December 14, 1979
Page 36076
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I support the substitute amendment offered by the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA). Amendment No. 540 is a fair compromise of the positions adopted by the several committees with jurisdiction over the deep ocean mineral resources program.
Several provisions of the bill are noteworthy. The amendment incorporated in the substitute as section 109(f ) , which was authored by the Environment and Public Works Committee, is an amendment of particular concern.
This amendment clarifies the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate effluent discharges from vessels engaged in ocean mineral exploration, extraction and processing activities. The language of section 109(f ) is critical, given the nature of discharges from these vessels. Preliminary analyses of deep ocean mining processes indicate the production of byproducts such as chromium, cadmium, and arsenic. These elements could be toxic to marine life. The presence of these potentially harmful pollutants is sufficient justification for implementation of a regulatory scheme such as the Clean Water Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. This is the intent of section 109(f) .
The section 109(1) language clarifies the intent of section 502(12) (B) of the Clean Water Act that vessels not used for the primary purpose of transportation were not intended to be excluded from the national pollutant discharge elimination system by the mere fact that they are operating in or on water. Rather, as the language of section 109(f) states:
Any discharge of a pollutant from such vessel or other floating craft shall be subject to the Clean Water Act.
As explained in the report of the Environment and Public Works Committee accompanying this legislation (S. Rept. 96-360), section 109(f) clarifies the continued applicability of the Clean Water Act to all offshore mineral exploration, recovery, and processing activities.
As new sources under the Clean Water Act, vessels engaged in exploration, recovery or processing of ocean bed minerals must comply with section 306 of the Clean Water Act. This provision will bring to bear the legal requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act prior to the issuance of permits or licenses, including preparation of environmental impact statements by the permitting agency.
A further point needs clarification. As reported by the Committee on Environment and Public Works, S. 493 deals explicitly with the seabed and water pollution problems associated with deep sea mining. Less evidence exists relating to the other environmental consequences of deep seabed mining. It is possible, indeed it may be likely, that action will be required to protect other environmental interests. But since none of these facilities has yet been built, we cannot state with certainty what air pollution, toxic pollution, or other consequences may flow from their construction and operation. For this reason, it was not possible to deal with them explicitly.
However, section 105 of S. 493 imposes limitations on the administrator's authority to issue licenses and permits. For the purpose of protecting the range of environmental interests at stake, subparagraph (4) requires a finding that the exploration or recovery "cannot be reasonably expected to result in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment." This formulation clarifies the duty of the administrator to protect public health and the environment while permitting him the flexibility to deal with circumstances which are presently unknown.
The administrator should protect public health and the environment at least to the extent required under existing domestic environmental statutes. In fact, in some circumstances, it could become necessary to impose even more stringent abatement requirements. Ambient air quality standards, lowest achievable emission rates, and best available technology requirements under the Clean Air Act, environmental- and health-based requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act, and other related statutes are applicable and should not be waived in the granting of permits under this legislation.
The committee was alerted specifically to the hazards posed to ocean waters, marine life, and the bottom environment by the effluent discharges. Because of the apparent immediacy of the harm, the committee specifically addressed the water pollution problem with the language of section 109(1) , the amendment offered last year by Senator Clifford Case. Other consequences are more speculative, hence the committee did not address them with specific language. This should not be interpreted as a desire to leave air emissions and toxic discharges unregulated.