December 5, 1973
Page 39602
WATER POLLUTION PERMIT PROGRAM
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, another question raised at the confirmation hearings of Mr Train dealt with the adequacy of manpower in the Environmental Protection Agency to process the permits for all dischargers subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. In response to those questions, I recently received a letter from Administrator Train discussing the adequacy of staffing the permit program at EPA.
The Administrator's response on this issue indicates there will be a clear need for the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Public Works Committee to monitor continually EPA's activities and its relationship with State agencies in granting permits. Mr. Train's optimism about the adequacy of EPA manpower to handle this job is based in part on an assumption that a number of sources may be allowed to be ignored in the permit granting process. This is a very questionable assumption. Moreover, the lack of adequate numbers of State personnel to administer this permit program is acknowledged by the Administrator, though his letter indicates an expectation regarding State assumption of the program:
We expect about twenty [States] to have the authority by the end of this fiscal year.
Obviously, continual surveillance of the problems associated with the permit program will be needed. I believe that the public record ought to contain Administrator Train's letter on this subject, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.,
November 26, 1973.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: During my confirmation hearings, you asked me how many people it would take to process, by December 31, 1974, permits for all dischargers subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (After this date, dischargers whose permit applications have not been administratively completed lose immunity from citizen suit.) At the time, it seemed that a rather simple arithmetic calculation could determine this number, but I am now convinced that it is not quite that simple. I did believe, as you appeared to believe, that additional people would be necessary to meet this goal; however, I no longer have that view.
We have just completed an intensive internal analysis of the Permit Program, looking at the more successful aspects as well as those that appear to be causing delays. The conclusion reached is that, although it is still too early to be as precise as you and we would like, the Environmental Protection Agency has the present capability essentially to reach the goal that Congress has established for December 1974. I say we can "essentially" meet this goal because we feel we will, by this date, have been able to issue permits to all significant industrial and municipal dischargers – thereby encompassing the vast majority of all effluent discharged – and have permits either issued to or drafted for a very substantial portion of minor dischargers. I also anticipate that we will make very substantial headway in the area of agricultural discharges, particularly if our present expectation of the number of sources requiring permits is correct. If the lawsuits challenging our right to identify minor dischargers not needing permits are sustained, however, issuance of permits to minor dischargers could be somewhat more delayed.
We are now seeing the "pay-off" from the experience gained by operating the national Permit Program for three years, and by actually issuing over 1,000 permits, mainly within the past year. We feel that we have basically passed the most difficult stage of the Program by setting up the processing machinery. Many of the initial problems have been worked out; others have been identified and solutions are forthcoming.
The Regions are gaining momentum and are heavily concentrating on the major industrial dischargers. The availability of the Effluent Guidelines and load allocation data for the water quality limited streams will significantly expedite processing. Precedents set by the adjudicatory hearings now underway should also remove many of the potential future hurdles to successful permitting of dischargers.
While only five States have been granted the authority to issue NPDES permits, we expect about 20 to have the authority by the end of this fiscal year: In many other States, agreements have been worked out between the State and the Regional Office on joint preparation and issuance of NPDES permits. This has been encouraged, particularly in those States which, for one reason or another, are unable to receive authority to carry out the Program. Involving the States as much as possible before they receive permit authority puts maximum staff resources behind the Program, minimizes duplication, and acquaints the States with the Program's procedures and requirements, which are often different from their own.
While it might be assumed that once the Program is turned over to the States the Federal staffing level would be reduced, we do not foresee this happening right away. Even after the States receive the authority, it may be necessary to continue working together on permit issuance in order to process the applications of the significant dischargers by December 31, 1974. I say this because present staffing shortages in most States will be a hindrance to efficient processing. Even in the States that do assume the major role, EPA staff can still be used to draft permits in selected areas, although the States will actually issue the permits.
In summary, my previous opinion was based on the theoretical assumption that more EPA staff could get the job done somewhat faster, but I do not now believe this is the case. There are 521 positions officially assigned to the Permit Program, and there are hundreds of positions in other elements of the Agency which are also supporting the issuance of permits. We may already be close to the point of diminishing returns as far as the number of people processing permits relates to actual permit output. The problems of startup were such that additional staff at the onset would not have speeded up the process or brought us any closer to the goal we all seek.
We are now gaining the understanding and cooperation of most States, and we feel that their participation will do more toward meeting the goal than will adding (and having to train) Federal staff. We also believe that increasing the Federal staffing at this time could cause some States to decide to stop their participation and cooperation entirely. This is not desirable.
I sense that the Permit Program, with all its complicating factors, is an activity that is pulling the States and EPA into a closer partnership, one that utilizes all available manpower in the most productive way. That is, in my opinion, a healthy relationship.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN.