November 2, 1971
Page 38860
Mr. PELL. As the distinguished manager of the bill knows so well, development of water quality criteria is basic not only to our national water quality program, but to any meaningful international environmental program as well.
One has only to read the legislation before us to realize the importance of water quality criteria.
The bill is literally sprinkled with requirements for the development, and promulgation of criteria, information and guidelines on the specific effect of pollutants on human health, on marine organisms, and the marine environment generally.
It is quite clear that without a solid scientific base of water quality criteria, the effectiveness of the entire national water quality program will be seriously hampered.
In addition, we must consider the fact that we are now preparing for the first comprehensive international conference on environmental problems – the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment to be held in Stockholm next year. We are not going to be in a good position to get effective international agreements on ocean and atmospheric pollution control unless we have the basic scientific data, showing what damage specifically is done by specific pollutants.
That is what water quality criteria is all about, and I just do not believe that the laboratory assigned this vital mission should continue to work under the severe physical handicaps now existing.
Mr. President, I want to emphasize that I am not assigning to anyone blame for the delay in construction of this important laboratory facility. In fact, since we first provided funds for the laboratory, the Congress has transferred the water quality program, and the laboratory, from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Interior Department, and last year to the new Environmental Protection Agency. Each transfer prompted a full-scale organizational review which delayed the laboratory. There were, in addition, Federal construction freezes imposed during the height of expenditures for the war in Vietnam
I have kept in close touch with scientists and officials of EPA on this laboratory. I am satisfied that from a scientific and program viewpoint they want this laboratory facility very badly, so they can do a better job of protecting this country's marine environment.
My amendment simply tells the executive branch that we also consider it very important, and that we will give our environmental scientists the tools they need to do the very difficult job we have given them.
Mr. President, the Providence Journal and Evening Bulletin recently completed an exhaustive study of the water pollution problems and conditions in the State of Rhode Island. Mr. Robert C. Frederiksen, the distinguished environmental reporter for those newspapers, in summarizing the findings of that study, emphasized the importance of providing adequate, permanent facilities for the National Marine Water Quality Laboratory.
Mr. Frederiksen said
The years of delay in bringing this about and resulting delays in establishing salt water quality standards, monitoring and measuring methods, is nothing less than scandalous.
As one who has been pressing the executive branch for years to carry out the intent of the Congress by constructing this laboratory, I endorse that conclusion wholeheartedly.
Mr. President, I urge acceptance of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island discussed this amendment with me earlier. It meets with the approval of both the ranking Republican, the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) and myself. It is consistent with several approaches in the bill.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator from Rhode Island just said that this money was appropriated 9 years ago.
I merely wish to make inquiry either of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island or the distinguished manager of the bill.
If the money was appropriated 9 years ago and the Senator now wants to add this in the bill, how much increase in the cost of the project have we seen in allowing this thing to go for a period of 9 years? Are there sufficient funds to see that this can be built, or would there have to be a supplemental appropriation to do it?
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Senator has picked up a very valid point. Some of the funds originally appropriated still are available. However, additional funds would be required.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, does the Senator have any idea what the increased cost is? Do we have the slightest idea what we are talking about in dollars and cents? If the cost of construction has gone up 5 to 6 percent a year and this is 9 years, we could be talking about doubling the original appropriation, if not more.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the funds are available to complete the laboratory by reprograming within the administration. It would be about $2 million additional that would be required.
Mr. COOK. What is the original sum that was appropriated for the project?
Mr. PELL. The original sum appropriated was in the neighborhood of $4 million both for a fresh water laboratory and for this salt water laboratory.
Mr. COOK. It is now approximately $2 million additional?
Mr. PELL. The Senator is correct.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, is there any effort on the part of the manager of the bill to add the cost of the project?
Mr. PELL. No, because the funds are available from other sources within the administration.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I wanted to make that point.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island very kindly spoke to me about the amendment and explained the long history of this proposal and the type of research such a facility could accomplish. I do not have any doubts about the merits. However, I must say that I do not think it is good practice in a bill such as this to single out special facilities.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes on the bill to the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, with a view of making legislative history, I would like to ask the distinguished manager of the bill a question with reference to section 206. I am referring to page 56 of the bill. With regard to this section raising the Federal share to not less than 50 percent on all projects on which construction has been initiated in a State after June 30, 1966, is it the intent that municipalities that initiated construction after that date would be eligible for not less than 50 percent of the cost of the project where the State had participated in the project?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the intention. That is one of the two principal reasons why that was included in the bill.
Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator. I would like to ask the Senator one other question, and this refers to approval by a State water control agency back prior to 1966. A good many States did not have a water control agency at that time. However, such agencies as the State department of health would give approval. Would that satisfy it for the purpose of the statute?
Mr. MUSKIE. It would. We are principally concerned with whether a project met the standards at that time. There would be other ways of determining that.
Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has some questions. Do any other Senators have any other questions or amendments?
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I would like to pose a few questions to the manager of the bill.
Section 104 on page 7 authorizes the EPA Administrator to encourage, promote, render technical services to, and provide grants for "private organizations and individuals" to do all sorts of things from studies relating to the prevention and elimination of water pollution to conducting public investigations of pollution of any navigable water. Can anything in this legislation be construed as authorizing the EPA to make grants, to encourage, or to finance the activities of some of these special interest environmental groups in their efforts to intervene in State hearings, court cases, or citizen suit actions?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I refer the Senator to page 3 of the bill, line 18. This is the only reference to any kind of outside interest groups. It reads in part:
Public participation in the development, revision, and enforcement of any regulation or effluent limitation established by the administrator or any State under this act shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the administrator and the States.
That language in the bill is not funded in any way. There is no provision for grants of any kind for that kind of activity, to encourage public participation.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
Does the provision of section 106(i) (1) on page 31 concerning the State program's requirement for a procedure hearing authority to prevent construction mean that a new source cannot be constructed unless it assumes the "maintenance and enforcement" of the water quality?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment, of course, is to prevent the degradation of water below its present quality level.
Mr. FANNIN. I understand that. However, the question is: Does the provision of section 106(i) (1) on page 31 concerning the State program's requirement for a procedure hearing authority to prevent construction means that a new source cannot be constructed unless it assumes the "maintenance and enforcement" of the water quality?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. Any new source would have to meet the requirements of the act which include utilization of space available – that is, in the elimination of the effluents.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the authority under the program involving the State has the authority or the ability to assume maintenance and enhancement of the water quality in all cases.
Mr. MUSKIE. This particular language relates to authority to prevent the construction of any new source which does not met the objective of the act.
Mr. FANNIN. Could they insist on maintenance and enhancement of water quality? Could they do that or demand that the water quality be maintained?
Mr. MUSKIE. The State is required to insist on that condition, that it meet the requirements of the act.
Mr. FANNIN. That is before these provisions apply.
Mr. MUSKIE. Those State applications for programs state that if they want the program supported under the authorization of section 106, these are the minimum requirements they must meet. This is for procedure and for review prior to the construction of new source locations. In other words, if the State wants this program supported, it must have a procedure for review of the new source location. Otherwise we deal with the damage that has been done in the past, and nothing with respect to whatever damage might be done in the future. This is intended to assure that States have authority to prevent damage in the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BOGGS. I yield the Senator 2 additional minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not getting the thrust of the question.
Mr. FANNIN. The question relates to page 31. The Senator has the section before him.
Mr. MUSKIE. I read it.
Mr. FANNIN. Does the provision of section 106(i) (1) on page 31 concerning the State program's requirement for a procedure hearing authority to prevent construction mean that a new source cannot be constructed unless it assumes the "maintenance and enhancement of the water quality"?
Mr. MUSKIE. It provides what is required of new sources and makes reference to section 306 of the act. That provision applies nationwide. No new sources can be built which do not incorporate in design the best technology to deal with their efforts.
Mr. FANNIN. I think we get into a situation where the State would not have control in an interstate stream. The "maintenance and enhancement" of the water quality might be beyond their control.
Should not section 304(a) (2) (C) on page 80 which requires the administrator to publish specified information be clarified to mean classification of water quality "necessary to support legitimate water uses"?
Mr. MUSKIE. What page is the Senator referring to now?
Mr. FANNIN. Page 80, section 304(a) (2) (C).
Mr. MUSKIE. What is the question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 3 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 additional minutes.
Mr. FANNIN. On this page it requires the Administrator to publish specified information. Should it be clarified to mean classification of water quality "necessary to support legitimate water uses?"
As a clarification on that, I think the wording is indefinite.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Administrator is given several authorities in this bill with respect to making available to the States and agencies all levels of information relating to what it takes to restore and maintain "the natural chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all navigable waters, ground waters, waters of the contiguous zone, and the oceans." Then, subsection (b) states:
On the factors necessary for the protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and to allow recreational activities in and on the water;
Then subparagraph (c) provides:
On the measurement and classification of water quality.
That provision, which is the one the Senator addresses himself to, is especially important because at the present time it is difficult to identify a direct causal connection between a water quality that is desired and an input by an individual polluter. So we ask the Administrator to develop those techniques. That is what is involved here.
Mr. FANNIN. Section 306 on page 94 at subsection (b) (2) allows the administrator discretion in distinguishing among classes, types, and sizes within categories of new sources for the purposes of establishing performance standards. Since "steam electric powerplants" are specified as one of the separate categories and since their construction is tied more specifically to power requirements of a definite location, why should not the Administrator be allowed to recognize locational differences within these categories in establishing the performance standards?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BOGGS. I yield the Senator 2 additional minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I must say that I do not hear the Senator as well as I should. If we made those distinctions, what we would do is make it attractive for industries to move into areas where requirements are less restrictive, and we would be transferring pollution from one area to another. We think we need uniformity of regulations.
Mr. FANNIN. I said why should not the Administrator be allowed to recognize locational differences? You say they do.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say they should not, because unless there is uniformity of regulation, polluters will seek to escape stringent requirements of one area, and they will go to other areas where there are less stringent requirements.
Mr. FANNIN. I hope the Senator will realize they are not the same categories.
Mr. MUSKIE. All I can give is the committee position. On that I am quite clear.
Mr. President, there is one final amendment of the Senator from New York.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The amendment was read as follows:
On page 8, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
"(6) initiate, and promote the coordination and acceleration of research designed to develop the most effective practicable tools and techniques for measuring the social costs and benefits of activities which are subject to regulation under this Act; and shall transmit a report on the results of such research to the Congress not later than April 1, 1974.
Mr. BUCKLE Y. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, in several places in the act, for example in section 302 (b) (1) and (2), the administration is required to make a determination of the social benefits and costs which would result in specific cases from the imposition of the higher standards of effluent controls which are called for in the act.
As of this date we do not have adequate techniques for measuring relative social benefits and costs relating to activities which affect the environment, often in highly subtle ways.
I am advised by a representative of the EPA that such tools and techniques can be developed by the target date of April 1, 1974, which is the date incorporated in my amendment.
I would also like to point out now that we will need to develop a method to measure environmental and other social costs and benefits by 1974 in order for the Administrator to be able to provide Congress in 1975 with the analysis required by section 305 (b) (2) ; and it is this analysis in turn which will be critical to Congress in determining the extent and nature of the so-called middle of the course that is indicated by the act.
I do not believe this is a controversial amendment. I have discussed it with the manager of the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the Senator from New York, and we will accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do Senators yield back their time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back my time.
Mr. BUCKLEY. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New York (Mr. BUCKLEY).
The amendment was agreed to.