10 PER CENT LOSS SEEN

Mr. Thaler, said the alleged delays had already cost the city $45-million, or 10 per cent, of the state and Federal money for which it is eligible.

In his own letter, to Mayor Lindsay, the Queens Senator said, "therefore, since your administration is patently inept and since we are in danger of losing state and Federal reimbursement of 60 per cent of such construction, I hereby demand that you relinquish supervision of such construction and initiate steps to engage the services of the state Pure Waters Authority to plan and implement the city's pure-waters program."

After listening by telephone to the text of the Rockefeller letter,Merril Eisenbud the city's Environmental Protection Administrator, said, "It's a shocker."

Mr. Eisenbud said he was "not aware that they [the Pure Waters Authority] have the capability" to plan and construct sewage treatment facilities. He said the city was considering working with the authority on funding the 40 per cent of the projects' costs that the city must pay.

A more specific defense of the city's position was offered by Maurice M. Feldman, Commissioner of Water Resources. The "discrepancy" between the two city reports, Mr. Feldman said in a statement issued in New York, "is not in any sense a slippage of projects."

He said that "most of the apparent postponement was caused by major changes in program necessitated by revised Federal standards of waste-water treatment.” "The new program," Mr. Feldman said "is firmly established and virtually all of it is under contract for design by major engineering consulting firms. All informed appraisals are that we will beat the March, 1972, construction deadline for the entire program."

LETTER OF LANCE (LOCAL ACTION FOR A NATURAL CLEAN
ENVIRONMENT)

BELFAIR, WASH., February 12, 1969.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MUSKIE: A few months ago we formed a group here in the Hood Canal area made up of representatives of organizations already formed. I represent the Belfair Chamber of Commerce.

I have lived on Hood Canal for twenty-seven years, and for about 20 of those years, I have worked to "Keep Hood Canal Waters Clean." Hood Canal is a long, narrow, natural body of salt water-in other words, an inland sea. It is considered to be the cleanest salt water in the country as we have no industry and it is mainly a recreational area.

One of our main interests is to get legislation passed to stop the dumping of sewage and garbage from boats-there are two bills in our present legislature and several members of LANCE attended a Hearing in Olympia on February 6. One of the arguments against this legislation is that we should wait for Federal legislation covering all States so that the laws would be uniform throughout the country. With the growing boat population in our area, LANCE feels that State legislation is necessary as we may have a long wait for the Federal Government to act. At the Hearing, your Senate Bill No. 7 was mentioned, and I feel that a copy of this Bill might be helpful to us. Could you send me a copy? I would certainly appreciate your help and co-operation in this matter.

The State of Washington is blessed with many beautiful bodies of salt water, as well as with many Lakes. Pollution is a serious threat to these blessings, and we should learn a lesson from what has happened in the East, and make every effort to prevent further pollution of our waters.

Thank you, Mr. Muskie, for your interest and help.

Yours very sincerely,

CARMELITA SHACKLEFORD, Vice President.

P.S.-LANCE is a member of the Washington Environmental Council.

LETTER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOATING LAW ADMINISTRATORS

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

STATE OF MARYLAND,

DEPARTMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY AFFAIRS,

Annapolis, Md., December 5, 1968.

Senate Public Works Committee,

New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: At the recent meeting of our national association which is composed of the boating administrators of the 50 States the enclosed resolution was adopted which I am sure your committee will give proper consideration.

If we can be of any assistance do not hesitate to call upon us.
Sincerely,

RESOLUTION

WILLIAM B. MATTHEWs, Jr..
President, 1968.

Whereas, many states have enacted or are planning to enact legislation to control waste discharges from boats, and

Whereas, some of the proposed legislation would limit the methods of control to holding tanks or recirculating devices that have no overboard discharge, and Whereas, other forms of waste treatment are being perfected and offer many advantages over holding tanks or recirculating devices both from practical and esthetic standpoints.

Now, therefore be it resolved, that NASBLA urges all states and the Federal Government to take no action that would preclude the consideration of any device now under development or which may be developed in the future for waste treatment on boats.

Be it further resolved, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Council of State Governments, appropriate federal authorities and State authorities.

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ENGINE & BOAT MANUFACTURERS AND BOATING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Chairman Muskie and members of the subcommittee, we are submitting this statement on behalf of the recreational boating industry, as represented by the Associations identified above. To supplement this brief statement, there is attached a Joint Position of the two organizations with respect to Section 11 of S. 7.

BIA and NAEBM support enactment of legislation such as S. 11, to control discharge of sewage from recreational vessels. However, it is suggested, to more effectively achieve the purposes of this legislation, S. 7 should be amended in three respects:

(1) To clarify applicability to "existing boats"

(2) To establish a Vessel Pollution Advisory Council, and

(3) To achieve a higher degree of Federal-State reciprocity and uniformity in the regulation of sewage discharge from recreational vessels. A brief summary of reasons for each such recommendation follows:

A. EXISTING BOATS WITHOUT INSTALLED DEVICES

Each Association supports applicability of S. 7 to all recreational boats built after December 31, 1971, i.e. the effective date of initial standards and regulations (Sec. 11(c) (1) If such boats are equipped with installed toilet facilities. This appears to be the import of the Bill S. 7, reading Section 11(b)(1) in conjunction with 11(a)(1) and 11(a) (2). Nevertheless, to preclude any possible contrary construction, it is urged that specific language be inserted exempting "any vessel, whether new or existing, not equipped with installed toilet facilities." While this exclusion is apparently intended, the pertinent language is included only in Section 11(b) (1), describing the purpose of the Federal standards authorized. The language excepting "vessels not equipped" merely describes the sources of discharge which the standards should be designed to prevent or control; it does not fix applicability of the standards after promulgation. For the boat

owner, this is specified in Section 11(b) (4), which prohibits "a vessel subject to such standards" to discharge sewage except with the use of a marine sanitation device certified pursuant to this Section."

A "vessel subject to such standards" is not defined. Consequently it could well be argued that vessels having no installed device, whether a new or existing vessel, could be required to install a certified device to avoid violation of Section 11(b) (4).

B. EXISTING BOATS WITH INSTALLED DEVICES

Applicability of the proposed standards to boats built prior to the effective date, i.e., December 31, 1971, is covered in Section 11, subsections (b)(2) (devices which meet certain specified existing State or Federal standards) and subsection (c) (1), which would postpone applicability of initial standards for "existing vessels" until five years after promulgation, whether such "existing vessels" have devices installed which did conform to requirements of State statute, regulation, etc., as provided in subsection (b) (2), or whether such vessels had devices which did not conform, because there was no State statute or regulation in effect, or because the device was installed prior to the 1965 publication of Public Health Service Handbook on Sanitation and Vessel Construction.

While there is no accurate data available on which to estimate the number of such vessels now in existence, we believe the number is not insignificant. It is urged, therefore, that existing vessels having sanitation devices installed prior to December 31, 1971, be given the five year exclusion from either initial standards or revisions promulgated during such five year period, and in addition, that the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating be given specific authority to extend such waiver period in the case of any such existing vessels upon satisfactory proof that installation of a certified device would be impracticable, because of structural limitations, or only at an excessive cost or expense disproportionate to the value of the vessel. It is recognized that the Secretary would be given authority in subsection (c) (2) to "distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of vessels, as well as between new and existing vessels, and may waive applicability of standards . . . for such classes, types and sizes . . . ." Nevertheless, the problem we foresee is not one peculiar to any particular “class, type or size" of vessel, and without more specific direction given in the legislation, each individual boatowner would be burdened with the expense, formality and uncertain result of appealing for a waiver for a single vessel. We recommend inclusion of appropriate clarifying language.

C. RECREATIONAL BOAT ADVISORY COUNCIL

Because of the separate jurisdictions of Federal and State governments, we believe effective control of waste discharge from recreational boats will require the highest degree of cooperative effort from State and local officials, boat owners and the industry. To provide a forum and focal point for achieving this unified approach, NAEBM and BIA urge establishment of a Boat Pollution Advisory Council. This should be appointed jointly by the Secretary and the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and should be comprised of members representing State and local governments, the majority of which should be state boating law administrators, members representing the industry, including boat and equipment manufacturers and recognized standards and testing organizations, and members representing boat owners. Public representation, in addition to State and local officers, could be provided by representatives of the two Departments charged with administration of the Act.

D. RECIPROCITY AND UNIFORMITY

In the consideration of legislation such as S. 7, the industry recognizes the dual interests, responsibilities and jurisdictions of Federal, State and municipal governments over the various waterways available to boat users. However, unless adequate measures are undertaken now, the present maze of conflicting requirements will be accentuated. As an example, twelve States today prohibit any discharge, and three of these have yet to approve methods of acceptable control. Of the nine States that have supplemented the prohibition with control methods or devices, six States approve holding tanks only, one State has approved an incinerator device and two States have sanctioned either incinerators or holding tanks. This same disparity is multiplied if all State regulatory measures are tabulated. Thus, twenty-one States approve use of holding tanks.

Of these, seven also approve incinerators or macerator-chlorinators, four permit only tanks or incinerators and two allow only tanks or macerator-chlorinators. Twelve States permit only the incinerator and fifteen, the macerator-chlorinator. This problem is recognized in S. 7, but we respectfully submit the provisions of Section 11 (f) will not encourage the degree of reciprocity or uniformity among the States the boat owner needs, the industry should expect or that Congress should provide.

With respect to waters clearly subject to Federal jurisdiction, the industry urges complete preemption, with authority to grant waivers to States or municipalities during specified periods or with respect to defined water areas to meet special conditions. Regarding purely internal State waters, the Congress should specify that Federal policy in establishing uniform regulation of the interstate movement of vessels or devices is intended to sanction use of such vessels and devices except where it can be established that such use would endanger public health or safety in a particular State or locality. We believe the burden to justify non-acceptance of boats or devices conforming to Federal standards should be on the State or municipality.

JOSEPH E. CHOATE,

Administrative Vice President, National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers. FRED B. LIFTON,

Executive Director, Boating Industry Association.

[Enclosure]

PROPOSED VESSEL POLLUTION ACT OF 1969

Joint Position of Boating Industry Association (BIA) and National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers, Inc. (NAEBM), January 31, 1969 This paper states the joint position of the National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc. (NAEBM), and the Boating Industry Association (BIA) regarding the proposed Vessel Pollution Act contained in the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969 (S. 7) introduced on January 15, 1969.

BIA and NAEBM are non profit national trade association having a combined membership of approximately 800 manufacturers of all kinds of pleasure boats and boating equipment. This includes virtually the entire pleasure craft industry of the U.S. Each provides many services of educational, technical and informative nature to the industry and to the boating public.

BIA and NAEBM have been actively concerned with the problem of water pollution emanating from recreational water craft since the early 1950s. Both have recognized that it is in the best interests of the pleasure-boating industry to control water pollution. NAEBM has conducted a vigorous antipollution campaign involving nation-wide distribution of posters to marinas, yacht clubs, and other water front organizations. It has endeavored to create standards to cover the performance and safe use of antipollution systems and devices, such as the American Boat and Yacht Council's A-8 Standard for Sewage Treatment Devices for Marine Toilet Wastes of January 23, 1957.

Similarly, BIA has encouraged manufacturers to provide for adequate treatment or retention devices in their craft, asking every manufacturer of boats with toilet facilities to provide adequate space so that a sewage treatment or a retaining-type device could be conveniently installed. BIA has published a standard with minimum space requirements for marine toilets in its "Annual Engineering Manual of Recommended Practices." It has also worked very closely with official and technical agencies in developing more precise data on the character and extent of pollution from watercraft and the most effective methods for treatment of effluent from vessels. It has supported a model antipollution and antilitter law developed by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators which has been adopted, in whole or in part, in many states. BIA has also participated in the development of National Sanitation Foundation Standard 23 which sets performance requirements for vessel waste disposal devices and systems including treatment, incineration and holding devices. It supports the testing procedures and programs of the National Sanitation Foundation assuring acceptability of these devices in accord with Standard 23.

While recognizing that recreational craft contribute only insignificantly to the total water pollution problem confronting the Federal and state governments both Associations are deeply conscious that a vessel pollution problem exists, and

genuinely support reasonable legislative efforts to clean up the Nation's waterways.

NAEBM and BIA in 1968 supported passage of legislation similar to S. 7 even though in some respects it did not adequately protect boat owners or manufacturers. That bill, S. 3206, passed both Houses in the last Congress, but differences in sections other than sections dealing with vessel pollution between the Senate and House versions prevented final enactment.

Hearings on S. 7 have been set for February 3rd by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Public Works. NAEBM and BIA urge prompt action on this legislation by the 91st Congress, but respectfully suggest the need for certain specific clarifying changes.

(1) Existing recreational boats

Section 11(b) (1) of S. 7, as contrasted with the bill which passed the House last year, does not exempt "all" recreational boats, new and old. BIA and NAEBM recommend inclusion of all recreational boats manufactured after the effective date of the legislation, if such boats are equipped with marine sanitation devices (i.e. toilets). Boats built prior to the effective date require separate consideration. Most such boats are not equipped with devices, and the legislation should make it very clear that it does not require their installation. Boats which now have facilities installed present a more complicated problem. If devices already installed satisfied the requirements of either state or local standards, their continued future use should be permitted. If such installed devices do not conform to either existing or new standards, limitations of space and/or excessive cost may make modifications or installation of new devices impractical. The industry, therefore, recommends clarification of Section 11 to carry out the above recommendations.

(2) Vessel Pollution Advisory Council

Effective control of waste discharge from recreational boats will require the highest degree of cooperative effort from State and local officials, boat owners and the industry. To provide a forum and focal point for achieving this unified approach, NAEBM and BIA urge establishment of a Vessel Pollution Advisory Council. This should be appointed jointly by the Secretary and the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and should be comprised of five members representing State and local government, three of which should be State boating law administrators. Five members should also be appointed from the industry, including boat and equipment manufacturers and recognized standards and testing organizations.

(3) Uniform standards

Recreational boats are highly mobile, able to move under their own power or by trailer from State to State. Without uniform requirements and reciprocity among States, this mobility can be so restricted, that the pleasure of recreational boating can be seriously limited. In addition manufacturers of boats and sanitation devices, when complying with Federal standards, should have assurances that their boats, properly equipped, can be used wherever sold. The industry urges an amendment to Section 11 (f) (1) and (f) (2) to make clear the goal of uniformity and reciprocity.

Conclusion

With language changes to incorporate the above recommendations, the Boating Industry Association and the National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers would urge prompt enactment of this legislation.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION, ANN ARBOR, MICH.

THE NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION PURPOSES AND PROGRAMS

The National Sanitation Foundation was chartered in Michigan in 1944 as a non-profit, non-official, non-commercial voluntary agency to serve as a medium to bring together the interests of the public, the regulatory agencies, and business and industry with respect to health-related equipment and products, services and procedures of major concern to the three participating groups.