November 2, 1971
Page 38797
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1971
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair now lays before the Senate the unfinished business, S. 2770, which the clerk will read.
The legislative clerk read the bill by title as follows:
A bill (S. 2770) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged against either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the debate and votes on S. 2770, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1971, the following members of the staff of the Committee on Public Works be permitted in the Chamber: J. B. Huyett, Jr., M. Barry Meyer, Bailey Guard, Thomas C. Jorling, Leon Billings, Harold Brayman, Phillip Cummings, Richard Wilson, John Yago, Ann Garrabrandt, Rebecca Beauregard, and Judy Parente.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may take.
This country once was famous for its rivers. In songs and poems and stories, Americans gloried in the now-quiet, now-roaring reaches of the river waters. A vigorous people, following their rivers to the oceans and beyond, built along the riverbanks a strong and productive economy.
But today, the rivers of this country serve as little more than sewers to the seas. Wastes from cities and towns, from farms and forests, from mining and manufacturing, foul the streams, poison the estuaries, threaten the life of the ocean depths. The danger to health, the environmental damage, the economic loss can be anywhere:
Just a 10-minute walk from this Chamber, the Potomac River is a hazard to health. The Georgetown Gap in the District of Columbia's sewer pipelines allows 15 million gallons of raw sewage to pour into the river every day.
A Federal biologist, speaking of mercury, says he can find no chemical potentially worse for man. Mercury is toxic. It is cumulative. It is persistent. While the biologist speaks, a factory discharges into the Detroit River a daily dose of 10 to 20 pounds of mercury.
In a single day, 10 million fish die in a Florida bay. It is not the first fish kill in the bay, and it is known that wastes are dumped into its waters, but the cause of death is given as a lack of oxygen in the bay.
An oil spill releases more than 700 tons of fuel oil into the waters off the Massachusetts coast.
Later, scientists using a dredge find that more than 90 percent of the organisms brought up from the bottom in the area of the spill are dead or dying.
In 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality reports, nearly a fourth of this country's shellfish crop could not be harvested. The men and women who make their living from the shellfish crop suffered an economic loss of more than $60 million.
Industries also suffer economic loss. The value of lead washed down the rivers into the oceans every year is estimated at nearly $600 million. The copper lost through discharge into the rivers, if reclaimed and reused, would be worth $5 billion a year.
Mr. President, these are only a sampling of the symptoms. The Committee on Public Works, after 2 years of study of the Federal water pollution control program, concludes that the national effort to abate and control water pollution is inadequate in every vital aspect:
Many of the Nation's navigable waters are severely polluted, and major waterways near the industrial and urban areas are unfit for any purpose;
Rivers are the primary sources of pollution of coastal waters and the oceans, and many lakes and confined waterways are aging rapidly under the impact of increased pollution;
Rivers, lakes, and streams are being used to dispose of man's wastes rather than to support man's life and health; and
The use of any river, lake, stream, or ocean as a waste treatment system is unacceptable.
The committee believes the country should move now to restore and maintain the natural chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. To achieve this objective, the committee recommends that the following be adopted as national policy:
The discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;
An interim goal of water quality be achieved by 1981 to provide for the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in and on the water;
The discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited;
Federal grant assistance be provided to any community which constructs a waste treatment facility which is consistent with the program set forth by the Congress,
A major research and demonstration effort be initiated to find the technological methods necessary to eliminate waste discharges; and
Regional waste management treatment programs be developed and implemented to assure adequate control of all sources of pollution in each State.
The legislation recommended by the committee proposes a major change in the enforcement mechanism – from water quality standards to effluent limits – of the Federal water pollution control program.
Under the 1965 act, water quality standards were to be set as the control mechanism. States were to decide the uses of water to be protected, the kinds and amounts of pollutants to be permitted, the degree of pollution abatement to be required, the time to be allowed a polluter for abatement.
The water quality standards program is limited in its success. After 5 years, many States do not have approved standards. Officials are still working to establish relationships between pollutants and water uses. Time schedules for abatement are slipping away because of failure to enforce, lack of effluent controls, and disputes over Federal-State standards.
The committee recommends the change to effluent limits as the best available mechanism to control water pollution. With effluent limits, the administrator can require the best control technology: He need not search for a precise link between pollution and water quality.
With this recommendation, the committee intends no criticism of the States in which water quality standards are approved nor of the State officials whose programs are superior in many respects to the Federal water pollution control program.
To the contrary, it is the committee's intent to restore the balance of Federal-State effort in the program as contemplated by the 1965 and 1966 acts. The committee is particularly concerned that there shall be a balanced effort in the discharge permit system initiated under section 13 of the 1899 Refuse Act.
The permits sytem establishes a direct link between the Federal Government and each source of discharge into the navigable waters. But the permit system exists independently from the Federal-State program set up by the 1965 act: The dual controls are incomplete and contribute to uncertainty among all concerned.
The permit system, as restated by this legislation, prohibits the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters. The Federal administrator is responsible for control of any discharges of pollutants; he must move against the polluters.
The legislation will restore Federal-State balance to the permit system. Those States whose own programs are superior will be allowed to administer the permit system.
The most inspired defense of the procedure set forth in the bill appears in a University of Pennsylvania law review article by Prof. William H. Rodgers, Jr., of the University of Washington, in which he states:
EPA can exercise a preventive authority it has never before enjoyed. There will be no more prerequisites to action that pollution in one state must cause health hazards in another. No more obligations to prove that the fish kill near the chemical plant actually was caused by the suspected culprit. No more useless two million dollar studies proving that sulfite waste liquor harms oysters.... Instead, EPA, acting with the approval of the Corps, can specify necessary studies, treatment, and monitoring precautions as a condition to the permit. It can insist upon the non-degradation and best-technology principles now virtually ignored. It can, in short, reclaim much of the authority it has been denied under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
HISTORY
Let me now review briefly how the committee arrived at the recommendations contained in this legislation. As Senators know, Federal legislation in the field of water pollution control has been keyed primarily to an important principle of public policy: the States shall lead the national effort to prevent, control, and abate water pollution. As a corollary, the Federal role has been limited to support of, and assistance to, the states.
Given these basic provisions, State and Federal efforts in water pollution control went forward with little legislative change for nearly 10 years after 1948. It was a period of transition. To most Americans, the problems of water pollution control appeared to be localized and moderate.
In 1956, the Congress approved the first major legislative changes in the water pollution control program. Federal grants were authorized to assist States in preparing plans for pollution control and to help localities in building treatment plants. The authority for research and technical assistance was increased and broadened. Measures for controlling pollution of interstate waters were tightened.
In 1965, the Congress approved a second set of major legislative decisions for the water pollution control program. For the purpose of the pending legislation, perhaps the most important among these decisions were the assignment of a new responsibility to the States, the continued use of a 1948 enforcement procedure, and the establishment of a new agency to administer the Federal portion of the program.
The Congress moved again in 1966 to broaden and intensify the Federal support of State efforts in water pollution control. A 5-year authorization totaling $3.4 billion for grants to assist the construction of waste treatment plants was provided. The authorization scheduled $150 million for fiscal year 1967 and increased steeply during the 5 years to $1.25 billion for fiscal year 1971.
Last year, the Congress confronted several specific problems in water pollution control. The 1970 amendments added to the basic law new sections on liability for clean up of oil discharges, discharge of hazardous substances, discharge of sewage from vessels, demonstration projects for cleaning up pollution in the Great Lakes, acid mine drainage, regulation of Federal activities affecting water quality, and manpower training for water pollution control.
During the past 2 years, the committee has devoted 33 days to public hearings on pending water pollution bills.
A total of 171 witnesses were heard, and 470 statements were received and compiled in 6,400 pages of testimony. To develop the pending legislation, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and the Committee on Public Works conducted 45 executive sessions.
ADEQUACY OF STANDARDS
The setting of water quality standards for interstate navigable waters, as indicated above, is the keystone of the present program for control of water pollution. The standards are intended to function in two ways:
First. As a measure of performance, the standards are expected to establish the maximum level of pollution allowable in interstate waters.
Second. The standards also are intended to provide an avenue of legal action against polluters. If the wastes discharged by polluters reduce water quality below the standards, actions may be begun against the polluters.
The task of setting water quality standards, assigned to the States by the 1966 legislation, is lagging. More than 4 years after the deadline for submission of standards, only a little more than half of the States have fully approved standards. Of the 54 jurisdictions covered by the water pollution control program– the figure includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands – only 27 have fully approved standards. However, on their own motion, 44 States have also adopted intrastate water quality standards, in most cases quite similar to their standards for interstate waters.
The States have first responsibility for enforcement of their standards. When approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, however, the standards for interstate navigable waters become Federal-State standards.
A critical delay of enforcement for interstate water quality results from the water quality standards structure just described. The EPA Administrator may begin action to abate pollution only when
First. Water quality of interstate waters is reduced below the established standards;
Second. Pollution originating in one State is endangering the health or welfare of persons in another State downstream; or
Third. The Governor of the State in which the pollution is originating consents to the proposed action.
ADEQUACY OF ENFORCEMENT
The continued use of the 1948 abatement procedure also contributes to delay. The record shows an almost total lack of enforcement. Under this procedure, only one case has reached the courts in more than two decades.
In that case, involving a Midwestern city, more than 4 years elapsed between initial conference and consent decree. The city later constructed a sewage treatment plant. Within 2 years, the plant was treating only half of the city's sewage. Five million tons of raw sewage were being dumped into the river each day.
Continued use of the 1948 abatement procedure, and the almost total lack of enforcement, encourage governing bodies and officials to search for other, more direct avenues of action against water polluters and water pollution.
One such approach which has been focused on is the use of section 13 of the 1899 Refuse Act, which declares a prohibition over the discharge of any matter into the navigable waters.
While the permit program created in late 1970 under the Refuse Act by the Administrator seeks to establish this direct approach, it is weak in two important respects: It is being applied only to industrial polluters, and authority is divided between two Federal agencies.
Experience with the permit system during the past 10 months suggests that the machinery used to date may be as cumbersome as the 1948 abatement procedure. Estimates of the number of permit applications to be received run as high as 300,000; estimates of the time required to process the application run as long as 4 years.
ADEQUACY OF FUNDING
The lack of adequate funding of grants to assist States and localities in constructing sewage treatment plants is causing critical problems.
Of the $3.4 billion authorized for this purpose by the 1966 legislation, only $2.2 billion was appropriated. The backlog of projects eligible for Federal payments has reached a total of nearly $2 billion.
As more States and localities move to take part in the construction program, the need for increased Federal spending is rising rapidly.
Five years ago, the committee estimated that more than $20 billion worth of sewage treatment plants would have to be built before 1972 in order to serve the population expected in 1980.
Responsible estimates received by the committee during its hearings last year place the total national need for the next 5 years at more than $30 billion. The figure covers only needs already identified by local officials.
In addition to these demands for increased Federal funding, there is another problem connected with the construction grant program. A 1969 report of the General Accounting Office raises a critical question concerning the use of Federal funds.
Based of a study of eight States, the GAO report discloses that more than $80 million of $1 billion in Federal grants awarded to those States through 1968 was used to help build about 400 municipal treatment plants. The report states, however, that the plants were designed to treat primarily the wastes of industries located within or near the municipal boundaries.
As the size of the Federal grant program and the costs of construction increase, this kind of indirect payment to industrial users of joint treatment plants also will increase.
ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION
The Federal water pollution control program suffers from a lack of information concerning discharges, amounts and kinds of pollution, abatement measures taken, and compliance.
The present water pollution control law allows the EPA administrator, after an enforcement conference, to require the filing of reports by polluting industries and municipalities. The reports are to include data on discharges and actions taken to abate pollution. However, two provisions of law prevent the Administrator from obtaining adequate information. Polluters are allowed to omit from their reports any information they believe to involve trade secrets or secret processes. And the Administrator has no legal right of entry so that he may check the polluters' operations.
The situation is not so damaging as it might be, since many State programs give their officials the right to enter and inspect plants for compliance with State discharge permits.
The 1969 report of the General Accounting Office, referred to earlier, suggests how much vital information is not available to Federal enforcement officials. The GAO investigated files of State permits on 80 industrial plants discharging wastes into a 170-mile reach of the Mississippi River. The files included information on the amount of wastes being discharged by only 52 of the 80 plants.
It should be noted that one of the most important aspects of the administration's 1899 Refuse Act permit program has been the accumulation for the first time of detailed information on the character of industrial pollution discharges.
ADEQUACY OF RESEARCH
The Federal water pollution control program also suffers from a lack of adequate research and demonstration beyond the traditional methods used in municipal treatment plants.
In primary treatment of sewage, between 30 to 50 percent of organic pollution is removed. When secondary treatment, between 50 and 90 percent is removed.
Neither of the traditional methods, then, can be completely satisfactory, and both have significant disadvantages. Primary treatment, for example, requires large capital expenditures and the use of extensive land areas.
The sludge remaining from secondary treatment can create special problems. Some localities burn sludge, thus contributing to air pollution. Other localities use sludge for landfill. Still others dump sludge into the oceans where it is hazardous to sea life.
The reliance of the Federal program upon primary and secondary treatment continues, although the program's efforts in research and demonstration is now more than 10 years old. The annual budget for research by the Water Quality Office of the Environmental Protection Agency amounts to less than $50 million.
THE LEGISLATION
Earlier in this statement, I discussed the two major changes proposed by the committee: the change from water quality standards to effluent limits as the control mechanism, and the use of the permit system against the discharge of pollutants.
I mentioned, too, the objective of the legislation and the committee's recommendation to set a national policy of eliminating the discharge of pollutants by 1985. Let me turn now to the details of the committee's response to the problems encountered in the areas of standards, enforcement, funding, information, and research.
To achieve the national objective of no discharge of pollutants, the EPA Administrator is required to set up a two-phase program for applying effluent limits: the first based on best practicable technology; the second based on best available technology.
In phase I, to be implemented by 1976, all industrial pollution sources must apply the best practicable technology. Communities will be required to have secondary treatment construction programs by June 30, 1974.
In phase II, to be implemented by 1981, communities and industries will be required to apply, where the goal of no-discharge cannot be attained, the best available technology.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to regulate discharges of pollutants through the use of an expanded permit program. But each State may establish at the earliest practicable date an enforceable procedure for discharges in the State. Federal guidelines for these procedures are to be issued. He also may ban the discharge of any toxic pollutant.
Progress toward the national goal is to be assisted through the following steps:
The legal base for use of Federal permits to regulate the discharge of pollutants is reinforced and improved.
The scope of the 1899 Refuse Act is broadened: the administrative capability is strengthened.
Effluent limits on all existing sources must, at a minimum, apply the best technology available by I981.
Where the Administrator can identify a direct link between a polluter and water quality, the Administrator is authorized to tighten controls on the polluter.
Wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality is to be achieved by 1981 providing for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in and on the water.
To assist States and localities, the bill proposes a 4-year program of Federal grants for construction of sewage treatment plants. The Federal share of matching funds totals $14 billion through fiscal year 1975.
The minimum Federal grant is set at 60 percent of project cost. If a State contributes as much as 10 percent of project cost, the Federal grant is increased by a matching 10 percent. A locality's share thus becomes 20 percent of project cost.
The bill requires grantees to use the best practicable methods for waste treatment. After fiscal year 1974, all grantees must evaluate available methods for recycling and reclaiming wastes, including the use of confined and contained disposal of pollutants.
Where any method other than these alternatives is chosen, the grantee must justify his choice. Regional waste treatment programs are required.
The allocation of construction grants is based upon population. In any reallocation of Federal funds not used for construction, priority is given to projects in States providing at least 10-percent assistance.
The bill also provides reimbursement for sewage treatment plants built without Federal assistance during earlier stages of the Federal program. Plants begun between fiscal year 1956 and fiscal year 1966 are eligible for grants equal to 30 percent of project cost. Plants begun after June 30, 1966, are eligible for grants equal to 50 percent of project cost. A total of $2.4 billion is authorized for this purpose.
A discretionary fund of $200 million is set aside for the Administrator's use where costs of regional sewage treatment plants may exceed State and local entitlement to the Federal grants. The fund is intended to assist such projects as the District of Columbia's Blue Plains plant, a major polluter of the Potomac River.
Grantees must adopt a system of user charges to assure that each class of users will help to pay the costs of operation and maintenance, including replacement of sewage treatments plants financed with Federal grants.
In this context, each industrial user of such facilities must agree by contract to pay back the portion of Federal share of construction cost allocable to the industrial user's wastes. These payments are to be received by the Administrator and deposited in the Federal Treasury.
The bill makes unlawful the dumping or disposal of any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent, or high-level radioactive waste into the oceans or the waters of the contiguous zone – 3 to 12 miles – and the territorial seas – 0 to 3 miles.
Discharges into the territorial seas or discharges from ocean outfalls are subject to the regulations applicable to discharges into the domestic, navigable waters.
For new, point-sources of pollutants, the bill requires the Administrator to set uniform standards of performance. These standards must reflect the maximum reduction of pollutants possible through use of the best available control technology. Twenty-eight types of industry listed by the bill are to be covered by the performance standards. Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator a procedure for enforcing the performance standards for new, point-sources located within the State.
The bill requires Governors and local officials, in cooperation with the Administrator, to develop plans for area wide waste treatment management in areas with critical water pollution control problems. The plans are to be completed by July 1, 1973.
In addition to municipal and industrial wastes, the area wide plans are to include procedures to control agricultural runoff, surface and underground mine runoff; construction runoff, and disposal of pollutants on land or in excavations.
The bill also requires the Administrator to conduct research into better methods of controlling pollutants from nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff. A total of $10 million is set aside for the agricultural research.
Further, each State is required to adopt methods for control of pollution in fresh water lakes within the State.
Restoration of water quality in these lakes is to be assisted by Federal funds. The task of enforcing provisions of the bill is assigned to the Administrator. He is authorized to enforce permit violations immediately; or, if a State fails to act within 30 days after receipt of a notice of violation, the Administrator may issue an order to comply or go to court against the polluter.
Civil and criminal penalties are provided. A second conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than $50,000 per day of violation, 2 years in prison, or both.
Under the bill, citizens themselves may go to U.S. district courts against polluters who violate effluent standards or compliance orders. Citizens may also go to court against the Administrator for failure to carry out nondiscretionary duties under the law.
ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC IMPACT
Two aspects of the pending legislation command the attention and require the evaluation of not only Senators but also the American people: What is the environmental impact of this legislation? What is the economic impact of this legislation?
The committee evaluated carefully the need to develop a water pollution control program which is environmentally sound. The stated objective of the act reflects the committee's decision to recognize fundamental principles of ecology. The committee also agrees that:
The policy proposed in the bill must reflect the bill's stated objective;
The information available on the effects of pollutants is insufficient to justify a continuation of present practices;
All speculation, all warning signs, and most responsible evidence suggest that the addition of foreign material to bodies of water alters the natural condition of the water; and
The addition of foreign material to bodies of water has been, is at the moment, and will continue to be, an environmentally unsound procedure.
The committee realizes that there is insufficient evidence to implement the policies and objectives of this act without additional information. At the same time, the committee recognizes the absolute requirement that goals be set, that a sound program be developed, that deadlines be established, and that a single set of requirements for each pollutant be established for a sufficient period of time so that communities and industries can plan for their needs over an extended period of time and can make sound decisions to carry out their plans.
Consequently, the 1985 deadline for achieving no-discharge of pollutants is a policy objective. It is not locked in concrete. It is not enforceable. It simply establishes what the committee thinks ought to be done on the basis of present knowledge.
The committee recognizes that there are technical limits to what can be done in order to achieve the no-discharge objective. More importantly, the committee is concerned that program administrators and enforcement officers do not know what these technical limits are. Neither do they know the range of controls which can be applied to types of plants within various industries.
Let me give you a critical example: A Federal guideline issued under the 1965 act requires each industry to meet a minimum of secondary treatment or its equivalent. But today, 6 years later, program administrators cannot identify the equivalent of secondary treatment for each industry. I consider such an information gap within the State and Federal agencies a cause for major national concern.
Consequently, I am more than somewhat skeptical of a set of numbers circulated in recent days by Russell E. Train, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. The numbers are purported to be accurate estimates of the economic impact of this legislation. Frankly, I suspect the accuracy is limited. But I am willing to accept the inaccuracy as a result of the lack of information on pollution and costs, and not of any attempt to characterize the pending bill.
The committee has been trying for years to get hard and fast estimates on the costs of water pollution control. But as recently as March of this year, the committee was being told the information is not available. I quote from the letter of EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus accompanying the Fourth Annual Report on the National Requirements and Costs of Water Pollution Control. The letter, dated March 13, 1971, is included in "The Cost of Clean Water"–
The size, complexity and dynamic nature of the municipal investment in waste treatment systems prevent the development of fixed long-term estimates and point toward a need for periodic appraisal.
It is also abundantly clear that reappraisals must make adequate provisions for incorporating new solutions to waste problems rather than continuing commitment to out-dated plans or technologies....
There is no doubt that a massive investment program is needed, but the absolute magnitude of the investment required to produce a given set of waste reduction effects will vary depending upon the allocation of resources to projects and the degree of cost effectiveness with which investments are made.
Nevertheless, the numbers I refer to have now been provided to members of the Committee on Public Works by Chairman Train. From my study of the numbers, I reach the following conclusions
First, the Council on Environmental Quality indicates that the first cost of continuing the administration's present program – which is recognized as environmentally inadequate – is $17 billion, and that this investment is expected to buy a pollution reduction of 90 percent. I take it that the estimate is based on the $12.6 billion to be invested in municipal waste treatment facilities during the next 3 to 6 years and on another $5 billion invested in industrial waste treatment facilities. But evidence presented to the committee clearly indicates that the investment will not achieve the 90-percent reduction in pollutants.
Second, Chairman Train predicts the removal of 95 to 99 percent of pollutants from municipal and industrial sources will require capital costs of $35.3 billion in this decade, or an average of $3.5 billion a year. This is no greater than the amount that the committee expects to be invested in the current fiscal year by municipalities and industries. In fact, the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimate the 6-year needs, for municipalities only, at between $33 billion and $37 billion.
Third, Chairman Train also estimates the costs for 100-percent elimination of pollutants from industrial and municipal sources by 1981 to be $94.5 billion. There is no basis in fact, on the record or in any report, for this estimate. According to Administrator Ruckelshaus, the Environmental Protection Agency cannot make such a projection. But I neither accept nor reject these figures. I do say that the committee does not expect the Nation to achieve a 100-percent elimination of pollutants from industrial and municipal sources 10 years from now.
Mr. President, the committee recognizes that doubts exist on the economic and social costs, the economic and social benefits, of the national objective stated in the pending bill. The committee also recognizes that doubts exist about the link between pollution and water quality.
That is why the committee recommends the comprehensive information and reporting sections of the bill which will provide for the Congress the knowledge to decide by the mid-1970's whether the course set now should be changed.
This knowledge also will help the Congress to decide whether the requirements will be tightened, whether the national priorities in this decade will allow the application of these kinds of controls, and whether the American people can afford to achieve, or not achieve, the goals of this legislation.
Reasonable cost is the basic test, under the pending bill, for eliminating discharges. In many instances, technology will not have been developed to the stage where no-discharge technology can be applied at reasonable costs. In other instances, the technology may already be reasonably available.
It is certainly true that most communities of the United States will not be able to recycle completely and reclaim their wastes at a reasonable cost by 1981. Therefore, to apply a price tag – as Mr. Train does – to a 100-percent elimination of pollutants can serve no purpose other than to frighten the people and intimidate the Congress.
Mr. President, I submit the time for fright and intimidation is past. Our senses tell us the quality of our environment is declining at an alarming rate. We smell the poisonous fumes; we see the cans, the paper, the plastics; we hear the rasp of machinery, the whine of engines. The fact of raw sewage floating in our rivers outrages us.
We are acutely aware, of course, that the deterioration of our environment is a new item recently added to an older, stubborn list of public problems. War, poverty, abuse of civil rights, urbanization still confront us. Some of us fear the country may be unable to grasp or to solve problems of such size. Some hesitate, waiting for someone else to move, to take the lead.
Others of us search for side roads, seeking to avoid a head-on collision with our polluted environment. Some suggest, for example, that concern for the environment is no more than a fad: If we will only wait, the cause for concern will pass by. Man, so that argument goes, is the most adaptable creature on earth: He will continue to flourish, adjusting slightly from time to time as his environment grows dirtier and dirtier.
Down another side road, consumers get the blame. Pollution is caused, so this argument goes, by consumers who demand the thousand of products available in the marketplace, and only consumers shall bear the cost of cleanup. The consumer, obviously, saves us all. By taking on the entire burden, he excuses the manufacturer whose factory fouls the water, and he excuses the government whose officials fail to act and to lead.
But while some of us search for side roads, the quality of our environment will continue to deteriorate Pollution will grow and feed upon itself. Hazards and costs to our health and welfare will increase.
It is imperative that we attempt to stop pollution and to restore the quality of our environment. I suggest that we begin by adding to our approach some humble ideas about ourselves and our place upon the planet.
It may be, as some argue, that man is the most adaptable of earth's creatures. It may be that he can remain essentially the same, changing only slightly as he adjusts to higher levels of pollution.
But what we do not know, and what we cannot predict accurately, are the long-range effects upon man of prolonged exposure to bigger and bigger doses of pollution. Man, no less than the peregrine Falcon and the Mountain Lion, is an endangered species.
He is also the principal danger to himself, the principal polluter of his environment. Foul air, dirty water, ravaged land, are more than complex problems in resource management. What must be managed, and properly managed for our own protection, are our activities within our environment.
There is another humble idea that should be added to our approach: We live today in what an engineer might call a closed system. Some of our resources, once used, cannot be replaced. Others of our resources are renewable, but finite. No one is likely to invent more clean water, more clean air, more arable land.
These ideas are basic to the pending legislation. The committee believes the discharge of pollutants into lakes, rivers, and seas is a waste of substances already in limited supply. The committee believes the discharge of pollutants causes hazards to health and threatens the very existence of man.
It is upon this statement, Mr. President, that I rest the committee's case. May I at this point express my appreciation to the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), the chairman of the full committee, to the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER), the ranking Republican member, and to the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGs), who shares with me the responsibility for the work of the subcommittee as the ranking Republican member, and all of the members of the committee.
I also want to express special appreciation to members of the staff of the Committee on Public Works and the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution for their diligent effort in developing this important measure, particularly M. Barry Meyer, chief counsel; Bailey Guard, minority clerk; Thomas C. Jorling, minority counsel, Leon G. Billings, senior staff member; Philip T. Cummings, assistant counsel; Richard D. Grundy, Harold H. Broyman, and Richard W. Wilson, and John W. Yago, professional staff members; Rebecca Beauregard, Ann Garrabrant, Margaret Nagel, Sally Walker, and Frances Williams, research and clerical assistants; Paul Chimes, on detail from the Government Printing Office; and Dr. Walter Westman, an ecologist made available to the subcommittee through a congressional fellowship.
As I said earlier, we had something like 44 executive markup sessions in putting this legislation together. We examined a wider range of options and possible solutions to these complex problems than I can recall in my 8 or 10 years of concern with this problem in the Senate. I might add that the attendance of both the committee members and staff has been, I think, without precedent in the work of this committee.
I think it has been a landmark piece of work.
I think that all of us, whatever our remaining minor differences over the bill, take a great deal of satisfaction with the legislative product we are presenting to the Senate this afternoon.
The committee members are agreed on all matters with the exception of minor differences which we will discuss later. We ask the Senate to pass this bill.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able chairman of our subcommittee for his fine work in drafting the legislation and his diligent efforts on behalf of the legislation.
I want to express now, very simply and very earnestly, my feelings as a Member of the committee and of the Senate, and also to say that the people of the United States have in the person of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) a man who has carried this program forward in its many facets and that generations yet to come will know the value of his work.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his generous comments. I would like to add that without his constant support and work on this subcommittee, the committee could not have come forward with the pending bill.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I certainly commend the distinguished Senator and chairman of the subcommittee on his excellent statement and on the fine work he has done over the years in
this vital matter of reporting legislation to clean up pollution.
I am curious about the statement on the opening page of the Senator's prepared remarks concerning the fish kill in the Florida Bay. Could the Senator tell me what the bay is and what caused the kill?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will get the information to the Senator during the course of the day and will have it printed in the RECORD.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I think that the Senator is probably talking about the red tide that killed fish. The red tide occurred in Florida as early as the last century and before the white men first came to Florida and when the Indians were the only inhabitants.
It is also known in the Bible, in the Book of Exodus, as one of the seven plagues.
While we have pollution in Florida and we want to clean it up, I do not think it has been as bad there as in any of the other States. I do not think this is as bad as the others.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is true that in my State, which used to be the Senator's State, natural conditions have produced a shortage of oxygen, but that natural shortage is increased by the dumping of human waste. I do not think that ought to be used as an excuse for adding to the shortage by the dumping of human pollution.
I do not have at my finger tips the information the Senator requested.
These lists of illustrations come from the committee file. We wanted to illustrate the widespread damage that waste discharges are creating. We could multiply this by many other examples.
Mr. GURNEY. I thank the Senator for yielding.
(Subsequently, Senator MUSKIE supplied the following statement.)
The water may not die completely; it will go through various stages – back and forth, perhaps, depending on such factors as the sewage load and the water temperature and the swiftness of currents and accidents of weather. Still, some rather disagreeable things may happen. Ten to 15 million menhaden, a commercial fish processed for bait and fertilizer and oil, were killed in Florida's Escambia Bay at Pensacola in a single day last summer. The bay receives industrial pollution, and the fish kill was just one of a series there over the last decade; the blame has been laid to the low level of oxygen in the water. The fish smothered. And the lobsters and crabs and fish that survive for long periods in water heavily polluted by sewage suffer from cancer-like growths and lesions and other diseases.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield for a question. I intend to yield next to the Senator from Delaware so that he may make his statement.
Mr. BEALL. I wish to make a brief comment. As a former member I think I can make an observation from a distance, if it is possible to make an observation from a distance around here.
It was my privilege to be a member of the Committee on Public Works and a member of this subcommittee during the 26 weeks involved here in connection with the work of that subcommittee. I do not know of any other piece of legislation that could have received fairer hearings. All ideas were allowed to surface and they were discussed at length before the final legislation was put on paper. I think this legislation was put on paper many times.
We had a right to disagree and ask questions about certain effects of the bill, but at this time I wish to compliment the committee on the work they have done in bringing this legislation to the floor.
At the same time, being a little parochial, I would like to mention the statement made by the chairman of the subcommittee on page 9 where he referred to a "discretionary fund of $200 million" for the administrator's use "where costs of regional sewage treatment plans may exceed State and local entitlement to the Federal grants." This would allow the administrator flexibility in dealing with problems such as exist in the Washington metropolitan region. It is to be noted that there is in this legislation an opportunity to deal with the situation we have in the Potomac River and in connection with the Blue Plains plant, and other facilities here. I commend the Senator for dealing with this particular problem.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator for his comments. We regretted the Senator changed committee assignments. I also compliment the Senator for having initiated the idea that is incorporated in the bill dealing with the Blue Plains project. I think it was the Senator's proposal that was incorporated in the bill. I think it is a very useful addition.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I call to the attention of my distinguished colleague the Senator from Maine, the author of this bill, to a point I think is essential. I note that in the committee report, in a discussion of the term "pollutant" on page 76 of that report, the committee very appropriately gives the following explanation:
It is necessary to define such materials so that litigable issues are avoided over the question of whether the addition of a particular material is subject to control requirements.
I also note that the definition of "pollutant" contained in section 502 (f) of the bill, on page 164, includes the words "radioactive materials."
My question is this: Does this measure that has been reported by the committee in any way affect the existing law, that is, the existing Atomic Energy Act of 1954, insofar as the regulatory powers of the AEC are concerned with reference to radioactive material?
Mr. MUSKIE. It does not; and it is not the intent of this act to affect the 1954 legislation.
Mr. PASTORE. In other words, this bill does not change that feature of the Atomic Energy Act in any regard?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. PASTORE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say in addition, that legislation dealing with the setting of effluent limitations as they involve nuclear powerplants is now pending in the courts. The Senator is aware of that litigation.
For example, a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in the case of Northern States Power and Light versus Minnesota, raises the issue. I would like to point out that the committee considered speaking specifically to that decision, but chose to remain silent so as not to prejudice the decision or any appeal from it.
Mr. PASTORE. Yes. As a matter of fact, that decision held that the Federal Government did preempt in this field under existing law. That is the opinion, and we hope this legislation does not change that opinion in any way, and does not affect existing law. That is all I am concerned with.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct in his evaluation of the legislation on that point.
Mr. PASTORE. I thank the Senator.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. STAFFORD), a member of the committee, I ask unanimous consent that his legislative assistant, Mr. John Freshman, be permitted to remain in the Chamber during the consideration of this legislation, except during the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I wish to express strong support for this legislation, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1971.
This bill, I believe, is truly landmark legislation. It is legislation that sets a goal for the elimination of water pollution in our Nation, and places this Nation on a course that will achieve that goal eventually.
The distinguished floor manager of the bill (Mr. MUSKIE) has most ably and fully discussed this legislation section by section. I shall not attempt to repeat his careful analysis. Rather, I will discuss several aspects and provisions of the bill that merit special attention.
This legislation is firm and it is fair. It sets a goal that can be achieved, and must be achieved. It is the product of nearly four dozen executive sessions, and, I believe, has been greatly improved from the many imperfect draft versions that caused concern in some areas.
This legislation establishes as a national goal, the attainment of a standard for no discharge of pollutants by the year 1985. I do not believe we can say with certainty that such a goal can be reached by 1985. But I support creation of such a goal, and the concept of this legislation.
Our Nation must direct our efforts toward an elimination of pollution, where feasible, not just a reduction in pollution. By setting a no-discharge goal, we will direct research toward complete, rather than partial, solutions.
The information that will be obtained from the section 305 studies should enable the Congress, within a few years, to pinpoint with greater accuracy the date and cost for achieving a no- discharge goal, together with the enforcement mechanism necessary to achieve it.
Another major emphasis of this legislation must be the assistance it provides to States and to local communities toward developing systems to treat their wastes more effectively. Federal grants of up to 70 percent are provided to assist communities in treating their municipal wastes.
While I support the level of funding for the construction grant program in section 207, I believe the authorization of these grants by contract authority may be inappropriate. At a proper time during the consideration of the bill, I intend to offer an amendment, on behalf of myself and several colleagues, to strike the contract authority provision from the bill.
Ocean dumping must be an important aspect of any effective water pollution control program. As my colleagues are aware, the Committee on Public Works and the Committee on Commerce share jurisdiction over this aspect of the pollution control program.
The bill now under consideration controls the discharge of any pollutant into the ocean from an outfall pipe. This is true whether the outfall extends a few feet into the ocean or 100 miles.
Further, this bill controls any discharge of pollutants from a vessel that occurs within the 3-mile limit. Section 402 permits would be required to make either type of discharge legal.
The Commerce Committee bill, which was developed with the concurrence of the Committee on Public Works, has been ordered reported, I understand. It would control any discharge of pollutants in the area 3 to 12 miles from shore, and would regulate the discharge of pollutants anywhere in the ocean, if the pollutants were generated in the United States.
The Committee on Public Works held a most informative hearing on ocean dumping in Rehoboth Beach, Del. That hearing clearly demonstrated the need for such control procedures. I want to commend my colleagues on both committees for their cooperative spirit in developing these two provisions, vital components to any water pollution control program.
These are some of the provisions that will gather headlines when this legislation is reviewed. But I believe I must point out to my colleagues two other provisions of the bill that merit attention.
First, an environmental enhancement demonstration project is authorized in individual river basins, or portions thereof by section 105(b). Such a demonstration would show what can be accomplished by land-use controls, in-stream enhancement, and other techniques for improving water quality.
The Council on Environmental Quality, I might add, proposed such a model river program in its first report a year ago.
To be most effective, such a demonstration project must be directed at a river basin which has a variety of pollution problems: municipal, industrial, and agricultural. It would be inappropriate on a heavily polluted industrial river. This is true for two reasons. First, the cleanup of industrial pollution is, properly, a responsibility of private industry. Such cleanup is mandated in title III of this bill. Second, a demonstration project on a river with varied pollution problems would produce the kind of information that would be most useful in all areas of the Nation.
A second provision with great merit appears in subsection (1) of section 104. This authorizes a study of methods to handle the problems associated with the disposal of waste oils, such as waste crankcase oil. Evidence presented to the committee indicates that well over 1 billion gallons of waste oil are produced each year in the United States. Some of this oil is re-refined for reuse as a lubricant. Some can be used as a fuel. But all too often, this waste oil ends up floating on our rivers or oozing into our soil.
In early 1969 the American people were greatly concerned when 60,000 barrels of oil were discharged into the ocean off Santa Barbara, Calif., from an oil well. According to calculations provided to me by the Environmental Protection Agency, that much waste oil is dumped on purpose into our environment every 36 hours.
The subsection directs EPA to undertake a study of the roadblocks to the recovery and reuse of waste oil, and to determine whether the Federal Government can and should encourage its reuse.
This is a useful amendment in an important bill. It is a bill that merit the support of my colleagues, and I urge their full support of this legislation.
In closing, Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleagues on the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution as well as the full Committee on Public Works, including our distinguished colleague from Maryland (Mr. BEALL), who served long and diligently on the committee before he assumed new duties.
They have devoted many, many hours to this bill during the past several months. Each has made important and helpful contributions toward the reported bill.
Certainly, the leadership by our chairman (Mr. RANDOLPH) was most instrumental in the preparation of this legislation. His work, together with that of the ranking Republican member of the committee (Mr. COOPER), and the chairman of the subcommittee (Mr. MUSKIE), has been both inspirational and helpful to each of us serving on this fine committee. I thank them and I commend them. I should like to thank the staff of the committee as well as the staffs for various members of the committee, all of whom have been of great assistance to each of us on the committee in development of this legislation.
Mr. President, I would like to direct the attention of the distinguished manager of the bill (Mr. MUSKIE) to some language that appears at the bottom of page 17 of the report on the bill – Senate Report 92-414. Unfortunately, a number of important typographical errors occurred in the printing of the report.
Some of the most significant errors occur in the discussion on subsection (b) of section 105, which authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a model river demonstration program. The report first notes the fact that this model river effort was proposed initially by the Council on Environmental Quality. Then it states:
While the Committee believes that this approach has great merit and would be useful in the heavily industrialized rivers–
As the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) will note, that is an incomplete sentence. But more important than matters of grammar, the phrase creates an implication directly contrary to the committee's intent. The language that was prepared by the committee and appeared in the final draft version of the report, reads:
The Committee does not believe that such a demonstration project should be undertaken in the most heavily polluted industrial rivers.
May I ask my distinguished colleague if I am correct that the omission of this language was a typographical error? And am I also correct that it is the committee's intent that any model river demonstration project should be directed toward small river basins with a broad range of pollution problems?
Mr. MUSKIE. The distinguished Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) is correct. The correct language of the report stated specifically that such a demonstration project should not be undertaken in river basins with heavy concentrations of industrial pollution.
The intent of this provision is to create a program for improved water quality that encompasses a broad range of pollution problems, such as agricultural and other land runoff, municipal and industrial pollution, and in-stream enhancement techniques.
Mr. BOGGS. I thank my distinguished colleague. May I also point out that the report specified that the Brandywine River, which rises in Pennsylvania and flows eventually into the Delaware River, would serve as an excellent location for such a model river project. But the printed report contains another significant typographical error. The Brandywine River flows into the Christina River shortly before it reaches the Delaware River. It does not, as the report states, flow into the Christmas River.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my distinguished colleague. I am pleased that we have been able to clarify the record on these 2 points.