November 2, 1971
Page 38839
Mr. MUSKIE. I suggest that the Senator from Wisconsin call up his amendment, and use time on the amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 442
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 442, and ask that it be modified in the form that I now send to the desk. This modification, a substitute amendment, is sponsored by myself, the Senator from Nevada (Mr. BIBLE), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. McINTYRE), and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment as modified.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. I shall explain it at an appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON's amendment (No. 442), as modified, is as follows:
At the end of the bill insert a new section as follows:
LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
FACILITIES
SEC. 6. (a) Section 7 of the Small Business Act is amended by inserting at the end thereof a new subsection as follows:
"(g) (1) The Administration also is empowered to make loans (either directly or in cooperation with banks or other lenders through agreements to participate on an immediate or deferred basis) to assist any small business concern in affecting additions to or alterations in the equipment, facilities (including the construction of pretreatment facilities and interceptor sewers as defined under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended), or methods of operation of such concern to meet water pollution control requirements established under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, if the Administration determines that such concern is likely to suffer substantial economic injury without assistance under this subsection.
"(2) Any such loan–
"(A) shall be made in accordance with provisions applicable to loans made pursuant, to subsection (b) (5) of this section, except as otherwise provided in this subsection;
"(B) shall be made only if the applicant furnishes the Administration with a statement in writing from the Environmental Protection Agency or, if appropriate, the State, that such additions or alterations are necessary and adequate to comply with the requirements established under section 301, section 302, section 306, section 307 and section 403 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. as amended. Such statement shall be issued by the Administrator (or the State) at the time of consideration of any certification under section 401, or any permit under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
"(3) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1971 and not later than 180 days thereafter, prescribe regulations establishing uniform rules for the issuance of statements for the purpose of paragraph (2) (B) of this subsection in conformity with the procedures for the issuance of any certification under section 401 or permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
"(4) There is authorized to be appropriated to the disaster loan fund established pursuant to section 4(c) of this Act not to exceed $800,000,000 for the purpose of this subsection.
"(b) Section 4(c) (1) (A) of the Small Business Act is amended by striking out "and 7(c) (2) " and inserting in lieu thereof "7(c) (2), and 7(g)".
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, before we proceed with the amendment, I should like to ask the Senator from Maine a couple of questions with respect to the bill.
I have a statement of facts here respecting the recycling of sewage and disposal of the sludge as fertilizer in Milwaukee. The Senator from Maine is familiar with the facts in the statement. I ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed in the RECORD, after which I shall pose my questions.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MILWAUKEE'S MILORGANITE PROCESS AND THE RECYCLING OF SEWAGE WASTES
The Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee has developed and is presently operating a sewage disposal system which recycles all types of liquid wastes into a usable and ecologically sound fertilizer product with the nationally known brand name of Milorganite.
In 1925, Milwaukee pioneered an activated sludge process which includes the recycling of tremendous quantities of high organic, solid by-products as the commercial fertilizer Milorganite. While the initial capital investment in this process was quite large and the operating costs do exceed that of most other sewage disposal plants, the sale of over 75,000 tons of Milorganite annually enables the taxpayers of Milwaukee to have a disposal system at a net cost that is lower than most other cities and which recycles the solid organic matter in sewage back to nature.
The economic recovery and sale of Milorganite is apparently due to two basic factors. One, Milorganite is an excellent product. As an ecologically sound organic product which recycles natural materials back to the earth, Milorganite consistently out performs chemical fertilizers in producing quality turf grasses. As such, Milorganite is consistently used by parks and golf courses throughout the country to the extent that supplies are available.
Secondly, because the solid by-products of the sewage treatment process can be recycled and sold as Milorganite, there are no costly sludge disposal problems. Thus the disposal costs represented by alternate or conventional methods of dealing with sewage sludge are avoided – that is, the costs of digestion, lagooning, incineration or transportation to remote locations – are avoided in the Milorganite process as well as the ecologically unsound problems of disposal.
I have been informed that the usefulness and marketability of Milorganite are to direct proportion to the nitrogen content. As opposed to the experience in other cities which have attempted to recover sludge economically, Milwaukee has been successful in economically recovering and selling Milorganite because it is the high nitrogen content of Milorganite that makes it a superior fertilizer and allows it to maintain its status as a highly marketable product throughout the country.
The explanation for the high nitrogen content of Milorganite lies in the unique composition of sewage contributed by the industries of Milwaukee. In particular, the breweries, tanneries, and meat packers of Milwaukee send a type of waste that is very high in B.O.D. or Biological Oxygen Demand. This addition to the regular sewage of the City makes possible the cultivation of types of bacteria in the activated sludge process which produce a solid by-product significantly higher in nitrogen content than that of other cities.
The Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee has reported to me that the beneficial effects of these wastes on the Milorganite process has been demonstrated to their satisfaction over the past 15 years. In 1953 and again in 1969, there were strikes which completely shut down brewery operations in Milwaukee. By monitoring the activity in the sewage treatment plant, the Commission was able to assess the impact of this change in incoming sewage and document the effect in terms of graphs and statistics. The nitrogen content of Milorganite dropped steadily and numerous other problems developed such as an increase in ash from incineration facilities.
Mr. NELSON. In the portion of the committee report which explains section 201 of this bill, it states on page 23: Beginning in fiscal 1975, the Administrator shall reject any Section 207 construction grant application which would result in any discharge of pollutants, unless the applicant demonstrates to the Administrator that alternative waste treatment techniques have been considered, and that the proposal will result in the best practicable treatment.
On that same page of the report, in further explaining what is meant by alternate techniques to the normal waste treatment operations, it says:
The Committee has, therefore, included a requirement that Federal assistance for the construction of waste treatment facilities must require, where appropriate, practices which will recycle and reclaim water and provide for the contained or confined disposal of pollutants. This bill would establish a policy in concert with the fundamental ecological principle that, to the extent possible, all materials should be returned to the cycles from which they were generated. Properly managed, this means pollutants do not escape or migrate to cause degradation of the water, air, or land environment.
The question is whether it is the committee's intent in this section to encourage the type of recycling of organic waste matter that I understand is represented by Milwaukee's production of Milorganite
Mr. MUSKIE. It is the intent of the legislation to encourage the development of alternative methods to conventional treatment plants, and I refer the Senator to the following language on page 24 of the committee report, which I think may be a satisfactory reply to the Senator and to his constituents:
Third, conventional treatment is at best an interim solution; such facilities are easily over-taxed, their life expectancy is relatively short, and by themselves do not solve the problem of residual waste; i.e., sludge and other pollutants removed from the effluent.
Alternative waste treatment methods, which require the return of pollutants to natural cycles, are only new in the sense that they have re-emerged for application. This method is most commonly associated with the Muskegon project although other recent examples include work at Penn State University and Michigan State University and elsewhere.
It is our desire to encourage the development of new methods, and it would seem to me, without being an expert on the Milorganite process, that that might well be the kind of thing that ought to be explored.
Mr. NELSON. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. NELSON. With the imposition of a system of user charges under section 204 as a requirement for receiving a Federal grant, and with a direction to the Administrator of EPA to promulgate guidelines for the establishment and imposition of a user charge system as a guide to grant applicants under section 201, is it your understanding that these guidelines and user charge systems should be permitted some flexibility so that such systems can best implement the overall purposes of this act and meet the unique requirements which may exist in particular jurisdictions?
Furthermore, in considering – as a general rule – the volume and character of each discharge into a publicly owned system as the basis of determining the rate at which each user should be required to pay, would the specific consideration of the possible beneficial character of some waste characteristics – such as for recycling of solid organic material – be permitted?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it is. I think that the following language from the committee report may also be of assistance: These guidelines should take into account the diversity of legal and financial factors that exist from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and each applicant should be permitted reasonable flexibility in the design of a system of user charges that meets the unique requirements of his own jurisdiction. As a general rule, the volume and character of each discharge into a publicly owned system should form the basis of determining the rate at which each user should be required to pay.
But the flexibility point is emphasized, and I think should be, because we are trying to encourage experiments and flexibility.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I had assumed, from looking at the act, that that was the intent, but I appreciate the clarification, so that the legislative intent will be clear from our discussion on the Senate floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator for having helped make that intent clear, because it is very important to do so.
[Unrelated intervening action omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for offering this amendment. The subcommittee has held economic impact hearings related to the cost of environmental controls, and we expect to continue them in order to develop a good record as to the cost of complying with environmental standards.
I think this amendment is very timely as an interim measure to deal with a readily observable cost impact which we ought to take into account.
I have discussed the amendment with the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS), who is the ranking Republican member of the subcommittee, and we are ready to take the amendment.
To the extent possible, small businesses will be expected to connect into municipal waste treatment systems. That is the purpose, of course, of developing municipal waste treatment systems. It is anticipated that few small firms will find the construction of waste treatment and waste handling systems economical if an alternative municipal system is available, but, at the same time, there are certain wastes which municipal systems cannot readily treat and which must be removed in the industrial process. It is primarily to deal with those problems that this amendment is offered, and it is in that sense that we accept it.
Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has been yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. On this question the yeas and the nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced – yeas 92, nays 0, as follows:
[ROLL CALL VOTE TALLY OMITTED]