OCEAN DUMPING OF WASTE MATERIALS MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JOINT SUBCOMMITTEES ON OCEANOGRAPHY AND FISHERIES Washington, D.C. The joint subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alton Lennon (chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceanography) and Hon. John D. Dingell (chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation) presiding. Mr. LENNON. The Joint Subcommittee on Oceanography and Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries are now convened. This morning these two subcommittees will begin joint hearings on the series of bills designed to regulate the dumping of waste material in our coastal and off-shore waters. It seems that no one knows the volume-and I think that is really an understatement-of wastes that have been dumped in the oceans in the past years. In fact, until recently, the question was scarcely asked and then only by an obscure group of scientists, known as ecologists. Fortunately, however, in the last few years the entire question of ocean disposal of waste material has been thrust into prominence, and I think appropriately so, by the recently disclosed dumping of nerve gas and oil wastes off the coast of Florida, by the dumping of sewage and other municipal wastes off New York Harbor, and a number of other and similar instances, all of which I am delighted to report were the subject of hearings and investigation by these two subcommittees during the 91st Congress. In October of 1970, the Council of Environmental Quality, which was created as a result of legislation reported by one of these committees, published an excellent report entitled "Ocean Dumping—A National Policy." That report forms the basis for the hearings we are beginning today, and points up the immediacy and the severity of the problems that we may be creating. These problems may perhaps best be exemplified by reference to the international conference held on the Island of Malta last summer, dealing with the necessity of and techniques for protecting the oceans from ill-advised actions by man. One scientist, regrettably but not surprisingly from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, put the problem into a certain perspective by asking at one point if perhaps the highest and best use of the oceans might not be to serve as a dump for man's waste. (1) I must say that I personally find such an attitude distressing, and I am gratified to note that a position paper, adopted by most of the scientists at that Conference, stated that: Until better evidence is available that irreversible changes are not taking place, reason demands that we proceed more carefully, with greater concern for the health of the seas. I will ask at this time unanimous consent that this position paper be included in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. The most recent statistics from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations indicates that in 1969, the latest year for which we have complete figures, for the first time in 25 years the total fisheries catch from the world's oceans declined by over 1 million metric tons, as compared to the 1968 high of 64.3 million metric tons. I would hasten to remind all those here today that this happened at a time when our efforts to increase the ocean catch were intensifying and at a time when it is becoming increasingly important to provide needed protein to a hungry, growing world population. None of us are prepared to say that the decline was due solely to America's ocean dumping policies nor to those of other nations, but I do feel that this is certainly a very ominous sign, and increases the incentives upon this committee and the Congress to see that this country does nothing to decrease the perhaps fragile productivity of the world's seas. Simply stated then, we can no longer afford the illusion that out of sight is out of mind, and that the oceans may safely be treated as a gigantic dump. They are, or rather should be, a resource-not an infinite resource, but one of given magnitude-and they must be treated with care and respect. The main bill under consideration by the two subcommittees during these hearings is the administration bill, H.R. 4723, introduced by the distinguished chairman of our full committee, Congressman Garmatz, and an identical bill introduced by Congressman Pelly, the ranking minority member of this committee; and identical bills introduced by Congressman Kemp; Congressman Ruppe, a distinguished member of this committee; Congressman Chamberlain; and Congressman Gerald Ford, the minority leader of the House. There are a number of other bills to be heard during these hearings-in fact, a total of 36 in number-some of which are very similar to the administration bill, some of which contain, however, several provisions of the administration bill, and some of which contain provisions and cover areas not included in the administration bill. We will not take the time this morning to enumerate the bill numbers and authors at this time, but Mr. Dingell and I would like to make it clear that these hearings will cover all bills pending before the committee that have to do with ocean dumping of waste material. Let the bills and departmental reports appear in the record at this point. (The bills and departmental reports follow :) Hon. CARL B. ALBERT, [Executive Communication No. 434] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Speaker, House of Representatives, DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, enclosed herewith are the environmental impact statements for the four legislative proposals of the Environmental Protection Agency. This proposed legislation is part of the President's environmental program as announced in his environmental message to the Congress of February 8, 1971, and was transmitted to you on February 10, 1971. We understand that those legislative proposals to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, were referred to the Committee on Public Works and that the proposed "Marine Protection Act of 1971" was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, Administrator. Enclosures. Environmental impact statements for EPA legislative proposals PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO STATE AND INTERSTATE PROGRAM GRANTS (PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 102(2)(C) oF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 (PL 91-190), FEBRUARY 8, 1971) 1. NATURE OF THE PROPOSED BILL This proposal, in the nature of an amendment to Section 7 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, would provide the EPA Administrator with flexibility in funding signficant pollution control projects in the State program grant context, would provide for bonuses for State achievement of specific program improvements, and would extend and increase the authorization, for the State program grant authority through Fiscal Year 1975. Key provisions of this proposal would authorize increased appropriations for an additional four years on a sliding scale from $15 million for FY 1972 to $30 million for FY 1975. Ten million dollars of these sums would continue to be available for the basic State and interstate programs. The proposal would also add five grant bonus categories for an improved program consisting of five components: (1) a permit system; (2) a sewage treatment facilities program; (3) training and development of personnel; (4) State recruitment and personnel system; and (5) a planning capability. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED BILL Over the past years, we have identified a need for the EPA to increase its support to the States and interstate agencies to enable them to carry out and accelerate their own programs of water quality standards enforcement and implementation. This need becomes even more acute with the implementation of the recently published construction grant regulations, the accelerated construction of waste treatment facilities, and the Refuse Act permit program. The proposed strengthening of the State program grant authority would have a decidedly beneficial impact upon water quality. 3. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED As this proposal is aimed at upgrading State water quality enhancement programs, we can foresee no unavoidable adverse environment effects growing out of this proposal. 4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED BILL One obvious alternative to the provision of Federal funds for specific State program elements would be the provision of additional Federal funds for general program development and implementation. The option we have chosen, to direct Federal expenditures toward specific State program achievements, is designed to encourage the development of those aspects of State programs which will make the greatest contribution toward water quality protection and enhancement, thereby making the most of both Federal and State investments. 5. RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT In both the short and long term, this proposal is expected to protect and enhance the environment. 6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES No natural resources will be committed pursuant to this proposal. The financial resources authorized for this program will be justified by the beneficial environmental effects to be derived from the State program grants. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 8 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 1. NATURE OF PROPOSED BILL The proposal, in the nature of an amendment to section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, seeks to assist States and municipalities in financing the construction of needed waste treatment facilities necessary to comply with water quality requirements of the President's environmental program. Specifically, the proposal would authorize appropriations for grants for treatment works construction in an aggregate amount of $6 billion over a period of three fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1972. In addition, the bill would revise the allocation formula to allocate funds to States on the basis of relative population, availability of State matching funds, outstanding reimbursables, and water pollution control needs. The bill would direct the Administrator to encourage grantees to achieve institutional and financial capability to maintain, expand and replace necessary treatment works, and would provide for an increased Federal share of project costs if the grantee has made provision to achieve such institutional and financial capability. The bill would authorize grants for the costs of treating industrial wastes only if the grantee makes provision for full cost recovery of construction costs allowable to industrial wastes. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED BILL This proposal is prompted by the over-riding need among States and their political subdivisions for additional financial assistance for needed sewage treatment plant construction. Accelerated plant construction will enable States to meet water quality standards established for their waterways for a variety of beneficial water uses as well as to comply with national planning and treatment requirements. It is the provision of these treatment works which is at the foundation of the Federal effort to maintain a high level of water quality nationwide. The environmental impact on water is expected to be entirely beneficial. 3. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED Although this proposal is directed toward water quality enhancement, we anticipate that the construction of additional treatment facilities may increase the potential for adverse environmental effects associated with the movement of soil as plant sites are readied and facilities are placed into operation. The placement of such facilities could potentially interfere with recreational, residential and aesthetic land use considerations. To identify such conflicts, grantees will be obliged to provide the Administrator with an environmental assessment of the project so that such adverse effects can be eliminated or minimized. Further, through the river basin, regional, and metropolitan plans that would be supported by this proposal, we will have an effective tool whereby any adverse environmental effects associated with a project will be identified and eliminated or minimized. It will be incumbent upon Federal, State, and local environmental protection authorities to monitor the construction and operating plans and activities of each jurisdiction to ensure compliance, to the extent possible, with all environmental protection requirements. 4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED BILL Financial studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, including the Water Quality Office's Cost of Clean Water, point to the need for an additional Federal financial support for waste treatment facility construction. This proposal is thought to be the most workable solution to this problem of financial need, providing for State, local and Federal sharing of costs, and providing for the achievement of water quality standards goals by 1974. 5. RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT Both in the short and long term, this proposal is directed toward environmental enhancement and protection. Local short-term adverse impact associated with by-passing of existing treatment works during the construction of additions of alterations of the plant will no longer be tolerated. Grantees will be required, pursuant to regulations, to provide for the same level of treatment during construction as that which was obtained prior to the initiation of construction. 6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Although this proposal involves a large commitment of financial resources, we expect the benefits to be derived from such investment in terms of water quality improvement to be more than commensurate. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 10 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 102 (2) (C) OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 (PL 91-190), FEBRUARY 8, 1971) 1. NATURE OF PROPOSED BILL The proposal would amend section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to strengthen and clarify the authority of the Administrator in the establishment and enforcement of water qualify standards, and would add new authorities relating to monitoring, surveillance, citizens' suits, and abatement of pollution from hazardous substances. The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 provided important new authorities for the enhancement of water quality. These new authorities will assist in controlling water pollution caused by oil and hazardous substances, in carrying out an important new State-Federal program for the prevention of water pollution from federally licensed or permitted activities, and in other areas. However, strengthening of the Act is now necessary to enable the Environmental Protection Agency to play a more active role in working with State and local governments to prevent and abate pollution of our Nation's waters. |