ing on behalf of 37 boating organizations principally in New York State whose members number in the range of 10,000 boatmen.

In the very proper concern of the Committee on Public Works over the dramatic matter of oilspills which is of great concern to recreational boatment as well, we trust that the Committee will not overlook, but will give the same careful attention to important provisions of the bill introduced by Senator Muskie and designated S. 7 concerned with sanitary wastes from boats.

It the last year or two a chaotic condition which threatens to become worse has developed as some states and even smaller jurisdictions have adopted statutes and regulations regarding discharges from toilets on boats. These state and local laws and regulations apply to boats not only on the land-locked lakes that are clearly the exclusive jurisdiction of the state but also to boats on interstate navigable waters of the U.S. that are within the boundaries of the state. As matters now stand, a boat that is in compliance in its home jurisdiction may be in violation in neighboring waters. This presents a particularly difficult problem in the case of a state whose statutes and regulations allow, as some now do, incinerators and holding tanks only as marine toilet pollution control devices. As a practical matter, such laws and regulations mean holding tanks only because no incinerator toilets have yet been designed, much less manufactured, for use on recreational and small commercial boats. Thus, a boat with a holding tank installed in accordance with regulations in his home jurisdiction with no means for overboard discharge, as such regulations require, would be unable to visit the waters of a neighboring state that does not have such a regulation because of the absence of pump out facilities. Conversely, a boat that complies with a home jurisdiction that permits the use of on-board treatment devices could not visit a neighboring state that has ruled holding tanks only. The present situation then creates an impediment to interstate commerce and to the free flow of boats from state to state on the federal waterways. There is, therefore, an urgent need for uniform federal standards applicable to but applicable only to those portions of the navigable waters of the United States which consist of the coastal and contiguous zone waters, the Great Lakes and major inland navigable waterways, the ports and harbors thereof and in other areas where the Coast Guard is operating. A clear distinction should be made between such waters of the U.S. and the completely land-locked lakes and other such waters within a state or states which are not accessible by water from the federal waterways. Examples of such state waters not accessible by water from federal waterways would be Lake Tahoe in California-Nevada, Lake George in New York and Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire. The states should be allowed to make whatever regulations they might wish for control of wastes from marine toilets on board boats on land-locked state waters as just described.

I submit that the present language of Section 11(f), paragraphs (1) and (2) of S. 7 not only does not make this distinction but is also not clear as to its meaning because of two different interpretations that can be construed therefrom. The problem arises with regard to the meaning of the words "inconsistent or in conflict with" as found in paragraph (2), lines 15 and 16, on page 6 of the print of January 15, 1969.

Let me give an example. Let us assume that the standards or regulations to be promulgated in accordance with Section 11(b) (1) permit the use of incinera tor toilets, holding tanks systems and on-board treatment devices such as a macerator-chlorinator whose effluent meets minimum but high standards. Would the statutes or regulations of states that permit the use of holding tanks only be inconsistent or in conflict with federal standards that also permit the use of on-board treatment devices such as the one just mentioned?

If the answer is yes, then boats on all waters of the state, including the landlocked lakes and other such waters which had formerly been considered the exclusive jurisdiction of the states would be permitted to use on-board treatment devices, contrary to the expressed wish and policy of the state.

If the answer is no, then by not permitting boats on federal waterways that are within the boundaries of the state to use on board treatment devices such as the one described above, either an impediment would continue to be imposed on interstate commerce and on the free flow of boats from state to state as described on page 2 or state regulation would become the de facto federal regulation for all vessels moving from state to state and in interstate commerce on the federal waterways.

None of the foregoing alternatives is acceptable. A solution to this problem is, however, available by amending the language of Section 11 (f) paragraphs (1) and (2) by adding after the words "of this section" in line 7 of paragraph (f) (1) on

page 6, the words "while such vessel is on those portions of the navigable waters of the U.S. which consist of the coastal and contiguous zone waters, the Great Lakes and major inland navigable waterways, the ports and harbors thereof and in other areas where the Coast Guard is operating"; and by deleting all of paragraph (2).

If it should be deemed inadvisable to indicate by silence after paragraph (2) has been deleted that the states are free to adopt whatever regulations they may see fit with regard to the control of wastes from marine toilets on boats on waters such as the land locked lakes of the state, then paragraph (2) might be retained but amended by adding after the words "statute or regulation" in line 11 the words "except for any vessel subject to the provisions of this section while on those portions of the navigable waters of the U.S. which consist of the coastal and contiguous zone waters, the Great Lakes and major inland navigable waterways, the ports and harbors thereof and in other areas where the Coast Guard is operating" and by deleting all of the remainder of the paragraph beginning with the words "unless the Secretary...".

When amended as just suggested, Section 11(f) would read as follows: "(f) After the effective date of this section, no State or political subdivision thereof shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation with respect to the use of any marine sanitation device with any vessel subject to the provisions of this section while such vessel is on those portions of the navigable waters of the United States which consist of the coastal and contiguous zone waters, the Great Lakes and major inland navigable waterways, the ports and harbors thereof and in other areas where the Coast Guard is operating."

If it is desired to add a further positive indication that the States may adopt whatever regulations they may see fit with regard to the control of marine toilets on boats on waters such as the land locked lakes of the States, then the foregoing paragraph might be numbered (1) and there might be added to the end thereof the words "except as provided in this subsection" and then there might be added another paragraph numbered (2) and reading as follows:

"(2) Any State or political subdivision thereof having on the effective date of this section any statute or regulation with respect to such a device may continue to enforce such statute or regulation except for vessels on those portions of the navigable waters of the United States which consist of the coastal and contiguous zone waters of the United States, the Great Lakes and major inland waterways, the ports and hrabors thereof and in other areas where the Coast Guard is operating."

In the interest of the free flow of interstate commerce and the free flow of boats from state to state and also to let the states retain full jurisdiction over the waters of the state which are not connected by water to federal waterways, I urge the adoption of the foregoing recommended amendments, not necessarily in the precise language that I have used but in language adequate to accomplish the purpose intended.

I am very pleased to note that in Section 11(b) (1) of S-7 a direction is given to the effect that standards to be set for devices designed to give adequate on board treatment to sewage before discharge must take into consideration reasonable economic costs and must also be within the limits of available technology. I hope that after giving careful consideration to these provisions especially as they would affect recreational and small commercial vessels, the Committee might indicate in its Report on S-7 that it is its intent that the standards be reasonable and practical and within the limits of available technology for on board treatment devices known as macerator-chlorinators or macerator disinfecting units. In this connection I wish to call to the attention of the Committee that great advances, almost amounting to a breakthrough have been made in the design and efficiency of macerator disinfecting units since the studies of these units that were being manufactured in 1966 were made by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. It is these now obsolete models on which the evaluations and conclusions were based that were published in Senate Document No. 48 of the 90th Congress, First Session ("Wastes from Watercraft") in August 1967. Evidence of these advances can be seen in the standards for macerator-chlorinators that have been set up by the National Sanitation Foundation of Ann Arbor, Michigan. For the convenience of the Committee, I am submitting herewith and request that it be made a part of the record a copy of "Standards for Watercraft Sewage Disposal Devices" (adopted February 15, 1968) by the National Sanitation Foundation. I call attention particularly to Section 5-"Effluent Requirement" found on pages 8 and 9 of that publication. I also call attention to the list (also attached) of members of the committee which developed these standards which included representatives from, among others, outstanding and recognized Federal and State health agencies and sanitary engineering organizations.

Even since the publication of the standards of the National Sanitation Foundation a year ago, further advances in the design of macerator-chlorinators have been made by the manufacturers so that it is now practical to include in the standards a so-called "fail safe" provision to the effect that (1) the toilet will not operate unless the treatment device also operates and (2) that the treatment device will not operate unless the disinfecting agent is also present and operating. The acceptance of on board treatment devices such as macerator disinfecting units as one effective means of abating pollution from marine toilets is of great, even vital importance to all small craft, both recreational and commercial. Acceptance of these devices is also very much in the public interest because those of today's design produce an effluent that is purer than that of primary municipal sewage treatment plants and nearly equal to the effluent from the few secondary treatment plants that are now in operation.

The importance of macerator-chlorinators to recreational boatmen and the operators of small commercial vessels is that present technology offers for such boats only three types of devices to abate pollution from marine toilets: (1) incinerators, (2) a holding tank system and (3) macerator-chlorinators.

Incinerators are not acceptable or practical on board small vessels for several reasons, the principal one of which is that none, as previously stated, have yet been designed much less manufactured for marine use. There are other problems of power, safe use of gas and ventilation on board boats which have not yet been solved.

Holding tanks sound like a simple solution. This solution must, however, be carefully thought through to the end. First is the necessity for and the nearly complete lack of facilities for pumping out the tanks. Next and most important is what to do with the stuff after it is out of the boat. Pollution is still pollution until it is treated somewhere. Holding tanks are only as good a pollution control device as the treatment that the contents eventually receive.

Much recreational boating is done in rural and undeveloped areas where, if there are sewers, they only circulate the sewage through the system and then discharge it to the boating waters without any treatment whatsoever. This is true even in such a developed state as New York. Clayton and Alexandria Bay in the 1000 islands can be cited as two of many examples. Rochester currently has only primary treatment. But this does not tell the whole story because, like most of our cities, the Rochester storm water and sanitary sewers are combined and when we have even a modest rainfall, the sewers overflow and dump tons of raw and untreated sewage into Lake Ontario via the Genesee River. This condition is not even scheduled to be corrected until the year 2020. (See also page 86 of "Lake Erie Report, A Plan for Water Pollution Control" published by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, August 1968).

Macerator-chlorinators. I have already indicated the high degree of purity that can be attained in the effluent from macerator disinfecting units of the latest design. Such an effluent is infinitely better than the complete lack of treatment that would be received by the contents of holding tanks eventually finding its way into the many village, town and city sewer systems that do not have any sewage treatment facilities. It is better than primary sewage treatment and virtually equal to secondary treatment. To support this statement I would like to submit for inclusion in the record of this hearing a statement which I made before the Senate Committee on Commerce and Navigation and the Assembly Committee on Conservation of the State of New York in Albany on February 28, 1969. I particularly draw your attention to pages 4 through 10 of that statement.

In addition, at the New York State hearing on February 28, 1969, one manufacturer cited data from tests of his product which showed a coliform bacteria count of 0-1 per 100 mililiters on six successive tests and consistently less than 20 throughout the whole series. This compares with an index of 240 coliform per 100 mililiters accepted as satisfactory in the standards of the National Sanitation Foundation and an index of 1,000 in Public Health Service Publication #393 (See page 41-copy attached-"Handbook on Sanitation of the Construction of Vessels" Public Health Service-1965). Macerator-chlorinators of the latest design reduce Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) by 66% as against 33% reduction by primary treatment plants and a goal of 80% for secondary treatment. Solids are now smaller than 1 millimeter and so are not identifiable. The new "fail safe" features already described eliminate objections due to human failure mentioned in Senate Document No. 48. Finally, it should be noted that the objection to macerator disinfectant units on the ground that they do not reduce nutrients is unfair because primary treatment by municipalities does not make any such reduction and secondary treatment actually increases the nutrients.

Macerator-chlorinators that meet the standards of the National Sanitation Foundation except for the so-called "fail safe" feature are available today from at least three manufacturers at a cost in the area of $175. Such devices with the "fail safe" features have been engineered and working models produced. The manufacturers estimate that these will cost in the area of $250. The manufacturers have stated, however, that they are not going to proceed to invest in production tooling until they have some positive indication that bills such as S-7, with amendments along the lines which I have suggested, are adopted.

Therefore, in the interest of abating effectively and at the earliest possible moment pollution of our Federal waterways by wastes from marine toilets without waiting for the construction of secondary treatment plants throughout the country, years in the future, in the interest of the free flow of boats both recreational and commercial between the states and to be sure that no unnecessary impediment is imposed on interstate commerce flowing on the navigable waters of the U.S., I hope that the Committee will see is way clear to adopt the suggestion that I have made with regard to preemption and with regard to the use of macerator-chlorinators as effective on board sewage treatment devices for adequate purification of sanitary wastes from watercraft.

For vessels with a normal complement (passengers and crew) of 40 or less, minimum treatment should consist of passing the wastes through a grinder followed by disinfection which will produce an effluent having 1,000 or less coliforms per 100 ml. without benefit of dilution with water in addition to that required for the normal operation of the contribtuing sanitary fixtures.

A method of disinfection equally effective to chlorination may be acceptable where disinfection is required to produce an effluent meeting the coliform requirements specified.

The discharge piping from the sewage treatment unit should be provided with a valve for sampling the treated effluent.

*At the time this revision was being printed, there were pending Amendments to the Interstate Quarantine Regulations and the Foreign Quarantine Regulations which will require all new vessels or vessels undergoing major conversion to be equipped with facilities to treat or retain wastes as specified in this Section. It is recommended that such facilities be provided, or that space be assigned, on new vessels for future installation.

STATEMENT BY F. RITTER SHUMWAY, CHAIRMAN, SYBRON CORP.

(At Public Hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Navigation and the Assembly Committee on Conservation of the State of New York on Friday, February 28, 1969 to review the present policy of the State with respect to pollution by marine toilets as presently embodied in Section 1225, Public Health Law and Subdivision 33-c, Navigation Law and regulations promulgated thereunder.)

My name is F. Ritter Shumway. I reside at 375 Ambassador Drive, Rochester, New York. I am Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Sybron Corporation with headquarters offices at 1100 Midtown Tower, Rochester, New York. Two of the divisions of my company are concerned with water treatment. Our Permutit division engineers small treatment plants for towns and villages. Our Ionac Chemical Company produces ion exchange resins used in water treatment. Neither my company, nor do I personally have an financial or business interest in any devices for treating wastes from watercraft. I appear here simply as an amateur boatman concerned about water pollution abatement and concerned about the future of the sport and recreation of boating. I have served the sport of boating as founder and first commander of the Rochester Power Squadron in 1938, as Chief Commander of the United States Power Squadrons in 1948-49, as Commodore of the Rochester Yacht Club in 1951-53 and for the past 15 years to the present as Rear Commodore for Lake Ontario of the Great Lakes Cruising Club. I am authorized to speak at this hearing on behalf of 37 boating organizations which include 10 boating organizations which are members of the Lake Yacht Racing Association on behalf of whom Mr. Eugene Van Voorhis of Rochester will also speak.

I also want to state clearly for the record that all of the boatmen for whom I speak are keenly interested in clean waters in which to enjoy our sport and recreation. We are anxious to do our share to abate pollution under reasonable and practical rules and regulations within the capabilities of existing technology. No doubt the Committees use as reliable reference material the summary report issued by the Water Resources Commission on the public hearings conducted by the Commission in Albany on January 10, 1969. I wish, therefore, to call to the Committees' attention that in reporting on the legislative history of Section 33-c of the Navigation Law no mention is made in that report of the fact which I pointed out in my statement and which I wish now to enter into the record of this hearing that in 1967 another and significant amendment was made to Section 33-c by removing all standards for macerator-chlorinators which were in the Section as originally adopted in 1966 and instead transferring to the Health Department the setting of standards for these devices. The effect of this amendment was to delegate to the Health Department what was originally considered to be a legislative function.

In the notice of the hearings it is stated that the Committees are aware of the many objections to requiring holding tanks or incinerators only. Furthermore, I have furnished and I know that the Committees have received from other sources memoranda supporting legislation introduced into the Senate by Senator Laverne (S2180) and into the Assembly by Assemblyman Donald Shoemaker (A3366) which would permit macerator-chlorinators. These memoranda also outline again the objections to incinerators and holding tanks only. I will, therefore, not take up the time of this hearing by reviewing this material, but will ask that the memorandum supporting the two bills just referred to be incorporated as a part of the record of this hearing. I will, therefore, proceed immediately to address myself to the questions which the Committees are interested in as stated in the notice. Macerator-chlorinators are available as an alternate to holding tanks for the treatment of sewage from marine toilets. I will leave to the manufacturers of these devices who will be presenting testimony at this meeting the matter of the cost of mecerator-chlorinators, their availability and how and to what extent these devices prevent pollution, based on tests which they have had performed by the Yacht Safety Bureau, an independent testing laboratory similar to the Underwriters Laboratories and other such laboratories. As I understand it, the fundamental purpose of Standards for macerator-chlorinators is to protect the public from exposure to disease bearing or pathogenic bacteria. Although listed fourth and last of the itemized standards set by the Health Department. I propose to deal first with the standard regarding coliform count because this is the most important standard most directly related to health. For years it has been accepted practice in public health engineering in this country to use a count of the number of bacteria of the coliform group found in a 100 mililiter sample as an index of the