GOVERNMENT from this study, then, is that dual-use projects, where civilian and militaryrelated industries cooperate to develop a product useful to each, are becoming ever more important during this period of falling federal budgets—a conclusion Republican members of Congress, who are slashing current-year funding for such programs, would dispute. David Hanson
House vote near$ for new clean water bill While most attention during the first 100 days of the 104th Congress has been focused on legislation implementing the House Republicans' "Contract With America/' the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure has been working on a major overhaul of the Clean Water Act. The clean water bill has drawn cries of protest from the environmental community and praise from the regulated community. The bill, H.R. 961, introduced by full committee chairman Rep. Bud Sinister (R-Pa.) won the approval of the Subcommittee on Water Resources & the Environment on March 29 following several days of hearings. Chemical Manufacturers Association President and Chief Executive Officer Fred Webber says H.R. 961 is "a sign that Washington is beginning to listen to its constituents. It emphasizes costeffective risk reduction while maintaining the standards of protection the public is calling for." Great progress has been made in cleaning up the nation's waterways since the original Clean Water Act was signed into law in 1972, Webber says, noting that the chemical industry has cut releases of toxic chemicals to water 81% since 1987; at the same time, chemical production grew 18%. "If we are to have continued success, however, we must make sure the act endorses cost-effective solutions while maintaining high levels of protection for health and the environment," Webber adds. He says additional headway depends on focusing on the most significant remaining risks. Furthermore, he says incorporating risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis into the act will help states, EPA, and industry make great strides in risk reduction. And greater flexibility in the Clean Water Act 30
APRIL 10,1995 C&EN
is needed to provide incentives for pollution prevention and for greater use of innovative technologies. As approved by the subcommittee, H.R. 961 incorporates a number of these provisions. But where industry sees progress, the environmental community and the Administration see backsliding or worse. "This bill is a creation by and for the special interests who pollute our waters," charges Jessica Landman, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Natural Resources Defense Council's clean water program. Shuster introduced the original H.R. 961 on Feb. 15. Following the hearings, he called on what NRDC calls "special-interest task forces"—including representatives of the chemical industry, mining, petroleum producers, utilities, cattlemen, agricultural commodities, and numerous other interest groups—to recommend changes to the bill. The revised H.R. 961, Landman says, "is like a neutron bomb. If these amendments were adopted, they would leave only the shell of the current Clean Water Act." According to NRDC the bill would weaken the current Clean Water Act by: • eliminating the urban stormwater permitting program, the means to prevent city runoff from contaminating rivers and lakes; • gutting wetlands protection by incorporating the "takings" provision— compensation for reduced property values—of H.R. 925 (C&EN, March 13, page 7) into H.R. 961; and • leaving the biggest problem with the Clean Water Act unresolved by fail-
Webber: constituents are being heard
ing to address the issue of agricultural runoff, the single largest uncontrolled source of water pollution in the U.S. In a letter to Shuster, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol M. Browner expressed strong reservations about the bill. She said she was disturbed that the "process by which this bill was developed excluded the Administration and public-interest groups [from] the clean water debate and relied instead on closed-door discussions." Browner believes the bill that emerged from this process "is not in the best interest of the American people and is unworkable. It exempts important sources of pollution, prohibits states from controlling certain discharges, and undermines good science. The bill creates loopholes aimed at loosening current requirements, making it difficult to enforce against even egregious polluters." Furthermore, in the letter she charged that "instead of providing for a reasonable consideration of costs, the bill puts cost-benefit analysis above human health and environmental protection." And she concluded by saying the Clean Water Act "is a highly workable and effective statute, and this bill would roll back long-standing public health and environmental concerns." Shuster doesn't see it that way. He sees H.R. 961 as a "serious step" toward reform of the Clean Water Act. Although he firmly believes the existing clean water program has made major improvements in the quality of U.S. waters, he also thinks the act "has had unintended consequences, placing unacceptable costs and regulatory burdens on the public for, in many cases, marginal gains in water quality improvements." The fundamental thrust of the revised H.R. 961, he explained in late March, "isflexibilitywith accountability. This is a practical approach to our clean water programs and... because it is sensible, it will see the light of markup." Shuster's prediction was accurate. Having sailed through subcommittee markup in one day, H.R. 961 was marked up by the full committee last week. Its next stop is the House floor, where the bill is expected to pass easily. The stumbling block will come in the Senate: The chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, John H. Chafee (R-R.L), has shown little interest in tinkering with, let alone rewriting, a law he thinks is working quite well. Janice Long
