WATER POLLUTION-1969 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1969 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator William B. Spong, Jr., presiding. Present: Senators Spong and Boggs. Also present: Leon G. Billings and Richard D. Grundy, professional staff members; and Bailey Guard, assistant chief clerk (minority). Senator SPONG. The hearing will come to order. Today the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution resumes hearings on the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969, following 2 days of field hearings in Santa Barbara, Calif., this week. As you are aware, there are two versions of this proposed act, S. 7 and S. 544. This legislation is not new. The oil pollution provisions, in part, date back to the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. The remainder of both bills is unfinished business from the last Congress. S. 544 includes a provision for financing construction of municipal waste treatment facilities which are not being considered at this time, but will be the subject for hearings in the near future. I would like to insert a summary of the provisions of the bills, other than financing, in the record at this point: 1. Authority to set Federal standards for the performance of marine sanitation devices to control sewage discharges from vessels; 2. Amendments to Federal oil pollution law to provide centralized authority to clean up oil spills regardless of source and if such cleanup is performed by the Federal Government, provision for recovery of cost; 3. Provision to insure compliance with water quality standards by Federal licensees and permittees which will require preconstruction water planning and eliminate the potential of Federal participation in activities which are inconsistent with the Nation's water quality programs, and 4. Extension of research authorization in basic law and addition of three new areas of research emphasis: Acid mine drainage, lake eutrophication, and oil pollution removal. We are very pleased this morning to have as our first witness this morning Senator Ribicoff, of Connecticut. (919) STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this distinguished subcommittee. The legislation being considered today is vital to the continued maintenance of this Nation's environment and natural resources. Water pollution is one of our society's most shameful problems. Too often we have taken the rich natural resources of this continent and turned them into unusable and ugly stains on the landscape. Our rivers, lakes, and coastlines have been subjected to this wanton disregard until filth and waste have threatened their very existence as natural resources. Fortunately, we have wakened to this peril. Our citizens have demanded action to clean up our waters. Government at all levels has reacted to the challenge and enacted many effective statutes to curb water pollution. On the Federal level, Congress, through the inspired lead of this subcommittee, has passed a number of far-reaching laws designed to combat pollution. As a result programs are now underway which promise to restore our water resources to much of their natural beauty and usefulness. But we must recognize that existing laws have left some serious gaps, which seriously threaten the success of our efforts. My own State of Connecticut has suffered because of these omissions. The bill now before this subcommittee will fill many of these gaps. One year ago the Department of the Interior and Transportation submitted a joint report on oil pollution to the President. The report indicated that existing laws dealing with oil pollution were seriously inadequate. The truth of this finding has been tragically evident during the last month. Day after day we have been subjected to stories dealing with and detailing the havoc caused by the great oil leakage which occurred off Santa Barbara, Calif. Miles of coastline have been lost to public use. Incalculable damage has been done by oil to the fish, fowl, and plant life in the area. The water and beaches are slick and with the gooey substance which is so vital to our way of life but which becomes the engine of tragedy when out of control. We need oil; we use it daily in a thousand different ways. Yet when it sweeps out of control to severely threaten the total environment of a large area we must treat it as an enemy. In my own State of Connecticut, we have also been subjected recently to serious oil pollution. On January 16, an oil barge went aground on a reef in Long Island Sound. The resulting oil slick polluted the shoreline of three States. We were fortunate the damage was not worse. Compared to the California experience the oil leakage was small. Nevertheless, miles of Connecticut shore were fouled. The Thames Science Center in New London, Conn., reported than an estimated 1,000 birds were killed or injured as a direct result of the oil. Almost the entire loon and horned grebe population was wiped out. Many other waterfowls were forced inland from their natural habitat where they are well suited for survival. Mr. Chairman, we have had too many disasters and near disasters to countenance this situation any longer. It is time we put teeth into our oil pollution laws. I believe this legislation will go a long way toward putting the responsibility for oil pollution where it rightfully belongs-on the polluter. Notification First of all the bill will require prompt notification to the Interior Department of any oil spillings or leakage. Failure to notify can result in a $5.000 fine. This is an essential provision for much of the damage can be prevented if the problem is recognized immediately and acted upon before the oil reaches shore. Liability Second, the liability for cleaning up willful or negligent oil spillage will rest on the polluter. This liabiity will extend up to $15 million. Study Third, the bill authorizes a complete study of how best to assure financial responsibility in case of pollution by unavoidable accident or acts of God. I hope such a study will provide a means to take the financial responsibility off the shoulders of the innocent public. This bill also deals with the problem of pollution from sewage and waste going overboard from vessels in the navigable waters of the United States. Connecticut citizens have long been subjected to this pollution. Even now there are federally owned ships in the rivers of Connecticut throwing untreated waste into the water in defiance of State water quality standards. This is an outrage which must be ended. I would hope that the timetable for this important provision would be speeded up. As presently the bill would not force vessels now in existence to treat their wastes for more than 5 years. This is far too long to wait. I hope this subcommittee will redraft the provision to require the proper waste and sewage disposal units on board within these 3 years. SECTION 14 Mr. Chairman, I want to draw particular attention to the proposed section 14 of the bill before us. This section would require all applicants for a Federal license or permit to conduct activity which might result in discharges into the waters of the United States to have certification that the discharge will be in compliance with applicable water quality standards. This certification would come from the agency with proper jurisdiction-be it State, interstate or Federal. This requirement of certification is a major step forward. It will help us to deal with one of the most critical environmental problems facing our Nation-thermal pollution. We in Connecticut are deeply concerned over the detrimental effects caused by discharges of vast amounts of heated water. As you know, nuclear powerplants use large amounts of water for cooling purposes. When this water is returned to its source it is hotter by 10° to 20°. With a number of nuclear powerplants planned for construction on Long Island Sound, there is a real danger of significantly raising the water temperature of the sound or large portions of it. Such a rise in water temperature will seriously affect the ecology of the entire area. Under present legislation, the Atomic Energy Commission, which has the power to issue construction and operating licenses for atomic powerplants, has ruled that it cannot consider the problem of thermal pollution. In fact, it has indicated that the subject is irrelevant in considering licenses. This ruling has resulted in a callous disregard for the serious problems of thermal pollution, and I strongly support the provisions in this legislation which will force due consideration of this factor. Mr. Chairman, we in Connecticut have worked long and hard to provide clean water. We feel that it is an absolute necessity to our continued existence, and we support this bill as a useful addition to present legislation designed to curb pollution. Mr. Chairman, this committee has done outstanding work and Congress, through your inspired leadership, has achieved much, and yet we have to recognize that existing laws have left some gaps, and this legislation does give an opportunity to close those gaps. Summary I would like to reemphasize some of the highlights. My own State of Connecticut has suffered because of these various omissions in the present laws, and your bill will fill many of these omissions. One year ago, the Departments of the Interior and Transportation submitted a joint report on oil pollution. The report stated the inadequacies of the present law. I don't have to repeat here what the newspapers and television have so dramatically presented to the people, regarding the oil pollution at Santa Barbara. In Connecticut, we have also been subjected recently to serious oil pollution. On January 16, an oil barge went aground on a reef on Long Island Sound. The resulting oil slick polluted the shoreline of three States. We were fortunate in that the damage was not worse than it actually was. But nevertheless, miles of Connecticut's shore were fouled. The Thames Science Center in New London, Conn., reported that an estimated 1,000 birds were killed or injured as a direct result of the oil. Almost the entire loon and horned grebe population was wiped out, and many other waterfowl were forced inland from their natural habitat, where they are ill suited for survival. Mr. Chairman, we have had too many disasters to countenance the situation any longer, and it is time we put teeth into our oil pollution laws. I believe this legislation will go a long way toward doing so by putting the responsibility for oil pollution where it really fully belongs, and that is on the polluter. First of all, your bill will require prompt notification to the Interior Department of any oil spillage. Failure to notify can result in a $5,000 fine, and this is an essential provision, for much of the damage can be prevented if the problem is recognized immediately. Second, the liability for cleaning up willful or negligent oil spillage will rest on the polluter. This liability will extend up to $15 million. Third, the bill authorizes a complete study of how best to assure financial responsibility in case of pollution by unavoidable accident or acts of God. I hope such a study will provide a means to take the financial responsibility off the shoulders of the innocent public. VESSEL POLLUTION This bill also deals—and I am talking about S. 7-with the problem of sewage and wastes going overboard from vessels in the navigable waters of the United States. Connecticut citizens have long been subjected to this pollution. Even now there are federally owned ships in the rivers of Connecticut throwing untreated sewage into the water in defiance of State water quality standards. This is an outrage which must be ended. There are naval vessels in the New London Harbor, and Coast Guard vessels, in which hundreds and hundreds of Navy personnel are stationed, and all the raw and untreated sewage, every day, is poured right into that harbor. I know that the people in the entire New London area are outraged. All of us, the Senators, the Congressmen, the Governor, and the people of Connecticut, have constantly urged the Navy to do something about the situation, and they have failed to do so at the present time. And I think it is indefensible to have the Federal Government talk about clean water, and try to pass legislation at the cost of millions and millions of dollars, and then have another branch of the Government contribute so substantially to pollution into the harbors and rivers, not only of Connecticut, but I am sure, of your own State of Virginia. I think certainly that we can expect no less from the Navy in their ships than that they eliminate pouring and discharging raw sewage and waste in the navigable waters of our respective States. I would hope that the timetable would be speeded up, requiring vessels now in existence to treat their wastes. Five years is much too long. I would like to see the subcommittee redraft the provision to require the proper waste and sewage disposal units on board ship in 3 years. I don't see any reason why we have to wait 5 years for such a provision. |