Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Education, and Welfare, is a continuous process. There are no formal means yet established for coordinating the efforts of the FWPCA and the air and solid waste pollution programs of the PHS, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Since many of the staff of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration were employees of the Public Health Service and a number of commissioned corps officers have transferred to these programs from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, a great number of professional contacts, both formal and informal, have been developed and are maintained.

With respect to the public health aspects of water pollution abatement programs, an interdepartmental agreement concerning consultation on health aspects of water pollution control has been developed. This agreement was signed by Secretaries Udall and Gardner on August 8, 1966. The President is now reviewing this agreement.

Question 16: Is your agency concerned with research into aspects of social science so as to better prepare the public to take necessary action in connection with pollution abatement? Please give details of what is being done, or reasons why this is not being done.

Answer: Under proposed expansion of research activities, the research and development program of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will conduct research into socioeconomic aspects of the water pollution problem where there are gap areas in the existing social sciences and to the extent that progress in the elimination of pollution is inhibited by these deficiencies of knowledge. Some of our research grants have dealt with socioeconomic research but because of limited funding in the past, direct research has not been conducted on socioeconomic aspects of water pollution. Definition of specific research needs in this area is planned during the current fiscal year. Several specific research needs already recognized include development of methodology to determine (1) the optimum modes of financing and cost allocation of water pollution control programs; (2) the most effective institutional arrangements, both on a nationwide basis and on a regional basis, for the most efficient quality management of the water resource. Research will be initiated in these areas in fiscal year 1968.

Question 17: Is your agency doing any research into the effects in the way effluent charges would work to reduce pollution? Please give details of what is being done, or reasons why this is not being done.

Answer: The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration completed a preliminary study of the effluent charge during 1965. This study was designed to determine the amount of the charge that would produce the same water quality objectives as would be achieved by prescribed treatment levels. Data and experience gained from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration comprehensive quality control study of the Delaware River estuary were used. The theoretical computations showed that a variable charge from 5 to 8 cents per pound of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) discharged to the stream would be appropriate.

Additional research on the problem is now being planned. Administrative and technical problems which were not considered in the first effort will be examined. It is necessary to evolve (a) the costs required to administer the system of effluent charges, (b) the optimal

institutional framework for the system and, (c) the necessary monitoring network for most effective operation of the system. The study will also attempt to determine methods for determining variations in the charges to allow for upgrading in the use characteristics of the Nation's water resource over time. Attempts will be made also to determine industry attitude and response to such a system. These preparations are being made in conjunction with the Delaware River Basin Commission.

Question 18: Recent news releases by the Department of the Interior suggest a "breakthrough" in control of algae in the waters receiving sewage plant effluent, through an inexpensive means of reducing the amount of phosphate in the effluent. Please explain the importance of the development reported, and how it relates to the testimony given

the committee.

Answer: Recent investigations at the municipal sewage treatment plant, San Antonio, Tex., by the research staff of our Robert S. Kerr Water Research Center, Ada, Okla., have indicated that by a combination of modifications to activated sludge process operating parameters, removal of phosphorus to the 80 to 90 percent level may be possible. The experimentation is still in the preliminary stage and much work remains to be done before such modifications could be applied on a broad scale throughout the Nation. The findings, however, are of potentially breakthrough significance because of the possibility opened for achieving much higher phosphate removals in conventional treatment systems then thought possible. Effort in this area is undergoing substantial acceleration.

In terms of the importance of this development, however, the discussion presented in response to questions 7 and 10 must be borne in mind. Even with increases in phosphorus removal to the order of 80 or 90 percent, the remaining 10 to 20 percent residual load will become of real significance in the near future. Further, elimination of algal blooms, the primary manifestation of accelerated eutrophication is not absolutely tied to the attainment of high efficiency phosphorus removal from municipal outfalls. The mechanisms of accelerated eutrophication and the waste components that are primarily responsible for the development of algal bloom nuisance conditions are incompletely known at this time. Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds are generally believed to be associated with the development of such conditions but the critical controlling contaminant could conceivably be some other trace contaminant presently unknown.

Question 19: Is your agency doing any research on possibilities for stimulating growth of algae or other aquatic plants and harvesting them as a means of removing nutrients from sewage plant effluents? Answer: Algae, when their growth is stimulated in shallow ponds with frequent mixing, can accumulate within themselves at least 80 percent of the nitrogen and from 75 to more than 98 percent of the phosphorus in waste water depending upon the operating and environmental conditions employed. Removals of this order can theoretically be achieved if an efficient harvesting technique is used to separate the algae from the water. A variety of harvesting methods have been studied by a variety of investigators but none has yet been highly successful from both technical and economic standpoints. Moreover, the process is probably applicable only in areas of consistently high

sunlight intensity for it appears that the provision of artificial light, to make the process more widely applicable, would increase process cost prohibitively. We have conducted research jointly with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts at Lancaster, Calif., on the removal of nutrients by algae with emphasis on the harvesting problems involved. A contract with North American Aviation (largely funded through a transfer of funds from NASA) was devoted to the study of forced algae growth for waste water treatment.

By physical-chemical methods now under study, more than 95 percent of the nitrogen and essentially all of the phosphate can be removed by adjustment of the pH of certain secondary effluents to approximately 11. The phosphates are precipitated chemically while the nitrogen, in the ammonia form, may be removed by air stripping.

In yet another approach to nutrient removal now under study, the activated sludge process is controlled and modified to achieve biological nitrification and subsequent denitrification. Potentially, a large percentage of the nitrogen may be removed by this process through biological conversion to harmless nitrogen gas.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Question 1: Would you discuss, in the light of the Department of Defense experiences, the relationship between our capability to develop standards and criteria, and the establishment of realistic enforcement programs? (E.g., do we apply the same standards to our camps in the United States and at places like Adak?)

Answer: Based upon the experiences of the Department of Defense, any realistic program for enforcement must recognize the wide range on environmental quality which may be permitted to preserve or enhance a specific environment for its desired utilization. A major part of the problem, as indicated in our previous testimony is not so much in the realm of technical or professional environmental experts, as in that of socioeconomic-political value judgments.

Not only may different standards be appropriate for facilities in isolated and remote areas, such as Alaska, or some of the Pacific areas, but varying degrees of quality may be appropriate for different locations within the continental limits of the United States. Ipso facto application of a single "standard" for Federal installations would violate some of the fundamental principles of political economics. In that connection both the Executive orders on water pollution and air pollution recognize that varying degrees of control may be appropriate in different locations and for different situations, and provide for exemptions to the "standards" for water pollution and the use of "secondary treatment." This does not establish a degree of effluent quality, but rather establishes a treatment method to be used; and one that affords a widely varying degree of efficiency in waste water treatment. As an example, some secondary treatment processes might remove 85 percent of the organic loading from the influent to them, and others as high as 95 percent. In combination with other processes, depending upon the effluent desired, and the amount of expense willing to be undertaken, virtually any desired degree of removal might be achieved. The type of secondary treatment provided obviously must be based on professional judgment of the many methods which might be used to provide either effluent quality, or to prevent an adverse effect on desired conditions in the receiving environment.

The question of varying requirements for varying desired uses has long been studied by the specialists in the fields of water resources. As long ago as the 1930 time period, suggestions as to the possible classification of waters by intended usages were developed. (See "Tendencies and Standards of Rivers and Lake Cleanliness," Sewage Works Journal, vol. VI, July 1934; and "Sewage Treatment," Imhoff and Fair, McGraw-Hill Co., 1940.) The majority of existing statutes of the various States follow the general philosophy enunciated in these and similar authoritative works. The tremendous success of the participants in the Ohio River compacts may be attributed to the recognition of these differences in requirements, and the use of a wide variety

of enforcement techniques and procedures to attain the desired environmental situation.

Any enforcement program, therefore, to be effective must be related to a series of authoritatively established "value judgments." This infers that the beneficial use of the environment can be specified or defined in quantitative terms, that adverse effects can likewise be quantified and that there are means available to protect the public health and to provide for future needs. All of this must be capable of being translated into a series of "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" rules.

There must be some effective means to determine if indeed an adverse situation in relation to the desired utility is actually existing. The relationship between environmental quality and enforcement also involves a means by which the regulatory procedures shall be enforced. In the Senate report on this subject (S. Rept. No. 10, on the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1965, 89th Cong., 1st sess.) it was stated that water quality standards, as an example were not designed for use primarily as an enforcement device. Rather their principal objective was intended to be for the orderly development and improvement of resources "without the necessity of adversary proceedings which inevitably develop in enforcement cases." This "performance standard basis" is utilized by a number of legislative authorities. This approach envisions that such "standards" provide an engineering base or series of engineering benchmarks or guidelines for the development of plans for facilities.

On the other hand, some regulatory agencies insist that they must check each individual project and engineering design to the last detail. In some instances, precise requirements are specified in the legislative action or in the enabling regulations, or that some permits or similar specific authorizations be utilized. This may result in a failure to provide adequately for changes in technology.

From the foregoing, it is evident that different requirements should and will exist for environmental quality depending upon geographical location and the desired utility of the environment at that location. Further, the time phasing of necessary actions will depend upon the current situation, anticipated future requirements, and the need for flexibility to accommodate the changing needs and desires of the community.

The range of environmental pollution control requirements for different geographical locations is the result of a number of considerations. These include the extent of the need; and the variety of available measures to control pollution; the structure of local laws and regulations; and to some extent the functional position of the enforcement authority within the particular governmental entities involved. This is not to say that there cannot be some general agreement regarding the quality objectives for the various usages.

In the case of water, and perhaps in the case of the air resource, objectives can provide a basis for both the required degree of treatment before injection of a potential pollutant into the environment and the quality of the environment desired as a source of supply. The ap proach used by the Food and Drug Administration in setting a tolerance for residues of pesticides on raw agricultural products is a case in point. That which is permitted is somewhere between what is prac

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »