Document ExEqMqY0QqNve1kaqY3dqobn4

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY R E A L E S T A T E and C O N S T R U C T I O N OPERATION SERVING PROGRESS Schenectady, December 30, 1975 Mr. George B. Farnsworth Vice President and General Manager Electronic Components Business Division Syracuse, New York Dear George, Here a re some observations regarding the decision of EPA Region XI to modify the NPDES perm it already Issued to F ort Edward/Hudson F alls. 1. Region n appears to have jumped the gun in trying to follow what Russell Train said he had directed the EPA Regions to do. In the text made available In connection with T rain's p ress conference of December 22, this statement appears: "I have directed our regional offices to complete ongoing surveys* of these plants within the next 60 days to determine the. precise manner in which PCBs enter the land, a ir and water from each plant and what precise measures can be taken at each plant to eliminate or drastically minimize such PCB contamination. 1 have further directed pur regional offices to assure immediately thereafter that all water discharge permits Issued to these facilities are revised to require that all those m easures affecting water discharges are undertaken expeditiously, and to further assure that such m easures are also undertaken by facilities which discharge Into municipal treatm ent works and a re not therefore required to procure such p erm its." (emphasis added) The only survey made fay Region n was its monitoring of the effluents from the Fort Edward and Hudson Falls plants during die period August 20-26, 1975. The Region has not determined "what precise m easures can be taken at each plant to eliminate or drastically minimize . . . PCB contamination." Thus Region n appears to have acted prematurely in proposing to revise our perm it before completing the survey directed by Train. The results of these surveys will also be used to determine whether an a ir emission standard for PCBs should be developed, and, if so, what it should be. 773915 WfOft rINHO GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Mr. G. B. Farnsworth December 30, 1975# 2. The modification proposed for Interim PCB lim its ts based on incomplete Information. The Public Notice states on Page 2; . "Therefore, as a reflection of the current state of the perm ittee's discharge, the limitations for PCBs in DSN 002 shall be a daily maximum of 0. Xlbs/day during dry weather and 0.4 lbs/day during periods of wet weather; the limitations for PCBs in DSN 004 shall be a daily maximum of 1.4 lbs/day during dry weather and 5.4 lbs/day during periods of wet w eath er." This "reflection" is based solely on sampling done by the EPA Edison Laboratory during the period August 20-26, following the reopening of the plants after a two-week vacation shutdown. The extensive monitoring that has been conducted virtually on a daily basis since early September, provides a more realistic picture of the "current state of the perm ittee's discharge" and should be the basis for the interim lim itations. Certainly these m ore recent data, which were supplied to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in our answers to the DEC interroga tories, were available to EPA. 3. No valid reason Is given for setting a final PCB effluent limitation of "NONE." a. The Public Notice states on Page 2: "Information presented at the recent National Conference on Polychlorinated Biphenyls, as well as other data recently gathered by the Region n staff concerning water quality requirem ents and treatm ent capabilities, as th^y both relate to PCBs, leads to the - conclusion that a zero discharge limitation for PCBs is both necessary and achievable. " . 1) Nothing was presented at the National Conference on PCBs to suggest that zero discharge of PCBs is achievable. 2) No Indication is given as to the "other data recently gathered by the Region H staff concerning . . . treatm ent capabilities. " b. Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, any one of three bases may be used to establish the ultimate 1977 effluent limitation: GENP 005265 773916 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMFAHY Mr. G. B. Farnsworth -3 - December 30, 1975 1) The limitation shall represent the application of "the best practicable control technology currently available (BPCTCA)." i For PCBs, BPCTCA does not produce zero discharge. 2) The limitations may represent "any m ore stringent limitations . necessary to m e e t. . any State law or regulations . . . or required to implement any applicable water quality standard established pursuant to this A ct." There a re no Federal water quality criteria for PCBs that require zero discharge for their Implementation. The present litigation between GE and DEG hinges on the unresolved question of whether State laws or regulations require zero discharge. 3) Promulgation of a toxic effluent standard for PCBs m ore stringent than that in our perm it would require modification of the perm it in accordance with such standard or prohibition. No toxic effluent standard has yet been promulgated for PCBs. Recommendations A. In our written comments we should argue: 1. If any revisions are to be made in the interim limitations, the revised lim its should be based upon a review by us of all of our monitoring data since early September. These data and our interpretation of them should be included in our written comments. 2. The abatement program that is now underway and planned for completion by June 30, 1977, does represent BPCTCA for PCBs, and in our opinion will keep our discharges below 100 g/day, the limitation in our present perm it. We have argued, through our testimony and brief presented during the DEC hearing, that a discharge of no m ore than 100 g/day provides an ample margin of safety for meeting the NYS water quality standards. In the absence of a more stringent Federal toxic effluent standard for PCBs, there is no justification for changing the final effluent limitation from 100 g/day (maximum) to ITNone." B. Even If we are successful in the foregoing arguments, we should expect that EPA will propose, early in 1976, a toxic pollutant effluent standard for PCB that will be more 773917 O b N P 005266 GENERAL ELECTRIC e 0H PANY Mr. G. B. Farnsworth -4 December 30, 1975 stringent than 100 g/day. Present indications a re that EPA will base its proposed standard upon a water quality criterion of 1 p a rt p er trillion. Such a proposed standard, as applied to our Hudson River plants, would lim it the discharge to no m ore than 7 g/day (which would be equivalent to a concentration of about 5'ppb in our effluent). Within the variability of routine, daily monitoring, this would be essentially a zero discharge requirement. EPA will hold a hearing on its proposed standard, and promulgation should be expected by mid-1976. Unless the law is amended, the standard would become ' effective no later than m id-1977. Thus, whether through regional or national action, EPA seems determined to get zero discharge into our perm it. All of the arguments that can be made for and against the stringent PCB toxic effluent standard that we expect EPA to propose have already been made in the record and briefs of the DEC hearing. If we lose with DEC, I don't think we have a chance of deflecting EPA from its course. If we win with DEC, we have a strong argument that zero discharge to the Hudson River is not necessary to protect either fish to humans. C. Looking further down the road, Train appears to have decided that even zero dis charge by manufacturers of capacitors and transform ers will not be sufficient without controls over the ultimate disposal of the millions of pounds of PCBs per year that a re distributed throughout the country in such electrical equipment. He is pushing for passage of toxic substances control legislation, which is under active consideration by the Congress. He would probably use the authority contained in such legislation to Han all uses of PCBs, giving adequate tim e for the "phase-in", of substitutes for capacitor and transform er use. We would then face the question of what effluent standards EPA would deem necessary to control losses of these substitute fluids. /Q7Cf\ft JfKlrr ELS;am cc: JB Austin, Schenectady EL Dobbins, Pittsfield J P Flynn, Schenectady LP Hart, J r . , Hudson Falls M Modan, Pittsfield WR McKenzie, Hudson Falls RC Osthoff, Pittsfield JM Phillips, Schenectady Environmental Protection Operation AV Puccini, Pittsfield J F Repko, Syracuse J F Welch, J r . , Pittsfield J F Young, Fairfield 773918 c