# /o/O O P

# PH-H- / CONGRESSIONA L RECORD—SENAT E OctoberU, 1978 p. i 

# -768 0 t o gro w up in * worl

dwhic hdoe s no t set hi mstudy , i t

wa s show ntha t

overal l medica l apart , whic

hlooK s a t himno t wit hscor no r j 

### -

• •
—•» « • - —• — pit y o r ridicule—but

whichwelcQme

s him exactl y as i t welcomes ever

y child , whic

h offer s himidentica

l privilege s andidentica

l responsibilities
. I t ha s bee n ove r

S O year s i ncoming , thi s righ t fo r th e mentall y ill , an dI urg e my colleague s t o suppor t

an y amendmen t t o adop t suc hanationa l polic y an dcom mitmen t t o th e childre no

f thi s Nation , bu t mor e particularl y t o th e economicall y an dsociall y stigmatize dlow-incom e mentall y il l child
. Mr
. BAYH
. Mr
. President , I a mplease d t o Joi n man y o

f m y colleague s i n co sponsorin g Senato r JAVITS ' 

### amendmen t t o th e chil dhealt hassessmen t progra m portio no f H.R
. 9434
. Thi s amendmen t wil l assur e tha t

low incom e medicaid-eli

gibl e childre nwh o ar e diagnose da s men tall y il l ar e no t

denie dtreatmen t

fo r suc h condition s unde r

th e chil dhealt hassess men t progra mv/hich , i

f passed , wil l sup plan t th e EPSD T medicai dprogram . Withou t th e Javit s amendment , th e legislatio n wil l singl e ou t menta l illnes s fo r discriminatory , second-clas s coverag e unde r medicaid
. Menta l healt hcar e fo r alow-incom e chil ddiagnose da s men tall y il l woul dremai n a n optio n fo r thos e State s whic hhav e no t

include dsuc hun de r thei r Stat e medicai dplan
. Th e Javit s amendmen t

woul dassur e tha t

al l eligibl e childre ndiagnose da s mentall y il l receiv e th e necessar y ambulator y an dgenera l hospital-base dtreatmen t t o permi t

the m t o grow , learn , an dmatur e withou t th e stigm ao f menta l illness
. Mr
. President , I a mgreatl y distresse d tha t CHAPshoul db e adopte dwit hlan

guag e whic hwoul dpu t

int o medicai dlaw fo r th e firs t time , a nexplici t

exclusio n fro mtreatmen t

for th e chil ddiagnose d a s mentall y ill
. Th e Hous e Commerc e Committee-adopte dCHAPprogra mwill expan dservice s t o 13. 5 millio nlow-in

come childre n no w eligibl e fo r EPSD T an dbrin g a n additiona l 2. 5 millio nchil

dre n int o th e program . Th e Javit s amendment , costin g som e $25 million , wil l assur e tha t

amon g thos e 1 6 millio n children , thos e i nnee do f treatmen t

for nervous , mental , o r

emotiona l disorder , receiv e th e same rang e o f treatmen t

op portunitie s a s provide dt o thos e childre n wit hphysica l aliments
. Th e $25 million , whic hHE

Whi s estimate dtha t th e amendmen t

will cost , wil l eliminat e arbi

trar y limit s no w impose do nth e amount , duration , an dscop e o

f service s provide d b y physician s i nth e car e o f menta l illness
. Further , th e amendmen t will permi t full reimbursemen t

t o clinic s whic hpro vide menta l healt htreatmen t service s t o CHAP-eligibl e childre ndiagnose da s mentall y ill
. Eigh t

State s toda y provid e n o clini c service s a t

all , an dman y othe r State s hav e specificall y writte nexclu

sion s for th e treatmen t

o f menta l disor

der s i nclinic s v/hic hotherwis e provid e treatmen t service s unde r

EPSD T fo

r physicall y il l children
. I t ha s bee n demonstrate di nanumbe r o f studie s tha t

treatmen t

for menta l ill

nes s reduce s subsequen t genera l healt h car e cost s by a s muc ha s 5 0 percent . I n aBlu e Cros s o

f Wester n Pennsylvani a cost s wer e reduce db y 3 1 percen t whe n menta l healt hbenefit s wer e include di n ahealt hcar e plan
. Suc hreductio nwa s inclusiv e o

f th e additiona l cost s associ

ate dwithmenta l healt hcare . Further , anationa l stud y note dtha t over 90 per cen t o f al l childre nreceivin g menta l healt hcar e wer e treate do nalow-cos t outpatien t

basis , an dove r

40 percen t

o f suc hchildre nwere terminate dfro m treatmen t

withi n1 2 visits
. Th e cos t as sociate dwithth e amendment , then , i s small , whe nweighe dagains t th e saving s i nothe r healt hcar e costs . Th e cos t o f thi s amendmen t

i s furthe r

reduce dwhe n weighe dagains t

th e valu e o

f aproduc

tiv e adul t

membe r o f society , whic ha treate dmentall y il l chil dwoul dbecome
. T o diagnos e an dtrea t menta l an d emotiona l illnes s amon g children , thus , ar e th e firs t

line s o f prevention
. Experi

enc e indicate s tha t

th e failur e t o d o s o ha s alread y ha dsever e consequence s an a will continu e t o hav e aprofoun deffect i nfutur e years . O nth e othe r hand , i f menta l an demotiona l illnesse s ar e at
tende dt o a s closel y a s possibl e t o th e tim e o f thei r inception , th e resul t

wil l b e mor e norma l developmen t throughou t childhood , an dlate r

entr y int o society a s productiv e adults
. As pointe dou t

b y th e Join t

Commis

sio no nMenta l Healt ho f Children , th e effect o f untreate dmenta l illnes s i s fel t by man y other s beyon dth e chil ds o diagnosed
. The y stated : I t shoul db e born e i n min dtha t fo r ever y chil dwh o ha s asever e menta l healt hprob

lem , man y mor e ar e affected—thos e wh o ar e I n associatio n wit hhi mI n hi s neighborhood
. I n hi s school , an despeciall y withi n hi s family
. I f

onl y familie s ar e considered , on e coul destimat e tha t

a t leas t thre e o r

fou r othe r people—parent s an dbrother s an dsis

ters—ar e Intimatel y an ddeepl y affecte db y a child' s menta l Illnes s o r seriou s emotiona l disorder
. 

### Thus , th e amendmen t

whic hI a m prou dt o cosponso r

today , wil l benefi t no t onl y th e chil ddiagnose da s mentall y ill
. bu t wil l assur e tha t

hi s o r he r family , too, i s safeguarde dfro mth e effect s of menta l illness—th e pressure s whic hca n divid e families , irreparabl y sca r it s mem bers , an ddestro y perhap s th e mos t vita l institutio ni nou r

society
. I urg e my colleague s t o suppor t thi s amendment
.
PUBLI C WORK S AN D ECONOMI C DE

VELOPMEN T AC T AMENDMENTS — S
. 149 3 AMENDMEN T NO
. 473 9 'Ordere dt o b e printe dan dreferre dt o t h e Committe e o n Environmen t an dPub

- li c Work s an dth e Committe e o n Govern

- menta l Affairs , jointly. ) Mr
. STAFFOR D submitte da n amend

- men t intende dt o b e propose db y hi mt o S
. 1493 , abil l t o amen dth e Publi c Work s a n dEconomi c Developmen t Ac t t o es tablis hacomprehensiv e progra mt o pro - vid e financia l an dtechnica l assistanc e t o States , loca l governments , an dIndia n tribe s t o manag e impact s cause db y energ y development , an dfo r othe r pur poses . DEPARTMEN T O F ENERO Y CIVILIA N PROGRAM S AUTHORIZATIONS — S . 269 2 AMENDMEN T 474 0 

### (Ordere dt o b e printe dan dt o li e o h th e table. ) Mr
. McQOVER

N (fo r himself , Mr
. RIECLE , Mr
. CRANSTON , Mr
. GRAVEL , Mr
. HODGES , an dMr
. LEAHY ) submitte da n 

### amendmen t

intende dt o b e propose db y them , jointly , t o S
. 2692 , abil l t o au thoriz e appropriation s fo r th e civilia n program s o

f th e Departmen t

of Energ y fo r fiscal yea r

1979 , an dfo r

othe r purposes . WATERPOLLUTIO NCONTRO L ACT—H.R
. 1214

0 AMENDMEN T 4-4 1 

### (Ordere dt o b e printe dan dreferre dt o th e Committe e o nEnvironmen t an d Publi c Works. ) Mr
. STAFFOR D submitte da namend

men t intende dt o b e propose db y hi mt o H.R
. 12140
. • Mr
. STAFFORD
. Mr
. President , I a m submittin g a namendmen t whic hI hop e ca nreceiv e th e Senate' s attentio n a t som e poin t

durin g th e day
. I t

attempt s t o correc t

deficiencie s i nth e hazardou s substance s progra mestablishe dunde r sectio n31 1 of

th e Federa l Wate r

Pollu

tio nContro l Act
. I t

i s avariatio no na n amendmen t

characterize db y industry , environmenta l an dadministratio nrepre sentative s a s th e "quic k

fix." Th e bes t explanatio no

f th e nee dfo r thi s amendmen t

i s containe di narecen t lette r fro mth e Assistan t

EPA Adminis

trato r i ncharg e o

f th e program , Mr
. Thoma s Jorling , t o Sento r MUSKIE
. 

### th e chairma no

f th e Subcommitte e o nEn

vironmenta l Pollution
. If ther e i s n o objection , I woul dlik e t o hav e tha t lette r inserte di nth e recor da t

thi s point
. Th e PRESIDIN GOFFICER
. Withou t objection , i t

i s s o ordered
. U.S
. ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCT , Washington, D.C, September 22, 1978. Hon
. EDMUN D S
. MUSKIE , Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEA RMR
. CHAIRMAN : Whil e I kno w I mus t communicat e wit hth e Chairma n an dothe r member s o f

th e Committee
. I wan t t o shar e som e thought s wit hyo u firs t an dthe n mee t wit hyo u t o see k

you r advic e befor e proceed

in g o n aver y seriou s matte r concernin g th e Clea n Wate r

Act
. On e o f th e mos t

acut e frustration s I hav e com e t o experienc e I n m y rol e a s a n admin

istrato r i s th e Immens e difficult y associate d wit htakin g statutor y mandate s Int o imple

mentation
. Complexity , procedures , an d shortage s o f

resource s al l contribute ; bu t ther e ar e als o larger , mor e pervasiv e reason s relate dt o Institutiona l fear s o f changin g o r alterin g th e system . Th e averag e tim e fo r rulemakin g I n EP A I s no w approachin g fou r years . I n addition , sinc e I hav e bee n her e al l promulgation s hav e bee n subjec t t o Judicia l appeal
. M y frustration s reache dnea r despai r re centl y whe n afedera l distric t cour t enjoine d th e implementatio n o f th e hazardous
. sub

stance s spil l portio n o f sec . 31 1 o f

th e Clea n Wate r Act
. I t I s importan t

tha t yo u kno w of thi s situatio n an dI wil l tr y t o summariz e I t i n thi s letter , bu t

I thin k

furthe r explana

tio n I s essential , especiall y since , a s yo u wlUP. 2



## OctoberU, 1978 CONGRESSIONA L RECORD—SENAT E 3768 1 / . < •

• see , w e hav e aproposa l whic h I believ e i s th e onl y cours e o f

actio n availabl e t o u s i f th e 31 1 hazardou s spil l progra m i s t o b e i n opera tio n I n th e nt_ tthre e t o five years . Whe n th e Clea n Wate rAc twa s enacte d i n 1972 , hazardou s substance s wer e include d i n paralle l wit h oil , an d authorit y wa s grante d t o th e Administrato rt o designat e hazardou s substances , t o distinguis h betwee n sub stance s o n thei r"removal " characteristics , t o remov e o rmitigat e spille d substances , C o asses s liabilit y fo rcosts , an d t o im pos e penalties . Whe n I assume d respon sibilit y fo rth e progra m I n 1977 , on e o f m y highes tprioritie s wa s t o complet e th e rule makin g necessar y t o Implemen tth e hazard ou s spil l program . I n th e absenc e o f apro gram , EPA ha s ha d t o grappl e wit h th e Hope wel l kepon e destruction ; carbo n tetrachlo rid e emergencie s o n th e Ohi o River ; afour mont h closur e o f

th e Louisvill e sewag e treat men tplan tbecaus e o f achemica l spill ; chemica l contaminatio n o f primar y drinkin g wate rsupplie s I n Kernersvllle , Nort h Caro lina ; chlorin e death s fro m afreigh ttrai n derailmen tI n Youngstown , Florida ; an d man y more . Finally , I n Marc h o f thi s year , th e fou rke y regulation s fo rhazardou s sub stance s (designatio n o f 27 1 substances , class ificatio n o f

removability , rat e o f

penalty , an d harmfu l quantities ) wer e promulgate d an d EP A an d th e Coas tGuar d allocate d resource s fo rthei rimplementation . Thi s wa s th e cul minatio n o f

si x year s o f

activity . Followin g promulgatio n an d befor e th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e regulations , th e Federa l Distric tCour tI n th e Wester n Distric to f Louisiana , actin g o n acomplain tfile d b y th e Manufacturin g Chemist s Association , th e America n Waterway s Operators , th e Ameri ca n Associatio n o f

Railroads , an d others , en joine d th e program . Thre e Issue s wer e brough tbefor e th e Court—th e harmfu l quantit y determination , th e questio n o f re movability , an d th e lnter-relatlonshlp s be twee n sec . 31 1 an d ?xlstln g NPDE S permits . Th e cour tagree d wit h th e complainant s an d th e specifi crulin g rendere d th e hazardou s spil l progra m Inoperative . Th e futur e o f

th e 31 1 progra m I

s no w In grav e uncertainty , beyon d th e abilit y o f th e Agenc y t o singularl y control . Th e courts , th e Agency , an d alarg e numbe ro f Intereste d partie s al l ar e I n apositio n t o Influenc e th e outcome , especiall y t o caus e unendin g dela y o f an y amendmen to rJudicia l actio n I f ther e I s no tsubstantia l agreemen to n th e basi c approach . I n th e fac e o f

th e Injunction , th e Agenc y ha s thre e basi coption s t o consider . I wil l summariz e each . First , prosecut e a n appeal : Th e Federa l Distric tCour tfo rth e Wester n Distric to f

Louisian aIs i n th e 5t>- i Circui t (th e Circui tsubjec tt o aspli tIn th e pendin g Judiciar y BUI) . I n arevie w o f thi s option , an d I n consultatio n wit h th e Justic e Depart ment , w e hav e reache d th e followin g conclu sions : I twoul d tak e aminimu m o f thre e bu t mor e likel y five year s t o hav e th e matte rg o throug h th e cour tsyste m an d b< ; resolve d ultimatel y b y th e Suprem e Court . O n th e merits , ther e I s greate rtha n 7 5 percen t chanc e th e lowe rcour tdecisio n tha tstoppe d th e progra m woul d b e upheld . Second , attemp tarewrit e o f th e regula tion s t o confor m t o th e court' s order : O n th e threshol d Issue—th e determinatio n o f harmfu l quantities—EP A coul d no twrit e rule s t o mee tthi s requiremen tan d b e I n an y wa y responsiv e t o th e 31 1 mandate . T o d o s o woul d requir e u s t o establis h actua l harm fu l effect s fro m specifi cquantitie s coverin g th e rang e o f

circumstance s int o whic h suc h chemical s migh tb e discharged : thi s woul d b e apre-197 2 burde n i f ther e eve rwa s on e I f w e trie d thi s approach , ou rbes testimat e Indicate s w e coul d determin e harmfu l quan titie s a tarat e o f

10-1 5 pe ryear , bu ta tavery hig h resourc e cost . I twoul d b e decade s he CXXI V 2369—Par tJ 8 for e w e ha d anythin g lik e th e 27 1 chemical s no w subjec tt o ou rrules . Moreover , sinc e thi s wa s th e decisio n o f onl y on e federa l distric tcourt . I tI s unlikel y w e coul d hav e an y certaint y tha tsatisfyin g thi s cour twoul d satisfy al l o f th e othe r9 1 federa l distric tcourts . Third , legislativ e repair : Tw o possibilitie s ar e suggested . One , aful l fledge d effor tt o repai rsec . 31 1 an d perhap s relate d authority ; o ralternatively , aquic k fix addresse d t o th e specifi cproblem s raise d b y th e court . I hav e reache d th e conclusio n t o procee d wit h th e latter . M y reason s Includ e th e belie f tha tth e basi ccor e o f

sec . 31 1 I s sound . I f

th e provisio n wa s changed—eve n t o mak e I tbet ter—I twoul d requir e ane w rulemakin g effort . A s I explaine d above , give n ou rexperi ence . I twoul d b e fiv e year s o rmor e befor e w e agai n ha d promulgate d regulation s an d th e capacit y t o Implemen tthem . Consequently , an d wit h acknowledge d ris k t o al l parties . I hav e me twit h th e litigant s ove rth e las ttw o week s I n a n attemp tt o de termin e i f

ther e wa s a"noncontroverslal " legislativ e proposa l tha tal l partie s I n goo d fait h coul d accep tan d allo w I tt o b e grafte d ont o asimpl e researc h an d developmen tau thorizatio n bil l whic h ha s passe d th e Hous e an d i s pendin g i n th e Senat e Committe e (H.R . 12140) . Thi s I s admittedl y aver y re mot e possibilit y unde rth e bes tcircum stances , bu tI believ e I tI s wort h th e try . I d o no tse e th e sam e opportunit y fo rquic kactio n In th e nex tCongress . I believ e th e partie s ar e participatin g I n thi s eeffor tI n goo d faith . N o on e ha s presse d fo ral l o f thei rprefer ences . A s aconsequence , w e hav e reache d a positio n tha tth e Agenc y an d th e litigant s ca n support . I f

I tIs enacte d w e ca n hav e th e 31 1 hazardou s substance s progra m i n motio n insid e o f afe w months . I n th e discussion s wit h th e partie s I hav e bee n guide d b y th e assumptio n tha tCon gres s an d th e peopl e expec tt o hav e th e fol lowin g basi celement s o f th e 31 1 progra m pu tInt o operatio n a s soo n a s possible : (1) . Th e designatio n o f substance s an d quantities , th e discharg e o f whic h create s a dut y o n th e dischargin g owne ro roperato r t o notif y th e government ; (2) . Respons e b y th e governmen tt o miti gat e th e etfect s o f

th e substance s an d t o re mov e th e substance s wher e appropriate ; 13) . Liabilit y Impose d o n th e owne rfo r cost s th e governmen tIncur s In remova l an d mitigation ; an d (4) . A penalt y provision . I believ e tha twit h severa l amendment s t o sectio n 31 1 I n thi s Congres s we ca n buil d o n th e rulemakin g effor tth e Agenc y ha s con ducte d fo ral l thes e year s an d w e ca n ge tthi s basi cprogra m t o operat e almos timmediate l y afte renactment . Th e Agenc y an d th e Coas tGuar d hav e ex pende d grea tresource s i n training . Informa tio n dissemination , an d relate d preparations , al l premise d o n th e 27 1 substance s an d th e harmfu l quantitie s no w designated . Indus try , similarly , eve n thoug h I tha s litigated , ha s prepare d t o compl y wit h th e progra m throug h trainin g o f

personne l an d I s read y t o distribut e material s t o employees . Ther e I s aprogram— aver y valuabl e program—read y t o g o bu ti tI s no w In suspende d animation . Th e situatio n Is har d fo rm e t o understand ; fo rth e public , alread y suspiciou s o f ou r abilit y t o govern , i ti s Impossibl e t o under stand . Th e amendment s w e propos e basicall y plac e hazardou s substance s o n apa rwit h oi l t n ho w the y relat e t o th e majo rcom ponent s of

. sec . 311 . wit h on e majo rexcep tion . Rathe rtha n th e $5,00 0 penalt y limi t o n oil . th e limi tfo rhazardou s discharge s woul d b e S50.000 . Thi s represent s asignifi can treductio n fro m th e presen tla w (u p t o J 5 millio n fo rvessel s an d $500,00 0 fo rothe r sources. ) However , wit h th e 1977 amend ment s clarir.v'n ^ th e llabUlt y fo rmitigatio n i n th e car * "S

tdischarge s o f

hazardov - sub stances , . •>

; -:-:tl th e reduce d penality' s effec t o n achlf. i I

Pahig h standar d o f

car e l aoff

set . I f experienc e reveal s otherwise , amend ment s t o th e penalt y structur e coul d com a later , bu tI n th e meantim e th e dut y t o giv e notice , th e authorit y o f th e governmen tt o respon d an d act , an d llabUlty—al l presentl y enjoined—coul d g o Int o effect . I kno w thi s I s amos tunusua l request , an d woul d hop e I coul d mee twit h yo u t o explai n th e circumstance s i n mor e detail . I a m motivate d b y th e deepes tsens e o f concer n tha ti f

th e legislatio n canno tb e amended , w e wil l b e unsuccessfu l i n gettin g an y elemen to f

th e hazardou s substance s spil l progra m I n effec tfo ryears ; a n InabUlt y which , whe n s o muc h ha s bee n Invested , doe s no tsee m t o b e In th e publi cInterest . Sincerel y yours ,

THOMA S C . JOHIJNC , Assistant Administrator. Mr . STAFFORD . Followin g th e re - ceip to f Mr . Jorling' s lette ran d a tth e urgin g o f

variou s intereste d parties , th e committe e hel d ahearin g o n th e pro pose d amendment . Althoug h Mr . Jorlin g wa s th e onl y witness , h e spok e o n behal f o f th e man y group s whic h participate d i n th e unusua l an d length y negotiations . Th e dat e <>

f thi s hearin g wa s Octobe r5 . les s tha n : week s ago . Normaiiy , achang e o f suc h funda menta l and'importan tnatur e woul d b e subjecte d t o mor e extensiv e hearing s an d t o forma l scrutin y b y th e member shi p o f th e committee . However , becaus e i twa s s o lat e i n th e session , w e wer e require d t o rel y o n mor e informa l dis cussion s regardin g th e merit s o f th e propose d amendment . Durin g th e cours e o f thes e discussions , severa l flaws i n th e origina l proposa l wer e revealed . Th e amendmen twa s change d t o correc tthese . I n addition , certai n change s suggeste d b y th e De - partment s o f

Stat e an d Transportatio n wer e incorporate d int o th e amendment . Base d o n m y informa l discussion s wit h othe rmember s o f

th e committee , I be liev e I ca n safel y sa y tha tm y actio n her e reflect s th e wil l o f

it s membership . Th e committe e consider s i tver y importan tt o implemen ton e o f

th e mos tsignifican t provision s o f

th e Clea n Wate rAct , sec - tio n 311 , dealin g wit h th e discharg e o f hazardou s substances;—particularly , th e Government' s abilit y t o respon d t o an d mitigat e th e effect s o f suc h discharges . Mor e tha n i n an y othe renvironmenta l area , peopl e expec tquic kan d effectiv e governmenta l respons e t o protec tpubli c healt h an d th e environmen ti n th e even t o f spill s o f

suc h materials . Nothin g per plexe s acitize n mor e tha n discoverin g tha tth e Governmen ti s incapabl e o f act in g rapidl y an d decisivel y i n suc h situations . But . despit e th e fac ttha tsectio n 31 1 wa s enacte d 6 year s ago , th e hazardou s substance s spil l progra m i s nonexistent . T h e concep to f

Governmen trespons e t o spill s wa s firs tdevelope d i n th e contex t o f oi l i n th e lat e 1960' s an d wa s incorpo rate d i n th e 197 0 Wate rQualit y Im - provemen tAct . A ttha ttime , uncer taint y surroundin g th e appropriatenes s o f includin g othe rhazardou s material s i n suc h aschem e le d th e Congres s t o au thoriz e th e administratio n t o stud y simila rrespons e mechanism s fo rthem .P. 3 

## 37582 CONGRESSIONA LRECOR

D —SENAT

E October

Ik, 1978 Whe nth e Clea nWaw r Ac t wa s enacte d i n 1972
. hazardou s substance s wer e in

clude dI n paralle l w:ithoil , an dth e ad

ministrato r

wa s grunte dauthorit y t o designat e hazardou s substances , t o dis

tinguis hbetwee nsubstance s base do n thei r "removal " characteristics , t o re mov e o r mitigat e th e effect s o f spille d substances , an dt o asses s civi l penaltie s an dclean-u p costs . Th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y responde dt o tha t mandat e inadequately , i npar t fo r com plicate dtechnica l reasons . Recently , however , implementatio n of th e sectio n31 1 progra mwa s designate d a s ahig hpriority
. EP A se t ou t t o com plet e th e rulemakin g necessar y t o imple

men t th e hazardou s substance s spil l pro gram . I nthi s undertakin g ther e wer e severa l uncertai nelement s i nsectio n31 1 whic hle dth e committe e t o mak e legis

lativ e clarifications , especiall y regardin g th e inclusio no f

mitigatio nactivitie s i n th e concep t

of removal
. I n Decembe r 1977 , thes e clarification s wer e incorpo

rate di namendment s t o th e Clea nWa

te r Act
. I nMarc ho f

thi s year , th e fou r

ke y regulation s fo r

hazardou s substance s wer e finally promulgated
. Th e fou r set s of regulation s designate d27 1 substances , classifie dthei r

removability , an destab

lishe dharmfu l quantities , unit s of meas urement , an drate s ol

penalty
. Th e Envi

ronmenta l Protectio nAgency , alon g wit h th e Coas t

Guard , allocate dregiona l re source s t o th e tas k

c f implementin g th e 31 1 hazardou s substance s program . Thi s regulator y an dprogrammati c effor t wa s th e culminatio nof

6 year s o f

activity
. Followin g promulgation , bu t befor e th e effectiv e dat e o f

th e regulations , th e Fed

era l Distric t

Cour t fo r th e Wester nDis

tric t o f Louisiana , actin g o ncomplaint s filedb y th e Manufacturin g Chemist s Association , th e America nWaterway s Operators , th e Associatio nof America n Railroads , an dothers , enjoine dthei r Implementatio n an denforcement
. Th e principa l challenge s t o th e regulation s include dallegation s tha t EP A ha dille

gall y determine dth e actua l removabilit y of th e designate dsubstances , tha t EPA' s harmfu l quantit y determination s wer e arbitrar y an dcapricious , an dtha t EP A ha dunlawfull y applie dth e provision s of sectio n31 1 t o facilitie s wit hNPDE S permits
. Th e cour t

agree dwit hth e plaintiff s o nal l thre e issue s an dconclude dtha t th e regulation s wer e "invalid , void , un enforceable , an do f

n o lega l effect. " Th e cour t conclude dthai ; EP A ha dimper

missibl y ignore dmitigabilit y i ndeter

minin g th e actua l removabilit y o f sub

stances . I naddition , i t hel dtha t

EPA' s harmfu l quantit y determination s wer e unlawfu l becaus e the y di dno t conside r "times , locations , circumstances , an d conditions " a s require db y sectio n311(b ) 14) and , therefore , wer e no t predictiv e o

f actua l harm
. Finally , th e cour t hel dtha t discharge s subjec t

t o sectio n40 2 of

th e ac t shoul dno t

b e subjec t

t o th e reporting : requirements , civi l penalt y liabilities , an d clecnu p cost s of

sectio n311
. Th e impac t

o f thi s decisio n o hEPA' s abilit y t o preven t

a;i drespon dt o th e discharg e of

hazardou s substance s i s dif

ficult t o overstate . Invalidatio no f th e removabilit y regulatio nrendere dinoper

ativ e th e entir e civi l penalt y scheme
. Th e rejectio no f

harmfu l quantit y determi

nations—th e cornerston e o f th e regula

tor y scheme—eliminate dmandator y re portin g o f

spill s an drelieve ddischarger s of responsibilit y fo r

civi l penaltie s an d clean-u p costs . Th e futur e o f th e 31 1 progra mi s no w i ngrav e doubt
. Th e courts , th e EPA
. an dalarg e numbe r o f intereste dpartie s ar e al l i n apositio nt o influenc e th e futur e o f th e hazardou s substance s spil l program . I nth e absenc e of substantia l agreemen t o n abasi c ap proach , thes e partie s coul dendlessl y dela y an y amendmen t o r litigation
. I nth e fac e o f

th e situatio ncreate db y th e injunction , th e committe e considere d thre e basi c options : First , a nappea l coul db e prosecuted
. Bu t th e Justic e Departmen t an dEP A conclude dtha t

i t woul dtak e aminimu m of 3 , bu t mor e likel y 5 , year s t o hav e th e matte r processe dthroug hth e cour t sys te man dultimatel y resolve db y th e Su

prem e Court
. Further , th e administra

tio nbelieve dther e woul db e asubstantia l chanc e tha t

th e lowe r

cour t decisio n haltin g th e progra mwoul db e upheld
. Next , th e regulation s coul db e rewrit

te nt o confor mt o th e Court' s order
. O n th e threshol dissue—th e determinatio n of harmfu l quantities—EP A coul dno t writ e rule s t o satisfy th e Cour t orde r an db e i nan y wa y responsiv e t o th e 31 1 mandate
. T o d o s o woul drequir e EP A t o establis hbefor e th e fac t actua l harmfu l effect s fro mspecifi c quantitie s o f chemi

cal s coverin g th e infinit e rang e o f cir

cumstance s i nwhic hthe y migh t b e dis

charged
. Thi s woul dreestablis hth e pre-197 2 burde no f

provin g wate r

qualit y impac t a s apreconditio n fo r environ

menta l protection
. Th e bes t EP A esti

mat e indicate dtha t

th e agenc y coul d determin e harmfu l quantitie s a t arat e of 1 0 t o 1 5 pe r

year , bu t

onl y a t aver y hig hresourc e cost . I t woul db e decade s befor e achievin g anythin g lik e th e 27 1 chemical s designate di nth e enjoine d regulations
. Finally , ther e wer e tw o legislativ e repai r possibilities : Ther e coul db e a lengthy , full-fledge deffor t t o repai r

sec tio n31 1 and , perhaps , relate dauthority ; or , alternatively , amor e focuse deffor t addresse dt o th e specifi c problem s raise d b y th e recen t

Cour t decision
. Afte r

in

tens e review , th e partie s conclude dtha t ther e wa s n o recours e bu t t o see k quic k legislativ e repair , if

sectio n 31 1 wer e t o b e implemente dwithou t furthe r uncon scionabl e delay
. Th e committe e agreed
. Ou r reason s includ e th e belie f tha t th e existin g sectio n 31 1 i s basicall y sound
. If th e provision s wer e greatl y changed , eve nfo r th e better , i t

woul drequir e a n entirel y ne w rulemakin g effort
. Thi s woul db e time-consuming
. Give n pas t ex perience , i t

woul dtak e year s t o achiev e promulgate dregulation s an di nth e meantim e th e discharg e of thes e hazard

ou s substance s coul dcontinu e unregu lated
. Th e effor t

t o defin e alegislativ e solu

tio nha s force djudgment s a s t o wha t element s o f

th e progra mar e mos t im

portan t an dt o conside r

alterin g thos e which , whil e important , woul dpreven t u consensus . W e conclude dtha t th e fol

lowin g basi c element s o f th e 31 1 progra m shoul db e pu t

int o operatio n a s soo na s possible : First
. Th e designatio n o f substance s an dth e determinatio no f quantities , th e discharg e o f

whic hcreat e adut y o nth e discharge r

t o notify th e Government
. Second
. Governmenta l respons e t o mitigat e th e effect s o f discharge dsub

stance s an dt o remov e the mwher e ap propriate
. Third
. Th e impositio n o f liabilit y o n tit e owne r

fo r cost s incurre db y th e Gov

ernmen t i nremova l an dmitigation
. Fourth
. A penalt y provision
. Th e legislativ e proposa l I a mofferin g retain s thes e ke y element s o f th e 31 1 program . Th e recommende dchange s involv e thre e basi c areas . First , th e proposa l simplifie s th e determinatio no f whic h discharg e incident s mus t b e reporte dt o th e Federa l Government
. Th e proposa l clarifie s th e authorit y o f th e adminis

trato r i n designatin g hazardou s pollut

ant s an ddeterminin g harmfu l quanti

tie s o f suc hpollutants
. Th e amendmen t make s i t

clea r tha t th e determinatio n o f harmfu l quantitie s doe s no t re quir e a nassessmen t

o f actua l har m i n th e variet y of

circumstance s i n whic hsuc hsubstance s migh t b e dis

charged
. Rather , th e determinatio n i s base do nth e administrator' s judgmen t of wha t quantit y ma y b e harmfu l a s a nisul t of it s chemica l properties , no t th e circumstance s o f

it s release
. Thi s chang e woul dresolv e th e distric t court' s objec

tion s t o th e previousl y promulgate d regulation s an di t

woul dallo w th e basi c 2'ement s o f

sectio n31 1 t o b e imple

mente drigh t

away . Second , th e change s plac e hazardou s substance s o n apa r

wit hoi l i n thei r relatio n t o th e majo r component s o

f sectio n 311 , excep t

tha t th e maximu m civi l penalt y fo r

thei r discharg e woul d b e $50,000 , compare dwit h$5,00 0 fo r oil
. Th e administrato r woul dente r

int o amemorandu mof

understandin g wit h t i e Secretar y o

f Transportatio n per - ' mittin g th e administrato r t o selec t

eithe r c f tw o option s availabl e fo r penalizin g discharger s of

hazardou s substances
. On e optio ni s a nadministrativ e penalt y u p t i S5.00 0 pe r

violation
. Th e secon dop tio n woul db e commencemen t of acivi l actio ni nFedera l distric t court . Penal

tit s i n suc ha nactio n coul dno t excee d S50.00 0 pe r

violation , unles s th e dis

charg e wa s th e resul t of willfu l negli

genc e o r

misconduc t

o n th e par t

of ta e owner , operator , o r perso n i n charge
. i: i whic hcas e th e penalt y maximu m woul db e $250,00 0 pe r discharge
. Th e $50,00 0 maximu minvolve s asig

i ifican t reductio n fro mth e existin g S500..000 liabilit y fo r

facilitie s an d$5,

- 000.00 0 fo r

vessels
. However , i n vie w of I li e 197 7 amendment s whic hmak e i t clea r tha t discharger s ar e liabl e fo r miti

n.'.tio n cost s resultin g fro mdischarger s o f ahazardou s substance , w e conclude d tha t sufficien t

incentiv e fo r

ahig hstand

i r do f car e exist s wit hth e combinatio n c f publi c disclosur e of

wh o i s discharg

i ig , liabilit y fo r

mitigatio n o f

hazardou s substanc e discharges' 1 provide di n1977 , i :i dth e penalt y provisions
. I f experienc eP. 4



## )ctober Ik, 1978 CONGRESSIONA LRECOR

D —SENAT

E 3768 3 i 1 / J ve s tha thighe rpenaltie s ar e neces - :;•.:.-y, th e penalt y structur e ca n b e modi

fiedaccordintly . I n th e meantime , how

ever , th e ke y authoritie s o f sectio n 311 — mandator y reporting . Governmen tabil

it y t o respon d an d clean-u p liability , al l o f whic har e no w enjoined

— coul d g o int o effect
. I nth e propose dchange s th e criteri a fo r determinin g th e siz e of th e penalt y woul dals o b e streamlined
. I nassessin g th e penalty , th e Cour t

woul dconside r

th e followin g factors
. First
. Th e siz e o f

th e busines s in

volve d: Second
. Th e effec t

o f th e penalt y o n th e discharger' s abilit y t o continu e i n business ; Third
. Th e gravit y o f th e violation , whic hw e woul dinterpre t t o includ e th e siz e o f th e discharge , th e degre e of dan

ge r o r har mt o th e publi c health , safety , o r th e environment , includin g considera

tio no f toxicity , degradability , an ddis

persa l characteristic s of th e substance , previou s spil l history , if any , an dviola

tio no f spil l preventio nregulation s wher e appropriate , an d Fourth
. Th e exten t

an ddegre e o

f suc ces s o f an y effor t

b y th e violato r

t o miti

gat e th e effect s of

th e discharge
. Particula r

emphasi s shoul db e place d o nth e exten t

o f mitigatio neffort s b y th e discharger , i norde r

t o encourag e promp t an deffectiv e cleanup
. Mr
. Jorlin g ha s sai dth e agenc y wil l includ e thes e cri

teri aan dothe r

element s governin g grav it y o f th e violatio ni nit s regulation s implementin g th e penalt y provision
. Th e thir dare aof

chang e woul dclarify jurisdictio nove r

discharge s of

oi l an d hazardou s substance s fro mpoin t source s wit hNPDE S permits
. Th e issu e o f whic h sectio nof

th e ac t

govern s thes e dis

charge s i s aprincipa l sourc e of con trovers y i nth e litigation
. Thi s proposa l onl y affect s th e jurisdictio nove r certai n discharge s permitte dunde r sectio n402
. Basically , th e change s mak e i t clea r tha t discharges , fro mapoin t sourc e per mitte dunde r

sectio n 40 2 permitte d source , whic har e associate dwit hman ufacturin g an dtreatment , ar e t o b e reg ulate dunde r

section s 40 2 an d309
. "Spill " situation s wil l b e subjec t t o sectio n311 , however , regardles s o f whethe r the y occu r

a t afacilit y wit ha 40 2 permit
. Fo r

example , on-sit e indus

tria l spill s suc ha s truc k o r rai l acci

dent s o r substantia l o r

large-scal e fail

ure s o r rupture s o f

container s o r

ves sel s woul db e considere dsubjec t t o sec tio n311 , unles s suc hon-sit e spill s wer e processe dthroug hatreatmen t syste m capabl e o f

eliminatin g o r

abatin g suc h spills , i nwhic hcas e suc hdischarge s woul db e regulate dunde r section s 30 9 an d402
. O nth e othe r hand , situation s suc ha s th e followin g woul db e regulate d unde r section s 30 9 an d402 , no t 311 : Syste mupset s cause db y contro l prob

lem s o r operato r

error , syste mfailure s o r malfunctions , equipmen t o r syste m startup s o r

shutdowns , equipmen t washes , productio nschedul e changes , noncontac t

coolin g wate r

contamina

tion , stor mwate r

contamination , o r treatmen t

syste mupset s o r

failure s a t facilitie s wit htreatmen t system s ca pabl e o f eliminatin g o r

abatin g suc h discharges . Whil e mos tdischarge s fro m

permitte d poin tsource s will , therefore , b e regulate dsolel y unde rth e sectio n40 2 permi t system , th e oi l spil l progra m unde r sectio n 31 1 wil l remai nintact , an d othe r

classi c spil l situation s wil l continu e t o b e subjec t t o sectio n 311
. I nth e amendmen taddin g ane w defi

nitio n o f discharg e fo r

purpose s o f

sec tio n311 , w e ar e attemptin g t o dra w a lin e betwee nth e provision s o f th e ac t unde r section s 301 , 304 , 40 2 regulatin g chroni c discharge s an d 31 1 dealin g wit h spills
. A t

th e extreme s i t

i s relativel y eas y t o focu s o n th e differenc e bu t i t ca n becom e complicated
. Th e concep t ca nb e summarize db y statin g tha t thos e dis

charge s o f

pollutant s tha t

areasonabl e ma nwoul dconclud e ar e associate dwit h permits , permi t

conditions , th e operatio n of treatmen t

technology , an dpermi t vi

olation s woul dresul t i n402/30 9 sanc tions ; thos e discharge s o f pollutant s tha t areasonabl e ma nwoul dconclud e ar e episodi c o r

classica l spill s no t

in

tende do r

capabl e of

bein g processe d throug hth e permitte dtreatmen t syste m an doutfal l woul dresul t i n th e applica

tio no f sectio n311
. Whil e thi s divisio n migh t b e subjec t

t o theoretica l abuse , fo r

example , funnelin g classi c spill s throug ha noutfal l t o avoi d sectio n311 , th e availabilit y o f crimina l sanction s unde r

bot hsection s 31 1 an d 30 9 shoul doperat e t o dete r suc havoid

anc e schemes
. Th e amendmen t

als o clarifie s tha t

th e cost s o f remova l o f

adischarg e o f

ahaz

ardou s substanc e fro mapoin t sourc e wit ha40 2 permi t

ar e recoverabl e fro m th e owne r

o r operato r

o f th e sourc e un de r sectio n309(b ) o f

th e act . I shoul dpoin t

ou t tha t non e o f

th e change s affec t

th e designatio nof

27 1 sub

stance s a s hazardous
. I f th e propose d legislativ e change s ar e enacted , th e agenc y wil l withdra w th e regulations , mak e th e necessar y adjustments , an d promulgat e th e sam e 27 1 designation s an dquantitie s withou t chang e a s soo n a s possible
. Th e amendment s w e ar e pro posin g woul dallo w u s t o buil do nth e rulemakin g effor t

conducte dfo r

th e las t fe w year s an denabl e EP A t o ge t abasi c progra mint o operatio n withi nafew

month s afte r

enactment . Th e EP A an dth e Coas t Guar dhav e alread y expende dgrea t resource s fo r training , informatio ndissemination , an d relate dpreparation s premise do n th e 27 1 substance s an dth e harmfu l quantitie s designated
. Industry , notwithstandin g it s litigatio nposture , i s prepare dt o com pl y wit hth e progra mthroug hpersonne l trainin g an dothe r

implementin g ac tions
. I nshort , aver y valuabl e progra m i s read y t o go . bu t

i t i s no w i nastat e of suspende danimation
. Th e situatio ni s har dfo r th e committe e t o accept . Fo r th e publi c i t

i s impossibl e t o understand
. I d o no t believ e the
. countr y ca nb e o r shoul db e withou t

ahazardou s spil l re spons e capabilit y fo r anothe r

4 o r 5 years . W e ca n buil do nth e rulemakin g effor t tha t ha s bee n conducted : w e ca n ge t th e basi c progra mt o operate . Al

thoug hcertai nadjustment s mus t b e mad e i n th e interest s o f gettin g th e progra mmoving , I believ e the y ar e worthwhile
. I a m deepl y concerne d tha ti f th e leg islatio n i s no tamende d w e wil l b e unsuc cessfu l i n gettin g an y elemen to f th e hazardou s substance s spil l progra m i n effec tfo ryears , afailur e whic h woul d hav e incalculabl e effect s o n publi chealt h an d safety . M y reques ti s unusual , ye t give n th e complexity , th e litigation , an d th e rulemakin g associate d wit h sectio n 311 , w e fee l strongl y tha ti ti s th e onl y wa y t o pu tth e hazardou s spil l progra m int o effec twithou tunconscionabl e fur the rdelay . I hop e yo u wil l agree. * TH EALASKA NATIONA L INTERES T LAND S CONSERVATIO N ACT—HH . 3 9 AMENDMEN T NO . 4 7 4 2 (Ordere dt o b e printe dan dt o li e o n th e table. ) Mr
. GRAVE Lsubmitte da n amend

men t intende dt o b e propose db y hi m t o H.R
. 39 , a n ac t

t o designat e certai nland s i n th e Stat e of

Alask aa s unit s o f

th e Na

tiona l Park , Nationa l Wildlife Refuge , Nationa l Wil dan dSceni c Rivers , an d Nationa l Wildernes s Preservatio n Sys

tems , an dfo r

othe r purposes . CALLIN GINT O QUESTIO N SAL T H Mr
. BARTLETT
. Mr
. President , afte r 1 0 year s o f

th e "SAL T process " an d6 year s o f negotiations , th e lon g antici

pate dSAL T I I treat y finally seem s a t hand
. Th e timetabl e an dstyl e fo r th e pres entatio nof

th e ne w strategi c arm s limi

tatio n treat y t o th e America n peopl e an dt o th e Senat e i s becomin g mor e clear
. Immediatel y prio r t o th e Novem

be r elections , Secretar y of Stat e Vanc e wil l b e i n Mosco w conductin g secre t ne gotiation s designe dt o conclud e SAL T n . Undoubtedly , th e electorat e wil l rea d an dhea r of "progress. " Then , wit hCon

gres s ou t

o f sessio nan dth e election s over . Presiden t

Carte r an dSovie t

Com

munis t Part y Secretar y Brezhne v wil l mee t a t aSAL T I I summi t

designe dt o enhanc e th e spiri t

of "peac e i n ou r

time. " I n January , wit hth e nex t election s nearl y 2 year s away , th e ne w Congres s wil l finall y com e fac e t o fac e wit hthi s SAL T agreemen t

whic hwil l alread y hav e becom e aver y ol dissue
. A s th e ne w Co n - gres s organizes , shufflin g it s committe e membership s an dwrestlin g wit hth e ne w budget
. Senator s an dCo.igressme n wil l attempt , t o evaluat e thi s incredibl y com ple x treaty . I assum e i t wil l b e atreat y an dno t a n "executiv e agreement. " whic h woul db e a n insul t

t o th e treat y power s o f th e Senat e a s enumerate di n th e Con

stitution
. Nex t year , ther e wil l b e littl e tim e lef t t o stud y th e SAL T I I treaty , s o I urg e m y colleague s wh o wil l b e returning , an dals o thos e wh o wil l not , t o examin e th e term s of thi s ne w strategi c arm s limitation s agreemen t

beginnin g now . Althoug hth e entir e packag e ha s no t ye t bee n mad e public , mos t

of th e majo r

provision s hav e bee n revealed
. I nan y case , SAL T ha s a languag e al l it s ow n an dlearnin g eve n t o spea k i t wil l tak e som e study
. T o ai dm y colleagues
. - woul dlik e t o discus s som e o f

th e problem s whic har e