program that EPA estimates would take 65 at maximum, I would expect very little of this protection will take place, particularly given the new responsibilities assigned by Congress in the 1977 amendments. EPA, for example, estimates that it would take an additional 13 people in fiscal year 1979 alone to help the States get ready to receive delegation of authority for which you provided in the 1977 amendments. Yet the budget represents a cut of three people.

Senator CHAFEE. If I could just ask one final question, Mr. Chairman, of Mr. Marsh. You set forth a litany I guess you could call it of problems you encounter at the State level. Again being realistic, the Federal Government isn't going to do everything you want. We know that. So where would you put your priorities, representing a State? Just take your State, New York.

You talked about the 300 tons of sludge that has to be taken out. You talked about the mirex problems. But we are not going to do them all. What would you choose?

Mr. MARSH. We think that the management of toxic substances and hazardous waste has to take about the top priority in our State for we are highly industrialized. We and New Jersey are both heavily involved in problems dealing with industrial chemicals.

The problem with the current programs at the EPA level is that while there appears to be growing funding now for the Toxic Substances Control Act, what is getting shorter shrift is something which is of most immediate concern to us, and that is how do we deal with the substances presently being discharged, presently being disposed of in hazardous waste management facilities or sanitary land fills for that matter? What standard ought to apply to them and what kinds of management practices are most appropriate?

We think that here EPA and the States have a coordinated role and really need to be supported very strongly in being able to set the standards, develop the technology and the monitoring capability, and to go out and upgrade the permits and upgrade municipal treatment facilities where that is the source of the problem.

In hazardous waste management, we need to locate really good areas for the disposal of industrial waste and make sure those who run the facilities run them adequately. We need to do that because the present practices of throwing things out the back door, in lots, and down the drain at night have got to stop, because that is where the cancer is coming from.

Senator CHAFEE. Do you have any statistics that would support that under the present discharges into the water system that your people are suffering health-wise, with the mediocre job we have done.

Mr. MARSH. I don't have them with me. I know that we have studies that indicate what the mortality rates are, for example, in the Poughkeepsie area. They are somewhat more than in other parts of the State, certain types of cancer. There are also studies which indicate where the concentration of cancer is in the State. This is a national study, I guess done by the National Institutes of Health. It pinpoints the areas where you would expect the heavily industrialized areas of our State.

I don't know of any more specific information other than that which has been done on the national level to pinpoint water supply. Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Chafee.

Thank you, gentlemen. You have given us reinforcement in some cases and new suggestions for raising questions about the budget. We will try to do so tomorrow.

Mr. MARSH. Thank you very much, Senator.

Mr. AYRES. Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Chairman, we may have a couple more questions for the record, if we could submit them for written answers. Mr. MARSH. Certainly we would be glad to do that.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene on Tuesday, January 31, 1978.]

FISCAL YEAR 1979 BUDGET REVIEW

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1978

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edmund S. Muskie, presiding. Present: Senators Muskie, Culver, Hart, Stafford, Chafee, Wallop, and Hodges.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

I apologize for being a little tardy.

I have a brief opening statement which I hope will identify some of our interests in this hearing this morning.

In the past few years there have been some stark budgets for EPA. In contrast, the current budget request includes some useful expansions and additions. That ought to be said. But there are also some omissions. We will want to examine the pluses and the minuses very carefully.

There are four concerns I would like to mention briefly. First, the environmental statutes have placed increased emphasis on the need to develop proper growth patterns that are consistent with environmental protection. The 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act require local and State governments to develop new cleanup programs that will lead to the achievement of health standards in their communities. If they do not, then new growth will be precluded in the area and funds for Federal projects will be cut off.

To provide an incentive for facing these tasks, the Congress authorized $75 million for planning grants for the involvement of local and regional governments in the process to develop cleanup plans. The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee dealing with this subject has said that he would not provide funds unless requested by the administration. Yet the budget provides no funds for these plans, which raises questions about our willingness to support programs to mesh economic growth with environmental protection.

Second, last year Congress enacted the 1977 Clean Water Act amendments which create major new regulatory and administrative duties (171)

23-621 - 78 - 12

for EPA. This budget does not reflect increased resource needs which this added workload will demand, I assume that this serious omission in the budget would be corrected in a supplemental request.

I want to test that assumption this morning, and I want to get a general idea of the resource demands today.

Third, in those 1977 amendments, we continued the long-term program of waste water treatment plant construction funding. The States have a clear picture of funding levels for this program over the next 5 years. I am concerned that the budget does not recommend advanced appropriations for this program; that is, approving levels of actual appropriations in advance but making the funds available only during their authorized fiscal year. And I would like to understand the implication of the failure to provide advanced funding.

Fourth, I am concerned by the shift of the pollution control technology and research and development work from EPA to the Department of Energy contained in the fiscal year 1979 budget. In 1979, in response to my own initiative, and combined with that of Senator Javits, Congress specifically rejected an administration proposal to shift this control technology program that the Energy Research and Development Administration has created.

I find it disturbing that the administration has proposed to ignore this congressional intent, particularly given the administration's present emphasis on getting along with the Congress.

The fact that there are problems in the present budget request should not overshadow the fact that the request contains needed increases. Enforcement for all programs will receive increased resources; the increase in personnel assigned to the agency will provide needed shots in the arm and increased grants to the States in many programs will be very useful.

The fact that I have not mentioned other concerns such as the 208 planning programs should not delude the witnesses into believing there are not additions to this list which I could have included if I were not interested in giving you time to answer at least these questions.

I will yield to my good friend and a leader of longstanding of this effort, Senator Stafford.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have no opening statement. I will look forward to the testimony of the Administrator and some questions directed to the Administrator and his senior associates who are here.

I think the Clean Water Act we finally managed to adopt last year is a major step forward, and I hope that we will have an adequate budget to make it possible to realistically administer it in the years ahead.

Senator MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to other members of the committee who may have some statements to make at the outset.

Senator Hart?

Senator HART. No, I don't, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Culver?

Senator Hodges?

Seniority carries unprecedented silence this morning.

I am delighted, then, to yield to the witnesses.

Mr. Costle, we are delighted to welcome you at the beginning of this year and invite you to make your statement.