POLLUTION BILL REVISED STANDARDS, RAISES FUNDING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86-00244R000100200011-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 21, 2002
• Sequence Number: 11
• Content Type: OPEN

STAT
Pollution siadar -1 1 es4f 4 001 (011-2
The Senate is expected to act next week
on. a water pollution control bill that
includes a major increase in money for
sewage treatment plant construction
grants and a distinct shift in the philos-
ophy of standard setting.
The bill, approved last week by the
Senate Public Works Committee, calls
for a national system of permits similar
to current Refuse Act rmi c but in-
cluding municipal as well as industrial
dischargers. Each permit must include
2 cific effluent limitations for the dis-
charger. The traditional concept of wa-
ter quality standards as a measure of
pollution control is largely abandoned
in favor of setting effluent standards
case-by-case under general guidelines.
Critics of the 1965 Water Quality
Act have long argued that the water
quality measurement concept was diffi-
cult if not unworkable and that some
form of direct effluent limitation was
the only realistic alternative.
The bill also calls for $14 billion in
federal funding for sewage treatment
plant construction grants over the next
four fiscal years. Included would be the
already appropriated $2 billion for fis-
cal 1972; $3 billion in fiscal year 1973;
$4 billion. in fiscal year 1974 and $5 bil-
lion. in fiscal year 1975. The bill, origi-
nally reported by Sen. Edmund S.
Muskie's (D-Me.) subcommittee on air
and water pollution, contained one
more year's authorization of $6 billion,
fora grand total of $20 billion.
This last sum reportedly was
dropped by the full Public Works Com-
mittee to tempt Republican members
to go along with other provisions. The
Nixon administration, which had pro-
posed only a $6-billion, three-year com-
mitment, is pressing strongly against
the full five-year financial commitment.
Federal share upped. The bill also in-
creases the federal share of construction
costs from a base of 30% to a base of
60%. The previous maximum of 55%
becomes 70% in any state that contrib-
utes 10% of the cost. Thus a locality in
a participating state would bear only
20% of the project cost. Planning for
and adoption of regional waste treat-
ment is required wherever possible.
The standards portion of the bill
calls for a goal of zero discharge of pol-
lutants by 1985. Two interim standards
are set. By 1976, all dischargers must
by the environmental protection ad-
ministrator. By 1981, all dischargers
must have the "best available tech-
nology." Economic arguments are not a
factor here.
The permit system in the bill, which
does not rely on the Refuse Act but
creates a totally new system under the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), maintains a role for the states.
States that demonstrate to EPA that
they have an approved permit system
would be allowed to keep it.
The bill also requires states and lo-
calities to prepare by July 1, 1973,
plans for areawide waste t at-m- nt
management in areas with critical wa-
ter pollution control problems.
The picture for House action on
companion legislation is confused at
the moment. Indications still are that
some similar permit approach will be
followed. But there still are problems in
the House Public Works Committee
with the zero-discharge concept, and
other differences may emerge. The de-
sire of the House leadership to adjourn
by Dec. 1 could cause problems in get-
ting a House bill passed and differences
resolved in conference this year.
Bids spread about 17% on bridge-tunnel twin
The lowest of three bidders at $47.6
million on the major contract for the
second Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel
is a joint venture of Tidewater Con-
struction Corp., Norfolk; Peter Kiewit
Sons' Co., Omaha; and Raymond In-
ternational, Inc., New York City (ENR
4/16 p. 14). The job includes fabri-
cating and placing 21 sections forming
a two-lane tunnel 6,987 ft long, plus en-
larging one transition island.
At the opening last week, second low
at $50.6 million was a combine of
Brown & Root, Inc., Houston; Morri-
son-Knudsen Co., Inc., Boise; and Pe-
rini Corp., Framingham, Mass.-Third,
at $55.9 million, was Guy F. Atkinson
Co., South San Francisco; with The
Arundel Corp., Baltimore; and L. E..
Dixon Co., San Marino, Calif.
The Virginia highway department
will decide in about a month whether
to accept the apparent low bid, says
deputy commissioner John Harwood.
He refuses to disclose the estimate, but
it was reportedly about $50 million.
The entire 3.5-mile project, designed by
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade &
Douglas, New York City, will cost
about $100 million. Tidewater took the
first contract in July, 1970, for $5.5 mil-
lion to enlarge one island where the ap-
proach trestle dives into the tunnel. The
department will call for bids on nearly
2 miles of approaches next spring, and
on ventilation buildings and electrical
work in 1973. The second tunnel is
slated to open late in 1975.
The project has been added to the
Interstate system and designated 1-64.
When the second bridge-tunnel is com-
pleted, the state expects that bonds se-
cured by tolls on the first one will be
paid off and the crossing will be free.
The original project, also designed by
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, started in 1954
and opened three years later at a cost of
$60 million. Merritt-Chapman & Scott
Corp., New York City, held the major
contract with Tidewater and Raymond
as subcontractors. The new tunnel and
approaches have wider roadways.
have. installed the Al rr t{c IRele'ase
concept takes into account economic
feasibility. to a degree to heptprmen