of the property rights, and we augment the flow in the creek by recycled lake water to the extent of about 30 million gallons a day, so some of it is better Mr. JONES. Do you treat the water? Mr. FERGUSON. The water from the creek? Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. FERGUSON. It is used partly for boiler feed, and we treat this, yes, very extensively. We also purchase about $300,000 worth of water each year for boiler feed purposes. Mr. JONES. That is all. Are there any further questions? (No response.) Mr. HORTON. No questions. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much. Mr. INDRITZ. The next witness is Mr. John Bain, regional director of the Wildlife Federation. Mr. John Bain. (No response.) Mr. INDRITZ. Mr. H. W. Poston, acting regional director of the Great Lakes Region of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to be followed by Mr. William Kehr, director of the Great Lakes-Illinois River region project. STATEMENT OF H. W. POSTON, ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE GREAT LAKES REGION, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION Mr. POSTON. My name is H. W. Poston Mr. JONES. Well, we are pleased to have you, Mr. Poston. You have been quite helpful to us in the examination of this problem, particularly in the past, and it is always good to have you. I don't know of a more dedicated public official than you, sir. Mr. POSTON. Thank you. Mr. JONES. Please proceed. Mr. POSTON. As I said, I'm the acting regional director for the Great Lakes Region for the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration for the U.S. Department of the Interior. On behalf of the Department of the Interior and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, I appreciate this opportunity to participate in another important hearing conducted by the subcommittee as a part of their examination of water pollution problems in the Great Lakes region. It was our privilege to testify before you in Rochester, N.Y., on July 22, 1966, at which time we discussed conditions and problems in Lake Ontario, eastern Lake Erie, and the Rochester area. This summary statement is confined to Lake Ontario and its watershed area, with special emphasis on Metropolitan Syracuse, the Onondaga and Oneida Lakes, the Oswego and Black Rivers, and the Finger Lakes area. A more detailed statement, entitled "Statement on Water Pollution in the Lake Ontario Basin," was submitted for the record at the Rochester hearing. (SUBCOMMITTEE NOTE.-This report, as revised by the FWPCA, is reprinted as app. 5, p. 385, of this hearing.) Mr. POSTON. My remarks today as well as the report and statement submitted at Rochester, are based on results to date of a comprehensive study now being conducted by our Lake Ontario program office. Information was obtained partly by direct observation and field surveys; and partly from published reports and records of Federal, State, and local agencies. We are especially indebted to the New York State Health Department, not only for reports and file records, but for their active participation in the study. Mr. JONES. Now, Mr. Poston, before you go any further, let me ask you this question: Do any of these facts and data that you submitted to this committee in your report at Rochester, include materials that haven't been seen by the committee in New York? Mr. POSTON. Our study is done through the State health department, and our results are given to them. We have one or two of their men in our office in Rochester, who are working with us. Mr. JONES. Now, there were some questions raised in the Rochester hearing that you had made some errors or omission of certain facts. Were those facts gained in consultation with the State of New York? - Mr. POSTON. All of our information that we are talking about—I' presume you are talking about-was obtained from the State as their latest and best information. Mr. HORTON. Would the chairman yield at that point? Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. HORTON. You will acknowledge, though, that you have no way of checking any of this State information that was furnished to your agency? Mr. JONES. What was the question? Mr. HORTON. I say, you will acknowledge that you do not have any way of checking on this information furnished to you by the State? Mr. POSTON. In some of the cases of larger institutions, for example, Allied Chemical, we felt that we should take samples from their effluent and make analyses of this, and this was done. Mr. HORTON. Well, I wonder about the validity of some of this information, because I don't know whether you are familiar with it or not, but I have had letters from several of the industrial concerns in my district, and they have pointed out inaccuracies with regard to the basic information in here. I can't put my hand on it at the moment, but one of them involved Mr. JONES. I am glad the gentleman from New York raised the question, and I want to get to the objective of this thing, because I don't think there is any effort made by this Department to compile figures that were inaccurate, so consequently I hope you will pur sue Mr. HORTON. Well, you probably have the correspondence I'm referring to. I don't happen to have it in front of me, but one of the companies was Rochester Gas & Electric, and they were alleged to be putting ash in the Genesee River. In fact, they have informed us, in very strong language that I have sent along to the Department, they haven't done so in several years. In fact, they spent a great deal of money in removing the ash so it does not go in the river. Now, this was not information that was available just yesterday, but this was something that has been available for a long time. Mr. JONES. I appreciate the gentleman's position, and as a matter of fact, I have pursued the thing very vigorously, and I want to read you a letter that I wrote to FWPCA Commissioner James Quigley on August 17, 1966, as a result of your inquiry: DEAR MR. QUIGLEY: Mr. Francis E. Drake, Jr., executive vice president of Rochester Gas & Electric Corp., has written to us regarding a statement in the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's report, "Statement on Water Pollution in the Lake Ontario Basin-July 1966." That statement, which was submitted in testimony by the FWPCA at our subcommittee's July 22 hearing in Rochester, N.Y., is as follows: "Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. adds greatly to the suspended solids concentration in the River by discharging tons of fly ash." (P. 7-2, ch. 7, Water Quality in Tributaries, Rochester area, Lower Genesee River.)" Mr. Drake comments as follows on the foregoing FWPCA statement: "There is absolutely no truth to the above statement. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. does not discharge fly ash in the Genesee River, or for that matter in any other river or lake. "The facts of the matter are that we have expended over $3 million in fly ash control and removal equipment (wet and dry ash handling equipment, precipitators, silos, hoppers, bins, piping, electrical controls, etc.). In addition to this sizable investment, we also spend over $180,000 annually to collect, load, and haul all fly ash from our generating stations to acceptable dumping grounds such as abandoned quarries which are rented by our company. No fly ash is dumped in any river or lake ***" The letter continues: The foregoing statements by FWPCA and by Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. appear contradictory. In order that the printed record of our subcommittee's Rochester, N.Y., hearing be as accurate as possible, and in order to avoid any untrue accusation, I would appreciate receiving your comments on the above matter. Because we expect to have printers' galleys for the record within a few days, please let me have your reply promptly. (SUBCOMMITTEE NOTE.—Mr. Quigley's reply to Congressman Jones follows:) FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, HON. ROBERT E. JONES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D.C., September 7, 1966. Chairman, Natural Resources and Power Subcommittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. JONES: This is in reply to your letter of August 17, 1966, concerning information on the waste contribution of the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation contained in our report, "Statement on Water Pollution in the Lake Ontario Basin July 1966", presented at your Subcommittee's hearing in Rochester, New York, July 22, 1966. We asked our Lake Ontario Project staff to look into this situation and they, in turn, took up the matter with New York State Department of Health authorities. In reviewing their files, the New York people found that the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation had installed in 1959 equipment to control their fly ash. Arrangements were then made through the New York health officials for our staff to carry out efficiency studies on these control facilities to determine what contribution of fly ash, if any, was being made by the Corporation These studies are still in progress but we expect to have the results shortly. We regret very much if there were any inaccuracies in the data we were provided for the Lake Ontario area, or that we may have compounded the errors by reporting them to your Subcommittee. As you know, it is both legally and practically necessary for us to rely on data from the States, which we review with them to the fullest practicable extent. Even so, under this circumstance, I am sure you will understand that errors can be made on occasion. Your continuing interest in and support of this important Federal program is very much appreciated. Sincerely yours, JAMES M. QUIGLEY, Commissioner. Mr. JONES. And this is the full text of the letter from the company, the Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.: August 4, 1966. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the July 22, 1966, hearing in Rochester on water pollution by your subcommittee, reference was made to a recent report by the Department of Interior entitled "Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Great Lakes Region, Great Lakes Basin Project.' (P. 7-2, ch. 7, Water Quality in Tributaries, Rochester Area, Lower Genesee River) of this report contains the following statement, which was quoted in newspaper stories of the hearing: "Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. adds greatly to the suspended solids concentration in the river by discharging tons of fly ash." There is absolutely no truth to the above statement. Rochester Gas & Electrie Corp. does not discharge fly ash in the Genesee River, or for that matter in any other river or lake. The facts of the matter are that we have expended over $3 million in fly ash control and removal equipment (wet and dry ash handling equipment, precipitators, silos, hoppers, bins, piping, electrical controls, etc.). In addition to this sizable investment, we also spend over $180,000 annually to collect, load, and haul all fly ash from our generating stations to acceptable dumping grounds such as abandoned quarries which are rented by our company. No fly ash is dumped in any river or lake. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. has long recognized the obligation it has to the people in the communities it is privileged to serve to provide adequate pollution control facilities. The sizable investment we have made in fly ash control and removal equipment, and the thousands of dollars we expend annually to dispose of fly ash, are evidence of our recognition of the seriousness of this problem and of our determination to fulfill our responsibility to the public. Yet, despite our efforts to be a good neighbor, we are falsely charged with adding "greatly" to the problems of water pollution by "discharging tons of fly ash" in the Genesee River. This erroneous and unjustified statement in the hearing record, coupled with the newspaper release, has created a false and damaging impression of our company in the minds of many, as I am sure you can appreciate. In all fairness, we believe that the report and the record of the hearing should be corrected as soon as possible. We respectfully ask that this letter be made a part of the printed record of the hearing. Most of the papers have been compiled along the line that they have been directed to do by various public laws, and statistical information is chiefly based upon what the State supplies, not by the Federal Government, so I hope we can return to some general agreement that these people are not out to prosecute, or to hurt. Let's get to the facts. Please proceed. Mr. HORTON. Excuse me, Mr. Poston, I would like to have you indicate to us whether you are checking back on this type of information to determine the accuracy? Mr. POSTON. On the Rochester Gas & Electric, specifically, at the end of the Rochester meeting I asked our technical people to get in touch with the health department, and to get in touch with the gas company through the health department, and my latest information is that Monday morning they will go through a sampling period again, and we will have results Mr. HORTON. Well, you have had to rely to some extent on State information Mr. POSTON. That's correct. Mr. HORTON. And you can't check the accuracy of that, or can you? Mr. POSTON. We can, when we have the opportunity; yes, sir. Mr. HORTON. Well, I want you to know my feeling on this. First of all, I think it is very helpful to this committee for us to get accurate information from your agency. If you don't have the staff to get this type of information for committees of Congress, and I think your agency has a very, very high responsibility in this country today, then I am hopeful that your agency will ask, and I am sure the Congressat least here is one Member who will, and I am sure other Members will be concerned about it, too-will do everything they can to see that you have adequate personnel to get the adequate and accurate information that we need. In this report, as far as I can determine, there was no indication that it was based on State information. The sources of State information are not given except in broad general ways, and I think when you submit a statistical and conclusionary report such as this to a committee of Congress, we should know where you get this information, and what your problems are in obtaining it, because we have to rely Mr. JONES. I would like to suggest that the law directs them to these State agencies Mr. HORTON. That's right. Mr. JONES. If they have got to go around, and contest every figure, every item of information, that the State agencies supply to them, then we better vacate the State's responsibility in the entire field. I don't know how they can contest every figure. It seems to me that the law itself is so lucid that the question should not arise. If the State of New York tells the Bureau of Public Roads that 600 cars are on a road, I don't see any reason why somebody has got to jump up and go down and count cars the next day. Mr. HORTON. However, this is a report of a Federal agency, which is before Congress as a result of our hearing. Members of Congress are going to study this, and their staffs are, and if the information is Mr. JONES. Should we impeach everybody in the State of New York who told it to the Federal Government? Mr. HORTON This is a Federal document, and a Federal file. Mr. JONES. The report provides information. Now if the State of New York is erroneous, it shouldn't be the responsibility It is not Mr. HORTON. If the chairman will yield, I would respectfully like to point out this is not a report of the State of New York. so classified and designated. It is put out, and, on the very first page, it says, "Prepared for the Natural Resources and Power Subcommittee by the Department of the Interior," and then it goes on to say that all this information has been furnished and that is the basis on which Mr. JONES. Yes; that is entirely correct. Based upon the information that is accumulated by the agency to accommodate the committee's work as to how we can make proper repairs to the Great Lakes, and that is our intention. Mr. POSTON (continuing with prepared statement). Out of about 2,100,000 people in the Lake Ontario program area, 423,000 are in the Syracuse area, and 586,000 are in the Rochester area. Other important population centers are Lockport, Oswego, Ithaca, Auburn, and Watertown. The population in the Lake Ontario program area is expected to total about 2,700,000 in 1980, and about 4,300,000 in 2020. Manufacturing in the economic centers includes food processing, primary metals production, chemical processing, photographic products, and paper products. |