sewage treatment works and related facilities in addition to the 8 million I have already mentioned.

That gives us a total of 149 million people covered by the mayor estimate of $33 to $37 billion. The other 50 million people are no covered by the mayors' estimate. I take it they are not covered b your estimate, either, since your $12.5 billion figure has been projecte from the mayors' estimate.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Mr. Chairman, they are covered. We attempte in our figure to cover the needs of the country.

Senator MUSKIE. Well, your reconciliation table which you showe on the chart was on the basis of the mayors' $33 to $37 billion figur This table here uses $35 billion and reduces it to the $12.5 billion th we are talking about.

If we start with a figure that includes only 150 million people, t figure you end up with must cover only 150 million people.

Or do you shift population from the first figure from left to right

the chart?

Mr. DOMINICK. In attempting to go through this rapidly we perha did not fully explain this chart. This chart shows the extrapolati using the criteria that have been agreed to by ourselves and t States. The extrapolation from the total National League of Cit estimate down to what it would be if the specific criteria were applie eligibility, time frame, the exclusion of storm sewers, and so forth. This is merely a statistical estimate of what the National Leag of Cities survey shows by way of actual needs. Now, as to the popu tion question, we have projected our Federal needs as displayed the summary at the close of the Administrator's testimony, on basis of all of the sewered population of the United States or population that we would consider to be sewered by the end of t time frame.

I believe that is similar to what the National League of Cit attempted to do.

Senator MUSKIE. And we are not going to do anything ab getting those people included in the water treatment program of country?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Mr. Dominick.

Mr. DOMINICK. The nonsewered portions of the country, we do make a specific program available here to address

Senator MUSKIE. But as they come in, we have a program in HUI the last I looked at it-for several hundred million dollars to constr sewers for that part of our population. We are concerned with subur developments that rely upon septic tanks and that sort of facil In our housing laws we have built incentives and projects to get t population sewered.

Now, if that program works, then we are going to have, I hop major portion of the unsewered population of 50 million or eligible for waste treatment grants. As a matter of fact, if we b sewers in some of these suburban communities, we ought at the sa time plan waste treatment facilities as part of the developmen order to get the most efficient program.

S

Mr. DOMINICK. We agree with that a hundred percent. We working with HUD both in planning stages and operational st to insure that the construction program administered there is sistent with the waste treatment construction program administ here, and the HUD program has now adopted our planning guidel

as their guidelines so that we do have these two programs made consistent and we come out at the same place at the same time.

Senator MUSKIE. It is good to hear that, but you have not made provision in this $12.5 billion for the needs of the 50 million people not covered by sewers

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. In our cost of clean water report, which I will leave with the committee today, there are two points made in that report which are germane to your question. One of the problems that we have had in the country is that this whole push toward putting everybody on sewers is often not the best way to treat waste at all, and that we have been treating a lot of wastes on inadequate waste treatment facilities when a much better way in some sections of the country to treat these wastes would be through diffusion into the soil. We have to be careful we don't pollute the ground water which is the reason we have proposed to include those waters in our standardssetting authority, here. There is also a very large problem regarding the unused capacity of many of our sewage treatment works today. This underutilization is very costly. There are some projections as far as 25 or 30 years in the future before we would ever have total use of that plant capacity.

What we need to do is build into the program a cost effective way to insure that we are not building huge sewage treatment plants based on projections of population into the future which are totally unrealistic and which, during the lifespan of a sewage treatment plant will never be used.

Senator MUSKIE. We are not talking about future populations. We are taking about 50 million people who now exist. I have not even got into the question of whether your projections for the future take into account population growth and community growth and so on.

But that 50 million is 25 percent of our population. I doubt we have unused plant capacity that will take care of them.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, as to the question of whether they all would fall in that category, obviously, all of them don't.

Senator MUSKIE. I understand. But still, all I am doing is asking a question of the extent to which this factor was taken into account in your figures.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. To the extent that each of the communities involved that provided us with its figures took into account increased capacity it anticipated to accommodate population growth and increased sewerage services also took such increases and such additional needed capacity.

Senator MUSKIE. In the mayors' estimates, 1,000 communities are covered. There are obviously another 60 million in addition to the 50 million I am talking about here who live in the community on sewers. Do you have specific estimates from cities other than the list of cities contained in the mayors' estimates?

Mr. DOMINICK. Yes, we do.

Senator MUSKIE. In Maine, there are just two cities in the mayors' estimate. We have a few more than that. It is a rural State, but we do have more than two cities. Do you have estimates for those cities? Mr. DOMINICK. Yes, we do.

Senator MUSKIE. What part of the population of the country is covered by specific estimates that you have?

Mr. DOMINICK. We would say that the entire country is covered by the estimates that we have. We have had to subtract from that

total population base those communities which we estimated would n have sewers installed within this time frame.

Senator MUSKIE. I guess I am going to have to look at more det of your estimates before I can ask further questions. There are t other lines of questions that I want to get into.

First of all, with respect to enforcement, there is a difference betwe the administration bill and the bill which several members of th committee introduced. The administration bill, as I understand contains the qualification of existing law that a court must consid the practicality of compliance with the standard or plan in the eve any enforcement action is taken.

This concept of practicality was eliminated in the Clean Air A amendments, and judicial review of any standard or limitation w substituted. By retaining a provision for review of the practical of compliance with the standard, it seems to me that the administ tion proposes to have complete review of the standard at the time enforcement rather than at the time of setting the standard.

The intend of the Clean Air Act amendments was to provide any review of the standards when they were promulgated rather th when they were enforced. A review procedure as proposed by administration bill, it seems to me, will invalidate the relations between the standards and enforcement.

The court will, in effect, determine what the standards are whether compliance is practical after the standards have been pron gated, after violation has been claimed, after judicial process has b instituted.

It seems to me, therefore, that the decision ought to be made w the standards are set, and it should be related to the desired re rather than to a test of the practicality.

Have I unfairly stated the differences between the two approac Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Senator, we are in complete agreement your statement as to the question of practicality applying to stand and being reviewed by the court. To the extent there is any ambig in the bill on this question, we are more than willing to agree to amendments that will clarify it.

The only purpose of inserting the provision for review of practicality of a standard was when the Administrator issues an to comply with a certain standard within a certain time frame industry, let's say, that order would be reviewable as to the practic of the time frame only and not as to practicality of the standard

So then to the extent there is any question, the term "practic used to be "practicality and economic feasibility". In the presen we have stricken our economic feasibility and put in practical in the event the Administrator were to make a totally imprɛ and impossible order with which to comply, the court would he opportunity to review that order as to its practicality in that se Senator MUSKIE. Would you have any objection to incorpora the bill a provision similar to that in the clean air amendments Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. No, as far as we are concerned, on any qu of the ambiguity raised in the bill itself, we are more than wil clarify that language. I agree we should not be reviewing in co practicality of the standards.

Senator MUSKIE. We will pursue that then with your people as there is agreement in principle on it.

The second question that I want to raise, also for the purpose of clarification, and perhaps to work toward a meeting of minds, is the question of deadlines.

We are all familiar with the controversy developed over the deadline set in the Clean Air Act amendments. S. 523, which is the bill I introduced, provides deadlines which incidentally coincide with the 3 years for your waste treatment plant program.

Since the waste treatment plant program is related to standards, since the waste treatment plant program has a life of 3 years, it seems to me it makes sense to set deadlines for meeting the standards.

It makes a nice, neat little package. But in the administration comments on my bill, there is this: "We consider this approach undulv restrictive.

"Achievement of standards within 3 years may not be possible. On the other hand, compliance will be obtainable in some cases in a short period, and a deadline such as that contained in S. 523 might serve as a deterrent to rapid compliance in such cases.

"We prefer the more flexible approach adopted in S. 1014, which requires that plans for implementation and enforcement for attainment of compliance with effluent limitations as expeditiously as practicable."

We come to that "practicable" again. I think what we are trying to achieve here in the Clean Air Act amendments is the idea of a timetable for compliance that is clear, understood by the public, and national in its application.

Do you think that objective is inconsistent with the concept of the administration bill?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Not a bit, Mr. Chairman. I think that many of the problems of the deadlines can be explained in terms of what we are saying should be done within those deadlines. As far as standards are concerned, we call for more regulations such as those relating to effluent limitations, which would require more time presumably than would be al owed by the deadline in S. 523.

Senator MUSKIE. Your bill talks of effluent standards, and I think we need to control effluents. We are going to work on that provision in your bill to see if we can.

If you have effluent standards, isn't it going to be essential that national deadlines cover them?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The deadlines, by and large, will be set in the implementation plans that are submitted by the States and approved by the environmental protection agency because each industry has to be put on a schedule for compliance.

Senator MUSKIE. Is a particular industry going to be required to meet the same deadlines in all parts of the country? Is it possible that the pulp and paper industry might have a more generous timetable in one State than in another?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is not our intention, Mr. Chairman. One of the things I have found in some 90 days that I have been in this job and traveling around the country is that attempting to take one industry and define it as to what capabilities are in one section of the country as opposed to the other is very difficult and the problems of pollution abatement and deadlines are extraordinarily complex. One of the things that I intend to do as administrator of the agency is to push these deadlines as much as possible so that we can get motion and can get the waters of the country cleaned up as soon as possible.

If you set a deadline, whatever it is, as to when this cleanup will take place, everybody starts to work against that deadline.

It can really have an adverse impact in some sections of the country where we already have industries on a quicker deadline. It also does not permit us to take into account extraordinary circumstances that sometimes arise with a given industry in a given section of the country. Senator MUSKIE. Of course, what we are talking about is an outside deadline, not a minimum. How many States now have approved water quality standards?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Partially all of them have approved. There are some which we do not have all of the standards worked out. Senator MUSKIE. How long have you been pressing the States to adopt standards?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Since 1965.

Senator MUSKIE. If the timetable for effluent standards are going to weigh upon the willingness of the States to put together implemen tation plans which meet a national standard so that industry can hav an advantage in one part of the country that they do not have i another, how long is it going to take before a given industry, any chemical industry has to meet the same performance requirements in all parts of the country, recognizing of course, that one kind of chemi cal plant or one pulp and paper plant has a different pollution problen than another pulp and paper plant?

Aren't we going to have to require a national deadline in order t assure there is any standard treatment among regions? States don respond to timetables.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think that is right, but when interstate an intrastate implementation plans, for which there is a deadline in th bill, are submitted within those plans, each industry in the State mus be placed on a deadline. It is through this method we can get unifor treatment across the country by putting everybody on the sam deadline.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it going to be your policy administratively set the same standards for like industries in different States?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Barring some reason for not doing so, th would be my policy. As a matter of fact, it is our policy now to do ju that.

Senator MUSKIE. The States can be put on warning that they a going to be subject to a deadline which is going to be reasonab uniform throughout the country?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is right, Mr. Chairman. The reason think effluent standards have to be subject to Federal specification rather than leaving it up to the States as in S. 523 to set those efflue requirements, is for this very reason, that there will be disparity treatment across the country unless we can set a base level for efflue treatment at the Federal level.

Senator MUSKIE. I agree. I don't think we are that far apart. will have to see what differences may emerge as we put the form together.

Thank you very much.

We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the Subcommittee on Air and Wa Pollution of the Committee on Public Works adjourned, to reconv at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 16, 1971.)

(Appendix for this day, March 15, follows.)