REGULATORY FOCUS
Clean Water Act amendments debated
Michael R. Deland During the early summer months Congress focused increased attention on the Clean Water Act, thereby heightening public awareness that the act is not the only statute ripe for reauthorization. Perhaps partially in response to criticism that it abdicated its leadership responsibility in the Clean Air Act debate, EPA proposed detailed legislative changes to the Clean Water Act. While both industrial and environmental groups applaud the agency for taking the initiative and "giving us something to shoot at," they find little else in the EPA proposals upon which they can agree. The EPA proposal The EPA bill sets forth a 15-point plan to amend the current statute. Among the more controversial proposals are those relating to pretreatment and the new enforcement provisions. One issue skirted by EPA, which will continue to be hotly contested, is the question of the "Best Available Technology/Best Conventional Technology" (BAT/BCT) waiver process. In her transmittal letter to Congress, Administrator Anne M. Gorsuch stated: "Our. legislative proposal does not include specific language for a BAT/BCT waiver process, not because our concerns have changed, but because we feel that the development of an appropriate legislative mechanism is premature." The agency proposal would leave
0013-936X/82/0915-0447A$01.25/0
the general pretreatment program requirements in effect but would allow exemptions from the requirements upon a showing by the local agency or publicly owned treatment works that equivalent control would result. It would also permit discretionary issuance of categorical standards. The bill sets forth several additions to EPA's enforcement arsenal. First, it proposes that the administrator be given the authority to assess civil penalties of up to $10 000 per day. Secondly, in a provision aimed at intentional violations of the act occurring regularly over an extended period, EPA seeks to add criminal penalties of up to $50 000 per day and/or imprisonment for up to two years. The reaction Since EPA's submittal to Congress in late May, both industrial and environmental groups have prepared rebuttals. For example, the Business Roundtable (BRT) commissioned a detailed study, while the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) prepared a point-by-point challenge to EPA's proposal. At the heart of the debate over both the BAT/BCT and pretreatment issues is whether technology or water quality-based standards should govern. The BRT study supports the arguments of many industrial groups in finding that "universally applied requirements for BAT may not significantly improve water quality." Therefore, as the Chemical Manufacturers Association asserts, Congress should "ensure that additional technology requirements are imposed only when they will help to achieve the water quality goals of the act." NRDC counters that, among other drawbacks, "requiring compliance with state water quality standards provides virtually no protection against toxic discharges." Meanwhile, industry is disappointed
© 1982 American Chemical Society
that the EPA bill does not contain specific waiver provisions. Rather than claiming victory on this issue, environmentalists are dismayed by EPA's support in principle of the waiver approach. On enforcement issues the lines are equally well defined. Industry asserts that there is no evidence that the agency needs additional enforcement powers. Conversely, NRDC is supportive of the felony provisions but argues that the administrative penalties can become mere "wrist slapping," and points out that the EPA bill provides that once administrative penalties are assessed, citizen suits would be precluded. Prognosis for passage Despite the increased activity in Congress it appears unlikely that significant legislative changes in the Clean Water Act will emerge this session. Senator Chafee (R-R.L), chairman of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, speaking on the Water Act stated, "If something isn't broken, don't fix it." Senator Stafford (R-Vt.), chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, feels that a majority of his committee would agree that "there is little need for any major change in direction on clean water issues." In the House, Rep. Roe (D-N.J.), chairman of the Water Resources Subcommittee, is looking toward a straightforward, one-year reauthorization. While inclination for action this session may be waning, EPA has focused the debate by submitting its legislative proposal. Congress and the public are now on notice that there are crucial Clean Water Act issues that merit detailed deliberation and that should not be deferred further. Deland writes this monthly column and is employed by ERT, Concord, Mass.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, No. 8, 1982
447A
