May 25, 1978
Page 15591
EPA MUNICIPAL POLLUTION REGULATIONS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Clean Water Act amendments passed last December renewed our commitment to clean water for our Nation. We provided additional funds for achieving nationwide municipal waste treatment needs and we made more flexible municipal and industrial timetables.
The Environmental Protection Agency is now in the process of responding to the mandates of the Clean Water Act of 1977. One of the areas which requires immediate action is development of procedures for modification of the municipal secondary treatment requirement for conventional pollutant discharges into deep ocean waters.
Section 301(h) of the act provides for a waiver from uniform national treatment requirements in those cases where an applicant can show that a lesser degree of treatment of an existing discharge will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the national water quality standard and will not require additional controls on any other source. The applicant must also show that all applicable pretreatment requirements will be enforced, and that no substantial increase in the discharges will occur.
These are difficult criteria to satisfy. They were intended to place a significant burden on the applicant. In providing a procedure for modification of the uniform secondary treatment requirement, we wanted to be sure that the procedure would not be used simply to delay compliance with the law. This is available only in those instances where it can be shown that, because of unique hydrological, geological, and ecological characteristics, a lesser degree of treatment of conventional pollutants would be adequate.
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed regulations for this waiver procedure. The regulations implement the congressional intent by requiring each applicant to meet each condition set forth in the law. As the law intended, these regulations require each applicant to demonstrate, on the basis of empirical evidence, that discharges at less than secondary treatment levels can continue without interfering with the attainment or maintenance of the national water quality standards in the area contiguous to an existing discharge.
Mr. President, I would like to provide some additional history on this issue.
In December of last year, the Congress enacted the Clean Water Act of 1977. These amendments to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act were designed to provide a "mid-course correction" in the implementation of the regulatory and grant programs established under that act. The 5 years experience with the 1972 clean water law provided a firm base of information from which we could fashion the changes ultimately put in place in 1977.
One area brought to our attention, both in the field and Washington, D.C., was the question of the need for secondary treatment of municipal wastes which are discharged into deep ocean waters. Several west coast municipalities, particularly Seattle, Wash., testified that they had evidence that their wastewater discharges, with less than secondary treatment, did not interfere with the attainment of the goals of the Clean Water Act.
These communities argued that expenditures to achieve secondary treatment, as required by law, were unnecessary from an ecological point of view and wasteful from a fiscal point of view.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee considered the arguments. We agreed to a limited exception to the uniform secondary treatment standard where communities could prove that existing discharges could maintain the 1983 water quality standards.
This provision was intended to allow those communities which had accumulated or could, in a timely manner, accumulate enough information to present a scientific case for such a waiver. The act assumes that evidence will be developed from analysis of an existing discharge at an existing location.
This provision was specifically intended not to disrupt the ongoing effort to provide secondary treatment for all communities. The time period for consideration and disposition of any waiver requests was deliberately made short so as to discourage a widespread diversion of effort from the task of achieving secondary treatment.
The language of the modification provision is quite clear. The tests are specific and difficult. I would like the section of the law to appear at this point in the RECORD.
The provision follows:
(h) The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, may issue a permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of subsection (b) (1) (B) cf this section with respect to the discharge of any pollutant in an existing discharge from a publicly owned treatment works into marine waters, if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that—
(1) there is an applicable water quality standard specific to the pollutant for which the modification is requested, which has been identified under section 304(a) (6) of this Act;
(2) such modified requirements will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of that water quality which assures protection of public water supplies and the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allows recreational activities, in and on the water;
(3) the applicant has established a system for monitoring the impact of such discharge on a representative sample of aquatic biota, to the extent practicable;
(4) such modified requirements will not result in any additional requirements on any other point or nonpoint source;
(5) all applicable pretreatment requirements for sources introducing waste into such treatment works will be enforced;
(6) to the extent practicable, the applicant has established a schedule of activities designed to eliminate the entrance of toxic pollutants from nonindustrial sources into such treatment works:
(7) there will be no new or substantially increased discharges from the point source of the pollutant to which the modification applies above that volume of discharge specified in the permit;
(8) any funds available to the owner of such treatment works under title II of this Act will be used to achieve the degree of effluent reduction required by section 201(b) and (g) (2) (A) or to carry out the requirements of this subsection.
For the purposes of this subsection the phrase "the discharge of any pollutant into marine waters" refers to a discharge into deep waters of the territorial sea or the waters of the contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine waters where there is strong tidal movement and other hydrological and geological characteristics which the Administrator determines necessary to allow compliance with paragraph (2) of this subsection, and section 101(a) (2) of this Act.
Mr. President, the conference committee adopted the Senate language unchanged. The language of the law is identical to the Senate-passed bill, and the discussion in the statement of managers accompanying the conference report is the exact language as in the Senate committee report. This provision is a Senate provision from its inception and, therefore; the legislative history is clearly defined by the history made in the Senate committee and on the Senate floor.
I hope I have been able to clarify what has become some of the current controversy on this issue.