$8,000,000, except that where the United States can show that such discharge was the result of willful negligence or willful misconduct within the privity and knowledge of the owner, such owner or operator shall be liable to the United States Government for the full amount of such costs. The United States may bring an action against the owner or operator of such a facility in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover such costs. (g) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel, of an onshore facility, or of an offshore facility, from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of subsection [(b) (2)] (b) (3) of this section, proves that such discharge of oil or hazardous substance was caused solely by an act of omission of a third party, or was caused solely by such an act or omission in combination with an act of God, an act of war, or negligence on the part of the United States Government, such third party shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, be liable to the United States Government for the actual costs incurred under subsection (c) for removal of such oil or substance by the United States Government, except where such third party can prove that such discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States Government, or (D) an act or omission of another party without regard to whether such act or omission was or was not negligent, or any combination of the foregoing clauses. If such third party was the owner or operator of a vessels which caused the discharge of oil or a hazardous substance in violation of subsection [(b) (2)] (b)(3) of this section, the liability of such third party under this subsection shall not exceed $100 per gross ton of such vessel or $14,000,000, whichever is the lesser. In any other case the liability of such third party shall not exceed the limitation which would have been applicable to the owner or operator of the vessel or the onshore or offshore facility from which the discharge actually occurred if such owner or operator were liable. If the United States can show that the discharge of oil or a hazardous substance in violation of subsection [(b) (2)] (b) (3) of this section was the result of willful negligence or willful misconduct within the privity and knowledge of such third party, such third party shall be liable to the United States Government for the full amount of such removal costs. The United States may bring an action against the third party in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover such removal costs.

*

*

*

*

*

(i) (1) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel or

an onshore facility or an offshore facility from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of subsection [(b) (2)] (b) (3) of this section acts to remove such oil or substance in accordance with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section, such owner or operator shall be entitled too recover the reasonable costs incurred in such

[p. 7]

removal upon establishing, in a suit which may be brought against the United States Government in the United States Court of Claims, that such discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States Government, or (D) an act of omission of a third party without regard to whether such act or omission was or was not negligent, or of any combination of the foregoing

causes.

(2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in any case where liability is established pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

(3) Any amount paid in accordance with a judgment of the United States Court of Claims pursuant to this section shall be paid from the funds established pursuant to subsection (k).

(b) (1) Review of the Administrator's action (A) in promulgating any standard of performance under section 306, (B) in making any determination pursuant to section 306 (b) (1) (C), (C) in promulgating any effluent standard, prohibition, or [treatment] pretreatment standard under section 307, (D) in making any determination as to a State permit program submitted under section 402(b), (E) in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 301, 302, or 306, and (F) in issuing or denying any permit under section 402, may be had by any interested person in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the Federal judicial district in which such person resides or transacts such business upon application by such person. Any such application shall be made within ninety days from the date of such determination, approval, promulgation, issuance or denial, or after such date only if such application is based solely on grounds which arose after such ninetieth day.

(2) Action of the Administrator with respect to which review could have been obtained under paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review in any civil or criminal proceeding for enforcement.

[p. 8]

1.2q(2) House Committee on Public Works

H.R. REP. No. 93–680, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AMENDMENTS

NOVEMBER 29, 1973.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BLATNIK, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1776]

The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1776) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and inserts a substitute text which appears in italic type in the reported bill.

STATEMENT

S. 1776, as amended, combines the provisions of S. 1776 and S.J. Res. 158 as they passed the Senate and adds a clarifying legislative proposal requested by the National Commission on Water Quality, established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Section 1 of the bill authorizes a one year extension of the pilot operator training program for wastewater treatment plants, set up under section 104(g)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The program, initiated in 1970, was included in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L.

92-500). Unlike all other research, development or training programs authorized by that act, which continue at least through fiscal year 1974, section 104(g) (1) was authorized only through fiscal year 1973. The purpose of this legislation is to authorize the program at the same level of funding through fiscal year 1974.

There is a continuing and growing need for trained operators for the increasing number of water treatment plants. The new and more sophisticated equipment being added to upgrade plants add to the need for operator training. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the extension of this valuable training program. [p. 1]

This section also amends Section 206 (e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by increasing from $2,000,000,000 to $2,600,000,000 the authorization for reimbursement of up to 55 percent of project costs for eligible sewage treatment plants on which construction was initiated between June 30, 1966 and July 1, 1972.

Section 206 provides for the reimbursement to those agencies that constructed waste treatment works but did not receive the full authorized amount of Federal contribution. It was the desire of Congress to redeem the federal pledge to make reimbursement payments and to provide the financial assistance necessary to enable such agencies to continue with their own water pollution control program.

Section 206 provides that publicly owned treatment works on which construction was started after June 30, 1966, but before July 1, 1972, will be reimbursed for the difference between the amount they did receive as federal financial support and 50 percent of total cost, provided the project was approved by the appropriate state water pollution control agency and met the requirements of the Water Pollution Control Act in effect at the time the project was initiated. If the project was, in addition, constructed in conformity with a comprehensive metropolitan treatment plan, it would receive an additional 5 percent of total cost.

When the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments were passed in 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency furnished the estimate that approximately $2,000,000,000 was needed to carry out the reimbursement provisions of Section 206(a). Since that time the estimate has been refined, and is now $2,600,000,000. The increase in the authorization for appropriations would provide for full funding of section 206(a).

Section 1 also contains a number of technical amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. These are corrections of oversights or incorrect references, and do not alter the substance of the Act or depart from the original intent of the Congress.

Section 2 of S. 1776, as amended, provides that notwithstanding the requirements of section 206 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, applicants for reimbursement under that section may be filed with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency until January 31, 1973. A deadline of October 18, 1973 was originally set in section 206. However, some states and communities have been uncertain as to which projects are eligible for reimbursement, resulting in incomplete compilations of eligible projects. The difficulty has been compounded by the fact that regulations concerning reimbursement and subsequent revisions were not promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency until late September of this year. Accordingly, the legislation extends the deadline in order to give all concerned parties adequate time to prepare their applications.

Section 3 of the bill authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make interim payments to projects for which an application has been approved on the basis of estimates of maximum pro rata entitlement of all applicants under subsections 206 (a) and (d). It has become evident that many eligible recipients would be forced to incur expenses and delays in new projects or risk failure of projects under construction if payments were made only after complete review and determination on all applications. The

[p. 2]

large number of applications for reimbursement will require extensive processing by the Environmental Protection Agency before full payment on each can be made. Section 3 of the legislation authorizes preliminary interim reimbursement of funds to projects which can be easily approved on the basis of available documentation pending final processing of all projects. This would include nearly all projects for which there had been any Federal financial assistance in the past, from the Environmental Protection Agency or other source. This will prevent undue disruption in community plans and also facilitate an orderly cash flow by the United States Government. It is expected that the Environmental Protection Agency will immediately implement the interim payment provisions of this section.