles W. Kirkpatrick, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission from Hon. Russell Train, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality re Phosphate content in detergents 1675

Summary of N T A general toxocity, Mutagenesis and teratogenesis 1647 Report on the evaluation of the carcinogenesis bioasSny of netrilotri-

acetic acid (NTA) 1654 Reply to questions posed by Congressman Ha'rsha 1642 F D A Fact sheet—Criteria for classification of substances as GRAS or

as regulated-food additives 1592 FDA guidelines for chemistry and technology requirements of food

additive petitions 1595 Reprints from F D A Papers:

September 1969: "Assuring Safe and Effective Drugs" 1609 May 1968: "Current Views 6n Safety Evaluation of Drugs" 1613 March 1967: "Clinical Testing—Synopsis of the New Drug

Regulations" 1620

83


X V

Steiufeld, Dr. Jesse L.—Continued Reprint from the Manual of New Drug Regulations, Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 130: "Investigational Drug Regulations Under the P*W Kefauver-Harria Drug Amendments of 1962" 1626

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, statement 2332 Tanner, Dr. Howard A., director i.f natural resources, Michigan State

University, East Lansing, Mich.: Statement 2026 Supplemental material 2035

Texas Water Quality Board, Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., executive director, letter 2213

Thielke, John T. and Dr. Thomas E. Brunelle, Economics Laboratory, Inc., St. Paul, Minn., statement 1374

Tillinghast, John, executive vice president, American Electric Power Service Corporation:

Business Week Magazine, May 15, 1971, article: "Polluters Raise the Cleanup Ante" 1332

Statement 1314 Towell, William E., executive vice president of The America Forestry

Association, statement 1526 Train, Hon. Russell E., chairman, Council on Environmental Quality,

statement 1546 Trimble, Vice Adin. Paul E., president, Lake Carriers' Association, Cleve

land, Ohio: Statement 1388 Proposed EPA Standards of Performance for Marine Sanitation

Devices 1391 Ullman, Hon. Al, a Representative in Congress from the state of Oregon,

letters _- 2350 Vander Jagt, Hon. Guy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Michigan: Engineering feasibility demonstration study for Muskegon Countv,

Mich., Sept. 1970 r * . Environmental impact statement for sewerage project, Muskegon

County, Mich • . * Summary from "Environmental Impact Statement" . 462 The Muskegon County Wastewater Management System, a study by

Bauer Engineering, Inc., Chicago, 111., July 1971 — — i 467 Saturday Review article, "Renewing the Great Lakes" 485

Volcker, Hon. Paul A., Under Secretary of the Treasury for Monetary Affairs:

Statement 54 Studies providing estimates of the average tax bracket of investors for

the purpose of calculating the additional Treasury revenues from substituting taxable for tax-exempt bonds (list) 74

Response to major criticisms of EFA in the Investment Banker Association testimony of May 28, 1970 85

Water Pollution Control Federation, statement of policy on water pollution control 433

Western States Water Council, William R. Gianelli, Chairman, letter and policy statement 2393

Weitzei, William H., vice president and general manager, Water Management Division, Calgon Corp.:

Statement 1465 Wall Street Journal Article, Sept. 10, 1971: "Recycling Sewage—

Advanced Treatment of Waste Seen Cutting Pollution, Saving Water" 1476

Williams, H. G., president, Gulf Atlantic Towing Corporation, Jacksonville, Fla.:

Florida Times Union, article of Sept. 15, 1971, entitled "Bounty Hunters Gather Pollution Data" 1763

American Waterways Operators, Inc., Braxton B. Carr, pres., statement on proposed legislation relating to the discharge of hazardous substances from vessels to subcommittee on air and water Pollution, Senate Public Works Committee, March 30, 1971 1764

•Retained in committee flies.

84


X V I

Wright, James F., executive director, Delaware River Basin Commission, Page statement 2224

Wrist, Peter E., vice president, research and engineering, The Mead Corp., Dayton, Ohio 1018

Supplemental statement 1030 Young, Arnold L., attorney at law, Sparta, N.C., Counsel for Alleghany

Farm Bureau, North Carolina Farm Bureau, statement 1696 Zwick, David, Project Director, The Nader Water Pollution Project,

Washington, D.C.: Statement 1149 Wall Street Journal Article of July 28, 1971 1156 Supplemental statement re "Citizen Suits" 1177

Proceedings of— July 13, 1971 1 July 14, 1971 51 July 15, 1971 169 July 20, 1971 219 July 22, 1971 265 July 27, 1971 375 July 28, 1971 661 July 29, 1971 739 August 2, 1971 819 August 3, 1971 , 897 August 4, 1971 993 August 5, 1971 1045 September 13, 1971 1089 September 14, 1971 1179 September 15, 1971 1407 September 16, 1971 1543 September 20, 1971 1759 September 21, 1971 1863 September 22, 1971 1943 September 23, 1971. 2059 September 24, 1971 2235 November 9, 1971 2291

85


WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION—1971 (Proposed Amendments to Existing Legislation)

T U E S D A Y , J U L Y 2 0 , 1 9 7 1

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C. T h e commit tee me t a t 1:10 p.m., in room 2167, R a y b u r n House Office

Bu i ld ing , H o n . R a y Rober t s , p res id ing . M r . ROBERTS. T h e commit tee wil l be in order . Th i s a f te rnoon we are s t a r t i n g the second week of o u r legis lat ive

hea r ings on w a t e r pol lu t ion control . W e a re seeking ou t t h e mos t expe r t opinions on specific legislat ive p roposa l s to imp lemen t . t he needs of t h e p r o g r a m .

Las t week, we h e a r d f rom W i l l i a m D . Rucke l shaus , A d m i n i s t r a t o r of the E n v i r o n m e n t a l P ro tec t ion Agency , a n d P a u l A. Volcker , U n d e r Sec re ta ry of t h e T r e a s u r y , on a n u m b e r of subjects, inc lud ing the p rob lems of waste t r e a t m e n t faci l i ty construct ion, S t a t e p r o g r a m i n g g r a n t s , a proposed env i ronmenta l financing au tho r i ty , ocean d u m p i n g , a n d l a n d use.

T h i s af ternoon, M r . Rucke lshaus wil l answer quest ions based on h i s t es t imony on ocean d u m p i n g a n d l and use.

Therea f te r , we wil l hea r f rom a delegat ion f rom New Y o r k who wish to discuss a serious wa te r po l lu t ion control p rob lem in Suffolk County , N . Y .

M r . Rucke l shaus , we know you have spent an awful lot of t ime before t h i s commit tee , and others . W e apprec ia t e h a v i n g you back.

M r . RUCKELSHAUS. T h a n k you, M r . C h a i r m a n . I am del ighted to be here .

M r . ROBERTS. Counsel . _ M r . EDELMAN. W e have some questions we would l ike to ask you,

s i r , w i th r e g a r d to ocean d u m p i n g . A t t h e p resen t t ime , u n d e r t h e exis t ing law, if someone proposes to

d u m p a n y t y p e of ma te r i a l in t h e G r e a t L a k e s o r the estuaries , is he requi red to ob ta in a F e d e r a l p e r m i t first ?

M r . RUCKELSHAUS. T h e answer to t h a t is n o t ent i re ly clear, b u t genera l ly no, a n d I could ge t—there is a p e r m i t p rocedure which t h e C o r p s of E n g i n e e r s h a s ins t i tu ted u n d e r t h e 1887 ac t in which t he re a re some controls over ocean d u m p i n g , b u t we do no t h a v e a n y genera l p e r m i t procedure .

M r . EDELMAN. E x c u s e me, M r . Ruckelshaus . I was r e fe r r ing only to the G r e a t L a k e s o r t h e estuaries . W e were no t discussing t h e oceans yet. T h e quest ion w a s : A t the present t ime , u n d e r exis t ing law, if someone proposes to d u m p any t y p e of ma te r i a l in e i ther t h e G r e a t

(219)

86


220

L a k e s o r in t h e estuaries , is h e requ i red to ob ta in a F e d e r a l p e r m i t ? M r . RTJCKELSHATJS. My answer r ema ins t h e same. I t h i n k t h e answer

is " N o . " I f t he r e is an out fa l l i n to the re , h e is i n v io la t ion of t h e Refuse Ac t . H e m a y be subject t o w a t e r qua l i ty s t anda rds , a n d if he d u m p s , in fact , he m a y be in violat ion of t h e Refuse Act .

M r . EDELMAN. Wel l , we h a v e a series of questions on ocean d u m p ing , M r . Rucke lshaus . I wou ld jus t defer t o t h e cha i rman , a n d I would sugges t t h a t r a t h e r t h a n a sk ing t h e m here , i t m i g h t be be t te r if we give t h e m to you for answer ing , because I t h i n k they al l h inge a r o u n d t h e answer to t h a t first quest ion.

M r . ROBERTS. W i t h o u t objection, t h e quest ions wil l be sent to M r . Rucke lshaus . T h e replies, w h e n received, wi l l be m a d e a p a r t of t h e record a t t h i s po in t .

( T h e i n fo rma t ion follows:)

Q U E S T I O N S P O S E D B Y T H E P U B L I C W O R K S C O M M I T T E E , A N D R E P L I E S R E C E I V E D F R O M T H E E N V I R O N M E N T A L PBOTECTION A G E N C Y ON O C E A N D U M P I N G

Question 1. At the present time, under the existing law—if-someone proposes to dump any type of material in the Great Lakes or the Estuaries—is he required to obtain'a Federal permit first? If so, from whom?

A n s w e r . 3 3 U .S .C. 407 p r o v i d e s t h a t i t i s u n l a w f u l to d e p o s i t a n y r e f u s e m a t t e r i n t o t h e n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ( w h i c h w o u l d i n c l u d e t h e G r e a t L a k e s a n d the E s t u a r i e s ) w i t h o u t a p e r m i t i s s u e d by the S e c r e t a r y of t h e A r m y . 3 3 U.S .C. 443 r e q u i r e s t h e o w n e r or m a s t e r of a n y s c o w or b o a t w h i c h t a k e s on b o a r d a n y r e f u s e m a t t e r i n t h e h a r b o r of N e w York, B a l t i m o r e or H a m p t o n R o a d s , to o b t a i n a p e r m i t f r o m the s u p e r v i s o r of t h e h a r b o r ( a n officer of t h e Corps of E n g i n e e r s ) "prior t o t r a n s p o r t i n g ; such r e f u s e m a t t e r to t h e p l a c e of deposi t . 3 3 U.S .C. 419 a u t h o r i z e s the S e c r e t a r y of t h e A r m y to prescr ibe r e g u l a t i o n s to g o v e r n t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d d u m p i n g o f a n y r e f u s e m a t e r i a l s i n t o a n y n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s , w h e n e v e r i n h i s j u d g m e n t s u c h r e g u l a t i o n s a r e required i n t h e i n t e r e s t of n a v i g a t i o n ; h o w e v e r , 3 3 U.S.C. 419 d o e s n o t require a p e r m i t for such t r a n s p o r t a t i o n or d u m p i n g .

Question 2. Prior to granting this permit in the Great Lakes and the Estuaries, isn't the Corps of Engineers required to ascertain'that the applicant has an appropriate certification from the State or States in whose waters it is proposed to dump the material that it will not violate applicable water quality standards?

A n s w e r . Y e s , u n d e r sec t ion 2 1 ( b ) of t h e F e d e r a l W a t e r P o l l u t i o n Contro l Act , p r o v i d e d t h a t w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s h a v e b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d for t h e w a t e r s i n ques t ion .

Question 8. Can anyone dump any type of material within the territorial waters (8-mile limit) of the U.S. without obtaining a Federal permit from the Corps of

Engineers? Doesn't the same requirement for a State certification apply within the S-mile limit? If not—why not? . ,

A n s w e r . T h e p r o v i s i o n s of 3 3 U.S .C. 407 a n d 3 3 U.S.C. 419, re ferred t o i n t h e a n s w e r to Ques t ion # 1 , app ly to d i s c h a r g e s w i t h i n t h e t h r e e - m i l e l imi t , a n d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t of a S t a t e cert i f icat ion a l s o a p p l i e s t o s u c h d i s c h a r g e s .

Question 4- Is there any similar requirement to obtain a Federal permit for dumping in the ocean beyond the 8-mile limit?

A n s w e r . T h e p r o v i s i o n s of 33 U .S .C . 443 , r e f erred t o in the a n s w e r t o . Q u e s t i o n No. 1. a p p l y to d u m p i n g w h e r e v e r c a r r i e d out , p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e r e f u s e m a t e r i a l w h i c h i s d u m p e d i s t ranspor ted by s c o w or b o a t f r o m one of the three h a r b o r s to w-hieh t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i e s . •• - • •

Question 5. Isn't it accurate to state that the only area not presently regulated is beyond the 3-mile limit? (Recognizing that the Supervisory Acts have limited, application beyond the Senile limit)

A n s w e r . N o , s ince , a l t h o u g h 3 3 U.S .C. 407 c o n t a i n s a u t h o r i t y to r e g u l a t e in t e r m i t t e n t d u m p i n g f r o m v e s s e l s w i t h i n the three -mi l e l i m i t , the S e c r e t a r y of the A r m y by a n d l a r g e h a s not i m p l e m e n t e d t h a t s t a t u t e a s i t a p p e a r s to s u c h d u m p i n g . •

Quesion 6. Does EPA review the applications for permits ? A n s w e r . A M e m o r a n d u m of U n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n t h e S e c r e t a r y of the I n

ter ior a n d t h e S e c r e t a r y of t h e A r m y d a t e d J u l y 13, 1967 c a l l s for r e v i e w b y

87


221

In ter ior of p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n s for dredg ing , filling, e x c a v a t i o n or o ther r e l a t e d w o r k in n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . T h e M e m o r a n d u m of U n d e r s t a n d ing ca l l s ' upon R e g i o n a l D i r e c t o r s of the. I n t e r i o r D e p a r t m e n t t o a d v i s e D i s t r i c t E n g i n e e r s w h e t h e r t h e • w o r k proposed by t h e p e r m i t app l i cant , i n c l u d i n g t h e

. d e p o s i t of a n y m a t e r i a l i n or n e a r a n y n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s , w i l l v i o l a t e app l i cab le . w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s . I n v i e w of the t r a n s f e r in 1970 of t h e S e c r e t a r y of t h e In ter ior ' s w a t e r p o l l u t i o n contro l f u n c t i o n s to the A d m i n i s t r a t o r of E P A , t h e f o r e g o i n g p r o v i s i o n s of t h e M e m o r a n d u m of U n d e r s t a n d i n g a r e no l o n g e r appl ic able , a n d no m e m o r a n d u m h a s b e e n c o n c l u d e d b e t w e e n t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r of E P A a n d the S e c r e t a r y of the A r m y to t a k e i t s p lace . H o w e v e r , E P A i s p r e s e n t l y r e v i e w i n g p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n s a s t h o u g h t h e t e r m s of the 1967 M e m o r a n d u m of U n d e r s t a n d i n g w e r e appl i cab le .

Question 7. Has the Corps, of Engineers granted any permits for dumping where EPA has objected to the issuance of such permits? If the answer is yes, pleased describe edch such occurrence.

A n s w e r . E P A a n d i t s p r e d e c e s s o r a g e n c y , t h e F e d e r a l W a t e r Q u a l i t y A d m i n i s trat ion , h a v e h a d d i s a g r e e m e n t s w i t h t h e Corps of E n g i n e e r s o v e r w h e t h e r par t i c u l a r p e r m i t s w i t h i n t h e a m b i t of t h e 1967 M e m o r a n d u m of U n d e r s t a n d i n g s h o u l d be g r a n t e d , a n d over t h e t e r m s of such p e r m i t s . H o w e v e r , i t i s be l i eved t h a t t h e r e h a v e been f e w i n s t a n c e s , i f a n y , i n w h i c h a p e r m i t h a s a c t u a l l y been i s s u e d over E P A / F W Q A objec t ion . B y a n d large , t h e s e d i s a g r e e m e n t s h a v e been re so lved on t h e r e g i o n a l l eve l i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e t e r m s of t h e M e m o r a n d u m of U n d e r s t a n d i n g , a n d i t w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y to c o n s u l t r e g i o n a l files to docum e n t i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h a p e r m i t h a s been i s s u e d over E P A / F W Q A objec t ion .

• Question 8. Under the proposed administration legislation on ocean dumping, -what agency would be responsible for the administration of the Refuse Act Permit p-rogram?

A n s w e r . T h e Corps of E n g i n e e r s w o u l d h a v e p r i m a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e respons i bi l i ty . . •

• Question 9. If the Corps is to be responsible for the Refuse Act program handling discharges, from fixed sources which is obviously a major source of pollution—what is the justification for EPA being given authority to'grant permits from moving sources? Why should another Federal agency be layered into the structure? Or do you believe EPA should have the permit authority for discharges from all sources?

A n s w e r . I d e a l l y , E P A s h o u l d h a v e t h e p e r m i t a u t h o r i t y for d i s c h a r g e s f r o m a l l sources . T h e R e f u s e A c t P e r m i t P r o g r a m w a s conce ived i n 1970 a s a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e effort t o a c h i e v e m a x i m u m u t i l i z a t i o n of p o l l u t i o n • contro l l e g i s l a t i o n a l r e a d y on the books , a n d u n d e r t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n , the p e r m i t i s s u i n g a u t h o r i t y f o r d i s c h a r g e s i n t o n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s w a s l o d g e d in t h e Corps o f E n g i n e e r s ( 3 3 U.S .C. 4 0 7 ) . H o w e v e r , the e n a c t m e n t of n e w l e g i s l a t i o n to c o n f e r r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y w h e r e n o n e p r e s e n t l y e x i s t s i s a h e n t i r e l y d i f ferent m a t t e r ; accord-

. ingly,' the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s b i l l t o r e g u l a t e ocean d u m p i n g c o n f e r s t h e p e r m i t i s s u i n g a u t h o r i t y u p o n E P A , t h e a g e n c y b e s t equipped, by v i r t u e of i t s env ironm e n t a l e x p e r t i s e , t o a d m i n i s t e r s u c h a program.

Question 10. What would be the obligations in merely amending the River and Harbor Act of 189V to 1905 to extend the 3-mile limit and to require the Corps of Engineers to work with EPA? What expertise or experience does EPA have in administering a permit program? a policing program?

A. E P A b e l i e v e s t h a t , i f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e o c e a n d u m p i n g pol icy i s to be imp l e m e n t e d e t x e n d i n g b e y o n d t h e three -mi le l imi t , i t s h o u l d be a d m i n i s t e r e d by E P A , t h e F e d e r a l a g e n c y c h a r g e d w i t h p r i m a r y respons ib i l i ty f o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l protec t ion . W h i l e i t i s t r u e t h a t E P A h a s had' l i m i t e d e x p e r i e n c e to d a t e in a d m i n i s t e r i n g a p e r m i t program, i t i s n o t be l i eved t h a t . t h a t i s a v e r y c o m p e l l i n g a r g u m e n t in f a v o r or c o n f e r r i n g an e x p a n d e d p e r m i t i s s u i n g a u t h o r i t y upon t h e Corps of E n g i n e e r s , s ince t h e Corps i s n o t p r i m a r i l y a n e n v i r o n m e n t a l a g e n c y a n d i t s e l f h a s h a d v e r y l i m i t e d e x p e r i e n c e i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g a p e r m i t program, a t l e a s t i n s o f a r a s d u m p i n g i s c o n c e r n e d ; u n t i l the recent ly a n n o u n c e d R e f u s e A c t P e r m i t P r o g r a m , t h e R e f u s e A c t w a s l arge ly u n i m p l e m e n t e d , a n d t h e Per m i t P r o g r a m i s s t i l l in i t s p r e l i m i n a r y s t a g e s . So f a r a s po l i c ing i s concerned, the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n h a s proposed t h a t t h i s be carried o u t by E P A in conjunct ion w i t h t h e Coas t G u a r d .

Mr. EDELMAN. T h e second series of questions concerns l and use.

88


222

T h e o the r day , you s t a t ed t h a t E P A could c a r r y out t h e r e s p o n s i bi l i ty for w a t e r pol lu t ion control more effectively as effective controls were establ ished u n d e r l a n d use.

D o you believe, i n fact , t h a t . i n t h e long r u n you can effect a n y . s ignif icant ma jo r i m p r o v e m e n t in t h e w a t e r qua l i ty s i tua t ion wi thou t g o i n g to l and use controls ? • . .

M r . RUCKELSHAUS. We l l , I don ' t know t h a t I would go qui te t h a t far , bu t I t h ink i t is essential t h a t we view the p rob lem of wa te r pol lut ion and d e g r a d a t i o n of the env i ronmen t in genera l as a to ta l i ty , a n d clearly, t he re needs to be m u c h more sophis t icated in te l l igent appl icat ion of the p r inc ip l e s of p r o p e r l a n d use if we a re ever go ing to real ly

M r . EDELMAN. T h e admin i s t ra t ion ' s proposed legis la t ion would author ize the Sec re ta ry of t h e I n t e r i o r to m a k e l and p l a n n i n g g r a n t s for t h e deve lopment of S t a t e l a n d use p r o g r a m s . I f w a t e r qua l i ty improvemen t s a r e one of t h e eventual p a r a m o u n t objectives of th is l and use pol icy p r o g r a m , can i t be effectively implemented if i t s p l a n n i n g is separa te f r o m Avater resource p l a n n i n g ?

M r . RUCKELSHAUS..Well, I t h i n k t h a t cer ta in ly w a t e r qual i ty is a ma jo r goal of t h e p r o g r a m , a n d in m a k i n g t h e g r a n t s for l a n d use p l a n n i n g , I wou ld assume t h a t t h e Sec re ta ry wou ld a t t e m p t t o insure t h a t w a t e r resource p l a n n i n g was in teg ra ted i n t o t h e p l a n n i n g re-, l a t i n g to t h e l and-use g r a n t .

I a m s t a t i ng t h a t you have to p l a n in a to t a l sense if you a re go ing to do i t effectively.

M r . EDELMAN. Could you specify t h e n a t u r e of the l a n d use controls t h a t you feel the S t a t e s would have to i m p l e m e n t i n o rde r for a S t a t e land-use-control p r o g r a m to be sat isfactory to E P A fo r wate r -qua l i ty pro tec t ion %

M r . RUCKELSHAUS. Wel l , I t h ink , in genera l , t he re would have to be some assurance on t h e p a r t of the S ta t e s t h a t they h a d t aken in to accoun t al l of t h e wa te r -qua l i ty problems t h a t m i g h t r e su l t f rom t h e i r l and-use p l an , a n d t h a t t hey h a d t a k e n in to account ahead of t ime the . need to p ro tec t those a reas of cr i t ical env i ronmen ta l concern which are described in t h e act itself as es tuar ine areas , coastal zones, and flood p l a ins . S o in o rde r for a p l a n to be acceptable to E P A we would have to h a v e assurance in t h e overal l S t a t e p l a n itself t h a t they h a d given adequa te considera t ion to these areas a n d t h a t w a t e r qua l i ty s t a n d a r d s a n d w a t e r qua l i ty i n genera l wou ld be protec ted .

• M r . EDELMAN. W h a t research is cu r ren t ly be ing u n d e r t a k e n e i ther by E P A o r u n d e r i t s sponsorsh ips in t h e a rea o f t h e to t a l nonpo in t source a n d ag r i cu l tu r e was te m a n a g e m e n t quest ion as i t affects w a t e r q u a l i t y ?

M r . RUCKELSHAUS. M r . J e n s e n m a y be able to g ive a m o r e complete answer to t h a t .

M r . JENSEN. W e have qu i te a va r ie ty of research p r o g r a m s t h a t a re dea l ing w i t h was te of one k i n d or another . Sed iments a n d waste f rom t h e forest indus t r i e s , and o the r p r o g r a m s dea l ing w i th t h e res tora t ion of s t r i p mines a n d the avoidance of sed imenta t ion a n d acid runoffs f rom these s t r i p mines. W e could p rov ide , of course, a complete l i s t ing of these projects , if you so wish .

M r . ROBERTS. I f you please, we would l ike to h a v e i t for t h e record. ( T h e i n fo rma t ion fol lows:)

89


2 2 3

, Project Federal Organization Title cost cost

•Department of Natural Resources, "Demonstration of the Technique of Water In - $961,392.00 J672.000.00 State of West Virginia. filtration Control to Achieve Mine Water Pollu

tion Control." Regional Science Research Inst i tu te . . . "Economic Evaluation of Stream Quality Preser- 55,435.00 52,663.00

vation Through Land Use Management" •Northwestern University.. "Use of Dredgingsfor Landfill." 79,174.00 74,808.00 •Dr. Sammet, University of California... "Management of Water Quality Stratified Reser- 11,665.00 11,037.00

voirs." 'Division of Sponsored Programs, "Erodibility of Urban and Suburban Construe- 79,155.00 75, 198.00

Purdue Research Foundation. tion Site Subsoils as Predicted by Chemical, Mineralogical and Physical Parameters."

University of Maryland School of l a w . . " A n Analysis of the Legal Problems in Reclama- 44,523.00 42,247.00 tion of Mines in Appalachian'

West Virginia Board of Regents, West "Mining Operations for the Reduction of Harm- 87,543.40 83,166.23 Virginia University. ful Drainage from Underground Coal Mines."

(Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, "Use of Gel Material for Sealing Deep Mine 205, 000.00 143,500.00 Department of Mines and Mineral Openings." Industries.

Do "Use of Latex as a'Soil Sealant to Control Acid 259,770.00 181,839.00 Mine Waste Drainage."

•Island Creek Coal Co " A Demonstration of a New Mining Technique 831,770.00 582,239.00 to Prevent the Formation of Mine Acid in an Active Deep Mine."

(Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, "Abatement of Acid Mine Drainage Pollution by 39,426.00 " 27,598.00 Department of Mines and Mineral Reverse Osmosis." Industries.

Do "Feasibility of the Purification of Acid Mine 15,000.00 . 10,500.00 Water bya Partial Freezing Process."

•Carnegie-Mellon University "Acid Mine Drainage—Pilot Plant Evaluat ion". . 63,910.00 57,518.00 .Tyco Laboratories, Inc "Silicate Treatment of Acid Mine Wastes" 55,412.00 55,412.00 •Catalytic Construction Co "Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage" 327,629.00 327,629.00 President and Fellows of Harvard "Microbial Mediation in Generation of Acid 27,018.00 25,667.00

College. Mines Wastes". Horizons, Inc "Treatmentof Acid Mine Drainage" : 49,300.00 49,300.00

"Halliburton Co "Research, Development and Field Testing of 328,830.00 328,830.00 Mine Water Pollution Abatement Methods."

Trustees of the University of Pennsyl- "Stream Quality Preservation Through Urban 54,126.00 37,390.00 vania. Land Use Management: Legal and Govern

ment." .University of Texas "Mixing and Dispersion of Contaminants in 28,536.00 25,942.00

Reservoirs." , National Association of Counties, "Community Action Guide for Erosion and Sedi- 56,543.00 41,343.00

Research Foundation. mentation Control." :State of Maryland "Demonstration and Quantitative Evaluation of • 432,000.00 280,000.00

Storm Water Erosion and Sediment Control Practices in a Developing Urban Area."

University of D e n v e r . . . . . "Abatement of Mine Drainage Pollution from 22,465.00 21,340.00 Mines of the Rocky Mountains."

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania "Trough Creek Limestone Barrier Installation 233,460.00 28,160.00 Department of Mines and Mineral and Evaluation." Industries.

Ohio State University Research "Pesticide Movement From Cropland into Lake 25,205.00 23,431.00 Foundation. Er ie ."

•Colorado State University "Grand Valley Salinity Control Demonstration 80,489.00 76,053.00 Project."

Oregon State University "Studies on Effects of Watershed Practices on 50, 575.00 37,552.00 Streams."

•Michigan State University "Soil Modification for the Denitrification and 141,184.00 99,852.00 Phosphate Reduction of Feedlot Wastes."

Desert Research Institute "Effect of Water Management on Quality of 140,290.00 127,470.00 Ground Water and Surface Recharge."

State of California "Nutrient Removal From Agricultural Waste 176,600.00 53,000.00 Waters."

Bureau of Reclamation, Department "Prediction of Mineral Quality of Return Flow 150,000.00 150,000.00 of the Interior. Water from Irrigated Land.

•Bureau of Reclamation "Monitoring Herbicide Residues in Irrigation 60,000.00 60,000.00 Systems.

•Colorado State University "Grand Valley Salinity Control Demonstration 80,489.00 76,053.00 Pro jec t"

Alabama Agricultural and Mech. "Nutrient Inputs to Streams from Ferti l izers". . 62,667.00 59,532.00 College.

rSouth Dakota.State University "Quantification of Pollutants in Agricultural 58,330.00 55,330.00 Runoff."

•Cornell University "Agricultural Contributions to Nutrients in 160,883.00 147,768.00 Water."

National Oil Recovery Corp "Demonstration of the Complete Conversion of 1,678, 104.00 387,331.00 Crankcase Waste Oil Into Useful Products— Without Producing Pollutant Material."

.AVCO-Economic Systems "Develop the Relation Between Land-Use 119, 281.00 119,281.00 Practices and Incidence of Pollution in Urban Storm Water."

Texas Technological College "Distribution of Nitrogen in the Ground-Water 39,364.00 Zone Belov; Feed-Lots, Texas High Plain."

±ake Tahoe Area Council "Eutrophication of Surface Waters—Lake 60,400.00 57,375.00 Tahoe."

90


224

IN-HOUSE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES (RELATING TO NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL)

Program area Laboratory Title , Man-years

Forestry and logging Corvallis, Oreg Log storage in waterways. . . . o. 2 -•• • ' Forest fertilization practices _ . . .1

Athens, G3i Pesticide and fertilizer runoff _ .1 Agricultural runoff do ."_ Control of pesticide runoff by improved management.' , 6.0 Irrigation return flows Ada,Okla_' Field research station for IRF quality control 2.5 Animal feedlots. . . -do Criteria for soil disposal of feedlot runoff .1.0

Development of field research site. • 1.0 Dissemination for technology transfer. . . , ' 2.0

Natural runoff ; . . d o _ Biological treatment for sulfate waters _ 1.0

M r . EDELMAN. Can you comment on t h e S t a t e of Delaware ' s act ion on J u n e 28 in b a r r i n g heavy i n d u s t r y from the De laware coast? I s th i s the d i rec t ion in which we wil l have to go in o rder t o deal w i th the despol ia t ion of coastline es tuar ine areas %

M r . RTJCKELSHATJS. I t h i n k i t is somewhat dangerous to general ize, and aga in , w h a t De laware did is the k ind of ac t iv i ty t h a t the adminis t ra t ion ' s l and-use p r o g r a m , land-use bil l , would encourage the S ta tes t o do. N o t necessari ly t h a t pa r t i cu l a r k ind of app l ica t ion of the autho r i t y itself, b u t cer ta in ly De laware , and t h i s is t h e admin i s t r a t ion ' s

. t heo ry of the bi l l itself, should be al lowed to decide for itself whe the r they would p r e f e r t o protect ' a coastal zone in t h e in teres t of t h e ci t izens of t h a t S t a t e , or to encourage i ndus t ry to locate on t h a t zone. A n d h a v i n g m a d e t h a t decision, t h a t cer ta inly would be consonant wi th t h e provis ions of t h e admin i s t r a t ion ' s Land-TJse-Policy Act . B u t as f a r as t h a t p a r t i c u l a r ac t iv i ty by De laware itself is concerned, t h a t is t h e k i n d of decision t h a t t h i s p r o g r a m would delegate to a S t a t e to

• make . - ' • ' M r . ROBERTS. M r . Rucke lshaus , we would be pleased to t ake t h e s tate

men t s t h a t you p l a n to submi t to t h e commit tee tomor row, a n d t h a t wil l t ake care of ou r problems, I hope , for a while .

Inc iden ta l ly , I t h i n k we o u g h t t o tell you. Over in t h e Sena te they are deba t ing on more commit tees on env i ronment , so we will have more places for you to testify.

M r . RUCKELSHAUS. I am cer ta in ly looking fo rwa rd to t ha t , Mr . C h a i r m a n . [ L a u g h t e r . ]

M r . C h a i r m a n , I have previous ly covered t h e proposa ls r e g a r d i n g financial assis tance for const ruct ion of mun ic ipa l waste t r ea tmen t works , S t a t e p r o g r a m g r a n t s , a n d ocean d u m p i n g . Today , I wil l discuss ou r p roposa l s for w a t e r ' qua l i ty ' s tandards a n d enforcement .

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. RTJCKELSHATJS, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY—Resumed

M r . RUCKELSHAUS. T h e F e d e r a l W a t e r Po l lu t ion Contro l Act , which has been s t ruc tu red la rgely by th i s committee over t h e years , has bu i l t increas ingly u p o n the fb imdat ion of s t anda rds . W a t e r qua l i ty s tanda r d s p rov ide t h e basis for S t a t e and local action, a n d a means of measu r i n g the progress of such action. T h e y ident i fy the remedia l measures

• t h a t mus t be t a k e n by indus t r ies a n d munic ipal i t ies . T h e y p rov ide the basis for F e d e r a l enforcement action as well .

W e believe those s t a n d a r d s should be s t r eng thened and broadened. T h e y should a p p l y to all nav igab le wate rs a n d t h e i r t r ibu ta r i es .

91


225

whether in te r s t a te o r in t ras ta te . T h e y mus t be enforceable—and they can only be enforceable if t hey are clear a n d precise a n d as real is t ic as we can make them. T h e y mus t be subject to deve lopment in keep ing wi th advances , i n technology, and improvemen t i n t h e re l iabi l i ty of the scientific d a t a u p o n which they are based. A s such they wil l p rov ide the basis for con t inued enhancement . These a re our goals i n H . E . 5966.

W e would extend wa te r q u a l i t y ' s t a n d a r d s t o - a l l nav igab le wate rs and t he i r t r ibu ta r i e s , i n t r a s t a t e as well as in te rs ta te . U n d e r present law, the Federal" Gove rnmen t h a s a u t h o r i t y ' t o a p p r o v e s t a n d a r d s adop ted by t h e S ta tes for in te r s ta te wa te r s w i t h i n t h e i r respect ive

. jur isdict ions, and to p r o m u l g a t e F e d e r a l s t a n d a r d s for such wa te r s when the S ta t e s f a i l t o t ake a p p r o p r i a t e action. N o comparab le au thor i ty exists for i n t r a s t a t e w a t e r s ; t he ind iv idua l S ta t e s a re free to act or no t to act as they see fit, a n d such s t a n d a r d s a s t h e y establ ish a re a p t to v a r y widely in t e r m s of t he i r specificity and adequacy. O u r legislat ive proposal would end t h e var ia t ions a n d g a p s in coverage resu l t ing from t h e present ju r i sd ic t iona l pa t chwork , and p rov ide t h e basis for a comprehensive n a t i o n a l system of wa te r qua l i ty s t anda rds . • W e would also ex tend wa te r qua l i ty s t a n d a r d s to g r o u n d waters . Such s t a n d a r d s a re p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t in view of t h e l ikely tendency pn t h e part , of indus t r ies to resor t to deep well disposal of h igh ly toxic wastes as a means of escaping t h e requi rements of increas ingly s t r i ngen t s t a n d a r d s for surface waters .

W e would p rov ide for E P A es tabl ishment of w a t e r qua l i ty s tanda r d s for the 9-mile cont iguous zone, a n d for t h e h i g h seas w i t h respect to wastes o r i g i n a t i n g wi th in U . S . t e r r i t o ry . These s t a n d a r d s would be of assistance in i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e ocean d u m p i n g proposa l which I discussed yes te rday .

Since the passage of the W a t e r Q u a l i t y A c t of 1965, the S ta tes have t aken m a n y different approaches i n developing w a t e r qua l i ty s tanda rds . T h e unce r t a in ty and confusion resul t ing f rom th i s diversity, of a p p r o a c h have often delayed the es tabl ishment of enforceable s tanda rds . O u r bi l l wou ld requi re t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r of E P A to p rov ide gu idance to t h e S ta tes by p r o m u l g a t i n g regu la t ions es tabl ishing specifications for w a t e r use des ignat ions , wa te r qual i ty cr i ter ia , and effluent l imi ta t ions in advance of S t a t e act ion.

I n se t t ing wa te r qua l i ty s t a n d a r d s t h e S ta tes and the F e d e r a l Gove rnmen t wou ld be requi red to t ake in to account benefits which flow f rom. increased use a n d value of w a t e r for publ ic w a t e r supply , fish a n d wi ldl i fe , wa te r -o r ien ted recreat ion, ag r i cu l tu re , i ndus t ry , and other purposes . T h e cost of mov ing to h i g h e r w a t e r use des ignat ions can be subs tan t ia l , a n d the benefits inc ident to i n c u r r i n g t h i s cost m u s t be careful ly weighed. O u r proposa l provides for m a k i n g such assessments.

W e cannot d i s r ega rd the economic cost to munic ipal i t ies , indust r ies , consumers , and o thers occasioned in mee t ing app roved s t anda rds . W e mus t de te rmine t h e re la t ionsh ip between ambien t w a t e r qua l i ty goals in a p a r t i c u l a r body of w a t e r and the effluent d ischarged in to t h a t water body from var ious sources. T h e identification and descr ip t ion of all i m p o r t a n t sources—not jus t munic ipa l and i ndus t r i a l—and determina t ion of t h e re la t ionsh ip between discharges a n d w a t e r qua l i ty is necessary if we a re to de te rmine the benefits, costs, a n d effectiveness of

66-S14—71 16

92


226

'var ious aba tement s t ra tegies . A clear u n d e r s t a n d i n g of these fac tors as necessary in o r d e r to set mean ingfu l t a r g e t da tes by w h i c h ambien t w a t e r goals wou ld be achieved. W h i l e we have a g r e a t deal to l ea rn in th i s a rea , i t is a l r eady qu i te c lear t h a t aba tement costs wi l l increase m o r e r a p i d l y as successively g r ea t e r reduct ions in effluent d ischarges •are achieved. W e wil l be g i v i n g increased a t t en t ion to t h i s area, pa r t i cu la r ly t o de t e rmin ing bo th t h e cost a n d effectiveness of a l t e rna t ive -abatement s t ra tegies .

W e believe t h a t t h e p rob lems of cost can be mi t i ga t ed w i thou t sacr i fice of w a t e r qua l i ty by i m p r o v i n g our .knowledge abou t t h e re la t ionsh ip between reduct ions in d ischarges and improved w a t e r qua l i ty a n d of t h e re la t ionsh ip between costs and benefi ts; by se t t ing implemen ta t ion schedules which are t i gh t , b u t which a r e wi th in the r a n g e of

^technological feas ib i l i ty ; t h r o u g h improved use of research, development , and demons t ra t ion funds to a r r ive-a t methods of mee t ing s tanda r d s ; t h r o u g h t a x credi ts a l lowable i n t h e T a x R e f o r m A c t of 1969; t h r o u g h t h e m o r e cost effective a p p r o a c h we envision in f u n d i n g mun ic ipa l was t e t r e a t m e n t fac i l i t ies ; and t h r o u g h more effective

"basin wide p l a n n i n g for w a t e r po l lu t ion c leanup. W e believe t h a t F e d e r a l gu idance is especially i m p o r t a n t in t h e

a rea of effluent l imi ta t ions . T h i s concept is new in t h e law. I t wou ld be -difficult a n d needlessly dup l ica t ive for each S t a t e t o g a t h e r al l t h e •scientific a n d technological in fo rmat ion u p o n which effluent l imi ta t ions m u s t be based. F e d e r a l l eade r sh ip mus t be p rov ided he re so t h a t t h e

• S ta t e s i n se t t ing effluent l imi ta t ions h a v e a clear idea of t h e task. O u r •experience w i t h t h e in i t ia l es tabl ishment of w a t e r qua l i ty s t a n d a r d s b y t h e S ta tes w i thou t t h e benefit of c lear guidance , r e su l t ing in p r o t r a c t e d delays , is t h e s t ronges t possible a r g u m e n t for clear F e d e r a l d i rec t ion a t t h e outse t of a new effort.

I n our view t h e impor t ance of effluent l imi ta t ions canno t be over-estimated. I t is o u r in ten t ion t h a t these l imi ta t ions , to consist of c lear -descriptions of effluent q u a n t i t y a n d qual i ty , wil l te l l indus t r ies a n d munic ipa l i t i es i n unambiguous t e r m s exact ly w h a t m u s t be done t o -meet F e d e r a l requi rements . W e expect these l imi ta t ions to be t h e p r i n c i p a l basis for fu tu re enforcement actions. .

W e also p ropose a new ca tegory of effluent l imi ta t ions a n d p roh ib i t i o n s w h i c h would be federa l ly imposed w i t h respect t o e lements and -compounds w h i c h have been identified as h a z a r d o u s to h u m a n h e a l t h o r welfare . A p p r o p r i a t e cont ro l of such substances m u s t be immed ia t e .and di rec t t a k i n g al l r e l evan t fac tors in to considerat ion.

ENFORCEMENT

F e d e r a l enforcement efforts should t ake full a d v a n t a g e of ex is t ing •water- qua l i ty s t a n d a r d s a n d t h e more precise requi rements we wil l "have w h e n effluent l imi ta t ions a r e established. These s t a n d a r d s a n d l imi ta t ions wi l l p rov ide a sol id b e n c h m a r k for es tab l i sh ing wa te r quali ty viola t ions , a n d should serve as t h e basis for F e d e r a l enforcement .actions.

W e should be in a pos i t ion to move effectively whenever we deter--rnine a v io la t ion of s t a n d a r d s is occurr ing . W e propose an enforce-

93


227

.ment system t h a t capi ta l izes on the admin i s t r a t i ve r egu la to ry proced u r e s wh ich have m a t u r e d in our legal system.

I t s key elements a r e : I n i t i a l adminis t ra t ive ' de t e rmina t ion of a v iola t ion followed by

ins t ruc t ions for a p p r o p r i a t e remedy . I s suance of an admin i s t r a t ive compl iance o rder a n d assess

m e n t of fines admin is t ra t ive ly . P rov i s ion for admin i s t r a t ive h e a r i n g a t t h e opt ion of t h e al

leged violator . A l l of th i s would be accomplished in a shor t t ime f r a m e a n d ac

t i o n wou ld be t aken by those specially equ ipped a n d knowledgeable in t h i s complex area.

W e wou ld be able to advance a l ong way t o w a r d achieving compl i a n c e a t t h e admin i s t r a t ive level, w i thou t a n y sacrifice of t h e equi ty a n d f a i r p l ay a n d ful l h e a r i n g requ i red by due process.

W e would need to address t h e issues judic ia l ly only as a l as t r e so r t ; :and t hen w i th a full h e a r i n g record which would be conclusive as t o t h e facts .

Cons is ten t w i t h our p roposa l t h a t wa te r qua l i ty s t a n d a r d s be ext ended to a l l nav igab le waters , whe the r in te r s t a te o r i n t r a s t a t e , we p r o p o s e t h a t F e d e r a l enforcement au tho r i t y be coextensive w i th t h e ^s tandard-se t t ing au tho r i ty and n o t l imi ted to cases in wh ich t h e pol lu t ion h a s in te r s ta te effects.

Of course t h e p r i m a r y responsibi l i ty for enforcement remains w i t h "the S ta tes . O u r proposa ls a re i n no way in tended to d imin i sh t h a t role. B u t we mus t be able t o act swif t ly if t h e S t a t e s fai l to do so.

T h e inabi l i ty to secure adequate i n fo rma t ion a n d d a t a no t avai l able f rom Governmen t sources concern ing po l lu t ion h a s inh ib i t ed t r u l y effective enforcement . W e propose to give E P A broad a u t h o r i t y -to ob ta in in fo rmat ion a n d da ta , t o subpena witnesses a n d records for •adminis t ra t ive proceedings and to requi re mon i to r ing a n d r e p o r t i n g , a l l consistent w i t h the due process requ i rements of law.

W e would also au thor ize E P A to move immedia te ly when an emergency presen ts a n imminen t a n d subs tan t ia l d a n g e r to h u m a n hea l th

-or we l fa re o r to wa te r qua l i ty b y reques t ing t h e A t t o r n e y Genera l to -seek t e m p o r a r y or p e r m a n e n t in junct ions in F e d e r a l court .

Ci t izen sui ts w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e sa feguards would be au thor ized to -enable p r i v a t e g roups a n d ind iv idua l s t o compel compliance w i th specific requi rements established u n d e r t h e l aw a n d to assure t h a t the publ ic in teres t wil l be pro tec ted where the l aw provides a c lear d u t y a n d remedy .

I h a v e apprec ia ted the o p p o r t u n i t y t o a p p e a r before you d u r i n g these t h r e e days of hea r ings . W e look f o r w a r d to t h e ear ly enac tment of legis la t ion which wil l achieve t h e purposes which have been stated. W e in t end to cooperate w i th you ful ly in t h i s process. I wil l be.pleased •to answer any questions you may have .

T h a t ' concludes m y s ta tement , Mr . C h a i r m a n , a n d I would be h a p p y "to answer any questions.

M r . ROBERTS. Before we h e a r quest ions from t h e commit tee , M r . Rucke l shaus , T wil l enter i n to t h e record a t t h i s po in t your p r e p a r e d •statement.

94


2 2 8

(Statement referred to follows:) S T A T E M E N T OF H O N . W I L L I A M D . R U C K E L S H A U S , A D M I N I S T R A T O R , E N V I R O N M E N T A L

PROTECTION A G E N C T

Mr. C h a i r m a n and M e m b e r s of t h e C o m m i t t e e : I t i s a p l e a s u r e to be w i t h you a g a i n for the th ird a n d la s t p a r t of our presen

t a t i o n of the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s proposa l s for w a t e r po l lu t ion control . P r e v i o u s l y I h a v e covered t h e proposa l s r e g a r d i n g financial a s s i s t a n c e for cons truc t ion of m u n i c i p a l w a s t e t r e a t m e n t w o r k s ; s t a t e p r o g r a m g r a n t s ; and ocean dumping . T o d a y I w i l l d i s c u s s our proposa l s for w a t e r qua l i ty s t a n d a r d s a n d e n f o r c e m e n t .

WATER Q U A L I T Y S T A N D A R D S

T h e F e d e r a l W a t e r P o l l u t i o n Control Act , w h i c h h a s been s t r u c t u r e d l a r g e l y by t h i s C o m m i t t e e over the years , h a s bui l t i n c r e a s i n g l y upon the f o u n d a t i o n of s t a n d a r d s . W a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s prov ide t h e bas i s for S t a t e and loca l ac t ion , a n d a m e a n s of m e a s u r i n g t h e progres s of s u c h act ion . T h e y i d e n t i f y t h e r e m e d i a l m e a s u r e s t h a t m u s t be t a k e n by i n d u s t r i e s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . T h e y prov ide the bas i s f o r F e d e r a l e n f o r c e m e n t ac t ion a s we l l .

W e be l i eve those s t a n d a r d s shou ld be s t r e n g t h e n e d a n d broadened . T h e y shou ld a p p l y to a l l n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s a n d the ir tr ibutar ies , w h e t h e r i n t e r s t a t e or in tra s ta te . T h e y m u s t be e n f o r c e a b l e — a n d t h e y c a n on ly be en forceab le i f t h e y a r e c lear a n d prec i se a n d a s rea l i s t i c a s w e can m a k e them. T h e y m u s t be subjec t to d e v e l o p m e n t in k e e p i n g w i t h a d v a n c e s in t echno logy , and i m p r o v e m e n t in the re l iab i l i ty of the scientif ic d a t a u p o n w h i c h they a r e based. A s such t h e y w i l l prov ide t h e b a s i s f o r c o n t i n u e d e n h a n c e m e n t . T h e s e a r e Our g o a l s in H . R . 5 9 0 0 .

W e w o u l d e x t e n d w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s to al l n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s a n d the ir t r ibutar i e s , i n t r a s t a t e a s w e l l a s i n t e r s t a t e . U n d e r present l a w , the F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t h a s a u t h o r i t y to a p p r o v e s t a n d a r d s a d o p t e d by t h e S t a t e s f o r inters t a t e w a t e r s w i t h i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n s , a n d to p r o m u l g a t e F e d e r a l s t a n d a r d s for such w a t e r s w h e n t h e S t a t e s f a i l to t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e ac t ion . N o c o m p a r a b l e a u t h o r i t y e x i s t s for i n t r a s t a t e w a t e r s ; the i n d i v i d u a l S t a t e s are f r e e t o a c t or n o t to a c t a s t h e y see fit, and s u c h s t a n d a r d s a s t h e y e s t a b l i s h a r e a p t to v a r y w i d e l y in t e r m s of the ir speci f ic i ty and a d e q u a c y . Our l e g i s l a t i v e proposa l w o u l d end the v a r i a t i o n s a n d g a p s in c o v e r a g e r e s u l t i n g f r o m the p r e s e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l pa tchwork , a n d p r o v i d e the b a s i s for a c o m p r e h e n s i v e n a t i o n a l s y s t e m of w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s .

W e w o u l d a l s o e x t e n d w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s to g r o u n d w a t e r s . S u c h s t a n d a r d s are p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t in v i e w of t h e l ike ly t e n d e n c y on the p a r t of i n d u s t r i e s t o resort to deep w e l l d i sposa l of h i g h l y t o x i c w a s t e s a s a m e a n s o f e s c a p i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of i n c r e a s i n g l y s t r i n g e n t s t a n d a r d s f o r s u r f a c e w a t e r s .

W e w o u l d prov ide for E P A e s t a b l i s h m e n t of w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s for t h e n ine -mi l e c o n t i g u o u s zone, a n d for t h e h igh s e a s w i t h r e s p e c t t o w a s t e s or ig ina t i n g w i t h i n U n i t e d S t a t e s terr i tory . T h e s e s t a n d a r d s w o u l d be of a s s i s t a n c e in i m p l e m e n t i n g the o c e a n d u m p i n g proposa l w h i c h I d i s c u s s e d y e s t e r d a y .

S ince t h e p a s s a g e of t h e W a t e r Q u a l i t y A c t of 1 9 6 5 , the S t a t e s h a v e t a k e n m a n y dif ferent approaches in deve lop ing w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s . T h e uncert a i n t y a n d confus ion r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h i s d i v e r s i t y o f a p p r o a c h h a v e o f t en del a y e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of enforceab le s t a n d a r d s . Our bi l l w o u l d require t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r of E P A to prov ide g u i d a n c e to t h e S t a t e s by p r o m u l g a t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h i n g speci f icat ions for w a t e r u s e d e s i g n a t i o n s , w a t e r q u a l i t y cr i ter ia , a n d effluent l i m i t a t i o n s in a d v a n c e of S t a t e act ion .

I n s e t t i n g W a t e r Q u a l i t y S t a n d a r d s the S t a t e s a n d t h e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t w o u l d be requ ired to t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t benefits w h i c h flow f r o m i n c r e a s e d use a n d v a l u e of w a t e r for publ ic w a t e r supply , fish a n d w i l d l i f e , w a t e r or i ented recreat ion , agr icu l ture , i n d u s t r y a n d o t h e r purposes . T h e c o s t o f m o v i n g t o h i g h e r w a t e r u s e d e s i g n a t i o n s can be s u b s t a n t i a l , a n d the benefits i n c i d e n t to i n c u r r i n g t h i s cos t m u s t be care fu l ly w e i g h e d . Our proposa l p r o v i d e s f o r m a k i n g such a s s e s s m e n t s .

W e c a n n o t d i s regard t h e economic cos t to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , i n d u s t r i e s , cons u m e r s , and o thers occas ioned i n m e e t i n g approved s t a n d a r d s . W e m u s t determ i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a m b i e n t w a t e r qua l i ty g o a l s in a p a r t i c u l a r body of w a t e r and the effluent d i s c h a r g e d in to t h a t w a t e r b o d y f rom v a r i o u s sources . T h e ident i f i cat ion a n d descr ip t ion of a l l i m p o r t a n t s o u r c e s — n o t j u s t m u n i c i p a l

95


229

a n d i n d u s t r i a l — a n d d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n d i s c h a r g e s a n d w a t e r q u a l i t y i s n e c e s s a r y i f w e a r e to d e t e r m i n e the benefits , c o s t s a n d effect i v e n e s s of v a r i o u s a b a t e m e n t s t r a t e g i e s . A c l ear u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e s e f a c t o r s i s n e c e s s a r y in order to s e t m e a n i n g f u l t a r g e t d a t e s by w h i c h a m b i e n t w a t e r g o a l s w o u l d be a c h i e v e d . W h i l e w e h a v e a g r e a t d e a l to l e a r n in t h i s a r e a , i t i s a l r e a d y qu i te c lear t h a t a b a t e m e n t c o s t s w i l l i n c r e a s e m o r e r a p i d l y a s succes s i v e l y g r e a t e r r e d u c t i o n s i n effluent d i s c h a r g e s a r e a c h i e v e d . W e w i l l be g i v i n g i n c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s a r e a , p a r t i c u l a r l y t o d e t e r m i n i n g both t h e c o s t a n d e f f ec t iveness of a l t e r n a t i v e a b a t e m e n t s t r a t e g i e s .

W e be l i eve t h a t t h e p r o b l e m s of c o s t c a n be m i t i g a t e d w i t h o u t sacri f ice of w a t e r q u a l i t y by i m p r o v i n g our k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n r e d u c t i o n s i n d i s c h a r g e s a n d i m p r o v e d w a t e r q u a l i t y a n d of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c o s t s a n d bene f i t s ; by s e t t i n g i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s c h e d u l e s w h i c h a r e t ight , b u t w h i c h a r e w i t h i n the r a n g e of t e c h n o l o g i c a l f e a s i b i l i t y ; t h r o u g h i m p r o v e d u s e of r e s e a r c h , d e v e l o p m e n t a n d d e m o n s t r a t i o n f u n d s t o a r r i v e a t m e t h o d s of m e e t i n g s t a n d a r d s ;• t h r o u g h t a x c r e d i t s a l l o w a b l e i n the T a x R e f o r m A c t of 1 9 6 9 ; t h r o u g h t h e m o r e c o s t e f fect ive a p p r o a c h w e e n v i s i o n i n f u n d i n g m u n i c i p a l w a s t e t r e a t m e n t fac i l i t i e s ; a n d t h r o u g h m o r e e f fec t ive b a s i n w i d e p l a n n i n g f o r w a t e r p o l l u t i o n c l e a n u p .

W e be l i eve t h a t F e d e r a l g u i d a n c e i s e spec ia l l y i m p o r t a n t i n t h e a r e a of effluent l i m i t a t i o n s . "This c o n c e p t i s n e w i n t h e l a w . I t w o u l d be difficult a n d n e e d l e s s l y d u p l i c a t i v e f o r e a c h S t a t e to g a t h e r a l l the sc ient i f ic a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t ion u p o n w h i c h effluent l i m i t a t i o n s m u s t be based . F e d e r a l l e a d e r s h i p m u s t be prov ided h e r e s o t h a t t h e S t a t e s i n s e t t i n g effluent l i m i t a t i o n s h a v e a c l e a r i d e a of t h e task . Our e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e i n i t i a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t of w a t e r q u a l i t y s a n d a r d s b y t h e S t a t e s w i t h o u t the benefi t o f c l e a r g u i d a n c e , r e s u l t i n g i n prot r a c t e d d e l a y s , i s t h e s t r o n g e s t pos s ib l e a r g u m e n t for c l e a r F e d e r a l d i rec t ion a t t h e o u t s e t of a n e w effort .

I n our v i e w t h e i m p o r t a n c e of effluent l i m i t a t i o n s c a n n o t b e o v e r e s t i m a t e d . I t i s our i n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s , . to c o n s i s t of c l e a r d e s c r i p t i o n s of effluent q u a n t i t y a n d qua l i ty , w i l l t e l l i n d u s t r i e s a n d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n u n a m b i g u o u s t e r m s e x a c t l y w h a t m u s t be d o n e t o m e e t F e d e r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s . W e e x p e c t t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s t o be t h e pr inc ipa l b a s i s for f u t u r e e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i o n s .

W e a l s o propose a n e w c a t e g o r y of effluent l i m i t a t i o n s a n d proh ib i t ions w h i c h w o u l d be F e d e r a l l y i m p o s e d w i t h re spec t t o e l e m e n t s a n d c o m p o u n d s w h i c h h a v e been ident i f ied a s h a z a r d o u s to h u m a n h e a l t h or w e l f a r e . A p p r o p r i a t e contro l of such s u b s t a n c e s m u s t be i m m e d i a t e a n d d irec t t a k i n g a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s in to cons idera t ion . • ' ; < ' , •

ENFORCEMENT

F e d e r a l e n f o r c e m e n t ef forts s h o u l d t a k e f u l l ' a d v a n t a g e of e x i s t i n g w a t e r quali ty s t a n d a r d s arid t h e m o r e p r e c i s e r e q u i r e m e n t s w e w i l l h a v e w h e n effluent l imit a t i o n s a r e e s tab l i shed . T h e s e s t a n d a r d s a n d l i m i t a t i o n s w i l l p r o v i d e a so l id benchm a r k for e s t a b l i s h i n g w a t e r q u a l i t y v i o l a t i o n s , _ a n d s h o u l d s e r v e a s t h e . b a s i s for F e d e r a l e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i o n s . '' '

W e s h o u l d b e in a pos i t i on to m o v e e f fec t ive ly w h e n e v e r w e d e t e r m i n e a v io la t ion of s t a n d a r d s i s ' o c c u r r i n g . W e p r o p o s e an e n f o r c e m e n t sys tem' t h a t c a p i t a l 1

i z e s . b n the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g u l a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s - w h i c h h a v e m a t u r e d i n our l ega l s y s t e m . I t s k e y e l e m e n t s a r e : . ,.

I n i t i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a v i o l a t i o n f o l l o w e d by ins truc t ions ' for a p p r o p r i a t e remedy . ' ' 1

' I s s u a n c e of a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m p l i a n c e order ' a n d a s s e s s m e n t of fines a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y . '; > '

P r o v i s i o n for a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g a t . t h e opt ion .of the a l l e g e d v io la tor . Al l of t h i s w o u l d be a c c o m p l i s h e d in a short, t i m e f r a m e a n d ac t ion w o u l d be'

t a k e n b y t h o s e s p e c i a l l y equipped and k n o w l e d g e a b l e in t h i s c o m p l e x area . W e w o u l d be able to a d v a n c e a l o n g w a y t o w a r d a c h i e v i n g c o m p l i a n c e a t t h e

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l eve l , w i t h o u t a n y sacrif ice o f t h e e q u i t y and f a i r p l a y and fu l l h e a r i n g required by d u e p r o c e s s . ' ' „

W e w o u l d need to a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e s j u d i c i a l l y on ly a s a' l a s t r e s o r t ; a n d then w i t h a ful l h e a r i n g record w h i c h w o u l d be c o n c l u s i v e a s to the fac t s .

C o n s i s t e n t w i t h our p r o p o s a l t h a t w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s b e e x t e n d e d to a l l n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s , w h e t h e r i n t e r s t a t e or i n t r a s t a t e , w e propose t h a t F e d e r a l e n f o r c e m e n t a u t h o r i t y b e . c o e x t e n s i v e w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g a u t h o r i t y and n o t l i m i t e d t o c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e p o l l u t i o n h a s i n t e r s t a t e effects .

96


2 3 0

Of c o u r s e t h e p r i m a r y respons ib i l i ty for e n f o r c e m e n t r e m a i n s w i t h t h e S t a t e s . O u r p r o p o s a l s a r e i n no w a y i n t e n d e d to d i m i n i s h t h a t ro le . B u t w e m u s t be a b l e to a c t s w i f t l y i f t h e S t a t e s f a i l to do so.

T h e i n a b i l i t y to s e c u r e a d e q u a t e in format ion , a n d d a t a n o t a v a i l a b l e f r o m Gove r n m e n t s o u r c e s c o n c e r n i n g p o l l u t i o n .has inh ib i t ed t ru ly e f fec t ive e n f o r c e m e n t . W e propose to g i v e E P A b r o a d a u t h o r i t y to obta in i n f o r m a t i o n a n d d a t a , to s u b p o e n a w i t n e s s e s a n d records for. a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s a n d t o require m o n i t o r i n g a n d report ing , a l l c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the d u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s of l a w .

W e w o u l d a l s o a u t h o r i z e E P A to ; m o v e i m m e d i a t e l y w h e n a n e m e r g e n c y p r e s e n t s a n i m m i n e n t a n d s u b s t a n t i a l d a n g e r t o h u m a n h e a l t h or w e l f a r e or t o w a t e r q u a l i t y by r e q u e s t i n g t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l to seek t e m p o r a r y or . p e r m a n e n t in j u n c t i o n s i n F e d e r a l court . . • - .

Ci t i zen s u i t s w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e s a f e g u a r d s , w o u l d be a u t h o r i z e d to e n a b l e p r i v a t e g r o u p s a n d , i n d i v i d u a l s t o icompel c o m p l i a n c e w i t h .specific requirements -e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r t h e l a w a n d to a s s u r e t h a t the pub l i c i n t e r e s t . w i l l be p r o t e c t e d w h e r e t h e l a w p r o v i d e s a c l ear .duty a n d remedy . . .,

I h a v e a p p r e c i a t e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to a p p e a r b e f o r e ' y o u d u r i n g . t h e s e three-d a y s of h e a r i n g s . W e look f o r w a r d to the ear ly e n a c t m e n t o f l e g i s l a t i o n w h i c h w i l l a c h i e v e t h e p u r p o s e s w h i c h h a v e been s ta t ed . W e i n t e n d to c o o p e r a t e w i t h y o u f u l l y i n t h i s proces s . I w i l l b e p l e a s e d .to a n s w e r a n y q u e s t i o n s y o u m a y have. .

Mr. ROBERTS. W i t h reference to ground'water, you state: . W e w o u l d a l s o e x t e n d w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s to g r o u n d w a t e r s .

Wherein do we have that authority, and where does i t exist in the-present law? • • •

Mr. RTJCKELSHATJS. Well , we don't have the authority under existing law, Mr. Chairman, and we are asking for extension of existing law because of a number of problems which have cropped up. One which I mentioned in m y testimony. One, the disposal of toxic wastes in deep wells, which is sometimes a method adopted by industry, and Ave are-worried that these toxic substances, through the ground water table, might contaminate existing water supplies. ..

Mr. ROBERTS. Where the State has complete control under the S ta te permit system on ground water, would you interfere in that situation ?' I am speaking specifically of salt water injection wells. I n water flooding of low-producing oil properties producers use water flood or water injection to bring the pressure back up. You have a State permit system on every well that is drilled, whether it is 100 or 5,000 or 10,000 feet.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. W e would have no desire, Mr. Chairman, under the program to interfere wi th the exist ing State program that w a s adequately protecting water quality. The only reason for the request for Federal authority over ground waters was to assure that we have-control over the water table in such a way as to insure that our authority over interstate and navigable streams cannot be circumvented,, so we can obtain water quality by maintaining a control over all the sources of pollution, be they discharged directly into any stream or through the ground water table.

Mr. ROBERTS. Y o u further state: W e w o u l d a l s o a u t h o r i z e E P A to m o v e i m m e d i a t e l y w h e n a n e m e r g e n c y p r e

s e n t s a n i m m i n e n t a n d s u b s t a n t i a l d a n g e r to h u m a n h e a l t h or w e l f a r e or ta w a t e r q u a l i t y b y r e q u e s t i n g t h e A t t o r n e y Genera l to s e e k t e m p o r a r y or p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n s i n F e d e r a l Court .

I am sure you are aware of the fact that the Congress and the E P A are get t ing some.very unfavorable publicity down in Texas because the Government had two or three airplanes down there to be used for spraying, and saying that E P A would not turn them loose. W e have

97


caballbl

Highlight

231

1,200 dead an imals u p to now, a n d if you people—well , i t is j u s t a b o u t go ing to w ipe ou t some of ou r q u a r t e r horse popu la t i on d o w n the r e .

A r e you a w a r e of t h i s s i tua t ion ? M r . RUCKELSHAUS. I a m no t aware , of a l l t h e specifics, M r . Cha i r

m a n . I was n o t d i rec t ly involved in t h a t . T h e first I h e a r d of it was t h a t ou r pub l i c affairs office go t an i n q u i r y r e g a r d i n g who ' i n t h e agency h a d o rdered those p lanes n o t to be released, a n d t h e n they cal led me a n d asked m e if I h a d a n y t h i n g to do w i t h i t , a n d I sa id I h a d never h e a r d of it , a n d we checked a r o u n d and found t h a t i t was a Suggestion t h a t h a d been m a d e b y somebody fa i r ly f a r d o w n i n t h e A g e n c y to whoever was in cha rge of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r ac t iv i ty in Texas , a n d we were no t r ea l ly d i rec t ly involved i n i t as a n Agency a t al l . I t was j u s t a n i nd iv idua l i n t h e Agency who h a d g iven somebody h i s op in ion , and t h e y took i t as an order .

M r . ROBERTS. I believe t h e A i r F o r c e h a d t w o o r t h r ee p lanes d o w n the re , a n d t hey sa id t hey were he ld u p by E P A , a n d immedia te ly ou r te lephones s t a r t e d r i n g i n g , a n d people say ing , " W h a t a re you go ing t o do abou t i t ? " A n d we h a d to pass t h e p rob lem t o E P A , so I a m sure you a re g o i n g to h e a r a lot more abou t i t .

M r . RUCKELSHAUS. W e l l , I wi l l look in to t h e issue in m o r e deta i l , a n d g ive you a r epo r t .

M r . ROBERTS. Now, we a r e t a l k i n g abou t ci t izen losses, and if t hey were able t o sue E P A , we would have a lo t of t roub le abou t t h a t .

M r . RUCKELSHAUS. T h e y a re able to sue E P A . M r . ROBERTS. W e l l , we a re very g l a d to h a v e you here , M r . Rucke l

shaus . W e apprec ia t e t h e s ta tements a n d y o u r a t t endance before these hea r ings .

Does t h e Congresswoman f rom New Y o r k have a quest ion ? M r s . ABZUG. I h a v e gone in to th i s before w i th you, M r . Rucke lshaus .

I a m somewhat concerned abou t t h e quest ion of se t t ing s t a n d a r d s , because we h a v e h a d p rac t i ca l ly no enforcement in t h e w a t e r pol lut ion field.

I a m no t go ing to general ize, because I h a v e h e a r d a lot of t a lk , mos t of i t in t h e field of compliance, about how m u c h of th i s enforcement h a s t a k e n place. T h e coun t ry is be ing pol lu ted b y all k inds of i ndus t r i a l faci l i t ies—we h a v e tes t imony t h a t 42,000 pol lu te rs exist. W e have n o su i t s t h a t a re pend ing , o ther t h a n some 30 or 40 a n d no m a t t e r h o w you p u t i t in t h e tes t imony, I g a t h e r e d th i s opinion f rom th i s commi t t ee a n d o ther commit tees on which I serve.

I feel t h a t the whole field m u s t be m u c h more vigorously enforced. I do no t believe t h e admin i s t r a t i on bil l begins t o ge t a t it . T h e r e a r e n o t enough t imes when the re a re c lear deadl ines as to w h a t s t a n d a r d s shou ld be adopted . S t a n d a r d s h a v e to be enforced. I t h i n k t he re i s , desp i te w h a t you testified to t h e o the r day , as I r ead th i s bil l , a t r e mendous a m o u n t of decent ra l iza t ion of un i fo rm codes na t iona l ly , a n d a lo t of p rocedure t h a t is go ing to t a k e p lace which is g o i n g to present aga in t h e enforcement of t h e whole an t ipo l lu t ion effort t h a t I t h i n k is so sadly lack ing in th i s count ry . A n d f rom all t h e tes t imony I have-h e a r d so fa r in t h i s commit tee , I do no t feel your bil l is real ly different in g r e a t detai l f rom the admin i s t r a t ion ' s bi l l . I n two instances, ( A ) i t st i l l rests upon a p rocedure whereby t he re a re s t a n d a r d s t h a t a r e

98


232

go ing to begin to be adopted on t h e first level, a n d if they do not , t he a d m i n i s t r a t o r wil l insist on un i fo rm s t a n d a r d s a n d we know t h e pollu te rs , a n d we do no t have any enforcement provisions. A n d you are tes t i fy ing abou t a bil l which has a l a rge enforcement p rocedure which wil l be l a rge ly t a lk , ins tead of in i t i a t ing t h e proceedings in the court .

I t h i n k i t is t i m e we took act ion on t h e enforcement question. Other wise, local po l lu te r s are go ing to be very influential in t he i r S ta tes w i t h t h e money t h e y have, to p reven t S t a t e s f rom go ing af te r t hem in a p p l y i n g t h e s t a n d a r d s a n d ' e n f o r c i n g t h e s t a n d a r d s aga ins t v io la tors .

I do no t know if th is improves t h e admin i s t r a t ion ' s bi l l t h a t you testified on t h i s a f te rnoon. .

M r . RTJCKELSHATJS. We l l , t h e process ,of se t t ing s t a n d a r d s a n d enforc ing t h e m ' h a s n o t . worked . N o r .do I quest ion t h e fact t h a t t h e reason i t has no t worked in t h e pas t is because i t has not been used. W e have, set s o m e ' s t a n d a r d s a n d h a v e n o t been very vigorous about enforc ing them. .• • .. , . .,.,-' .''

M r s . ABZUG. T h a t i s r i g h t ; . . . . • ' " ' . . ' Mr..RUCKELSHAUS. T h a t has no t been t r u e of .this. Agency., W e have

cont inued to enforce the s t a n d a r d s , a n d we wil l .continue, to do so. . •In fact , t he r e is n o t h i n g w r o n g with"t)ie enforcement procedures in

t h i s bill . I f t h e procedures "are not used, i t is t h e fau l t of t h e Agency , no t t h e f a u l t of t h e b i l l . .There is adequa te a u t h o r i t y the re to vigorously enforce s t a n d a r d s a l r eady set, 'aiid'tb the , ex tent t h a t t h i s Agency h a s no t ye t t o date) in your, opin ion , shown, a tendency to enforce, the s t a n d a r d s , t h a t is no t subs tan t ia ted by t h e facts'.. • . Mrs. ' ABZ.U;G". W e l l , there was, testimony, ^that , t h e reason . there had;. been ve ry few cases recommended f o r l i t iga t ion by t h e D e p a r t m e n t , o f Jus t i ce is because t h e best, way to h a n d l e i t is to have a conci l ia t ing a t t i tude . T h a t is fine, b u t we. cannot keep on conci l ia t ing w i th pol lut ion. Y o u say we should set u p guidel ines w i t h i n 6 mon ths for t h e Government , a n d a year for the S ta tes . I . c a n see t h a t . t a k i n g 2 years or more before t he re are any regula t ions agreed to . T h a t is w h a t I ge t out of y o u r bi l l r i g h t now. O n the question-of es tabl ishing guidel ines , I see a m i n i m u m of 2 years f rom now, f rom t h e enac tment of any bill. I a m t a k i n g y o u r own bill and .ybur own figures. ,

M r . RUCKELSHAUS. T h e fact of t h e m a t t e r is' t h a t a lmost all S ta tes now h a v e s t a n d a r d s t h a t a re enforceable, a n d th i s bill wil l no t wipe out al l of t h e ex i s t ing s t anda rds , n o r will i t slow u p the enforcement p r o - . cedures t h a t have a l ready been in i t i a ted by t h e A g e n c y . W h a t we. are a t t e m p t i n g to do in this bil l is to m a k e i t m u c h clearer to everybody involved-exac t ly w h a t the s t a n d a r d s mean , and m a k e their; enforceabi l i ty ihuch g r ea t e r t h a n is now t rue , because if. we. s e t ' w a t e r use des igna t ion and cr i te r ia as t o how those des ignat ions a re to be met . and effluent gu ide l ines for t h e S ta tes , all they h a v e to do is set effluent d i scharge s t a n d a r d s for each i ndus t ry d i s cha rg ing in to those s t reams. W e can set those s t a n d a r d s now. -

M r . ROBERTS. I f t h e Congresswoman is finished, we.would have a lot of quest ions to send you before we w r a p u p oh t h e bil l . W e have some people f rom N e w Y o r k to testify.. ", .. ,

H a v e you finished quest ioning Mr . Rucke l shaus ? Mrs . ABZUG. Yes . I have finished wi th M r . Rucke lshaus .

99


233

M r . GROVER. Before we recess, if t h e c h a i r m a n wil l bea r w i t h m e for abou t 30 seconds, I t h i n k t he re is go ing to be someth ing un ique in t h e p resen ta t ion af ter ou r br ief recess. W e know we w a n t t o c lean u p o u r Na t ion ' s wa te r , a n d money gets involved, and t h e t a x p a y e r s p a y t h a t money, a n d we h a v e a n extremely un ique s i tua t ion in N e w York , i n Suffolk County , m y county, where we a re u n d e r t a k i n g a m u l t i - h u n d r e d s of t housands of do l la rs project , a n d i t is qui te a n experience for t h e t a x p a y e r s a n d for t h e legis la tors w h o have h a d t h e courage to p romote it . I do w a n t to a le r t t h e commit tee , a n d I would hope t h a n m a n y people t h a t a re in teres ted i n ge t t i ng th i s Na t ion ' s wa te r s cleaned u p , wi l l come back because in t h e end. t h e job is go ing to have to be done by t a x p a y e r s ' money. T h i s is a difficult p rob lem. T h i s is a serious p rob lem we h a v e u n d e r t a k e n i n ou r county, a n d someone h a s to deal w i t h it . W e mus t devise a new k i n d of fo rmula to t a k e t h e b u r d e n off t h e homeowner . I t wi l l be shown t h a t t h e homeowner in Suffolk Coun ty is go ing to bea r a d i sp ropor t iona te ly heavy t a x p a y e r burden . So those a re t h e interes ts of t h e t axpaye r s .

M r . ROBERTS. T h a n k you, M r . Grover . T h e C h a i r m a n wi l l submi t wha teve r quest ions we need. T h a n k you ve ry much . W e wil l recess un t i l 2 :15. • ( W h e r e u p o n , t h e commit tee recessed a t 1:45 p.m. , t o reconvene a t

2:15 p.m., t h e same day . ) ' " ; "•• . i i i .

. '. AFTERNOON SESSION ' F

( T h e commit tee" reconvened a t 2:15 p.m. , H o n . <Ray Robe r t s p res id ing . ) '

Mr., ROBERTS. T h e commit tee wi l l be in order . T h e ' C h a i r t akes p leasure i n p re sen t ing t h e gen t l eman f rom N e w

York , who wil l in t roduce ou r witness. M r . Grover . / • i i

. M r . GROVER. T h a n k you, M r . C h a i r m a n . ' " ' • • ' D u r i n g th i s af ternoon 's cont inued hea r ing , we h a v e H o n . S y d n e y

•Askoff, who is c h a i r m a n of t h e sewer commi t t ee of t h e Suffolk Coun ty leg is la ture on L o n g I s l and , accompanied by H o n . J o h n M. Flyn'n, commissioner, Suffolk Coun ty D e p a r t m e n t of" E n v i r o n m e n t a l Cont ro l . . . ' ' :

These gen t lemen have a very , very i m p o r t a n t message, M r . C h a i r man , for a l l member s of t h e committee. .When i t ge ts t o p u t t i n g p ipes in t h e g round , a n d p u t t i n g these p l an t s in to opera t ion , as I ind ica ted before the recess, i t t akes money. A n d in heav i ly developed subu rb -anized a reas such as ours , i t t akes lots of money. A n d we do feel, those of us in New York , t h a t we h a v e been b laz ing t r a i l s for t h e preservat ion of t h e wa te r s in all our S ta tes . W e do feel t h a t t h i s message h a s in i t t h e very gu ts , if I can use t h a t expression, of the problem. A n d I t h i n k if a l l of t h e members a re given occasion to r ead th i s s tatement , t hey should r ead it . I t h i n k we wil l h a v e to t a k e a long look a t ou r financing me thods a n d t h e policy by which we finance t h e S t a t e opera t ions to clean u p the Nat ion ' s w a t e r systems.

M r . ROBERTS. T h a n k you, M r . Grover . M r . Askoff, you m a y proceed. W o u l d you ident i fy for t h e record

y o u r o ther people?

100


March 28, 197~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 10609 John B. Hall Cltlford H. Kittle, Jr. John E. Hall Herbert W. Klein, Jr. Robert J. Halliday WUllam L . Kleinpeter James C. Hardee J<>&eph Kochuba Robert R . Harem Clllford J , Kolson II Gregory Harrison Gregory C. Kooilll Robe.rt L. Hart Raymond M . Kruse Ouy B. Harwood Walter M. Kubiak Jamea E. Haeklns Gregg c . Kubu Micha.el J . Havrllla Mitchell A. Kudla FAward G. Hayden II William P. Kyle James L. Hayee Paul A. Lambert ASkold T. Haywu Roland L. Lambert, Jr. Homer L . Hazel Barry J . Landau Dennill J. Hellman Charles E. Landry, Jr. David H. Henderaon, John Langdon II

Jr. Charles R. Larkin, Jr. Michael w. Bentg Michael W. Leach Leon F. Henley, Jr. David J. Lee Roger D. Herrlng Dean J. Legldnkes Bruce A. Henry Gregory G. Lem.mer John P. Bertel James F. Leonard Stephen M. HJll Richard C. Lepley William li. Hill m Timothy B. Levan Timothy J. Himel! Terry N . Lewis Kingsley E. Hoemann Robert J. Llv1ngston William D. Holcomb Cart J . Loguidice John R. Hollcraft Herbert B. Long II Louis s. Hollier IV Leonard A. Long Wllllam D. Holl later Michael E. Lowe James E. Hollopeter John F. Lucas Jack W. Holt, Jr. Edmund A. Lucke Richard A. Houston, John K. Lynn

Jr. John M . Machen Sylvester Boward James W. MacMurray Vance B. Howerton, Jr. Jr. Thomas w. Hoyaa Don B MacNamec Tbomaa P. Hudson, Jr. Thomas A. Manfredi Jan c . Huly Edwin C. Mann Jerry D. Humble William T. Manning Dennis B. Joerger E.<Jmond W. Marks Timothy J. Ireland Gary w. Marshall Gordon R. Jackson George L. Marshall, Jr. Robin s. Jackllon Thomas M. Marslllo Joseph D. JelTares Terry L. Martin Slguard L. Jensen m Harold Mashburn, Jr. Eddie E. Johansson mDanny C. Masters Thomas s. Jones Robert A. Matthews Timothy J . Joyce Aove E . Mattox Larry J. Jurica Roger J. Mauer Kenneth M. Jurjevlch Wllllarn L. Maxey Robert L. Jonea Jerry C. McAbee Michael R. Kain Robert P. McCaleer Terry R. Kane Robert F. McCarthy Raymond J. Kaufman John I. McClurkln Robert J. Keller Larry B. Mccollum Michael M. Kephart Rlchard M. McCool III Joe Klllebrow Boyd 8. McCord Robert J. Klmble, Jr. John J. McDermott David L. King I an D. McDonough Robert c. King Bryan M. McGlll Bruce J. Ktrry Terry W. McKlnaey Ray E. KittUatved James F. McLean

Billy D. MoMUlln Francis J Prleat Genes. Mead Kenneth L. Prl~Uey Kenneth H. Medeiros Berni.rd C. Proctor Wllllam J . P. Melby David A. Promtt David L. Mellott Randall B. Pyles Joseph A. Menart Henry A. Pyzdrowskl, Richard D. Metcalt Jr. FrancJs J. Meyer Lesmond C. Ram!l8y Robert D. Michael Garrett V. Randft, Jr. Gene A. Milleson Robert W . Rathbun Thomas P. Milne Brett D . Rayman Alex G. M1tkevtch Edward J , Reardon, Jr. Charles G . Mlttnach\ Peter J . Reding Robert J. Moberg II James L. Reid Robert A. Mohlln Steven S . Relnemund Donald J. Monroe John H. Reynolds Samuel Moore Jr. Larry J. Richardson Will.lam M. Moore Dwight G. Rickman Richard C. Morgan Davld W. Rlggle Terrence o. Morgaz James w. Rln!5Chler Robert V. Morris Richard H. Roamer Louis R. Moyzan Edward J. Robeson IV John C. Mullane, Jr. Robert S. Roblchaud Robert S. Mutcher Edmond L. Robin John W. Muth ID James R. RoblIUIOn II Wllllam N. Myers Earl w. Rogers Gerald N. Nance JelTrey A. Rogers James M. Naylor Winston E. Rorabaugh Lannie D. Neal Wiley J. Ro3emond John o. Nemec, Jr. James M. Rosen Paul S. Nickolaus Alfred G. Roth Mlken J. Nielsen Robert M. Rudolf Raymond K. Noll Jelfrey C. Rupp William R. Norton W Robert A . Rys Jerry R. Oberg Robert J. SalTer Gerald B. Ogden Roger A. Sager Ward C. Ogle James E. Sall, Jr. Gregory C. Okelly Davtd W. Sana.sack Steven E. Olmstead Lev.1s M . Bandera Thomas F. OreUly Edward J. Sandrlck Michael c. OSajda David A. Sannes Paul R. Ottinger Ervin W. Se&rlett, Jr. Jooepb J. Pantalone Jet!rey E. Scheterman Frederick D. Parker Raymond W. S. Charles A. Parlier II Schell Inger James W. Parrish David K . Scmmldt Clarence P. Patten m Riobert D. Schow Christopher R. PaatelJames R. Schwenk Wllllam W. Pattison II Roland R. Seaman Ralph E. Pearcy m James E. L. Seay Wlley H. Pearson Wllllam J . Seemeyer Frederick C. Peck Gary C. Selser Hugh P. Phllllps Ellsworth A. Shaw Henry N. Pilger Michael J. Shaw John W. Pitz Anthony P . Shepard Carl O. Plath, Jr. Stevan A. Shepherd Allan J. Polaohowsld John E. Sherbln Raymond L. Polak Jimmy R. Shideler Christopher C. Polson Jrunes D. Shimp James J. Porter, Jr. Mitchell E. Shivers Gregory M. Potter James G. Shockley Ronald o. Powell Thomas J. Short Andrew N. Pratt Ronnie E. Slrma.na

Joel M. Skousen Joseph Thurmond James L. Smee Theodore K. Tolle Arthur M. Smith, Jr. James P. Trahern Charles L . Smith Dennis E. Tripp Delmer Smith Robert P. Turbyfill Dennis R. Sm.Ith Craig J. Turner Edward D. Smith, Jr. Conrad B. Turney Lyle w. Smith Douglas D. Tyler Terry A. Smith Larry P. Vance William G. Sm.Ith Martin R. Vanderbrooll Jon w. Smythe Neal w. Vanhouten, Leslle Solymossy Jr. Robert E . Sonnenberg. John A. Vansteenberg

Jr. Lowell P. Vanwagenen Douglas K. Spaulding Robert J. Varley Jerry L. Spencer 01!rald A. Vlanello Sidney L. Spurgeon Bruce R. Wahlsten Joseph F. Startarl WIJllam w. Walker Richard M. Stearns Lawrence C. Walt Robert E. Steinhorst, Clark L. Waters

Jr. Larry D. Walters Stephen K. StelnmeyerJames G. Ware Thorys J. StenS?'Ud Merrlll C. Waters Bruce M. Stevens David M. Webster Ronald L. Stevens l\11cbael J. Weiss Henri P. Stewart Charles N. Wells David A. Stockwell Steven G. Western John D. Stokes Robert H. Wbltlock Timothy P. Stouter Paul A. Whltham Robert L. Strawser Gene W. Whitten Andre D. Summers Leo V. Williams Ill Larry A. Sunn Nicholas J. WUllams, Leonard M . Supko Jr. Donald F. Swanda, Jr. Norrts E. Williams John R. Switzer Clarence E. Wlllle, Sr. Aloysius Sypniewsld Douglas G. Wilson Al!red J. Talevl Thomas E. Wilson James M. Tarkington Richard P. Wolle Rex N. Taylor Thomas S. Wolle Jon D. Terry James E. Woodrut!. Jr. Paul W. Thomas Donald w. Workman Jimmie R. Thompson Gary J. Wright John L. Thompson James L. Young m Wayne P. Thompson George E. Zaklelarz Joseph Thorpe William E. Zales, Jr. Erlk B. Tbueson

WITHDRAWAL

Executive nomination withdrawn from the Senate March 28, 1972:

IN THE COAST GUAJUJ

Capt. William H. Brinkmeyer, U.S. Coe.at Guard, from turtber consideration for ap· polntment to the grade of rear admiral. U.S. Coast Guard. lils name was submitted together with that of one other nominee for appointment to the grade of rear admiral In the Coast Guard on Ma.rch 20, 1972.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Tuesday, March 28, 1972 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. Rev. Bob W. Parrott. Seabrook United

Methodist Church, Seabrook, Tex., offered the following prayer:

Let us pray. Almighty God, we have desired posi

t ion more than wisdom to handle the responsibility. And we have paid for it, not In loss of omce. but In loss or confidence that we are doing our best.

Help us regain Integrity, which comes by being truthful. The truth Is, before we vote, we need to listen-to those who put us in office and to You who put us In the world.

You have programed us with a curiosity to fly to the moon, and beyond; with a desire to help the underdog; with the potential to be truthful. O God, electrify this Chamber with truth in order that

CJCVIII~69~Part8

our words and actions will declare, "Not my will but Thy will b e done."

In Jesus' name. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal ot the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.

Without objection, the Journal stands approved.

There was no objection.

REV. BOB PARROTT, PASTOR. SEA-BROOK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

<Mr. CASEY ot Ti!xas asked and was given permission to address the House

for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.>

Mr. CASEY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, It has indeed been our honor to have our Invocation given by the Reverend Bob Parrott, pastor of the Seabrook United Methodist Church, which is part of my congressional district.

Reverend Parrott is truly a "space-age parson," as his church ls located near the Manned Spacecraft Center, and he has astronauts and NASA personnel as most of his congregation. He is an instrumentrated pilot, files bis own Beechcratt Bonanza, and has authored two spaceoriented books, "A Man Talks With God," and "Earth, Moon, and Beyond." He has a third book scheduled to be published la.te this year.

Rev. Bob Parrott's real pride and a.c-

101


10666 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - H OUSE March 28, 1972

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I take the well at this time to make some legislative history locally, and I would like to have the attention, tr I might. of the manager of the bill, Mr. Jom:s, and the manager, Mr. HARSHA. On page 372 of the bill, section 6, there ls a definition of the word "Pollutant." On line 10 there occur the words "radioactive ma.tertals." Has the gentleman found those words? On page 131 of the repart, in the second indented paragraph, the following language appears:

The term "polluta.nt" as defined in tbe bill includes "radioactive materials." Tbese materials are those not encompn&;ed In the deftnitlon of source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials aa defined by tbe Atomic Energy Act ot 1954. na amended, and regulated pursuant to that Act. "Radioactive materials" encompassed by this bUI are those beyond the Jurisdiction or the Atomlc Energy Commission. Examples o! rndlooctlve material not covered by the Atomic Energy Act, and, therefore, Included within the term "pollutant." are radium and accelerator produced lsotopea.

The question I should like to ask the gentleman from Alabama, the manager of the bill, is this: Is that a true and clear definition of the intent of the committee in the ut111zat1on of the words "radioactive materials" on line 10, page 372?

Mr. JONES of Alabama. The gentleman Is correct. That was the intent. The gentleman has just read from page 131 of the repart. and that is our specific in~entlon. as I understand.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank the gentleman for that response, and I assume it is lhe inumt of the gentleman, if he is one of the managers of the bill in conference, to try to sustain that dcflnition to the best of his ability.

Mr. JONES ot Alabama. Certainly I shall be dlrect.ed by the action of the House on a bill, and will stand as steadfastly for that action as I know how.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to my colleague from California.

Mr. HOSMER. I should like to address the same question to the gentleman from Ohio and also another question.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLIFIELD I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HARSHA. I will respond in the aftlrmatlve to that question. That is definitely what we mean. As I said earlier in the debate on the WoUT amendment. we intended to leave the Jurisdiction o1 radioactive material that came within the Atomic Energy Act up to the Atomic Energy Commission. The language applies only to everything outside the jurisdiction o! AEC. That is deftn.ltel.y the int.ent of the wording of the bill and the intent or the committee.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Caltforni.a.

Mr. HOSMER. I would Uke to ask the gentleman from OhJo a further question. Earlier in the afternoon .\ Point of order

was me.de to an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York <Mr. WoLFF). The paint or order was decided upon a definition of the words "radioactive material." The same deftnitlon Is contained in the bill before the House today. There is no distinction raised between the source, byproduct and other nuclear material as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. I ask the gentleman if it is his intent that the ruling was made in recognition CJf the distinction between the definitions?

Mr. HARSHA. I do not mow that I could answer on what basis the Chairman or the Parliamentarian based their ruling. I felt it was not germane to this act in view of the way we had written the language of the act and the language of the report. We definitely intended to exclude from our Jurisdiction of radJoactive material that which Hes within the Jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission under the Atomic Energy Act.

Mr. HOSMER. That ls exactly the way I see it. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the able gentleman from California for helping to clarify the earlier position as included in the earlier ruling. As a member of the Committee on Public Works and also as a. member sitting on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, it has been enllghtenine to me. There is no intention on the part of the Committee on Public Works to move into the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atom.le Energy, or in any way to disturb the existing respansibllitles that are declared \lllder that law.

AKENDMENT OITERi:D BY MJI. ASP1N

Mr.ASPIN.Mr.Cha.irman, I offeran amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment olJered by Mr. ABPIN: Page 277,

line a. a.!ter "navigable waters" insert "and 'the ground watem".

Page 277, line 4, after "such" lnsert "navigable and ground".

Page 278, Une S, after "navigable waters" l.naert "and ground waters".

Pa.ge 278, line 6, after "such" Insert "navigable or ground".

Page 281, ll.ne 8, after "navigable waters" Insert "and ground waters".

Page 372, Une 14, strike out "water," and all that follows down through and including" (C)" on line 22.

Page 372, line 24, strllce out "(D)" and Insert " ( C) ".

Page 373. Une 21, after "navigable waters," insert "ground watere,".

Pa.ge 374, line 4, strike out the period and insert In lieu thereof a comma and the following: "(C) any addition ot any pollutant to ground watel"8 trom any polnt source."

Mr. ASPIN <during the reading). Mr. Cha.l.rma.n, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection. Mr. A.SPIN. Mr. Chairman, the amend

ment whi~h the gent:ernan from Mass-

achusetts <Mr. CONTE) and I are introducing involves some small but important changes in the bill, concerning one subject: ground water Pollution. Ground water is that water which lies below the surface of the earth. It ls In reservoirs and pools, it ls well water, it is drinking water. In other words, it is subsurface water.

M.r. Chairman. the bill we have before us today deals mostly with navigable water. rivers and streams and lakes and other surface waters but it deals only ambiguously and. in some cases, inconsistently v.'ith the subject of ground water. The purpose of our amendment is to eliminate some of these ambiguities and inconsistencies.

The amendment does two things, two very simple things.

First, the amendment brings ground water into the subject of the bill, into the enforcement of the bill. Ground water appears 1n this bill in every section, in every title except title IV. It is under the title which provides EPA can study ground water. It is under the title dealing with definitions. But when it comes to enforcement, title IV. the section on permits and licenses, then ground water 1s suddenly missing. That is a glaring inconsistency which has no Point. If we do not stop pollution of ground waters through seepage and other means, ground water gets into navigable waters, and to control only the navigable water and not the ground water makes no sense at all.

So our amendment eliminates that inconsistency.

The second thing our amendment does is eliminate the inconsistency between the way we treat oil companies in this bill and the way we treat other companies. Oil comparues and other industries can pollute ground water, through the operation of what are called "waste injection wells."

Industry sinks wells into the grcund to get rid of waste. The chemical industry sinks wells into the ground to get rid of waste. The steel industry sinks wells into the ground to get rid of waste. The oil industry does it. The danger to the ground water from these waste injection wells is obvious. If the waste injection well Is not built properly, If standards are not met, if the waste injection well is not operated properly, the Pollution of ground wat.er can result.

What this bill does is cover the waste injection wells of every industry except oil. The waste injection wells of tbe chemical industry are covered. The waste injection wells of the steel industry are covered. The waste injection wells of every industry except oil are covered. But. Mr. Chairman, 99 percent of all the waste injection wells in this country are oil industry waste injection wells.

Aialn, this ts an inconsistency which should not be allowed to stand. This amendment would eliminate this inconsistency.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts <Mr. CoNTE) and I really does not raise the question of strengthening or weakening the bill, but woUld simply make this important legislation more consistent and rational.

102


103


104


105


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENNESSEE ......No. 17-6155 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE...

Documents

Transcript of UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENNESSEE ......No. 17-6155 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE...