Estimated expenditures for Federal water resources research; fiscal years 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1971-Continued [All figures are in millions of dollars in 1965-67 prices] 1 Less than $50,000. ? HEW grants in the amount of $5,304,000 allocated by subcategories. One of the most significant areas needing attention and which has the potential of a significant contribution to water pollution control is the program of advanced waste treatment research. This research effort is directed toward the development of new waste treatment procThe objective is to develop by 1975 feasible techniques for complete removal of all point source wastes. esses. The Administration's advanced waste treatment program for accomplishing this has received the highest priority from the Committee on Water Resources Research, Federal Council for Science and Technology, and its panel of experts has recommended a greatly accelerated program. To carry out an accelerated research and development program in advanced waste treatment, a 10-year $190 million expenditure is recommended to begin, in fiscal year 1967. This would provide for $26 million for direct research, $130 million for contract research, and $34 million for constructing field evaluation plants. In 1967, the Administration's laboratory research program will be well underway; contractors are even now prepared to undertake large-scale research, and several treatment processes will be ready for field evaluation. Question 9: Are present methods for sewage and waste treatment adequate to eliminate the spread of disease by viruses? If not, what are you doing about it? Answer: Conventional primary and secondary sewage treatment procedures used today by most communities do not completely eliminate viruses from sewage. Primary treatment removes some virus, and activated sludge treatment (secondary treatment) will remove even more, but field tests show that even when the effluents from activated sludge plants are chlorinated, viruses can still be detected. This is because chlorine is inactivated by certain of the impurities in the effluents. The complete removal of viruses from sewage will require welloperated, more consistent secondary treatment, probably some form of tertiary treatment to remove the impurities that interfere with chlorination, and perhaps utilization of a disinfectant other than chlorine. Preliminary studies in this area have already been undertaken and a modest program is currently underway in research to remove viruses from waste effluents more effectively. Research in this and other areas relating to the removal of refractory components of wastes will be increased in fiscal year 1967. Question 11: Your agency has responsibilities with respect to the amount of storage in Federal reservoirs under the 1961 amendments. Do you have similar responsibility with respect to locally constructed reservoirs? If you do not have this authority, would it be desirable to have it in view of the limited number of reservoir sites that are available and the need to make sure that such sites are not preempted by inadequate reservoirs? Answer: While the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has responsibilities in connection with provision of storage in Federal reservoirs under authority of the 1961 amendments, it has no such authority for locally constructed reservoirs. Similar responsibilities for locally constructed reservoirs would be highly desirable. Such authority would permit fuller use of limited storage sites to be made for management of water quality to alleviate many pollution problems. Local reservoirs constructed under the Soil Conservation Service authority contained in Public Law 83-566 also could provide augmented stream flows significant to alleviate local pollution problems. At present, however, the Soil Conservation Service does not consider that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act gives authority for them to expend funds for water quality control storage in these local reservoirs. Question 12: Your statement indicates that the total expenditure of the Federal Government for research to develop new treatment technology through fiscal year 1966 has been less than $5 million. In view of the importance of this subject, why have expenditures been so limited? What is the request for funds for this type of research in fiscal year 1967? Answer: Although research expenditures now appear to be limited in view of the importance of developing new treatment technology, they were in fact commensurate with other aspects of the water pollution control program in its early growth period. It is much clearer now that greatly accelerated expenditures are needed than it was in 1961 when amendments limiting the amounts to be authorized for research were added to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The 1961 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which provided for a ceiling on research was not meant to limit the research effort but rather to accelerate that effort. Since 1961, the national expectations to achieve higher levels of pollution control have been raised. At the same time, the problem has increased in magnitude and complexity with industrial expansion and population growth with the result that more sophisticated and expensive methodology must be brought to bear on the problem. The magnitude of the water pollution control problem, including needed research, has been updated to meet our national needs as now recognized. The administration's research program has remained within the authorized limitations. To meet the problems as now recognized and defined, a greatly expanded research effort is needed and justified. The proposed research program can be effectively carried out using inhouse and contract capabilities. The budgetary requirements for the three specified areas outlined in the act would now greatly exceed the $5 million annual limitation. By fiscal year 1968, the $25 million total limitation would have to be exceeded if the research program is to proceed at a reasonable pace in accomplishing its objectives. It is, therefore, apparent that some change in the existing legislative authorization for the research program should be obtained, including a revision in existing budgetary limitations. The fiscal year 1967 request for research, including intramural research of all types and for contracts, is $8,690,750. Question 13: Do you have any ideas as to how more glamour or dignity can be brought into the profession of sanitary engineering so as to remove one of the reasons that has apparently been keeping the inflow of people into this field at a minimum? Answer: Aside from the psychological aversion in people's minds to matters dealing with the handling, treatment, and disposal of wastes, there are perhaps four major practical factors associated with sanitary engineering which have contributed to and continue to affect the status of the profession. These are: (1) sanitary engineering has not been a uniquely identifiable curriculum in the Nation's undergraduate schools, (2) there is confusion in the definition of the function of the sanitary engineer, (3) the public is not aware of the specific activities of the sanitary engineer and, in many cases, even of the existence of sanitary engineers, and (4) the salary structure. These factors are very much interrelated. Historically, sanitary engineering curriculums have been associated very closely with civil engineering departments in most engineering colleges and universities. In order that the neophyte engineering student be aware of the opportunities and the challenges that exist for him in the study, the understanding, and the manipulation of the environment in which we live, sanitary engineering curriculums must be given specific identification. The interdepartmental nature of some elements of the curriculums is not in conflict with identifiability and is certainly not unique in today's university programs There is confusion even among sanitary engineers themselves as to the function of the sanitary engineer within the engineering profession as a whole and within society. Recently, there has emerged the concept of "environmental engineering" which is concerned with all the environmental factors to which man is exposed and which directly affect his health and well-being. It is generally felt that the environmental engineer should be a generalist in terms of his knowledge of the broad areas related to air, land, and water pollution or to physical chemical, biological, radiological, etc., insults to man. Unfortunately, this generalist approach is in conflict with the ideas of this era in which the "glamour" of science is associated with the specialists. In order that our efforts be directed most effectively to the many scientific and engineering problems of the environment, both generalists and specialists are required. It is necessary to blend and utilize the talents and capabilities of the entire engineering profession and of mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and biological scientists, who may have been trained in other areas, for the solution of water pollution problems. Specialists in environmental sciences and engineering can be developed through the mechanism of intensive training programs. The general public must be made more aware of the pressing environmental problems that we as a nation face. The problems of water resources, urban development, solid wastes and transportation require immediate, intensive research and development attention. Inasmuch as sanitary engineers have been traditionally hired primarily by State health departments, schools and the Federal Government, the salary levels which a graduate sanitary engineer can expect to achieve are not comparable with those of other segments of the engineering profession. I believe it is fair to state that the "glamour" and dignity of a given profession are nearly always associated with the degree of public awareness of the functions of the profession, and this in turn is nearly always associated with expenditures of money by industries, State and local governments, and the Federal Government in areas associated with these functions. It is necessary to make salary levels more comparable to other fields of endeavor. Question 14: Please furnish details of the criteria used for awards of grants and research contracts for water pollution abatement research. Answer: Contracts-Research contract proposals are submitted to this administration as unsolicited proposals or in response to published requests for R. & D. qualifications and subsequent requests for proposals to solve specified research problems. Upon receipt of a proposal, our technical staff reviews it to determine its general priority with respect to our research needs. That is, does it relate to a problem of significance, would it provide practical and usable results, what is its probable chance of success, what is the "payoff" if it succeeds and what is the negative impact on pollution control if it does not? Following this initial review, and assuming it is favorable, a more detailed evaluation is performed by other research staff, often located at our field laboratories, who are specialists in the subject area of the proposal, by scientists and engineers in other FWPCA activities, and by consultants (e.g., from universities, private industry, or other agencies). Based on these more detailed evaluations of the technical soundness of the project and approach proposed as well as on the project's priority with respect to accomplishing our program mission and the availability of funds, the final decision is then made to negotiate a contract or not. In summary, contract proposals are evaluated on the following basis: 1. Relationship to program objectives and research needs; 3. Cost of contract versus in-house project cost; 4. Capability of contractor; 5. Availability of funds and research priorities. Grants Proposals of independent investigators largely determine distribution of grant-supported research and development projects. Proposals are submitted to the program in the form of applications which are reviewed by panels of non-Federal advisory consultants. This review includes an evaluation of (1) scientific merit and significance of the project; (2) competency of the staff responsible for conducting the type of research proposed; (3) feasibility of the project and potentially useful results; (4) adequacy of the applicant's resources available for the project; (5) amounts of grant funds needed; and (6) the relationship to the Water Pollution Control Administration mission. Question 15: There appear to be more and more opportunities for transferring pollution from one segment of the environment to another, that is, from water to air, or air to the soil. Now that Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has been transferred to the Department of the Interior, what means are provided for coordinating the efforts of your agency with the air and solid waste pollution control programs of the Public Health Service in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare? Also with the public health aspects of the water pollution abatement programs which, the committee understands, have been retained in the Public Health Service because of their effect on public health? Answer: Communication between the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and Public Health Service, Department of Health, |