or expert shall be paid at a rate in excess of the maximum rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5. (d) In carrying out his functions the Director shall assist and advise the President on policies and programs of the Federal Government affecting environmental quality by (1) providing the professional and administrative staff and support for the Council on Environmental Quality established by Public Law 91-190; (2) assisting the Federal agencies and departments in appraising the effectiveness of existing and proposed facilities, programs, policies, and activities of the Federal Government, and those specific major projects designated by the President which do not require individual project authorization by Congress, which affect environmental quality; (3) reviewing the adequacy of existing systems for monitoring and predicting environmental changes in order to achieve effective coverage and efficient use of research facilities and other resources; (4) promoting the advancement of scientific knowledge of the effects of actions and technology on the environment and encourage the development of the means to prevent or reduce adverse effects that endanger the health and well-being of man; (5) assisting in coordinating among the Federal departments and agencies those programs and activities which affect, protect, and improve environmental quality; (6) assisting the Federal departments and agencies in the development and interrelationship of environmental quality criteria and standards established through the Federal Government; (7) collecting, collating, analyzing, and interpreting data and information on environmental quality, ecological research, and evaluation. (e) The Director is authorized to contract with public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations and with individuals without regard to sections 3618 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529; 41 U.S.C. 5) in carrying out his functions. REPORT SEC. 204. Each Environmental Quality Report required by Public Law 91-190 shall, upon transmittal to Congress, be referred to each standing committee having jurisdiction over any part of the subject matter of the Report. AUTHORIZATION SEC. 205. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, not to exceed $750,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, not to exceed $1,250,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and not to exceed $1,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. These authorizations are in addition to those contained in Public Law 91-190. Approved April 3, 1970. [p. 115] 1.2k(1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1969 MARCH 25, 1969.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. FALLON, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 4148] The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 4148) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendment is as follows: The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and inserts a substitute text which appears in italic type in the reported bill. PART I CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL AND OTHER MATTER The water pollution problem is a large and complex one. Previous reports submitted by this committee in support of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, the amendments enacted in 1961, the Water Quality Act of 1965, and the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, have dealt in detail with what is happening to our water, what permitting the damage to continue will do to the Nation's health, safety, and development, and what must be done to stop the continuing damage and reverse the pollution process. Repeatedly, increasing scientific and technical expertise have brought to the fore aspects of the broad problem of which we were not aware, or with which we had dealt inadequately in the past. Events of catastrophic proportions have confronted us with dramatic evidence of the need for new or better preventive or control laws and procedures. [p. 1] It is in this context that the committee recommends-urges-the enactment of H.R. 4148, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969. Recognition that oil is a potentially serious water pollutant is not new. The Congress recognized the need for control in the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 reported by this committee. But by almost any relevant yardstick, 1924 was an altogether different life. The breakup of the tanker Torrey Canyon, with its incalculable damage to the coast of England and its nearly $8 million cleanup cost, warned us that existing Federal oil pollution control programs would be inadequate to handle a similar catastrophe if it occurred here. Devastation of California's beaches 2 months ago by oil from an offshore drilling rig made the lesson loud and clear. It may not even be possible to assess the vast damage to marine life and recreation. This committee made an on-the-site investigation at Santa Barbara and found the physical situation appalling. The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 is simply not sufficient to cope with such problems. It applies only to discharges and spills that are grossly negligent or willful; limited to vessels, it does not apply at all to spills from fixed installations such as pipelines, oil deposits, refineries, or manufacturing plants or other types of industrial activity using and storing large quantities of oil. Confined to oil, the 1924 act provides no protection against dozens of other potentially hazardous substances. In addition to its contamination of water, shoreline, and beaches, oil often has severe effects on fish and wildlife, shellfish, and recreation. Untold ecological damage can result not only from the oil itself but also from chemicals used in attempting to deal with the oil. We must be able to combat this type pollution and prevent, wherever possible, catastrophies like these. It is in large part to that need that H.R. 4148 is addressed. H.R. 4148 is not simple legislation. A section-by-section analysis is essential to its adequate presentation. That analysis appears as part II of this report. Part I of the report, here, is therefore confined to elaboration not appropriate in the bill itself. OIL POLLUTION Section 17 (a) sets forth the definitions of the terms used in the bill. Subsection 17 (a) (2) is a general definition of matter which would present an imminent and substantial hazard. The term could extend to more than 200 substances. The Secretary of the Interior is now reviewing a list of over 200 substances to determine what should in fact be held to be hazardous. Before this subsection can become meaningful, the Secretary will have to issue regulations, following the usual administrative procedures governing such issuance, identify in hazardous matter. The committee expects that the Secretary will proceed as rapidly as possible in this regard. Specific note should be made of the fact that the definition of matter does not include by-product material, source material, and special nuclear material as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The requirement that notice of discharge of oil or matter be given to appropriate authority, contained in subsection 17 (b), is essential to expeditious and efficient cleanup action. It is a requirement placed upon the individual who is operationally responsible for the vessel or facility involved. It is not intended to include seamen, in the case of a [p. 2] vessel, for example, or to a night watchman or janitor in the case of a facility. By this clarification, however, we do not mean that the requirement is limited to the president of a large corporation or the owner of a vessel. The emphasis is on operationally responsible at the time of discharge. This provision does not extend to private waters such as landlocked ponds specifically built, for instance, to receive drilling refuse, or for similar purposes. Public vessels are exempt from the penalty for failure to give notice but the committee expects that public agencies will by appropriate regulation or instruction require that operational personnel give the notice of discharge the bill demands. The committee is aware that the term "substantial" as it appears in subsection 17 (b) and in subsequent subsections of the bill is subject. to varying interpretation and judgments. It is, as a practical matter, impossible to substitute a more specific term. What is a "substantial" discharge into a river or a harbor, for example, might be insignificant if discharged into the Atlantic when turbulent water would result in rapid dispersal. By the same token, an insignificant discharge at sea might well be overwhelming in another area. With respect to the cleanup authority vested in the Federal Government under subsection 17 (d) (1), the committee calls attention to the fact that the Federal Government is responsible for discharge cleanup without regard to the cause of the discharge (including acts of God) or the location of the waters of the United States into which it occurs. The committee urges that to the extent feasible in the particular situation the State and local groups already formed for continuing cleanup programs will be called upon for assistance. The authority of the United States to remove or destroy a vessel where a marine disaster situation has created a substantial threat of pollution follows closely both the philosophy and the language of the same authority vested in the Corps of Engineers, by law in 1899, in situations where the vessel constitutes a threat to navigation. It should be noted that liability for the cost of such removal is limited to vessels negligently operated and thereby the cause or contributory to the cause of the disaster involved. Subsection 17 (e) (1) requires that the owner or operator immediately remove any discharge. If he fails to do so and the United States performs the cleanup, the willful or negligent owner or operator and vessel is liable for up to $10 million of the cleanup cost, or a sum equal to $100 per gross registered ton, whichever is less. This liability is a liability per vessel, per owner, except that in the case of a barge tow, each barge in the tow is considered to be a separate vessel. Under subsection 17 (e) (1), the United States may proceed against the owner or operator of any vessel that causes or contributes to the cause of the discharge, even though the discharge actually comes from another vessel. The cleanup liability provision with respect to onshore and offshore facilities, contained in subsection 17 (f) (3), sets a maximum possible liability of $8 million. As to onshore facilities, it requires that the Secretary of the Interior, through full public hearing procedure and in consultation with interested Federal agencies, including the Small Business Administration, establish classifications of onshore facilities and activities and set differing limits of liability for each classification, [p. 3] none of which may be in excess of $8 million. This subsection is so written as to provide a high liability for a large discharge from a major facility and at the same time insure that reasonable low liability will be set for the hundreds of small businesses and other facilities along our waters whose potential discharge would be small and upon whom a large liability could very well impose a ruinous burden. The subsection does not apply to any onshore facility until the Secretary establishes its classification, and the Secretary must submit intended classifications and liability limitations to the Congress at least 60 days before they are to become effective. Subsection 17 (g) requires that the Secretary of the Interior issue regulations "establishing environmental quality" criteria relating to |