383 



ance with State water quality standards would force some companies 

 to go out of business. 



My bill would allow the Administrator of EPA to provide Jpa^^f 

 to these marginal industries where he finds that : .-r. .^ oi 



(1) sudh business firm could not continue to operate competitively if it were 

 required to bear the burden of tbe cost of sucli construction without such fi- 

 nancial assistance, or (2) that othea: financing credit is not reasonably available 

 to such business firm for the cost of such construction. 



Of course, all loans made under this act would require that the 

 treatment facility be in compliance with a comprehensive plan ap- 

 pro^^ed by the administrator for the abatement of water pollution in 

 the city, town, or water pollution abatement district where the busi- 

 ness form applying for the loan is located. 



This coordinated plan of 90 percent Federal grants to municipalities 

 and loans to marginal industries for waste treatment facilities, in 

 conjunction with strong antidumping bills, would save our oceans. 



H.K. 805 states that the standards established "shall be for the 

 purpose of insuring that no damage to the natural enviromnent and 

 ecology including but not limited to marine and wildlife ecology of 

 the ocean, coastal, and other waters of the United States will result 

 from any such activity." 



This language is considerably more stringent and explicit than sec- 

 tion 5(a) of Congressman Garmatz' bill, which permits such dumping 

 as "will not unreasonably degrade or unreasonably endanger human 

 health, welfare, or amenities or the marine environment, ecological 

 systems, or economic potentialities." 



I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what constitutes an unreason- 

 able degradation of hiunan health ? We must realize that after we are 

 through temporizing and equivocating on this issue, we are faced with 

 a matter of human survival. There is only one standard that can be 

 applied to the establisliment of standards or the issuance of dumping 

 permits — there must be no damage to the environment. 



If we persist, as provided by section 5(a) (2) of Congressman Gar- 

 matz' bill, in shortsighted assessment of "the probable impact of issu- 

 ing or denying permits on considerations affecting the public interest," 

 our oceans will never be clean. 



I am deeply disturbed by the lack of clarity of this language. Before 

 I could support such legislation, I would have to know what is meant 

 by not unreasonably degrade or unreasonably endanger human health. 

 The language in H.R.. 805 is, I believe, far more precise. 



Another imprecise definition may be found in section 5(e) of 

 Mr. Garmatz' bill which states that the administrator "may issue gen- 

 eral permits for the transportation of dumping or dumping, or both 

 of classes of materials which he determines will have a minimal impact 

 considering the factors cited in subsection (a)." How do we define 

 minimal ? Certainly, mercury pollution was considered minimal until 

 last year. 



Can we afford to take the chance with other substances ? Once again, 

 H.R. 805 states that there shall be no environmental damage. 



Because the environmental effects of many wastes are not yet per- 

 fectly miderstood it is important that no material be assumed safe 

 for dumping without decisive scientific evidence. 



